Just when we seemed to be working towards a political consensus on the foreshore and seabed, out crawls Winston Peters from his self-imposed political exile:
They are arguing about title. Make no mistake about it they are arguing something separatist. And if that’s the way that New Zealand is to go then our future towards the Third World is certain.
How do you construct a different world view when the mass majority of Maori activists I know have less than a quarter Maori in them and when I know so many Europeans who value the beach for, its shellfish, for its contact with nature and for their love of New Zealand being the way it is.
Of course “they” are arguing about title. That is because title to the foreshore and seabed, or at least the right of hapū to go to Court to establish whether they have title to the foreshore and seabed, is what was extinguished by the Foreshore and Seabed Act. This is about property rights – pure and simple.
Peters’ comments are nothing short of nasty old-fashioned colonial racism of the sort that categorised people of mixed race as sambos, mulattos and quadroons.
Even the National Party appears to have moved on from the days when Don Brash espoused that type of bigotry.
So I guess Winston just couldn’t resist the chance to exploit the vile racist underbelly that still exists in New Zealand society.
Let’s hope New Zealand has grown up somewhat over the last few years, and that the vast majority of New Zealanders want to see him rapidly slither back under the rock from which he’s emerged.
g.blog 
“…Just when we seemed to be working towards a political consensus…”
A consensus of who? the beltway elites? If Winston’s comments resonate, then your mythical consensus is just that – a myth. And whether you like or not, in a democracy the vox populi demands a hearing.
I agree Tom. But I hope our nation has matured sufficiently that Winston’s comments resonate only with a small minority.
Peters’ comments are nothing short of nasty old-fashioned colonial racism of the sort that categorised people of mixed race as sambos, mulattos and quadroons.
so what do you call it when people with maori ancestry refer to themselves as “tangata whenua” meaning the rest of us are residents of inferior status (Margaret Mutu says “visitors”).
When you talk about “property rights” we associate that within the bounds of the society most of us have lived in. In this case you refer to colonists settling in tribal areas and while we bang on about the treaty (being the foundation stone etc) the green policy is that the Maori version is the correct one. It is fairly obvious that this is disadvantageous to the present population but just what the greens think is supposed to happen (when we do) I’m not sure.
Please elaborate Toad?
Stork, while the Greens do acknowledge Te Reo version of Te Tiriti as the one that should be relied upon, the Treaty is really a peripheral issue here. The issues would have been the same if the Treaty had never been signed.
It is a simple matter of ownership. If the customary title of iwi or hapu to the foreshore and seabed in their rohe had never been extinguished (and whether it had is an issue of fact in each particular instance), then it was confiscated by the Foreshore and Seabed Act.
Justice demands that either title be restored to those from whom it was confiscated, or that appropriate settlements be negotiated with those from whom title has been confiscated.
I agree with the greenies – the Maori have customary rights to the beaches – someone needs to tell Winston it aint separatist if it gives all the real whitey-whitey’s an added reason to make friends with their Maori brothers..
Never know, if you’re real nice to em’ they might teach you how to fish!
It’s not the beaches beat up. That is a common misconception – one that the likes of Peters and Brash deliberately fostered.
The foreshore stops at the spring high water mark – it’s the bit that is sometimes wet and sometimes dry. The beach is the bit that is always dry above it.
yup – fishing – done on that bit – not the sand.
Toad which rohe are affected?
“It’s not the beaches beat up. That is a common misconception – one that the likes of Peters and Brash deliberately fostered.”
To some the beach implies a dip.
“someone needs to tell Winston it aint separatist if it gives all the real whitey-whitey’s an added reason to make friends with their Maori brothers”
Not that Maori will prevent pakeha from entering the water or fishing?
Honestly, if I went to the beach for a dip and someone – Maori or not – tried to stop me going in because they felt they had the authority, I would first tell them where to go, second tell their members of community, and if it was that bad – tell the media.
It’s called ‘shame’ and most Maori will not want to bring that kind of shame on themselves, but if they do, so be it.
Toad you’ve got a black belt in racism is this racist?
How are Māori affected by climate change compared to other communities?
The reliance of Māori on the environment as both a spiritual and economic resource makes them more vulnerable and potentially less adaptable to climate change.
http://www.climatechange.govt.nz/emissions-trading-scheme/questions-and-answers.html#about
#
beat up Says:
8 July, 2009 at 5:24 pm
Honestly, if I went to the beach for a dip and someone – Maori or not – tried to stop me going in because they felt they had the authority, I would first tell them where to go, second tell their members of community, and if it was that bad – tell the media.
It’s called ’shame’ and most Maori will not want to bring that kind of shame on themselves, but if they do, so be it.
#
True beat up, but that is a learned response; a result of growing up in the status quo.
Fisheries management in inshore fisheries etc could be a source of resentment.
despite vocal calls for tino rangitiratanga from the likes of Catherine Delahunty the reality is that the greens don’t want Maori to be able to freehold and sell their foreshore and seabed realestate (and the Maori council are saying that interferes with tino rangitiratanga). One might have been forgiven for thinking that the Greens were serious in their calls for honouring the treaty but it looks as though it was hubris and at the coal face we will see back pedalling.