Historians, linguists and anthropologists have all argued in the past that Polynesians have their roots in northern Asia. Dr Barry Fell’s work with ancient Maurian script across the Pacific in the 1970s-1980s traced the first written language of New Zealand back to North Africa and an Egyptian source. The language was found inscribed in the 4^th century AD on stone stele in Java. Based on linguistics, Taiwan has been identified as the Austronesian (Oceania and Southeast Asia) homeland. Biological evidence through DNA leads towards the same conclusion, but is this the whole story?

For the past fifty years debate has raged over where Maori came from. Some say China, through Taiwan; others Indonesia. Microbiologist Adele White of Victoria University used mitochondrial (mtDNA female line) DNA to trace Maori origins back as far as mainland Asia. But where in Asia?

	leorica
	Sunday, January 09, 2011

we as a nation should insist that the government divulge any and all historical facts and cover ups regarding pre maori excistence in this country, especially the embargo on the waipoua forest stone village etc .it seems to me that every site with any proof of an earlier occupation is claimed by maori to hide or destroy any trace eg. bastion point,manganui bluff. burial caves etc.........

---

	Amy
	Monday, January 31, 2011

A very thorough,comprehensive article. Successive governments have certainly been complicit with self-serving neo-tribal groups, who, for self-advantage,have suppressed or denied evidence of pre-history for political and/or financial gain. For example, the term "tangata whenua" (no f pronounciation!)meaning "the first people" was used by early Maori to describe the people they well knew had come before them. It's been hijacked by activists to apply to Maori themselves, which it did not.

---

	Bryan
	Thursday, February 17, 2011

Moriori and Waitaha are having excerpts of their history in the magazine NZ Today. When the treaty was signed, these people including Ngati Hotu existed as separate identifiable peoples. As tribes in their own right. As the treaty gave ALL people in NZ at the time (including Ngati Wikitoria) equal rights and British citizenship and ownership rights, the current alienation of New Zealanders by favouritism to Nga Puhi, Tainui and Ngai Tahu is actually illegal because these iwi are NOT "first peoples". Nor are many of the other claimants of things to which they are not entitled. Nor did they have total sovereignty in their own rights in this land. There were still areas they did not control completely. Sovereignty of all iwi was handed to the British Crown by the Treaty of Waitangi to protect all the other "peaceful" iwi and occupants. Ever since, flying in the face of all historic truth, with deceit and lies, have some who ignore honesty, claimed a status to which they are not entitled. They are NOT tangata whenua. Our modern governments have connived with liars and thieves, Maori iwi and Government ministers and advisers. A new aristocracy of fraud artists, conniving Government ministers and Maori Party thugs. NZ should be for ALL New Zealanders. We should live in peace as it was before the cannibal Maori arrived. Moriori, Waitaha, Ngati Hotu, Ngati Wikitoria and others of the same outlook should unite. Make the Government understand their errors and remove the privileges allotted to "Maori". Remove "Maori" seats in parliament and get back to the truth of the understandings and honesty of the original language of the Tiriti O' Waitangi. The current Government and "Maori" interpretation is false and skewed. Instead of standing tall in the field and in the forest glade, these worms hide in committee rooms and inside dark marae, or in Government offices behind the skirts of conniving civil servants, lawyers and “advisors” on cultural matters. When they do come out in the open, “all” is already arranged, and platitudes are voiced buried under pointless flowery oratory with all the ceremony that is necessary to obscure observation of the truth being slaughtered for preference and special handouts or grants. Every other civilised nation has got rid of tribalism as a means of government. Our Labour and National Governments since 1975 have gone the other way. We want civilisation and peace, not tribalism and the societies of preference, agitation and mayhem ruled by graft, nepotism, deceit and dishonesty. Many Ngati Wikitoria came to this land to escape the problems of laird, lord, privilege and the problems of preference due to bloodline, wealth and influence. This in-equable form of society is surreptitiously being re-established by greed, connivance and dishonesty. And this is affecting the real tangata whenua peoples as well. One law for all, one language, one nation. Untied we stand, divided we fall.

---

	Chief Hotu Wai Ariki
	Wednesday, March 23, 2011

But there is one major thing people must remember, Not all Maori Iwi are from the same group of islands commonly called Hawaikii.
Here is an example, it is stated that Scientists and Historians pinpoint Maori culture to Cook Islands, Rarotonga.
Yes that is true but for only northern tribes such as Nga Puhi, Te Rararwa and Ngati Whatua. If you have a look at their Whakapapa, it has several linguistic, cultural and genetic ties to them but as like the treaty which was generalized, it does not repeat " DOES NOT AT ALL " Confirm its status to the rest of us Maori. As there is no such link as one place for all the tribes, have a look at the landing stories, they tell you exactly what their Iwi affiliation is to.
As a Tainui Maori i would say my Iwi and Hawaiki location would be more the outer islands of americas. Take the Tlingit, Haida, Mayan and Pima Indians,Rapanuians for an example, if you look at a Tainui person and then look at the faces of these people stated, you will see their is more of a familar face, it is because Tainui and a few other Iwi came from the first voyage directly off of Hawaikii itself,
Unlike other iwi who came from a different direction, more Western Polynesia direction as opposed to a Tainui or other first wave landing parties who would most likely and a vibe a i feel im sure can affirm this, sources us Tainui coming from the eastern Polynesia or pretty much the Americas.
The reason why i say first wave and genetic testing can prove this is because, the northern tribes of Aotearoa would have most likely island hopped, suggesting resources were depleted or navigational skills had improved. Also it would be most common in the northern tribes case that they would have married and breed with the next islands Native populace, their last account being Cook Islands, Rarotonga. More supporting evidence and facts is the total differences between a Tainui or even Kawhia born and bred fluent Maori speaker and a Northern Nga Puhi or Te Rarawa Fluent speaker. A lot of a Northern speakers words are pronounced very soft and in modern times have either being converted toa more missionary Maori which the National curriculum in Te Reo Maori being taught at schools are based on the northern dialect or Nga Puhi. A lot of their ancestral stories tell of a group of islands most likely Rarotonga or Cook Islands as their homelands, also some words they use linguistically are exactly the same as a Rarotongan speaker or Cook Island Maori speaker.

But when you hear a Tainui or other first wave Iwi, the Reo sounds is alot more harsher and un-understandable even to Maori scholars, this is probably because Kawhia Reo or Tainui in general reo has been unchanged ever since the departure of our Hawaikii. Also linguistically the harsher more primitive unscathed or unchanged Te Reo o Maori of Tainui and other first wave Iwi suggests Eastern Polynesia such as the Rapanuians, the first wave Rapanuians who disappeared roughly the same time Tainui and other first wave iwi landed here in Aotearoa, according to both radio carbon dating and Iwi Whakapapa. There is also a little unknown fact about the Tainui Confederation, it is accounted in our Whakapapa that we used to trade with other indigenous populations such as the Americas both North and South americas, such as Seminoles, Chickasaw etc. There is also a great link between Mayan, Pima, Tlingit, Nootka and Tainui Maori, they all share exactly the same culture, exactly the same, it could be an instinctual very ancient feeling i have Matakite, i have this vibe that we Tainui come from the Mayan!!

---

	Chief Hotu Wai Ariki
	Wednesday, March 23, 2011

What about Hawaikian, i am Hawaikian. No not Hawaiian.
My great great great great great great great great great great great grandfather was King Uenuku of Hawaiki. This bloodline being extremely ancient has been kept in my Whanau for along time indeed. Should we go back to Hawaikii is what youre saying, cause we should and claim it as well.

But you seriously do not understand when you say Tainui should not have gotten remorse or sympathy. We Tainui had a most extensive trading empire encompassing the Pacific (Some knowledge was kept to those who could handle the ancient ways by my Tupuna) and then the Pakeha invade and STEAL ALL OUR LAND. NO THE PAKEHA THINK STEALING LAND IS JUSTIFIABLE. IT AINT. TAINUI TE UTU. Also the whhole treaty for your information was signed by mainly the NGA PUHI, WOMEN LEADERS WHO CANT NAVIGATE FROM THE CROOK ISLES.

We as Tainui and I as a Chief of a hapuu of Tainui, have to decide whether to keep Pakeha here or proceed with further higher laws that reign supreme over colonial Pakeha NZ laws, which is the UN laws.

WITHDRAWING FROM THE TREATY OF WAITANGI IS THE ONLY WAY THE MAORI CAN FORGIVE THE PAKEHA, IT IS LEGAL AND POSSIBLE, LAKOTAH HAVE DONE AND SO HAVE MANY OTHER INDIGENOUS PEOPLE.

ITS NOT THE FORGIVING. IT IS THE FORGETTING THAT IS THE HARDEST.

Also Tainui had peaceful encounters with the former first inhabitants, The Ngati Turehu, Ngati Kahupungapunga, Maeroa and Te Tini o Toi Peoples. They still exist too, ( this is not kook talk, theirs things in this world that either exist or dont, these first immigrants do still exist, such as Pirongia Maunga, Hauraki Ranges, Hauhangaroa ranges and Waitakere.) We did not kill them off. But Pakeha did KILL OFF US TAINUI, THE MORE PRIMITIVE HAWAIKIAN STOCK OF THE MAORI. It is still an act of war, the only way to gain peace under peaceful terms " Good faith initiated between both parties " is to withdraw from the treaty cause lets face it Maori and Pakeha are never gonna agree, so we have no other choice but to withdraw from the treaty.

Ka Whawhai tonu matou! Ake! Ake! Ake!

---

	Bernie
	Thursday, March 24, 2011

Chief Hotu Wai Ariki makes some interesting points. I have a portrait of a North American Indian elder hanging on my wall. A little girl who came with her mother to visit commented, "mummy, that looks just like Uncle Tane." Her mother agreed the resemblance was uncanny. I don't know what my visitors' iwi were, but..'out of the mouths of babes...'

---

	David Child-Dennis
	Tuesday, June 14, 2011

I feel somewhat saddened by the misguided, misdirected rhetoric exhibited by Chief Hotu Wai Ariki

When the more astute among the Maori leadership first realized the strength and depth of Western civilization, they immediately understood their people must either adapt or perish. The Maori appetite for learning the written English language was almost insatiable. By 1850, one in four Maori families possessed a bible and could read it. The northern Chiefs were fascinated by the Westminster system described by Busby. The tragedy of the Musket Wars had finally convinced them that cooperation was a necessity.

Given the times in which the Treaty was created, the assimilation of the two cultures was nothing short of miraculous. With the exception of the ‘Land Wars’ of the 1860’s, few serious conflicts have erupted between us. That is not to say there were no legitimate grievances between the two. There have been, but at least we have not again resorted to war to settle them. That is in no ones interest, least of all Maori. The Chief makes the assumption, that should he withdraw from the Treaty, his small band of followers would somehow inherit a freehold, totally Maori, Aotearoa. How many of his followers would remain loyal, when deprived of every modern convenience we have introduced to this country? How would he resist the advances of foreign investors who would soon replace him and his followers, with more pliable associates?

The Chief speaks as though he still represents the few hundred tribal members his ancestors once did, when we, the now reviled pa-keha (house fleas), arrived in the early 1800’s. He fails to comprehend that we are now a nation of 4 million with a system of government that no longer recognizes chiefly privilege, or the right to own slaves. Even Queen Elizabeth – Wikitoria’s great-great granddaughter, is required to obey the rule Parliament.

If, on the other hand, he truly wishes to tread the lonely path of separate development, then I for one support him. But let he and his followers reject the hated European entrapment of good, plentiful food supplies, universal medical care, warm clothing and dare I mention alcohol, and all the other modern conveniences so eagerly pursued by his fellow Maoris, before they return to their pre-1840 nostalgia.

---

	Chief Hotu Wai Ariki
	Friday, August 26, 2011

You make a very well reasoned and conclusive argument there Mr David Child-Dennism, there is alot my people and especially myself has to lose from the result of withdrawl of the Treaty of Waitangi, but you must come to a conclusive and final answer here Sir is that at the end of the day Non-signatories means Non-binding.....

If we or other Hapuu and Iwi could come to a proper accord now that you mention it sir is the idea of a Condominium Government between Iwi/Hapuu and the Government would sprout a more proper form of redress especially to Hapuu or Iwi like mine who did not and have not signed the Treaty of Waitangi, i think is a more peaceful solution but still at hand sir is the NZGovt's commitment and fullfillment outline principles in not only Two ancient legal terms " Inadimplanti non est adimplendum " and " Pacta sunt servenda " but also its agreement made verbally and in writing to the U.N'S Declaration on the rights of indigenous people, to this day the Gov't refuses to fulfill its commitment made in this Declaration.

Pakeha still need to provide better redress points to not only their own but to IWI leaders and traditional Chiefs like me and others who would be willing to come to a more favourable solution if only the Govt would allow and trial a Iwi/Hapuu and Gov't Condominium Gov't we equality, respect of one anothers cultures and righteousness guides our people to a brighter future,
but to your point should i or others relinquish our traditional system or sovereignty of Chieftainship, it is too ask my ancestors not too be born and to defacate upon ourselves like wretched waste that we are not, Kingitanga and the British Crown can have better relations only if the Crown/Gov't draws upon some essence of willpower to employ a Condominium Gov't.


But never the least you have a made a fair non argumentive point dear Sir and i aplaud you for your reply,

---

	David Child-Dennis
	Wednesday, August 31, 2011

Chief Hotu Wai Ariki, I feel that again we labour under a set of false premises that need correcting before we can begin walking the path to better understanding. I assume you are of the Tuhoi peoples who refused to sign the Treaty when it was offered in 1840-41. That, of course was your absolute right. No person can be forced into a contract, which the Treaty is. However, there are matters which you have overlooked that need to be revisited if you are to understand what has happened to your people. The first is dependency. If at any time, your people accepted any form of government assistance they did so only after they acknowledged the supremacy of the Crown. This you agreed to when your children were registered at birth. This you also did when you accepted assistance from a hospital or even walked on the Queen's highway. Your people, either knowingly or not, accepted succor from the Crown and in doing so accepted the social contract embodied in the Treaty of Waitangi. It did not require a signature on the actual Treaty document to bind you. Only that you accept the offered assistance. Is this entrapment? Yes, in a manner of speaking it was. But you still had the option of not asking for or accepting the Crown's succor. The claim that your people are 'indigenous' to New Zealand cannot be sustained. This has been the primary reason for the UN refusal to offer such a status to Maori. The Taiwanese, (from which the Ngapuhi peoples are derived) and thus Chinese, have a greater claim, given the Chinese government has been in continuous existence since before Maori arrived in New Zealand. Then there is the Moriori and Waitaha claims and before them the Phoenicians. There is even good evidence to support Tamil, Arab and Egyptian expeditions long before Maori arrived. I agree that you have become a colonized peoples. But I defy you to name any nation that has not suffered colonization in it's existence? Civilizations rise and fall, that's a fact of life. Your civilization has come into contact with one that was so technologically superior that you were overawed and overwhelmed. But what you were never shown was the terrible price we paid for that knowledge. When we arrived in 1840 we were prepared to share with Maori, 2000 years of learning and technology for the single price of abiding by our rules. Many of your people agreed, understanding the benefits of peace, cooperation and plenty. Yet, I support your decision for separate development. It is your right to live as you please. But you may wish to consider how you will fund such a proposal. You will become effectively non-persons within the remaining non-tribal territory of New Zealand. Effectively stateless and subject to the whims of the robber barons of the IMF and World Bank. You will have truly led your people into the Valley of Death.

---

	David Child-Dennis
	Thursday, September 01, 2011

Chief Hotu Wai Ariki. There is now the matter of your comments on representation, although, you must concede, a claim for representation rights when you have refused to sign the Treaty, is an irreconcilable contradiction. However, for reasons that would require pages of explanation, the Crown contract, known as the Treaty of Waitangi, is not an offer of shared representation. This is absolutely clearly outlined in the first sentence of the contract offer. The Maori claim for equal representation is based on the false premise of equal partnership. The Treaty has never offered equal representation. It clearly sets the Crown above all other authorities, but in exchange offers protection for obedience. What Maori have failed to accept is that while they are Treaty partners, they are JUNIOR partners. The Chiefs who signed the original Treaty document understood this and even though some had reservations, reluctantly accepted Maori were faced with a tide of change that could not be reversed. Given the conditions that prevailed in February 1840, this was their only realistic option. Maori were deeply divided by tribal allegiances and interminable wars. The only possible outcome of such a situation was the extinction of Maori, and that would only be prevented if the weaker, smaller tribes could rely on the protection of a power greater than the sum of their enemies. If you look more deeply into our early history you cannot escape the conclusion the British Government did not want New Zealand as a colonial burden. It far preferred the solution offered by the Church Missionary Society - leave the tribes to their own devices and only offer assistance when it was requested. The Musket Wars swept that option off the table. Here we had an insignificant tribal leader forcing Britain to act. Why? Because if the British Government had failed to protect any of their subjects anywhere in the world, they undermined the stability of the entire empire. British intervention was never about stopping an insignificant tribal war. It was about demonstrating to the relatives of New Zealand immigrants anywhere else in the Empire, they could rely on Britain to protect them. There is a large degree of isolationist thinking in the current Maori claims for greater representation. I have yet to see what constructive plans to benefit Maori, such representation would produce. Replacing the 'house fleas' with the truly rapacious predators, who are only interested in returns on investment, might just bring about the extinction of the Maori people, so passionately debated in the House of Lords in 1838. Maori might just find we have been better friends than they are prepared to acknowledge.

---

	mokai
	Saturday, December 10, 2011

The Predictable Bothersome Legalistic Styled Innacuracies From David Child-Dennis, Of Similar Pakeha Incursions Into The Realm Of Intelligence, Has Now Reached A Crescendo Of Blatant Absurdity. The Recent Attempted Rebuke Of Chief Hotu Wai Ariki, Fails Utterly With Amusing Wrong Dates And Occurances (i.e 1841), Which Only Points To David Child-Dennis's Cursory Understanding Of The Issues At Hand, Namely That The Tainui, The Ngai Tuhoe (85% Of Tribes In Te Aotearoa) Did Not Sign The Waitangi Treaty, Let Alone The 2nd English Version. David Child-Dennis's Continued Indifference To The Whole Non-Signatory Issue (85% Of Tribes), And Subsequent 1860's Wars, Of Which Pure Theft And Genocide Is The Crime. I Would Certainly Endeavour To State That Congenitally Afflicted Pakeha Apologist For Theives, David Child-Dennis, Should In Like Manner, Be Set Adrift With Leaks, As If Bligh Himself.

Ras Mikaere Enoch Mc Carty
Ambassador | Tainui Kiingitanga | Te Aotearoa

---

	mokai
	Sunday, December 11, 2011

Chief Hotu Wai Ariki Does Represent And Speak For Hundreds Of Iwi Members, Just As I Am One Of His Supporters. The Reviled Pakeha'ole 'House Lice' Always Manage To Wriggle-Out Of The Facts Surrounding The Waitangi Treaty, Through Bold Faced Lies, 1/2 Truths And Complete Distortions, Too Many From The Likes Of David Child-Dennis. The Innacuracies Prove David Child-Dennis To Be Wholly Disingenine And Subversive To The Core, His Heart, Mind - Over Offerings Here Of So-Called "Historical Truth". David Child-Dennis Will Understand That The Withdrawal From The Treaty Of Waitangi Is Real ---> Te Utu !
Ras Mikaere Enoch Mc Carty,
Ambassador - Tainui Kiingitanga, Te Aotearoa

---

	David Child-Dennis
	Monday, December 12, 2011

The Chief…. Me think he doth protest too much?

As I write this, from my leaky Tuhoe provided boat, I cannot help but be saddened by such sheer effrontery and ignorance. New Zealand’s greatest social pariah, the grievance industry, at around $400 per hour, billing time, thrives on such sentiment. I think it’s time there was a modicum of reality about the issues, we as a nation – including Tuhoe, face. The first and most important fact to understand is we Europeans (and all those other peoples that came after the Treaty) are not ‘renter’s, unwanted guests or any other form of indentured squatter, that Tuhoe radicals would have us believe. They are entitled citizens of New Zealand, a nation established by the agreement of the Maori representatives of that time, and the Government of Great Britain, not just Queen Victoria, as alleged by Maori dissidents. There was a transfer of sovereignty to the Crown, but I agree, that transfer was not fully appreciated at the time. It is foundationed on the rights and obligations of being a ‘British subject’.

The Treaty asserted British sovereign authority over all its subjects within the territory of New Zealand, no matter who held sovereign or tribal authority over those territories. In doing so, it asserted Crown Law (actually Admiralty Law) above all other. This meant that no matter where a British subject might reside, they were subject to Admiralty Law; a legal sleight of hand, but we’ll deal with that later. The most important aspect of this arrangement, not understood by most settlers and Maori alike, was to bring every subject’s possessions under the control of the Crown. Hence, Hobson’s declaration at Russell, immediately prior to the Treaty, refusing to acknowledge any land titles, not granted by the Crown. It had nothing to do with fairness or justice. It was all about issuing a Crown ‘title’, and the right of the Crown to levy taxes against it. Every parcel of land, sold to a British subject, by Maori, became a possession of the Crown. Now the Chief might begin to comprehend why it was the Crown has always referred to Maori land that was transferred to Crown ownership as becoming ‘alienated’. It had passed from allodium to Crown title.

And as to the personal situation of the Chief? Whether he, or any of his fellow dissidents agree, they are just as much subjects of the Crown, as am I. Once they have received any form of Crown assistance – they have agreed to become subjected to Crown Law, and Crown Law can only apply to ‘subjects’ or prisoners of the Crown. Such assistance is not reparation for alleged grievances, nor is it a Treaty right. It is a privilege. Given the mortality statistics of pre-European New Zealand, and the shifting sands of continuous inter-tribal conflict, the Chief might want to ponder the fact that when he goes to bed at night, his peace, tranquillity and right to possessions are guaranteed by the Crown. Perhaps a sliver of gratitude might be in order?

---

	mokai
	Monday, December 12, 2011

It Is Pathetically Predictable And Sadly Amusing When A Pakeha'ole Such As David Child-Dennis Will Not Discuss The Fact That Close To 85% Of Maaori (Maori) Tribes Never Signed The Treaty Of Waitangi.
Chief Hotu Wai Ariki Is Of The Tainui Iwi, As Am I. Many Tribe Members Are Setting The Stage For A Complete Withdrawal From A Treaty (Contract) That Was Never Signed In The First Place.
David Child-Dennis, Your Consultancy Racket Should Be Exposed For What It Is ---> A Racket.
Ras Mikaere Enoch Mc Carty
Ambassador | Tainui Kiingitanga | Te Aotearoa

---

	editor
	Monday, December 12, 2011

Mokai - I have been watching your comments with interest. You state the following "David Child-Dennis Will Not Discuss The Fact That Close To 85% Of Maaori (Maori) Tribes Never Signed The Treaty Of Waitangi" - I invite you to prove this. I am not asking for racial rhetoric or personal attack. I just want the facts.

---

	mokai
	Tuesday, December 13, 2011

These Iwi Did Not Sign The Waitangi Treaty --->

Tamaki, Hauraki, Marutuahu, Waikato, Ngati Maniapoto, Ngati Raukawa, Ngati Toarangatira, Te Tau Ihu, Ngai Tahu Te Ati Awa Of Wellington, Ngati Apa, Nga Rauru Kitahi, Ngati Ruanui Te Ati Awa Of Taranaki, Turanganui a Kiwa, Ngai Tuhoe, Te Whakatohea, Ngati Awa, Tauranga Moana Tribes, Ngati Tuwharetoa, Whanganui Tribes (upper), Taranaki, Ngati Rongomaiwahine.

The List Compromises A Massive, Frightening Reality To Pakeha'ole Who Like To Re-Write History And Disparage The Tainui Kiingitanga And The Non-Signatory Choices Of Close To 85% Of The Tribes And Maaori (Maori) Population In Te Aotearoa !

Ras Mikaere Enoch Mc Carty
Ambassador | Tainui Kiingitanga | Te Aotearoa

---

	mokai
	Friday, January 06, 2012

With Utmost Apologies, I Now Wholly Refute Any Association With Ras Hotu Wai Ariki (Ashley Cameron Rawiri)---> "chief". Unfortunately Ashley And His Brother Timoti Hikoi Terangi Rawiri Literally Conducted A Home Invasion In Lake Tarawera, Sending The Resident To The Waikato Hospital On 1 Jan. 2012, Suffering A Seperated Lip (multiple stitches) And A Broken Tooth. An Angel To Them, Providing Them With A Home, Kai, TV, Internet, Clothing And Aroha Was Turned Into Yet Another Case Of Domestic Violence - A Tag Team Of Violence And Lies. I Am Ashamed To Have Known Them.

Ras Mikaere Enoch Mc Carty
Ambassador | Tainui Kiingitanga | Te Aotearoa

---

	David Child-Dennis
	Friday, January 06, 2012

Dear Ras Mikaere Enoch McCarty, It must be extremely difficult to have to disassociate yourself from the actions of those whom you may have once held in high regard. MJ and I would appreciate you passing our sincere condolences to that person who was so viciously attacked by these two. We both hope the victim's Iwi and Hapu will demand the perpetrators of this unforgivable assault, be brought to justice. No matter whether Maori or European, there is no excuse for such behavior. Regards David Child-Dennis

---

	mokai
	Saturday, January 07, 2012

Kiaora David,
Thank You So Very Much For Your Kind And Heartfelt Approach To This Whole Matter. The Individual Who Went To The Waikato Hospital On 1 January, 2012, Is Still Presently Living In His Car, Unable To Fully Grasp What Lies Next In His Life, After Every Single Hope And Dream Of His Was Utter Shattered. The Ultimate Offering Of Aroha Was Given To Both Timoti Hikoi Terangi Rawiri And His Brother Ashley Cameron Rawiri ("chief" Ras Hotu) In Their New Home Residence On Spencer Road, Lake Tarawera. The Same Course Of Domestic Violence And Terror Ensued For The Wanna-Be Angel Who Offered Every Possibility For Both To Start A New Life In A Wonderful Beautiful Setting Such As Lake Tarawera. The Victim Happens To Be The First International Student To Take Te Reo Maori At Waiariki Tertirary In Rotorua, However That Dream Of Being Part Of A Maaori (Maori) Whanau And Of The Tainui Iwi Are But Sad Recollections Now, Of What Could Have Been. The Victim Has Now Withdrawn From Waiariki Tertiary, With Much Sadness. The Victim Will Shortly Leave The Country
In Complete Anguish, Maybe Never To Come Back To This Wonderful Country. For The Victim, The Memory Of New Zealand Will Be Mixed With Such Wonderful Joy And Utter Tragedy. The Pain Just Never Goes Away. At This Stage In Life, I Am Not Sure Anymore About The Human Condition, And The Ultimate Betrayal And False-Faces Offered By Those Who Act Like "Friends" But Who Are Only Cunning And Shrewd Con-Men (Tag Team), Engaged In The Violent Destruction Of Themselves And Those Around Them. I Am So Very Sad Right Now. The Victim Was Only Looking To Offer True Aroha And Caring And Compassion, And Now He Is Leaving New Zealand With A Shattered And Broken Heart.

Ras Mikaere Enoch Mc Carty
Ambassador | Tainui Kiingitanga | Te Aotearoa

---

	Consider Rarotongan
	Sunday, March 04, 2012

Countries/territories in the Pacific including NZ, Hawaii, Tahiti (especially Eastern Polynesia but also Western Polynesia) should re-look the teaching of Maori or local languages and try to move towards a standard which could be based on Cook Island Maori or Rarotongan. i.e. be more prepared to tweak the various languages and dialects by using Rarotongan as the standard especially for vocabulary, with the aim of increasing mutual intelligibility by incorporating standard words.

Apart from some replacements of existing vocabulary and language usage with Rarotongan, if there is ever a need for a brand new word, and there will always be this need, and Rarotongan does not provide a quick answer, I would suggest looking at language/dialect usuage in other parts of Polynesia (East first, then West), and also at Paiwan (Southern Formosa) or other inland Formosan dialects and/or even Indonesian or Malay or Malagasy, before looking at English and/or French as a last resort.

It is not that I am against localism. It is that if there could be more mutual intelligibility, along with more non-Polynesians picking up Rarotongan as the Pacific lingua franca (or at least second lingua franca after English), there could be more trade, growth and development in the region.

---