Kiwi Comments About John Key’s Rewriting of New Zealand’s Turbulent Past – The Lies White People Tell.
— Helen Kelly (@helenkellyCTU) November 20, 2014
For background read
Students who sat NCEA level 3 history exams last week might be very worried to hear the Prime Minister tell a Radio Station that New Zealand was one of the few countries that was settled peacefully by Europeans.
Those students who wrote about a bloody and violent settlement of Aotearoa in their NCEA exam; who wrote about the deaths of thousands of Maori and hundreds of Pakeha in land wars, about the wrongful confiscation of millions of acres of land, must think they’d got itall terribly wrong if the PM says New Zealand was settled peacefully.
But teachers we’ve spoken with today can put their minds at rest.
The Prime Minister, in fact, was the one who would have failed last week’s NCEA level 3 history exam had he written about the peaceful and rosy settlement of New Zealand.
History teachers have told us that students of New Zealand history are taught a very different version of events; of a very unpeaceful process, one where Maori who fought against the Crown as it sought to obtain more land for settlers were punished with the confiscation of their land or even by death.
Kids who learn about New Zealand history are taught, in fact, that the direct source of the land wars in the 1860s was a misundertanding of the Treaty – a misunderstanding that led to horrible bloodshed and laws, such as the New Zealand Settlement Act 1865, which legislated for the confiscation of Maori land for use by settlers.
To call that a peaceful settlement is an example of the same kind of staggering arrogance as displayed by Australian Prime Minster Tony Abbott when he said last week that there was nothing but bush in Australia before the white men came along.
But John Key didn’t finish there. He said early Maori would have been grateful for the injection of capital Pakeha brought with them when they settled in Aotearoa.
Maori would have been grateful.
For the capital.
The Prime Minister’s warped view of history is an insult to all New Zealanders, especially to those who died trying to protect their land, and to Maori who are still fighting for the full settlement of past grievances today.
It is a perspective that is belies history, but is also damaging to race relations and undermining decades of efforts, including even by his own Government, to address some of the historic wrongs.
In reality, if John Key wanted to pass NCEA level 3 history he’d have needed to produce an essay much like this one.
Why all the fuss about adopting a ‘new’ flag for New Zealand when there’s already a perfectly acceptable existing flag that serves as a good alternative to the present Union Flag/Southern Cross mash-up?
The Maori flag is there NZ, use it. Don’t fix what ain’t broken with Key’s referendum , just add the S’ Cross and bob’s your uncle.
Or is the Maori culture and heritage of New Zealand something that is trotted out just for World Cup rugby fixtures…
and State visits, and then conveniently forgotten about when the world isn’t looking?
Time for some real commitment, NZ…Silver Fern <cough>. Really? Don’t you think that’s just a tad ‘white’?
Looks like Hobbit fatigue and cashing-in on a captive market has finally caught up with the land where fantasy has officially become reality (ed. maybe that should be fantasy prices have become reality?)
If you’re looking for a holiday that won’t break the bank this year, then plan an Eat, Pray, Love escape to Bali, but avoid high prices and Hobbits in New Zealand.
The latest holiday money report from the Post Office reveals that the Indonesian island is the best destination when it comes to value for money, with Portugal’s Algarve taking second place, to be crowned the cheapest holiday spot in Europe…
The PO’s report showed that Auckland, New Zealand was the most expensive holiday destination.
The ‘basket’ of holiday items costs as little as £31.48 in Bali, but soars to a budget-busting £115.06 in Auckland, New Zealand – the most expensive destination surveyed.
After Bali, the Portuguese Algarve (£35 for the items) and Prague in the Czech Republic (£37) were the cheapest locations followed by Gambia (£38), Bulgaria (£38) and Spain’s Costa del Sol (£39)...” more here
Given the high prices that New Zealand is charging it is somewhat surprising that it aligns itself so closely with the budget tourism markets the Hobbit films attract. Even to the point of painting its state-owned airliners to look like Tolkien characters.
Looks like people are paying champagne prices for alcohol-free beer?
Ironically, a few months ago tourism minister and PM John Key had the audacity to complain that New Zealand was getting poor, low quality tourists
Maybe if he stopped primping the country to Hollywood movie companies he’d get them.
Within hours of being named Favourite Country at the UK Telegraph readers’ Travel Awards, New Zealand has the audacity to complain that its not getting the right sort of tourists and the ones they do get are being cheapskates.
Although visitor numbers were up last year their spend went down.
John Key, Prime Minister and Minister of Tourism, says he wants richer tourists and wants them to spend more (!).
Reading between the lines it looks like New Zealand is attracting more of the budget backpacker and student market, and less of the high rollers with fat wallets.
From the NZ Herald:
New Zealand needs tourists who spend more money, rather than just more people through the airport gates, Prime Minister John Key says.
A new report on the industry shows despite more visitors coming to New Zealand, they’re staying for fewer days and spending less money. That’s partly because a large proportion of the growth in visitor numbers had been an increase in low-spending Australians.
Mr Key said the Government intended to spend half a billion dollars in the next four years on tourism promotion, including an additional $158 million announced in this year’s Budget.
Spending would be focused on key areas, including new markets and high net-worth individuals.
“Essentially see if we can lift the number of people coming and the quality of tourist that comes to New Zealand,” Mr Key said.
“Part of what we’re trying to do is make sure we don’t just get more people coming through the airport and coming to New Zealand for a couple of days …the reality is we want them to come here, spend money, and have a quality experience…”
Mr Key would do well to remember its those low spending, low quality tourists that win New Zealand those first-place-tourism-destination accolades.
Or do they? Surely those votes aren’t purchased (or engineered through social media getting Kiwis abroad to vote) just to improve the country’s profile abroad? Now, that would be ridiculous.
Conde Nast (a travel company that caters for the more upmarket tourist) has a very different list. It places New Zealand 7th – behind Australia, Spain and the USA. Italy tops its favourite country list for a second year in a row.
We think this goes to show how subjective these awards are, we advise people to use common sense when appraising them.
Conde Nast’s 2013 Travel Awards list may be found here: http://www.cntraveller.com/awards/readers-travel-awards/readers-travel-awards-2013/best-holiday-destinations
You may also like
Kudos to the government initiative that will ban gang insignia from all state premises.
This means the gang patch ban will extend to all schools and will take some of the stress off staff who fear reprisals. It also removes the pressure from impressionable kids, it begins to marginalise gang membership in a country where it has become the norm.
The announcement was discussed in this article in stuff.co.nz.
Note how some schools already chose house colours with great care so as to prevent gang affiliations from being glamorised any more than they already are.
Naenae College principal John Russell said gang members associated with the school already had enough respect to keep their patches and colours at bay.
Bandanas, house colours and uniforms associated with red and blue were stripped from the school years ago, he said.
“Frankly we’re careful about how we choose colours for houses and uniforms.
“They’re purple, yellow, green and orange for a reason.”
Over the years there have been violent retributions against kids who wore the ‘wrong’ colour off their home turf – usually red, blue or black. Then there was the dog walker who was threatened for having the wrong colour (red) lead.
From an editorial in the Taranaki Daily News:
The colour of stupidity
Some weeks ago, further north, a young boy was assaulted. The reason for his punishment? He was wearing the wrong coloured shirt, its red deemed offensive to gang members who live, die, rape and steal for the blue…
Even places like New Plymouth, it would seem, are not immune from gang violence
It seemed like the kind of disgusting and stupid crime that would occur elsewhere, and certainly not on New Plymouth’s largely gang-free streets. But even here, people are being intimidated and killed simply because they choose to wear the wrong colour.
A man innocently walking his dog is lambasted and accosted by a drunk Black Power associate because the animal’s leash is red, the colour of rival gang the Mongrel Mob. That follows the killing of Peri Niwa, who was not a gang member but had the misfortune to work for a team of scaffolders run by an out-of-town Mongrel Mob member.” read the rest here
New Zealand is a rainbow nation for all of the wrong reasons.
- Maori hardest hit by gang patch laws – Workman (radionz.co.nz)
- Man shot dead in Mongrel Mob stoush (stuff.co.nz)
- Mongrel Mob arrests not a ‘major victory’ (stuff.co.nz)
- Gang patch ban to hit schools (stuff.co.nz)
- Mongrel Mob targeted in police raids (nzherald.co.nz)
- Law change to stamp out gang insignia (nzherald.co.nz)
“Huge rise in child abduction cases” screams the headline in today’s New Zealand Herald, sure to invoke images of children being dragged from the streets by persons unknown. But read the article and you’ll learn that these abductions are mostly parents taking their children out of the country without the consent of the other parent.
The Herald tells its readers the 54% jump in child abduction cases since 2007 is because parents are being refused legal aid to go before the courts and obtain permission to take their offspring out of New Zealand legally. What it doesn’t tell you is that many of those children are migrants to New Zealand – they hold foreign passports or were born outside of the country. Also, the rise in “abductions” corresponds with a rise in the overall numbers of people leaving New Zealand since 2007, brought on by the GFC and the Christchurch earthquakes.
What the article also doesn’t tell you is that there are hundreds of parents being held against their will in New Zealand because their partners refuse to give consent for their children to leave. In some cases these children were born into mixed marriages between kiwis and a foreigners, in others both parents are migrants. It is a sad fact of life that New Zealand courts rarely award custody to any parent who wants to remove their child from the country and there is no favour shown towards giving custody to mothers, regardless of how unfit the father may be. With New Zealand’s horrendous record for child abuse what right thinking parent is going to abandon their child and leave without them? Hence, many are forced into staying against their will to protect their children or face the prospect of “abducting” them.
With the knowledge that the courts are likely to favour the parent remaining in New Zealand increasing numbers of desperate parents (mostly mothers) are simply getting on a plane with their kids and never coming back. And who can blame them?
You may remember the story of four year old Emma Maddison, born to a Danish mother and Kiwi father, see http://e2nz.org/tag/emma-maddison/
When Emma was a toddler her parents returned to Denmark so that she could have medical treatment that wasn’t available in New Zealand.
After a period of time the girl’s father returned to New Zealand but the couple’s relationship broke up and the mother decided to stay in Denmark with her daughter. The case highlighted the enormous difficulties parents have with custody of their children after a relationship breaks up and they want to live in different countries. Even though her father alleged she was abducted and taken from the country illegally the Danish Supreme Court declined to return her to her father’s homeland. We are sure this case gave fresh hope to parents looking to find justice outside of New Zealand, it may even have set a precedence under European law for the way the Hague Convention is applied to dual nationality cases.
If you or someone you know is affected by this issue you may wish to participate in our long running discussion Trapped In NZ – Father Won’t Let Child Leave
Japan is about to ratify the Hague Convention, but with one important difference to some of the other G7 countries that have already encompassed the convention in their own legislation: the Hague proceeding should not cause children more harm than good.
If it wished to New Zealand could also make this important decision because what we’re hearing from our readers (and from the Emma Maddison story) is in New Zealand the welfare of the child is subordinate to the rights of the parent who chooses to remain in New Zealand.
According to an article in the Miami Herald
Japan’s legislation is notable for another reason as well. It contains important and unique guidance to its courts concerning how to adjudicate allegations of domestic violence. Japanese judges must consider whether returning the child would risk violence to the child’s other parent and thereby cause serious psychological harm to the child. If it would, the child need not be returned in an expeditious proceeding pursuant to the Hague Convention.
Japan’s attention to domestic violence here is consistent with the Convention. The Convention allows a court to refuse to return a child if the return would cause a “grave risk of psychological or physical harm to the child or otherwise place the child in an intolerable situation.” Japan’s law ensures that its courts take seriously this “grave risk” defense and how domestic violence impacts children. In Japan, a Hague proceeding should not cause children more harm than good. That is what the Convention drafters had in mind when they provided defenses.
“Where are my human rights? It’s not my choice for Emma not to have her father in her life.”
“Two years later the case is still ongoing and Mr Maddison says he would do everything he could for his “wee girl”.
“I deserve my daughter and it has taken over my life. My daughter is a victim in this and so am I.” more here
Fortunately, Emma remains with her mother and is receiving the ongoing care she needs in Denmark. The Danish Supreme Court put her needs first.
- Huge rise in child abduction cases (nzherald.co.nz)
- Real Cases of Child Abduction (quinnlawassociates.wordpress.com)
- International child abductions: There’s more to the story (miamiherald.com)
- Summer holiday is the high season for International Parental Child Abduction. (prweb.com)
- Overseas child abductions on the rise (guardian.co.uk)