A few weeks ago, South Canterbury’s “Courier” newspaper featured a report of a welcome for the new Principal at the Waihi School, a primary school situated in the rural town of Winchester, a little north of Timaru. Accompanying the report was a photo of the new Principal adorned in a feather cloak while the boys of the school, led by a male teacher, performed a haka.
Such a welcome would seem perfectly in order if Winchester were a predominantly Maori community and the Waihi School had a significant number of Maori students. That, however, is not the case. The Maori component of the population of rural South Canterbury is among the lowest in the country, while the Waihi School’s website shows it to be a Church of England “prep” school many of whose students are likely to proceed to secondary school at St Margaret’s or Christ College in Christchurch. Nevertheless, when it comes to “Nurturing Creative Success”, the school’s website shows not a drama group nor a school musical ensemble, but a group of very white anglo-european youngsters dressed as Maori.
How has it come to pass that even an English-style “prep” school is in such obvious denial of its own heritage? What kind of societal pressure has led to such a school’s adopting a false Maori “persona”? And what does this signify in terms of the direction in which our country is heading?
The agenda that has led to the “Maorification” of our school system first became apparent some 35 years ago via the edict that all government agencies, and notably all state schools, should display a title in the Maori language as well as in English. At around the same time, teachers were told that all aspects of the curriculum should suddenly acquire a “Maori dimension”. As a teacher of foreign languages at the time, I recall explaining that the French language has no Maori dimension and I flatly refused to pretend that it did! I could see where this agenda was heading but I found myself pretty much alone in refusing to accommodate it. Almost all my colleagues preferred to avoid the possible unpleasantness of refusing to comply; had they all said “NO” at that point, the agenda might have been halted in its tracks. Thirty-five years later, the Waihi School symbolises the complete cultural take-over that has occurred.
That take-over has not by any means been the end goal, rather a necessary step towards the end goal. With the whole of society conditioned to accept Maori as its default cultural identity and Maori language as a necessary component of every communication, every official title and every TV news item, we have now entered the phase of forcing an activist Maori version of history and agenda of iwi entitlement on everyone in schools, in workplaces, in local government and even in leisure organisations which, if Incorporated Societies and required to adopt a new Constitution, have been urged to become “te Tiriti-led”.
In an interview with Sean Plunket on The Platform on 14 May, Horowhenua District Councillor, Sam Jennings, provided chilling insight into where we are heading as a country. The Horowhenua District Council was planning to dispose of some millions of dollars worth of surplus property and was considering a proposal to give iwi with whom the council was “partnered” first right of refusal. Even before the issue of land sales is addressed, the reality of local bodies operating “in partnership” with mana whenua/iwi arises, and one cannot but speculate as to what such “partnerships” involve and at what cost to ratepayers. The Maori Party’s manifesto shows that entitlement for iwi to have first right of refusal does not stop at disposal of land being sold by central or local government; the goal by 2040 is for such entitlement to extend to all private land sales as well and, given the advance of the activist Maori agenda through all institutions and all aspects of society, who would bet against there being by 2040 an entitlement for iwi to gain preference in the acquisition of privately-owned land? All it will take is the election of a Labour-led Government propped up by the Greens and the Maori Party.
Of course, we could all learn to say “NO” as we might have done 35 years ago.
At half-time stage in the Coalition Government’s three-year term, its success in halting the advance of the activists’ agenda has been anything but spectacular, the spectre of iwi sovereignty is now a significant factor in causing many able and ambitious young New Zealanders to leave, and it becomes increasingly obvious that penetration of our institutions by the activist agenda has gone so far that even a government opposed to that agenda now seems unable to halt it in the absence of significant grass-roots community support.
What, then, can individuals do without putting their employment and incomes at risk? In what sector can individuals either alone or collectively have an impact?
The answer is the charitable sector. New Zealanders are great supporters of worthwhile causes, be they environmental, aid to victims in war-torn countries, animal welfare, or social issues nearer to home. Sadly, a great many charitable organisations have decided that they wish to appear “inclusive” so, as a bare minimum, have decided to join in the re-naming of our country and/or to replace their usual ending to communications with Nga mihi or similar. However, unlike our employers, our banks, our energy companies, etc our charities need us, but we do not necessarily need them! We are therefore free to choose no longer to contribute to organisations that engage, even at a seemingly harmless level, in the practice of needlessly imposing Maori language/culture on us in furtherance of a political agenda.
It is unlikely that an individual’s withdrawal of support would trouble large organisations such as Greenpeace but the prospect of losing two or three thousand supporters might be another matter. Even as an individual, I have found that the CEO of an overseas aid organisation had reason to conclude that a few Nga mihis were not worth the $800 I was donating annually.
My experience of exchanging views with CEOs of charitable organisations is that, without exception, even the use of a simple Nga mihi is the result of a conscious decision. They know exactly what they are doing and, if the cost is too high, they will stop it.
Cleansing the charitable sector of “Maorification” is perfectly achievable if enough people decide to make a stand. The change from a rising to a falling tide is almost imperceptible at the point that the change occurs; however, as it gains momentum, the falling tide carries away much of what the rising tide brought in. As people gain confidence in saying “NO” to the activist agenda in one sector, so will they start standing up to that agenda in others – in schools, in workplaces and wherever free speech and democracy are threatened.
I conclude with a sample of saying “NO” to an animal welfare organisation which appears subsequently to have concluded that an occasional Nga mihi is not worth the loss of my current donations and the bequest that I have made via my Will.
**
Here is my letter:
Dear XXXX
I recently received this request regarding provision of foster homes for dogs.
A dog is my companion animal of choice; a Samoyed was my constant friend and companion in my youth. Currently, however, the presence of a dog on the property would doubtless upset the cat who feels the property is his ever since I found him lurking under a bush at the bottom of the garden a few years ago.
I write, however, not about dogs or cats but about the conclusion to the email below. Usually, an email from XXXX concludes very appropriately “For the Animals”. This one ends with Nga mihi.
As I explained a little while back to your Board Secretary, I used to donate quite generously to a range of charitable organisations but, as each started the practice of including Maori terms in communications that were otherwise in English, I stopped my contributions and explained that this was the reason why. Replies from some showed that the practice was no accident; it was in each case the result of a deliberate decision to politicise a charitable organisation
My objection has nothing to do with use of the Maori language per se. When I was employed as a teacher in the early 1990’s, we encountered an “expectation” that each part of the curriculum should acquire a “Maori dimension”. Seeing where this was heading, I refused to comply. The next step in that agenda was the intrusion of Maori terminology into communications that were otherwise in English, English being the language that, in New Zealand, is universally understood. Just as a “Maori dimension” was to have a place in every part of the school curriculum, now there was to be a Maori aspect to all communications. Once that notion has been installed, the next step is acceptance of a Maori component to all decision-making such as the granting of a Resource Consent
From there, we move on to the notion that Maori (often tribal appointees) should be part of all governing bodies that make decisions affecting us; thus, we have dedicated Maori seats in Parliament and two unelected Ngai Tahu appointees on ECan. That is just the start. The end goal is no less than 50/50 presence on all governing bodies leading on to the He Puapua goal of full tribal control of the country by 2040.
If all of this sits comfortably with you and with your Board, then by all means allow XXXX to be used as a vehicle for conditioning supporters to accept the agenda at the point where it commenced -with Nga mihi replacing For the Animals at the end of an email. If that continues, however, I shall no longer be one of your supporters.
Kind regards
**
Here is the reply:
Dear John,
Thank you for your email and for sharing your thoughts with us. We appreciate your support and kindness toward animals.
We understand that the use of Te Reo Māori in our communications may not resonate with everyone. Our intention is to be inclusive and respectful of all cultures within New Zealand, and we believe that incorporating Te Reo Māori is a part of that effort. However, we also value the feedback of our supporters.
We will ensure that your preferences are noted.
Thank you once again for your support and for taking the time to express your views.
Kind regards
**
Comment: As has been the case with all other charitable organisations with which I have had similar correspondence, the use of Maori terms turns out to be no mere fashion trend, but the result of a conscious decision. They knew exactly what they were doing.
**
Here is my response:
Dear XXXX
Thank you for taking the trouble to reply so promptly to my email.
You confirm what I have found in the case of other charitable organisations, that the use of phrases in Te Reo Maori in a communication that is otherwise in English arises from a deliberate policy decision.
Having been an XXXX supporter for rather longer than you have been in the organisation’s employ, I have enormous difficulty understanding how being inclusive of and respectful towards human cultures has even a hint of anything to do with animal welfare. “Inclusive” and “respectful” are simply nice-sounding words used to explain away the fact that an organisation is being used to support a political agenda.
It is entirely your choice whether XXXX is used for such a purpose. If I detect any further sign that such is the case, my support for animals will continue but my support for XXXX will cease.
Yours sincerely