I love that you are posting again AJ always a rich vein. I find Acts position deeply disturbing. A few days ago Seymour gratuitously insulted the Maori king talking about a bloke in the Waikato who thinks he is a king. A measure of his willingness to be personally insulting towards Maori in fact the whole posture of this government is insulting to Maori and I find it not only sickening but somewhat sinister. Unlike me you don’t let your anger rule your words AJ I don’t quite have your forbearance. But ultimately I find Seymour saddens me more than angers. He seems lost.
Thanks Nigel, yes it's been a while since I've had the space to think and write. It is saddening, and concerning the direction this rhetoric threatens to take us. I genuinely don't believe he represents the majority of New Zealanders on this issue however. Equally, i dont think we can ignore him. It's important- I think - to engage his ideas, and reveal them for what they are.
Thanks A.J. - ACTs intention is to deny history by rewriting it in their libertarian image. Aotearoa NZ is a welcoming multicultural country founded upon a bicultural covenant. That’s not up for debate! Rather let’s study it together, let’s examine the abuse of it that led to glaring inequality. Let’s resist with all our might Seymour’s evil intentions.
It was interesting listening him lay it out. Basically, it sounds that he doesn't believe a treaty between two peoples can or should be part of the make up of a "liberal democracy". However, he acknowledges its constitutional importance, thus is attempting to reinterpret it (anochronistically) through the lens of his political ideals.
I am glad for the treaty principles bill to consider political economics and the state backed/enforced contracts amongst agricultural settlers (with knowledge the unlearned/unfaithful bad bully farmer will go beat and steal from neighbours if his/her crop doesn't yield enough).
I don't think māori have always/ever been treated as second class citizens. I think they were introduced to good (tried and tested) faith and Jesus Christ way with less fanfare, architecture, art etc than settler counterparts, so they didn't see as much rational for following the faith and thereby didn't act as well and were treated as such. Some māori did invest in following Jesus to wonderful results...and from all I can observe the way today is open to all māori, all lost people today who will go to the church humbly, gently, and kindly ask for help...and read bible and science etc...which I where I think the debate about language/race gets heated.
I love that you are posting again AJ always a rich vein. I find Acts position deeply disturbing. A few days ago Seymour gratuitously insulted the Maori king talking about a bloke in the Waikato who thinks he is a king. A measure of his willingness to be personally insulting towards Maori in fact the whole posture of this government is insulting to Maori and I find it not only sickening but somewhat sinister. Unlike me you don’t let your anger rule your words AJ I don’t quite have your forbearance. But ultimately I find Seymour saddens me more than angers. He seems lost.
Thanks Nigel, yes it's been a while since I've had the space to think and write. It is saddening, and concerning the direction this rhetoric threatens to take us. I genuinely don't believe he represents the majority of New Zealanders on this issue however. Equally, i dont think we can ignore him. It's important- I think - to engage his ideas, and reveal them for what they are.
Thanks A.J. - ACTs intention is to deny history by rewriting it in their libertarian image. Aotearoa NZ is a welcoming multicultural country founded upon a bicultural covenant. That’s not up for debate! Rather let’s study it together, let’s examine the abuse of it that led to glaring inequality. Let’s resist with all our might Seymour’s evil intentions.
It was interesting listening him lay it out. Basically, it sounds that he doesn't believe a treaty between two peoples can or should be part of the make up of a "liberal democracy". However, he acknowledges its constitutional importance, thus is attempting to reinterpret it (anochronistically) through the lens of his political ideals.
And it’s important to remember that his predecessor, Mr Brash, made a similar infamous State of the Nation speech during his time as ACT party leader.
Yup, there is historical context to all of this
I am glad for the treaty principles bill to consider political economics and the state backed/enforced contracts amongst agricultural settlers (with knowledge the unlearned/unfaithful bad bully farmer will go beat and steal from neighbours if his/her crop doesn't yield enough).
With no state/government/higher educated ruling monarchy to intervene
I don't think māori have always/ever been treated as second class citizens. I think they were introduced to good (tried and tested) faith and Jesus Christ way with less fanfare, architecture, art etc than settler counterparts, so they didn't see as much rational for following the faith and thereby didn't act as well and were treated as such. Some māori did invest in following Jesus to wonderful results...and from all I can observe the way today is open to all māori, all lost people today who will go to the church humbly, gently, and kindly ask for help...and read bible and science etc...which I where I think the debate about language/race gets heated.
How much better does the intention read if we swap 'individual' with 'personal'.