When is Te Reo Maori not Te Reo & Rednecks Are Right – If But For The Wrong Reasons.

We never ask ourselves too many questions
Too much truth in introspection
Maintain the regimentation and avoid self-degradation
We act out all the stereo types, try to use them as decoy
And we become shining examples
Of the system we set out to destroy
‘Cause even in the most radical groups you will find
That when you stray from the doctrine, you’ll see hard times
What will we do to become famous and dandy
— Just like Amos and Andy
The Disposal Heroes of Hip-hopcrisy.

The red neck farmer, whose protest sign is picture above, represent a certainly click of dinosaurs who happen to be right if but for the wrong reasons. The issue is not that we should be more familiar and fluent in the beautiful and harmonic tongue that is Te Reo and I will be taking steps myself shortly to get some lessons for my self and in respect of my niece who honours my clan in that her blood line anchors my family to New Zealand’s first nation and make my own connection to NZ seven generation that much deeper. The issue however is threefold;

One: My fear is that many different dialect and histories of multiple iwi and hapu will be assimilated into one big ‘Maori’ tounge that promote a narrative of whakapapa that serves one or two iwi at a cost of many others. I am genuinely curious is this dialect used in the treaty if not what would the legal repercussions be.
It comes as Maori TV is moving it charter away from being a TV channel for Maori and is now to dopt an editorial promoting Pasifika and corporate media Te Reo Maori is not just about promoting Te Reo but rather it process which seek to assimilate all Polynesian culture in accordance with the objective of the Pacific reset a term used describe the US military and corporate expansion into the Pacific in the 21st century as the US begins to focus on the regions merging energy resources.

There a reason why the US Embassy has being so keen to push iwinomics ( which can be defined as Rogernomics but with a ‘Maori’ face on it) using such initatives as Whaine Tora (Powerful women) to groom and shape female leadership as voices for an iwi vision which luckily fits perfectly with the USA own vision for Pasifka in the emerging future.

Two: New Zealand is not Aotearoa. In the Treaty of Waitangi Aoteroa not mentioned Na Niu Tirene (the actual legal Maori name for New Zealand) is. Its no small point that Aotearoa not mentioned once in either the English or Maori version of founding document. Only the wording Na Niu Tirene are mentioned.

Stuff’s, ‘Aotearoa: What’s in a name’, confirms “The origins of Aotearoa are obscure” and credits George Grey’s Polynesian Mythology, 1855 (written 15 years after the treaty) with the first written use of the term when he recounted the legends of Maui, saying that the “greater part of his descendants remained in Hawaiki, but a few of them came here to Aotearoa… (or in these islands)”. The legend’s of Maui

Stuff continued “But there are now long recognised problems with accepting at face value early European interpolations of tribal ‘traditions’. So many traditions were generalised and homogenised and even fictionalised for Western consumption by nineteenth century interpreters of the Māori world such as George Grey”.

And yet this myth continues today and worse is being used to promote a whakapapa of questionable historic accuracy (now our official history) is continued in Sir Peter Buck (Te Rangi Hiroa) Vikings of the sun and fits a narrative of so called Maori customs and social values which again just gets accepted at face value.

For none of these sources, when you take the time to read them, actually document their claims or provide tohunga hītori. That is a record of the whakapapa of the oral historians telling the tale whose job was to pass such tales from generation to generation. Traditionally there names should be told before the retelling of such stories as record of proof as was and is the custom. And yet none exist for the tales upon which we base our official history and record the paramount status of our iwis and hapu.

Three; The name Te Reo Maori it self sucks.

Why not just Te Reo which means Maori. Something is either Te Reo. Or its not. To Call it Maori {Te Reo} Maori seems like its just trying to hard to convince us this is the one sole source of authority. I don’t know about you but when people tell me they alone are the only person to be trusted I get nervous. Something does not quite seem right here. The adding of the word Maori linguistically once again reeks of Greyism taking all the differing tribes with their differing accounts of migration and ethnic characteristics and smashing them into a one size fits all box. Something Grey did for his convenience and certainly not out off respect of the Maori’s unique and varying diversity. Which in fact was an utter pain in the bum for Grey and those wanting the natural resources of New Zealand.

The Maori got call Maori as it was all part of the colonial habit of only wanting to deal with one chief and the colonial conquers need for hierarchy. Tools of power which accentuated control and made the task of ruling the colonies and their indigenous people so much simpler. Never mind that was the past and were slowly but surely leaving the empire and will soon be a republic and be independent and free.

Right?

This leads to the issue of the 2013 Constitutional Review which personnel wise had many cross over links to those of the flag panel. Collectively the panel was 90% white, 5 Chinese Ngai Tahu, 20% Maori. Of Maori representation 100% was made up tribes whose Iwi begun in Taranaki (Ngai Tahu – Tainui) of which 75% was Ngai Tahu.

Marama Broughton’s paper to the Māori Law Review symposium on the Treaty of Waitangi and the constitution12 June 2013 notes a constitution must includes a hapū, whānau, iwi and Crown relationship and yet this is excludes from the Constitutional review (which) also left out reference to the Magna Carta the founding document of western democracy and international law. Article 29 reinforce the rights of all “NO freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseised of his freehold, or liberties, or free customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any other wise destroyed; nor will we not pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land. We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either justice or right”. The wording of article 29, which is in New Zealand law, is precise. For its purpose is to accentuates that las and right must not just be legal but lawful. This goes to the heart of the Magana Carta charter which differs from other founding historical documents of western democracy in thats it stress law are not just about what legal but that laws and government must also be based on good governing, be fair and be based on equality for all.

The 2021 Corporate editorial (which is always shaped by what’s good for the share holders) for this year in New Zealand has clearly being about promoting Maori rights in fact it boomed of Te Reo Maori “It is a basic human right. Rangatiratanga is “of Māori, by Māori, for Māori.”

The problem how is the corporate media and the so called woke middle class are bunch of morally bankrupt racist and while they can speak ‘Maori’ they clearly don’t get the meaning and purpose behind Te Reo. “Rangatiratanga 1 : a Maori chief : a Maori of rank, authority, or distinction. 2 New Zealand : a leading citizen : magistrate”.

Marama Broughton’s paper to the Māori Law Review symposium on the Treaty of Waitangi notes “recent court decisions appear to indicate some movement or a willingness by some members of the judiciary to recognise tikanga as law. And yet the terms of reference for the panel don’t seem to recognise this. From my experience, there are fundamental changes that need to take place within university law schools to more accurately reflect the relationship between tikanga, Te Tiriti and Crown law.Tikanga While concepts of tikanga are constant, their practice can vary between iwi and hapū”

And yet iwi like Ngai Tahu want the idea that hapu get to have a say gone from the wording of the public discussion which will shape what kind of democracy Na Niu Tirene will be in a world where New Zealand has cuts the final strings connecting her to old blighty. They literally make no reference to hapu and kick into touch the part which suggest we are all equal in the eyes of the law. Thats not what you would call an ideal start to out future republic justice system in any sense of the word. The deliberate steps to omit hapu and create a frame work in which our laws are not only legal but lawful is not confined to the 2013 Constitutional Review. Though the politics, frame work and government handling of the review – which worked in lockstep with both John Key’s Flag debate and the pushing through of trade deals like the TPPA (that threaten to give corporations more rights than people), is proof just how orchestrated and deliberate such undemocratic decision making has being.

Other examples include (but are not limited too);

A Ngā Iwi o Te Reureu spoke He said the hapū were undermined and quickly became second-class citizens, but they remained “despite the Crown’s best efforts. He said they had experienced a negative transformation of the river, which had provided identity and sustenance to the people, but the state of the river was now an embarrassment”. The exclusion of hapu from this process was described by Iti as ‘attack on the mana and identity as sewage and waste water continues to enter it… Valley people remain outside the tent for resource management decision-making. It’s tangata whenua without the whenua.”

In 2001 Hapu Ngati was like wise excluded from iwi land sales at Tauranga Moana.

The Araukuku hapu, which falls within the domains of Ngaruahine and Ngati Ruanui iwi, lodged an application with the High Court at Wellington on Friday, after it was denied an urgent hearing about its claims by the Waitangi Tribunal last week. The hapu was seeking a High Court review of that decision.

In 2002 Tama iti again stated hapu discontent with leadership decisionswhihc had seen some hapu – sub-tribes – pull away from the iwi’s governing authority – Te Uru Taumatua.

Iti told 1 NEWS “enough is enough. We’re not marching to Parliament, we’re marching to our own leadership,”

Sadly the inability to discern between Haupu and iwi will be lost on the many farmers protesting the government energy and water policies. Polices which ultimately benefit not iwi but as we saw in Ihumatao their corporate partners. Partners who are the very same offshore forces who now own 51% of our electricity which is based largely on hydro dams. The irony here is that many supporters of Labour & The Greens environmental polices again benefit not hapu, the iwi (at less not in the long term), or even the farmers. Rather it serves the interest of the the off shore interest controlling 51% of the power grid. Dominant partners of critical infrastructure whom iwi like Ngai Tahu & Fonterra have joined forces with. Even when in many cases their has being protest from local hapu not to collaborate with these multinationals. The situation in many ways is a replication of the 1987 Fiji Republic where the military coup, led by General Sveti Rabuka supported by the Paramount chiefs of the Takei Confederacy got in bed with offshore corporations who saw the benefits of having to only deal with a chief and not a whole bunch of …er Indians. In Fiji the thing that triggered the coup was the right to mine gold. In NZ the power play has being about water the new gold of the 21st century.

None of this is new. Becuase if you want to talk about a lack of ‘critical race theory’ in our schools then you might want to included my own family’s history in Fiji into that largely untold story. back in the 1800’s James Griffiths (my grand mother family) established The Fiji Times. His goal so my family could pump out propaganda and bully the crown into letting my clan buy land from chiefs who sadly were not above selling land that was not theirs. However as we owned the nation’s national paper that was not an issue as again using the power of mass media my ancestor go to cook the books on popular opinion and could legitimise (publicly anyway) any claim it desired. An once the public believed it was true will we were half way across the finishing line in terms of creating acquiescence of law.

Acquiescence of law simply translate as acceptance of a law based on what you can get people to think the law means. The chiefs decision to ignore the hapu and act legally but not lawfully might be Te Reo Maori. As is the idea that the UN & Magana Carta concept of human rights means chiefs and big knobs alone get to be in charge. All of this might be Te Reo Maori but it is certainly not Te Reo.

What it is racism and elitism – cultural assimilation of indigenous diversity of the very worse strain an extremely manipulative parasitic variant which ultimately always prove fatal to its host.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s