Colin Craig
As a party with purportedly Christian leanings the Conservative’s line on the Treaty settlement process is a disappointment. Yesterday party leader Colin Craig was reported speaking to a group of supporters in Nelson saying that the Waitangi Tribunal had contributed little to Maori progress in 40 years and most people would like it shut down (Stuff 25.07.14). Indeed one of their four key planks for this election is “One law to rule them all” and involves bringing the claims process to a close.
This sort of easy slogan politicking is unbecoming to anyone with even the slightest alignment with the Judeo-Christian heritage of New Zealand. It demonstrates a total lack of awareness of how influential Christianity was in securing the Treaty, and therefore how important it is now that those who profess some connection with the Church in this land are at the forefront of seeing it honoured.
There is much more at stake here than simply politics. There is the reputation of the One to whom tens of thousands of Maori turned in the early 1800s. At that time the missionary Rev William Williams reported that gospel fields of New Zealand were white unto harvest. Michael King even records this great spiritual awakening in his Penguin history of New Zealand. He notes that Te Atua, the God of the Bible, was on the move. Sadly by the late 1800s it was on the wane, lost in a growing tide of disappointment and disillusionment with the broken promises of the Treaty.
Colin Craig and his Conservative Party colleagues need to realise that if we are ever to see the fields in bloom again, the disappointments and betrayals need to be dealt with. That means honouring the Treaty and supporting the settlement process. It may be a messy and imperfect process at times, but sweeping the past under the carpet of “One law to rule them all” is not the way forward.
This is not just about politics. Its about spiritual renewal in our nation.
Ewen McQueen
July 2014
RenewNZ 
Any settlements today are fraudulent. They were completed years ago. What we have today is based on the invented Principles of the Treaty put into legislation in 1986, the false idea alluded to by Justice Robin Cook that the Treaty created a partnership (how can you be a British subject and also a partner?) and the corrupt Waitangi Tribunal which approves anything ‘Maori’ put before it. On top of that Chris Finlayson does deals in his office, not the Courts, and there is no way any other than those with some Maori blood can appeal the decisions. The whole process is corrupt and fraudulent. How come in the mid 1890’s there were only 9 claims but today there are thousands? In the Maori Treaty, which is the only one that is legal, Forests and Fisheries are not mentioned, yet we have done massive settlements on both of these.
On top of everything the claimants are now part ‘other’ so they are claiming for one part of their heritage from the other part. It’s totally ridiculous and we need a strong leader who will shut the whole gravy train down.
LikeLike
I have to strongly agree with Ewen on this one. I must admit my party vote was maybe going conservative but on learning about their attitude to the tangata Whenua I am quickly changing my mind.
Helen makes an interesting point here about the British subject side of a Maori claiming against his other side – a situation which irked me for a while until I understood that the other articles bring in the “partner” side of the treaty. It is too simplistic to say the Maori are British subjects and so should sit down and shut up – no it’s more complicated than that and we need to respect their sense if identity which goes far deeper than feeling like “British subjects”
I totally agree that we need to honour what has gone before. The money and settlements go some way in reconciliation however it is my understanding that this is the surface solution and now the emotional and spiritual hurt needs reconciliation – something surely only possible through supernatural power.
LikeLike
John, I don’t think you read what I said. There was never a partnership created in the Treaty. Please tell me where in the Treaty a partnership was created. It was an unfortunate term Justice Robin Cook used and he later said he didn’t mean it as a partnesrship as such. The Treaty was to bring everyone under British rule and the same laws for everyone – at the request of quite a number of tribes I might add. They lobbied Britain for some time for them to take over because they couldn’t see any other way to end the bloodshed of the Musket Wars for over 40 years with the aggressive tribes marauding up and down the country fighting and eating each other. They could see from the settlers that were there at the time and through the missionaries that there was a much better way. Remember Maori at that time were a Stone Age people but as the tribes came from many different places they weren’t one tribe of people but a mixture of different people and temperament. At the signing of the Treaty Hobson said (in Maori) ‘We are now One People’ to each Chief as he signed. One people cannot possibly mean anything resembling a partnership.
You have bought in to the false rewritten history of recent times, John. Can I suggest you read Cannons Creek to Waitangi by Andy Oakley. He lived amongst many people of Maori descent, went to school with them and had them as friends. It is excellent and explains the Treaty in depth. There is also Twisting the Treaty by six well researched authors with references everywhere which can be checked, and also The Great Divide by Ian Wishart, also with excellent references.
The people of Maori descent today are not the same people by any stretch of the imagination as in the Treaty era. With respect, you are very misguided with your views and should do some research because it is all out there. However, I would advise against reading anything Dame Claudia Orange has written because there are several provable errors in it which she hasn’t corrected since more information came to hand.
Successive Governments in this country are creating divisions between us all when we should all be equal under the law. They are making out that people of Maori descent are special and need special help. How patronising and degrading to insinuate this. Many of Maori descent are decent worthwhile citizens who have made successful lives by their own efforts – not with handouts. The grievance industry is hampering progress by the ones who are not gaining an education (available to all), aspiring and working hard. They will never succeed until the Government stops sending signals that they need help.
Please don’t take my word for it. Do some research – it’s all out there in black and white. That great Maori Statesman Sir Apirana Ngata said many years ago ‘Welfare will be the downfall of my people’. He was so right. Your views are certainly not helping them.
LikeLike
I forgot to say, that Maori are not indigenous – they came from somewhere else – all different places, just like the rest of us. Also in their passed down stories, they said there were always other people here before them. ‘Maori’ was a name given to the many different native tribes during the 1800’s. Previous to this there was no such race as ‘Maori’.
LikeLike
Thank you Ewen. I agree, and have left the Conservative party because of this inability to see the way forward for us all. The Conservatives have an inflexibility re referendums and the treaty that is really a great mis-reading of the national need. If, re referendums, they simply supported an abolition of the conscience vote they might see a gain in the polls and some respect from National. If re the Treaty they could see beyond their insecurity they might capture more voters and enhance the mood of progress that John Key is riding.
LikeLike
mobfiz, if you think like that, you grossly under-estimate what is actually going on in this country with regard to racial divisions and special privilege based on race. It is undermining our country and will cause great conflict when the sheeple finally wake up to the true facts. I think it is great that someone is actually willing to stand up and try to bring our country back to its core values that have now slipped into virtual apartheid. Special privilege based on race is apartheid. Evil prevails when good men do nothing!!
LikeLike
Helen, I was very active in the OneNZ Foundation, and have until fairly recently agreed that the Waitangi grievance industry is a rort. Recent events though, in particular the commemoration of the Gate Pa battle, and the book Bible and Treaty by Keith Newman have changed my mind. I respect where you’re coming from, but have faith in the legal process that is slowly and agonisingly pulling us forward as a nation. It’s no good saying as Colin Craig does that we must close this process down, we have to let it take its course, and we must hope too, that Maori leadership will arise and develop to a point of accepting responsibility for Maori shortcomings – and they stand totally apart from the Treaty settlement process.
LikeLike
Mobfiz, with respect, I just cannot understand how the commemoration of the Gate Pa battle and the book Bible and Treaty by Keith Newman has changed your mind. You said –
‘but have faith in the legal process that is slowly and agonisingly pulling us forward as a nation’
However, the legal process is not slowly and agonisingly pulling us foward as a nation, but is absolutely fraudulent and is actually dividing us totally. Do you not realise that today’s settlements are based on invented Principles of Treaty put into legislation in 1986 by Geoffery Palmer and the idea of ‘partnership’ was brought into being by a thoughtless statement by Justice Robin Cook who has since said he didn’t mean partnership as such? There is no partnership. We were supposed to be one under the law. All of us together as New Zealanders.
All genuine settlements were completed years ago. In the 19th century there were only 9 grievances. Today, with the aid of the invented Principles there are over 2000. Surely you can’t believe this is right. The corrupt Waitangi Tribunal approves absolutely everything that is requested, Chris Finlayson does the deals in his office and not the Courts, and the rest of us can’t appeal. You call that justice?!! Please at least humour me and read either of the 3 books I listed above, especially Cannons Creek to Waitangi and Twisting the Treaty. They will open your eyes. I’ve never actually heard of Keith Newman. Is he one of the revisionist historians? I think he must be if he has convinced you that you are on the right path.
LikeLike
Hi Helen
As you know I am not a fan of the partnership paradigm (refer my Herald article “One Sun in the Sky”). However I think you lump all the revisionist partnership thinking in with the settlement of genuine Treaty grievances. The two are quite different and one can question the former without having to reject the latter.
I note you are not happy about settlements being dealt with by Cabinet and would rather they go through the Court process. However as you are well aware it was the Court of Appeal that gave us the partnership paradigm in the first place. Personally I think on these sorts of issues the political process offers more accountability to normal New Zealanders as opposed to a very expensive judicial process.
Kind regards
Ewen
LikeLike
Hi Mobfiz
Good on you for being willing to reconsider your thinking. Yes Keith Newman’s books have been very helpful. I have also found first hand sources to be great evidence. For instance I recently read the Kapiti missionary Octavius Hadfield’s work “The Second Year of One of England’s Little Wars”. You can find it on-line at the NZ Electronic Text Centre. It was written in support of his friend Wiremu Kingi – the chief who’s land confiscations sparked the land wars in Taranaki – and has some excellent insights.
Kind regards
Ewen
LikeLike
Thank you for engaging with me, Ewen. You obviously don’t know enough about the settlement process to realise that what is being settled today is totally fraudulent. It has nothing to do with the true Treaty (the Maori version which doesn’t even mention Forests and Fisheries) but is more to do with the invented Principles of the Treaty put into law in 1986. Also meanings of words in 1840 when the Treaty was written have been ignored and today’s meanings which are quite different have been applied. Many tribes lost land because they wouldn’t stop fighting. However in many instances most of it was later returned. I fail to see how today, loss of land under these circumstances can be deemed to be an injustice. I list two points below –
1. At times various Maori tribes rebelled and thus forfeited their rights under the Treaty. The government was fully entitled by any yardstick to take what it saw as necessary measures to supress rebellions. Frequently this was near-minimal owing to the limited resources available.
2. During the rebellion of some Bay of Plenty tribes, one action was fought at Gate Pa and it is generally accepted that the tribes won this encounter though some chiefs were killed. The Durham Light Infantry lost all but one of their officers. Subsequently a battle was fought at Te Ranga. The rebels were decisively defeated and this effectively brought the rebellion to an end. Any suggestion that this was wrong is like saying the Allied should not have landed in Normandy on D-Day. As far as I am aware, behaviour of all the combatants was only what might be expected in such circumstances and nothing out of the ordinary for the times.
A friend made the following comment –
‘I visited the HQ of the 7th Battalion, The Light Infantry, the successors to the Durhams, in Durham as a personal guest of the officer Commanding on my last visit to UK and I found it most interesting. At a guess it was more accurate than anything anybody might have seen recently at Gate Pa.’
With all the revision that is currently going on about our history I wouldn’t rely on anything actually written at Gate Pa. It is far better to read documents of the time to get the true picture.
I will leave it at that, because I can see we are poles apart on the true facts.
LikeLike
Hi Helen
Some suggestions for you:
1. Read Evelyn stokes biography of Wiremu Tamihana
2. Sit down and talk and listen to some real Maori
LikeLike
Hi John. I see my comments were written way back in 2014 and I wasn’t going to engage any more because it was just so obvious that many have bought into our reinvented history but I need to respond to your comment No. 2. I actually have a half-cast Maori brother-in-law, part-Maori nephews, and I grew up with Maori – many of them. – real ones – or to be more specific, those with Maori ethnicity as most had some ‘other’ ethnicity. They used to bus fellow pupils in to school from what was called in those days ‘the back blocks’. We had no problem at all getting along and today, I have friends and acquaintances with Maori ethnicity so my comments are definitely not written from an ignorance of ‘things Maori’.
LikeLike
Hi Helen
You say that many tribes rebelled and hence forfeited their rights under the Treaty. However this begs the question – why did they rebel ? I think the following words of Hawkes Bay chief Renata Tamakihiku-rangi say it better than anything I could say. He was writing an open letter to the provincial superintendent that was published in the NZ Spectator on March 23rd 1861. He was the spokesperson for the Ahuriri iwi about the affairs at Waitara that had sparked the wars.
“Though it be said that this war is for sovereignty, the fault of the Governor can never be concealed by that. Who is the Maori that is such a fool as to be mistaken about the sovereignty or supremacy of the Queen of England? Or who will throw himself away in fighting for such a cause? No, it is for the land; for land has been the prime cause of war amongst the Maoris from time immemorial down to the arrival of the Pakehas in this island of ours. The Maori will not be daunted by his weakness, by his inferiority, or the smallness of his tribe. He sees his land going, and will he sit still? No, but he will take himself off to resist.
…The Queen’s sovereignty has been acknowledged long ago. Had it been a fight for supremacy, probably every man in this island would have been up in arms. But in the present case the fighting is confined to the land which is being taken possession of. There is a letter of W m. King’s lying here, in which he says that if his land is evacuated he will put a stop to the fighting.”
You can find all this and much more on-line at the NZ Electronic Text Centre.
Kind regards
Ewen
LikeLike
Thank you, John. I have really finished in here as I can see views are entrenched. However I will say I have read extremely widely on this issue and as for your No. 2 suggestion, I actually grew up with Maori and they have even married into my family so I am very very aware.
LikeLike
Hi Helen
Refer my comments above.
Cheers
Ewen
LikeLike
Ewen McQueen, when Helen says that the people who inhabited New Zealand were not one people, you have not thought about the consequences of this.
You have instead been sucked into a black versus white argument that has no basis. There is no black, there is no white, there is no Maori, or should I say there were no Maori.
I can tell you this Ewen, if you had investigated the Maori language rather than basing your flawed logic on the leader of but one of approximately 600 separate groups who existed in New Zealand, you would understand that at the signing of the Treaty in 1840 there were no people in New Zealand known as Maori people.
The dictionaries of the time are not something you can argue with. None referred to the word Maori as pertaining to people, tangata (people) maori (ordinary) is not a reference to race at all.
If the Treaty did not refer to race why are you?
Where did your black (Maori) versus white (Pakeha) argument come from?
Where is the black line?
Where is the white line?
The Treaty made ALL people in New Zealand equal, no matter how you argue you cannot change this. The people of New Zealand were Urekehu, tribes who’s DNA is traced to Iran and Northern Europe (fair skinned), Europeans and also what we know now as Polynesian people who were warriors travelling through the Pacific.
The shift from tribalism to democracy was a complicated process but one thing is for sure, if it were not for the value created by colonisation no one could have sold anything. Colonisation was also the end of cannibalism, infanticide and the beginning of the end of tribalism.
The grievance industry has tapped into the value created by the invited colonisation and at every opportunity exchanges this apparent loss into CASH.
Considering cash was not one of the driving forces of New Zealand’s earliest inhabitants one has to wonder why the Waitangi Tribunal is focused on it now. The sooner this racist, greedy organisation is closed the better our country and my family will be.
Your racist focus on black versus white is typical of your ilk. In early New Zealand people of all colours were mistreated and lost money and land. In your eyes that fact that in 1850 the population was slightly more black than white means we have to find black people and give them money is ignorant and racist.
LikeLike
But Andy, your line of thinking leads to a dead end. It might carry some weight if you could garner legal support for it – not to mention support from some Maori. I believe we are progressing as a nation – and I applaud it.
LikeLike
Hi Andy
I agree with you that colonisation (or more specifically Christianity) brought many benefits to Maori such as end to cannibalism etc. I also agree that the Treaty made all the people of New Zealand equal under the sovereignty and law of the Crown. Indeed I have argued strongly that there can only be one sovereignty in New Zealand (refer my Herald article “One sun in the sky“).
However being equal under the law means that any citizen who feels they have been the victim of injustice has the right to appeal to the Crown to it put right. That is precisely what the Treaty settlement process is about. It isn’t perfect but its about justice.
I have allowed your comment because I welcome debate. However please note that I have guidelines for this blog about engaging respectfully. Your assertions that I am racist and ignorant fall somewhat short of that standard and if you wish to comment in the future please be aware of this.
Kind regards
Ewen McQueen
LikeLike
If I could make a couple of points respectfully.
In 1840 when the Treaty was signed there were no people known as Maori people in New Zealand. It is important to understand the ramifications of this. There was a collection of some 600 separate groups, all of various shades of skin colour and cultures. From the earliest arrivals Urekehu, later arrivals were darker skinned Melanesian, lighter skinned Micronesian, even fairer Europeans and of course various mixtures of all of these people. They were all here in 1840 and the Treaty treated them all equally.
You have agreed with me on this with your statement:
“However being equal under the law means that any citizen who feels they have been the victim of injustice has the right to appeal to the Crown to it put right. That is precisely what the Treaty settlement process is about. It isn’t perfect but its about justice”.
Aside from the fact the full and final settlements have already been paid out to any tribe that had made a claim to address perceived injustices to do with land ownership, the Labour Government of 1975 decided to ignore all this and set up the Waitangi Tribunal to investigate apparent breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi. They called this part of our grievance process.
Here is where it all goes sour and our country has been set on a path of separatism.
1) They have divided all of the various 600 groups and mixtures of these groups who inhabited New Zealand in 1840 into to just two groups. MAORI: which is a term that describes anyone who is related to anyone in New Zealand on February 6th 1840 who was brown and PAKEHA: which is a term that describes anyone no matter when you or your whakapapa arrived in New Zealand who is white.
2) Despite the fact that you and I agree on “all people are equal under the Treaty”, the Treaty of Waitangi Act of 1975 allows only those who are of the Maori Race (brown or related to someone who is brown) to claim a grievance. This is not the “every citizen” that you described above. How can we have a grievance process for brown people and not white people?
3) They have ignored the “actual” Te Tiriti o Waitangi, the Maori text document and introduced the fake James Freeman English “version” of the Treaty.
4) They have further ignored the “actual” Te Tiriti o Waitangi and introduced “principles” made up by Judge Cook in 1989.
5) Although the terms of reference of the Waitangi Tribunal clearly states “it is a permanent commission of inquiry charged with making recommendations on claims brought by Māori relating to actions or omissions of the Crown that potentially breach the promises made in the Treaty of Waitangi”. They ignore Te Tiriti o Waitangi and refer to Judge Cooks principles and James Freemans “version” of the Treaty. This is exactly the opposite to their terms of reference.
The reality is the Treaty made us all equal and it is the Waitangi Tribunal that makes us all unequal. It has caused an uncontrollable greed, money for water, money for air, money for radio waves. All based around things that are not even mentioned in Te Tiriti o Waitangi.
This grievance process is a racist process and MUST be bought to a close!
LikeLike
You are so absolutely right, Andy. You have put it so well and anyone should be able to totally understand where this country is now going horribly wrong and treating the rest of us as second class citizens. Apartheid is now alive and well – apartheid is when there is special privilege based on race. We must all do something to stop this in its tracks. I find it hard to believe we are now going down this road but the reality is that we are. An excellent explanation, Andy.
LikeLike
The problem we have here is that our statutes and current education system forces people to believe that “Maori” people actually do exist and that they are somehow different to other people.
The fact that for a long time, but less so now, these people looked different reinforces this view.
However, racial stereotyping is abhorrent and is exactly what human rights groups all over the world have been fighting against for many decades.
I have entrenched in my mind that people who look different to me or who have a different skin colour are NOT different at all. They are a product of their parents mixed genes and that is as far as it goes, in every other respect they are an individual.
This is true no matter how far you go back in time. Before the Treaty was signed in 1840 every person in New Zealand was an individual. Every person who reads this post will think differently about what I have written, there is no one “group” who will all think the same.
This is the nature if being human, we are individuals.
It is the warped “Maori are different or separate” view a lot of people have in New Zealand that has us at odds with human rights groups all over the world.
It is this view that has Ewen and others agreeing that it is ok to group people by colour or race and give them hand outs, as if it is ok to be racist if you are giving but not when you are taking.
It is this view that has created Maori people when there were none in 1840.
They were New Zealanders in 1840 and they are New Zealanders in 2014.
This is not about Te Tiriti o Waitangi this about a Tribunal who are racist.
LikeLike
Hi Andy
I do not support handouts to anyone. I simply support fair restitution for lands unjustly taken. You need to read more first-hand sources. A great start would be the writings of the Rev Octavius Hadfield – a man who gave up a privileged life in England to come and live in a Maori pa at Waikanae in 1839. He didn’t expect to live long but ended up having a huge impact on Maori throughout the Kapiti and Cook St region. You can find his writings at the NZ Electronic Text Centre.
Cheers
Ewen
LikeLike
You state: “I simply support fair restitution for lands unjustly taken.”
Before the Treaty was signed the New Zealand Company paid for land from willing New Zealand sellers (Maori) and on sold it to people in England. These people had travelled to New Zealand and were laboriously felling trees and clearing places to build homes. At the signing of the Treaty these people immediately lost their land as the Treaty allowed only the Crown to purchase land. Octavius Hadfield even wrote of this injustice. These people had broken no laws, no one had been robbed yet they lost their land.
But I do not see any posts from you supporting these settlers who lost their land or that the only way anyone can make a claim for land taken by the Crown is if you are a Maori.
Considering the Waitangi Tribunal is only for Maori and you support the Treaty process your statement should read I support fair restitution for lands unjustly taken from Maori.
Which begs the questions:
Do you support the fair restitution for land unjustly taken from white people by the Crown?
If you do, what are you doing about these injustices?
If you don’t, why not?
LikeLike
Hi Andy
Any New Zealander can take a claim to the courts and if there are descendants of “white people” (your term) who want to seek redress then they should go for it. I would decide if I would support them based on the evidence presented. Perhaps you should do that with Treaty settlements rather than coming up with a bewildering array of spurious arguments such as that Maori didn’t even exist at the time of the Treaty.
Cheers
Ewen
LikeLike
Absolutely right, Andy. This question most definitely needs to be answered by our Government. I wonder how Chris Finlayson would see it!!?? It’s all so one-sided and therefore very racist to only fix up ‘supposed’ (often invented) wrongs done to people of Maori descent. Many of the colonists suffered great injustices also. Some bought the same piece of land two and three times. It’s all documented so would be very easy to put right. However, we never seem to hear about this side of the equation. Everything has a racial bias to it, even amongst non-Maori because the brainwashing has been going on for years and is now being taught in our schools.
LikeLike
Ewen
You obviously are not a well read person. There were some 600 separate groups of New Zealanders in 1840, none were known as Maori. This not spurious, it is a fact.
Please furnish me and your readers of evidence that a group of people called “Maori” existed in 1840 or withdraw your previous comments.
I have indeed made a claim to the Waitangi Tribunal. My book Cannons Creek to Waitangi documents my claim and the response I got, or rather, didn’t get from the Waitangi Tribunal. They will not answer a couple of simple questions I have ask them and will not respond to reminders I have sent. WHY NOT? In their eyes I am not a member of the Maori Race.
For a department of the New Zealand Ministry of Justice not to reply to people because of their race is despicable. Let alone I have not met them or furnished them with details of my whakapapa.
You will no doubt encourage me to take my claim to the courts.
BUT WAIT you said earlier we should all be equal under the law:
“However being equal under the law means that any citizen who feels they have been the victim of injustice has the right to appeal to the Crown to it put right. That is precisely what the Treaty settlement process is about. It isn’t perfect but its about justice”.
You see Ewen, it is not about justice at all, it is about what race you are.
If it is about what race you are then surely this is racist.
LikeLike
Hi Andy
I can assure you I am very well read. Indeed sitting on my desk is one treasure “Te Wiremu: Henry Williams early years in the North”. Page 66 includes an account by Marianne Williams of the launching of the missionary built vessel the Herald on Jan 24th 1826 at Paihia. She writes,
“All seem now delighted, Europeans and Maoris vying with one another in congratulations”.
So your argument that Maori is somehow a term invented after the Treaty is clearly wrong. Here we see the term being used in 1826, many years before the Treaty.
Of course there were many different tribes making up the native peoples of New Zealand (otherwise generally known as Maori). However why you think this is relevant is lost on me. It is immaterial to the fact that the Treaty was signed with the chiefs who represented these tribes.
Cheers
Ewen
LikeLike
Ewen
There is something inconsistent about the reference you have furnished. I am assuming it is because these are not the words as written in 1826 but an account written at a later date.
The reason I say that is during the 1820s Thomas Kendell used the word “Moadi” in his A GRAMMAR AND VOCABULARY OF THE LANGUAGE OF NEW ZEALAND, to refer to people of the land or indigenous people. But this did not stick, it appears that he had this wrong or should I say less correct.
So there was a time in the 1820s when you may have see the word “Maodi” used in New Zealand literature, but not often. The word Maodi became the word Maori and it is the use of this word during the period 1830s to 1850s I am interested in. William Williams in The Dictionary of the New Zealand Language clearly states the word “Maori” means ordinary or usual kind. And it did not refer to people until the 1850’s.
See here:http://nzetc.victoria.ac.nz//tm/scholarly/tei-WillDict-t1-body-d1-d6.html
So far from me being wrong, your reference is either wrong or you disagree with the Dictionary of the New Zealand Language by William Williams, I do not think you can win that argument.
The reason I am interested in the of the meaning of the word maori in 1840 is because when it is used in the Treaty, the modern interpretation is that Maori means people of the Maori race. So people interpret that to mean the Treaty is contract between the Maori race and the Crown. When in actual fact it is a contract between the Crown and ALL the people of New Zealand. There were no Maori people in 1840 only New Zealanders.
This is of huge significance to the people of New Zealand. All this time people have been fooled into thinking the Treaty only refers to Maori people. According to the dictionaries of the time and the draft in English it refers to “all the ordinary people of New Zealand”. And in the actual Treaty the words are “…ki nga tangata katoa o Nu Tirani” = … “all the people of New Zealand”
There were 2000 Europeans living here in 1840.
That being the case why are only people of the Maori race allowed to participate in the grievance process?
This racist Act (Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975) actually breaches Article 3 of the Treaty where all the people of New Zealand are promised equal rights.
LikeLike
Hi Andy
You asked for evidence – I provided it and you didn’t like it. These are Marianne Williams actual words but you simply dismiss them because it doesn’t fit with your preconceived ideas. And you say I have fixed ideas ?
Cheers
Ewen
LikeLike
Ewen
I do not expect a response from my last post and probably will not check to see whether you do, I believe I have made my points.
The reason being, you have a fixed view and do not spend time to read and understand my posts, or Helen’s for that matter. There are many questions I have asked in my posts (see question marks) and you do not respond. Instead you say you are bewildered and do not see the relevance of my points.
That’s ok, perhaps some of your readers will spend more time actually understanding the relevance of a Treaty that was made with ALL the people of the country has been high jacked by 16% of the country.
LikeLike
So I’ve just been catching up with Andy’s recent posts to this thread staggered that he does understand what the term New Zealanders meant in the treaty. This line that it is referring to all the people of NZ is putting a 2014 definition on a 1840 reality. The New Zealanders of 1840 were the people we now know as Maori. Simple. Reality.
LikeLike
I meant to write “does NOT understand what the term New Zealanders met in the treaty.”
LikeLike
Well then, John, how come Article second says “The Queen of England confirms and guarantees to the chiefs and tribes and to all the people of New Zealand the possession of their lands ……”? If, as you say the Maori people were the ‘people of New Zealand’ referred to then why mention ‘chiefs and tribes’ because that’s who the ‘Maori’ people were, so in effect they are being mentioned twice – as ‘chiefs and tribes’ and also as ‘the people of New Zealand’ in the one sentence.
Don’t forget the numbers of colonists were increasing by 1840 and it is natural seeing we were all going to treated equally under the law as one people, that the colonists would be mentioned too. They were ‘the people of New Zealand’ in the Treaty. You don’t have to be very bright to work this out surely.
LikeLike
Going a step further with your ‘logic’ Helen it would follow that the writers of the treaty should only have used the word “tribes”. The chiefs are part of the tribes and so included under the term “tribes”.
You can’t have it both ways I’m afraid. Chiefs, tribes, peoples. Makes perfect sense. The leaders, the entities of the different groupings ie tribes and the individual rank and file – the people. All wrapped up to describe “the New Zealanders” aka “the Maori”.
LikeLike
That nonsense, John. Chiefs and tribes are one. It’s like saying the Queen and her people. You don’t just say ‘the Queen’ and assume it means all who come under her. So the ‘Maori’ people are covered under ‘Chiefs and tribes’. ‘All the people of New Zealand’ are the rest. You wouldn’t say ‘Chiefs, tribes and all the people of NZ’ and mean ‘Maori’ only, as that just doesn’t make sense. Three descriptions?!! Sorry but that’s stretching it far too far.
LikeLike
Thank you Helen. Your very own illustration perfectly proves my point. You yourself said “Queen and her people”. You needed to use the word people to capture all. You’ve just haven’t added the middle “tribes” type descriptor which is a bigger umbrella type word. Something like “the queen, the districts and all the people of …”
I feel you are over-analyzing the text and need to step back and see it for what it is. The words “the chiefs , the tribes and all the people of Nz ” was a natural and respectful way to describe the Maori people at the time.
LikeLike
So another question Helen. What English text are you using??? The legally recognized one says “…to the Chiefs and Tribes of New Zealand and to the respective families and individuals thereof…” Pretty plain what it means!!
LikeLike
John, how do I put this without sounding condescending because I don’t mean to be? Obviously I’m not explaining myself very well or you are refusing to read the text properly. I will try again but perhaps Andy will put it far better than I can. The Treaty was to bring the Maori people under the umbrella of Queen Victoria – at their repeated request I might add, and ‘the Chiefs and tribes’ describe the ‘Maori’ people. These are the Chiefs and their people (tribes). That explains the ‘Maori’ part. Then to make sure that the other people here (colonists – non-Maori, and there werer many) had their property and rights protected as well, so that we would all be treated equally because we were to become one people under the law, the words ‘and all the people of New Zealand’ was added (the rest of us). ‘Chiefs and tribes’ is totally adequate to describe ‘Maori’. If ‘all the people of New Zealand’ was again referring to ‘Maori’ this was completely unnecessary as they had already been mentioned, so obviously it was referring to everyone not included under ‘Chiefs and tribes’..
It’s as clear as a bell to me so I really can’t understand why you cannot (or will not?!) see it. Don’t forget that by 1840 there were a lot of colonists here who also had rights and the Treaty was making sure that their rights were protected along with those of ‘Maori’ and that the Treaty wasn’t just looking after the native people.
LikeLike
Aha, John. That’s where you are going wrong and why you cannot see what is so plain. The Maori version is the correct version. The English draft in legislation is dated a day earlier than the final English draft which was translated into Maori. The one in legislation is incorrect but if you go by the Maori version which is the only legal one, then the final English draft (so-called Littlewood draft) mirrors it, whereas the English one in legislation omits ‘and all the people of New Zealand’ which is in the Maori version, but includes ‘Forests and Fisheries’ which are not in the Maori version.
Having the wrong English draft in legislation is causing all sorts of problems and together with the invented Principles of the Treaty invented by Geoffrey Palmer and into legislation in the mid 1980’s is why we are having all these fraudulent settlements today.
LikeLike
Helen, Always good to have a robust discussion. Context is everything. Even using your beloved Littlewood text the opening paragraph clearly sets the tone about who the treaty is for namely the chiefs and all the people of New Zealand. No mention of tribes here. Why? Because throughout the treaty there is a consistency of language and it all refers to the Maoris – be it chiefs, tribes, people of New Zealand. Context Helen. context.
LikeLike
Yes and as I pointed out in the earlier debate on this under a different blog post – no settlers or representatives of settlers signed the Treaty. Only representatives of the tribes were engaged in the Treaty signing process both at Waitangi and everywhere else around the country that the Treaty was taken. Hence it is obvious that the Treaty was between the Crown and Maori. That is why Article 3 guarantees them all the rights and privileges of British citizens. Settlers didn’t need that as they already were!
As I also pointed out back then – this is all rather irrelevant. The fact is that Maori were guaranteed protection of their land and chieftainship under the sovereignty of the Crown. History shows that promise was not kept. My question to Helen and Andy is – if you accept that Maori are citizens of New Zealand and entitled to the protection of the law like everyone else why should they not receive justice ?
Cheers
Ewen
LikeLike
In the English version of the Treaty which is in legislation ‘and all the people of New Zealand’ was omitted. This version was dated a day earlier than the final draft (so-called Littlewood document) and in this later version which mirrors the Maori version (and the earlier draft does not) ‘and all the people of New Zealand’ was inserted. Now why bother to insert it seeing they already had ‘the Chiefs and Tribes’ written, which meant the native people? The obvious reason it was inserted is because although the Treaty was to bring the natives under the Crown, it was also thought desirable to make sure that the ‘others’ were also included in the protection seeing we were all going to be treated equally under the law.
However as Ewen has pointed out this is all rather irrelevant, or should be, but so much has been made of this simple little Treaty by not only twisting the words in recent years but also inventing new Principles of the Treaty and inserting them into law in the 1980’s. ‘Maori’ received justice under the Treaty years ago and there have been many full and final settlements made. I would like to know exactly what ‘full and final’ really means!! The Treaty should have long been put to history because it achieved its aim long long ago. What is happening today is totally fraudulent. Not only that but the people who signed the Treaty in 1840 no longer exist. Those of today consist of mixed blood with many of them having more ‘other’ ancestry than ‘Maori’. What is happening is that one side of their heritage has apparently wronged the other side which is totally ridiculous and just goes to show how farcical the whole business is.
It’s time we grew up as a nation and stopped dwelling in the past. We should be treated equally under the law and move on as one people as was said as each Chief signed.
Only this week I read in my local newspaper but can’t locate it to quote accurately but back in the 1870, a Judge said the Treaty was worthless because it had been overtaken by something else in the 1860’s. I wish I could find exactly the words he used. It beggars belief that we are still cringing and whining over it in the 21st century!!??
LikeLike
Hi Helen
Yes the something else that happened in the 1860s was that Governor Gore Browne provoked a civil war by taking land that fell under the authority of an otherwise loyal Christian chief Wiremu Kingi. Out of the ensuing conflict that spread across Taranaki, Waikato and the Bay of Plenty great injustice was perpetrated. Yes there have been some historical settlements made to try and address this injustice. At the time they purported to be full and final. However they clearly fell well short of that hence the ongoing process of redress happening today. I agree that all New Zealanders should be treated equally under the law and that is essentially what the settlement process is trying to achieve rather belatedly for Maori.
I think we have done our dash under this thread so I will close off here. However feel free to comment elsewhere on other blog entries.
Kind regards
Ewen
LikeLike
Where most people go wrong is the view that New Zealand was populated by Maori in 1840 and so the Treaty is a contract between Maori and the Crown. Even in Cooks ship logs the different cultures, skin colours and appearance of people is described. Put simply there was no singularity in the NZ population, the ongoing wars attest to this. This is still the case today.
As previously stated there were no Maori people in NZ in 1840. The people who lived in New Zealand were referred to as Natives, Aborigines or New Zealanders. No colour or race was implied in the Treaty and any mention of it now is merely a misinterpretation (twisting) of the words in the Treaty or the situation in New Zealand in 1840.
Whether John wants to deny it or not the Littlewood Document is widely recognised as the closest English copy of the Maori text (and only) Treaty.
Pre Amble:
Her Majesty Victoria, Queen of England in Her gracious consideration for the chiefs and people of New Zealand. (Andy: Everyone)
And
…proposes to the chiefs of the Confederation of the United Tribes of New Zealand and the other chiefs to agree to the following articles. (Andy: All chiefs of any and all groups or tribes in New Zealand, (tribes is colour blind))
ARTICLE FIRST
The chiefs of the Confederation of the United Tribes and the other chiefs who have not joined the confederation, cede to the Queen of England for ever the entire Sovreignty of their country.(Andy: All chiefs of any groups or tribes in New Zealand)
ARTICLE SECOND
The Queen of England confirms and guarantees to the chiefs & tribes and to all the people of New Zealand (tangata katoa o Nu Tirani) … (Andy Everyone)
ARTICLE THIRD
In return for the cession of the Sovreignty to the Queen, the people of New Zealand (tangata maori {maori = ordinary} katoa o Nu Tirani) shall be protected by the Queen of England and the rights and privileges of British subjects will be granted to them.(Andy: Everyone)
Hobson: He Iwi Tahi Tatou (We are one people)
European, Aborigines, Negroes and the various mixtures of all of the people “living” in New Zealand were included in the Treaty. The only way anyone can deny this is to change the meanings of the written words in the Treaty i.e. say “All the people of New Zealand” does not mean “All the people of New Zealand”.
Instead of inventing words that are not there or putting a spin on things to help your argument just read the words as they are written.
No Maori people
No contract between Maori people and the Crown
No separate races
No white and black people
Just the words… in black and white
LikeLike
Hi Andy
I think you are completely missing the point and have confused yourself with semantics. The fact is the Treaty was signed with the representatives of the ordinary people of New Zealand (otherwise known as Maori). These are the people to whom promises were made but not kept. They seek justice and have patiently campaigned for it for over a hundred years. I am glad they are now receiving it and the honour of the Crown is being restored.
I think we have said enough on this topic and hence will be closing this thread from here.
Regards
Ewen
LikeLike
Hi Ewen
I thought your blog would be a place that attracted NZers who were proponents for a renewal reformation. Can we ever have a country that is awaiting with anticipation, the will of God being worked out in the hearts and minds of those that love Him?
LikeLike
Hi Pauline
Yes I am sure we can.
Kind regards
Ewen
LikeLike