Tag Archives: Celtic New Zealand

In which John Ansell adopts the “Māori were not here first” argument for Treatygate

by Matthew Dentith Posted on 11 May, 2013

Table of contents for John Ansell and Treatygate-gate

  1. Treatygate-gate
  2. Some more Treatygate-gate thoughts
  3. Conspiracy Corner – Treatygategate
  4. A debate with John Ansell
  5. Ansell and Doutré
  6. Ansell and Doutré – Part II
  7. In which Remuera comes through
  8. A primer on the Colourblind New Zealand campaign thesis
  9. A primer on the Treatygate conspiracy theory
  10. The scale of the conspiracy
  11. Not a story: John Ansell and @ColourblindNZ
  12. In which John Ansell adopts the “Māori were not here first” argument for Treatygate

I haven’t said much recently about John Ansell, because his “Treatygate” blog has mostly been an accounting of his rabble-rousing attempts around the country.

However, this post by Ansell, entitled Kupe’s descendant confirms other races were here first needs addressing. I mean, the name somewhat gives the game away: has Ansell finally succumbed to some version of the Celtic New Zealand thesis?

Ansell’s post is a partial reprint of a Franklin eLocal article, which itself is part of their series of pieces which claim there is a grand conspiracy at work in Aotearoa me Te Wai Pounamu (New Zealand) to hide the real history of human settlement here. The Franklin eLocal recently interviewed David Rankin, a problematic figure in Māori politics generally and Ngāpuhi specifically1, to get his view on claims of Māori indigeneity. Rankin had this to say:

Let me just start off and say this, Maori are not the indigenous people of Aotearoa New Zealand. There were many other races already living here long before Kupe arrived. I am his direct descendant and I know from our oral history passed down 44 generations.

I believe this needs to be investigated further because every Maori community talks about Waitaha, Turehu and Patupaiarehe. This goes hand-in-hand with the other research.

So, what to make of this? Well, not much really. Māori oral history quite freely records that when the Māori arrived, there were people already living here. However, if you delve into these stories you’ll discover that said people were the ancestors of the Māori. The pre-Māori people in most of these stories were the people who first arrived here and then sent some of their people back to tell everyone else to hurry on over. For example, my favourite volcanic cone of the Waitemata, Maungaika, gets its name from the fact that when it was “discovered” by one of the migrant waka, the navigator’s grandfather, Uika, was already living there, having previously discovered it, settled it and then sent his sons back to the home islands to fetch more people.

It is, then, important to make sure we’re not confusing stories about the people who were here before the arrival of the Māori (a cultural group which settled these islands), the pre-Māori (the ancestors of the Māori who discovered Aotearoa me Te Wai Pounamu) and talk of the Turehu and Patupaiarehe (who are fey, or fairy folk).

Still, the real pearl of Ansell’s piece comes from the comments, where Ansell claims:

The UN know Maori and others aren’t indigenous, so they simply change the meaning of the word to: “The good brown people who got to the country (a bit) before the bad white people”.

Large scale UN conspiracy theory much? Ansell is pretty much a prescriptivist about language, in that he holds to a thesis about there being set definitions for words which are to be taken as inviolate (as evidenced by his claims about the definition of “taonga”, for example). However, I don’t think he gets the irony here that whilst he disagrees with claims of Māori indigeneity, he is doing so by perverting what the word “indigenous” actually means. Ansell doesn’t like term “indigenous” because he holds to a radical and unorthodox definition of the word.

None of which matters anyway. The Treaty of Waitangi is not strictly a treaty between the indigenous people of this place and the British Crown (although it is by inference). It is, rather, a treaty between Māori and the British Crown; even if it turns out that Māori weren’t the indigenous people of this place, it wouldn’t have any bearing on the rights and obligations bestowed by the Treaty because the Treaty isn’t about indigeneity.

Notes

  1. David Rankin is not an ariki of Ngāpuhi and is, basically, a self-professed “elder” of his tribe; he does not speak for Ngāpuhi, no matter how often people in the media claim he does.
Previous in series
Posted in General | Tagged , | 1 Comment

The scale of the conspiracy

by Matthew Dentith Posted on 20 October, 2012

Table of contents for John Ansell and Treatygate-gate

  1. Treatygate-gate
  2. Some more Treatygate-gate thoughts
  3. Conspiracy Corner – Treatygategate
  4. A debate with John Ansell
  5. Ansell and Doutré
  6. Ansell and Doutré – Part II
  7. In which Remuera comes through
  8. A primer on the Colourblind New Zealand campaign thesis
  9. A primer on the Treatygate conspiracy theory
  10. The scale of the conspiracy
  11. Not a story: John Ansell and @ColourblindNZ
  12. In which John Ansell adopts the “Māori were not here first” argument for Treatygate

PeterC, over in the comments of my review of Max Hill’s “To the Ends of the Earth” suggested that contemporary archaeologists in Aotearoa me Te Wai Pounamu (New Zealand) dance to the tune of their political (and funding) masters, which is why there is no academic support for the theses of Max Hill, Martin Doutreé and the like. That got me to thinking: if we were to treat that claim about the existence of a conspiracy seriously, how big would the conspiracy in question actually be?

Think of it this way: Pacific archaeology is not an entirely New Zealand-based concern. Whilst New Zealand archaeologists do an awful lot of our local archaeology, they are just part of the wider archaeological community interested in the history and pre-history of the Pacific. Quite a lot of Pacific archaeology is performed by Americans, the French and Germans, in part because each of these nations have a history of colonial activity in the Pacific.

So, if there is a conspiracy to hide the real history of the Pacific and to deny the existence of some other people living in or passing through the Polynesian archipelago, it must be a pretty big one that encompasses the research output of not just the New Zealand university and research community but extends to the university and research communities of Europe and the Americas1. What possible rationale is there for such a large-scale, encompassing conspiracy?

You might concede that maybe someone, in a position of political power, decided one day that we should rewrite Aotearoa me Te Wai Pounamu’s history in order to appease some group of Māori (even though I think this is very unlikely it is still a possibility) but why would that decision be in anyway binding on the research outputs of archaeologists and historians elsewhere, especially since these reports are perfect congruent with the archaeological research that is produced elsewhere in Polynesia? Why do American archaeologists write site reports and make inferences which look eerily similar to the site reports of French and New Zealand archaeologists? Surely, if there is a conspiracy, we should see a divergence of views between these sets of researchers?

Now, maybe the large-scale claim of conspiracy is justified: I did say that these nations have a history of colonialism, so maybe they are part of a “post-colonial guilt party” conspiracy, or the indigenous peoples of this place (generally speaking) have some kind of hold over the governments of these nations, but that just seems unlikely. The attitudes of France, America and New Zealand with respect to the indigenous peoples of the Pacific really couldn’t be that different (look at the poor state of native rights in Haiwaii) and so it just doesn’t follow that American archaeologists doing Pacific archaeology funded by American universities and NGOs would be hiding evidence of some non-Polynesian, pre-cursor people in the way that Doutree and company seem to allege.

You might also, if we’re going to treat this thesis with more respect than it deserves, argue that the decision was made by, say, the American establishment and we’re just following the dictates of a world superpower. Once again, you have to give a reason as to why, say, America would want to pervert history and produce archaeological disinformation, especially given, as previously noted, just how badly off the Hawaiians are (and let’s not forget the plight of the Native Americans).

Both of these rationales also fall foul of a basic truth about research communities; governments set the funding levels and they certainly mangle research outputs by overfunding some types of degrees and underfunding others. but they don’t control who researches what and they certainly don’t set up the terms of such enquiries, let alone decide what conclusions are allowed to be drawn. Certainly, many of Ansell’s fellow travellers complain about the kind of research that goes on in the academic sector and how good it is that sensible Ministers in our present Government ignore such policy advice and use common sense instead. It seems that the kind of people who are likely to come up with a conspiracy about there being an agenda to hide the existence of a pre-Māori people want to have it both ways when it comes to condemning the research outputs of our universities.

The other problem with this claim about large-scale conspiracy in the world of archaeology is that, surely, you would expect someone to buck the system and release evidence of both the hidden history and the conspiracy itself. This is a common argument against the 9/11 Truth Movement (and, increasingly, being employed to show that the claims of a “CIA/Swedish honeytrap” against Julian Assange seems very unlikely): the lack of countering evidence to the well-accepted or official theory seems to suggest that the theory is plausible. Now, any holder of a conspiracy theory which claims that well-accepted or official theory is based on disinformation, etc. will point towards people like Richard Gage (with respect to the 9/11 Truth Movement) and Martin Doutré (with respect to the Celtic New Zealand thesis) and say “But, looksy, there is evidence to the contrary and these brave researchers are willing to put up with shoddy ad hominem attacks and ridicule to get the truth out there!”

But, once again, this seems to present a problem of scale: Doutré and Gage are not just dismissed by part of the academy but, rather, all of it worldwide. Doutré and Hill’s respective theses are not just considered silly and vapid in Aotearoa me Te Wai Pounamu but elsewhere as well, so we’re back to the “Everyone (else) is in on the conspiracy” angle which, as I’ve shown, is already problematic.

But it gets worse. Doutré and Hill’s radical pre-histories of Polynesia is based upon not just archaeological claims but also claims based in comparative linguistics, oral histories, ethnography, epigraphy and (to name a few). In each of these fields, his arguments have been picked on by someone with appropriate expertise who are largely in agreement with the rest of their peers. If there is a conspiracy in existence, it’s not just a conspiracy in the worldwide archaeological community but, rather, a conspiracy of every academic everywhere2.

Once again, this is a potentially huge conspiracy that people like PeterC are envisioning, and given the different research funding models worldwide, the organisation and control of this conspiracy is likely not to be governmental (unless you believe there exists a New World Order/One World Government who have, as one of their aims, the promotion of both false history and indigenous rights) but, rather, academic.

Now, admittedly, people like John Ansell and Martin Doutré will agree with this and say “Well, we’ve been saying the academic world has been taken over my Marxists for ages now!” but a) it’s not clear that Ansell and Doutreé know what Marxism, as a mode of academic pursuit, looks like and b) it’s not clear that Marxism is the most popular mode of academic pursuit at the moment any way3.

More importantly, though, who is directing us academics to pursue research in a Marxist way?

Ansell, PeterC, Doutré and company will say “That’s where the funding comes from” but is it? Sure, New Zealand’s university sector is funded by central government, so maybe there are Marxists in the Ministry of Education, but what about America? There are lots of American researchers who work in Pacific archaeology, linguistics, history and other related disciplines and their university sector is definitely not funded by the Federal Government (there is very little publicly funded research in the USA) so if the conspiracy is based around funding, it’s a conspiracy where either the international (particularly American) academic sector has undue sway over individual government funding bodies like we find in New Zealand or small countries like our own somehow have sway over the international research funding community.

Both theories seem unlikely, I must confess.

There is, of course, another option. Perhaps, just perhaps, the radical theories of the Richard Gages and Martin Doutré’s of this world are considered lacking in academic merit because, well, such theories are lacking in the kinds of credentials a largely independent academic sector expect to find. No need to posit a conspiracy; outlier research like that found in the 9/11 Truth Movement or the Celtic New Zealand crowd might just be examples of pseudo-research.

However, I don’t think that conclusion, however likely it appears to be, will be accepted by people like PeterC.

Notes

  1. Truth be told, quite a lot of New Zealand archaeology is undertaken by people who not only did their undergraduate and post-graduate studies overseas but are, shock horror, foreign nationals (and not necessarily the kind the GSCB is allowed to spy on).
  2. I would love to see the agenda for the meetings that set up such a conspiracy. I’ve been in academic staff meetings. They are not pretty. No one seems to be able to agree with anyone.
  3. That being said, no matter what I say next, Ansell and Doutré will likely claim we’re all “closet Marxists” who are either unaware we are Marxists or are afraid to admit to being Marxists because we might suffer the old bit of biffo by the common person on the street.
Previous in series Next in series
Posted in General | Tagged , , , , | 32 Comments

Ansell and Doutré

by Matthew Dentith Posted on 6 September, 2012

Table of contents for John Ansell and Treatygate-gate

  1. Treatygate-gate
  2. Some more Treatygate-gate thoughts
  3. Conspiracy Corner – Treatygategate
  4. A debate with John Ansell
  5. Ansell and Doutré
  6. Ansell and Doutré – Part II
  7. In which Remuera comes through
  8. A primer on the Colourblind New Zealand campaign thesis
  9. A primer on the Treatygate conspiracy theory
  10. The scale of the conspiracy
  11. Not a story: John Ansell and @ColourblindNZ
  12. In which John Ansell adopts the “Māori were not here first” argument for Treatygate

John Ansell has coming out in support of Martin Doutré, an amatuer researcher I’ve written about in earlier posts, and it’s quite the endorsement:

Over the past year, I’ve read a lot of Martin’s writing.

I’ve prodded and poked at him on a few occasions when some explanation didn’t quite gel. And yet he’s always come up trumps. I’ve never failed to be impressed by the depth and breadth and robustness of his knowledge.

I’m very happy to stand with Martin, just as I was once proud to stand with Roger Douglas.

and:

By the time this campaign is over, I intend the name of Martin Doutre to be well-known to his countrymen, and for all the right reasons.

However, it should be noted that Ansell also said this:

I have not read Martin’s book about Celtic New Zealand, but I was very impressed with his book on the Littlewood Treaty.

So, Ansell is willing to endorse Doutré and his work on a possible pre-Māori people without having actually read the book.

I wonder what Ansell would think of it if he did. I mean, to Ansell’s credit, he has read Max Hill’s “To the Ends of the Earth” (my thoughts on that book here and found it wanting:

For the record, I have seen evidence of pre-Maori that seems plausible, but I’ve also seen a recent book about Egyptians colonising New Zealand that I found totally implausible.

…

The book had some rather dubious photographs purporting to show New Zealand on an ancient map, but the blob in question could have been anything west of Fiji or east of the Philippines.

…

I should say that this book had nothing to do with Martin Doutre.

Whilst it’s true that Doutré is not responsible for this book, one of Doutré’s fellow researchers, Gary Cook, is. Cook wrote several of the chapters in “To the Ends of the Earth” and given Cook and Doutré’s association, I would be surprised if Doutré is, at the very least, somewhat supportive of Hill’s work (this is supposition on my part, I do admit).

Given the criticisms of Ansell’s support of the pre-Māori, Celtic New Zealand thesis, Ansell got in contact with Doutré and asked for his opinion on what we “Marxists” were saying. Doutré’s reply is interesting.

Firstly, he seems to blame those of us who criticise him for coining the term “Celtic New Zealand thesis” for coming up with the notion of “Celtic New Zealand” because even though Doutré called his book “Celtic New Zealand,” it’s out fault for using that term to describe his thesis:

This whole off-centre focus on “Celtic” is a typical Marxist distraction or red-herring to draw focus away from what is so copiously stated in our history books (recorded oral traditions) and, instead, get people looking sideways at “obviously demented” individuals like Martin Doutré with his “crack-pot” theories about actual “Celts” roaming around New Zealand.

Yes, it’s our fault to take him at his word and think he referred to Celts when talking about a Celtic people living in Aotearoa me Te Wai Pounamu.

Let’s not forget that Doutré is also a supporter of another revisionist historian, David Irving and seems to believe in a Zionist plot to destroy Irving’s career debunking the Holocaust.

Frankly, I can’t wait to see what new evidence and “thinkers” Ansell decides to cite approvingly in his campaign for a “colourblind” state.

Previous in series Next in series
Posted in General | Tagged , , | 4 Comments