lew sorts trotter out here
"These are people who claim to want to ‘move on’ from our colonial history, for Aotearoa to become ‘one nation’. But doing so on the basis of swordright cannot result in a nation of two people joining together as ‘iwi tahi tatou’, but of one people who set the rules and another who live by them; the former wielding the righteous sword of civilisation, the latter’s efforts to work with the former rather than under them cut down by it, and even their efforts to work within the rules viewed with eternal suspicion and distrust. This is beyond misery — it is ignorant, paranoiac hatred and fear of ghosts long passed..."maps assists kiwiblog here
"The real change over the past fifty years or so, with the development of history as a professional discipline in NZ, is the disappearance of the completely one-sided views of the past which cast Maori as naturally inferior to Pakeha and presented Te Kooti, Te Whiti, and other rebels as nothing but fanatical terrorists with no legitimate grievances.HORansome codswallops paul here
" This is made especially clear by the fact that the claim "Maori are suspicious of Pakeha" and "Maori form relationships with Pakeha" are in no way mutually exclusive. Both propositions can be true at the same time; the truth of one does not negate the truth of the other. Indeed, in some cases the truth of the former will result in the truth of the latter; Maori who partner up with Pakeha may come to distrust Pakeha for because of the results of such a partnership (for example, some of the land loss Maori suffered under colonial rule was due to Pakeha forming relationships with Maori and then "inheriting" land from hapu when such relationships came to an end (rather than accepting that the hapu granted land use rather than land ownership). There is an awful lot of literature on this.
Good debates - pity not many maori voices being heard but they don't seem like maori debates to me.