Nowadays it's a mortal sin to suggest in any way that Maori are anything but perfect citizens (the crime statistics notwithstanding). But it's come to the point that in everything there is not only a pro-Maori agenda, but there is a subtle anti-everything else undertone.
Case in point, and remember, it's only very subtle.
These pics were taken recently at Te Papa. I read them, and stood for a while contemplating my reaction to it. If it were possible to offend me, I might have felt a little offended. Perhaps I'm being a little sensitive, but I don't think so.
According to the first set of numbers, Maori reduced the native forest cover by 45%. According to the second set of numbers Pakeha reduced the native forest cover from 55% to 25%, which if my maths is correct, is a reduction of 30%.So if Maori reduced it by 45%, and Pakeha by 30%, how come the Pakeha reduction is labelled as "intensive forest clearance"?
To me, "intensive forest clearance" sounds very negative, as if Pakeha cam here and started ripping down forest like there was no tomorrow. But their ("our") efforts have been significantly less than the early Maori. And how much of the 30% ascribed to Pakeha actually includes the continuation of the Maori operations? It's fair to say Pakeha played no part in the pre-European 45%, but it's also fair to assume that some of the 30% post-European reduction can be attributed to Maori.
So why, in our national museum, does the Pakeha come off looking like they're the ones who have decimated the native forest in new Zealand?
2 comments:
Hi Isn't maths wonderful. Not the topic of your blog but .. When I look at the figures of forest reduction from 55% of the original to 30% of the original I would call that a reduction of 45% because 45% of 55% is approximately 25% and 55% minus 25% equals 30%.
Indeed maths is wonderful. Like statistics, polls, surveys, inflation, exchange rates and, apparently, your golf handicap so you can win tournaments (like that guy in the news today), figures can be manipulated to present any point of view.
Post a Comment