New Zealand has gradually become a more racist country as time has gone by and this process has been ably assisted by the mainstream media. In my opinion, part of the reason is due to the Treaty of Waitangi.
The Treaty is a simple document signed in simple times which, if the explanation given by that revered elder Māori statesman, Sir Apirana Ngata - M.A., LLB., Litt.D., is to be considered true, made us all one people with equal rights as citizens of New Zealand.
In his book The Treaty of Waitangi, Sir Apirana Ngata prepared an English translation of the Treaty in 1922 that argued that the Chiefs had "cede(d) absolutely to the Queen of England for ever the Government of all their lands".
He concluded with the words:
"The Treaty made the one law for the Maori and Pakeha. If you think these things are wrong and bad then blame our ancestors who gave away their rights in the days when they were powerful".
Tribalism Before The Treaty
Prior to the signing of the Treaty, New Zealand suffered greatly from a different type of racism which rather than being based on race was in fact based on tribalism.
Prior to the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi the rule of tikanga was followed and loyalty was for those in the hapū or iwi; all others were of no importance and could be robbed of land, killed, and eaten. War bred war, as frequently a group would escape a stronger tribe and move to attack another. Fighting was strengthened by the demand for revenge, utu, and the call to defend the mana of relations and ancestors.
Prior to the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840, the average life expectancy for Māori was in the mid-thirties; tribes were constantly at war with one another and Māori practised slavery and cannibalism as a common effect of their warlike practices.
In 1840, the Treaty of Waitangi was signed, an agreement between the British Crown and Māori which established British law in New Zealand.
One of the main drivers behind the signing of the Treaty was to protect the Māori population from inter-tribal warfare, the threat of invasion by other nations and to bring an end to the Musket Wars.
The Musket Wars were a series of as many as 3,000 battles and raids fought throughout New Zealand among Māori between 1807 and 1837, after Māori first obtained muskets and then engaged in an intertribal arms race in order to gain territory or seek revenge for past defeats.
It is believed that as many as 20,000 Māori may have died as a result of the Musket Wars. Tribal boundaries were also changed by the Musket Wars.
The Waitangi Tribunal And Modern New Zealand
The truth is that there was no real oppression of Māori within New Zealand and if the history is researched it is easily proven that since the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi, Māori have generally seen a vast improvement in their personal circumstances.
As a result of the signing of the Treaty, Māori and other immigrants have lived in a reasonably harmonious relationship since then, notwithstanding complaints around the confiscation of lands by European settlers.
The Waitangi Tribunal was set up in 1975 to hear claims related to issues around the Treaty of Waitangi and also the actions of the early European settlers to New Zealand.
What began as a well-meaning effort to settle claims and offer an apology to those affected has since developed into what I believe is an industry focused on claimants extracting every possible dollar from the Crown (and therefore taxpayers) for any and everything they can claim under the Treaty.
The Tribunal was originally about redress in relation to the actions of early European settlers but has now ended up as a vehicle used to pursue financial settlements and to give significant influence to a very small section of the population.
Co-Governance And Democracy
We are constantly being told that the Treaty of Waitangi created a partnership between the Crown and Māori and that to fulfil this we need to adopt a system of co-governance.
In my view, this whole idea of co-governance is nothing more than an attempt to gain control based on what I see as an erroneous interpretation of the Treaty.
Co-governance is not about the Treaty; it is about control and the benefits that come with control. It is about a small percentage of the population gaining a disproportionate share of influence based on ethnicity.
We are told repeatedly by the so-called elite from iwi that this is the only way forward to honour the Treaty. But in fact, I believe this would move New Zealand away from the democratic system of government we have had since the signing of the Treaty and towards a system where ethnicity becomes a determining factor in governance.
Over decades, the Waitangi Tribunal has evolved beyond its original purpose. The claim that Māori are a Treaty "partner" with the Crown has gained traction, leading to special consultation rights and increasing calls for shared governance structures.
Although there is no mention of partnership anywhere in the Treaty itself.
Cultural Ideology And Public Institutions
What we have now is a system of ideological indoctrination cloaked in cultural empathy, enforced by social shame, and hidden behind a virtue-signalling embrace of Māori culture.
Many public servants appear more focused on demonstrating cultural credentials than on delivering core public services.
The so-called elite have used Māori culture and Te Ao Māori to assert claims under the Treaty of Waitangi to be granted co-governance rights when, in my view, there is no factual basis for that assertion.
We also see local authorities signing co-governance agreements as though they are implementing Treaty requirements when, in reality, they are introducing race-based bureaucracy into democratic systems.
It does not stop there.
Public health campaigns, education institutions and scientific organisations have increasingly incorporated Māori spiritual concepts into areas traditionally governed by secular and scientific principles.
Schoolchildren are often expected to participate in karakia and other cultural practices regardless of their own religious or cultural backgrounds.
By elevating Māori spiritual ideology above science, secularism and democratic consensus, we risk undermining the delivery of effective public services.
White Privilege And Critical Race Theory
Many students are introduced to ideas that have come to dominate parts of academia, public policy and activist culture through the education system.
They are taught that white people move through the world carrying invisible advantages and that racism is primarily about systems, structures and power.
Most importantly, they are often taught that it is not possible to be racist towards white people because white people occupy positions of social power.
This theory is frequently presented not as one perspective among many, but as settled fact.
Entire categories of human experience are ignored because they do not fit the prevailing ideological framework.
If white people are inherently privileged, then evidence of white people struggling or suffering complicates that narrative.
Some of the strongest proponents of these ideas occupy influential positions in academia, media, politics and the public service.
Conversations about anti-white racism are difficult because acknowledging its existence challenges the assumptions underpinning this worldview.
Equality Before The Law
None of this means every claim of anti-white racism is true.
It certainly does not mean white people are uniquely oppressed or that historical injustices never happened.
Racism is wrong regardless of who commits it or who the victim is.
Most people experience life through work, family, community, health, housing costs and opportunities for their children. They do not primarily view the world through the lens of race.
What many reject is the idea that race should become the organising principle of public life in modern New Zealand.
White does not automatically mean wealthy, powerful or privileged.
Thousands of working-class European New Zealanders struggle with low incomes, poor housing, economic insecurity and limited opportunities.
Being white does not guarantee elite status.
Most are simply ordinary people trying to build decent lives for themselves and their families.
The Future Of New Zealand
Underlying much of the current debate is the notion of inherited guilt.
According to this idea, contemporary people are expected to bear responsibility for actions committed by long-dead ancestors.
I reject that proposition.
Individuals are responsible for their own actions, not the actions of previous generations.
A healthy society cannot function if justice is perceived to depend on race.
Nor can it function if institutions become so fearful of accusations of racism that they are unable to perform their duties.
Attempts to racialise New Zealand through co-governance have generated significant public opposition.
Government has a duty to uphold the rule of law and protect the democratic rights of all New Zealanders.
And yet, here we are: using race-based politics and reinterpretations of the Treaty to alter democratic systems that have long underpinned New Zealand society.
New Zealand is fast becoming a textbook example of how democratic institutions can be weakened when equality before the law is replaced by competing claims based on ancestry.
After decades of growing influence, tribal organisations have accumulated considerable power and resources.
There can be no mature discussion about New Zealand's future until everybody accepts that the Treaty provided for government to have final authority, with all citizens — regardless of ancestry — possessing equal rights.