Event has become divisive, yes to boycott

LETTER

I too support a boycott of the Tuia 250 Sestercentennial event — but for very different reasons to those of various indigenous “activists”.

From what was simply something to mark the anniversary of Cook’s landing, the event has been developed away from public participation, shaped by government-imposed wishes (and funding bribes) and a small group of self-appointed “experts”.

It is forcing upon people a revisionist view of history, and has become divisive, with nasty statements being made by a few individuals.

I have no wish to participate in such doings, and resent taxpayer/ratepayer money being spent on the exercise.

As for the “experts” telling us how we should interpret the events of 250 years ago, I would say this:

You and I were not there. We did not live then. We can only study the past through the written and oral records left behind, with major reservation. We should be on guard against revisionism or applying modern interpretations — especially where there are other agendas in play.

We may well have to wait another 250 years to gain the appropriate perspective on Cook’s landing and all the “baggage” that has since accumulated. By which stage, hopefully, it will simply be one of the events that led to us becoming a mature country whose people are in harmony with their place in the world.

Roger Handford

I too support a boycott of the Tuia 250 Sestercentennial event — but for very different reasons to those of various indigenous “activists”.

From what was simply something to mark the anniversary of Cook’s landing, the event has been developed away from public participation, shaped by government-imposed wishes (and funding bribes) and a small group of self-appointed “experts”.

It is forcing upon people a revisionist view of history, and has become divisive, with nasty statements being made by a few individuals.

I have no wish to participate in such doings, and resent taxpayer/ratepayer money being spent on the exercise.

As for the “experts” telling us how we should interpret the events of 250 years ago, I would say this:

You and I were not there. We did not live then. We can only study the past through the written and oral records left behind, with major reservation. We should be on guard against revisionism or applying modern interpretations — especially where there are other agendas in play.

We may well have to wait another 250 years to gain the appropriate perspective on Cook’s landing and all the “baggage” that has since accumulated. By which stage, hopefully, it will simply be one of the events that led to us becoming a mature country whose people are in harmony with their place in the world.

Roger Handford

Your email address will not be published. Comments will display after being approved by a staff member. Comments may be edited for clarity.