NZ terrorist camp raids - conspiracy in the making

[Graham2001]

Over in NZ there's been a bit of a flap, the police have raided several suspected terrorist training camps.

Already the usual suspects are protesting on behalf of the 'freedom fighters' and complaining of police brutality.

See: http://tinyurl.com/278aj3

For a compilation of the relevant news reports.

What has been more interesting however is the reactions in the comments section (http://tinyurl.com/2884rx). Most people have been approving of the police action, but already there are people trying to claim that the whole thing is a 'beat up' to enable the passage of draconian anti-terror laws by the NZ government.

It'll be interesting to watch this one and see just how it turns out, especially with people like this throwing their 0.002c into the ring:

...One must question the means to enable the totalitarian terror act, where already in the US, Britain and the UK is in full unbridled swing. UK is leading the pack, the premise for full police state initiatives, where even thinking of dissent against corrupt governments equates to terrorism, an act that can have you thrown in prison for most of your life. NSA measures jaywalking and publicly reading the constitution terrorism acts...

[SDC]

Obviously Mr Brown, in the OP, is over the top. But is this a reference to the US NSA? Or does NZ have its own? If it's a reference to the US, why would anyone care in NZ?

And for the record, here in NYC many people jaywalk while reading the constitution. It's gotten to be a growing problem for drivers.

If there were only an NYC tour guide here... The story goes that, when Giuliani wanted the police to crack down on jaywalking in the 1990s, no one could find an actual law against it. Truth or consequences? (I spent an entire weekend then trying to get a group of visitors from Toronto to jaywalk just to test.)

[BenBurch]

Personally, I hope they killed a few terrorists in the bargain. But I also do really hope they got the right target!

[Graham2001]

Obviously Mr Brown, in the OP, is over the top. But is this a reference to the US NSA? Or does NZ have its own? If it's a reference to the US, why would anyone care in NZ?


I'm guessing that he's referring to the US NSA, but why on Earth someone would consider 'reading the US constitution' (FWIW NZ does not even have a written constitution.) to be terrorism is beyond me.

[Graham2001]

Personally, I hope they killed a few terrorists in the bargain. But I also do really hope they got the right target!

So far no-ones been killed, and they're not being done for terrorism at the moment, just firearms violations and possession of Molotov's...

[SDC]

I'm guessing that he's referring to the US NSA, but why on Earth someone would consider 'reading the US constitution' (FWIW NZ does not even have a written constitution.) to be terrorism is beyond me.

There was recently a case here, probably it's still going on, where a street performer/ agitator refused to stop reciting ... the Constitution? amendments? I forget exactly, on a public occasion, and was arrested.

Jeez, I am being really helpful here. I should quit while I'm behind the 8 ball. Anyhow, maybe that's the reference. Or maybe not. How much NYC news do they pick up in NZ, anyhow?

[mailman]

I'm guessing that he's referring to the US NSA, but why on Earth someone would consider 'reading the US constitution' (FWIW NZ does not even have a written constitution.) to be terrorism is beyond me.

NZ has something far superior to your constitution...legal precedent.

Mailman

[Alareth]

NZ has something far superior to your constitution...legal precedent.

Mailman


What?

[Drudgewire]

...One must question the means to enable the totalitarian terror act, where already in the US, Britain and the UK is in full unbridled swing.
And yet I smoke pot, look at porn, make horrible comments about people including public figures online and legally carry a gun without worry of anything more than a worst-case sceranio fine.

Does ANYONE understand what a rule10ing police state is???

[gumboot]

The stupid thing is, if you actually read the Terrorism Suppression Act it doesn't actually give the government any additional powers in regards to suppressing terrorism domestically. All it does regarding domestic terrorism is identify offences under the act.

The actual procedure for prosecuting individuals under any legislation is all contained in a separate act - the Criminal Procedure Act. And nothing in the Terrorism Suppression Act lowers the standards for acquiring warrants or similar.

This entire event is doing a thorough job of demonstrating:

1) Just how utterly pathetic the New Zealand media is
2) Just how utterly stupid some New Zealanders are

It's all quite sad. I'd love to see some of these people charged with treason for plotting to assassinate the PM. God how would the Maori activists love that.

-Gumboot

[gumboot]

There was recently a case here, probably it's still going on, where a street performer/ agitator refused to stop reciting ... the Constitution? amendments? I forget exactly, on a public occasion, and was arrested.

Jeez, I am being really helpful here. I should quit while I'm behind the 8 ball. Anyhow, maybe that's the reference. Or maybe not. How much NYC news do they pick up in NZ, anyhow?


Our media would typically only pick some thing up if:

1) Is was an internationally significant event
or
2) It involved a New Zealander
or
3) It was sufficiently odd or strange
or
4) It reinforced a stereotype about Americans such as them being stupid or ignorant, or having an oppressive government

Otherwise, our media doesn't care.

-Gumboot

[Graham2001]

Just like 9/11 and Port Arthur people continue to claim that the raids in NZ are fake:

I do not know if the police actions were justified, because of the lack of information but I have enough doubts. The way the police has presented these cases to the media almost feels staged, particularly with the Wellington raids that had TV crews filming the event. It wasn't a tactical entry, even though they were expecting occupants to be armed. It is also handled in such a way it resembled the old witchhunts of communists in the US during the 1930s. Same old "blah anti-government treason. Terrorist",.. Search warrants issued for cam paint, BB guns, and army bandage, are not reasons enough to suspect people to be terrorists. If that is the case, we can legally obtain a search warrant for any home or Joe/Jane Bloggs. It is also too convenient that 2 hunters just so happen to find the training camp, which then sparked off a nationwide series of arrests. Now again I do know know the full story, but the police better have a good transparent case against the people they suspect and be ready to present it to the public, because I am not buying it.

I'm quoting in full as this sort of material is the sort of thing we see time and time again from CTs and HBs the world over, they must get it out of a book (Conspiracies for Dummies ;)) or something...

It seems to be beyond some people that there might be a very good reason for arresting someone.

[Comsat Angel]

Our media would typically only pick some thing up if:

1) Is was an internationally significant event
or
2) It involved a New Zealander
or
3) It was sufficiently odd or strange
or
4) It reinforced a stereotype about Americans such as them being stupid or ignorant, or having an oppressive government

Otherwise, our media doesn't care.

-Gumboot

you forgot 5) & 6) - when NZ trounces England at either rugby, cricket, or both.

[mailman]

What?

Sorry...was a sad attempt at trolling :)

BUT, fwiw I feel legal precedent is far superior to a constitution stuck in stone! But thats only my opinion and no doubt one that doesnt accord with many on this board.

Regards

Mailman

[Dave Rogers]

Sorry...was a sad attempt at trolling :)


And a pastiche of a great Stundie-nominated quote from Pagan, if I read you right.

Dave

[mailman]

What?

Mailman

[Dave Rogers]

What?

Mailman

Back in March, someone called Pagan was arguing that the Journal of 911 Studies constitutes irrefutable proof that 911 was an inside job, and in particular that Steven Jones's paper must be correct because it was reviewed by a couple of physics Ph.D's. In the course of the ensuing controlled demolition of this point of view, he came up with this little gem:

I don't exactly have a Phd in physics. I have something much better. Common sense.

It got a Stundie nomination, and I know it's in someone's sig, although I've forgotten who - I wondered if you were referring to it.

Dave

[gumboot]

The fun begins...

No. The events of this week brought the politics of fear to NZ from other western countries, especially the US. The aim is to further the agenda of the elite bunch of madmen who are really in control by manufacturing excuses to crack down on political dissent & restrict our civil liberties. The goal is the "New World Order" announced by George Bush Senior when he was President. The Labour Government may have had little to do with planning this week's events. But remember that the Neocon extremists of the National Party are advised by the likes of Karl Rove, a.k.a. George W. Bush's "Brain", and can seriously influence senior police. I fully expect that there will be a fake terror attack in New Zealand, probably before the next election, which will be blamed on one group of activists or another, building upon the myths created this week. This is an increasingly common tactic amongst western countries: just Google "false flag terror attacks". Let us hope the NZ public is intelligent enough avoid the slide into tyranny currently occurring in the US.

Source (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/feature/story.cfm?c_id=1501154&objectid=10470189&pnum=2)

Oh, and a prominent Maori activist is claiming these raids (which were not solely against persons of Maori descent) have put Maori-European relations back 100 years. I know it would get ugly.

-Gumboot

[PhantomWolf]

NZ has something far superior to your constitution...legal precedent.

Mailman

Actually we have a Bill of Rights (http://www.justice.govt.nz/pubs/other/pamphlets/2001/bill_rights_act.html)

As to the incident, there are far too many people over here opening their mouths without knowing what the story is, both in the media and outside of it. Personally I'm going to wait for the facts to emerge instead of just jumping up and down on one side of the other, but I'd have to say the way those supporting the ones that got arrested are bleating on, there likely is something to the story that resulted in the police's actions, I don't think innocent people would be making as much noise.

[Graham2001]

...but I'd have to say the way those supporting the ones that got arrested are bleating on, there likely is something to the story that resulted in the police's actions...

It's also interesting to note that one of the early 'left wing (http://tinyurl.com/2dbso3)' commentators was of the same opinion, one wonders just what he heard and how much of it he passed on to the police...

It's also interesting to note the 'faultlines' all this has exposed in NZ society.

And then there is this from a 'dumb(?) yank':

It all seems a little overbloated to me. Living in NY we have and have had real problems with radicals as well as a load of total nutcases. I kind of agree with the cops response, but what really will be the consequences?. Seriously we aint talking Ruby Ridge, Beslan School, Waco etc. All you got was a bunch of kooks dressed in camo, who by the reports I have read were ready to drop their outdated weapons when the brown stuff entered the blades. I am sure there is a place in the heirachy of the French Army for these guys and the horse they rode in on. Terrorism this aint.

As far as I am concerned it is.

[gumboot]

Last time I checked incompetence wasn't defense against a crime. Inept bank robbers just get caught, they don't get let off. If they had any intentions, however unrealisable, of using force to intimidate the New Zealand population or Government they are, by definition, terrorists.

-Gumboot

[Gurdur]

...If they had any intentions, however unrealisable, of using force to intimidate the New Zealand population or Government they are, by definition, terrorists.


Or "they" could also be simply lads out on a Saturday's night binge drinking in town. Much the same thing. Just on a smaller scale, but far more common.

[Graham2001]

Oh, and a prominent Maori activist is claiming these raids (which were not solely against persons of Maori descent) have put Maori-European relations back 100 years. I know it would get ugly.

-Gumboot

As far as the CTs are concerned it already has:

I think its just the Kiwi police force trying to get in on the whole global 'terrorist' drama. These guys have always been around, and the reason they're playing in the wop-wops is because they don't have the support of the Maori community behind them. But if you want to stir up trouble, make the whites paranoid, particularly the immigrant ones, and make out Maoris to be the baddies. And watch the Americans rub their hands in glee, as yet another nation has been sucked into their mind game, which justifies internal and external security policies to control the stupid masses.

I find it amazing the number of people who are willing to comment on this allegedly from overseas without knowing anything of the situation or the people involved. As for claims that the US govt is behind this I am quite sure that they are no more behind this than they were behind the actions of David Hicks despite what his father and fan club claim.

[gumboot]

Or "they" could also be simply lads out on a Saturday's night binge drinking in town. Much the same thing. Just on a smaller scale, but far more common.


Um... what?

-Gumboot

[gumboot]

I find it amazing the number of people who are willing to comment on this allegedly from overseas without knowing anything of the situation or the people involve. As for claims that the US govt is behind this I am quite sure that they are no more behind this than they were behind the actions of David Hicks despite what his father and fan club claim.


I noticed another Maori public figure claiming that the government were following the line of the UK terror laws which allows them to detain persons for an extended length of time without laying charges.

This was in relation to Iti, which totally ignores the fact that he has been charged - on ELEVEN offenses! What's truly bemusing is how ignorant some of the people commenting are, bringing up arguments like "Dressing in camouflage is not terrorism" (strawman anyone?). And that came from a supposed ex-CIA advisor. Critical thinking seems to have lost the battle to out-and-out stupidity.

-Gumboot

[Graham2001]

I noticed another Maori public figure claiming that the government were following the line of the UK terror laws which allows them to detain persons for an extended length of time without laying charges.


And then there are these two 'gems' both from people in NZ

The whole story reminds me of the time I lived in London. Every now and then there were huge anti terrorist raids with a lot of fuss in the media,most of those arrested were released a few months later quietly, without a charge. It just provided govt and police with the fabricated support.

Please don't start these 'terrorism' games in New Zealand. In the States we were constantly bombarded with warnings to 'be afriad, be very afraid. ' New Zealand doesn't need that. It's not healthy.

It should be added that had someone actually killed as a result of this then I suspect (but cannot prove) that at least some of the commentors would be claiming that the police 'faked' the events just as on 9/11 or 7/7.

[Gurdur]

Um... what?

-Gumboot


*sigh*

I am just so unappreciated by some despite all my witticisms, quips and epigrams. Dunno why I try, really.

[gumboot]

*sigh*

I am just so unappreciated by some despite all my witticisms, quips and epigrams. Dunno why I try, really.


:p I had my suspicions. Can't you add a smiley face or something?

-Gumboot

[GT/CS]

I find it amazing the number of people who are willing to comment on this allegedly from overseas without knowing anything of the situation or the people involved.

Thank you. I've been looking for a new sig. It seems to fit 9/11 quite well.

[rwguinn]

Thank you. I've been looking for a new sig. It seems to fit 9/11 quite well.
Or them there forn-ers in general.

[dudalb]

This entire event is doing a thorough job of demonstrating:

1) Just how utterly pathetic the New Zealand media is
2) Just how utterly stupid some New Zealanders are

Which means New Zealand is just like the USA in some ways.
Change that. New Zealand is just like every other country on the planet.
(Must resist urge to make LOTR/Peter Jackson jokes).....

[Graham2001]

...and as always children are exploited (http://tinyurl.com/2vgfuj) to push messages they probably don't understand. At that age I was taking part in Anti-nuclear rallies and chanting 'Love not war' (Well actually, I chanted 'Make Babies not War' until my Dad told me that was 'rude', I didn't understand that then either.)

I am of European decent, my husband is of Maori decent. My husband owns 2 semi automatic rifles (designed to kill pigs/deer/rabbits/possums). I am worried whether or not my husband or any other member of his hunting club will be suspected of being Terrorists (we do have petrol in the shed for the lawn mower and chainsaw too). The weapon argument as far as semi-automatic is a joke. I'm more interested in the napalm and how long it takes the police to say exactly what was seized in the raids. If the police started boarding the school vehicles of my children I would be livid. The police have done themselves no favours in the recent past. I think police are more dangerous with firearms then a few hunters out in the bush. Police shoot people with hammers because large dogs tend to run a little too fast. Don't turn us in to a mini US living in fear of 9/11, therefore justifying everything. Police justified - Yes to arrest, no to all the de-humanisation of the children. My children asked who the men in masks were on TV, i told them cowards scared to show their face to children.



And the 'fake raids to promote anti terror laws' crowd continue their tirades:

Does anybody know that the new amendment to the anti terrorism laws are sitting in front of parliament today and that the reason the word "terrorist" has been thrown about is so we all freak out and beg the government to take our rights to protest away without us realising! Is the media going to report this at all? Are we becoming America this quickly? Surely not! Come on people, you're being lied to, come on media, report this whole timing coincidence please, surely we're not like Fox news are we? We are New Zealand not America! Media - where are you?


Gumboot, you don't happen to know just what amendment is being referred to here?

[SDC]

I'm interested in the use of napalm and semi-automatic weapons against the Possum Threat. Does NZ have the same Possums we have here in the US (RIP, Pogo...) or are they some kind of Uber-Possum?

[mailman]

Actually we have a Bill of Rights (http://www.justice.govt.nz/pubs/other/pamphlets/2001/bill_rights_act.html)

Oh yeah, forgot about that! Well thats what you get for having lived away from home for a while now! :)

The Courts can recognise your rights. However, the Courts may need to balance your rights against the rights of others and the interest of the whole community.

Is there anything like this in the American constitution?

Still, my opinion is that legal precedent is far superior to a constitution (or Bill of Rights) set in stone.

People need to realise they have no rights, merely priviledges handed down to them by the courts and the government of the time :)

Now back to the main story.

I have a number of relations up in the East Cape who you could consider likely to be involved in **** like this. Apart from being dicks they believe everyone is out to get them cause they is maaari (I am Maori by the way!).

They hate it when I point out the fact they are dumb arses! :D

BUT...at least these activists arent so dumb as to spontaeneously detonate on public transport! If that did happen I reckon people in their communities would kick the arses of those who supported them...but again, that is merely my opinion.

Regards

Mailman

[gumboot]

Gumboot, you don't happen to know just what amendment is being referred to here?

You can learn all about it here (http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/PB/Legislation/Bills/d/0/e/00DBHOH_BILL7813_1-Terrorism-Suppression-Amendment-Bill.htm) including downloading a PDF of the amendment bill itself.

This Bill amends the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002, seeking to correct inconsistencies of that Act with New Zealand's obligations under the Charter of the United Nations and the United Nations Security Council resolutions on terrorism. It contains proposals on the designation of UN listed terrorist entities, the High Court extension of designations for those entities, the freezing of terrorists' assets, the terrorist financing offences, the offences of committing a terrorist act and participating in a terrorist group. The Bill also introduces new offences involving nuclear material.

So nothing to get excited about.

-Gumboot

[gumboot]

I'm interested in the use of napalm and semi-automatic weapons against the Possum Threat. Does NZ have the same Possums we have here in the US (RIP, Pogo...) or are they some kind of Uber-Possum?


What few New Zealanders realise is we have another military Special Forces squad even more secret and elite than the SAS. These individuals are not terrorists - they are members of the New Zealand Counter-Possum Special Tactics Squadron.

-Gumboot

[Graham2001]

...one of those arrested in the raids mentioned in the OP is now claiming that the threats he made were all a big joke (http://tinyurl.com/2vou6k)...

All I can say is that if his claim is true (which I seriously doubt) then it's no smarter than driving into a customs post and saying you have drugs in your car.

[gtc]

I'm interested in the use of napalm and semi-automatic weapons against the Possum Threat. Does NZ have the same Possums we have here in the US (RIP, Pogo...) or are they some kind of Uber-Possum?

NZ possums were introduced from Australia and are only a distant relative to the US possum.

[PhantomWolf]

NZ possums were introduced from Australia

I hear that they are all dying off in Oz to the point that there are worries about their survival. As such I extent the invitation that you can come and get as many of them as you want from us (perferably all of them.)

On the OT, the other day we had protest marches here over the Police charging the suspects with terrorism (something they haven't done yet but that didn't stop people marching and demanding that they don't.) In a city of 1 million people they got over 1,000 people. Remind me how many people are in NY and how many turned up for the 9/11 Inside Job groups last month?

[Magenta]

I hear that they are all dying off in Oz to the point that there are worries about their survival. As such I extent the invitation that you can come and get as many of them as you want from us (perferably all of them.)


Is it brushtail possums you've got over there? If so, they're not endangered here and have adapted very well to suburban life. (A pair of the cheeky buggers have taken up residence in the garage under my bedroom.)

As for the subject of the thread, it looks like some suspects have been charged under the Firearms Act and the controversy is over whether they can or should be charged under the Terrorism Suppression Act. Is that about the state of it? There hasn't been much coverage on this side of the Tasman after the initial story about the raids. I was a bit surprised to see a photo of a Maori face in a story on terrorism. I hadn't realised there was a violent, or potentially violent, side to Maori activism.

[PhantomWolf]

Is it brushtail possums you've got over there? If so, they're not endangered here and have adapted very well to suburban life. (A pair of the cheeky buggers have taken up residence in the garage under my bedroom.)

Not sure, they are just known as "those flaming things that have eaten my roses again" around our house.

As for the subject of the thread, it looks like some suspects have been charged under the Firearms Act and the controversy is over whether they can or should be charged under the Terrorism Suppression Act. Is that about the state of it? There hasn't been much coverage on this side of the Tasman after the initial story about the raids. I was a bit surprised to see a photo of a Maori face in a story on terrorism. I hadn't realised there was a violent, or potentially violent, side to Maori activism.

There is and had been for a while, it's just not really talked about. There are areas of the country that are no go areas for anyone that doesn't have brown skin and the right set of relations and there have been numerous incidents were people have been confronted by armed people to keep it that way. There have even been reports in the past of boats being shot at to keep them off of certain beaches.

[gumboot]

As for the subject of the thread, it looks like some suspects have been charged under the Firearms Act and the controversy is over whether they can or should be charged under the Terrorism Suppression Act. Is that about the state of it?

Not really. The protesters are just demanding that they are let go full stop.


I hadn't realised there was a violent, or potentially violent, side to Maori activism.

The Maori are quite possibly the most violent ethnic group in the world. Their rates of domestic violence are appalling. Many of them consider violence to be the only way of solving any problem. I'm not the least bit surprised.

-Gumboot

[gumboot]

Not sure, they are just known as "those flaming things that have eaten my roses again" around our house.



There is and had been for a while, it's just not really talked about. There are areas of the country that are no go areas for anyone that doesn't have brown skin and the right set of relations and there have been numerous incidents were people have been confronted by armed people to keep it that way. There have even been reports in the past of boats being shot at to keep them off of certain beaches.


Let's not forget the "Maori Parliament" who have their own "Maori Police" and issue their own "Maori Vehicle Warrant of Fitness", "Maori Car License", and "Maori Driver's License".

I doubt any other government in the world would put up with nonsense like that. It's pathetic. Our Government needs to grow a spine.

-Gumboot

[LashL]

In a city of 1 million people they got over 1,000 people. Remind me how many people are in NY and how many turned up for the 9/11 Inside Job groups last month?


I'm going to steal that for future reference. ;)

[mailman]

Not really. The protesters are just demanding that they are let go full stop.




The Maori are quite possibly the most violent ethnic group in the world. Their rates of domestic violence are appalling. Many of them consider violence to be the only way of solving any problem. I'm not the least bit surprised.

-Gumboot

Your statement smacks (metaphorical of course) of ignorance and is most likely based on some pretty shaky statistics that doesn't take in to account any other external forces when dealing with rates of crime for indigenous peoples.

Actually, I really cant believe you just dumped that pile of tripe on this forum and in fact when it really comes down to it, people like you are no better than the scum that was locked up by the police.

Now I have no doubt you will be posting stats that supposedly prove Maori are the most violent people on the face of the planet...just as Himmler and co probably had stats that proved jews were inferior to their arian blood.

Let's not forget the "Maori Parliament" who have their own "Maori Police" and issue their own "Maori Vehicle Warrant of Fitness", "Maori Car License", and "Maori Driver's License".

I doubt any other government in the world would put up with nonsense like that. It's pathetic. Our Government needs to grow a spine.

You rattle this off as if these people represent anything other than a FRINGE group of Maori.

To be clear, these morons are NOT representative of Maori, they do not speak for Maori nor do they represent Maori. They only represent their own small interests and maybe the reason the Government puts up with these "maaaaaris" is because, unlike the jihadi willing to detonate if you look at him funny, these guys are inconsequential.

I believe though, that if these f8ckwits came to power they would behave just like the Mahdi in the Sudan. This small fringe group only has its own interests at heart, no one elses. So what ever you do Gumboot...do not confuse these scumbags as being representative of the greater Maori community, because they arent!

Sorry, but people like you f8ck me off big time.

Apart from that Gumboot, I enjoy reading your postings.

Mailman

ps. dont hate me cause I is beautiful! :D

[PhantomWolf]

Hmmmm... Interesting that that "Fringe group" is represented in Parliment.....

[PhantomWolf]

Your statement smacks (metaphorical of course) of ignorance and is most likely based on some pretty shaky statistics that doesn't take in to account any other external forces when dealing with rates of crime for indigenous peoples.

While I wouldn't say they are the most violent in the world, they are the most violent in New Zealand, and even Maori are acknowledging that (http://www.nzine.co.nz/features/domestic_violence.html) and saying it needs to be fixed. if you claim otherwise then you are merely burying your head in the sand over this one.

1999 statistics point to the over-representation of Maori women and children among those using women's refuges. In that year, 3,085 Maori women and 4,851 Maori children, compared with 3,899 non-Maori women and 4,636 non-Maori children, used NCIWR refuge services. -- National Collective of Independent Women's Refuges (NCIWR).

When you consider that 17% of the population comprises almost 50% of the domestic abuse figures for women and over 50% of the figures for children, that is appalling whether you are brown, white, pink, or green with a hint of purple.

[mailman]

Ah, but that wasnt what Gumboot was getting at, to him Maori are the most violent in the world, which clearly isnt true.

Now, your little quote is fairly representative of ALL indigenous peoples around the world Phantom. This isnt limited to Maori...but to any peoples who have been "assimilated" in to western life styles.

I mean this makes about as much sense as saying "Aboriginals are the most alcohol adicted people in the world". What that statement doesnt do is address the underlying root cause of that addiction.

Just saying they are the most this or most that is a nice little label people like to use to justify their supposedly superior views on their society.

Also, I couldnt care less whether "Maori" say this or that or shake it all about. If you are hunting after a bigger slice of the financial medical pie what are you going to say?


Hmmmm... Interesting that that "Fringe group" is represented in Parliment.....

And?

Are these people not allowed to have a member of parliament for their tribal area?

Look, I may have come across quite tersely in my reply to Gumboot (honestly G, no offence meant) BUT when I see ignorant statements being thrown around like they are fact...well quite frankly that gets on my t1ts.

Mailman

[PhantomWolf]

Ah, but that wasnt what Gumboot was getting at, to him Maori are the most violent in the world, which clearly isnt true.

I have to agree that it was an unfair stereotyping and generalisation. However, as a whole, the violence figures from Maori are unfortunately up among the highest in the world, and that is something that I thing we can all agree on and also agree needs dealing with.

Now, your little quote is fairly representative of ALL indigenous peoples around the world Phantom. This isnt limited to Maori...but to any peoples who have been "assimilated" in to western life styles.

Well yes and no. While it is may indeed be able to apply to many people's about the world, I'd disagree with the representation of it being any peoples who have been "assimilated" in to western life styles. If you take the States as an example, the violence rates for Native Americans who are on Reservations and under their own systems is far higher than those in the rest of the country. One factor in this is that law enforcement and the justice system are constantly unsure of how such cases should be treated, i.e by Tribal systems or Federal systems, and so the perpetrators often escape through the hole between the two and reoffend. Similarly in Australia where those in the Northern Territories would hardly be said to have "assimilated" in to western life styles the violence rates are again far higher then for those that have really been "assimilated".

Going outside of this however we find that there are exceedingly high rates of abuse in non-western (Europeanised) countries as well, such as Japan, Hong-Kong, Korea (up to 60% of women having being abused), as well as astonishingly high rates in many Muslim countries such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

This issue isn't just one caused by being europianised, it is a pattern of learned behaviours created by a culture that has allowed such actions and reactions to go unquestioned and unpunished, and it's a worldwide issue.

I mean this makes about as much sense as saying "Aboriginals are the most alcohol adicted people in the world". What that statement doesnt do is address the underlying root cause of that addiction.

This is true, but determining the root cause is also a very tricky problem. Abuse seems to have been bound up into a cultural mythos worldwide, and until that is broken down and solving issues with anger and violence becomes culturally unacceptable, the problem will continue I fear.

And?

Are these people not allowed to have a member of parliament for their tribal area?

I'm not saying that at all. What I am saying is that I find it interesting that a group which you claim is merely a fringe group of Maori is able to gather together the numbers to give itself a relatively strong voice in Parliament. This would lead me to suspect that it is not as fringe as you'd like to claim it as, but rather that there is a rather larger group who,while perhaps not as vocal, does support such actions and beliefs as expressed by the so-called Fringe groups.

[gumboot]

Your statement smacks (metaphorical of course) of ignorance and is most likely based on some pretty shaky statistics that doesn't take in to account any other external forces when dealing with rates of crime for indigenous peoples.


Um no, they're not. They're actually quite thoroughly based on a very immediate experience with the Maori community, as well as incredibly extensive studies into domestic violence in New Zealand. Violence is an inherent and vital element in Maori culture, and always has been. That cultural element has to be addressed before domestic violence can be addressed. That is precisely the message of the critically acclaimed film Once Were Warriors, which deals with the very issue I'm talking about.


Actually, I really cant believe you just dumped that pile of tripe on this forum and in fact when it really comes down to it, people like you are no better than the scum that was locked up by the police.

Now I have no doubt you will be posting stats that supposedly prove Maori are the most violent people on the face of the planet...just as Himmler and co probably had stats that proved jews were inferior to their arian blood.


This is a complete and utter strawman. The violence I am referring to is cultural, not genetic. There is a vast difference.


You rattle this off as if these people represent anything other than a FRINGE group of Maori.

This particular group is indeed a fringe group of Maori. A fringe group that have been allowed to behave in a way that I don't think any other western government would have allowed.

The first point of my post was a general point about the broader culture. The second point was a specific point about the particular subset of that culture that are the topic of this thread.


To be clear, these morons are NOT representative of Maori, they do not speak for Maori nor do they represent Maori.

I don't believe I ever claimed they were representative of Maori.


I believe though, that if these f8ckwits came to power they would behave just like the Mahdi in the Sudan. This small fringe group only has its own interests at heart, no one elses. So what ever you do Gumboot...do not confuse these scumbags as being representative of the greater Maori community, because they arent!

Sorry, but people like you f8ck me off big time.


Your entire argument is a strawman. I have never claimed these people are representative of Maori.

-Gumboot

ETA.

I noticed you actually merged two separate posts together to make it look like I was associating Maori cultural violence with the extreme anti-government actions of these particular people. That was a grossly dishonest thing to do. My comment about engrained violence in Maori culture was specifically in reference to an expression of surprise that any Maori would use violence to achieve their goals.

What we have is a group of people who are anti-government, and also happen to be Maori (let's remember there were many caught up in these raids who were anti-government and not Maori). There is also observable violence deeply embedded in Maori culture (and you can't claim it's caused by colonisation because it pre-dates colonisation). Thus I was commenting that I was not surprised that a group that had violence deeply embedded in their culture, and also happened to be anti-government, would eventually resort to violence to express their political position.

[mailman]

Um no, they're not. They're actually quite thoroughly based on a very immediate experience with the Maori community,

I have had very many very immediate experiences with the English community when using public transport...do you think that then transpires that the English are the worlds worst travellers?

of course the answer is no, just like what ever negative experience you have had also isnt indicative of every other Maori community on the face of the planet.

as well as incredibly extensive studies into domestic violence in New Zealand. Violence is an inherent and vital element in Maori culture, and always has been. That cultural element has to be addressed before domestic violence can be addressed. That is precisely the message of the critically acclaimed film Once Were Warriors, which deals with the very issue I'm talking about.I hope you realise that movie is exactly that...a movie, written by a chap who has a pretty biased view on Maori in the first place (incidentally, I quite enjoyed both movies, especially the outcome of the second).

Now, there are is no question that there are some very serious issues that Maori must confront today. However that does not make every Maori a rapist or a criminal or a wife beater...just as my experiences with English on their public transport system doesnt make every pom a dick at peak our traffic in the morning.

This is a complete and utter strawman. The violence I am referring to is cultural, not genetic. There is a vast difference.Again, we will have to disagree as the violence you see today has nothing to do with ones culture but more to do with the experiences indigenous peoples all around the world have had with assimilation in to western society.

This particular group is indeed a fringe group of Maori. A fringe group that have been allowed to behave in a way that I don't think any other western government would have allowed.Hold on, these guys are innocent until proven guilty....sounds like you have found them guilty already?

What is worrying is that it appears you are advocating a police state, ie. shut anyone away that you dont like. These guys still havent been proven to have done anything wrong. Hell, they could very well be the next bunch of moronic jihadi BUT until they are proven without doubt in a court of law to be the next bunch of jihadi then these guys will have the benefit of my doubt.

The first point of my post was a general point about the broader culture. The second point was a specific point about the particular subset of that culture that are the topic of this thread.I think we call this stereotyping G.

I noticed you actually merged two separate posts together to make it look like I was associating Maori cultural violence with the extreme anti-government actions of these particular people. That was a grossly dishonest thing to do. Actually, I think you need to stop being easily offended as all I did was to answer your two posts in one reply.

If you feel this is dishonest then handle it.

My comment about engrained violence in Maori culture was specifically in reference to an expression of surprise that any Maori would use violence to achieve their goals.This is still an allegation and while it may prove to be right...so far this is merely supposition and wild accusation being reported by a media hardly sympathetic to Maori views.

What we have is a group of people who are anti-government, and also happen to be Maori (let's remember there were many caught up in these raids who were anti-government and not Maori).Hold on...this is one hell of a dishonest statement G...how can this be a anti-government organisation that just happen to be Maori while at the same time you try and remember that many of those caught up in the raids arent Maori???

So which is it? Is it a Maori group OR is it a group made up of Maori and Pakeha? You cant have it two ways!

There is also observable violence deeply embedded in Maori culture (and you can't claim it's caused by colonisation because it pre-dates colonisation).[quote]
Actually yes you can. The violence you see today is a result of dispossetion of tribal areas and is a direct result of assimilation in to a western values system that is very different to that of the original Maori system.

Lets also not forget that even though you are trying to make it out that every maori is a violent hack, that simply is not the case.

Because what you are really trying to say here is that simply because I am Maori, I am predisposed to be inherently violent while my Pakeha friends are not.

[quote]Thus I was commenting that I was not surprised that a group that had violence deeply embedded in their culture, and also happened to be anti-government, would eventually resort to violence to express their political position.
Which group are you talking about? The Maori one that just happens to have a lot of members who are not Maori or the one made up of Maori and Pakeha?

Your views are very dangerously similar to those who believe the joooos carried out 9/11!

Mailman

[gumboot]

I have had very many very immediate experiences with the English community when using public transport...do you think that then transpires that the English are the worlds worst travellers?

That doesn't even make sense.


of course the answer is no, just like what ever negative experience you have had also isnt indicative of every other Maori community on the face of the planet.

Who said anything about "negative" experiences? I have many friends and relatives who are part of the Maori community, and my experiences with them have been consistently positive.


I hope you realise that movie is exactly that...a movie, written by a chap who has a pretty biased view on Maori in the first place (incidentally, I quite enjoyed both movies, especially the outcome of the second).

The second film was crap, if you ask me. Actually I don't like either of them. The film's are based on three novels by Alan Duff, and are semi-autobiographical.


Now, there are is no question that there are some very serious issues that Maori must confront today. However that does not make every Maori a rapist or a criminal or a wife beater...

I never said such a thing.


Again, we will have to disagree as the violence you see today has nothing to do with ones culture but more to do with the experiences indigenous peoples all around the world have had with assimilation in to western society.

Absolutely not. I don't think you understand enough about Maori cultural values, or their history, or the nature of the violence I'm talking about. I also don't think you know much about how Maori were assimilated into western culture (unlike most indigenous cultures, for example, Maori actively sought westernism).


Hold on, these guys are innocent until proven guilty....sounds like you have found them guilty already?

I'm not talking about the "terror training camps". I'm talking about their parliament, their issuing driver's licenses, car registrations, and so forth.


What is worrying is that it appears you are advocating a police state, ie. shut anyone away that you dont like.

I have no idea where on earth you got that idea from.


These guys still havent been proven to have done anything wrong. Hell, they could very well be the next bunch of moronic jihadi BUT until they are proven without doubt in a court of law to be the next bunch of jihadi then these guys will have the benefit of my doubt.

Once again, when I was talking about "no other government would allow this" I was not talking about their recent weapons-related activities (which, quite obviously, the police have not allowed, hence the raids).


I think we call this stereotyping G.

No it's called you not reading my posts properly. You responded as if my two points were both about the same broad group. They were not.


Actually, I think you need to stop being easily offended as all I did was to answer your two posts in one reply.

If you feel this is dishonest then handle it.

Offended? What on earth gave you the idea that I'm offended? I'm not even offended that you combined two semi-related posts of mine together and then used your dishonest representation of my argument to accuse me of being a bigot and a racist. You're the one getting offended, not me. Try read what I'm actually saying instead of jumping the gun with your desire to accuse me of being a racist.


This is still an allegation and while it may prove to be right...so far this is merely supposition and wild accusation being reported by a media hardly sympathetic to Maori views.

Actually I think you'll find the media are heavily sympathetic to Maori views, and more importantly they're heavily anti-Police. The raids have been consistently covered in a very negative light. Now that the Solicitor-General has decided the Terrorism Suppression Act is to "confusing" to lay charges under, I expect that negativity to increase. And glancing at the Herald this morning, it has. Big time.


Hold on...this is one hell of a dishonest statement G...how can this be a anti-government organisation that just happen to be Maori while at the same time you try and remember that many of those caught up in the raids arent Maori???

My remark, which initiated this entire conversation, was in response to someone else talking about being surprised at Maori activists who might resort to violence. Ergo, the conversation is about the activists in question who happen to be Maori. I was merely trying to remind everyone that not everyone involved was Maori.


So which is it? Is it a Maori group OR is it a group made up of Maori and Pakeha? You cant have it two ways!

Try to keep up with the conversation.


Actually yes you can. The violence you see today is a result of dispossetion of tribal areas and is a direct result of assimilation in to a western values system that is very different to that of the original Maori system.

Which would be why some of the most violent behaviour by Maori occurs in groups that remain in their tribal areas? Please don't lump the colonisation of New Zealand in with every other British colonial stereotype. Our history is very different.


Lets also not forget that even though you are trying to make it out that every maori is a violent hack, that simply is not the case.

I don't think I ever said anything about any Maori being violent hacks.


Because what you are really trying to say here is that simply because I am Maori, I am predisposed to be inherently violent while my Pakeha friends are not.

No, I don't think I said that at all.


Which group are you talking about? The Maori one that just happens to have a lot of members who are not Maori or the one made up of Maori and Pakeha?

If you can't follow a conversation, don't get snappy with me about it.


Your views are very dangerously similar to those who believe the joooos carried out 9/11!

Well that says a lot about your ability to think coherently. I don't think I'll bother continuing this discussion.

-Gumboot

[PhantomWolf]

Just an update for those that might be interested.

Last night the Solicitor General denied the Police request to press charges under the Suppression of Terrorism Act. While he said that the Police had stopped "Highly disturbing activities" and that they were "certainly jusitified in their actions and in their bringing the charges to him" he also said that the way the Act was writen make it "incomprehesiable" and that this meant that the standard of Evidence was extra-ordinarily high, something he felt that evidence the Police had wasn't able to reach. As such it would seem that the Police themselves have been shown to have acted correctly and it is the Politicians that are at issue for drawing up a Law that makes no sense.

As it stands now, the 17 are still charged with various serious arms offensives, and I wouldn't be surprised to see other charges introduced to replace the ones that the Police wished to bring. I seriously doubt we have heard the end of this, but for the moment the Activists are claiming victory and innocence even if it was by way of a technicality.

[gumboot]

Last night the Solicitor General denied the Police request to press charges under the Suppression of Terrorism Act. While he said that the Police had stopped "Highly disturbing activities" and that they were "certainly jusitified in their actions and in their bringing the charges to him" he also said that the way the Act was writen make it "incomprehesiable" and that this meant that the standard of Evidence was extra-ordinarily high, something he felt that evidence the Police had wasn't able to reach.


I'm really curious to hear him explain himself on this matter. Aspects of the Act are quite complex and confusing to me, as a Legal Layman, however the parts that I would assume are relevant to this subject (what defines a terrorist act, what constitutes a terrorist bombing, what constitutes recruiting members to a terrorist organisation, and what constitutes participating in a terrorist organisation) seem all exceedingly clear and easy to understand to me, a Legal Layman.

If it all makes perfect sense to an ordinary citizen, why is it the Solicitor General doesn't get it? Or is that a cop out to avoid what would be an exceedingly aggravating decision?

-Gumboot

[PhantomWolf]

I'm really curious to hear him explain himself on this matter. Aspects of the Act are quite complex and confusing to me, as a Legal Layman, however the parts that I would assume are relevant to this subject (what defines a terrorist act, what constitutes a terrorist bombing, what constitutes recruiting members to a terrorist organisation, and what constitutes participating in a terrorist organisation) seem all exceedingly clear and easy to understand to me, a Legal Layman.

If it all makes perfect sense to an ordinary citizen, why is it the Solicitor General doesn't get it? Or is that a cop out to avoid what would be an exceedingly aggravating decision?

-Gumboot

I'm not so good on legal speak. If anyone wants to try, the Act is located Here (http://www.legislation.govt.nz/libraries/contents/om_isapi.dll?clientID=107754688&infobase=pal_statutes.nfo&jump=a2002-034&softpage=DOC)

It seems to me that commiting a Terrorist act would be illegal, but planning one doesn't seem to be covered in the Act, or maybe I missed it due to my lack of legalese and quick glance over it. It seems from what has been said that they need to almost have their hands on the bomb after setting it for the Act to be considered usable.

I hope that more will come out. Currently what has is very little, but worrying. Even reporters who have seen the Police evidence are calling it "disturbing." Most worrying to me is that these people are still facing very serious charges, and yet are being treated like national heroes. Perhaps instead of blaming the police for overreacting, people need to be blaming those whose actions brought the police down on them in the first place.

[gumboot]

It seems to me that commiting a Terrorist act would be illegal, but planning one doesn't seem to be covered in the Act, or maybe I missed it due to my lack of legalese and quick glance over it. It seems from what has been said that they need to almost have their hands on the bomb after setting it for the Act to be considered usable.


It's quite a terribly written Act, I'll give it that...
For one, involvement itself is not enough, one must "enhance" the abilities of the group. Presumably then if you're incompetent you cannot be convicted as you'd hinder the abilities of the group. That in itself is an absolutely ridiculous condition.

Second, actually committing a terrorist act, general speaking, is not prohibited by the act. It prohibits terrorist bombing specifically, but not a terrorist act generally speaking (although it does define what a terrorist act is).

Thirdly, it seems to prohibit recruitment for, or participation in a group that is actively carrying out terrorist acts. Thus recruiting for, or participation in a group that is going to carry out terrorist acts, but hasn't carried out any yet is presumably okay.


I hope that more will come out. Currently what has is very little, but worrying. Even reporters who have seen the Police evidence are calling it "disturbing." Most worrying to me is that these people are still facing very serious charges, and yet are being treated like national heroes. Perhaps instead of blaming the police for overreacting, people need to be blaming those whose actions brought the police down on them in the first place.


Two things especially worry me about this, although one is not a new thing:
1) If evidence is gathered under a specific crime, it cannot be used to lay charges for a different crime.
2) Any group that actually is (or in future does) plan to carry out terrorist acts (be it these folks, or an entirely different group of people), will be thoroughly encouraged by the total failure of the system to prevent such activities even when they knew they were happening.

-Gumboot

[PhantomWolf]

Well the evidence is being leaked to the public (much to the Police and the Lawyers disgust, though for different reasons.) To be blantent, this is scarey stuff. Some people might claim that it's all talk and wasn't ever intended to go anywhere, but I'd say there is no way of knowing, these people were training as if it was real and the things they were saying were downright "disturbing".

Dominion Post Articles (http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominionpost/4272032a6000.html)

[gumboot]

Well the evidence is being leaked to the public (much to the Police and the Lawyers disgust, though for different reasons.) To be blantent, this is scarey stuff. Some people might claim that it's all talk and wasn't ever intended to go anywhere, but I'd say there is no way of knowing, these people were training as if it was real and the things they were saying were downright "disturbing".

Dominion Post Articles (http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominionpost/4272032a6000.html)


I copied all the articles to my computer just in case they're disappeared. :D

I was having a discussion about the matter today at lunch time. I do find the whole "this was only meant to be applied to international terrorism" argument kind of odd. In my way of thinking, the factor that distinguishes terrorism from other crimes - namely that fact that you're using violence to try compel a population or government to follow a certain course - makes domestic terrorism worse than international terrorism.

If Al Qaeda bombed an Auckland shopping mall to try get New Zealand to pull our troops out of Afghanistan, I'd find that nowhere near as severe an attack on our democracy as if a bunch of religious New Zealanders bombed a nightclub frequented by homosexuals to try prevent people supporting a gay marriage act.

International terrorism might be a war crime, but domestic terrorism is a violation of the principles at the very heart of our society. And treason.

-Gumboot

[gumboot]

For anyone who is interested, and following this... despite claims of racism and suppression of Maori, of the sixteen people who have been charged, only six are Maori and only three of them are from Tuhoe - the group kicking up the most fuss.

-Gumboot

[gtc]

I do find the whole "this was only meant to be applied to international terrorism" argument kind of odd.

Indeed. The July 2005 London bombers were British born (at least most of them); the difference between domestic and international is moot.

[mailman]

For anyone who is interested, and following this... despite claims of racism and suppression of Maori, of the sixteen people who have been charged, only six are Maori and only three of them are from Tuhoe - the group kicking up the most fuss.

-Gumboot


Yet Gumboot, this group is still referred to as Maori Activists?

While they may think they are supporting Maori activism...in reality these gimps are chasing after a utopia that will prove to be as successful as the Mahdi in the Sudan!

Mailman

[mailman]

The second film was crap, if you ask me. Actually I don't like either of them. The film's are based on three novels by Alan Duff, and are semi-autobiographical.
The beauty about the last movie is you finally saw Jake the Muss smile at the end, he had found his peace amongst all that violence. This is a theme missed by most people.

Absolutely not. I don't think you understand enough about Maori cultural values, or their history, or the nature of the violence I'm talking about. I also don't think you know much about how Maori were assimilated into western culture (unlike most indigenous cultures, for example, Maori actively sought westernism).Some Maori actively sought integration...until the Governments of the time crapped all over them (thinking of the Maori in the Taranaki that supported the Government during the land wars. Their reward was to have their lands taken from them).

Now, you have hit upon this idea that classic Maori society was the most violent, or at the very least a very violent society. This is a myth created by the Victorians to bolster the perception of the superiority of the British way of life.

In reality Maori were no more violent than any other society of the time. In fact it was impossible for Maori to be violent 12 months of the year because they were an agricultural based community. They had to stop fighting so the crops could be planted and couldnt fight when the crops had to be collected.

Where am I going with this? Well Im just pointing out that those who like to think that those maaaaris were uncivilised vicious stoneage thugs dont actually know anything about Maori, their culture, their society and their abilities in pre-cook New Zealand.

I'm not talking about the "terror training camps". I'm talking about their parliament, their issuing driver's licenses, car registrations, and so forth.Who's Parliament? Its certainly not a Maori Parliament, those morons who carry crap out like this are only representing a very very very small section of Maori society. They are NOT representative of all Maoridom and they most certainly do not speak for Maori themselves.

These guys carry out acts like that for the publicity it generates in a fairly biased Pakeha media. They do rubbish like that to highlight their fight for self determination.

Does that make it right? OF course not because acts like that cause problems for other Maori and only adds to the flames being fanned by rednecks (not that Im calling you one G).

No it's called you not reading my posts properly. You responded as if my two points were both about the same broad group. They were not.Again, if you feel aggrieved...handle the jandle.

Actually I think you'll find the media are heavily sympathetic to Maori views, and more importantly they're heavily anti-Police. The raids have been consistently covered in a very negative light. Now that the Solicitor-General has decided the Terrorism Suppression Act is to "confusing" to lay charges under, I expect that negativity to increase. And glancing at the Herald this morning, it has. Big time.Haha...thats a bit like saying the MSM is sympathetic to Israel :D

The Dominion (who continue to use the word Maoris) is at the forefront of Pakeha slanted reporting.

Which would be why some of the most violent behaviour by Maori occurs in groups that remain in their tribal areas? Please don't lump the colonisation of New Zealand in with every other British colonial stereotype. Our history is very different.Yet the experiences faced by Maori (land confiscation, marginalisation, destruction of language, economic base removal etc) are exactly the same as many other ethnic groups around the world who have also been "colonised".

Your problem is you cant see this. You want to believe that Maori were lucky the English signed a treaty with them (and then failed massively to honour that treaty).

I don't think I ever said anything about any Maori being violent hacks.It is what you are inferring.

Well that says a lot about your ability to think coherently. I don't think I'll bother continuing this discussion.

-GumbootThat is a cowards way out. If you cannot discuss something you started then you shouldn't have bothered to open your waha in the first place.

Mailman

[gumboot]

Yet Gumboot, this group is still referred to as Maori Activists?

Yes, some people refer to them as that. Especially those trying to play the race card. I'm not sure what they consider themselves, collectively.


While they may think they are supporting Maori activism...in reality these gimps are chasing after a utopia that will prove to be as successful as the Mahdi in the Sudan!

I'm not sure what they're chasing or what they're supporting.

-Gumboot

[gumboot]

Now, you have hit upon this idea that classic Maori society was the most violent, or at the very least a very violent society. This is a myth created by the Victorians to bolster the perception of the superiority of the British way of life.

In reality Maori were no more violent than any other society of the time. In fact it was impossible for Maori to be violent 12 months of the year because they were an agricultural based community. They had to stop fighting so the crops could be planted and couldnt fight when the crops had to be collected.


The scale of the New Zealand Wars, comparative with other British Colonial Wars, undermines your claim. Maori were fundamentally a warrior-based society. The Victorian "myth" you talk of was of primitive-ness, not necessarily violence. Have you ever heard the phrase "noble savage"?

Part of the attractiveness of converting the "noble savage" was that he was something of a clean slate, untarnished by a thousand years of European history, which meant upon this blank slate a "perfect" rendition of man could be generated. The arrogance of this position, of course, was that it ignored the rather obvious fact that the "noble savage" was not a blank slate, but had his own well established and unique culture.


Where am I going with this? Well Im just pointing out that those who like to think that those maaaaris were uncivilised vicious stoneage thugs dont actually know anything about Maori, their culture, their society and their abilities in pre-cook New Zealand.

I agree.


Who's Parliament? Its certainly not a Maori Parliament, those morons who carry crap out like this are only representing a very very very small section of Maori society. They are NOT representative of all Maoridom and they most certainly do not speak for Maori themselves.

It's *a* Maori parliament. That doesn't make it the Maori parliament, of course.


Does that make it right? OF course not because acts like that cause problems for other Maori and only adds to the flames being fanned by rednecks (not that Im calling you one G).


Well, you are though, aren't you? You've credited to me a bigoted racist position, which I don't hold. I can't possibly think of any logical reason for doing so, except to use as a veiled attempt to label me a bigoted racist.

I agree that it's not right because it causes problems for the wider Maori community and inter-cultural relations (which, if the snippets we've seen are indication, is the very intention of this latest rag-tag bunch). But in my opinion that's not really all that "bad". Stirring things up and keeping things lively doesn't concern me overly. However establishing a "Maori parliament" (however marginalised), and a "Maori police" (however powerless) is a direct attack on the fundamental ideals upon which our society is based - democracy and the rule of law. That's something that I feel quite strongly about. Not to mention having random people certifying motor vehicles seems somewhat unsafe!


Again, if you feel aggrieved...handle the jandle.

My jandal is well handled. I'm merely correcting your misrepresentation of my posts. :)


Haha...thats a bit like saying the MSM is sympathetic to Israel :D

The Dominion (who continue to use the word Maoris) is at the forefront of Pakeha slanted reporting.


The Dominion Post has always been much more conservative and pro-Government than many other Newspapers. But it's the Herald and TVNZ that have a stronger grasp on the New Zealand public. The TVNZ makes every effort to attack the government, perhaps to compensate for being owned by them (think the BBC), while the Herald's hatred of the police borders on the fanatical.


Yet the experiences faced by Maori (land confiscation, marginalisation, destruction of language, economic base removal etc) are exactly the same as many other ethnic groups around the world who have also been "colonised".

Yes and no. In many ways Maori, and Maori culture, was treated very differently. They weren't systematically wiped out, for starters.


Your problem is you cant see this. You want to believe that Maori were lucky the English signed a treaty with them (and then failed massively to honour that treaty).

Please don't assume to know what I do and don't want to believe. You're way off base.


It is what you are inferring.

No, it's what you're claiming I'm inferring. You've made a number of very fundamentally flawed assumptions about my stance, based (I suspect) on previous opinions you've encountered, and your own views.
1) You're assuming having violence as an integral part of one's culture is inherently a bad thing
2) You're conflating violence with lawlessness and crudeness
3) You're assuming violent culture = violent action
4) You're conflating culture with biological make up

Ironically, these mistakes are classic Eurocentric positions.


That is a cowards way out. If you cannot discuss something you started then you shouldn't have bothered to open your waha in the first place.

Explain to me why I should continue to use up my valuable time discussing a topic with someone who:
-Said I am scum (or more accurately, no better than scum)
-Compared me to a Nazi war criminal and mass murderer
-Said I [rule8] you off
-Said (and inferred repeatedly) I am ignorant
-Claimed my opinions are based solely negative experiences with Maori
-Suggested I believe ever Maori is a rapist or criminal or wife beater
-Claimed I had decided the people arrested in the police raids were guilty, without having been tried
-Claimed I was advocating a police state
-Accused me of stereotyping
-Claimed I was trying to make every Maori look like a violent hack
-Claimed I was saying you were more predisposed to violence than your Caucasian friends
-Claimed my views were similar to people who believe 9/11 was carried out by Jews
-Claimed I want to believe Maori were lucky the British signed a treaty with them
-Suggested I was a coward

Now, given all of the above positions against me you have stated, all of which are categorically false, I honestly cannot see any productive point in continuing the discussion with you. It would seem to me at least that it would be better if we just agreed to disagree, and I'll keep the opinion I have, while you keep thinking I have the opinion you think I have.

:)

-Gumboot

[sackett]

I wouldn’t barge in here if this wasn’t a New Zealand thread. NZ is my other native country (let me know if you want an unsatisfactory explanation of that), and what happens there matters to me.

Gumboot, in a reply to Mailman you listed some assumptions that you called Eurocentric, which is nowadays supposed to condemn a viewpoint out of hand. I don’t know that these assumptions really are specifically Eurocentric, and I’m pretty sure that they aren’t all of them unsound. Mailman can take care of himself (although I think he’s been hasty with you to the point of unfairness), but I want to shoehorn in my own responses:

You're assuming having violence as an integral part of one's culture is inherently a bad thing.

Yes, and it’s more than an assumption. I conclude that violence is inherently bad in and for any society. I come to that conclusion after studying and, sadly, witnessing human history.

You're conflating violence with lawlessness and crudeness.

I think that as violence increases, so does lawlessness. After a point, might will appear to make right if you wield enough of it, and then law and decency are flung down and danced upon. Crudeness I can’t judge, in part because I come from a pretty crude stratum of society.

You're assuming violent culture = violent action.

Erm, how is a culture violent if it doesn’t actually commit violent acts?

You're conflating culture with biological make up.

Now there we have a genuine error, one that no thinking person would commit. Few people do anymore.

As long as my barge is in these waters, I’ll opine that you’d be hard-put to find cultures anywhere that don’t include violence – certainly not in Polynesia!

And I think we can include subsets of larger societies in our definition of “cultures.” I can’t speak much to the topic of the old-time Maori; they’re long gone in any case, not by extermination but by changes in Maori ways of life. But marginalized proletarians? Hey, you’re listening to one. The problems plaguing the Maori today sound sooooo familiar: drink, drugs, despair, truculence, a readiness to settle things (settle things! hah!) by violence, a defiant rejection of the wider society, and so on, depressingly. I don’t think we need to look back to Neolithic New Zealand to search for the causes of these symptoms.

For the little that it’s worth, I saw Once Were Warriors. (I’ll consume anything New Zealandish.). It didn’t seem especially exotic to me; there’s nothing uniquely Maori about beer-sodden unemployment and its corrosive effects on people. The story could have been set just about anywhere. How about Big Horn, Wyoming?

To end on a lighter note, here’s a small anecdote from just-barely-post-Cook New Zealand: Captain Cook caught a Maori stealing from his ship. He had the fellow trussed to a grating and flogged. There was some apprehension among members of the expedition that the other Maoris might take that the wrong way. But the Maoris just shrugged and said, “Well, that’s what we do to thieves.”

[gumboot]

Gumboot, in a reply to Mailman you listed some assumptions that you called Eurocentric, which is nowadays supposed to condemn a viewpoint out of hand. I don’t know that these assumptions really are specifically Eurocentric, and I’m pretty sure that they aren’t all of them unsound. Mailman can take care of himself (although I think he’s been hasty with you to the point of unfairness), but I want to shoehorn in my own responses:


Fair enough. "Eurocentric" wasn't the best descriptor, and not really what I was going for. What I was aiming for was pointing out that these particular positions are classic elements of modern western liberal thinking. I found that kind of ironic, because we talking about the arrogance of applying "the white man's gaze" to a situation, and yet that's precisely what he did to me.


Yes, and it’s more than an assumption. I conclude that violence is inherently bad in and for any society. I come to that conclusion after studying and, sadly, witnessing human history.

And yet that's a very modern liberal western opinion. Indeed, throughout most of history, violence has not had an automatic negative stigma attached to it. Even in western society, the automatic negative stigma attached to violence is a very new thing.

I'll agree that I think violence is inherently bad too, but I'm honest enough to acknowledge that a big part of my position is a result of the fact I was raised in a modern liberal western society.


I think that as violence increases, so does lawlessness. After a point, might will appear to make right if you wield enough of it, and then law and decency are flung down and danced upon. Crudeness I can’t judge, in part because I come from a pretty crude stratum of society.

Perhaps if you allow only for the western understanding of "law" you have a point. But for many cultures throughout history, violence has had an integral part in law. Indeed, even in our modern societies, which recoil from violence, we are more accepting of the law using violence than others.

I certainly don't think violence and crudeness are inherently linked. Through the centuries many people have dedicated themselves to the highly sophisticated application of violence. Indeed these particular developments have resulted in some of the most significant advances in our civilisation.


You're assuming violent culture = violent action.
Erm, how is a culture violent if it doesn’t actually commit violent acts?


Inherent violence in a culture can exist as an attitude, a philosophy, and basic value. That doesn't automatically mean any individual in the culture will carry out violent acts. Violent physical action is only one manifestation of cultural violence, and criminal violent physical action is a small subset of that.

Consider sport. Sport originated as a training tool and peace time alternative for warfare. Many, many sports are very violent, from the obvious example of ritualised combat between adversaries (boxing, martial arts, wrestling, etc) to sports that involve the striking of inanimate objects (anything from shooting to golf). All of these are forms of violence.



Now there we have a genuine error, one that no thinking person would commit. Few people do anymore.


It's the error that frustrated me the most, because the slurs of racism and reference to both Nazism and Anti-Semitism hinge on an attack against race, which I never made.

I understand the mistake. I think it's a common one. Probably primarily because normally such opinions such as I expressed are a veiled attempt to attach a biological "taint" to a group of people. I'm used to such responses on all sorts of topics, because I often find my opinions fall in the gap between the standard camps (I find it seems to happen a lot when talking to Americans, who seem to be much more polarised on many issues).

I created a thread in the medical forums about the topic of conditioning to kill, and spent much of my time trying to remind people that I was making a clear distinction between factors that enable killing and factors that actually cause someone to kill.


As long as my barge is in these waters, I’ll opine that you’d be hard-put to find cultures anywhere that don’t include violence – certainly not in Polynesia!

Absolutely. This was actually a point I was going to raise.

Polynesian groups have some similarities with the traditional Arabs of the middle east, and a distinct feature of both these groups is the important place violence has in their culture.

In many ways these two particular groups had similar problems which might have caused it. Both groups were in a "desert" of sorts - the Arabs being the deserts of the Middle East and the Polynesians being the wilderness of the Pacific Ocean. Natural resources (islands in the Pacific, sources of water in the Middle East) were scarce. Once a community became too large for the resource supporting them, conflict would naturally arise (as it always does when communities get low on resources) and the stronger group would retain the resource while the weaker one was driven into the wilderness to try find another resource.

This process occured in both Arab and Polynesian history, perhaps moreso than any other substantial human population groups, and it's obvious why in such a harsh unforgiving environment as the middle east deserts or Pacific Ocean, the effective and controlled use of violence became not just a valued feature, but vital for survival.


It didn’t seem especially exotic to me; there’s nothing uniquely Maori about beer-sodden unemployment and its corrosive effects on people. The story could have been set just about anywhere. How about Big Horn, Wyoming?

To a degree, yes. But there's a deeper complexity to the story, which revolves around the role of the Warrior in Maori society. While the domestic violence, crime, drugs, and so forth could be lifted and dropped in just about any low socio-economic group on the planet, the disenfranchisement that came from no longer being warriors, not longer having the mana associated with the Maori warrior culture, is something a little less widespread.

In addition, a vital element, I think, is not the film itself, but how it was received by the Maori community. Specifically by the group it was critiquing - young Maori males. "Jake the Muss" was received as a hero. For many young male Maori he still is the archetypal role model. I'm not talking only the very few radicalised Maori in activist communities.


To end on a lighter note, here’s a small anecdote from just-barely-post-Cook New Zealand: Captain Cook caught a Maori stealing from his ship. He had the fellow trussed to a grating and flogged. There was some apprehension among members of the expedition that the other Maoris might take that the wrong way. But the Maoris just shrugged and said, “Well, that’s what we do to thieves.”

I think in many ways the presence of violence as an integral part of your society is a good thing. For us violence is such an abhorred thing that we can't manage it, and when it does arise it becomes exceedingly emotional, and rapidly escalates.

In Maori society violence was carefully regulated with concepts such as Utu.

One particular feature I've always found compelling was the ritualistic combat. Towards the end of summer the oldest warriors of a tribe would challenge their enemy soldiers to a fight. Ancient as they were, they knew during the winter they would only burden their people, and possibly die an ignoble death.

The young warriors of their enemy, for their part, would compete frantically for the honour of killing the ancient warrior. Though an easy kill for any of them, who ever slew him would absorb his mana.

In turn, the intensity with which the young warriors tried to earn the right to fight the old warrior reaffirmed the power and mana of the ancient man, in in doing so reaffirmed the mana of his entire people. In addition, rather than a miserable honour-less death in the cold, he would receive death in battle, as a warrior, assuring his high standing amongst his Tangata Whenua (ancestors).

That, to me, is an excellent example of how violence, as an inherent feature in their society, was not in the least bit crude or lawless. And while the modern liberal person in me might find the practise fundamentally wrong, at the same time another part of me admires it, within the context of its time.

-Gumboot

[sackett]

Thank you for a civilised post, Gumboot. Needless, to say, I have objections to ~99% of it -- but this is JREF Land, so of course I must argue. (I can't get the +%^&* multi-quote to work, so I'll have to respond without it.)

Just a few kiwis have raised the tone of this thread far above the norm for Conspiracy Theories. Maybe the mods should move it to the Civilised Discourse room? Of course there is one; of course there is.

[sackett]

I have to reply unsystematically, because I’m obliged to compose offline.

Seems to me you’re turning violence into a concept rather than a behavior. Well, that’s what civilised western liberal intellectuals do. (I was =not= raised in that tradition, but I’ve observed it from within for some years, so I can speak of it in my let’s-play-at-anthropology mode.)

As for Maori ritualized fights: Savages always have an explanation for their savagery. Also, you and I know that formalized (if still lethal) violence is not what we’re talking about. A fist or blunt object to the face, a kick in the belly, or combinations and variations on those: that’s violence in its simplest and commonest form. Soccer and – golf? did you really cite golf? – are not violence.

Competition for resources can sometimes explain war between groups, but what are we to say of New World societies? Most of pre-Columbian North America was far from your “harsh unforgiving environment.” The Eastern Woodland Indians lived in a bountiful wilderness, helped out with agriculture, and yet they lived in a state of chronic, pointless warfare of a barbarous nature that I don’t intend to describe. Competition for much of anything tangible can’t explain it, especially after European diseases had relieved the land of much of its population; the environment of the east was certainly not at carrying capacity.

And in the Plains? Bounty beyond any measuring! The conventional belief is that the buffalo herds stretched literally to the horizon; and so they did, but people forget to visualize additional herds of elk, deer, and antelope. Even before the horse, the Plains and other western tribes could feed and clothe themselves everywhere they went. And everywhere they went, they were at war. It would seem like pretty small-potatoes war compared even to Maori shindigs, but these were not settled agricultural peoples, and their numbers were small. And still they must raid and counter-raid, count coup and scalp, kill and kill.

And in the Pacific Northwest, surely the most bountiful environment hunting people have ever enjoyed? War and raiding again, all of it quite pointless from any material standpoint.

Did the North American peoples have domestic violence? Yes, they did. They have more of it now, I suspect, certainly among the most poverty-stricken and dead-end tribes. But I don’t think it’s because they miss horse-stealing and scalp-raiding.

You and I both tend to romanticize the first peoples of our respective lands. (“First Peoples” is a useful Canadian term; I like it.) That’s easier to do once the savages have been tamed, and the blunt reality of savage life is safely in the past.

Nowadays here in the western liberaloid world we hear a lot of guff about “warriors.” (Heck, you even capitalized the word at one point.) Guys (never gals) seem to think that it’s a fine thing to be a Warrior, to be some kind of half- or undisciplined brute who’s free to kill ad libidum, and take pride in it. Pride! And yet, no society is or can be based on warriors, not even predatory people like the old-time Commanches. It’s hunters, gardeners, farmers, workers who found and maintain a society: productive, not destructive people.

For my part, I’ve grown estranged from the Noble Savages. Partly because I grew up in the American West, only a generation from the honest-to-jesus frontier (among Plains Indians some of the time), and partly because I’ve learned too many uncomfortable historical facts, I no longer like savagery. I’ve come to appreciate civilized ways of settling things: slander, backbiting, intrigue, hard bargaining, unfair competition – and, rarely, talking and reasoning.

So do the majority of Maori, I’m sure. If that makes them modern western liberals, then good for them. A generation of young jackanapes who actually found a hero in that fictionalized drunken movie bully (played by a TV star) must have grown up by now. What do they think today?

[gumboot]

As for Maori ritualized fights: Savages always have an explanation for their savagery. Also, you and I know that formalized (if still lethal) violence is not what we’re talking about. A fist or blunt object to the face, a kick in the belly, or combinations and variations on those: that’s violence in its simplest and commonest form. Soccer and – golf? did you really cite golf? – are not violence.

I'm sorry, but I don't agree with you at all.

Sports involving the throwing or hitting of objects (cricket, baseball, golf, football, anything) have been an accepted outlet for violent aggression for as long as they have existed. That is, after all, the role that sport actually plays in society.

You've narrow violence to an incredibly small range. I can't agree with such a limited definition.


Competition for resources can sometimes explain war between groups, but what are we to say of New World societies?


Thank you for your comments on that. I'd be interested to look into the New World people's a little more closely. In my experience war is always about conflict over resources, ultimately.


Did the North American peoples have domestic violence? Yes, they did. They have more of it now, I suspect, certainly among the most poverty-stricken and dead-end tribes. But I don’t think it’s because they miss horse-stealing and scalp-raiding.

Domestic violence is something of a red herring. The "violence" topic came about because someone expressed surprise that radical Maori would ever consider resorting to violence. I offered that violence is a key part of their culture, and as such I'm not at all surprised that eventually a few of them considered violence for their political objectives.


You and I both tend to romanticize the first peoples of our respective lands. (“First Peoples” is a useful Canadian term; I like it.) That’s easier to do once the savages have been tamed, and the blunt reality of savage life is safely in the past.

Nowadays here in the western liberaloid world we hear a lot of guff about “warriors.” (Heck, you even capitalized the word at one point.) Guys (never gals) seem to think that it’s a fine thing to be a Warrior, to be some kind of half- or undisciplined brute who’s free to kill ad libidum, and take pride in it. Pride! And yet, no society is or can be based on warriors, not even predatory people like the old-time Commanches. It’s hunters, gardeners, farmers, workers who found and maintain a society: productive, not destructive people.

In looking at the place of violence in their culture, I was considering more what they valued, than what my modern western gaze considers was productive. The reality is the warrior held the most mana.


For my part, I’ve grown estranged from the Noble Savages. Partly because I grew up in the American West, only a generation from the honest-to-jesus frontier (among Plains Indians some of the time), and partly because I’ve learned too many uncomfortable historical facts, I no longer like savagery. I’ve come to appreciate civilized ways of settling things: slander, backbiting, intrigue, hard bargaining, unfair competition – and, rarely, talking and reasoning.

Ha!


So do the majority of Maori, I’m sure. If that makes them modern western liberals, then good for them. A generation of young jackanapes who actually found a hero in that fictionalized drunken movie bully (played by a TV star) must have grown up by now. What do they think today?

I was talking about what they think today.

My sister teaches in a decile 1 school in South Auckland (decile 1 means the school is in the lowest socio-economic grade, and South Auckland has the world's largest Maori/Polynesian population). Teaching the "Keeping Our Selves Safe" programme was, well, eye opening to say the least. These kids grow up in a different world to what I grew up in, and violence is an intrinsic part of that world. And it's not just a case of being victims of abuse - their entire world view is drastically different. And remember - these aren't kids growing up in radical Maori families where their families are talking about overthrowing the government. These are just normal every day families.

Conversations with parents are interesting too...

You need to beat him.
I'm sorry, we can't hit the children.
No, it's okay. It's all he understands is beating. Just beat him and he will behave.
It's against the law for me to do that.
Okay. Well then when he is naughty send a note home with him and I will beat him.

This is a common conversation. And these are not cruel or malicious people. They're extremely friendly welcoming people, who love their families (including their children) very dearly. This is just how they have always done things. It's not about alcohol or losing tribal lands or having to wear white man's clothes. It's about a cultural divide that no one is willing to address because it's not PC.

-Gumboot

[sackett]

As for defining violence, I can see a reason for using the word broadly in some contexts, but not in this one. When I mentioned fists and kicks and blunt instruments, I was not employing metaphor. Metaphors are laughable in a biker bar on payday night. (I really love those tatooed Toa Ao Te Aroa uglies in Once Were Warwhoops. Bikers without bikes! Hilarious!)

About transferred violence: Are horeshoes violent? Quoits? Frisbee? Those all involve throwing. I'm Member No. 69 in the American Knife Throwers Alliance. Am I violent because of that? Why not?

You said, "decile 1 means the school is in the lowest socio-economic grade." Aha! Low-class, no-class poverty, is it? Urban proles, living in junk? IOW, a despairing neighborhood? You'll pardon a Detroiter for seeing a different pattern than you do. You can see the same thing in Springfield, Massacusetts, and not a Maori or Tongan in sight. Those Maori parents would fit right into 1950's Wyoming. Or do I mean 2007 Wyoming? Hope not.

Mana, if I recall my long-ago reading at all, accrues to more than just successful murdering. A good carver, a good fisherman, a man who could throw a feast, a singer of note, all had mana. Sure, a barbarous people paid respect to a warrior and imagined that he had a lot of mana. When his enemies cooked and ate him, they hoped he did too.

One thing we agree on: These matters must be discussed, and the politically correct can put it where the monkey put the nut.

[gumboot]

As for defining violence, I can see a reason for using the word broadly in some contexts, but not in this one. When I mentioned fists and kicks and blunt instruments, I was not employing metaphor. Metaphors are laughable in a biker bar on payday night. (I really love those tatooed Toa Ao Te Aroa uglies in Once Were Warwhoops. Bikers without bikes! Hilarious!)

About transferred violence: Are horeshoes violent? Quoits? Frisbee? Those all involve throwing. I'm Member No. 69 in the American Knife Throwers Alliance. Am I violent because of that? Why not?


Yes, when you're throwing the knives you're being violent. Honestly I don't understand your first paragraph.


You said, "decile 1 means the school is in the lowest socio-economic grade." Aha! Low-class, no-class poverty, is it? Urban proles, living in junk? IOW, a despairing neighborhood? You'll pardon a Detroiter for seeing a different pattern than you do.

With all due respect, no.


You can see the same thing in Springfield, Massacusetts, and not a Maori or Tongan in sight. Those Maori parents would fit right into 1950's Wyoming.

I really don't think they would. And I seriously doubt you can see the same thing.


Mana, if I recall my long-ago reading at all, accrues to more than just successful murdering. A good carver, a good fisherman, a man who could throw a feast, a singer of note, all had mana.

Everyone has mana. The question is "how much"? Of course Maori warriors were also carvers, fishermen, and singers, farmers, and so forth.


Sure, a barbarous people paid respect to a warrior and imagined that he had a lot of mana. When his enemies cooked and ate him, they hoped he did too.

Indeed.


One thing we agree on: These matters must be discussed, and the politically correct can put it where the monkey put the nut.

Ha!

-Gumboot

[sackett]

Yay! I'm a violent man after all! Can I be a warrior too?

I'm glad that the Maori you and your pakeha friends know are "extremely friendly, welcoming people." I think that means that they've assimilated New Zealand culture, a pleasant, generous way of life that I admire, and appreciate when I'm down there. I don't think the old-time Maori were as as easygoing with strangers. (They didn't like British sailors; they tasted of tobacco.)

So: Beating children is a modern Maori cultural norm? Okay. And I deplore that; it's not a universal human practice, and probably never was. Tolerance for it within Western society has declined in my lifetime, even down at my rural-proletarian level, and I see good results from it. We're right to outlaw roughing-up, flogging, slapping, and punching-out in the public schools. 'Twas not always so, and my generation stands ready to testify to that.

In short, perhaps Western liberal society has learned a thing or two. I'll bet that the Maori will learn it also.

I hope they don't believe in mana anymore. That really would be depressing.

[gumboot]

I'm glad that the Maori you and your pakeha friends know are "extremely friendly, welcoming people." I think that means that they've assimilated New Zealand culture, a pleasant, generous way of life that I admire, and appreciate when I'm down there. I don't think the old-time Maori were as as easygoing with strangers. (They didn't like British sailors; they tasted of tobacco.)


The Maori myself and my Caucasian friends know are as friendly as the Maori and pacific islanders that James Cook had such a good relationship with, and that Banks wrote of with such admiration.

Maori cannibalism was strictly ceremonial - limited to the eating of important enemy warriors. All through the Pacific cannibalism occurred as a matter of respect - for example natives of New Guinea express horror that us white people bury our dead relatives without first doing them the honour of consuming them.

The killing and eating of humans for nutritional purposes is something that only occurs during widespread turmoil and mass starvation - such as happened on Easter and Pitcairn Island, or to the Asazani in New Mexico.


So: Beating children is a modern Maori cultural norm? Okay. And I deplore that; it's not a universal human practice, and probably never was.

Nonsense. Using physical force to punish children has been standard practice in virtually every single human society for thousands upon thousands of years. It's only in the last couple of decades that humans got this notion that all their ancestors were wrong.



Tolerance for it within Western society has declined in my lifetime, even down at my rural-proletarian level, and I see good results from it.

Yes, society is far less unruly, violent, and uncontrolled these days, thank god. Oh wait.


I hope they don't believe in mana anymore. That really would be depressing.

Why? We believe in mana in the west.

-Gumboot

[sackett]

As long as we're wildly derailing:

I don't think Pacific Basin cannibalism is all of a piece. Some Papuans eat their dead, others don't. (But generalizing about New Guinea is little more useful than generalizing about the Northern Hemisphere, so pace.) I fear that the old-time Fijians were capable of what you'd have to call gourmet cannibalism: they liked long pig, and they weren't too fussily ritualistic about it. Respect? No, not really. Capt. Cook himself wound up in the tummies of certain Hawaiian kahunas; I guess they concluded that he wasn't really Lono. And Mr. Banks said of the Maori of his eponymous penninsula that "they appear to live on fish, dogs, and innimies." (Not that you didn't know that.)

As for the practice of whipping children "for thousands and thousands of years," well, I can't respond; I wasn't around that long ago. But I will maintain that thrashing the kiddies is not a universal human custom. Shaming is or was a substitute among some New World cultures, and M. Mead herself (she wasn't always a gullible or careless observer) somewhere describes a Melanesian society that practiced a remarkable mode of child-rearing: adults let kids run wild and spoiled them outrageously. According to her, the little monsters grew up to be notably generous, easy-going adults. Sorry I can't offer a source; my reading is only desultory.

I'll also maintain that too many adults pass the chastisments of their childhood on to their own children: the spanked child grows up to be a spanking parent. Christ, I wish it was only spanking that went on.

Of course, I'm sorry to hear that New Zealand is not the land of peace and law that I had supposed, and that the Caucasian reluctance to whale on small children is the cause of it. Perhaps the Caucasian lower classes cling to the good old ways; betcha they do.

No, Gumboot, we in the West don't believe in mana. We may use the term facetiously or as a kind of shorthand, the way I use "medicine" when speaking of impressive things large and small. But we don't have anything approaching the Polynesian belief in some sort of power to be acquired by such grossly materialistic means as eating an enemy or sacrificing a heap of kumara to some carven idol or other. We really don't.

Knife throwing isn't violent, either, unless you're tormented by the question, "Why must wooden planks suffer?"

[gumboot]

Respect? No, not really. Capt. Cook himself wound up in the tummies of certain Hawaiian kahunas; I guess they concluded that he wasn't really Lono.


The hypothesis that Cook was going to be consumed is debatable. However what the evidence strongly suggests is that his body was retained by the chiefs, due to the great respect that was given him.


And Mr. Banks said of the Maori of his eponymous penninsula that "they appear to live on fish, dogs, and innimies." (Not that you didn't know that.)

I doubt he did, as there were no major permanent Maori settlements in the South Island of New Zealand prior to European arrival. If you've read Bank's account of New Zealand you'll recognise the admiration he had for the Maori. His assumptions of them living off dog are based on mistaking the highly prized Kiwi cloaks as being made of dog fur, as this was the only mammal he saw. Of course he didn't ever see a kiwi otherwise he no doubt would have recognised it immediately as the source of the fine long cloaks.



As for the practice of whipping children "for thousands and thousands of years," well, I can't respond; I wasn't around that long ago. But I will maintain that thrashing the kiddies is not a universal human custom. Shaming is or was a substitute among some New World cultures, and M. Mead herself (she wasn't always a gullible or careless observer) somewhere describes a Melanesian society that practiced a remarkable mode of child-rearing: adults let kids run wild and spoiled them outrageously. According to her, the little monsters grew up to be notably generous, easy-going adults. Sorry I can't offer a source; my reading is only desultory.


No doubt there are objections to the rule, but throughout human history physical discipline has always been the norm. Certainly "thrashing" and "whipping" probably wasn't as widespread as physical discipline in a general sense.


I'll also maintain that too many adults pass the chastisments of their childhood on to their own children: the spanked child grows up to be a spanking parent.

Obviously. We only have the experience of being raised by our parents to go on. If we had the open communal societies that we evolved to live in, perhaps this wouldn't happen, because we'd see dozens of examples of parenting from which to pick and choose those traits we felt worked best.



Of course, I'm sorry to hear that New Zealand is not the land of peace and law that I had supposed, and that the Caucasian reluctance to whale on small children is the cause of it.

I wasn't talking about New Zealand. New Zealand's violent crime rates are significantly below those of Canada, the US, Australia, or UK.


No, Gumboot, we in the West don't believe in mana. We may use the term facetiously or as a kind of shorthand, the way I use "medicine" when speaking of impressive things large and small. But we don't have anything approaching the Polynesian belief in some sort of power to be acquired by such grossly materialistic means as eating an enemy or sacrificing a heap of kumara to some carven idol or other. We really don't.

You obviously don't understand mana. Mana was a level of respect that was held for a person, based on their life deeds. We arguably practice this more than any other human society in history. Sport stars, movie stars, people with impressive qualifications, writers, filmmakers, military officers, judges... the list goes on and on. We've taken "mana" far beyond what any humble Maori chief ever could have dreamed of.


Knife throwing isn't violent, either, unless you're tormented by the question, "Why must wooden planks suffer?"

Violence isn't about injury, it's about action. I can slam a car door violently, or punch someone violently, or even write violently, if I feel the urge. I can also do all of those three things in a non violent way.

-Gumboot

[sackett]

Aw heck, you're defining all the fun out of mana, and out of violence.

Fact is, we're not really arugiing about much. Way back there in the OP, we had a news story about some besotted yobs who were, apparently, plotting what you accurately called treason. Their Maori identity of lack of it is beside the point.

Brawling is not treason; I don't think it leads to treason. I expect rambunctious behavior from the lower classes. Poverty, ignorance, despair, and alcohol can account for it perfectly well. I think that we don't need to look farther back than one generation, maybe two, to find the causes of violence down there at the bottom of any society.

If the lowermost classes in NZ are top-heavy with Maori and other Polynesians, I'm not surprised. Neolithic cultures are certain to have a hard time of it when they encounter technologically advanced cultures. I'm sure we agree, of course, that the hard times have gone on too long.

New Zealand as a nation displays an almost exaggerated respect for Maori culture and at least some Maori folkways; a bad conscience may lie behind that, but it doesn't do you any discredit, rather the contrary.

But respect for lower-class crudeness (there! I finally came to that word!), destructiveness, and futility? No! Don't be fooled into that. Here's one crude lower-class American who warns you earnestly against it.