Hard News: Te Qaeda and the God Squad
938 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 10 11 12 13 14 … 38 Newer→ Last
-
Quite, Deborah. I'm reserving judgement on this whole thing until there is some more clarity around events.
-
"that Te Tiriti o Waitangi was signed in 1840." But not by Tuhoe.
In 1916 two Maori had been shot and killed by police attempting to arrest the Tuhoe leader Rua Kenana at Maungapohatu, in part for his active discouragement of Maori recruitment. The government did not want a repetition of this bloodshed.
http://www.nzhistory.net.nz/war/first-world-war/conscientious-objection/maori-objection
Who is Tame Iti?
http://aotearoa.wellington.net.nz/he/tame.html -
Deborah, too true. That's what's really wrong with 21st Century Radicalism. Too many fatuous postmodernists. They see hair-splitting like "aha, but sea-level on what planet??" as somehow a profound point about the subjectivity of truth, when really they're just pointing out an ambiguity that, sure, says something about our Earth-centrism, but could easily be cleared up just by being more specific when the occasion demands.
If the Treaty was not signed by Tuhoe, that doesn't make it not the Treaty, or a Pakeha interpretation of it, or any other subjectivist bs. It just tells us something about the Treaty - that it doesn't speak for all Maori.Tell us something we didn't know! I don't know any Maori personally who feel any bond to the Treaty whatsoever, and I know quite a few.
-
History never repeats?
There were also rumours that Rua was actively working for a German victory. His opposition to Maori volunteering for service convinced Commissioner of Police John Cullen and Minister of Native Affairs William Herries to act.
From the above NZ History link. NZ Police acting (& Killing) based on rumours.
-
Well, I said I wouldn't, but I will. But only because there was something I forgot to add: I liked the Weber quote a few pages back. Agree entirely with Max. Unfortunately many others, on all sides of the fences, don't.
But, while I'm here:
Rob: "enough evidence"? Yeah, I thought about this. But, as I suggested, they wouldn't need to wait until they were in the middle of something, but significantly (evidence-wise) closer, I would have thought. (Like if there was a text message indicating such and such and then someone's car was found heading to such and such with a bootload of explosives, that'd be pretty good evidence. But I'm no lawyer.) I very much doubt (pure speculation) that there'll be anything proved terrorism-wise, and with that premise I'd aver that if there was a chance otherwise in the offing the cops wouldn't have passed it up.
And I meant "politically" in a slightly more broad sense. Just, you know, stirring up distrust of radicals, extremists etc and building up our sense of comfort in the arms of the law.
Ben: "Time will tell"? Frankly, I doubt it.
Deborah: I was not being fatuously postmodern: I was referring to the specifics of this business, not the chemical formula of water. My point being that speculation based on limited information with an emotive topic necessarily stirs up a distracting number of ideologically inflected reflections.
And I'm not condoning violence, but you need to at least acknowledge that if one's viewpoint is fundamentally opposed to the underlying political structures of the institutions you cite, well, one will likely look to other avenues. That's just how it is. It might be "wrong". Many things are wrong.
This is the problem with a wonderfully multi-cultural society (I'm being facetious - or something): not everyone buys into the dominant ideology. And history runs its course. And as I started out saying yesterday, I'm deeply discomfited by the growing belief that such history can and should be held in check by force. It can't, and it shouldn't.
Russell called me a romantic for it. Fair enough. But I for one find the idea of bureacratised, mediatised, uninformed stasis (underwritten by state power) rather appalling.
Maybe, you know, history could be held in check - by a bit of common decency. But that's a forlorn goddam hope.
-
Deborah- while it's philosophy club here ;-) I hate to forgo any chance to jump up and down on post-modernist phlunck (ooh, it's so squishy, and so easy to squash!)- but I suspect Creon was merely referring to the specific lack of any concrete information on events in Ruatoki by any of us here. (I lived there for a year, but sadly, no insight. It was in 1963. I was three. However I can find it on the map!)
And I thought his comment about propping up power structures was a little more interesting than apologism for violence. If pissed off people cause violence, it makes sense to take a wee peek at why they're pissed off, just from time to time. Though I am of a pacifist bent myself, and indeed inept at all forms of violence, and quite agree we have a myriad of ways of being pissed off that don't involve amunition.
I also enjoyed James George's blessay, bless 'im. That it was calculated to piss people off, didn't mean it missed all it's targets. I'm not much for conspiracies (apart from "a conspiracy of dunces", heh!) but while I'm not buying the whole package, it's possible there's some synergy/synchronicity floating loose.
I'm not happy with the new bill from what little I've seen and heard. We live in very complacent times, we hardly vote and forget that every little check or balance on power is a small part of a big social machine. I hope it gets a good deal more intention- and I hope it influences how people vote. -
oops. Creon has sped to the scene faster than a speeding bullet- or at least an aged hippy brain. where is that delete/edit function, dudes?
-
A lot of history is the history of violence, but a lot of violence is not history, methinks, Creon, simply because people working with a touch of common decency have forged the sorts of institutions deborah cites. Institutions that dilute and divert and challenge and sometimes overturn the dominent power structures without automatic rifles or endless corridors of emotionless bureaucrats.
Whether the one's we've got can improve, function adequately, heck even survive the world we're moving into is moot. Change is inevitable. Striving to keep that change peaceful: I'm all for it. -
My point being that speculation based on limited information with an emotive topic necessarily stirs up a distracting number of ideologically inflected reflections.
Yup, and for a short period of time, anyone's guess is good. But there is an actual reality out there that really happened/is happening, and as more information comes to light the 'idealogically inflected reflections' (which no-one is immune to) will divide into those which were accurate and those which were not, and those we still don't know about.
Personally I've only got time for the first two. Something that could be actually right or wrong is actual knowledge/information. Something that can be reinterpreted as the facts arise is fatuous postmodernism at it's best.
-
I don't know any Maori personally who feel any bond to the Treaty whatsoever, and I know quite a few.
Are you serious?
My point being that speculation based on limited information with an emotive topic necessarily stirs up a distracting number of ideologically inflected reflections.
Nicely put. I will be keeping my bite-sized opinion to myself until there is more information. The nature of these kind of forums is that it is hard to have a sustained conversation/discussion and the news cycle just moves on to the next thing. I wonder if we will still be talking/thinking about this in two weeks time. I kind of hope so, regardless of what comes out on Friday. I like to find such chunky (and well punctuated for that matter) blessays in the middle of a thread. Especially when they adopt a tone (provocative or otherwise) not otherwise heard around here.
I have just finished reading an article in White Fungus magazine about Rua Kenana and the Siege of Maungapohatu. The history of Tuhoe is one of the many things I am mostly ignorant about and it seems like something historic is happening now. Swarming over the little tit-bits of partially digested information makes me feel more than a little nauseous.
Maybe I have a weak stomach. -
Creon,
Your comments about "history runs its course" seem downright mystical - sounds a bit like people invokign God's will, or the inevitable collapse of capitalism (don't hear that one so much any more).
What people do affects history. It isn't some mystical force of its own.
But I'd be interested to know what you mean by it in this context.
-
Creon,
Your comments about "history runs its course" seem downright mystical - sounds a bit like people invoking God's will, or the inevitable collapse of capitalism (don't hear that one so much any more).
What people do affects history. It isn't some mystical force of its own.
But I'd be interested to know what you mean by it in this context.
-
I don't know what happened in Ruatoki, but I have just learned about two aquaintances of mine who had their house raided with dogs and all their computer equipment seized. (Think about that for a moment if you depend on computers for your living or your household management). As far as I can tell they have done nothing worse than be environmentalists with the wrong friends and family.
There had better be something bigger going on here than Tame Iti planning to shoot someone. I was sitting on the fence before, but now I'm getting a strong sense that this is a payback/fishing expedition that doesn't have much to do with "terror" at all.
-
I have written myself abut the climate of, well, maybe not fear, but at least concern that this should be causing all New Zealanders. And that the police had bloody well better be right about their claims, because frankly, I don't trust them anymore.
But we have incredibly strong institutions to effect change in this country, without having to resort to running around with guns. So if the police are right, and that's still very much up in the air, then what we have is a group of people who have rejected any attempt to keep on talking, to find peaceable ways of making changes, and who think that using violence to achieve their ends is acceptable.
I agree that the fact that these people are seriously pissed off is an indicator that somehow, something needs to change, but... lots of peopel get seriously pissed off about lots of things. People who live near Eden Park get seriously pissed off about the heavy traffic there. People who try to get from Wellington to Levin get seriously pissed off about the poor condition of the road. Women with Her2 breast cancer get seriously pissed off about the lack of funding for Herceptin. Rugby fans get seriously pissed off by incompetent referees. Just being seriously pissed off doesn't justify violence.
And it's not as though Tame Iti is excluded from the national conversation. DPF has a rather nice photo of Tame Iti sitting and chatting to Don Brash. I know, he's gone now, but most ordianry citizens don't get chances to directly influence political thinking that way.
And above all, the police had better be right. I am waiting somewhat anxiously for Friday, but I think that no matter what we hear, it's a lose / lose situation.
-
. . . had their house raided with dogs and all their computer equipment seized.
Creepily reminiscent of the 1951 waterfront strike legislation that allowed the police to seize printing presses, and restricted their ownership until the rise of the photocopier made a mockery of such laws.
If your computer's seized, held for an extended period, and contains material vital to your livelihood, what grounds do you have for redress under the anti-terror laws?
-
Joe, in 1951 my grandparents had a secret press in their basement, and my Dad delivered pamphlets on his bike, and that is exactly what I was thinking this morning.
-
Also, I'm not ready to take to the streets yet. I'm just saying that there had better be a bloody good justification for what's going on.
It's all different when it's personal, isn't it?
But we have incredibly strong institutions to effect change in this country, without having to resort to running around with guns.
We also have incredibly strong powers to maintain order and public safety, without having to round up people who don't have firearms and have done nothing worse than hang with the wrong folks.
Like everyone else, I just don't know right now, but what I do know, I don't like the sound of.
-
I think you're confusing me with someone who cares.
5 points for Danyl. He's dragged you out on the www, and left you with your pants around your ankles.
But good to see you admit it and withdraw your comments! The "oh I didn't care anyway" retreat looks great.
-
merc,
You know Kyle that says a lot more about you than it does about me, and indeed why you'd bother to say it.
But in these times of fear mongering, you may yet prove to be a useful idiot. -
merc,
And BTW, did you get a rev from the pants imagery my Southern red neck friend?
-
Chaps, this is very unbecoming. Really.
-
-
merc,
Actually Kyle, on reflection I would like a retraction, that comment is totally out of order, suggesting my public pantlessness is demeaning.
-
But we have incredibly strong institutions to effect change in this country, without having to resort to running around with guns. So if the police are right, and that's still very much up in the air, then what we have is a group of people who have rejected any attempt to keep on talking, to find peaceable ways of making changes, and who think that using violence to achieve their ends is acceptable.
...Just being seriously pissed off doesn't justify violence.
I should preface this by saying that I am a pacifist, and an occasional non-violence trainer. When all the names of the arrested people come out, I'm going to be checking them to see if any of them have been through a workshop that I've run on non-violence and political change.
But I should also note that I'm white, middle class, and living in a Western society reasonably comfortably. Living a non-violent life works fine for me, but it there are people in the world where I would admit that it's not an realistic option. Does that apply to any people in New Zealand?
I watched a video a couple of years ago of interviews with activists from both sides of the divide of violence. They were interviews with former members of the Weather Underground, who split from the mainstream anti-Vietnam War movement in the States in 1969 and adopted violence as a tool to 'bring the war home', and bring down capitalism. There were also interviews with people who had gone right to that line, and decided not to cross it - to stay non-violent.
The most interesting comment was from one of the latter. He had stayed in mainstream opposition, and had not joined the Weather Underground. His comment though was that he understood why others had. He said (and I'm paraphrasing) "We did everything legal, everything democratic, every protest tactic, we put our voices and bodies on the line, we pushed all those boundaries as far as they would go, and still Americans were murdering people in Vietnam. How long do you let something as wrong as Vietnam happen, before you cross that line and try to prevent it by violence? What is the greater evil - failing to prevent Vietnam non-violently, or preventing Vietnam violently?"
As a student of the Weather Underground, and the reasons that political activists cross over into violence, that has always struck me. The Weather Underground were a product of two things - one, their own states of mind. I won't call it insanity, but they completely misjudged the movement who was not willing to join them in their fringe campaign. Rightly or wrongly, it was terrible politics. But secondly, it was a product of a political system which did not adapt to the massive mood swing against Vietnam and absorb that discontent.
What was also clear if you study the Weather Underground, was that the people who went underground and started using violence, were not insane. They were intelligent, middle-class white activists, of a particularly radical bent. Rightly or wrongly, they were applying moral standards to the activities of their country, and felt driven to do what they did. If you want to understand why people consider violence as a political tool, then you need to look at it from their point of view. I can't imagine how anyone in the world can take up a gun and shoot someone else, but I don't go through things that happen in other parts of the world.
There's a conclusion here somewhere! I doubt very much that you could say that anything in New Zealand has reached that stage where anything but a tiny minority would say that violence is an acceptable tool. I would have said NZ was a long way from being at any point where violence was OK. I would guess that most Tuhoe activists would also say that NZ was a long way from that point. But I also bet some can imagine a situation where NZ got to that point, and really if you're looking to prevent violence in society, it's the point of view of the potentially violent that you have to keep in mind.
-
. . . public pantlessness is demeaning.
It is. Especially in wildlife-deficient NZ, where there are no handy groin-squirrels to preserve your modesty:
http://members.fortunecity.com/chippy3/episodes/e35.html
Post your response…
This topic is closed.