"Heritage order sought by Waitaha"

image of what the mine on/in Te Ana a Raki might look like from holcim information sheet No 8.

The fight goes on...

"Waitaha wants a heritage order over an escarpment in the Waiareka Valley, which could have a major impact on the proposed Holcim (New Zealand) Ltd $400 million cement plant development.

The Maori tribe has asked Minister of Maori Affairs Pita Sharples to exercise his powers under the Resource Management Act (RMA) to protect Te Ana a Raki, also known as the Whitston escarpment, which Holcim wants to mine for limestone and tuff.

If Dr Sharples issues a heritage order to the Waitaki District Council to designate the escarpment in its district plan, it could prevent mining.

Waitaha sent a letter to Dr Sharples last week, after the Environment Court rejected an appeal against the cement plant and found the escarpment was not of outstanding natural, cultural or spiritual value.

Dr Sharples office could not comment on Friday."

The heritage order is a good move. Pita Sharples is in a tough space here and Ngai Tahu are too. Will watch with interest.

update on northern Ngai Tahu boundary issue

Good update on the northern boundary issues Ngai Tahu faces.

"Boundaries (Wai 785)18 August 2009

Update on the judicial review sought by Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu following Wai 785
Ngāi Tahu has defended its northern boundary across the generations. These efforts continue to the present day with the latest action being a judicial review, sought by Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu, into the Waitangi Tribunal's Report following the Wai 785 Inquiry."

Kia kaha

Jarawa tribe under threat

Members of Jarawa tribe


Please note I have added another post regarding the current human safari disgrace facing the Jarawa Tribe here


Original post
 

We have it tough but others have it tougher.

"When the Jarawa tribe of hunter-gatherers began to emerge in ones and twos from the dense rainforests of the Andaman islands in 1997, it seemed that these mysterious, handsome people only wanted to take a brief look at the modern world and would soon return to the trees.

The majority of the Jarawa, thought to number about 250 people, remain deep in the forests, but some have learned bits of Hindi and regularly visit the port, the hospital or market place, says Sophie Grig, a researcher at human rights organisation Survival International who has visited the Andamans several times.

Integration has been partial and more or less at the Jarawa's own pace and volition. But now comes a threat that some anthropologists say could lead to the extinction of a tribe that has lived in isolation for millennia.

Barefoot India, a major Indian travel company, has just won a high court case that will allow it to build an eco-resort at Collipur, close to the designated Jarawa reserve. Other hotels are expected to follow."

Eco-cultural tourism - it makes sense but what about the experience from indigenous people overseas. What do maori have to watch out for?

"There are perhaps 100 indigenous communities around the world that have chosen to live in complete isolation, but the frontiers of tourism are being pushed ever forward by cheap flights and an appetite for extreme ethno-tourism fuelled by the natural instinct of man to be curious about other people.

The Jarawa are peculiarly at risk because they live so close to a holiday resort, but dozens of other extremely remote groups are also in danger. In the West Papua province of Indonesia, US expatriate Kelly Woolford of Papua Adventures offers - for $7,000-$10,000 - to take tourists and camera crews deep into the forests of the Mamberamo and Baliem valleys, where he says they are quite likely to meet "stone age" tribes.

Papua Adventures does not guarantee "encounters", but its "first contact" trek is advertised as a "full-on exploration" in areas where previously contact-free tribes are known to live.

Groups regularly stumble across tribespeople who appear to threaten them with bows and arrows, but who then disappear. Anthropologists and others who have seen photographs have accused Woolford of setting up these encounters, but he insists that the meetings are all by chance.

"Tourism can be a useful source of income, but most people would say it's pretty bad news for the local people," says anthropologist David Turton.

Turton has spent 40 years among the semi-nomadic Mursi in the Omo valley in southern Ethiopia, where some women have had their lower lip pierced and stretched so that a clay plate can be inserted. With the prospect of a giant dam flooding much of their lands, the tribe has enough problems, but it has been exploited by tourism now for 20 years.

Tour companies have presented the Mursi as the most primitive and wild people and the Mursi are fully aware they are being singled out as savages. The tourists arrive in four-wheel drive vehicles and the Mursi gather around them, asking for money in return for being photographed.

Turton has asked the Mursi what they think of these people, who only seem to want their photographs. He recorded this conversation in 1991:

Bio-iton-giga: "Why do they do it? Do they want us to become their children, or what? What do they want the photographs for?"

Turton: "They come because they see you as different and strange people. They go back home and tell their friends that they've been on a long trip, to Mursiland. They say, 'Look, here are the people we saw.' They do it for entertainment."

Komor-a-kora: "We said to each other, 'Are we here just for their amusement?' "

"They conclude that white people are thieves. The relationship is similar to prostitution," says Turton. "The Mursi know they are looked down on. But to them the encounter is a commercial transaction. They are short of everything and cash is important."

These days, tribes are regularly diminished in the name of economic advancement. The refugee Burmese Kayan women in Thailand, who wear brass coils round their necks, each year attract thousands of tourists, who pay to visit them in their camps. Their communities are disintegrating as alcoholic dependency grows.

Governments also act inhumanely to encourage tourism. The Botswana government is putting out to tender for safari companies to build lodges with bore holes in the central Kalahari game reserve at the same time that the Bushmen - who have lived there for millennia - are forbidden to even use the existing ones. One safari lodge will have a water hole less than a mile from the Bushmen, who will be made to walk hundreds of miles to collect water.

The worst destruction of indigenous groups is often invisible, done by governments and the tourism industry exploiting tribal groups for their land. "Indigenous peoples are often removed from their ancestral lands to make way for tourist developments or to create national parks where animals take precedence over people," says Tricia Barnett, director of Tourism Concern.

But above all, land everywhere is being claimed at the expense of indigenous people for the construction of hotels and golf courses, and for the creation of national parks and reserves.

Successful ventures, such as with the Akha hill tribe in Thailand, Aboriginal cultural tours in Australia, the Garifuna tourism group in Honduras and the Il Ngwesi Lodge in Kenya, which is 100% owned by local Maasai, are invariably grassroots-led and community-based. "

Grassroots led - let's call it flaxroots, and community-based. That is the answer to the exploitation of indigenous people and the successful development of ecocultural tourism.
  

Takimoana Government formed

Can you feel the sea-change?

Sometimes when i think about the past, it seems very close indeed. The last soldier from WW1 in England just died. That war started around 1914. It really is not far back from there to reach 1850.

So things are beginning to change and yes, some of those changes will be difficult.

One change, below, is the setting up of an alternative legitimate government; "The Takimoana Government", by maori for maori.

Perhaps the group with the biggest changes coming are maori who have assimilated and see themselves as kiwis, for these people, some choices will have to be made, some difficult choices.

"The Takimoana Government

The Takimoana Government was established by the people of Te Whanau-a-Takimoana on 22 June 2008 at Rangitukia when the people ratified and executed the Takimoana Government Deed of Constitution. The Takimoana Government is a reference to the particular system of government that prevails over the Takimoana tribal territory. That system of government enshrined in the Deed of Constitution comprises of a principal governing organ known as the Takimoana Governing Council, and two subsidiary organs of government, the Treasury and Secretariat.

Why the Takimoana Government?

Because 168 years of being ruled by a settler regime and imposter sovereign has been detrimental to the tribe’s social and political aspirations. Their lands have been stolen, they have been sidelined from effectively participating in the politics of the state, they have been forcibly subjected to assimilationist policies, and policies which have deprived them of their right to a fair and equitable share in the wealth of the nation. The people decided, after enduring more than a century of the colonial experience, that self government was the only pathway that would lead to the promotion of their welfare and best interests.

The purpose of the Takimoana Government

The principal purpose of the Takimoana Government is to act as guardian for Te Whanau-a-Takimoana through the exercise of Te Whanau-a-Takimoana te tino rangatiratanga both domestically and internationally for and on behalf of Te Whanau-a-Takimoana, and in a manner that best advances their social, political, economic and cultural wellbeing.

The Constitutional Basis of the Takimoana Government

The constitutional basis upon which government over the Takimoana tribal territory has been established is that Te Tiriti o Waitangi ki te Tai Rawhiti entered into between Queen Victoria and Te Whanau-a-Takimoana representatives on 1 June 1840 at Rangitukia, did not cede sovereignty to England as purported by William Hobson, Lieutenant Governor of New Zealand.

The Constitutional Powers of Government

Until 22 June 2008 New Zealand’s legal system operated on the basis that Parliament had supreme lawmaking powers that cannot be challenged. Article 5 of the Deed of Constitution confers powers upon the Takimoana Governing Council that supersede those of the New Zealand Parliament including the power to strike down, invalidate, set aside, amend or suspend any law of Parliament that, in the opinion of the Takimoana Governing Council, is injurious (harmful) to Te Whanau-a-Takimoana."

The changes are happening - where will you stand?

hell pizza - lazy and racist

Ok. Is it racist? - yes! Is it provocative? yes! Will it sell more pizza's - who knows

Well then lets put it up. Wait, what about the people who may be offended? Who cares about them. Ha ha ha ha ha.

"Alan Jones, 19, a third year advertising student at AUT said he was happy with his product and wasn’t worried he had potentially offended a significant part of the community."

“It’s a recession there’s enough bad stuff happening, you’ve got to kind of poke fun at people in times like this, you know,” he said.

Why not poke fun at yourself alan.

“I don’t really consider it as that bad. Some people might kind of construe it as being a bit racist but I mean, it’s just a topical issue at the moment, I mean, it could’ve been anyone, it just happens to be the' Tongan eating the dog story' at the moment.”

“I definitely wasn’t trying to offend anyone, I was kind of hoping that the majority of people would laugh at it and maybe a couple of other people would take offence.”

Why not make fun of yourself alan

"He said they had given thought to the potential they could offend some people but went with it anyway and he would face up to any consequences. "

“I guess I’ll have to deal with it,” he said.

“At the end of the day I’m just the kid that came up with the idea. I’m not the guy that made the billboard or put them out there or approved it, I mean, this was one of my more wild ideas and it just happened to get approved.”

Yes it says a lot that you have come up with this idea and they ran with it. Why not try and come up with an idea to insult and make fun of your own race alan? Why not?

"He said New Zealand was too PC."

We are not too PC at all. Some of us just can't stand fools who hide their racism behind fake humour.

palm kernel - another shame for this country

I agree with the greens on this one.

"Green Party co-leader Russel Norman said palm kernel and palm oil was produced on land cleared of tropical rainforest in Indonesia and Malaysia, which was a major source of carbon emissions and the extinction of animals.

Palm kernel imports went from 0.4 tonnes in 1999 to 455,000 tonnes in 2007 and then to 1.1 million tonnes in 2008.

Dr Norman said this was a quarter of all global palm kernel production, which threatened not only the local grain industry, but New Zealand's environmental reputation."

Palm Oil is not on and using the residue to feed the cows is also not on. I do think the small illusion that we are green and clean will take another blow with this news.

We have too many cows, too many.

It is not good for the farmers, the cows and this country. diversity is the key not creating more dairy farms.

I hope you are listening NT Property.

the moon

moon calendar

Look at the moon in a different way. The absurdity of our calendar shown visually.

We actually have 13 full moons a year with 28 days in each month. And then 1 extra day to get everything syncronised.

It's amazing to think that the moon exactly covers the sun during an eclipse. If it was a little closer or a little further away - it wouldn't. The sun's diameter is about 400 times larger than the moon. And interestingly the sun is about 400 times further away from the earth than the moon.

no aussie should kick a maori out

A headline I hope we never see here again. "Maoris evicted from aussie owned land."

"A group of Maori squatters in New Zealand have lost their appeal against an eviction order from a property owned by an Australian investor.

In the High Court at Whangarei on Friday, Justice Ailsa Duffy dismissed the appeal of the group, saying she did not doubt their sincerity in claiming traditional rights over the land."

It's not and will never be aussie owned land. They are not and never will be squatters

But with the cabinet sitting together over is oz at the moment - are you really sure that they aren't thinking of ways to make more money and if the country has to be sacrificed - well that is just tough. Do you really think they wouldn't do a deal with aussie and china to house another 10-20 million over here because of all of our land not being adequately used? Think of the jobs, the economic activity - everyone could afford to have 2 dishwashers and all we need to do is let 10-20 million chinese in - hell won't even notice them... and think of how many jobs for kiwis etc etc etc

The only way to save this country is for maori to accept their mana and their rights and work with others to govern. Without maori there is no country.

And as for these protestors - yes we have the law, yes there is right and wrong but sorry - the aussie who bought the property at a firesale was misled. We are sick of our assets being taken and given/sold to others. And they didn't pay the mortgage - so what, where does all the money go? to aussie banks like this one. 1 billion dollars profit - and that is just ONE QUARTER (3 Months) line up suckers...

So again i side with the protestors and i don't care what the laws says.

Lew vs RedLogix on maori at the standard

A very interesting discussion about maori on The Standard "Will Key fold"" post.
From the comments section

RedLogix
August 21, 2009 at 11:42 am
@Lew

Well in an earlier post you said something along the lines that the Treaty promise Maori a ‘hell of a freaking lot’.

It might argued that if Maori had remained a demographic majority in the country, then the Treaty, the establishment of the Crown, democracy and Parliament would have assured Maori all the representation they could want for.

But’s that’s not likely how it would have turned out is it? Tribal power was never about democracy as we know it. Certainly it had nothing much to offer the Maori slave class. Although the rangatira were never absolute autocrats in the sense of say the European monarchy, that probably because Stone Age technology limited their ability to impose their power without the wider co-operation of the iwi. But given the inevitable impact of the outside world, surely that would have changed, just as the advent of muskets in the hands of Hone Heke had already turned the Maori world upside down by 1840.

It’s interesting to speculate exactly how an Aoteoroa that had delivered to Maori the ‘hell of a freaking lot’ you have in mind, ie the full exercise of tribal sovereignty, might have evolved as a society. I imagine it would look more like the political landscape of Tonga, than what we currently have. There is no doubt in my mind that lingering in the back of some ‘upper class browns’ in this country, is a hankering for the restoration of the tribal powers they once enjoyed. (A theme not restricted to just Maori of course…)

Where do we go from here? There cannot be two competing sources of sovereignty in one nation, but neither can the currently dominant Pakeha model assume that it will remain unchallenged forever. Both sides will have to move.

Reply
Lew
August 21, 2009 at 12:00 pm
RL,

"Well in an earlier post you said something along the lines that the Treaty promise Maori a ‘hell of a freaking lot’. "

Yes, it did.

"It might argued that if Maori had remained a demographic majority in the country, then the Treaty, the establishment of the Crown, democracy and Parliament would have assured Maori all the representation they could want for. "

Yes. If the Treaty had been properly adhered to, tangata whenua would be in a very strong position compared to where they’re at now.

"It’s interesting to speculate exactly how an Aoteoroa that had delivered to Maori the ‘hell of a freaking lot’ you have in mind, ie the full exercise of tribal sovereignty, might have evolved as a society.I imagine it would look more like the political landscape of Tonga, than what we currently have. There is no doubt in my mind that lingering in the back of some ‘upper class browns’ in this country, is a hankering for the restoration of the tribal powers they once enjoyed. (A theme not restricted to just Maori of course…) "

It is interesting, but idle. And it seems like you’re drifting towards the sort of white man’s burden argument, that it’s a good thing the Crown didn’t adhere to the Treaty, because those dam natives would have just screwed it up and we’d all be living under a brown feudalism – or they would have just killed each other if the settlers hadn’t done so.

This argument, that natives were never going to be able to run a proper country because they couldn’t handle the responsibility is an awfully paternalistic line to take, although unfortunately not uncommon, even among people who ought to know better.

"Where do we go from here? There cannot be two competing sources of sovereignty in one nation, but neither can the currently dominant Pakeha model assume that it will remain unchallenged forever. Both sides will have to move. "

Indeed; an agreement will need to be struck and it will require deep compromise from all parties. What’s critical is that any agreement proceed from a position of goodwill, consent and with consideration to previous agreements. There aren’t two sources of sovereignty, though – in the strictest terms, the only thing (other than military force) which gives tau iwi the right to live here is the Treaty of Waitangi. If the settlers of the day had conquered Aotearoa and annexed it (as they did elsewhere) then that would give them the de facto right, but they chose to treat, and if there is to be rule of law in this country the crown must be bound by that decision and its consequences. So the first question of constitutional reform needs to be something like “why should tangata whenua accept a new agreement rather than simply insisting on adherence to the existing agreement?’

There are plenty of good possible answers, and this question being asked and considered deeply and in full is fundamental to the issue of consent, which is necessary before any change to the constitutional status of the nation and its people can really be considered.

L

Reply
RedLogix
August 21, 2009 at 12:15 pm

There was no magic force field bubble surrounding Aoteoroa keeping out the modern world. The whalers, sealers, loggers, missionaries , prostitutes, land-grabbers, farmers and soldiers were always going to arrive… and along with them was always going to come a technical, cultural, legal and poltical system that was frankly more developed and advanced than the Maori had.

This was reality, not paternalism. It does not say that the Maori were ever an inferior people, all it says is that their culture, evolved in relative isolation from the rest of the world was going to get a dramatic, and quite involuntary kick up the arse, in order to catch up with the modern world. That is not a statement of blame or guilt, it was a simple historic inevitability.

"because those dam natives would have just screwed it up and we’d all be living under a brown feudalism "

I take it that you aren’t defending feudalism, of whatever colour, white or brown? It’s not paternalistic to say that I object deeply to any form of feudal tribalism as a political system…. regardless of the skin colours involved.

Reply
Lew
August 21, 2009 at 12:29 pm

RL, the whole premise of ‘cultural evolution’, and especially ‘political evolution’ is paternalistic.

I’m certainly not defending feudalism; I’m saying that it’s wrong to assume that that’s what would have inevitably emerged from an alternate history where the crown adhered to the Treaty, and presuming such says a lot about your attitude toward tangata whenua. In addition, the argument you’re running here that the end (society as it is, rather than some made-up counterfactual) justifies the means (mass slaughter, resource alienation, cultural oppression, etc.) doesn’t wash, unless you accept that the Pākehā the means favoured are intrinsically more important than Māori that suffered from it. Naturally, you feel like you can argue from this position, since you’re one of those who benefitted – there’s no downside for you, really.

Māori have not been dragged kicking and screaming into democratic politics, as you suggest – they have been systematically barred and dissuaded and excluded from it, and have managed to wedge themselves in anyway.

L

Reply
RedLogix
August 21, 2009 at 1:04 pm

"I’m saying that it’s wrong to assume that that’s what would have inevitably emerged from an alternate history where the crown adhered to the Treaty "

Well at least the Tongan model I pointed to is a real one, not an assumption.

"the whole premise of ‘cultural evolution’, and especially ‘political evolution’ is paternalistic. "

Can’t accept that. If all progress and change is just ‘paternalistic’, I might as well be arguing with the dining room table. You claim not to be defending feudalism, but by your logic my rejection of it is just a paternalistic smear upon our own ancestors for whom that was the only way of life they knew. Sorry but you cannot hide behind cultural relativism all the time, at some point you have to make choices, between right and wrong, the status quo and change.

"In addition, the argument you’re running here that the end (society as it is, rather than some made-up counterfactual) justifies the means (mass slaughter, resource alienation, cultural oppression, etc.) doesn’t wash, unless you accept that the Pākehā the means favoured are intrinsically more important than Māori that suffered from it. "

By looking around I see very few Maori choosing to live in pre-European, Stone Age, tribal conditions. Most of those Maori families descended from their slaves (those who haven’t gone to Australia that is) seem to turn up the opportunity to return to their former chattel status. Many Maori avail themselves of modern foods, clothing, education, health care and so on. Many Maori become highly qualified professionals and use the technical, cultural and legal systems brought here by us ‘paternalists’ for their own desired and legitimate purposes.

Gone are the days of the summer war parties. Gone are the days of a life expectancy of less than 40, when you left behind a skeleton marked by stressful, often brutal life. Gone are the days when the life of those at the bottom of the highly rigid and finely graduated Maori class system, hung by the whim of those further up it.

So yes I conclude that for all the losses you mention, there were also gains. If you want to measure and weigh these up, then look about you and see what the people themselves have chosen.

In this respect Maori have made exactly the same journey as have us Europeans; no-one stands on any moral high ground, nor should lay claim to any special grievance… we all progress through history… each on our own path, each with it’s own turns, accidents and chance meetings.
Reply
Lew
August 21, 2009 at 1:31 pm

RL,

I should have been more clear: the idea that one culture, or political system, is objectively better or worse than another is paternalistic because these things cannot be objectively measures without a (culturally laden) set of benchmarks. My objection was to the equation of ‘evolution’ to ‘increase in quality’, rather than evolution as change which may or may not be beneficial, but usually is because deleterious adaptations die off – which is clearly and obviously the case. The reason it’s paternalistic is that it presumes purpose – a non-industrial (or pre-modern) civilisation when judged by industrial or modern standards will always be found lacking precisely because the question of what is valuable has been begged.

My point with all that is that it’s wrong for you to simply argue, as you have done, that imposing modern ways on the natives was justified and for their own good. If they are prepared to argue that, it’s another matter – and if they avail themselves of the social and technological changes manifest in those systems, it doesn’t necessarily follow that those systems are superior; especially in the NZ case, this argument is falsified by the fact that Māori were denied (by alienation, suppression of language, etc) their traditional ways of life and the modern evolutions which would develop and had no choice but to assimilate into the urban slums.

I’ve italicised that section to highlight your assumption that the Māori ways, unlike the civilised white man’s ways, would have remain unchanged all this time. This also is paternalistic – like those fools who say that Ngāi Tahu should be allowed to catch as much fish as they like with flax nets and bone hooks, but buying into Sealord is somehow cheating. The thing Māori were denied by the mass alienation and other breaches of the treaty wasn’t just the wealth of their resource – it was the opportunity and means to continue their cultural development and pursue change and reform on their own terms – as a matter of tino rangatiratanga. Instead, they have had to develop under terms imposed upon them by economic, political and military force – and people wonder why it’s so dysfunctional!

With due respect, to say that Pākehā and Māori have walked the same path ignores the fact that one was hungry, blindfold, barefoot and at gunpoint to the one behind, riding on a white horse and wondering what all the complaining is about. And to an extent, it remains thus. Talk of putting grievances behind us, forgetting the past and forging on as brothers is cheap and easy from those who haven’t borne the political, economic and cultural brunt of those grievances over eight generations. The grievances can only be shelved when Māori are prepared to shelve them, willingly and secure in the knowledge that things will be better.

L

Reply
RedLogix
August 21, 2009 at 2:54 pm

"The reason it’s paternalistic is that it presumes purpose – a non-industrial (or pre-modern) civilisation when judged by industrial or modern standards will always be found lacking precisely because the question of what is valuable has been begged. "

I understand the argument quite well, but in the end I have to reject it. While industrial civilisation has many obvious defects, it is preferred by most people to any alternative. Most people when faced with a life-threatening injury or illness choose retain access to some form of modern health care, as against solely committing to the ministrations of a tohunga for instance.

While it is easy to romantacise the putative freedom of the ‘noble savage’, the reality was a slavery to bad weather, poor and erratic food supplies, non-existent health care, and bad neighbours. The only rights and property one could lay claim to were those you or you whanau could defend or enforce by warfare.

"this argument is falsified by the fact that Māori were denied (by alienation, suppression of language, etc) their traditional ways of life and the modern evolutions which would develop "

As you say an idle argument. Even if left in total isolation Maori would probably have continued on much as they had for a thousand years prior. But that is not what happened, there was no magical bubble protecting them from change.

The simple, irrefutable fact is that the coloniser’s inevitable arrival imposed change, ipso facto. No good intentions could change that fact, no-one can be held accountable for denying the chance to allow Maori to create their own modern evolutions, because that became only a hypothetical possibility.

The only place where Polynesians had the opportunity to evolve their own modern adaptions in relative isolation was Tonga; and excuse me if I don’t wholly support the outcome.

"With due respect, to say that Pākehā and Māori have walked the same path ignores the fact that one was hungry, blindfold, barefoot and at gunpoint to the one behind, riding on a white horse and wondering what all the complaining is about. "

Not my family. Most of them fled persecution and poverty at home, arriving here after a dangerous, traumatic sea-voyage, with little more than what they wore. In one case that was literally true; she swam ashore with nothing. She later had a stand up argument with an armed Hone Heke himself and won the concession from him she wanted. She herself descended from families who had won freedom from serfdom through generations of a dramatic turbulent European history, and heritage that morally empowered her to stand up for what she wanted.

It was not the colonisers who imposed change on the Maori, it was the political and legal heritage they inevitably brought with them. "


It's well worth following these discussions because they highlight misconceptions that people have and also show depth of arguement without personal attack. The arguement is fierce but not nasty.

maori more likely to self-harm - shame on this country

Why are maori more likely to self-harm than non-maori?

"Maori, at 75.1 hospitalisations per 100,000 people, were more likely to self-harm than non-Maori, with rates of 61.6 per 100,000.

The Health Ministry said anti-suicide initiatives included better follow-up care, mental health awareness campaigns and addressing suicide rates among the Maori community in particular."

Why? And what are the iwi organisations doing about it as over 13% of maori are unemployed and it could go up to 30% - 40%.

What specific initiatives are TRONT doing for Ngai Tahu in this area? Or are we going to have to wait until more of our people kill themselves, or try to.

Waitaha group fight on against holcim

Interesting that for some tangata whenua the fight goes on.

"Waitaha wants Minister of Maori Affairs Pita Sharples to help protect its cultural and spiritual values from a proposed cement plant development in the Waiareka Valley.

Waitaha wants special recognition for the Whitston Escarpment, also known as Te Ana Raki, which will be mined by Holcim (New Zealand) Ltd for limestone and tuff for its $400 million development."

"The Waitaha Taiwhenua O Waitaki Trust Board and Te Runanganui O Waitaha Me Mata Waka Inc were interested parties in an appeal heard in Oamaru by the Environment Court earlier this year against the cement plant development.

Waitaha Taiwhenua O Waitaki Trust Board spokesman Stephen Bray said yesterday the resource consents process had failed right from the start because Holcim had not consulted Waitaha.

That continued with the Otago Regional and Waitaki District Councils, which granted resource consents for the development, also failing to consult Waitaha."

"Mr Bray also believed divisions between itself and Ngai Tahu could be settled, if Ngai Tahu was prepared "to sit at the table and discuss them".

During the Environment Court hearing, Waitaha and Ngai Tahu, the statutory body responsible for the area, clashed over Maori cultural and spiritual values in the valley.

Ngai Tahu said its Moeraki runanga had mana whenua (status) over the valley.

It had reached a memorandum of understanding with Holcim.

Waitaha claimed mana whenua and said Ngai Tahu was not sufficiently knowledgeable on Waitaha values and sites and not able to represent its interests.

However, in its decision upholding the resource consents issued for the cement development, the court declined to get involved in that debate.

The court said it was apparent the issue was more deeply seated and Waitaha did not consider Ngai Tahu had authority to speak for it."

Who has mana whenua status - the whenua knows and reveals.

go on rodney - jump!

Yah - see you later rodders

"It was revealed last night that a senior National MP - believed to be Tau Henare - sent an email to his caucus colleagues telling them ACT had threatened to end its relationship with the Government if it "gave in to Maori" and agreed to having special Maori seats on the council.

Mr Hide said he would have to resign as minister if the Maori seats were enshrined."

The change is coming rodders and you can try to look after your big-noter mates but maori aren't going to take being victimised again. So start packing your bags and reducing your expenditure because the ministerial warrant you hold, will soon be handed in.

Akaka Bill moving but still with very big. barbed fishhook

The Akaka Bill - a difficult one to decide upon. Yes it is crazy that Native Hawaiians are not considered an indigenous people in the US. Yes they need resources and the ability to deliver services to their people. But the fish-hook clause of giving up their ability "from pursuing claims against the United States for past wrongs in court." is a very big one. And i just about can't get past that, but here is the latest...

"WASHINGTON – With the backing of the Obama administration, the Akaka Bill has received a big boost of support that may provide enough weight to push the proposed legislation through Congress this year.

Hawaii’s congressional delegates have tried to pass some version of the Akaka Bill for almost 10 years. The bill is named after its originator, Sen. Daniel Akaka, D-Hawaii. Supporters of the bill – the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act – welcomed the endorsement by the U.S. Department of Justice at a Senate Committee on Indian Affairs hearing Aug. 6."

The bill will give Native Hawaiians much of the same rights as other indigenous people in the US, namely the Native American Indians and Native Alaskians. At the moment Native Hawaiians are not considered indigenous under US law. That means that any program they develop that is for their people can, and has been, challenged via civil rights legislation. When the bill passes Native Hawaiians will be able have some self government.

"The latest version of the Akaka Bill would authorize a process for establishing a Native Hawaiian governing entity and would grant the equivalent of federal recognition to Native Hawaiians, allowing them to be treated on par with American Indians and Alaska Natives. However, it would not allow gaming, create reservation trust lands, give any land back to Native Hawaiians without legislative approval, or change any existing laws."

The Apology Resolution signed into law in 1993 by former President Bill Clinton on the 100th anniversary of the overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy, acknowledged the illegality of the U.S. government’s military-backed regime change of “the sovereign Hawaii nation” in 1893 and its support for the illegally created “provisional government” in violation of treaties and international law. The insurgents were wealthy American and European financiers and colonists who owned sugar plantations.

The key statement in the apology reiterates Hawaii’s continuing independence: ‘‘The indigenous Hawaiian people never directly relinquished their claims to their inherent sovereignty as a people or over their national lands to the United States, either through their monarchy or through a plebiscite or referendum.”

And this is where it gets very sticky.

"While all those testifying were generally in favor of the Akaka Bill, no representative of Hawaii’s sovereignty movement was invited to speak. The sovereignty movement seeks full independence from the United States based on decolonization and de-occupation under international law.

Representatives of the movement have been excluded from the discourse in Congress and in the recent Supreme Court case, which ruled earlier this year that Congress’ apology for overthrowing the Hawaiian monarchy in 1893 bears no moral, political or legal weight in stopping the State of Hawaii from selling 1.2 million acres of land seized during the illegal regime change before land claims by Native Hawaiians are resolved.

David M. K. Inciong, II of Pearl City, a Native Hawaiian, said the hearing was “farcical.”

“Here we are, foreign nationals made stateless in our own country and the U.S. wants to forcibly incorporate us into their country as indigenous Native Americans; yet again through their domestic laws to be under the plenary authority of U.S. Congress.

“Instead of living a lie by creating more lies, the U.S. needs to take stock of its situation, de-occupy Hawai’i, and return our already recognized sovereign nation-state back to us who love our country as much as the U.S. Americans love theirs. We are peers to the U.S. as nation-to-nation. Why would we submit to being a lesser status of a nation within a nation which is translated into a belligerent occupation which we already live under?”

Kehaulani Kauanui, a Native Hawaiian and associate professor of American Studies at Wesleyan University, said the discussion of constitutionality was inadequate.

“What was missing, of course, is the fact that under the U.S. Constitution, the Hawaiian Kingdom was regarded as a foreign nation, an independent sovereign state. Foreign nations do not have any relationship to the U.S. Department of the Interior precisely because that department is about areas considered by the U.S. government as internal to the U.S.A, (Indian tribes, U.S. Island Territories and National Parks). Foreign nations relate to the U.S. Department of State."

What lessons can we learn from this?

Nothing is 100% good or 100% bad.

To take two steps forward you sometimes have to take a step back first.

When the controllers put in place processes to disengage their control - they are still in control.

further reading

For the bill from a Native American perspective
Against - a very interesting angle on the apology

our valleys future decided in switzerland

We lost...

"The environment court found in favour of Holcim in a decision released on Monday, rejecting an appeal by the Waiareka Valley Preservation Society.

Holcim will decide whether to build the $400 million plant.

Holcim will evaluate the project now the court decision has been released and a final decision on whether the plant will be built is expected later next year, from its parent company in Switzerland. "

So the future of this development in our country, in our valley will be decided in switzerland... how sad - how pathetic

And also important to note that "The court, during the hearing, was faced with a clear divergence in opinions between Te Runanga o Moeraki, representing Ngai Tahu, and sub-tribe Waitaha, which appeared as interested parties, on the effects on Maori values.

That had its genesis in the complex historical relationship between Ngai Tahu and Waitaha, but the court said it was not possible for it to attempt to unravel these "complicated traditions". "

Save the Hurunui River

Hurunui River

Save the Hurunui River

Why?

"The Hurunui provides outstanding habitat for native fish and birds, especially nationally endangered black-fronted tern and black-billed gull and the dotterel (in decline). It is one of the most popular rivers in New Zealand for fishing, white-water rafting and kayaking.
The Hurunui is Canterbury’s sixth largest river by volume. Lake Sumner and seven smaller lakes formed by retreating glaciers are considered icons of the South Island high country.

As well as being one of Canterbury’s most loved rivers, it is also home to some of our most endangered species.

It is an example of one of the most diverse river catchments in Canterbury, ranging from bush-fringed lakes, steep, rocky headwaters and gorges to braided shingle riverbeds, and supports an equally diverse range of habitats and native biodiversity.

Fifty-eight bird species have been identified in the catchment, including 17 threatened species. Significant river birds include three nationally endangered species: the black-fronted tern (between 5-12% of the entire population), black-billed gull (in serious decline) and banded dotterel (in gradual decline). The catchment is also home to birds uncommon in most of Canterbury, especially grey teal and NZ shoveler.

Twenty-five native fish species have been identified in the catchment, including six threatened fish species. It is also an important recreational fishery for brown trout and salmon, with an estimated 20,000 angler days per season.

The surrounding beech forest supports a healthy population of endangered mohua (yellowhead) and critically endangered orange-fronted parakeet (kakariki). "

So Ngai Tahu what are we going to do? We have NT Property trying to dam and destroy the river. No doubt local kaumatua and Papatipu Runaka will be trying to save the river and it's mauri.

This is what the damn dammers say

"Who is behind the Hurunui Water Project?

The Board of HWP

The Board of the Hurunui Water Project is small but diverse. Our common ingredient is an interest in the future well-being of the Hurunui District. We include representatives from the Hurunui Irrigation and Power Trust (HIPT), Ngai Tahu Property, Mainpower and Eskhead Station.

• HIPT represents the interests of more than 200 Hurunui farmers who formed a trust in 2002 to look at the opportunities for using water in the district.

• Ngai Tahu Property has interests in the sustainable management of the soil and water resources of the Hurunui District together with satisfying the wider interests of Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu, Ngai Tuahuriri and Kaikoura runanga. "

What is the TRONT position? Who speaks for Ngai Tahu? Are NT Property considering the wider interests with this project?

And if Ngai Tahu are too concerned about the profit and money they will make via NT Property - then what does that say about us, about our kaitiakitanga role and if we won't save this river - who the hell will!

Ngai Tahu offers to help Aorangi School

Good news about support for Aorangi from Ngai Tahu.

"Ngai Tahu has offered to pay for the rebuilding of Christchurch's Aorangi School in what would be the first public-private school partnership between an iwi and the Crown.

The proposed deal for the school, which faces closure because of a falling roll and a dispute over replacing its dilapidated buildings, would see its buildings owned by Ngai Tahu and leased to the Crown."

"Aorangi board of trustees member Andrew Oh said the Government had been promoting the idea of a public-private partnership (PPP) and Ngai Tahu's commercial arm had been looking at getting into education, so Aorangi School was a "perfect opportunity".

"This is a commercial decision. The bottom line is it does tie in nicely with what they have been trying to do, especially in protecting their language," he said."

Is it really a commercial decision?

"Ngai Tahu chairman Mark Solomon said the iwi was "strongly supportive" of Aorangi School.

"Ngai Tahu has fewer fluent reo speakers than other iwi and so it is concerning when we hear that a school like Aorangi School in Christchurch, with its bilingual unit, may be shut down. We have therefore been proactive in support of the school and have held discussions with the Government and other people of influence."

That sounds like a bit more than a commercial decision to me - I hope they are keeping an arms-length seperation especially regarding the outcomes that they want to receive. You see, a commercial decision is different to a decision to help an organisation which is helping our people become more educated and more knowledgeable around Ngai Tahutanga - IMO

Ngai Tahu let down by Waitangi tribunal

I'm disappointed by this decision.

"Six top of the south iwi are jubilant they have successfully defended a Waitangi Tribunal decision which says they have customary rights overlapping with those of South Island powerhouse iwi Ngai Tahu.

A High Court decision released on Friday by Justice Alan MacKenzie dismissed the Ngai Tahu challenge to the tribunal's decision.

Ngai Tahu is considering appealing the decision."

More lawyers, more cost but I am sure that this will go all the way. We have fought too long and too hard to give up any of our takiwa.

trev - no point sending them to jail

mallard has a view, and don't forget that this is the guy who says he is indigenous because his grandparents or whatever arrived here. I'm not saying you don't love this country mallard - but you are not indigenous.

"A senior Labour MP says five Maori who avoided imprisonment for the exorcism killing of a relative would have gone to jail if they were Pakeha.

Trevor Mallard posted his comments on the Labour Parliamentary Caucus's blog, Red Alert.

Mallard said that in sentencing the five to community sentences, Justice France had "sent a signal that's the wrong one" about what was effectively "torture"."

A couple of points mallard - you have been a minister and your answer is to put more people in jail. We are already second only to the US for imprisionment. It doesn't work.

This verdict shows how far maori have fallen because of the disengagement with their culture because of colonisation. I cannot say if this attempt was tikanga but I am sure there were many ways of trying to get the atua on side. Pakeha laugh at the so called superstition involved yet there are more things unknown than known.

We need seperate yet interconnected, justice systems where the cultural aspects of a case can be consider. This and the takamore case show that the system is not working. No use putting this group in jail they need to be in their community where the error of their ways can be shown.

The more I think about it, community is the answer to just about every problem that we face.

RIP Les Paul

Won't get fooled again - maori won't be fooled again...

April 1870, at Onoke - Smithyman

Smithyman

219

APRIL 1870, AT ONOKE

Chiefs of Hokianga met Governor Bowen
at Maning's. One after another spoke,
Aporo spoke before Papahurihia. Aperahama was present.

Papahurihia said:
"I dreamt before the coming of Governor Browne:
a black man had taken a feather out of my hair."
He did not offer to explain.
He said, again he did not explain:
"I am not a prophet; the chief Justice is a prophet."

He was reported as 'a chief of Nga ti Hau'.
He was 'the famous tohunga or priest'.