He Whakaputanga o te Rangatiratanga o Nu Tireni is the founding document, Treaty never existed before that, 1835 DOI made it possible. Maori created New Zealand a company to trade, the gave up administration in 1840, they can take administration back but are to dumb
Calling Hobson "an absolute fuckwit" is a great example of why most Kiwis can't be bothered listening to any of this cherry-picked false history. You've lost my interest at that point, RNZ. You're a taxpayer funded disgrace.
@@robbiedavis6643 Well thats just it they don't. Just because somebody has a bit of paper with their name on or declares something as there's, doesn't make it true or real. Like in a dream, do you all of a sudden wake up and there is the house or car that you were dreaming? This is exactly what Maori and Pakeha are up to. Presuming that the objects of their attention are somehow real! I get that this is a talk about the Treaty but its clearly about a practice or behaviour that people are up to or experiencing. A common behaviour that to me is not being articulated in any great depth or degree for the sake of all beings rather than one particular point of view, race or culture.
So dishonest. There was 'NO Maori', there was Tainui, there was Nga Puhi, Ngati Whatua, Ngati Toa, etc, and all considered themselves their own people, and each considered themselves "King" or Rangatira over their 'slice' of land. Did Maori own all of the land originally collectively, yes, but they were NOT a collective, so, No. Some Iwi and Hapu were very small in comparison to their neigbours, not all had the muskets and might to protect themselves against a rampaging Nga Puhi and saw the treaty as a way to preserve the land, mana, taonga that they had. I am only on the first commentator. I do hope the commentary is going to be more balanced as I keep watching.
Yes. Well put. But only 7 groups 5 being of the originals of the country of over 3000 years were hapu 'iwi' - they are the states, nation or hapu 'iwi' conglomerates and official independent groups of the motu - they being the Moai, Te Awa, the Tahumakakanuimatua, Mamoe, Moriori, Awa and Te Ati Awa. From senior to junior. They only are the official nations and states among most senior among their lands, and people and most coveted of taiopuru ariki and their ahupiri in the motu. Ae. Even since 1769 when Cook got here. And 1790. And 1815 since Ko Huiarau. And in 1840. And so it is still today. Kiaora, Te Arikimatua Kaaea.
- “No Maori” - Agree. I don’t believe the idea of “Maori” in this conversation is to be dishonest, but rather to cater to the general understanding of the ‘players’ for today’s people and viewers who wouldn’t understand the difference (of which there is a lot). - “But they were not a collective” - agree and disagree. I think you have to understand the situation at that time. No, we were not a collective (however, we did all exist under a collective hegemonic world view, which I believe is the main reason for the collective identification as Maori). We did understand the need for a collective to converse regarding issues of concern surrounding pakeha and the growing incidents of that time (the Venus Incident 1806, the Boyd Massacre 1809). ‘Te Whakaminenga’ (a collective of Nga Puhi chiefs) was created by Te Pahi to address the growing concern of pakeha behaviour and disturbances at that time (1808). This collective met regularly and grew over time as issues between chiefs and pakeha grew, which eventually lead to this group creating ‘He Whakaputanga’ (The Declaration of Independence). Although I agree with your position on the commentator not being balanced (and even the interviewees), I also believe that more can be learnt through your own research in the parts that you are questioning. I’m all about a balanced conversation. But being Māori myself, and growing up in great poverty and disconnection from my culture, it’s hard not to see “our side”. So I try to make sure I read from people like John Robinson to help me gain a better perspective of the conversation. “The Corruption of New Zealand Democracy” is a good read by him where he gives another view into the decline of the Maori population pre treaty. I think the reality of the conversation this podcast is trying to state, still stands. Maori had sovereignty (to the greatest degree by which our culture could have had at that time) And never seeded that sovereignty. As a result of “Te Whakaminenga” and their creation of “He Whakaputanga”. We had Sovereignty. To the greatest degree by which we understood this new world. And in “Te Tiriti”, never relinquished that sovereignty to the Queen. Had Henry Williams translated ‘Government’ as ‘Mana’ (which he knew was the most relative word in our language after having translated multiple books from the bible using and understanding this word) I whole heartedly believe that our tupuna would never had signed it. The main issue where this occurs in the treaty is article one, where “Kāwanatanga” is used as “complete government”. And instead of “o ratou wenua” as in “their lands” (the lands that pakeha have been given) it’s more contextualised as “their land”, as in all of “Maori land” due to the structure of the English text. Taking all of this information into account. I am happy with my position and view on the treaty. However, I still believe your view on the degree of bias in this podcast is valid. Mauri Ora
@ Thank you so much for your reply. Very well articulated and reasoned and well worth the read. I will have a proper look at it and respond to a couple of your points in the morning when I am fresh :-)
Definitely not balanced. Regardless, I believe the points that were raised still validate our general understanding as Maori, that we had sovereignty and didn’t seed sovereignty. I think the question now is that, if we didn’t seed sovereignty, what does that mean for us all as New Zealanders……..
great korero
He Whakaputanga o te Rangatiratanga o Nu Tireni is the founding document, Treaty never existed before that, 1835 DOI made it possible. Maori created New Zealand a company to trade, the gave up administration in 1840, they can take administration back but are to dumb
Calling Hobson "an absolute fuckwit" is a great example of why most Kiwis can't be bothered listening to any of this cherry-picked false history.
You've lost my interest at that point, RNZ. You're a taxpayer funded disgrace.
Where does it say in the Maori version the Crown would govern only British subjects??
Neither Māori nor pakeha own anything.
Egos presume ownership.
I mean how the hell can an ant own anything??
How does Indians own things Japanese and Egyptians
@@robbiedavis6643
Well thats just it they don't. Just because somebody has a bit of paper with their name on or declares something as there's, doesn't make it true or real.
Like in a dream, do you all of a sudden wake up and there is the house or car that you were dreaming?
This is exactly what Maori and Pakeha are up to. Presuming that the objects of their attention are somehow real!
I get that this is a talk about the Treaty but its clearly about a practice or behaviour that people are up to or experiencing. A common behaviour that to me is not being articulated in any great depth or degree for the sake of all beings rather than one particular point of view, race or culture.
@@rkara2 Japanese Norwegian Egypt India all own their land
So dishonest. There was 'NO Maori', there was Tainui, there was Nga Puhi, Ngati Whatua, Ngati Toa, etc, and all considered themselves their own people, and each considered themselves "King" or Rangatira over their 'slice' of land. Did Maori own all of the land originally collectively, yes, but they were NOT a collective, so, No. Some Iwi and Hapu were very small in comparison to their neigbours, not all had the muskets and might to protect themselves against a rampaging Nga Puhi and saw the treaty as a way to preserve the land, mana, taonga that they had.
I am only on the first commentator. I do hope the commentary is going to be more balanced as I keep watching.
Yes. Well put. But only 7 groups 5 being of the originals of the country of over 3000 years were hapu 'iwi' - they are the states, nation or hapu 'iwi' conglomerates and official independent groups of the motu - they being the Moai, Te Awa, the Tahumakakanuimatua, Mamoe, Moriori, Awa and Te Ati Awa. From senior to junior.
They only are the official nations and states among most senior among their lands, and people and most coveted of taiopuru ariki and their ahupiri in the motu. Ae.
Even since 1769 when Cook got here. And 1790. And 1815 since Ko Huiarau.
And in 1840.
And so it is still today.
Kiaora,
Te Arikimatua Kaaea.
Yes NZ certainly wasn;t a soverign country at that point. Gaslighting to say it was.
- “No Maori” - Agree.
I don’t believe the idea of “Maori” in this conversation is to be dishonest, but rather to cater to the general understanding of the ‘players’ for today’s people and viewers who wouldn’t understand the difference (of which there is a lot).
- “But they were not a collective” - agree and disagree.
I think you have to understand the situation at that time. No, we were not a collective (however, we did all exist under a collective hegemonic world view, which I believe is the main reason for the collective identification as Maori). We did understand the need for a collective to converse regarding issues of concern surrounding pakeha and the growing incidents of that time (the Venus Incident 1806, the Boyd Massacre 1809). ‘Te Whakaminenga’ (a collective of Nga Puhi chiefs) was created by Te Pahi to address the growing concern of pakeha behaviour and disturbances at that time (1808). This collective met regularly and grew over time as issues between chiefs and pakeha grew, which eventually lead to this group creating ‘He Whakaputanga’ (The Declaration of Independence).
Although I agree with your position on the commentator not being balanced (and even the interviewees), I also believe that more can be learnt through your own research in the parts that you are questioning.
I’m all about a balanced conversation. But being Māori myself, and growing up in great poverty and disconnection from my culture, it’s hard not to see “our side”. So I try to make sure I read from people like John Robinson to help me gain a better perspective of the conversation. “The Corruption of New Zealand Democracy” is a good read by him where he gives another view into the decline of the Maori population pre treaty.
I think the reality of the conversation this podcast is trying to state, still stands.
Maori had sovereignty (to the greatest degree by which our culture could have had at that time) And never seeded that sovereignty.
As a result of “Te Whakaminenga” and their creation of “He Whakaputanga”. We had Sovereignty. To the greatest degree by which we understood this new world. And in “Te Tiriti”, never relinquished that sovereignty to the Queen.
Had Henry Williams translated ‘Government’ as ‘Mana’ (which he knew was the most relative word in our language after having translated multiple books from the bible using and understanding this word) I whole heartedly believe that our tupuna would never had signed it.
The main issue where this occurs in the treaty is article one, where “Kāwanatanga” is used as “complete government”. And instead of “o ratou wenua” as in “their lands” (the lands that pakeha have been given) it’s more contextualised as “their land”, as in all of “Maori land” due to the structure of the English text.
Taking all of this information into account. I am happy with my position and view on the treaty. However, I still believe your view on the degree of bias in this podcast is valid.
Mauri Ora
@ Thank you so much for your reply. Very well articulated and reasoned and well worth the read. I will have a proper look at it and respond to a couple of your points in the morning when I am fresh :-)
Oh dear. 26 minutes in and it just keep getting worse, total bias nonsense.
Very interesting and not really a balanced presentation.
Definitely not balanced. Regardless, I believe the points that were raised still validate our general understanding as Maori, that we had sovereignty and didn’t seed sovereignty.
I think the question now is that, if we didn’t seed sovereignty, what does that mean for us all as New Zealanders……..
Fr its like they intentionally left out the lies and racism :/ how very one sided
🥰🙏🏾🌿❤️🤍🖤🌿