Maoridom ceded sovereignty for equality end of story. There was no other way it could be. Read the whole of the treaty and see what it all adds up to. No one clause has precedence in a contract it is part of a whole.
No because they didn’t have sovereignty to cede. They had no structures in place to govern anything, they had occupancy on the basis of colonisation before the latter day colonists. “ No they didn’t end of story” requires qualification to have any merit as a statement.
@@jamescrydeman540 Lmao how hypocritical of you to put the burden of proof onto others, while asking your claim to be acepted as self-evident truth with no evidence lmao. The audacity of that intellectual dishonesty
@@BingeThinker1814 A hypocrite is someone who says one thing and does the opposite. How have I done that? Galbraith warned us about our inclination to seek proof we have no need to alter a position when confronted with evidence that we might have to. When we do that we merely turn our beliefs into our prejudices.
You ever had sovereignty you had occupancy . The anthropological development of Maoridom was at the stone age level of societal development and had no structures in place that could represent sovereignty in any form other than Galbraiths “condine” level of power. I f we could get rid of all the misrepresentation involved in this we could make some progress.
@@jamescrydeman540 Why wasn't a central government put in place directly after "He Whakaputanga" was formally acknowledged in *1836? Because Māori were very clear on their intentions to self govern their own land & affairs as a people. Fast forward to 1840, there's still no central government. Why would the crown leave these lands government-less for 4 years? Because the intentions of northern Māori to govern their own lands and affairs *NEVER CEDED* .
Maoridom did not have sovereignty to cede, they had occupancy tThey had no political. legal, governmental or judicial structures with which to establish a sovereignty, and there is a whole other story about the king movement. Maoridom did not have even a written language to record such matters. Equality is an essential quality of democracy, once a distancing from equality begins it is supremacy that is being pursued.
How do you know are you maori or are you only going on what you read in books? Weather you like it or not it is what it is. The corrupt corporatocracy running this country illegally after the coup d ' etat in 1986 have no rights over the indigenous "NONE"
@@patriciatewhetu6808 Use that in court and see if it helps. But you have noticed an aspect of this that many miss, being the use of power in the interests of the powerful, politically and/or economically, at the expense of the less powerful but i doubt its primary purpose is subjugation on the basis of race, though that may happen incidentally, the drive is primarily about structuring matters to suit wealth and its further accumulation. Having spent much of my life directly and indirectly involved in industrial relations i see that right wing economics have no preference as to which groups it impacts upon. Your principal aggressor is the economic structure and whose interests are served by it.
I don't want this to get lost in the comments so I've copied it here ...... With regard to the sovereignty issue: Article 1 of Te Tiriti uses the word "Kawanatanga" which is an English word that means "Governorship". Article 2 uses the words "tino rangatiratanga" which is Maori and translates as "absolute sovereignty". Listen to Tio when he says *only treaties in the language of the people the treaty is made with are lawful* - i.e, Te Tiriti - and only the interpretations of the words in the treaty that the people who the treaty was made with are lawful - i.e., what Maori themselves thought they were signing. This is international law, not my opinion. And Maori are adamant, "We never ceded sovereignty!" This is the lawful interpretation, like it or not. The good news is that if Pakeha come into the lawful jurisdiction of He Wakaputanga Declaration of Independence 1835, they will be looked after under Articles 3 and 4, viz., 3 The hereditary chiefs and heads of tribes agree to meet in Congress at Waitangi in the autumn of each year, for the purpose of framing laws for the dispensation of justice, *the preservation of peace and good order*, and the regulation of trade; and they cordially invite the southern tribes to lay aside their private animosities and to consult the safety and welfare of our common country, by joining the Confederation of the United Tribes. 4 They also agree to send a copy of this declaration to his majesty the King of England, to thank him for his acknowledgment of their flag; *and in return for the friendship and protection they have shown, and are prepared to show, to such of his subjects as have settled in their country, or resorted to its shores for the purposes of trade*, they entreat that he will continue to be the parent of their infant state, and that he will become its Protector from all attempts upon its independence. Hope this helps .....
@chriselliott368 how can it help when it's wrong? The meaning of the treaty is the meaning of the treaty in 1840. Just because the twist brigade got their grubby mits on it an twisted it. Kawanatanga meant sovereignty in 1840. Tino rangatiritanga meant possession in 1840 and taonga, which hongi hika said you got with the point of the spear, so plunder, meant property in 1840. It is an absolute disgrace the stunt you lot are pulling.
@@markturner2971 Thanks for your comment. This issue is the most important issue facing this country and will be until it’s resolved, so these discussions are vital. So my response is ….. I don’t get why you think what I said is wrong. Are you talking about the English version of the Treaty or the Maori version? International law says “Only treaties in the language of the people the treaty is made with are lawful, and only the interpretations of those treaties by those people are lawful interpretations”. It’s absolutely unambiguous. And when Dr Mānuka says that “He Wakaputanga established Maori sovereignty and that the chiefs thought the Treaty was an extension of that”; and that Maori say they never ceded sovereignty with the Treaty, these are the only lawful interpretations, like it or not. He Wakaputanga declared the sovereignty of Maori, and Nu Tirenui as an independent state, recognised by Britain, the US, France, and other trading nations. These are the facts. The rest is the twist brigade in action. The Attorney General of NZ, Chris Findlayson, in 2014 said, “The Treaty was a failed attempt to take sovereignty away from New Zealand and so the inescapable conclusion in law is that He Wakaputanga (the 1835 Declaration of Independence) is the founding document of New Zealand, and nothing since then has changed anything about that in any way at all”. I get the idea that when Pakeha think that if the Maori Government is the only lawful government of the country, they imagine that some kind of “retribution” will follow - but this is absolutely not the case. He Wakaputanga was designed to unify the people - all the people - of this country (as I described in my last comment) - be they Maori, Pakeha, or Tau Iwi, in peace and prosperity for all, and that’s still the intention today. I’m part of the Wakaminenga Maori Government and I can promise you, this is absolutely the primary intention for all of us. And the twist brigade is doing its best to subvert this!
@chriselliott368 the very serious problem with your credibility is in 1986 hugh kawheru changedthe meaning of sovereignty, possession and property . The littlewood version was proven to be real and has been hidden away. 2 differences between it and the maori translation. The date and the word maori in art.2 as the settlers already had citizenship. Any more than that is just made up.
@@markturner2971 There's that old legal principle - First in time, best in law. He Wakaputanga is first in time, best in law. He Wakaputanga Article 2 states: "All sovereign power and authority within the territories of the United Tribes of New Zealand is hereby declared to reside entirely and exclusively in the hereditary chiefs and heads of tribes in their collective capacity, who also declare that they will not permit any legislative authority separate from themselves in their collective capacity to exist, not any function of government to be exercised within the said territories, unless by persons appointed by them, and acting under the authority of laws regularly enacted by them in congress assembled". Incidentally, the Wakaminenga Maori Government was appointed by the Congress of Chiefs in 1986 at Waitangi. So when has the Crown government ever been appointed by the Congress of Chiefs? It never was and is therefore undoubtedly an unlawful occupying force in this country. Add to that that the Treaty was never formally ratified by the British Parliament (I wrote and asked); is "...... not a treaty as recognised by international law and has no independent legal status ...." (Wikipedia) and has never become law anywhere in the world. Add to this, the conclusion in law of the Attorney General as to the Treaty as a failed attempt to take sovereignty away from New Zealand (as quoted above) and ......? Add to this that only treaties in the language of the people the treaty is made with have any lawful validity. Add to this that, no matter what the mystique surrounding the "Littlewood version", it is still an English version and isn't worth the paper it's written on as a lawful document. If the Treaty has no legal validity in the first place, it doesn't matter how many weird and wonderful versions there are in English, they amount to zero - and He Wakaputanga remains as the founding document of this nation. So Hugh Kawheru might have attempted to do this but ...... he was not first in time, best in law; and he had no authority to do it unless he was appointed into his position by the Congress of the Chiefs of the United Tribes, which I would guarantee he wasn't. So what credibility does Hugh Kawheru have .....? Good question, though. So, when you talk about "the twist brigade", maybe you're starting to get an idea of who they really are?
@chriselliott368 the declaration of independence failed. The chiefs met only once and in 2 years were fighting again. The treaty of Waitangi article 1 says " 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 forever the entire sovereignty of their country ". Article 2, "the queen of England confirms and guarantees to the chiefs and the tribes and all the people of New Zealand, the possession of their lands, dwellings and all their property. But the chiefs of the confederation of the united tribes and other chiefs grant to the queen, the exclusive rights of purchasing such landmass the proprietors thereof may be disposed to sell at such prices as may be agreed upon between them and the person appointed by the queen to purchase from them". Article 3, " In return for the cession of sovereignty to the queen, the people of New Zealand shall be protected by the queen of England and the rights and privileges of British subjects will be granted to them". That is what the treaty says and what it meant. 92% of New Zealand 🇳🇿 was sold to the crown. The other major benefit of ceding sovereignty was the end of slavery. With what kawheru did to the treaty alone, makes everything anyone pedaling this coup impossible to be taken seriously or believed.
im enjoying this analysis. However, at 8.14 there is a quite important mistake(?) relating to the reading of the document. He misreads/ supplants the word "Laws "where the document he is reading from says "lands." Then from there goes on to make some major statements based upon this supplantation?...Not having a go here...just wondering what thats all about? Quite a significant slip up really....
Kiaora, Tio just sent me the document he was reading from at the time and what was on the slide was from the Government website what HE was reading from was the ACTUAL WRIT translation has the word LAWS not LAND hence proof of more fkery........ Happy to send you a copy
@@robertperham . Wow. Thanks for this elucidation. And yes...just more proof of deceit and deception on the behalf of the government. It seems these governments are quite adept at this "misinformation and disinformation "that they love to accuse everybody else of . They have obviously been practicing these tactics for centuries now.. No wonder there is so much division. mistrust, and fermented anger out there.
Sounds like spin and manipulation to me. The 1835 Declaration was just that. Read it. It declared authority and control over the North by Northern tribes, Then te Tiriti o Waitangi took that back and included "other" tribes (iwi) in a new Treaty with the Crown. The South Island was taken on the Right of Discovery Also in 1840!. This confirmed Capt Cooks same declaration many years before..
Sounds like you are saying that something that didn’t exist had precedence over something else that didnt exist. But the treaty was signed whenever and all it assured was equality under the law, all it could assure.
the Declaration was ONLY signed by some Northland chiefs and a few Waikato ones. It is not universal among Maori, but was superseded by the 1840 treaty. You are flogging a dead hoiho.
By the time "the Treaty" was on the table, 80% of the chiefs in both islands had signed He Wakaputanga and, as Henare pointed out, the chiefs thought Te Tiriti was just an extension of He Wakaputanga. Also, as Toi pointed out, only treaties in the language of the people the treaty is made with are lawful, and only the interpretations of the words in that language, by those people, are lawful. So when Maori say, "We never ceded sovereignty!", this is the only lawful interpretation of Te Tiriti, like it or not. This is international law, not my opinion. And then when you look at all the other shady stuff the NZ corporate government has done over time, you'll see that their legality stands on fresh air ..... Check out my comment in the main comments section explaining Articles 3 and 4 HW. It might help .....
A similar bullshit story was made up for american blacks to remove their nativity to the land by saying they were brought over on ships. There are blacks throughout the entire american continent and they do not look african. British settlors are savages and will make up any story to remove your rights and justify their actions.
Coz Ngati Wikitoria have no land and NZ have no land only Maori
@romir200 that's funny, how can you sell 92% of it, more than once and still own it? Makes as much sense as denying ceding sovereignty.
@@markturner2971you must have done a lot of research to come to your conclusion. May I ask your sources, many thanks.
@kylebeckett825 the sources have been in the public domain before 1860.
@@romir200 typical, don't do facts, just live in LA LA land.
@@markturner2971 could you be more specific please, I can't find any proof in the public domain to back up your claim unfortunately. Many thanks.
Co-Governance is not on the table
How does Te Ture Whenua Maori Land act fit into your korero E Hoa?
Where can i get a copy of the three page charter
Maoridom ceded sovereignty for equality end of story. There was no other way it could be. Read the whole of the treaty and see what it all adds up to. No one clause has precedence in a contract it is part of a whole.
no they didn't end of story
No because they didn’t have sovereignty to cede. They had no structures in place to govern anything, they had occupancy on the basis of colonisation before the latter day colonists. “ No they didn’t end of story” requires qualification to have any merit as a statement.
Revisionist propaganda
@@jamescrydeman540 Lmao how hypocritical of you to put the burden of proof onto others, while asking your claim to be acepted as self-evident truth with no evidence lmao. The audacity of that intellectual dishonesty
@@BingeThinker1814 A hypocrite is someone who says one thing and does the opposite. How have I done that? Galbraith warned us about our inclination to seek proof we have no need to alter a position when confronted with evidence that we might have to. When we do that we merely turn our beliefs into our prejudices.
I wish I was taught this history and how to run a business when I was in school
They might have claimed it but never established it. the anthropological development did not have the instruments capable of producing it.
can we sue them
You ever had sovereignty you had occupancy . The anthropological development of Maoridom was at the stone age level of societal development and had no structures in place that could represent sovereignty in any form other than Galbraiths “condine” level of power. I f we could get rid of all the misrepresentation involved in this we could make some progress.
@@jamescrydeman540 Why wasn't a central government put in place directly after "He Whakaputanga" was formally acknowledged in *1836?
Because Māori were very clear on their intentions to self govern their own land & affairs as a people.
Fast forward to 1840, there's still no central government. Why would the crown leave these lands government-less for 4 years? Because the intentions of northern Māori to govern their own lands and affairs *NEVER CEDED* .
@@_.Marz._ You had better ask that of those that were there.But nothing in terms of structures of sovereignty were established.
Maoridom did not have sovereignty to cede, they had occupancy tThey had no political. legal, governmental or judicial structures with which to establish a sovereignty, and there is a whole other story about the king movement. Maoridom did not have even a written language to record such matters. Equality is an essential quality of democracy, once a distancing from equality begins it is supremacy that is being pursued.
@@jamescrydeman540 Thankfully Nats and NZFirst aren't entertaining the Treaty Bill !! 😊
How do you know are you maori or are you only going on what you read in books? Weather you like it or not it is what it is.
The corrupt corporatocracy running this country illegally after the coup d ' etat in 1986 have no rights over the indigenous "NONE"
@@patriciatewhetu6808 Use that in court and see if it helps. But you have noticed an aspect of this that many miss, being the use of power in the interests of the powerful, politically and/or economically, at the expense of the less powerful but i doubt its primary purpose is subjugation on the basis of race, though that may happen incidentally, the drive is primarily about structuring matters to suit wealth and its further accumulation. Having spent much of my life directly and indirectly involved in industrial relations i see that right wing economics have no preference as to which groups it impacts upon. Your principal aggressor is the economic structure and whose interests are served by it.
I don't want this to get lost in the comments so I've copied it here ...... With regard to the sovereignty issue: Article 1 of Te Tiriti uses the word "Kawanatanga" which is an English word that means "Governorship". Article 2 uses the words "tino rangatiratanga" which is Maori and translates as "absolute sovereignty". Listen to Tio when he says *only treaties in the language of the people the treaty is made with are lawful* - i.e, Te Tiriti - and only the interpretations of the words in the treaty that the people who the treaty was made with are lawful - i.e., what Maori themselves thought they were signing. This is international law, not my opinion. And Maori are adamant, "We never ceded sovereignty!" This is the lawful interpretation, like it or not. The good news is that if Pakeha come into the lawful jurisdiction of He Wakaputanga Declaration of Independence 1835, they will be looked after under Articles 3 and 4, viz.,
3 The hereditary chiefs and heads of tribes agree to meet in Congress at Waitangi in the autumn of each year, for the purpose of framing laws for the dispensation of justice, *the preservation of peace and good order*, and the regulation of trade; and they cordially invite the southern tribes to lay aside their private animosities and to consult the safety and welfare of our common country, by joining the Confederation of the United Tribes.
4 They also agree to send a copy of this declaration to his majesty the King of England, to thank him for his acknowledgment of their flag; *and in return for the friendship and protection they have shown, and are prepared to show, to such of his subjects as have settled in their country, or resorted to its shores for the purposes of trade*, they entreat that he will continue to be the parent of their infant state, and that he will become its Protector from all attempts upon its independence.
Hope this helps .....
@chriselliott368 how can it help when it's wrong? The meaning of the treaty is the meaning of the treaty in 1840. Just because the twist brigade got their grubby mits on it an twisted it. Kawanatanga meant sovereignty in 1840. Tino rangatiritanga meant possession in 1840 and taonga, which hongi hika said you got with the point of the spear, so plunder, meant property in 1840. It is an absolute disgrace the stunt you lot are pulling.
@@markturner2971 Thanks for your comment. This issue is the most important issue facing this country and will be until it’s resolved, so these discussions are vital. So my response is …..
I don’t get why you think what I said is wrong. Are you talking about the English version of the Treaty or the Maori version? International law says “Only treaties in the language of the people the treaty is made with are lawful, and only the interpretations of those treaties by those people are lawful interpretations”. It’s absolutely unambiguous. And when Dr Mānuka says that “He Wakaputanga established Maori sovereignty and that the chiefs thought the Treaty was an extension of that”; and that Maori say they never ceded sovereignty with the Treaty, these are the only lawful interpretations, like it or not.
He Wakaputanga declared the sovereignty of Maori, and Nu Tirenui as an independent state, recognised by Britain, the US, France, and other trading nations. These are the facts. The rest is the twist brigade in action.
The Attorney General of NZ, Chris Findlayson, in 2014 said, “The Treaty was a failed attempt to take sovereignty away from New Zealand and so the inescapable conclusion in law is that He Wakaputanga (the 1835 Declaration of Independence) is the founding document of New Zealand, and nothing since then has changed anything about that in any way at all”.
I get the idea that when Pakeha think that if the Maori Government is the only lawful government of the country, they imagine that some kind of “retribution” will follow - but this is absolutely not the case.
He Wakaputanga was designed to unify the people - all the people - of this country (as I described in my last comment) - be they Maori, Pakeha, or Tau Iwi, in peace and prosperity for all, and that’s still the intention today. I’m part of the Wakaminenga Maori Government and I can promise you, this is absolutely the primary intention for all of us. And the twist brigade is doing its best to subvert this!
@chriselliott368 the very serious problem with your credibility is in 1986 hugh kawheru changedthe meaning of sovereignty, possession and property . The littlewood version was proven to be real and has been hidden away. 2 differences between it and the maori translation. The date and the word maori in art.2 as the settlers already had citizenship. Any more than that is just made up.
@@markturner2971 There's that old legal principle - First in time, best in law.
He Wakaputanga is first in time, best in law. He Wakaputanga Article 2 states: "All sovereign power and authority within the territories of the United Tribes of New Zealand is hereby declared to reside entirely and exclusively in the hereditary chiefs and heads of tribes in their collective capacity, who also declare that they will not permit any legislative authority separate from themselves in their collective capacity to exist, not any function of government to be exercised within the said territories, unless by persons appointed by them, and acting under the authority of laws regularly enacted by them in congress assembled". Incidentally, the Wakaminenga Maori Government was appointed by the Congress of Chiefs in 1986 at Waitangi.
So when has the Crown government ever been appointed by the Congress of Chiefs? It never was and is therefore undoubtedly an unlawful occupying force in this country. Add to that that the Treaty was never formally ratified by the British Parliament (I wrote and asked); is "...... not a treaty as recognised by international law and has no independent legal status ...." (Wikipedia) and has never become law anywhere in the world.
Add to this, the conclusion in law of the Attorney General as to the Treaty as a failed attempt to take sovereignty away from New Zealand (as quoted above) and ......? Add to this that only treaties in the language of the people the treaty is made with have any lawful validity. Add to this that, no matter what the mystique surrounding the "Littlewood version", it is still an English version and isn't worth the paper it's written on as a lawful document. If the Treaty has no legal validity in the first place, it doesn't matter how many weird and wonderful versions there are in English, they amount to zero - and He Wakaputanga remains as the founding document of this nation.
So Hugh Kawheru might have attempted to do this but ...... he was not first in time, best in law; and he had no authority to do it unless he was appointed into his position by the Congress of the Chiefs of the United Tribes, which I would guarantee he wasn't. So what credibility does Hugh Kawheru have .....? Good question, though.
So, when you talk about "the twist brigade", maybe you're starting to get an idea of who they really are?
@chriselliott368 the declaration of independence failed. The chiefs met only once and in 2 years were fighting again. The treaty of Waitangi article 1 says " 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 forever the entire sovereignty of their country ".
Article 2, "the queen of England confirms and guarantees to the chiefs and the tribes and all the people of New Zealand, the possession of their lands, dwellings and all their property. But the chiefs of the confederation of the united tribes and other chiefs grant to the queen, the exclusive rights of purchasing such landmass the proprietors thereof may be disposed to sell at such prices as may be agreed upon between them and the person appointed by the queen to purchase from them".
Article 3, " In return for the cession of sovereignty to the queen, the people of New Zealand shall be protected by the queen of England and the rights and privileges of British subjects will be granted to them".
That is what the treaty says and what it meant. 92% of New Zealand 🇳🇿 was sold to the crown. The other major benefit of ceding sovereignty was the end of slavery. With what kawheru did to the treaty alone, makes everything anyone pedaling this coup impossible to be taken seriously or believed.
im enjoying this analysis. However, at 8.14 there is a quite important mistake(?) relating to the reading of the document. He misreads/ supplants the word "Laws "where the document he is reading from says "lands." Then from there goes on to make some major statements based upon this supplantation?...Not having a go here...just wondering what thats all about? Quite a significant slip up really....
Kiaora, Tio just sent me the document he was reading from at the time and what was on the slide was from the Government website what HE was reading from was the ACTUAL WRIT translation has the word LAWS not LAND hence proof of more fkery........ Happy to send you a copy
@@robertperham . Wow. Thanks for this elucidation. And yes...just more proof of deceit and deception on the behalf of the government. It seems these governments are quite adept at this "misinformation and disinformation "that they love to accuse everybody else of . They have obviously been practicing these tactics for centuries now.. No wonder there is so much division. mistrust, and fermented anger out there.
Hypocrisy just breeds more pakehas,bottom line.
Sounds like spin and manipulation to me. The 1835 Declaration was just that. Read it. It declared authority and control over the North by Northern tribes, Then te Tiriti o Waitangi took that back and included "other" tribes (iwi) in a new Treaty with the Crown.
The South Island was taken on the Right of Discovery Also in 1840!. This confirmed Capt Cooks same declaration many years before..
Sounds like you are saying that something that didn’t exist had precedence over something else that didnt exist. But the treaty was signed whenever and all it assured was equality under the law, all it could assure.
More absolute BS from activists.
Sorry it's the truth 😮
NGA mihi ano TIO,
Sovereignty is not ownership it is supreme power or authority.. The treaty laid out how land could be bought and sold . This whole video is biased
Ok
the Declaration was ONLY signed by some Northland chiefs and a few Waikato ones. It is not universal among Maori, but was superseded by the 1840 treaty. You are flogging a dead hoiho.
By the time "the Treaty" was on the table, 80% of the chiefs in both islands had signed He Wakaputanga and, as Henare pointed out, the chiefs thought Te Tiriti was just an extension of He Wakaputanga. Also, as Toi pointed out, only treaties in the language of the people the treaty is made with are lawful, and only the interpretations of the words in that language, by those people, are lawful. So when Maori say, "We never ceded sovereignty!", this is the only lawful interpretation of Te Tiriti, like it or not. This is international law, not my opinion. And then when you look at all the other shady stuff the NZ corporate government has done over time, you'll see that their legality stands on fresh air .....
Check out my comment in the main comments section explaining Articles 3 and 4 HW. It might help .....
@@chriselliott368 um, not true. 80% of chiefs in both islands did NOT sign Whakaputanga. There are only 52 signatures.
@@irianscott1062 Cool, thanks. I'll go back to my source. It's good to have the real info ....
I suppose the New Zealand 🇳🇿 taxpayers payed for this poorly produced propaganda.
Nope absolutely not
@markturner2971 you'll find me on fb same name but with a gyrocoputer on the homepage....
Maori Ori land not Maori’s.
A similar bullshit story was made up for american blacks to remove their nativity to the land by saying they were brought over on ships. There are blacks throughout the entire american continent and they do not look african.
British settlors are savages and will make up any story to remove your rights and justify their actions.
Nope. Land occupied before them also.
Telling yourself lies to make yourself feel better?