by Geoffrey Churchman
With all the new major institutions that the Jacinda government has been creating for people with some Maori descent (even if it’s minimal) with special privileges and veto power over everyone else, one glaringly obvious question that needs to be addressed properly is the definition of who a Maori is.
Nearly 750 Acts of Parliament contain provisions relating to Maori issues, and the sole Interpretation for the term is:
Maori means a person of the Maori race of New Zealand; and includes a descendant of any such person
As in Nazi Germany and South Africa during the Apartheid era where the rights people had were determined by their bloodlines, race and racism has become the core ideology of the Jacinda government in NZ.
However, this definition is so vague and tautological that it is really no definition at all, as John Robinson has pointed out in several articles. These days many identify as Maori because of the benefits it bestows on them and nothing else: one full-blooded ancestor from the distant past is all it needs.
The two regimes from history mentioned both made white Europeans the superior skin colour / bloodline. South Africa had two further categories: black and coloured — who were somewhere between the two skin pigmentations.
Nazi Germany was primarily concerned with the distinction between Jews and Aryan Germans (white non-Jews), with of course, massive discrimination and restrictions against the former. From a legal perspective, the country had to provide a definition of both, even if the rule of law wasn’t a strong feature of the Nazis’ reign.
In 1935 the Nazis promulgated the Nürnberger Gesetze or Nuremberg Laws which contained three racial categories: Deutschblutige (German blooded), Mischling (mixture of Jew and Ayran) and Jude (Jew).
The chart above describing the Nürnberg Laws was a pseudo-scientific basis for racial identification. Only people with four German grandparents (four white circles in top row left) were of “German blood”. A Jew was someone who descended from three or four Jewish grandparents (black circles in top row right). In the middle stood people of “mixed blood” of the “first or second degree.” A Jewish grandparent was defined as a person who is or was a member of a Jewish religious community.
This also included a list of allowed marriages (“Ehe gestattet”) and forbidden marriages (“Ehe verboten”). Marriages between a one-quarter Jew and an Ayran were allowed. But marriages between a one quarter Jew and another one quarter Jew were not.
Marriages between a half-Jew and an Aryan or a half-Jew and a quarter-Jew were allowed “mit Benehmigung” (with permission). It’s not clear what the authorities would have looked for in granting such permission. Two half-Jews could marry, and their children would become Mischling. A half-Jew and a three-quarter-Jew could marry and their children would be classed as Jews.
Someone who was one-eighth Jew was classed as an Aryan.
With all the special rights and privileges which the racist Jacinda regime is putting in place for “members of the Maori race”, it seems highly desirable that they have some similar classification system in place for who is and who is not a member of the Maori race. Is it reasonable that someone who is only one-16th Maori like the well-known Stephen Gerard O’Regan gets the same privileges and (government) payments as someone who is say one-quarter Maori?
Should it not also define the Maori race as being those people who lived in NZ before the Europeans showed up? This would include some Moriori.
Personally I find the classification of people by race in this manner objectionable, but that’s what radical Leftists want and are getting.
Things in society that cause happiness and freedom such as our multicultural society in NZ can not be tolerated by leftist socialists. How can they possibly control happy free thinking individuals? Totalitarian ideologies without fail seek to divide societies against one another. Knowing our true history exposes where we come from and what we need to do to improve. If we are taught lies about our past we will not change and continue in whatever unsavoury practices our ancestors took part in.
Cheers
Mr Churchman, your thoughts are supported and appalled.
One point of correction, to South Africa. Your quote – “South Africa had two further categories: black and coloured”. Not correct to the “entire complication of the SA regime” (firstly British run, and then apartheid run – ‘basically the same’). The Indian population, who have been in SA for years (thanks to the Brits who shipped the people from India to SA to work in the sugar cane fields – as the Brits did to the Indian population being shipped to the likes of Fiji, Mauritius, and the Caribbean; for the same work), needs consideration. The South African Indians do not, nor have, seen themselves as black, nor coloured.
For NEW ZEALND, the relevance is …………… we are all NEW ZEALANDERS; no matter from where our forefathers came (yes, OUR population is diverse, with ancestors from countries from all corners of the world). No one (so called) ethnic group has rights over the majority of NEW ZEALANDERS.
May this be the lesson for the future of our great country ……………. well, not so great a country at the moment, thanks to ‘the woman” – jabcinda – and her mob of thieves.
“Some New Zealanders are more equal than others” Dr. Winston O’Boogie
New Zealand / Ourtearower is becoming the most racist nation on the planet.
1. Attempt to make Maori votes more powerful than “Others”
2. Attempt to steal water from most “Others”
3. Various cash gushings to Maori into the billions based on the ‘Collective Guilt Syndrome”
4. The latest rort of the 8,000 houses for “Papakainga” only (a housing development for Maori people on their ancestral land)
The list is literally endless and will not change untill it is openly challenged. Cannot see that happening anytime soon though because of the “Cowardice Factor”…
We are who we are who you want us to be???
Geoffrey, mentioning the definition of Maori is one thing, to then go off subject and compare NZ with Sth Africa and Germany does not help. Mentioning the Jews in Germany is further off subject.
Maori did not come to NZ. Polynesian did though after the arrival of the indigenous people. Maori is a post European term for the ‘natives’ in general..
NZ first settled as early as BC and possibly by the Waitaha. The Waitaha were in NZ a thousand years or more before the arrival of the Polynesian. Evidence under volcanic ash layers.
The kiori rat arrived? in NZ centuries before Polynesian.
The Polynesian did not arrive in 1350 AD by giant mythical canoes.
Our history has been twisted.
Well, how would you define “a member of the Maori race” then?
Yes well, that is the 6 million question (albeit an unnecessary one in the first instance) – which the nefarious ptb and the entire globalist regime and their minions are unwilling to answer. Too busy stoking the fire they have lit. Much like that other arsonist-fire-fighter NATO.
It’s patently obvious to critical thinking people who still have a functioning cerebral cortex, that *They* are simply on a hell-bent mission and doing their damnedest to convince everyone that we (Māori), have basically never existed at all. Pretty much like the unicorn. Hah! And they will clutch at any straw (no matter how deceptive, sick and twisted or ludicrous) to achieve this.
But what is even more alarming, is the number of people who are being sucked into this evil vortex of critical race theory, division and hatred. That is *Their* sole objective. Job done. Globalist agenda done and dusted. ALL of us forever slaves to the NWO. Then it won’t matter at all, who and/or what ANY of us are!
End. Of. Story.
W.W. “Defining a member of the Maori race?”. The Crown Law office advised the government they has no forensic evidence determining who is indigenous or tangata whenua to NZ.
D Johnston. Unnecessary question? Ranginui Walker in his book said to the effect that “Wherever Maori came ashore in NZ they found people already living here”.
Those people more than likely were the indigenous people.
To W.W. & DJ. I do not make this stuff up.
Brian Johnston, Yes Ranginui Walker authored a number of papers and books. Interestingly he was also of Lebanese descent – however this did not detract from or diminish his Māori descendancy and heritage. Independent research conducted to explore the “first stage” of Māori settlement; between 750AD and 1350AD depicts a true history. As does the book ‘To The Light: A saga of Kupe and Ngahue’. I also highly recommend ‘Infinite Threads’ by Mariko.B.Ryan regarding the ancient manuscripts of the Māori Tohunga Prophets. Truly enlightening and joyous – and most especially, highly prescient of where we now find ourselves.