ANOTHER PROPOSED “TREATY” RACKET

Guess what! The pale faces of the tribal elite have just thought up a new way of extracting more money out of the long-suffering taxpayer. This time it’s TEETH.

That master of one-sided bias and misinformation, the taxpayer funded Radio New Zealand, reported on 20 March, 2026, that the reason why so many Maori have bad teeth is because of “colonisation”. Without bothering to check the accuracy of what it was reporting it gave its piece the blazing headline of “Calls grow for Universal Te Tiriti consistent dental care”. Where in the Treaty can be found – or even implied – anything to do with teeth? Nowhere, as it was a treaty of cession (Article 1) by the chiefs to get rule by a single sovereign so as to bring about a much needed peace and good order to a land and society that was being destroyed by endless tribal war and cannibalism.

Some character called Jasmine Taankink, speaking for “Dental For All” claimed that “poor oral outcomes for Maori could not be separated from colonisation”. She went on, “We know that upon arrival to Aotearoa [she doesn’t even know the name of the country], English settlers were really impressed with the overall physical health of our tupuna Maori, especially their oral health……Our tupuna Maori didn’t have cavities, they didn’t have massive oral health problems. So poor oral health is just another negative implication of colonisation and us not being able to exercise our tino rangatiratanga”. She said that solutions must be grounded in “Maori led approaches. We have the expertise within our own communities to develop solutions that work for us”, implying that dental treatments that work for all other human beings somehow do not work for “Maori”.

This outburst was reinforced by Leeann Waaka, described as a “dental therapist of the Maori Dental Association”. [Yes, they even have to have a race-based dental association that is separate from the rest of New Zealand]. Leeann Waaka is by appearance European but, like so many on the separatist express, she has disfigured her chin by having it etched with scribble that resembles a map of the London Underground. This, of course, gives them more “street cred” in the highly lucrative separatist industry. This is what she said, “pushing for a Te Tiriti consistent system which would mean properly RESOURCING Maori providers and enabling iwi and hapu to design services that meet the needs of their people”. No dental qualifications needed! Just more money for iwi and hapu.

The key word in her quote is, of course “resourcing” which means sucking on the teat of the taxpayer in a very big way just as the corrupt and worthless Whanau Ora health racket has poured money into the tribes without any apparent positive results. Other people of all races go to the doctor, dentist and hospitals when they need to but Maori are deemed to be so different from all other human beings that they have to have their own non-science based “health system”. Why don’t they just call it a money racket and be done with it?

In demanding “resourcing” from the taxpayer they are following the lead of Whanau Ora which was set up in 2010 by the Maori Party co-leader, Tariana Turia – another example of John Key cheating the taxpayer by caving  in to the demands of the tribal elite. Its stated purpose “to provide health and social services to Maori” was not only racist but every bit as deceitful as Mrs. Turia’s earlier claim that the colonisation of New Zealand was a “holocaust” This was a straight out lie and brings into question her credibility on any other matter.

Her Whanau Ora, which has already cost the taxpayer hundreds of millions of dollars, is more a slush fund for iwi than a health service. It has created numerous back office jobs and private ticket clipping without producing any noticeable improvement in the health of Maoris.

As soon as it got off the ground thousands of people claiming to be “Maori” were able to access up to $20,000 of Whanau Ora cash for family get-togethers, as Winston Peters told Parliament on 7 February, 2012. He said that many of those who allocated all these hundreds of millions of dollars on behalf of Whanau Ora were working for the recipients (their own families, tribe), creating a conflict of interest.

Otaki’s Rahui Rugby and Sports Club received $60,000 in 2011 “to undertake whanau development research on resilience and community leadership” – a “bro-ocracy” in Mr. Peters’ words. One Hawkes Bay “whanau” of only twenty members received $5,000 to run a hui (booze-up) to “finalise spiritual balance” and “family development”; this included $500 each for two “facilitators”, $400 for a venue, $1,000 for a hangi, $600 for a chef, a $500 administration fee (of course!), $300 for travel, and $1,200 for “resources”. And there is no reason to suppose that giving tax dollars to unqualified iwi and hapu for TEETH would be any different.

To say that the poor state of teeth of to-day’s part-Maoris is a result of colonisation is a lie for which any radio station other than Radio New Zealand would be utterly ashamed. As for stating that those Europeans who had early contact with Maoris were impressed by their teeth and general good health, all the evidence points in the other direction.

Fern root was more or less their daily sustenance whereas kumera was regarded more as an occasional luxury. They would dig, dry, beat and roast the fern root and then chew it. In the words of John Nicholas who accompanied Samuel Marsden to New Zealand in 1814-5: “Being thus prepared for use, the cooks throw it [the fern root] round in handfuls to the chiefs and other persons, who chew it till all the sacharine or nutritive matter is extracted; and, spitting out the fibrous part, they go on again and continue in this manner till they have satisfied their appetites. The fern root, when hot, has a pleasant, sweetish taste and, on being steeped in water, deposes a glutinous substance resembling jelly”. (Narrative of a Voyage to New Zealand, Vol. I. P. 190-1)

War parties ate only fern root as it was the food of Tu, the god of war, “kumera and all other kinds of food are forbidden till the war is over”. (Te Rou, or the Maori at Home, John White, P. 114) However, the constant gnawing of the tough roots of the fern as well as the gritty shellfish and other hard foods wore away the teeth so that by about the age of twenty the teeth at the back of the mouth were worn to stumps. It didn’t help that they also chewed the big stalks of the pampas grass (toetoe).

“Early European observers such as Captain Cook frequently misjudged the age of Maoris as their toothless state made them appear much older than they were”, wrote Bill Benfield in The Third Wave; Poisoning the Land. (P. 14) Needless to say, colonisation brought dental care as the first decades of the nineteenth century saw tremendous strides in the skills and knowledge of dentistry throughout the Western world. Part-Maoris of to-day, who have their teeth, have reason to be grateful for this aspect of colonisation, which lifted them out of a veritable dental disaster with all its pain and inconvenience.

The poor state of their teeth was matched by the poor state of their general health. In the words of the early New Zealand historian, Elsdon Best, who was able to observe the early Maoris, “Native knowledge of medicine may be described as non-existent in former times. No attempt was made to study it because it was believed that sickness and disease were caused by atua (evil spirits).”

One of the worst failings, based on superstition and enforced by the wretched tohungas, was to abandon the sick and the dying into some outhouse away from the huts, as it was believed that to die in a normal hut would thereby make that hut tapu (forbidden). “So, in order to save the house for future use, when death was expected the sick man would be taken to an open shed,” wrote Rev. James Buller in his book, Forty Years in New Zealand. (P. 219) And the Church of England missionary, Rev. William Williams in his book, Christianity Among the New Zealanders, “The friends of the dying person prevented every kind of food from being given to them, water only being allowed. Thus the poor sufferer was literally starved to death” (P. 184) To-day, thanks to colonisation, their descendants die in comfortable hospitals and similar places.

It was the early Protestant missionaries who first introduced the natives to health care and Western medicine but it was an uphill struggle against the power of the tohungas who didn’t want to lose their influence. In the 1840s a small number of hospitals were set up by the colonial authorities specifically for Maoris to be treated with Western medicine. Improvement in health came first to those Maoris who had the greatest contact with Europeans, and it spread steadily throughout the nineteenth century.

Many of the natives suffered from sore eyes. They had difficulty opening them until the missionary, Thomas Kendall, started curing them by using goulard. It was believed that the prevalence of sore eyes was caused by their sleeping so often in the open air, under sometimes heavy dews and with their heads uncovered. Over the generations since colonisation many Maoris have been able to extend their optical powers by wearing European invented glasses, including the current co-leader of the Maori Party, Rawiri Waititi, who, despite ranting against colonisation and its effects at every turn, wears glasses on his own ink-stained face, thus making himself an object of both ridicule and hypocrisy.

With the introduction of Western medicine and dental care the average life expectancy of Maoris rose from 20 to 25 years (1840) to 77.1 years for women and 73.4 years for men in 2019. As they say in law, res ipsa loquitur (the thing speaks for itself).

Maoris have benefited enormously from the blessings of colonisation and are now living almost four times as long as when they led such unhealthy lives before European settlement. The hospitals and doctors and dentists that they have benefited from have been the fruits of Western civilisation with its superior knowledge and science. The hospitals and health care have been paid for mainly by European New Zealanders for no group contributes less to taxation on a per capita basis than Maoris. Similarly no group is more of a burden on the taxpayer than these same people. Their latest demand for “resourcing” so that unqualified members of tribes can be paid for giving dental care and treatment is yet another trick that they are trying to play on the rest of us. That Radio New Zealand were too dumb to work this out tells us all we need to know about its ignorance and bias.

More information on the advantages to Maori of British colonisation can be found in the book, New Zealand; the Benefits of Colonisation, by Adam Plover. Available from: www.trosspublishing.com

So Maori Claim to be Genetically Superior

By William Chambers

The ironic claim by Te Pati Maori of genetic superiority in those of Māori lineage showed through when, in an interview on the National Radio Programme, a part-Maori woman was asked whether she would be happy for her children to marry Pakeha.  This self-opinionated woman replied that it would certainly not be acceptable, because Maori bloodlines need to be kept pure!

Can you imagine if, in the same context, a Pakeha had said that on radio.  All hell would have broken loose.

 

The question that should be asked regarding the racist claim of genetic superiority is: “In what way”.  The fact being, IF Maori were superior in the way of intelligence and business acumen, then they wouldnt need hand-outs or hand-ups.

Of course, Maori will explain away their failings by playing the blame card, i.e. there arent opportunities for them to succeed, because due to colonisation, they are a dispossessed and oppressed race.

And on top of that, face ‘discrimination’.

But hang on, how come other races of people such as Asians, Indians, Filipinos, and black Africans etc. who come to this country with nothing, manage to do very well for themselves.

The truth is, they succeed (achieve “EQUITABLE” outcomes) through work ethic and self-discipline.  Without being granted preferential “rights”.  Nor exploiting Welfare and/or resorting to crime.

And because they are not blighted with an “attitude” problem, it doesnt enter their heads that theyre discriminated against.  Theyre too busy leading decent lives and setting high standards for themselves and their children to exhibit a ‘grievance’ mentality anyway.

 

Therefore, we should not be blamed (or feel guilty) about any Maori failure  which can be due to lack of personal responsibility.

The fact is, offering help based exclusively on race is apartheid, i.e. unlawful.  And, is totally unjustified because what the Treaty guaranteed is equality of citizenship.

Which ironically means it is non-Maori who should feel aggrieved, due to being unfairly burdened with the cost of supporting people who, in many instances, expect it  in the sense of taking the easy way.

Besides which, the more support you offer one category of people, the more reliant they become to being carried through life.  Thats not good for any society.

 

TALKING ABOUT SUPERIORITY  if Maori were superior regarding CAPABILITY, then why would so many rely on Welfare?

Well, laziness isnt a modern phenomenon, because as stated in Ian Wishart’s book ‘THE GREAT DIVIDE’ a Chief known as Ihakara Tokonui was brutally honest about this trait evident in Maori, when he admitted, quote: “You know what the bee is.  Some bees work, some bees are lazy.  The Pakeha are like the working bee.  But the Maori is like the other bee … the lazy one.  And Maori take advantage of the Pakeha’s work.”

 

THEN, if Maori were superior as regards being HONEST, why would they make up around 51% of the prison population, even though theyre only 18% of the total population.

The irony is that some Maori (and woke “snowflakes”) blame this also on the perceived effect of colonisation.

So, theyre saying that when Europeans first arrived, Maori were honest people.  Well, recorded history tells otherwise.  For example, in ‘LETTERS FROM THE BAY OF ISLANDS: The Story of Marianne Williams’ by Caroline Fitzgerald, there is a quote: “When some chiefs were challenged about their dishonourable behaviour they admitted it was true, and agreed they were bad people.”

 

ANOTHER matter is “CHARACTER” or lack of it.  If Maori were superior in this department, then why would so many Maori toddlers be abused and murdered, by their so-called caregivers.

Past history also tells very badly on them regarding character.  Ill give another quote from the ‘LETTERS FROM THE BAY OF ISLANDS’  “A chief called Rangi admitted that Maori generally just think to themselves … I will eat, I will fight, I will distress some poor people, and take their children for slaves.”

I will also quote an excerpt from Charles Darwin’s ‘JOURNAL OF A VOYAGE AROUND THE WORLD, 1831 – 1836.’  After leaving Tahiti, the HMS Beagle visited New Zealand, and Darwins description of Maori is thus: “Looking at Maoris, one naturally compares them with the Tahitians … both belonging to the same family of mankind.  The comparison, however, tells heavily against the Maoris.  In every respect, their CHARACTER is of a lower order.”

While being brutally honest about the subject of “character” I’ll quote a visiting British envoy who was sent to New South Wales in 1835.  His words were: “The Maori chiefs, as well as the Tribes to which they belong, have one and the same distinguishing features, of which rapacious, thieving, and greedy disposition is a principal one”.

NOTE: the word “rapacious” is defined in the Oxford dictionary as: “Wanting more than you have a right to”.

So nothing has changed.

 

Of course, Maori may claim to be genetically superior at sport  but theyre certainly not as good as their Polynesian cousins, especially Samoans and Tongans.

 

THE ONE, and only thing Maori might be able to come up with to justify any perceived superiority, is their so-called wisdom in the way of spirituality.  But that claim is based on nothing but the fact that, in an evolutionary sense, they are only minutes removed from a primitive, stone age existence.  So, theyre still clinging to hocus-pocus beliefs that defy logic or SCIENTIFIC scrutiny.  Which signals a sign of ignorance – not superior knowledge.

And any ‘special’ knowledge that Maori might imagine is unique to “indigenous” peoples, is just like the claim of them actually being indigenous  utter baloney.

 

CONCLUSION: the outrageous delusion of Maori superiority is not backed-up by reality.  But is a totally unwarranted put-down to all other races of people.  So, this claim must be called out for what it is  blatant racism.

 

Which is instigated by the few stirrers at the top trying to wear us down … by resorting to the tactic of using any, and every opportunity to gain the upper hand.

In other words, its all about ultimate “control“.

And theyre well on their way to achieving their goal.

Maori population changes in the nineteenth century

By John Robinson

Significance today of historic and pre-historic population estimates

In the second decade of the twenty-first century, approaching 200 years since the formation of New Zealand, the country is divided by race. Claims for special treatment and compensation are based on a narrative that colonisation brought great harm to Maori. This is supported by a picture of little population change during the murderous tribal wars and a rapid decline following 1840.

The analysis outlined here corrects that picture, describing a major population decline and social breakdown during the tribal wars of the first decades of the nineteenth century, which produced a demographic deficit that resulted in further population decline which was apparent in early census counts, before a steadily recovery throughout the fifty years following the formation of a national government.

A population model is here based on three identified information sources: the census data from 1856-57 to the end of the century, the 1952 review by Nancy Pearce in her Victoria University M.A. thesis, The size and location of the Maori population, 1857-96, and the estimate of losses in battles by Professor James Rutherford (Note on Maori casualties in their tribal wars 1801-1840, in the James Rutherford papers, 1926-1963, Special Collections, The University of Auckland Library).

The intent here is to present the information in a simple form, to move away from the current set of unjustified assertions and build on established facts, and so to provide the reader with a clear alternative analysis to assist a search for a deeper understanding.

Census data from 1857/58 and adjustments

National census counts of the Maori population commenced in 1856/1857. After a delay due to the wars of rebellion, these continued from 1874. The initial value reported for 1896 caused some dismay as it suggested a significant drop in Maori numbers, to 39,854 from 41,993 in 1891. That was later recognised to have been a poor count, and the 1945 table of census counts gave a revised estimate of 42,113.

A careful review by Nancy Pearce resulted in several well-founded adjustments, which are used in the following calculations. Most importantly, the first 1857/58 census count of 57,049 was adjusted to 59,700. Demographer Ian Pool presented a second set of less clear adjustments in his 1991 book, Te iwi Maori: New Zealand population past, present and projected.

The period covered by census counts commenced with a very negative population distribution (Table1), a shortage of both young and females which alone provides an explanation of the population decline. There was a steady recovery of that demographic deficit and reduction of the population decline. Stability was reached around 1890, followed by a population growth that has continued since.

Table 1. Proportion of young in the population and the ratio of males to 100 females for Maori in nineteenth century censuses.

The obvious cause is female infanticide, which had been frequently observed, with many references to this practice in early reports. Pool wrongly claimed the opposite, that “there is little sound evidence … to support the idea of widespread infanticide, male or female”, which has been accepted in many recent accounts.

An estimate back to 1840

Local and regional counts prior to the first census report similar shortages of young and females. These include an 1844 enumeration of Waikato Maori by Church of England missionaries, Wellington counts of 1845 and 1850, and an 1851 count in a number of pa near the Bay of Islands.

The data from the Waikato 1844 survey give a clear indication of the dire situation around 1840, and of the steady improvement thereafter. This is shown by a graph of the ratio of children to adult females given by Pool, with an increase from an extremely low 70 children per 100 adult females in 1844 to around 100-120 in 1874-1891, and further to 160 in 1930.

It is evident that the demographic imbalance (shortage of young and females), and thus the resulting population decline, existed from 1840, and a reasonable assumption is that the rate of population loss between 1840 and 1856/57 was of a similar magnitude to that measured between the first two census counts of 1856/57 and 1874. Since the actual figures are used in the count back, any impact from disease or other causes is included.

The model, accepting the review by Pearce and making that assumption of similar rate of change back from 1856/57, then gives an estimate of 71,600 for the 1840 Maori population. The choice of Pearce’s revised population estimate for 1856/57 is significant. Use of the original census figures suggests an 1840 population of 70,000; use of Pool’s revision suggests an 1840 population of 80,000.

These differing estimates show the variation in possible choices and assumptions in deriving an estimate of the 1840 Maori population from the reported measured data. To this can be added the possibility of a greater rate of loss in the period 1840-1856/57 (as suggested by the 1844 Waikato count), which would most probably move the 1840 estimate to around 75,000. This discussion thus points to a possible range of 71,000-75,000. Further estimates here continue to follow the model best estimate of 71,600.

From 1840 back to 1800, through the tribal wars

While there had been frequent wars between tribes previously, there was a period of particularly destructive and widespread fighting in the first decades of the nineteenth century. The horrors of those times are described in my 2020 book, Unrestrained slaughter: the Maori musket wars 1800-1840. After battle, neither sex was spared; women, infants and children were ‘barbarously devoured’ and at times whole groups were wiped out.

There are many accounts and records of the battles fought and the resulting disruption as conquered tribes moved across the country, often to spread the killing and conquer other tribes in their turn. As Ron Crosby wrote in his 1999 book, The Musket Wars – A History of Inter-Iwi Conflict 1806-45: “Of an estimated 100,000 – 150,000 Maori living in New Zealand at or around 1810, by 1840 probably somewhere between 50,000 and 60,000 had been killed, enslaved or forced to migrate as a result of the wars.”

A more comprehensive count of battle deaths has been provided by Rutherford. That estimation is both thorough and cautious; he comments that: “Any calculation of this sort involves considerable risk of error. Maori evidence, based on oral tradition, has been treated far more cautiously than R.A.F claims for German aircraft shot down in the Battle of Britain; all large claims have been greatly reduced.” Rutherford’s table of battle casualties lists both those killed and total battle casualties.

Battles and probable casualties in the intertribal wars

In order to take account of the full extent of loss of life, including those killed following battle, the estimates of ‘probable casualties’ are used in the calculations.

As well as the loss of life in the wars, the model includes the impact of the demographic deficit observed in the later part of the century. This is taken in 1840 to be that of the years following. Since it is impossible to have had such a population decline continuing unbroken far back in time, this is assumed to have developed during the period of extensive warfare and is taken as zero in 1800, with a linear change in the rate of loss between 1800 and 1840.

This indicates a population decline of 66,000 between 1800 and 1840. This is close to other estimates: Rutherford suggests a population loss of 65,000, Buck an estimate of 80,000 killed in battle or died of causes incidental to the wars, while other early estimates were around 60,000 to 90,000 deaths.

This model calculation produces the following graph, with a population in 1800 of 137,500. Pool reports an estimate by Rutherford of 155,000-166,000 in 1800.

An alternative account: denial of serious impact of tribal wars and claims of an immediate harm of colonisation

Although Pool noted estimates of high losses in the tribal wars, he set these aside. “The ethnographer Percy Smith was responsible for the claim that there were 80,000 deaths over the first third of the nineteenth century, from both direct and indirect mortality caused by warfare. Yet over 100,000 persons could have been expected to have died over this 30-year period in the ‘normal’ course of events, with or without wars.”

This process of insisting that we should ignore the decline during the musket wars opened the way to imagine a largely successful Maori society throughout that turbulent period, followed by subsequent collapse, when: “The rapid Maori population decline after 1840 resulted from the increasing number and density of the Pakeha population.” This claim has become accepted as in Te Ara, the Encyclopedia of New Zealand: “Very high levels of mortality meant that the Maori population declined for most of the 19th century. The most rapid decrease occurred between 1840 and 1860, when the Maori population dropped by up to 30%.”

This version of Maori demographics is shown most graphically in a 2014 Auckland University Press publication, The healthy country? A history of life and death in New Zealand, written by “internationally renowned scholars” Alistair Woodward and Tony Blakely. Their figure 5 references Pool 1991, but gives very different numbers from those found in that publication which were population estimates of 80,000 in 1840 and 115,000 at contact. I have been unable to establish where they got their numbers; in the words of Simon Chapple when considering estimates of the contact population, these were “Numbers from Nearly Nowhere”.

The estimates of early populations (read from that graph) are: 150,000 in 1769, 110,000 in 1840, 100,000 in 1844, and 58,000 around 1854-1856 (a little higher in 1854). This suggests a sudden decrease of 42% over 10 years between 1844 and 1854. There is no explanation for any such catastrophic event; there was no great epidemic with such a high loss of life in those years. As Pool reports: “it is worth stressing that there is no record of the great apocalyptic diseases … striking New Zealand in any demographically significant way”. The claimed population collapse is nowhere explained. In fact, it did not occur, having been artificially constructed by the unrealistically high estimates of the 1840 population.

The great harm brought by colonisation is a myth – it simply did not happen. Yet this false version of history is widely accepted.

1 2 3 4 8