Dunedin lawyer Stuart Scott published his excellent book in 1995 on the Treaty of Waitangi. I don’t think for a second that there are any inaccuracies in his work. His pedigree is without peer. 

He makes the following statement.

“The Maoris of New Zealand are not aboriginals (here from the beginning), indigenous to this country. “[1]

Scott uses the ‘classical’ definition of the word ‘indigenous’. 

To make this statement, Stuart would have researched the word, and from what he found, he wrote what he wrote. As I said, this was 1995. 

Out of curiosity, I Googled the word ‘indigenous’ too, to see what the word means today, 27 years later.  

One source defined it as: “Indigenous” means having been here since the beginning of time. 

Other sources were quite different. 

It dawned on me as I read the various definitions that radicals across the globe, since 1995, have managed to infiltrate all aspects of society, including those who formulate dictionary definitions.

That is to say, the definition of the word ‘indigenous’ has been contorted and thus politicised’. 

Some of the definitions, I concluded, might well have been written by Maori Treatyists. For example if you Google www.worldbank.org this is what you get:

“Indigenous Peoples are distinct social and cultural groups that share collective ancestral ties to the lands and natural resources where they live, occupy or from which they have been displaced. The land and natural resources on which they depend are inextricably linked to their identities, cultures, livelihoods, as well as their physical and spiritual well-being. They often subscribe to their customary leaders and organizations for representation that are distinct or separate from those of the mainstream society or culture.”

Scott continues in his book using the classical definition of ‘indigenous’ as a reference.  

“Maori are therefore settlers, immigrants from a distant overseas land. They are exactly the same in this respect as the white settlers in New Zealand of the nineteenth century.  The only difference is that Maori arrived here first. 

“This distinction may seem academic but in the light of the Maori attitudes, assumptions and demands of the last three decades, it is not. 

Atareta Ponanga, appearing on a TV 1 Encounter program in 1988, questioned by Angela D’Audney on this point said “Our position is that no amount of pakeha numbers can justify the indefensible. 

They are still ‘manuhiri’ (visitors) in our land and overstaying their permits.” 

This kind of baseless and mindless arrogance which European New Zealanders have had to endure increasingly since the 1960’s from such people as Ms Ponanga has done much to destroy any sympathy which European New Zealanders may have entertained for the alleged wrongs suffered by the Maoris a century of so ago.” [2]

Conclusions? 

First, radical Maori in New Zealand today have no idea what ‘indigenous’ means.  And nor do the general public.

Second, ‘we are the indigenous people of Aotearoa’ is the catch cry of Maori radicals, as though this ‘line’ is the golden ticket to get their hands on public cash, assets, special rights, and Treaty claims. 

Third, the internet is a very unreliable place to look for truth. Basically, it too has been corrupted. 

This is deliberate, and it’s one reason why naïve and innocent school children and university students are in favour of co-governance.  They are easily brainwashed.

As such, they are fans of Ardern, co-governance and Labour. 

Basically, they use the internet for virtually everything. 

It’s their go to place for ‘the truth.’ 

They don’t know any better. 

They are politically naïve and gullible. 

Just the kind of people Ardern and the proponents are co-governance are targeting.

This is one of the reasons I set this web site up – it is a valuable resource to help counter the lies and deceit being perpetrated on-line by radical Maori.

So what do we do? Where can we go for truth? 

I thought of the Oxford Dictionary, which has been around (metaphorically speaking) since the beginning of time. This is how it defined ‘indigenous’

“belonging to a particular place rather than coming to it from somewhere else”

Phew! 

That’s perfect. 

Maori came from somewhere else, so they are not the indigenous people of New Zealand.

In 1995, Scott was bang on. 

And now you can be too when the topic comes up in conversation. 

Thanks so much!

[1] Scott, Stuart C. The Travesty of Waitangi. Towards Anarchy. Caxton Press, Christchurch. 1995. 53

[2] Scott, Stuart C. The Travesty of Waitangi. Towards Anarchy. Caxton Press, Christchurch. 1995. 53