🚀 go-pugleaf

Nigel Kearney wrote:

> The other night on the leaders debate, John Campbell asked Jeannette
> Fitzsimons a question which was something like:
>
> "Would you support Maori sovereignty even if Maori wanted to get
> involved in genetic modification?"
>
> The answer was long and very weasely, but amounted to:
>
> "The Green party supports Maori sovereignty as long as Maori don't try
> to do anything we disagree with."
>
> If that's true then we have Maori sovereignty now, since Maori (and
> everyone else) are free to do anything except what the government has
> specifically prohibited.
>
> Any thoughts?

Obviously there are plenty amongst Green party ranks - whether people will
buy their policies or not also depends on how many thoughts the general
public has.

The Greens support of "Maori sovereignty" (have they figured out what they
think it means yet?) appears to me to be nothing but a cynical vote grab
on their behalf.

I too passed comment on the Greens' stance on Maori issues, in particular
the whale consumption issue which is dear to my heart. If I am to believe
the Greens leader, it would seem that the Greens party would rather that
an attempt be made to save the life of a whale of a non-endangered species
(which had beached itself on our shores) by pushing it back into the
water, rather than letting interested Maori groups have their way with it.
Obviously the loss of life of a whale of a non-endangered species is not a
conservation / environmental issue. It is however an offence to the Greens
ideology, who clearly only put Maori first when the Greens don't give a
crap either way.

To me it is clear that Maori should be given first opportunity to utilise
any whales which beach themselves on our shores *before* a bunch of Greens
or hippies try to push the thing back into the sea *providing* that the
whale's life is not crucial to conservation concerns.

Why this is not the Greens policy, I am not sure.

David Stevenson wrote:

..........

> The Greens support of "Maori sovereignty" (have they figured out what they
> think it means yet?) appears to me to be nothing but a cynical vote grab
> on their behalf.

No...the truth is far more interesting. I have attended Green
conferences as an elctorate delegate.

The Greens do have a Maori constituency.....mainly young, earnest and
very sincere.

The Greens' wrestling with tino rangitiratanga is the public face of a
genuine effort to work these issues through and incorporate many of the
most positive values of the Maori worldview into a sort of unified Green
vision for New Zealand. As far as I know, this effort is unique among
the nominally 'non-Maori'parties....though I'm not sure it fair to
declare the Greens to be in one category or the other.

Yes..it is a work in progress. But at least the effort is being made and
the motivation and sentiments are utterly genuine.

David Stevenson <debiddo@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
news:3D2A73EF.49CCEAC@ihug.co.nz...
> Nigel Kearney wrote:
>
> > The other night on the leaders debate, John Campbell asked Jeannette
> > Fitzsimons a question which was something like:
> >
> > "Would you support Maori sovereignty even if Maori wanted to get
> > involved in genetic modification?"
> >
> > The answer was long and very weasely, but amounted to:
> >
> > "The Green party supports Maori sovereignty as long as Maori don't try
> > to do anything we disagree with."
> >
> > If that's true then we have Maori sovereignty now, since Maori (and
> > everyone else) are free to do anything except what the government has
> > specifically prohibited.
> >
> > Any thoughts?
>
> Obviously there are plenty amongst Green party ranks - whether people will
> buy their policies or not also depends on how many thoughts the general
> public has.
>
> The Greens support of "Maori sovereignty" (have they figured out what they
> think it means yet?) appears to me to be nothing but a cynical vote grab
> on their behalf.

The Green Party is the first and only Party in NZ to accept the Maaori
version of the Treaty

> I too passed comment on the Greens' stance on Maori issues, in particular
> the whale consumption issue which is dear to my heart. If I am to believe
> the Greens leader, it would seem that the Greens party would rather that
> an attempt be made to save the life of a whale of a non-endangered species
> (which had beached itself on our shores) by pushing it back into the
> water, rather than letting interested Maori groups have their >way with
it.

Which particular Maaori group are you referring to
and/or which Iwi are you speaking on behalf of ?
It would depend on which beach the whale beaches and which Iwi/hapu are
involved.

> Obviously the loss of life of a whale of a non-endangered species is not a
> conservation / environmental issue. It is however an offence to the Greens
> ideology, who clearly only put Maori first when the Greens don't give a
> crap either way.

there would need to be dialogue on this
anything you post here is merely supposition
you have no clear knowledge of what Maaori
iwi/hapu concerns are on this issue and are merely speaking as supposition,
therefor i see no further advantage to joining you in your suppositions or
providing knowledge that you appear to be seeking in this topic, which you
would no doubt use to your own debating advantage in the ng's.

> To me it is clear that Maori should be given first opportunity to utilise
> any whales which beach themselves on our shores *before* a bunch of Greens
> or hippies try to push the thing back into the sea *providing* that the
> whale's life is not crucial to conservation concerns.

Which Iwi have you consulted about this,
which Iwi are you speaking on behalf of and who alloted you rights to decide
who gets what opportunities?

> Why this is not the Greens policy, I am not sure.

It would require consultation.
Whom have you consulted with in your decisions here?

Carmen wrote:

> David Stevenson <debiddo@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:3D2A73EF.49CCEAC@ihug.co.nz...
> > Nigel Kearney wrote:
> >
> > > The other night on the leaders debate, John Campbell asked Jeannette
> > > Fitzsimons a question which was something like:
> > >
> > > "Would you support Maori sovereignty even if Maori wanted to get
> > > involved in genetic modification?"
> > >
> > > The answer was long and very weasely, but amounted to:
> > >
> > > "The Green party supports Maori sovereignty as long as Maori don't try
> > > to do anything we disagree with."
> > >
> > > If that's true then we have Maori sovereignty now, since Maori (and
> > > everyone else) are free to do anything except what the government has
> > > specifically prohibited.
> > >
> > > Any thoughts?
> >
> > Obviously there are plenty amongst Green party ranks - whether people will
> > buy their policies or not also depends on how many thoughts the general
> > public has.
> >
> > The Greens support of "Maori sovereignty" (have they figured out what they
> > think it means yet?) appears to me to be nothing but a cynical vote grab
> > on their behalf.
>
> The Green Party is the first and only Party in NZ to accept the Maaori
> version of the Treaty

And they only seem to want to support Maori on issues which wouldn't compromise
their "Green" stance.

> > I too passed comment on the Greens' stance on Maori issues, in particular
> > the whale consumption issue which is dear to my heart. If I am to believe
> > the Greens leader, it would seem that the Greens party would rather that
> > an attempt be made to save the life of a whale of a non-endangered species
> > (which had beached itself on our shores) by pushing it back into the
> > water, rather than letting interested Maori groups have their >way with
> it.
>
> Which particular Maaori group are you referring to
> and/or which Iwi are you speaking on behalf of ?
> It would depend on which beach the whale beaches and which Iwi/hapu are
> involved.

I would have thought it would make sense to have one rule for all situations.

> > Obviously the loss of life of a whale of a non-endangered species is not a
> > conservation / environmental issue. It is however an offence to the Greens
> > ideology, who clearly only put Maori first when the Greens don't give a
> > crap either way.
>
> there would need to be dialogue on this
> anything you post here is merely supposition

Yes, that's right.

> you have no clear knowledge of what Maaori
> iwi/hapu concerns are on this issue and are merely speaking as supposition,
> therefor i see no further advantage to joining you in your suppositions or
> providing knowledge that you appear to be seeking in this topic, which you
> would no doubt use to your own debating advantage in the ng's.

I'm just saying what I think makes sense. To me, what the Greens appear to be
saying doesn't make sense at all.

> > To me it is clear that Maori should be given first opportunity to utilise
> > any whales which beach themselves on our shores *before* a bunch of Greens
> > or hippies try to push the thing back into the sea *providing* that the
> > whale's life is not crucial to conservation concerns.
>
> Which Iwi have you consulted about this,
> which Iwi are you speaking on behalf of and who alloted you rights to decide
> who gets what opportunities?

I haven't spoken to anyone - I'm just saying what makes sense to me.

What makes sense to me is this:
If any Maori or group of Maori wants to utilise a beached whale of a species
which isn't in any way endangered, it seems to be a no-brainer that the Maori
should be permitted to do this. If whether the whale lives or dies is of no
conservation consequence, it seems to me to be obvious that Maori (should they
actually want to utilise the beached whale, the gift from the sea) be permitted
to do as they please. If of course they don't want to utilise the whale, then
the Greenies / hippies, in the interests of having a feel good time of it, would
be more than welcome to push the animal back into the sea.

To put it simply:
1) All attempts should be made to save individual whales of endangered species.
Sorry, Maori come second to helping the conservation of endangered species.
2) Non-endangered whales species are first left for Maori to potentially
utilise.
3) If Maori decide that they don't want to utilise the beached whale, the
Greenies / Hippies are welcome to try to push it back into the ocean.

Naturally to ensure that the Greenies / hippies have their chance to save the
whale if Maori decide not to utilise it, it would be preferable if Maori could
be consulted and a decision on whether utilisation would occur be quickly.

> > Why this is not the Greens policy, I am not sure.
>
> It would require consultation.

With who? I'm essentially saying that Maori have first rights always, unless the
whale in question is of an endangered species. Do I need to consult with Maori
before saying I think they should get first dibs on a non-endangered whale which
beaches itself?

> Whom have you consulted with in your decisions here?

My "decisions" are merely my own personal opinions.

Steve wrote:

> David Stevenson wrote:
>
> ...........
>
> > The Greens support of "Maori sovereignty" (have they figured out what they
> > think it means yet?) appears to me to be nothing but a cynical vote grab
> > on their behalf.
>
> No...the truth is far more interesting. I have attended Green
> conferences as an elctorate delegate.
>
> The Greens do have a Maori constituency.....mainly young, earnest and
> very sincere.
>
> The Greens' wrestling with tino rangitiratanga is the public face of a
> genuine effort to work these issues through and incorporate many of the
> most positive values of the Maori worldview into a sort of unified Green
> vision for New Zealand. As far as I know, this effort is unique among
> the nominally 'non-Maori'parties....though I'm not sure it fair to
> declare the Greens to be in one category or the other.
>
> Yes..it is a work in progress. But at least the effort is being made and
> the motivation and sentiments are utterly genuine.

That would be fine if believable. The first the public knew that the Greens were
developing much of a policy on Maori was a protest to embarrass its coalition
ally at Waitangi without any discussion or submission or publicity at all
beforehand.
Clearly some Greens had taken a position on the issue without any significant
discussion at all. That position can be described as protest for the sake of
protest as members and even Green MPs were not aware that a policy had been
developed or that a protest was to be enacted.

http://onenews.nzoom.com/onenews_detail/0,1227,80424-1-8,00.html

JC

Carmen wrote:
>
> David Stevenson <debiddo@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:3D2A73EF.49CCEAC@ihug.co.nz...
> > Nigel Kearney wrote:
> >
> > > The other night on the leaders debate, John Campbell asked Jeannette
> > > Fitzsimons a question which was something like:
> > >
> > > "Would you support Maori sovereignty even if Maori wanted to get
> > > involved in genetic modification?"
> > >
> > > The answer was long and very weasely, but amounted to:
> > >
> > > "The Green party supports Maori sovereignty as long as Maori don't try
> > > to do anything we disagree with."
> > >
> > > If that's true then we have Maori sovereignty now, since Maori (and
> > > everyone else) are free to do anything except what the government has
> > > specifically prohibited.
> > >
> > > Any thoughts?
> >
> > Obviously there are plenty amongst Green party ranks - whether people will
> > buy their policies or not also depends on how many thoughts the general
> > public has.
> >
> > The Greens support of "Maori sovereignty" (have they figured out what they
> > think it means yet?) appears to me to be nothing but a cynical vote grab
> > on their behalf.
>
> The Green Party is the first and only Party in NZ to accept the Maaori
> version of the Treaty
>
> > I too passed comment on the Greens' stance on Maori issues, in particular
> > the whale consumption issue which is dear to my heart. If I am to believe
> > the Greens leader, it would seem that the Greens party would rather that
> > an attempt be made to save the life of a whale of a non-endangered species
> > (which had beached itself on our shores) by pushing it back into the
> > water, rather than letting interested Maori groups have their >way with
> it.
>
> Which particular Maaori group are you referring to
> and/or which Iwi are you speaking on behalf of ?
> It would depend on which beach the whale beaches and which Iwi/hapu are
> involved.

CArmen, Maori with a capital M is an exclusively English word. Please
don't make a fool of yourself by falling into this pseudo intellectual
trap of prentending it is a word of the pre- European tribes of New
Zealand.  If you look at the Maori language version of the Treaty as
translated into English you will see that maori with a small m means
"the ordinary people" as opposed to the Rangitira. Furthermore if you
look at any dictionary of the Maori language you will see that maori
means "ordinary" as opposed to special. It was only because of its use
in the Treaty that it came to mean "people of the native race of New
Zealand". So while there is a case for spelling maori with two aas or
with a macron if one is writing in Maori language and referring to one
of the meanings of "ordinary" there are absolutely no grounds for this
affectation if writing in English because Maori is an English word like
London or beef steak.
> > Obviously the loss of life of a whale of a non-endangered species is not a
> > conservation / environmental issue. It is however an offence to the Greens
> > ideology, who clearly only put Maori first when the Greens don't give a
> > crap either way.
>
> there would need to be dialogue on this
> anything you post here is merely supposition
> you have no clear knowledge of what Maaori
> iwi/hapu concerns are on this issue and are merely speaking as supposition,
> therefor i see no further advantage to joining you in your suppositions or
> providing knowledge that you appear to be seeking in this topic, which you
> would no doubt use to your own debating advantage in the ng's.
>
> > To me it is clear that Maori should be given first opportunity to utilise
> > any whales which beach themselves on our shores *before* a bunch of Greens
> > or hippies try to push the thing back into the sea *providing* that the
> > whale's life is not crucial to conservation concerns.
>
> Which Iwi have you consulted about this,
> which Iwi are you speaking on behalf of and who alloted you rights to decide
> who gets what opportunities?
>
> > Why this is not the Greens policy, I am not sure.
>
> It would require consultation.
> Whom have you consulted with in your decisions here?

--
Owen McShane, Rangiora Road, Northland, NZ
See "Straight Thinking On Line" (http://mcshane.orcon.net.nz)

Carmen wrote:

> Two more things before I depart
> 1)  Most Greens I have met are not hippies
> that is another mythology promoted by the media and the antagnoists.

Yeah this is an interesting one. I can only think of a couple in the Greens
off the top of my head. They're great people incidentally.

Most of the hippies I've met (which isn't many) just aren't into party
politics.

Christiaan

On Tue, 09 Jul 2002 22:07:51 +1300, Owen McShane
<omcshane@wk.planet.gen.nz> wrote:


>CArmen, Maori with a capital M is an exclusively English word. Please
>don't make a fool of yourself by falling into this pseudo intellectual
>trap of prentending it is a word of the pre- European tribes of New
>Zealand.  If you look at the Maori language version of the Treaty as
>translated into English you will see that maori with a small m means
>"the ordinary people" as opposed to the Rangitira. Furthermore if you
>look at any dictionary of the Maori language you will see that maori
>means "ordinary" as opposed to special. It was only because of its use
>in the Treaty that it came to mean "people of the native race of New
>Zealand". So while there is a case for spelling maori with two aas or
>with a macron if one is writing in Maori language and referring to one
>of the meanings of "ordinary" there are absolutely no grounds for this
>affectation if writing in English because Maori is an English word like
>London or beef steak.

Owen: te tangata tino moohio o te reo Maaori?
-------- 
Barry Phease
mailto:barryp@es.co.nz"
http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~barryp"

On Wed, 10 Jul 2002 06:23:42 +1200, "RK" <use@of.the.net> wrote:


>But there are only a fraction of the PC brownie points available to be
>redeemed on usenet if you use "Maori" instead of "Maaori".

The spelling "maaori" is used to attempt to correct the pronunciation
and is preferred by the education department.  When the language was
firsat written down the form "maori" was used and this is still
preferred by many native speakers.
--------
Barry Phease
mailto:barryp@es.co.nz"
http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~barryp"

David Stevenson wrote:

> If anything it is a Greenie [/hippie] ideology that says "SAVE THE WHALES"
> that stands in the way.

Huh?? Can you back this assertion up with documentation?

Christiaan

Owen McShane <omcshane@wk.planet.gen.nz> wrote in message
news:3D2AA7E6.41D@wk.planet.gen.nz...
> Carmen wrote:
> >
> > David Stevenson <debiddo@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
> > news:3D2A73EF.49CCEAC@ihug.co.nz...
> > > Nigel Kearney wrote:
> > >
> > > > The other night on the leaders debate, John Campbell asked Jeannette
> > > > Fitzsimons a question which was something like:
> > > >
> > > > "Would you support Maori sovereignty even if Maori wanted to get
> > > > involved in genetic modification?"
> > > >
> > > > The answer was long and very weasely, but amounted to:
> > > >
> > > > "The Green party supports Maori sovereignty as long as Maori don't
try
> > > > to do anything we disagree with."
> > > >
> > > > If that's true then we have Maori sovereignty now, since Maori (and
> > > > everyone else) are free to do anything except what the government
has
> > > > specifically prohibited.
> > > >
> > > > Any thoughts?
> > >
> > > Obviously there are plenty amongst Green party ranks - whether people
will
> > > buy their policies or not also depends on how many thoughts the
general
> > > public has.
> > >
> > > The Greens support of "Maori sovereignty" (have they figured out what
they
> > > think it means yet?) appears to me to be nothing but a cynical vote
grab
> > > on their behalf.
> >
> > The Green Party is the first and only Party in NZ to accept the Maaori
> > version of the Treaty
> >
> > > I too passed comment on the Greens' stance on Maori issues, in
particular
> > > the whale consumption issue which is dear to my heart. If I am to
believe
> > > the Greens leader, it would seem that the Greens party would rather
that
> > > an attempt be made to save the life of a whale of a non-endangered
species
> > > (which had beached itself on our shores) by pushing it back into the
> > > water, rather than letting interested Maori groups have their >way
with
> > it.
> >
> > Which particular Maaori group are you referring to
> > and/or which Iwi are you speaking on behalf of ?
> > It would depend on which beach the whale beaches and which Iwi/hapu are
> > involved.
>
> CArmen, Maori with a capital M is an exclusively English word. Please
> don't make a fool of yourself by falling into this pseudo intellectual
> trap of prentending it is a word of the pre- European tribes of New
> Zealand.  If you look at the Maori language version of the Treaty as
> translated into English you will see that maori with a small m means
> "the ordinary people" as opposed to the Rangitira. Furthermore if you
> look at any dictionary of the Maori language you will see that maori
> means "ordinary" as opposed to special. It was only because of its use
> in the Treaty that it came to mean "people of the native race of New
> Zealand". So while there is a case for spelling maori with two aas or
> with a macron if one is writing in Maori language and referring to one
> of the meanings of "ordinary" there are absolutely no grounds for this
> affectation if writing in English because Maori is an English word like
> London or beef steak.

hei aha !
ko era ou whakaaro
he rereke noa iho i oku nei whakaaro

You have your thoughts,
 I have mine

David Stevenson <debiddo@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
news:3D2AAB21.A33E7AC4@ihug.co.nz...
> Carmen wrote:
>
> > David Stevenson <debiddo@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
> > news:3D2A73EF.49CCEAC@ihug.co.nz...
> > > Nigel Kearney wrote:
> > >
> > > > The other night on the leaders debate, John Campbell asked Jeannette
> > > > Fitzsimons a question which was something like:
> > > >
> > > > "Would you support Maori sovereignty even if Maori wanted to get
> > > > involved in genetic modification?"
> > > >
> > > > The answer was long and very weasely, but amounted to:
> > > >
> > > > "The Green party supports Maori sovereignty as long as Maori don't
try
> > > > to do anything we disagree with."
> > > >
> > > > If that's true then we have Maori sovereignty now, since Maori (and
> > > > everyone else) are free to do anything except what the government
has
> > > > specifically prohibited.
> > > >
> > > > Any thoughts?
> > >
> > > Obviously there are plenty amongst Green party ranks - whether people
will
> > > buy their policies or not also depends on how many thoughts the
general
> > > public has.
> > >
> > > The Greens support of "Maori sovereignty" (have they figured out what
they
> > > think it means yet?) appears to me to be nothing but a cynical vote
grab
> > > on their behalf.
> >
> > The Green Party is the first and only Party in NZ to accept the Maaori
> > version of the Treaty
>
> And they only seem to want to support Maori on issues which wouldn't
compromise
> their "Green" stance.

That would need to be on an issue by issue basis and in dialogue with the
appropriate Iwi.

> > > I too passed comment on the Greens' stance on Maori issues, in
particular
> > > the whale consumption issue which is dear to my heart. If I am to
believe
> > > the Greens leader, it would seem that the Greens party would rather
that
> > > an attempt be made to save the life of a whale of a non-endangered
species
> > > (which had beached itself on our shores) by pushing it back into the
> > > water, rather than letting interested Maori groups have their >way
with
> > it.
> >
> > Which particular Maaori group are you referring to
> > and/or which Iwi are you speaking on behalf of ?
> > It would depend on which beach the whale beaches and which Iwi/hapu are
> > involved.
>
> I would have thought it would make sense to have one rule >for all
situations.

Not at all.

As for the rest of your post.
Interesting supposition.

If you want  a range of views on this topic perhap sign on to the
Tino-Rangatiratanga email list over at yahoo groups.
Perhaps raise the issue over there,
that way you will get a more diverse range of views

Carmen

> > > Obviously the loss of life of a whale of a non-endangered species is
not a
> > > conservation / environmental issue. It is however an offence to the
Greens
> > > ideology, who clearly only put Maori first when the Greens don't give
a
> > > crap either way.
> >
> > there would need to be dialogue on this
> > anything you post here is merely supposition
>
> Yes, that's right.
>
> > you have no clear knowledge of what Maaori
> > iwi/hapu concerns are on this issue and are merely speaking as
supposition,
> > therefor i see no further advantage to joining you in your suppositions
or
> > providing knowledge that you appear to be seeking in this topic, which
you
> > would no doubt use to your own debating advantage in the ng's.
>
> I'm just saying what I think makes sense. To me, what the Greens appear to
be
> saying doesn't make sense at all.
>
> > > To me it is clear that Maori should be given first opportunity to
utilise
> > > any whales which beach themselves on our shores *before* a bunch of
Greens
> > > or hippies try to push the thing back into the sea *providing* that
the
> > > whale's life is not crucial to conservation concerns.
> >
> > Which Iwi have you consulted about this,
> > which Iwi are you speaking on behalf of and who alloted you rights to
decide
> > who gets what opportunities?
>
> I haven't spoken to anyone - I'm just saying what makes sense to me.
>
> What makes sense to me is this:
> If any Maori or group of Maori wants to utilise a beached whale of a
species
> which isn't in any way endangered, it seems to be a no-brainer that the
Maori
> should be permitted to do this. If whether the whale lives or dies is of
no
> conservation consequence, it seems to me to be obvious that Maori (should
they
> actually want to utilise the beached whale, the gift from the sea) be
permitted
> to do as they please. If of course they don't want to utilise the whale,
then
> the Greenies / hippies, in the interests of having a feel good time of it,
would
> be more than welcome to push the animal back into the sea.
>
> To put it simply:
> 1) All attempts should be made to save individual whales of endangered
species.
> Sorry, Maori come second to helping the conservation of endangered
species.
> 2) Non-endangered whales species are first left for Maori to potentially
> utilise.
> 3) If Maori decide that they don't want to utilise the beached whale, the
> Greenies / Hippies are welcome to try to push it back into the ocean.
>
> Naturally to ensure that the Greenies / hippies have their chance to save
the
> whale if Maori decide not to utilise it, it would be preferable if Maori
could
> be consulted and a decision on whether utilisation would occur be quickly.
>
> > > Why this is not the Greens policy, I am not sure.
> >
> > It would require consultation.
>
> With who? I'm essentially saying that Maori have first rights always,
unless the
> whale in question is of an endangered species. Do I need to consult with
Maori
> before saying I think they should get first dibs on a non-endangered whale
which
> beaches itself?
>
> > Whom have you consulted with in your decisions here?
>
> My "decisions" are merely my own personal opinions.
>

"Carmen" <carmenz30@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:agek8m$f98$1@news.wave.co.nz...
>
> Owen McShane <omcshane@wk.planet.gen.nz> wrote in message
> news:3D2AA7E6.41D@wk.planet.gen.nz...
> > Carmen wrote:
> > >
<snip>
> > >
> > > Which particular Maaori group are you referring to
> > > and/or which Iwi are you speaking on behalf of ?
> > > It would depend on which beach the whale beaches and which Iwi/hapu
are
> > > involved.
> >
> > CArmen, Maori with a capital M is an exclusively English word. Please
> > don't make a fool of yourself by falling into this pseudo intellectual
> > trap of prentending it is a word of the pre- European tribes of New
> > Zealand.  If you look at the Maori language version of the Treaty as
> > translated into English you will see that maori with a small m means
> > "the ordinary people" as opposed to the Rangitira. Furthermore if you
> > look at any dictionary of the Maori language you will see that maori
> > means "ordinary" as opposed to special. It was only because of its use
> > in the Treaty that it came to mean "people of the native race of New
> > Zealand". So while there is a case for spelling maori with two aas or
> > with a macron if one is writing in Maori language and referring to one
> > of the meanings of "ordinary" there are absolutely no grounds for this
> > affectation if writing in English because Maori is an English word like
> > London or beef steak.
>
> hei aha !
> ko era ou whakaaro
> he rereke noa iho i oku nei whakaaro
>
> You have your thoughts,
>  I have mine
>

Caarmen, That statement of yours (the english one) to me reads;
"You think the world is round, I think it is flat"

"Owen McShane" <omcshane@wk.planet.gen.nz> wrote in message
news:3D2AA7E6.41D@wk.planet.gen.nz...
> Carmen wrote:
> >
<snip>
> >
> > Which particular Maaori group are you referring to
> > and/or which Iwi are you speaking on behalf of ?
> > It would depend on which beach the whale beaches and which Iwi/hapu are
> > involved.
>
> CArmen, Maori with a capital M is an exclusively English word. Please
> don't make a fool of yourself by falling into this pseudo intellectual
> trap of prentending it is a word of the pre- European tribes of New
> Zealand.  If you look at the Maori language version of the Treaty as
> translated into English you will see that maori with a small m means
> "the ordinary people" as opposed to the Rangitira. Furthermore if you
> look at any dictionary of the Maori language you will see that maori
> means "ordinary" as opposed to special. It was only because of its use
> in the Treaty that it came to mean "people of the native race of New
> Zealand". So while there is a case for spelling maori with two aas or
> with a macron if one is writing in Maori language and referring to one
> of the meanings of "ordinary" there are absolutely no grounds for this
> affectation if writing in English because Maori is an English word like
> London or beef steak.

But there are only a fraction of the PC brownie points available to be
redeemed on usenet if you use "Maori" instead of "Maaori".

In article <3D2A73EF.49CCEAC@ihug.co.nz>, debiddo@ihug.co.nz says...

>To me it is clear that Maori should be given first opportunity to utilise
>any whales which beach themselves on our shores

Why should Maori be first?  What gives them any more rights
than any other NZer to a beached whale on our shores?

Carmen wrote:

> David Stevenson <debiddo@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:3D2AAB21.A33E7AC4@ihug.co.nz...
> > What makes sense to me is this:
> > If any Maori or group of Maori wants to utilise a beached whale of a
> species
> > which isn't in any way endangered, it seems to be a no-brainer that the
> Maori
> > should be permitted to do this. If whether the whale lives or dies is of
> no
> > conservation consequence, it seems to me to be obvious that Maori (should
> they
> > actually want to utilise the beached whale, the gift from the sea) be
> permitted
> > to do as they please. If of course they don't want to utilise the whale,
> then
> > the Greenies / hippies, in the interests of having a feel good time of it,
> would
> > be more than welcome to push the animal back into the sea.
>
> Two more things before I depart
> 1)  Most Greens I have met are not hippies
> that is another mythology promoted by the media and the antagnoists.

This is why I put "Greenies / hippies", but I guess you won't be reading this
until I have left the country anyway.

> 2) Greens have been putting a great deal of effort into developing an animal
> welfare policy.
> The issue you are trying to raise here would also need to be seen in the
> light of the Animal Welfare Policy as well as Human Treaty and sovereignty
> issues.

Considering the way we farm animals in this country I don't see how Maori
bopping off a whale which had lived a free life and was going to die anyway
could be against any "animal welfare policy" but then there's always some
people...

rj wrote:

> In article <3D2A73EF.49CCEAC@ihug.co.nz>, debiddo@ihug.co.nz says...
>
> >To me it is clear that Maori should be given first opportunity to utilise
> >any whales which beach themselves on our shores
>
> Why should Maori be first?  What gives them any more rights
> than any other NZer to a beached whale on our shores?

Do any other New Zealanders want to use beached whales? Not that I can tell.

Why should Maori be first? Because they were here before white people, as well
as various other people. If we had never turned up they would still most
likely be happily utilising beached whale resources without interference.
Furthermore a treaty was signed protecting the rights of Maori. This is a
right which can be so easily given to Maori, even if various other issues are
more difficult to work through.

And if Maori want to utilise a beached whale, why *shouldn't* they be allowed?
As I have already noted, a non-endangered whale being utilised by Maori is
*not* a conservation issue. People might feel that they were in some way
"helping the environment" by pushing a whale back into the sea - this clearly
isn't the case if the whale is from an abundant species, like most are. If
anything it is a Greenie / hippy ideology that says "SAVE THE WHALES" that
stands in the way. Such an ideology has no place when the conservation status
of a particular whale species is not under threat.

David Stevenson <debiddo@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
news:3D2AAB21.A33E7AC4@ihug.co.nz...
> What makes sense to me is this:
> If any Maori or group of Maori wants to utilise a beached whale of a
species
> which isn't in any way endangered, it seems to be a no-brainer that the
Maori
> should be permitted to do this. If whether the whale lives or dies is of
no
> conservation consequence, it seems to me to be obvious that Maori (should
they
> actually want to utilise the beached whale, the gift from the sea) be
permitted
> to do as they please. If of course they don't want to utilise the whale,
then
> the Greenies / hippies, in the interests of having a feel good time of it,
would
> be more than welcome to push the animal back into the sea.

Two more things before I depart
1)  Most Greens I have met are not hippies
that is another mythology promoted by the media and the antagnoists.

2) Greens have been putting a great deal of effort into developing an animal
welfare policy.
The issue you are trying to raise here would also need to be seen in the
light of the Animal Welfare Policy as well as Human Treaty and sovereignty
issues.

Nothing is perpetuated in isolation

Carmen

John Cawston wrote:

> Owen McShane wrote:
> 
>> John Cawston wrote:
>>> 
>>> Barry Phease wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On Wed, 10 Jul 2002 06:23:42 +1200, "RK" <use@of.the.net> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> But there are only a fraction of the PC brownie points available to be
>>>>> redeemed on usenet if you use "Maori" instead of "Maaori".
>>>> 
>>>> The spelling "maaori" is used to attempt to correct the pronunciation
>>>> and is preferred by the education department.  When the language was
>>>> firsat written down the form "maori" was used and this is still
>>>> preferred by many native speakers.
>>> 
>>> And the Reed Dictionary of Modern Maori. 2nd Edition 1997. The dictionary
>>> uses the macron.
>>> 
>>> JC
>> It uses macrons throught the dictionary because the dictionary is doing
>> what dictionaries do. But if you look at the title and front cover tell
>> me if that is written with a macron.
> 
> It is.
> 
> Nevertheless, I first raised this issue with Carmen some little time ago.
> "Maaori" is simply a pretentious use of the word,
> 
> Following this logic, we should be anglising the TOW to "The Treety of
> Whytangee"


Wake up John. The correct pronunciation of Treaty is not Treety.

Christiaan

In article <3D2B604E.F3BDC9C@ihug.co.nz>, debiddo@ihug.co.nz says...
>
>rj wrote:
>
>> In article <3D2A73EF.49CCEAC@ihug.co.nz>, debiddo@ihug.co.nz says...
>>
>> >To me it is clear that Maori should be given first opportunity to utilise
>> >any whales which beach themselves on our shores
>>
>> Why should Maori be first?  What gives them any more rights
>> than any other NZer to a beached whale on our shores?
>
>Do any other New Zealanders want to use beached whales?

Yes.

>Not that I can tell.

You obviously don't know any luthiers.

>Why should Maori be first? Because they were here before white people,

So what?  The ones here 'before the white ppl' are all long
dead.  New Zealand is now inhabited by NZers of a variety
of racial/cultural backgrounds, and I don't feel that any
NZer should have any more right than any other to a beached whale.

>If we had never turned up they would still most
>likely be happily utilising beached whale resources without interference.

But we *did* turn up. If they had never turned up, we would now be
happily utilising beached whale resources without interference.

>And if Maori want to utilise a beached whale, why *shouldn't* they be allowed?

If *anyone* wants to utilise a beached whale, why shouldn't they be allowed to?

> I too passed comment on the Greens' stance on Maori issues, in particular
> the whale consumption issue which is dear to my heart. If I am to believe
> the Greens leader, it would seem that the Greens party would rather that
> an attempt be made to save the life of a whale of a non-endangered species
> (which had beached itself on our shores) by pushing it back into the
> water, rather than letting interested Maori groups have their way with it.
> Obviously the loss of life of a whale of a non-endangered species is not a
> conservation / environmental issue. It is however an offence to the Greens
> ideology, who clearly only put Maori first when the Greens don't give a
> crap either way.
>
> To me it is clear that Maori should be given first opportunity to utilise
> any whales which beach themselves on our shores *before* a bunch of Greens
> or hippies try to push the thing back into the sea *providing* that the
> whale's life is not crucial to conservation concerns.
>
When was the last time a beached whale was consumed by maoris?

Christiaan Briggs wrote:

> David Stevenson wrote:
>
> > If anything it is a Greenie [/hippie] ideology that says "SAVE THE WHALES"
> > that stands in the way.
>
> Huh?? Can you back this assertion up with documentation?

??

Greenies like to push whales back in to the ocean, no?

When the whale in question is of an endangered species, this makes good sense.
If the whale is not of an endangered species, the whale living or dying is of no
consequence to the conservation status of the whale species in question.

The Greens coleader effectively said the other day that individual whale lives
are more important than Maori desires to utilise beached whales. The "SAVE THE
WHALES!" mentality seems to be the cause.

What part of this do you disagree with?

rj wrote:

> In article <3D2B604E.F3BDC9C@ihug.co.nz>, debiddo@ihug.co.nz says...
> >
> >rj wrote:
> >
> >> In article <3D2A73EF.49CCEAC@ihug.co.nz>, debiddo@ihug.co.nz says...
> >>
> >> >To me it is clear that Maori should be given first opportunity to utilise
> >> >any whales which beach themselves on our shores
> >>
> >> Why should Maori be first?  What gives them any more rights
> >> than any other NZer to a beached whale on our shores?
> >
> >Do any other New Zealanders want to use beached whales?
>
> Yes.

Oh!

> >Not that I can tell.
>
> You obviously don't know any luthiers.

No, I was unaware of any luthiers

> >Why should Maori be first? Because they were here before white people,
>
> So what?  The ones here 'before the white ppl' are all long
> dead.  New Zealand is now inhabited by NZers of a variety
> of racial/cultural backgrounds, and I don't feel that any
> NZer should have any more right than any other to a beached whale.

I personally believe that indigenous peoples have certain rights which should not
be taken from them because another culture has turned up. I can accept that you
might like to differ on that point, but the Greens seem to be trying to say that
they want to stand up for Maori rights while trumpeting their SAVE THE WHALES
ideology at the same time.

> >If we had never turned up they would still most
> >likely be happily utilising beached whale resources without interference.
>
> But we *did* turn up. If they had never turned up, we would now be
> happily utilising beached whale resources without interference.

?
What makes you think we would have started utilising beached whale resources if
Maori never came to these shores?

> >And if Maori want to utilise a beached whale, why *shouldn't* they be allowed?
>
> If *anyone* wants to utilise a beached whale, why shouldn't they be allowed to?

I quite agree, although I think Maori under the treaty have the right to first
dibs. This isn't something I have a problem with.

If some people came along to muscle in on my patch I would be rather pissed,
especially if they were in direct competition for resources. If I had agreed to
share everything with the newcomers that would be okay, but I'm not sure that the
treaty says Maori agreed to share all their resources with us.

bodger wrote:

> > I too passed comment on the Greens' stance on Maori issues, in particular
> > the whale consumption issue which is dear to my heart. If I am to believe
> > the Greens leader, it would seem that the Greens party would rather that
> > an attempt be made to save the life of a whale of a non-endangered species
> > (which had beached itself on our shores) by pushing it back into the
> > water, rather than letting interested Maori groups have their way with it.
> > Obviously the loss of life of a whale of a non-endangered species is not a
> > conservation / environmental issue. It is however an offence to the Greens
> > ideology, who clearly only put Maori first when the Greens don't give a
> > crap either way.
> >
> > To me it is clear that Maori should be given first opportunity to utilise
> > any whales which beach themselves on our shores *before* a bunch of Greens
> > or hippies try to push the thing back into the sea *providing* that the
> > whale's life is not crucial to conservation concerns.
> >
> When was the last time a beached whale was consumed by maoris?

Not sure actually. I believe that beached whales which die before the Greenies
get to attempt to push them back into the ocean are handed over to DOC or
someone like that, and then local Maori are given the chance to take the parts
they are interested in.

In one case recently (I forget how recent, it may have even been earlier this
year) a whale corpse was found washed ashore near Kaikoura, and it was found to
have had part of it's jaw bone cut away with a chainsaw. It had apparently been
chainsawed off before the whale had beached itself. IIRC a boat had struke the
whale, and then it appeared as if someone had taken to it with the chainsaw
before it washed ashore. The jawbone is a valuable part for Maori customs IIRC.

As for Maori utilising beached whale, I seem to remember someone like Sir Tipine
O'regan on TV a while back arguing that Maori be given first dibs on whales, or
something like that.

It seems to indicate to me that if Maori are willing to go out into the sea to
chainsaw a whale's jaw bone off, there is something in the process that they do
not particularly like.

"rj" <rj@i4free.co.nz> wrote in message
news:3d2b5397$1@news.auckland.ac.nz...
> In article <3D2A73EF.49CCEAC@ihug.co.nz>, debiddo@ihug.co.nz says...
>
> >To me it is clear that Maori should be given first opportunity to utilise
> >any whales which beach themselves on our shores
>
> Why should Maori be first?  What gives them any more rights
> than any other NZer to a beached whale on our shores?
It's a common law tribal property right (but not applicable to individuals).

 If you don't like it, get it changed.
Chris Rennie

bodger wrote:

> .
> >
> > I personally believe that indigenous peoples have certain rights which
> should not
> > be taken from them because another culture has turned up. I can accept
> that you
> > might like to differ on that point, but the Greens seem to be trying to
> say that
> > they want to stand up for Maori rights while trumpeting their SAVE THE
> WHALES
> > ideology at the same time.
> >
> Maoris are not indigenous to New Zealand

That's a finer point, isn't it

I suppose you could argue that there is no such thing as an indigenous people
anywhere. But I'm not going to.

> > > I personally believe that indigenous peoples have certain rights which
> > should not
> > > be taken from them because another culture has turned up. I can accept
> > that you
> > > might like to differ on that point, but the Greens seem to be trying
to
> > say that
> > > they want to stand up for Maori rights while trumpeting their SAVE THE
> > WHALES
> > > ideology at the same time.
> > >
> > Maoris are not indigenous to New Zealand
>
> That's a finer point, isn't it
>
> I suppose you could argue that there is no such thing as an indigenous
people
> anywhere. But I'm not going to.

In other countries its harder to track than in New Zealand, where its only a
few hundred years.

> The spelling "maaori" is used to attempt to correct the pronunciation
> and is preferred by the education department.  When the language was
> firsat written down the form "maori" was used and this is still
> preferred by many native speakers.
> --------

Who decides what the official version is? There were many variations in
pronunctiation throughout Nz tribes

On Wed, 10 Jul 2002 21:55:22 +1200, John Cawston <rewarewa@ihug.co.nz>
wrote:

>Barry Phease wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 10 Jul 2002 06:23:42 +1200, "RK" <use@of.the.net> wrote:
>>
>> >But there are only a fraction of the PC brownie points available to be
>> >redeemed on usenet if you use "Maori" instead of "Maaori".
>>
>> The spelling "maaori" is used to attempt to correct the pronunciation
>> and is preferred by the education department.  When the language was
>> firsat written down the form "maori" was used and this is still
>> preferred by many native speakers.
>
>And the Reed Dictionary of Modern Maori. 2nd Edition 1997. The dictionary
>uses the macron.

The macron is a different method to indicate a long vowel.  the
education department standardised on the double vowel.
--------
Barry Phease
mailto:barryp@es.co.nz"
http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~barryp"

Barry Phease wrote:

> On Wed, 10 Jul 2002 06:23:42 +1200, "RK" <use@of.the.net> wrote:
>
> >But there are only a fraction of the PC brownie points available to be
> >redeemed on usenet if you use "Maori" instead of "Maaori".
>
> The spelling "maaori" is used to attempt to correct the pronunciation
> and is preferred by the education department.  When the language was
> firsat written down the form "maori" was used and this is still
> preferred by many native speakers.

And the Reed Dictionary of Modern Maori. 2nd Edition 1997. The dictionary
uses the macron.

JC

Carmen wrote:
> 
> Owen McShane <omcshane@wk.planet.gen.nz> wrote in message
> news:3D2AA7E6.41D@wk.planet.gen.nz...
> > Carmen wrote:
> > >
> > > David Stevenson <debiddo@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
> > > news:3D2A73EF.49CCEAC@ihug.co.nz...
> > > > Nigel Kearney wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > The other night on the leaders debate, John Campbell asked Jeannette
> > > > > Fitzsimons a question which was something like:
> > > > >
> > > > > "Would you support Maori sovereignty even if Maori wanted to get
> > > > > involved in genetic modification?"
> > > > >
> > > > > The answer was long and very weasely, but amounted to:
> > > > >
> > > > > "The Green party supports Maori sovereignty as long as Maori don't
> try
> > > > > to do anything we disagree with."
> > > > >
> > > > > If that's true then we have Maori sovereignty now, since Maori (and
> > > > > everyone else) are free to do anything except what the government
> has
> > > > > specifically prohibited.
> > > > >
> > > > > Any thoughts?
> > > >
> > > > Obviously there are plenty amongst Green party ranks - whether people
> will
> > > > buy their policies or not also depends on how many thoughts the
> general
> > > > public has.
> > > >
> > > > The Greens support of "Maori sovereignty" (have they figured out what
> they
> > > > think it means yet?) appears to me to be nothing but a cynical vote
> grab
> > > > on their behalf.
> > >
> > > The Green Party is the first and only Party in NZ to accept the Maaori
> > > version of the Treaty
> > >
> > > > I too passed comment on the Greens' stance on Maori issues, in
> particular
> > > > the whale consumption issue which is dear to my heart. If I am to
> believe
> > > > the Greens leader, it would seem that the Greens party would rather
> that
> > > > an attempt be made to save the life of a whale of a non-endangered
> species
> > > > (which had beached itself on our shores) by pushing it back into the
> > > > water, rather than letting interested Maori groups have their >way
> with
> > > it.
> > >
> > > Which particular Maaori group are you referring to
> > > and/or which Iwi are you speaking on behalf of ?
> > > It would depend on which beach the whale beaches and which Iwi/hapu are
> > > involved.
> >
> > CArmen, Maori with a capital M is an exclusively English word. Please
> > don't make a fool of yourself by falling into this pseudo intellectual
> > trap of prentending it is a word of the pre- European tribes of New
> > Zealand.  If you look at the Maori language version of the Treaty as
> > translated into English you will see that maori with a small m means
> > "the ordinary people" as opposed to the Rangitira. Furthermore if you
> > look at any dictionary of the Maori language you will see that maori
> > means "ordinary" as opposed to special. It was only because of its use
> > in the Treaty that it came to mean "people of the native race of New
> > Zealand". So while there is a case for spelling maori with two aas or
> > with a macron if one is writing in Maori language and referring to one
> > of the meanings of "ordinary" there are absolutely no grounds for this
> > affectation if writing in English because Maori is an English word like
> > London or beef steak.
> 
> hei aha !
> ko era ou whakaaro
> he rereke noa iho i oku nei whakaaro
> 
> You have your thoughts,
>  I have mine
These are not "thoughts", They are the views of Kevin Prime of the Ngati
Hine.
Read Sir Hugh Kawharu's translation back into English of the Maori
language version of the treaty. 
Tell me where my(his) argument is wrong
-- 
Owen McShane, Rangiora Road, Northland, NZ
See "Straight Thinking On Line" (http://mcshane.orcon.net.nz)

John Cawston wrote:
>
> Barry Phease wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 10 Jul 2002 06:23:42 +1200, "RK" <use@of.the.net> wrote:
> >
> > >But there are only a fraction of the PC brownie points available to be
> > >redeemed on usenet if you use "Maori" instead of "Maaori".
> >
> > The spelling "maaori" is used to attempt to correct the pronunciation
> > and is preferred by the education department.  When the language was
> > firsat written down the form "maori" was used and this is still
> > preferred by many native speakers.
>
> And the Reed Dictionary of Modern Maori. 2nd Edition 1997. The dictionary
> uses the macron.
>
> JC
It uses macrons throught the dictionary because the dictionary is doing
what dictionaries do. But if you look at the title and front cover tell
me if that is written with a macron.
--
Owen McShane, Rangiora Road, Northland, NZ
See "Straight Thinking On Line" (http://mcshane.orcon.net.nz)

Owen McShane wrote:

> John Cawston wrote:
> >
> > Barry Phease wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, 10 Jul 2002 06:23:42 +1200, "RK" <use@of.the.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > >But there are only a fraction of the PC brownie points available to be
> > > >redeemed on usenet if you use "Maori" instead of "Maaori".
> > >
> > > The spelling "maaori" is used to attempt to correct the pronunciation
> > > and is preferred by the education department.  When the language was
> > > firsat written down the form "maori" was used and this is still
> > > preferred by many native speakers.
> >
> > And the Reed Dictionary of Modern Maori. 2nd Edition 1997. The dictionary
> > uses the macron.
> >
> > JC
> It uses macrons throught the dictionary because the dictionary is doing
> what dictionaries do. But if you look at the title and front cover tell
> me if that is written with a macron.

It is.

Nevertheless, I first raised this issue with Carmen some little time ago.
"Maaori" is simply a pretentious use of the word,

Following this logic, we should be anglising the TOW to "The Treety of
Whytangee"

JC

bodger wrote:

> > > > I personally believe that indigenous peoples have certain rights which
> > > should not
> > > > be taken from them because another culture has turned up. I can accept
> > > that you
> > > > might like to differ on that point, but the Greens seem to be trying
> to
> > > say that
> > > > they want to stand up for Maori rights while trumpeting their SAVE THE
> > > WHALES
> > > > ideology at the same time.
> > > >
> > > Maoris are not indigenous to New Zealand
> >
> > That's a finer point, isn't it
> >
> > I suppose you could argue that there is no such thing as an indigenous
> people
> > anywhere. But I'm not going to.
>
> In other countries its harder to track than in New Zealand, where its only a
> few hundred years.

Sure. But a squillion years ago humans didn't exist at all, and therefore no one
is indigenous.

Some people were still here first though, and I tend to be lazy and use this as
my definition

> >
> > In other countries its harder to track than in New Zealand, where its
only a
> > few hundred years.
>
> Sure. But a squillion years ago humans didn't exist at all, and therefore
no one
> is indigenous.
>
> Some people were still here first though, and I tend to be lazy and use
this as
> my definition
>

It would be really interesting to see what would happen if it would be
proved which tribe got there first.

Carmen wrote:
> 
> Owen McShane <omcshane@wk.planet.gen.nz> wrote in message
> news:3D2C0515.5E6C@wk.planet.gen.nz...
> > Carmen wrote:
> > >
> > > Owen McShane <omcshane@wk.planet.gen.nz> wrote in message
> > > news:3D2AA7E6.41D@wk.planet.gen.nz...
> > > > Carmen wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > David Stevenson <debiddo@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
> > > > > news:3D2A73EF.49CCEAC@ihug.co.nz...
> > > > > > Nigel Kearney wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > The other night on the leaders debate, John Campbell asked
> Jeannette
> > > > > > > Fitzsimons a question which was something like:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Would you support Maori sovereignty even if Maori wanted to get
> > > > > > > involved in genetic modification?"
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The answer was long and very weasely, but amounted to:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "The Green party supports Maori sovereignty as long as Maori
> don't
> > > try
> > > > > > > to do anything we disagree with."
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If that's true then we have Maori sovereignty now, since Maori
> (and
> > > > > > > everyone else) are free to do anything except what the
> government
> > > has
> > > > > > > specifically prohibited.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Any thoughts?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Obviously there are plenty amongst Green party ranks - whether
> people
> > > will
> > > > > > buy their policies or not also depends on how many thoughts the
> > > general
> > > > > > public has.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The Greens support of "Maori sovereignty" (have they figured out
> what
> > > they
> > > > > > think it means yet?) appears to me to be nothing but a cynical
> vote
> > > grab
> > > > > > on their behalf.
> > > > >
> > > > > The Green Party is the first and only Party in NZ to accept the
> Maaori
> > > > > version of the Treaty
> > > > >
> > > > > > I too passed comment on the Greens' stance on Maori issues, in
> > > particular
> > > > > > the whale consumption issue which is dear to my heart. If I am to
> > > believe
> > > > > > the Greens leader, it would seem that the Greens party would
> rather
> > > that
> > > > > > an attempt be made to save the life of a whale of a non-endangered
> > > species
> > > > > > (which had beached itself on our shores) by pushing it back into
> the
> > > > > > water, rather than letting interested Maori groups have their >way
> > > with
> > > > > it.
> > > > >
> > > > > Which particular Maaori group are you referring to
> > > > > and/or which Iwi are you speaking on behalf of ?
> > > > > It would depend on which beach the whale beaches and which Iwi/hapu
> are
> > > > > involved.
> > > >
> > > > CArmen, Maori with a capital M is an exclusively English word. Please
> > > > don't make a fool of yourself by falling into this pseudo intellectual
> > > > trap of prentending it is a word of the pre- European tribes of New
> > > > Zealand.  If you look at the Maori language version of the Treaty as
> > > > translated into English you will see that maori with a small m means
> > > > "the ordinary people" as opposed to the Rangitira. Furthermore if you
> > > > look at any dictionary of the Maori language you will see that maori
> > > > means "ordinary" as opposed to special. It was only because of its use
> > > > in the Treaty that it came to mean "people of the native race of New
> > > > Zealand". So while there is a case for spelling maori with two aas or
> > > > with a macron if one is writing in Maori language and referring to one
> > > > of the meanings of "ordinary" there are absolutely no grounds for this
> > > > affectation if writing in English because Maori is an English word
> like
> > > > London or beef steak.
> > >
> > > hei aha !
> > > ko era ou whakaaro
> > > he rereke noa iho i oku nei whakaaro
> > >
> > > You have your thoughts,
> > >  I have mine
> > These are not "thoughts", They are the views of Kevin Prime of the Ngati
> > Hine.
> > Read Sir Hugh Kawharu's translation back into English of the Maori
> > language version of the treaty.
> > Tell me where my(his) argument is wrong
> > --
> 
> Wouldn't ya know it, I decide to shot thru on the ng
> for a while, just when the GE issue really come to the forefront in the
> news,
> and simulateously get oodles of replies to my posts
> 
> As for Maaori we have had this discussion before.
> It's a pronounciation thing.
> 
> Me and everyone else I know generally use the macrons when we are able to,
> unfortunately my keyboard doesn't have that function. Although I vaguely
> recall someone somewhere once told me how to go about it, I shall have to
> look over old emails.  Where macrons are not available the double 'a'
> suffices.
> 
> Hapaingia te Reo Maaori me era atu tikanga.
> Kamene
The above is absolutely correct spelling and usage.
Rewrite it in English and it is not. Isn't that simple enough?
-- 
Owen McShane, Rangiora Road, Northland, NZ
See "Straight Thinking On Line" (http://mcshane.orcon.net.nz)

Barry Phease wrote:
>
> On Wed, 10 Jul 2002 21:55:22 +1200, John Cawston <rewarewa@ihug.co.nz>
> wrote:
>
> >Barry Phease wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 10 Jul 2002 06:23:42 +1200, "RK" <use@of.the.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >But there are only a fraction of the PC brownie points available to be
> >> >redeemed on usenet if you use "Maori" instead of "Maaori".
> >>
> >> The spelling "maaori" is used to attempt to correct the pronunciation
> >> and is preferred by the education department.  When the language was
> >> firsat written down the form "maori" was used and this is still
> >> preferred by many native speakers.
> >
> >And the Reed Dictionary of Modern Maori. 2nd Edition 1997. The dictionary
> >uses the macron.
>
> The macron is a different method to indicate a long vowel.  the
> education department standardised on the double vowel.
Because the macron does not appear in the English language alphabet -
nor many others. It is normaly a device of linguists and dictionary
writers.


-------
> Barry Phease
> mailto:barryp@es.co.nz"
> http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~barryp"

--
Owen McShane, Rangiora Road, Northland, NZ
See "Straight Thinking On Line" (http://mcshane.orcon.net.nz)

Carmen wrote:
> 
> Barry Phease <barryp@es.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:3d2b6cf8.584015831@news.dun.ihug.co.nz...
> > On Tue, 09 Jul 2002 22:07:51 +1300, Owen McShane
> > <omcshane@wk.planet.gen.nz> wrote:
> >
> >
> > >CArmen, Maori with a capital M is an exclusively English word. Please
> > >don't make a fool of yourself by falling into this pseudo intellectual
> > >trap of prentending it is a word of the pre- European tribes of New
> > >Zealand.  If you look at the Maori language version of the Treaty as
> > >translated into English you will see that maori with a small m means
> > >"the ordinary people" as opposed to the Rangitira. Furthermore if you
> > >look at any dictionary of the Maori language you will see that maori
> > >means "ordinary" as opposed to special. It was only because of its use
> > >in the Treaty that it came to mean "people of the native race of New
> > >Zealand". So while there is a case for spelling maori with two aas or
> > >with a macron if one is writing in Maori language and referring to one
> > >of the meanings of "ordinary" there are absolutely no grounds for this
> > >affectation if writing in English because Maori is an English word like
> > >London or beef steak.
> >
> > Owen: te tangata tino moohio o te reo Maaori?
> > --------
> 
> Ka pai Barry
> E heke mai nei te wiki o Te Reo Maaori,
> Pai rawa ki te panui au kupu !!
> :)
> kia ora bro !
> Kamene
No, but I do speak and write in English as a professional and I am only
concerned with spelling within the English language. I have never
objected to the use of macrons or aa by people writing in Maori. It's
another language.
-- 
Owen McShane, Rangiora Road, Northland, NZ
See "Straight Thinking On Line" (http://mcshane.orcon.net.nz)

John Cawston <rewarewa@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
news:3D2C048A.7652ADA9@ihug.co.nz...
> Barry Phease wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 10 Jul 2002 06:23:42 +1200, "RK" <use@of.the.net> wrote:
> >
> > >But there are only a fraction of the PC brownie points available to be
> > >redeemed on usenet if you use "Maori" instead of "Maaori".
> >
> > The spelling "maaori" is used to attempt to correct the pronunciation
> > and is preferred by the education department.  When the language was
> > firsat written down the form "maori" was used and this is still
> > preferred by many native speakers.
>
> And the Reed Dictionary of Modern Maori. 2nd Edition 1997. The dictionary
> uses the macron.
>
> JC

Kia ora John
As does the H W Williams dictionary.
and check out the word transalator on
http://kel.otago.ac.nz/translator/Translate.php3?LANGUAGE_NAME=English
pai maarie
Carmen

"Carmen" <carmenz30@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:agi9m3$d5r$1@news.wave.co.nz...
>
> Christiaan Briggs <cbriggs@nospam.clear.net.nz> wrote in message
> news:B95118E3.ACC8%cbriggs@nospam.clear.net.nz...
> > Carmen wrote:
> >
> > > Two more things before I depart
> > > 1)  Most Greens I have met are not hippies
> > > that is another mythology promoted by the media and the antagnoists.
> >
> > Yeah this is an interesting one. I can only think of a couple in the
> Greens
> > off the top of my head. They're great people incidentally.
> > Most of the hippies I've met (which isn't many) just aren't into party
> > politics.
>
> I missed out being a 'hippy' by at least a decade.
> Will have to settle on being a "wannabe hippy"
> :)
>
> I personally can't see why the term "hippy" is used with derrogatory
> insinuation.
>
> "Hippys" seem to be a perfectly harmless faction and have
> very likely made a huge contribution to the artistic, social and cultural
> evolution/revolution that has occured in western society over the past 40
> years or so.

I think it's just the smell.

;-)

-k.

RK <use@of.the.net> wrote in message
news:OSFW8.2001$JN4.675419@news02.tsnz.net...
>
> "Owen McShane" <omcshane@wk.planet.gen.nz> wrote in message
> news:3D2AA7E6.41D@wk.planet.gen.nz...
> > Carmen wrote:
> > >
> <snip>
> > >
> > > Which particular Maaori group are you referring to
> > > and/or which Iwi are you speaking on behalf of ?
> > > It would depend on which beach the whale beaches and which Iwi/hapu
are
> > > involved.
> >
> > CArmen, Maori with a capital M is an exclusively English word. Please
> > don't make a fool of yourself by falling into this pseudo intellectual
> > trap of prentending it is a word of the pre- European tribes of New
> > Zealand.  If you look at the Maori language version of the Treaty as
> > translated into English you will see that maori with a small m means
> > "the ordinary people" as opposed to the Rangitira. Furthermore if you
> > look at any dictionary of the Maori language you will see that maori
> > means "ordinary" as opposed to special. It was only because of its use
> > in the Treaty that it came to mean "people of the native race of New
> > Zealand". So while there is a case for spelling maori with two aas or
> > with a macron if one is writing in Maori language and referring to one
> > of the meanings of "ordinary" there are absolutely no grounds for this
> > affectation if writing in English because Maori is an English word like
> > London or beef steak.
>
> But there are only a fraction of the PC brownie points available to be
> redeemed on usenet if you use "Maori" instead of "Maaori".

maaku e kohikohi i ngaa "brownie points" i hea ?
Kaaore au e hiahia ana i ngaa "brownie points' i teenei Roopu

you imply I  garner brownie points from this ng,
why would anyone want to?

By the way, if i recall correctly  we're coming into Maaori language week
:)
Kamene

Barry Phease <barryp@es.co.nz> wrote in message
news:3d2b6cf8.584015831@news.dun.ihug.co.nz...
> On Tue, 09 Jul 2002 22:07:51 +1300, Owen McShane
> <omcshane@wk.planet.gen.nz> wrote:
>
>
> >CArmen, Maori with a capital M is an exclusively English word. Please
> >don't make a fool of yourself by falling into this pseudo intellectual
> >trap of prentending it is a word of the pre- European tribes of New
> >Zealand.  If you look at the Maori language version of the Treaty as
> >translated into English you will see that maori with a small m means
> >"the ordinary people" as opposed to the Rangitira. Furthermore if you
> >look at any dictionary of the Maori language you will see that maori
> >means "ordinary" as opposed to special. It was only because of its use
> >in the Treaty that it came to mean "people of the native race of New
> >Zealand". So while there is a case for spelling maori with two aas or
> >with a macron if one is writing in Maori language and referring to one
> >of the meanings of "ordinary" there are absolutely no grounds for this
> >affectation if writing in English because Maori is an English word like
> >London or beef steak.
>
> Owen: te tangata tino moohio o te reo Maaori?
> --------

Ka pai Barry
E heke mai nei te wiki o Te Reo Maaori,
Pai rawa ki te panui au kupu !!
:)
kia ora bro !
Kamene

Owen McShane <omcshane@wk.planet.gen.nz> wrote in message
news:3D2C0515.5E6C@wk.planet.gen.nz...
> Carmen wrote:
> >
> > Owen McShane <omcshane@wk.planet.gen.nz> wrote in message
> > news:3D2AA7E6.41D@wk.planet.gen.nz...
> > > Carmen wrote:
> > > >
> > > > David Stevenson <debiddo@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
> > > > news:3D2A73EF.49CCEAC@ihug.co.nz...
> > > > > Nigel Kearney wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > The other night on the leaders debate, John Campbell asked
Jeannette
> > > > > > Fitzsimons a question which was something like:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Would you support Maori sovereignty even if Maori wanted to get
> > > > > > involved in genetic modification?"
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The answer was long and very weasely, but amounted to:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "The Green party supports Maori sovereignty as long as Maori
don't
> > try
> > > > > > to do anything we disagree with."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If that's true then we have Maori sovereignty now, since Maori
(and
> > > > > > everyone else) are free to do anything except what the
government
> > has
> > > > > > specifically prohibited.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Any thoughts?
> > > > >
> > > > > Obviously there are plenty amongst Green party ranks - whether
people
> > will
> > > > > buy their policies or not also depends on how many thoughts the
> > general
> > > > > public has.
> > > > >
> > > > > The Greens support of "Maori sovereignty" (have they figured out
what
> > they
> > > > > think it means yet?) appears to me to be nothing but a cynical
vote
> > grab
> > > > > on their behalf.
> > > >
> > > > The Green Party is the first and only Party in NZ to accept the
Maaori
> > > > version of the Treaty
> > > >
> > > > > I too passed comment on the Greens' stance on Maori issues, in
> > particular
> > > > > the whale consumption issue which is dear to my heart. If I am to
> > believe
> > > > > the Greens leader, it would seem that the Greens party would
rather
> > that
> > > > > an attempt be made to save the life of a whale of a non-endangered
> > species
> > > > > (which had beached itself on our shores) by pushing it back into
the
> > > > > water, rather than letting interested Maori groups have their >way
> > with
> > > > it.
> > > >
> > > > Which particular Maaori group are you referring to
> > > > and/or which Iwi are you speaking on behalf of ?
> > > > It would depend on which beach the whale beaches and which Iwi/hapu
are
> > > > involved.
> > >
> > > CArmen, Maori with a capital M is an exclusively English word. Please
> > > don't make a fool of yourself by falling into this pseudo intellectual
> > > trap of prentending it is a word of the pre- European tribes of New
> > > Zealand.  If you look at the Maori language version of the Treaty as
> > > translated into English you will see that maori with a small m means
> > > "the ordinary people" as opposed to the Rangitira. Furthermore if you
> > > look at any dictionary of the Maori language you will see that maori
> > > means "ordinary" as opposed to special. It was only because of its use
> > > in the Treaty that it came to mean "people of the native race of New
> > > Zealand". So while there is a case for spelling maori with two aas or
> > > with a macron if one is writing in Maori language and referring to one
> > > of the meanings of "ordinary" there are absolutely no grounds for this
> > > affectation if writing in English because Maori is an English word
like
> > > London or beef steak.
> >
> > hei aha !
> > ko era ou whakaaro
> > he rereke noa iho i oku nei whakaaro
> >
> > You have your thoughts,
> >  I have mine
> These are not "thoughts", They are the views of Kevin Prime of the Ngati
> Hine.
> Read Sir Hugh Kawharu's translation back into English of the Maori
> language version of the treaty.
> Tell me where my(his) argument is wrong
> --

Wouldn't ya know it, I decide to shot thru on the ng
for a while, just when the GE issue really come to the forefront in the
news,
and simulateously get oodles of replies to my posts

As for Maaori we have had this discussion before.
It's a pronounciation thing.

Me and everyone else I know generally use the macrons when we are able to,
unfortunately my keyboard doesn't have that function. Although I vaguely
recall someone somewhere once told me how to go about it, I shall have to
look over old emails.  Where macrons are not available the double 'a'
suffices.

Hapaingia te Reo Maaori me era atu tikanga.
Kamene

Christiaan Briggs <cbriggs@nospam.clear.net.nz> wrote in message
news:B95118E3.ACC8%cbriggs@nospam.clear.net.nz...
> Carmen wrote:
>
> > Two more things before I depart
> > 1)  Most Greens I have met are not hippies
> > that is another mythology promoted by the media and the antagnoists.
>
> Yeah this is an interesting one. I can only think of a couple in the
Greens
> off the top of my head. They're great people incidentally.
> Most of the hippies I've met (which isn't many) just aren't into party
> politics.

I missed out being a 'hippy' by at least a decade.
Will have to settle on being a "wannabe hippy"
:)

I personally can't see why the term "hippy" is used with derrogatory
insinuation.

"Hippys" seem to be a perfectly harmless faction and have
very likely made a huge contribution to the artistic, social and cultural
evolution/revolution that has occured in western society over the past 40
years or so.

Maybe there needs to be some sort of  "hippy" support system in place to
stamp out the covert bigotry
that appears to be pervasive in our wider society and which recognises the
"hippy" contribution to the social fabric of western civilisation.

Perhaps we could draw up a "hippy" policy
which encompasses the
Ecological wisdom
Social responsibility
appropriate decision making
and non-violence
of "hippydom"

cha  cha
Kia ora bro !!
Carmen

David Stevenson <debiddo@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
news:3D2B5E4B.FD6FC641@ihug.co.nz...
> Carmen wrote:
>
> > David Stevenson <debiddo@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
> > news:3D2AAB21.A33E7AC4@ihug.co.nz...
> > > What makes sense to me is this:
> > > If any Maori or group of Maori wants to utilise a beached whale of a
> > species
> > > which isn't in any way endangered, it seems to be a no-brainer that
the
> > Maori
> > > should be permitted to do this. If whether the whale lives or dies is
of
> > no
> > > conservation consequence, it seems to me to be obvious that Maori
(should
> > they
> > > actually want to utilise the beached whale, the gift from the sea) be
> > permitted
> > > to do as they please. If of course they don't want to utilise the
whale,
> > then
> > > the Greenies / hippies, in the interests of having a feel good time of
it,
> > would
> > > be more than welcome to push the animal back into the sea.
> >
> > Two more things before I depart
> > 1)  Most Greens I have met are not hippies
> > that is another mythology promoted by the media and the antagnoists.
>
> This is why I put "Greenies / hippies", but I guess you won't be reading
this
> until I have left the country anyway.
>
> > 2) Greens have been putting a great deal of effort into developing an
animal
> > welfare policy.
> > The issue you are trying to raise here would also need to be seen in the
> > light of the Animal Welfare Policy as well as Human Treaty and
sovereignty
> > issues.

Wouldn't ya know it,
I shoot thru on the ng and get some of the best replies
to final messages.

> Considering the way we farm animals in this country I don't see how Maori
> bopping off a whale which had lived a free life and was >going to die
anyway

That is assuming it was going to die.
A freshly beached whale may not die,
in fact if rescued in time may go on to continue
a productive life.

So the whole scenario you have presented is situational.
I personally know a lot of Maaori, myself included,
who would rather go out and rescue a whale,
send it back to Tangaroa, than carve it up for resources.

So it is all situational,
you are trying to make a hard and fast rule about this,
which is often the "Pakeha way",
when, in many cases,  there are NO
or can be NO  hard and fast rules.

Regarding your comments about what Jeanette said regarding sovereignty /
Treaty and a beached whale.

I have seen how you minced her words to your own satisfaction on a previous
occassion.
I would rather hear Jeanette's exact words for myself
than take what you have said about it in this ng for gospel
and then attempt to make some "hard and fast rules"
about how things should operate.
hat is the "pakeha way"

Carmen

"Carmen" <carmenz30@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:agi9m3$d5r$1@news.wave.co.nz...
>
> Christiaan Briggs <cbriggs@nospam.clear.net.nz> wrote in message
> news:B95118E3.ACC8%cbriggs@nospam.clear.net.nz...
> > Carmen wrote:
> >
> > > Two more things before I depart
> > > 1)  Most Greens I have met are not hippies
> > > that is another mythology promoted by the media and the antagnoists.
> >
> > Yeah this is an interesting one. I can only think of a couple in the
> Greens
> > off the top of my head. They're great people incidentally.
> > Most of the hippies I've met (which isn't many) just aren't into party
> > politics.
>
> I missed out being a 'hippy' by at least a decade.
> Will have to settle on being a "wannabe hippy"
> :)
>
> I personally can't see why the term "hippy" is used with derrogatory
> insinuation.
>
> "Hippys" seem to be a perfectly harmless faction and have
> very likely made a huge contribution to the artistic, social and cultural
> evolution/revolution that has occured in western society over the past 40
> years or so.
>
> Maybe there needs to be some sort of  "hippy" support system in place to
> stamp out the covert bigotry
> that appears to be pervasive in our wider society and which recognises the
> "hippy" contribution to the social fabric of western civilisation.
>
> Perhaps we could draw up a "hippy" policy
> which encompasses the
> Ecological wisdom
> Social responsibility
> appropriate decision making
> and non-violence
> of "hippydom"
>
> cha  cha
> Kia ora bro !!
> Carmen

I thought that you were out of here for a while, to give us a chance to
enjoy some Green Peace instead.

E. Scrooge

"Carmen" <carmenz30@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:agif99$ejp$1@news.wave.co.nz...
>
> E. Scrooge <e.scrooge@*ubdimen*ion.com (*s)> wrote in message
> news:agieqm$evd$1@lust.ihug.co.nz...
> > >
> > > cha  cha
> > > Kia ora bro !!
> > > Carmen
> >
> > I thought that you were out of here for a while, to give us a chance to
> > enjoy some Green Peace instead.
> >
> > E. Scrooge
> >
> Yeah I made the big mistake of cming back to read the comments on the
latest
> GE kerfuffel which broke late ysterday.
>
> I should have learned long ago, that once signed off a ng, never make the
> mistake of going back to read the comments of the day.
>
> From past experience I have learned that some times it can take years of
> soul searching and gut wrenching to actually extricate oneself from a ng.
> It's like smoking I would advise everyone
> "do not start"
> there should be Govt warnings about ng's
> LOL
> :)
> Carmen

LOL  That's very true at times.  Welcome back.

E. Scrooge

"Carmen" <carmenz30@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:agie6e$eab$1@news.wave.co.nz...
>
> Kim Shepherd <kims@waikato.ac.nz> wrote in message
> news:1026340516.428613@clint.its.waikato.ac.nz...
> >
> > "Carmen" <carmenz30@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:agi9m3$d5r$1@news.wave.co.nz...
> > >
> > > Christiaan Briggs <cbriggs@nospam.clear.net.nz> wrote in message
> > > news:B95118E3.ACC8%cbriggs@nospam.clear.net.nz...
> > > > Carmen wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Two more things before I depart
> > > > > 1)  Most Greens I have met are not hippies
> > > > > that is another mythology promoted by the media and the
antagnoists.
> > > >
> > > > Yeah this is an interesting one. I can only think of a couple in the
> > > Greens
> > > > off the top of my head. They're great people incidentally.
> > > > Most of the hippies I've met (which isn't many) just aren't into
party
> > > > politics.
> > >
> > > I missed out being a 'hippy' by at least a decade.
> > > Will have to settle on being a "wannabe hippy"
> > > :)
> > >
> > > I personally can't see why the term "hippy" is used with derrogatory
> > > insinuation.
> > >
> > > "Hippys" seem to be a perfectly harmless faction and have
> > > very likely made a huge contribution to the artistic, social and
> cultural
> > > evolution/revolution that has occured in western society over the past
> 40
> > > years or so.
> >
> > I think it's just the smell.
> >
> > ;-)
> >
>
> I guess you are meaning the  pathcoulli incense
> and "Kama" oil that seems to waft around them,
> the abodes and house trucks, rather delightful really.
>
> ahhh pervasive and perversive stereotypes that exists.
>
> :)
> Carmen

Heh. I prefer sandalwood smudge sticks myself.
The stereotype I like to destroy about hippies is that they're all
inherently commies....

-k.

Kim Shepherd <kims@waikato.ac.nz> wrote in message
news:1026340516.428613@clint.its.waikato.ac.nz...
>
> "Carmen" <carmenz30@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:agi9m3$d5r$1@news.wave.co.nz...
> >
> > Christiaan Briggs <cbriggs@nospam.clear.net.nz> wrote in message
> > news:B95118E3.ACC8%cbriggs@nospam.clear.net.nz...
> > > Carmen wrote:
> > >
> > > > Two more things before I depart
> > > > 1)  Most Greens I have met are not hippies
> > > > that is another mythology promoted by the media and the antagnoists.
> > >
> > > Yeah this is an interesting one. I can only think of a couple in the
> > Greens
> > > off the top of my head. They're great people incidentally.
> > > Most of the hippies I've met (which isn't many) just aren't into party
> > > politics.
> >
> > I missed out being a 'hippy' by at least a decade.
> > Will have to settle on being a "wannabe hippy"
> > :)
> >
> > I personally can't see why the term "hippy" is used with derrogatory
> > insinuation.
> >
> > "Hippys" seem to be a perfectly harmless faction and have
> > very likely made a huge contribution to the artistic, social and
cultural
> > evolution/revolution that has occured in western society over the past
40
> > years or so.
>
> I think it's just the smell.
>
> ;-)
>

I guess you are meaning the  pathcoulli incense
and "Kama" oil that seems to waft around them,
the abodes and house trucks, rather delightful really.

ahhh pervasive and perversive stereotypes that exists.

:)
Carmen

David Stevenson <debiddo@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
news:3D2B604E.F3BDC9C@ihug.co.nz...
> rj wrote:
>
> > In article <3D2A73EF.49CCEAC@ihug.co.nz>, debiddo@ihug.co.nz says...
> >
> > >To me it is clear that Maori should be given first opportunity to
utilise
> > >any whales which beach themselves on our shores
> >
> > Why should Maori be first?  What gives them any more rights
> > than any other NZer to a beached whale on our shores?
>
> Do any other New Zealanders want to use beached whales? Not that I can
tell.
>
> Why should Maori be first? Because they were here before white people, as
well
> as various other people. If we had never turned up they would still most
> likely be happily utilising beached whale resources without interference.
> Furthermore a treaty was signed protecting the rights of Maori. This is a
> right which can be so easily given to Maori, even if various other issues
are
> more difficult to work through.
>
> And if Maori want to utilise a beached whale, why *shouldn't* they be
allowed?

Yes precisely.
However, as I mentioned in another post, it is situational
and I would like to hear for myself Jeanette's exact words, rather than
relying on your hearsay and spin.

I am reasonably certain that if a whale had been beached for any length of
time that saw it beyond redemption,
Green Party Policy would support the local Tangta Whenua retrieving the
resources, rather than seeing them waste away and pollute the beaches or go
to a commercial structure.

However, that said, rather than you posting in a newsgroup and making
decisions on behalf of other people and deciding what is best for everyone,
perhaps you might like to to go out and survey the coastal Tangata Whenua,
ask them what it is they actually desire and what would be the appropriate
Tikanga for each situation.

I am reasonably certain the replies you would get would be as variable as
the seasons and very likely there would also be some disagreement.   To some
of the whale watch people, the whale would likely be worth more to them in
the water, than out of the water.

You might be able to come back with more
definitive answers and enlighten us all.

:)
Carmen

> As I have already noted, a non-endangered whale being utilised by Maori is
> *not* a conservation issue. People might feel that they were in some way
> "helping the environment" by pushing a whale back into the sea - this
clearly
> isn't the case if the whale is from an abundant species, like most are. If
> anything it is a Greenie / hippy ideology that says "SAVE THE WHALES" that
> stands in the way. Such an ideology has no place when the conservation
status
> of a particular whale species is not under threat.
>