|
|
 |
MANGAWHAI'S NO.1 NEWSPAPER
|
|
|
Letters to the EditorPre-Maori history Contrary to their claims, the stone work in the Waipoua Forest is not of Maori origin. Maori claim to trace their history back 46 generations, whereas Waitaha go back 67 generations and Patupaiarehe 135. The 75-year embargo on findings at Waipoua was at the request of the then self-appointed kaumatua Ned Nathan. The reason: The disclosure at a meeting in Kerikeri of the Historic Places Trust, that carbon dating went back to before Christ. Oops! Incidently, Ned Nathan’s whakapapa stems from Patuawa Netana, a native of Fortuna Island in the Gilbert and Ellis Group. Seven of these natives were brought here as crew on the French Navy flagship, L’ Alcmene, which was wrecked on Baylys Beach, near Dargaville in 1851. Another oops! How can this late date qualify any offspring as being Tangata Whenua, the name of the earliest inhabitants? Verification of this is from the captain’s log, now in the possession of the captain’s grandson and translated into English after the discovery of the wreck. Patuawa Netana remained in New Zealand and worked on boats trading between the Bay of Islands and Auckland. He married Taratia, one of a group of escaped slaves from eastern Waikato. In 1850, Parore Te Awha took pity on the group and allowed them sanctuary in the Waipoua Valley. Verification is in the Kaipara Land Court and Maori Land Court minutes. May I suggest these writers and their ilk do proper research and not subscribe to what my forebears called ‘Maori humbug’. Start with viewing documentaries Skeletons in the Cupboard, parts 1 and 2, on YouTube. Then three books; Forbidden History, The People Before and Ancient Celtic New Zealand. These should open their blinkered eyes. I think it most unfair to attack Noel Hilliam. He is just the messenger. As an Australian-trained and certified maritime archaeologist and conservator from the 1960s, his knowledge is immense. I gather he has, over the last 50 years, interviewed many old kuia, kaumatua, Waitaha, Dalmatians and settlers – all on tape. Oh yes! I have visited and photographed the Waipoua site. Have you? B Jones
Turehu first here? Well, there’s certainly much evidence of other possibilities, and of course, there’s the mysterious Tamil bell, found being used as a cooking pot by the early Maoris of Taurikura in Whangarei Harbour, with which it had been in use for generations. The Maori had no means of boiling water. When trouble was on the way, Maori apparently hid their treasures beneath puriri trees. The Tamil bell, it is recorded, was found under a puriri which had blown over near the Wairua River, west of Whangarei. Kevan could well be mistaken with his favour of the Waitaha people perhaps being here first – I have been invited to pay a visit in a few weeks time to John Aldworth, the author of Forbidden History, a recently published comprehensive treatise on the subject (and which perhaps, Kevan will have read.) Let’s look antipodean and consider Gower Man – the earliest human remains found in Britain, discovered in a cave in Wales, on the Gower Peninsular, way before the Celt. Back to New Zealand again, and we see that in his book Mr Aldworth has also produced good reason to consider that those who were in New Zealand first were the Turehu. He tells of evidence produced by a geneticist that the DNA of the Turehu is an amazing identical match to the Welsh of 3500 years ago. I am informed that soon other data will be forthcoming regarding the Turehu. All most intriguing. Terry Harris
Defending NZ I would like to thank Mr Harris for taking the trouble to write in response to my articles (Letters to the editor, Mangawhai Focus, May 8). I am a little disappointed though that he did not send a copy to me that I might be able to publish a timely response. The ongoing survival of any native species is certainly always due to the removal of introduced predators and/or competitors. I believe trapping and shooting of targeted species works better than poisons in that there is no residual effect, and impact on the broader ecosystem is avoided. I don't know specifically about kokako round your area but 1080 resulted in no lasting benefit here in the Brynderwyns. The research I have viewed supports the long-term ineffectiveness of 1080. I would further like to correct some assumptions made in Mr Harris's letter. While I’m not sure what a ‘liberal’ actually is, I'm pretty sure I'm not one. I did not cast aspersions on the integrity of anyone now or previously involved in or with the NZ Defence Force. I did however try to illustrate that good people carrying out the orders of evil men can lead to problems. I know very little about some of the foreign conflicts Mr Harris cites so I cannot comment. I do know however that around a hundred years ago on the orders of British Generals, ANZAC troops invaded Turkey, landing on the Gallipoli peninsular. A Turkish Defence Force defending Turkey withstood that attack and wholesale slaughter of ANZAC troops was the result. Those with integrity were killed as equally dead as any rogues or scoundrels. The British generals themselves did not come under fire and none were wounded or killed. Historians tell us that had the attack succeeded this would have had little or no effect on the war. Later in that 'war to end all wars' Kiwi soldiers fought Germans in many countries with the notable exception of New Zealand and Germany. As I write, portions of our 'community' funded defence force are deployed in Afghanistan killing Afghanistanis – on the orders not of generals but of politicians. It is a fact that a combined US-NZ attack was made upon a small village there. This is not disputed by Hagar and Stevenson or our own defence forces. Could Mr Harris please explain how this is defending New Zealand? If an Afghan defence force landed troops at Te Arai and shot up a village there due perhaps to those people having a different ideology, would that be okay? Not being as schooled in such matters as Mr Hall I can make little sense of it myself. Looking forward to learning the real truth about this. Chris Sellars (Worzel)
Proposal rejected Mayor Gent states that the Kaipara District Council paid legal fees totaling $1.9m to lawyers to reject the stance taken by many in our community re the illegal activities by previous councils. Much of this expenditure was approved by Mr Winder, the ex Crown Manager who is no longer employed by the KDC. In October 2013 a small group of well-skilled and competent community members approached Mayor Gent and others with a sound business proposal to enact a scheme of arrangement between the various community factions to amicably resolve the KDCs failures and resolve the debt matter. A scheme of arrangement is a well-known business action where the parties get around the table and negotiate a binding resolution. Mayor Gent and others rejected this proposal out of hand. This rejection lead to the ongoing acrimony and confrontation in our community. To spend $1.9m to recover $400,000 is poor business judgement when a negotiated settlement costs nothing except goodwill on all parties. It is sad that the prominent community members were ignored and treated with disdain. G J Smith |
|
FOLLOW US  
|
CONTACT US
|