David Rankin reckons that Maori are not the indigenous people of NZ

Maybe David Rankin is on to something here, if he is, can Maori please refund all money they have claimed under the treaty, as its obviously the proceeds of crime, given that it was received for the land they claimed they owned, but probably stolen from previous occupants…..

The status of Maori as the country’s indigenous population could be in danger if research, which suggests previous civilisations lived in New Zealand before Maori arrived, is proved true.

Ngapuhi leader David Rankin said books by authors such as investigative journalist Ian Wishart and historian Noel Hilliam presented “clear evidence” that some of New Zealand’s earliest residents might have arrived before the Polynesians.

He pointed to numerous Maori oral histories which referred to people being here when the first Maori arrived, including fair-skinned people.

“If we believe our histories, then we as Maori are not the indigenous people of New Zealand.”

The archaeological evidence in some research was a potential challenge to the status of Maori as indigenous, which was why he believed no other Maori was prepared to speak publicly on the issue, Mr Rankin said.

Details of much of the country’s past was being concealed by academic historians, he said.

“I would say it’s a conspiracy. They are worried that their own research will be exposed so they have worked hard to ridicule and suppress any Maori history which disagrees with their views.

“However, the tide is turning and more people are now seeing that there is a whole history of our country that has been concealed and which will have major implications for Treaty settlements for example.”


THANK YOU for being a subscriber. Because of you Whaleoil is going from strength to strength. It is a little known fact that Whaleoil subscribers are better in bed, good looking and highly intelligent. Sometimes all at once! Please Click Here Now to subscribe to an ad-free Whaleoil.

  • blokeintakapuna

    Ian Wishart would make an awesome celebrity commentator on WOBH and maybe he could also assist The Owl & Cam with investigations into the dodgy connections and suspicious financing between the unions and the Labour Party?

    • Rodger T

      I would put Ian Wishart up there with the 3rd Eagle of the Apocalypse for credibility.

  • Graeme Edgeler

    Where in the Treaty of Waitangi do Maori claim their indigeneity as the basis for anything? If the Government didn’t want to guarantee Iwi certain things, it shouldn’t have promised them those things. If it didn’t want a “Treaty

    • Kimbo

      “If the Government didn’t want to guarantee Iwi certain things, it shouldn’t have promised them those things.”

      Ah, I just love how the lawyers cover their tracks where law has been created by judicial fiat, with the argument that the “promises” are self-evident.

      Like the “guarantee” of “partnership” when being make a “subject of the Crown” with the greatest Empire of the 19th Century was seemingly self-evident, even though it needed a judicial activist some 150 years alter to discern it.

      And how “the water” is owned by Maori, or at least is is according to the Maori king (but then if the ‘guarantee is self-evident, how come mark Solomon and Ngai Tahu disagree?!).

      • Graeme Edgeler

        I am not making a claim about any particular thing that some Iwi may or may not claim a particular interest in, protected by the Treaty of Waitangi.

        I am saying:

        1. Indigeneity has nothing to do with Treaty claims – whether the group claiming the thing is indigenous or not is irrelevant. What is relevant is whether they’re parties to the Treaty.
        2. The question of interpretation of what the Treaty guarantees has nothing to do with indigeneity either. You would have no debate about what the Treaty guaranteed if no-one had signed the Treaty.

        The Crown signed a Treaty with Maori. It is because of that Treaty, and the language used, that we are having debates about what is guaranteed. What is guaranteed by it, however, has nothing to do with whether Maori were here first.

        • Kimbo

          “What is guaranteed by it, however, has nothing to do with whether Maori were here first.”.

          Superficially, yes, if deciding claims, or shaping political responses was really about the facts, and not about perception.

          However, I’d suggest your argument lacks relationship to the real-world TOW settlement process, because

          1. The Crown treated with Maori because they were the original inhabitants, and it was the force of moral argument put by groups such as the CMS that they should be protected that caused Hobson to be sent in the first place.

          2. David Rankin very cleverly discerns, not from the supposed cool detatched perspective of the law, but from the level of street-smarts cunning, that the “we woz here first” line has some propaganda force. Or at least it does when used in the context of dialectic anti-colonisation rhetoric which is what REALLY feeds the Treaty grievance industry.

  • Nothing new here Cam. It’s the unspoken secret about Maoridom, te Tiriti and the whole grievance industry. We all know they are only “Earlier immigrants”.

    There’s been a New Zealand book by Gary Cook in your library since the 70s(?). Doesn’t take Wishart to “Investigate” other than to highlight it. The author has an web site here: http://www.secretland.co.nz/shop/the-secret-land-the-people-before/

    Another web site, CelticNZ, has a lot of info that you won’t find in the original book. It suffers from poor presentation and the odd rambling article, but the data presented is is irrefutable.

    The interpretation, of course, is up to the reader.


    • unitedtribes

      Flicked through both these sites and couldn’t really see any sigh of evidence or at least dating when the rocks they refer to were formed. The nearest thing they mentioned in relation to time was “ancient” If there were other civilizations here earlier than the maoris then Im sure there would be some real evidence somewhere to support it. Ramblings of an old codger finding a spanish helmet and scull and reburying it in a hole near a cemetery just don’t do it for me.

      • That’s fine. You flicked. The web sites aren’t set up very well to present the case. I’ve read the books however, and it’s a matter of just “too many coincidences”. Rock formations that could, conceivably, have been arranged naturally at random on any given site don’t mean much. But when you have dozens of prominent locations, summits, bluffs, headlands, with alignments to other prominent features, celestial markers and significant sunrise/star/moon/horizon events, it becomes a lot harder to avoid the conclusion that someone was here doing stuff before Maori arrived.

        Hell, we can’t even decide if Bain killed his family, or OJ killed Nichole, so looking for “proof by flicking” on something that may have happened thousands of years ago is a bit optimistic, eh?

  • Salacious T Crumb

    I remember the slogan the activists used in the 80’s; “the Treaty is Fraud”. Now I know what they meant.

  • Jaffa

    They ate them.

    So basically, it’s all shit.

    • Morrissey

      Is that you, Leighton?

  • Positan

    In all probability the Treaty of Waitangi is the most prostituted document in the history of the world. In recent times Maori have corrupted words like “indigenous” – the dictionary definition: “originating or occurring naturally in a particular place” to further their ends, when once their focus was on knowing the canoe on which their NON-INDIGENOUS forebears arrived from Hawai-iki. If those forebears were non-indigenous, so too are they.

  • Vlad

    Looked at the sites…I see Mr Cook signs himself Sir Gary Cook D.Sc. PhD. KtJ. KGCStA. .KCStV. KtJ. Ay ay ay Lots of listening to The Voices.
    And the other site talks pages of impenetrable stuff about squinting through a pile of stones and if you hold your mouth just right they align with the same angles that are found between ancient stones in Scotland.
    Given my ancestry it would be agreeable to find that NZ was originally settled by wee wild mathematicians in kilts but alas.
    Normal dress for the authors I fear must include tinfoil hats.

    • It’s really easy to look at people’s life work, including decades of field work, measurement and data recording, and then make fun of them as some sort of conspiracy loons.

      You know nothing at all about this sort of thing, so on what basis do you dismiss their work?

      Agree, disagree. Attack the data. But calling them nutters based on a quick look?

      Drive by commenting and small minds. I hate them.

      • Vlad

        Well I don’t like to inspire hatred, particularly not from a Moderator. I did some anthropology and archaeology at university, not that that gives me remarkable qualifications. However it is noteworthy that not a single scientist in any country in the world supports the notion that Egyptian/Mesopotamian/Celtic explorers reached NZ, and there is no evidence whatsoever that they did. The Egytian connection had a brief flare-up in the 1950’s with the finding of coins here and there, but they were readily identified as souvenirs brought home from the War. In another context, I once acquired some knowledge of the theory of Spanish/Portugese early discoveries, as espoused by Mr Cook. This originated with the Catholic Bishop of Rockhampton in the 1880’s and was taken up as an article of faith by Archbishop Moran and promulgated in Australia and NZ as part of the bitter sectarian hostilities of late 19thC Australia. Ferdinand de Quiros in particular was a religious fanatic and some of his writing gave inspiration to a useful myth. It persists, on and off, as old newspaper clippings re-surface and are re-quoted whenever someone finds a piece of mahogany driftwood.

        • I respect your reply and you background. That’s good to know. And no need to fear the MOD label. I have no powers other than being able to approve posts that have been auto-tagged as possible spam. Apparently I must now behave as it will reflect on the owner of the joint, and jet at the same time I get emails asking me to go back to my normal self as they miss my previous edge. It’s hard to find a balance :)

          So if you think I’m full of it, let ‘er rip. That’s an open invitation to anyone. I can take it.

          Back to the topic, I too found the data compelling but inconclusive. But I value real field work and data collection people going for the man (tin foil hat) instead of the ball (the data doesn’t stack up).

          Trust me to pick on someone who actually knows stuff. :)

          There is no reason why New Zealand wouldn’t have had pre-historic people here. Other parts of the world show evidence of occupation in the form of stone structures. http://www.michaeltellinger.com/adams-calendar.php

  • rightoverlabour

    I hope the fair skinned were Romans. Then I am claiming everything. They never apologised to nobody… and it was Pax Romana or RIP. Ave Caesar!

  • Blair Mulholland

    Who gives a fuck?

    The Treaty was signed between two parties – the British Crown and the United Tribes. Nowhere in that equation was the document predicated on whether the tribes were indigenous or not.
    As a contract, it should be honoured, and pre-1840 history should, and does, have no bearing on it.

    • Hard1

      Piss off . It’s INTERESTING.

  • williamabong

    How dare someone bring information like this into the public domain, this is just a racist taunt designed to bring our claims under the treaty to an end, and heaven forbid it should be proven to be true which it never can be, what we do about all the money we have extorted sorry I meant claimed.
    Just another attempt by you white mother fuckers to stop us regaining what is rightfully ours, cause the treaty says so, or at least we think it does.

    • cows4me

      To right williamabong, still waiting for my cut though. I see we got 88 mill the other day, Don’t think I’ll retire the cows just yet.

  • steve and monique

    When your own history says you got here by canoe/waka,then would that say ,you were not indigenous,but just lucky to have hit land. 200 kms either side,they would have all been fucking cold, and Penguins would have been endangered.

  • Hagues

    Even Wishart concludes that while it is interesting history it changes nothing in terms of the Treaty. However of more importance is his information on “taonga” which at the time meant physical possession (captured by the spare) and had absolutely nothing to do with anything and everything I could claim to treasure including things I don’t know about. And of course the evidence that Maori knew exactly what they were giving up ie sovereignty and the implications of this. The shift in meaning of these has more negative impact on treaty claims and race relations than whether or not the Maori were first here.