The Hubris of Identity Politics by Amy Brooke, a New Zealander writing for the Spectator Australia, is a must-read for all New Zealanders who are concerned about the future of New Zealand and the outcome of next month’s election.
https://www.spectator.com.au/2023/08/the-hubris-of-identity-politics/The author paints a dismal picture of New Zealand:
In New Zealand, we are facing the consequences of former Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern’s determined promotion not only of identity politics but of He Puapua, i.e. of our eventually being virtually ruled by tribal hierarchies under the supposed political power-sharing of ‘co-governance’. As a result, many thousands are now fleeing to Australia, as well as for far better wages and job conditions – professionals, tradespeople, and vital construction workers – with businesses closing down, unable to attract staff – although there is now a 46 per cent increase in the number of people on what used to be called the dole.
The article refers to the “now claimed, although non-existent, partnership supposedly established between the Crown and Maori by the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi”, and then moves on to examine preferential treatment based on race in New Zealand today:
Like so many New Zealanders, others worldwide are utterly over the exhibitionism of those playing the race card of identity politics to either claim superior insights and judgment or, often simultaneously, disadvantage and victimhood because of their racial inheritance. In this country, where promoting identity politics has been honed to a fine art, their adroitness is particularly striking, given that there are no longer any full-blooded Maoris. It is undoubtedly the case that Maori as a distinct and separate ethnic group no longer exist.
So far were we from being a racist society that intermarriage, from the very beginning, was taken for granted. So why today’s mischief-making, particularly given that very largely the small minority of racial activists – by no means representing the majority of part-Maori – are overwhelmingly of European or Eurasian descent – yet continually demand, as of right, special privileges, funding, and political advantages over all other New Zealanders, on the grounds of being Maori?
The article then goes on to consider Maori claims for superior rights based on race:
It takes a certain amount of adroitness to claim both superiority and victimhood, but well-paid part-Maori academics and others richly rewarded for heading local iwi (today’s wealthy and powerful pseudo-tribal corporations) have been remarkably successful. Although the Maori economy is estimated at $70 billion, those claiming to be Maori – even if overwhelmingly not so, according to their genetic inheritance – are never-endingly handed multimillion dollars from taxpayers’ pockets.
The article then poses the critical question of how long can so-called Maori keep insisting on special treatment to compensate so-called past transgressions.
However, the basic absurdity has been noted of requiring today’s New Zealanders – now many generations removed from their colonial ancestors’ time – together with more recent ethnic immigrants – to continue to pay – ‘compensation’ to those part-Maori who are also not part of that long-gone scenario. Moreover, their own ancestors may well only have survived because of the stop put by the Crown to their horrific practices of cannibalism and internecine warfare. Indisputably, in spite of the inevitable injustices of the past, suffered by all participants, the arrival of our European pioneers was overwhelmingly of immense benefit. This of course includes those radicalised part-Maori who also share in this ancestry – although they take care to not acknowledge this.
The author asks: Who is really Maori? And responds:
It is well argued to be completely unacceptable that the reasonable definition of who can claim to be considered Maori, i.e. someone who has at least 50 per cent of Maori genetic inheritance, was conveniently removed in the 1970s, so that in today’s political world it is enough to be even remotely descended from Maori forebears to be considered ‘Maori’, with all the financial and political advantages which iwi – with extended membership and added weight – are very keen to claim.
In respect of using the Maori language as a tool of control:
At the very centre of the downward spiral into the polarising of New Zealand are the language concerns voiced to politicians touring the country to drum up support in the upcoming elections, largely brushed off by National’s lacklustre leader, Christopher Luxon. Yet the forced renaming of all our government departments, private institutions, correspondence, and place names in newly coined, utterly inauthentic Maori is basically insulting to the approximately 96 per cent of New Zealanders who don’t speak this now overwhelmingly fake language.
Are these totally intelligible ‘Maori’ titles deliberately designed to dissuade New Zealanders from following what our now largely radicalised institutions are up to? Or are they also part of the hubris of radicalised extremists well aware that those who control the language control the thinking?
The article finishes with:
At any rate, only one political party, New Zealand First, is focusing on reclaiming our language to reclaim this country. Yet it is absolutely pivotal – if we are to fight to regain what was once a democracy.
________________
