Sorry Duncan, I don't think that most Kiwi's are confused by the Treaty. Sir Apirana Ngata wasn't confused, and Sir Hugh Kawharu wasn't confused, even I'm not confused. If there is any confusion it's been created by those who want to add meaning to it that could never have been envisaged by any of the people who signed it. Had those parties wanted Maori to control the seabed and foreshore, it would have been written into it. There are only three parts to it, all in easy to understand language.
Yes, the whole point is to create confusion since Ruth Ross in the 70s claimed it was 'a bloody difficult subject'. But it is actually very very simple. 1] The meaning and intent of the treaty is clear in the English, which was what the missionaries had in mind when translating as best they could, and which was in mind whne explaining and discussing the meaning and intent with the chiefs. 2] The treaty was soon eclipsed in the *declaration* of sovereignty over thew hole country a few months after Waitangi, where the signing just gave the British a moral/ humanitarian legitimacy to assume sovereignty over the country.
That is dead right ,well said The world is having similar problems engineerd by some obscenely wealthy people who want us all at each other's throats The old Roman ideal ,Divide and conquer
@@davethewave7248 Many local people, including the Irish. were bowled over by the British crown and some were judicially murdered. Others imprisoned and transported. Exiled, in other words. They attacked the Boer farmers in southern Africa. No respecters of race, or culture. Turned this around in AoNZ should take time- and a fair bit of patience...
@@Dave183 Are you familiar with the crisis of conscience that British statesmen had in the early 19th century in regards to indigenous populations? This was due to the religious revival that swept the country... and put those very sympathetic to the missionary cause in the Colonial Office. This had a huge impact on British policy in NZ, with the treaty etc.
I think that there is an expectation amongst people who voted National, ACT and NZ First, that between them they would get rid of any "interpretations' of the Treaty, and restore equality to every aspect of Kiwi life. Voting/ seats, health, education, access to facilities.... no preference based on race. Also get rid the WOKE mind virus that has infected so much of our society. Anyone or any party who is perceived to not pull their weight on this will probably pay a price for this at the next election.
Shutup with your white bullshit. You clowns can see the statistical societal data and to claim you are disadvantaged is statistically and factually a blatant fallacy, and your bullshit honkey belief that removing the pre existing rights of Maori Maori somehow makes everyone equal.
The Treaty is a good historic document without all the add ons.I f those who act under the misguided veiw about the principals without any public discussion is democratly wrong
Funny how the same boollsheet is being played in Australia (look what it has done already to the UK), in the USA it is causing economic collapse and destabilization (exactly what the corrupt want) and it has destroyed Europe, Canada wails, and South Africa, once a proud and equal commonwealth partner, now the highest crime boasting civic failure, is the future you/we are looking at. It will happen here!
as a Maori, my Iwi discriminate against our own people. If we don't tow the Iwi line, they discriminate against Iwi members. We aren't allowed to have our own opinion. While my Iwi leader gets on his podium spouting Kotahitanga, behind the scenes he creates division. It's not a happy place amongst maori, the power given to some maori leaders has gone to their head, for all the wrong reasons, and they are not accountable. Im sick of been bullied by my own people.
two of my friends now live in australia to get away from mad members of their own family spoiling family gatherings with this shite, they share your view. One Nz where we are all equal, whoever we are
Well said, it’s a shame you cannot unite with fellow moari who feel the same and stand up to the parasites, you would get immense support from all New Zealanders
Maori Green MP Ferris stands on a seperate Maori education System. The Treaty needs to have a clear and concise definition. The ACT Party will destroy the National Vote if Luxon does not take a firm stand on the divisions that have been created by the many different Treaty Interpretations.
So you are ok with Charter schools which won’t need to follow the national curriculum and the future privatisation of public schools, but instead your biggest concern is an MP advocating for seperate Maori schools (which we already have) Kura kaupapa. Let me guess, you’re worried for Maori children?
The Bill is about correcting the inequalities that have been created by the 'principles of the treaty'. And despite Luxon's cowardice, this problem won't go away
The face-value words of the Treaty (Maori version as translated on the Waitangi Tribunal website) are simple and clear. The problem is that the 'Principles' dreamed up over the last 50 years are 'open-ended' in both number and application. They are made up 'on the hoof' to extend the scope of the Treaty - for example the Principle of 'active protection' has since been invented to impose responsibility for the Maori language (ie an exclusive taonga of Maori) on the Crown. In that context the Principles actually water down Maori rights guaranteed under the Treaty. Whatever, the 'moving feast' of 'Principles' is ludicrous in country claiming to be a Parliamentary democracy based on law and order. If there are to be 'Treaty principles' then they need to be agreed and codified in an open and negotiated public process.
I grew up in Ngaruawahia, and I don't know a single person who benefits from their Iwi. My best mates have fallen to gang life, drugs, crime and suicide though.
Once Maori Chiefs scrap the treaty and divorce the Crown? All pakeha will instantly be deported back to england. All land wealth and resources will be returned back to the original traditional land owners.
@@dgm2593lies. Everyone born here is of this land and is a rightful citizens of it. Those born here regardless of race are the People of this land. All our ancestors were tangata Waka.
Paul Moon says the treaty is akin to a relationship. But it's not. It's simply a compact between most chiefs and the British Crown, whereby most chiefs ceded sovereignty to the Crown and became subjects of the British empire. Paul is an academic and professional historian. This is great, but it also incentivizes him to tow the line to some extent... to fall in with the modern academic consensus. He says it is a 'constitutional document' but it is not. The constitution of this country was worked out by the Brbitish government, and then by George Grey on the slopes of Ruapehu when NZ became a self-governing country. The rights Maori gained were ratified by our new Parliament. The treaty of Waitangi was simply between chiefs and the British Crown. The error lies in thinking that our politics can be treaty-centric... as if the treaty is our/ NZ's founding document. The treaty, significant though it is as part of our hsitory, was very soon superceded by events. Indeed, as soon as a few months after Waitangi when the British *declared* sovereignty over the whole country... irrespective of who did or did not sign [the treaty just gave the Brits the moral / humanitarian legitimacy of doing so]. 'Who has the right to define those principles'. If only historians got back to the actual meaning and intent of the treaty on the day as it was signed in real time, the way in which it was well explained and discussed by the missionaries and statesmen, the way in which a majirty of chiefs agreed to sign [and the way in which a minority refused], none of this would be an issue. Instead people insist that there are two 'versions'. and then project their own modern meaning onto the Maori text [that began in the 70s].
@@JB-ch9ws Title being 'Contra a Treaty-centric Politics'. The problem is the paradigm that the treaty is a 'foundational' document for NZ is very strong... among all parties concerened. Once our politics is understood to have developed or evolved organically, the argument over 'treaty principles' becomes irrelevant.
Once Maori Chiefs scrap the treaty and divorce the Crown? All pakeha will instantly be deported back to england. All land wealth and resources will be returned back to the original traditional land owners.
It was a historic document until the 1970s [very early on it had been eclipsed and superceded by events]. The attempt of the past few decades has been to make it a working document on the basis of the Te tiriti interpretation. The conversation that needs to be had should lead to the treaty once again becoming a historical document [the rights gained there were ratified by Parliament, and economic settlements have continued throughout the decades]. What would be disastrous for the country is to continue down the road of trying to make our politics 'treaty-centric', where it is imagined that maori did not cede sovereignty and the Crown is suppoed to be in partnership/ share sovereignty with Maori.
How many times do we need to say it: THERE ARE NO PRINCIPLES TO THE TREATY. ITS A VERY SIMPLE THING WITH ONLY 3 articles that say maori cede sovereignty to the crown, in return they got to have ownership over their own property and be treated as equals.
In none of the Maori version (the legal document that's consulted if there is any question) of tbe Treaty has no mention of ceding Soverignty. Furthermore, Maori at the time didn't have a concept for one person to control/own all land. Lastly, Maori were 50-1 in terms of population at the time. It would defy all logic to cede anything being the dominant partner (at the time) in the negotiation and signing.
@@jamesreynolds170 Well , at the time of the treaty , Maori were distinctly tribal . There was no such thing as a Maori nation was there ? I am thinking that the 45 or so chiefs who did sign it , did so because they saw advantages at least for their own tribes . They would have realised that the British were a stronger culture and that ultimately it would be futile to fight the Crown . The British obviously had so much that naturally Maori would like to have as well . The current anti colonial fervour has been stirred up by a minority and it would be interesting to know how much time your everyday Maori worries about that now . They are most likely a lot more concerned about housing , low wages , etc , etc . I would venture to say that in truth it is time to move on . I will stop here for a cuppa now . Good night everybody !
@@andrewcampbell2903 You are correct, there wasn't a Maori "Nation" as such, but that's much like how in the UK, the King relied on the fuedel system whereby he was supported by Dukes and the like before the Parliamentary system was established. There was however the United Tribes of New Zealand that went someway to representing the thoughts and actions as Maori as a whole. The idea of ceding soverignty, or who owns what, is inherently viewed through the anglo-sphere, without taking into consideration of understanding at a deeper level, how Maori saw the world. Your thoughts on what Maori thought of the British at the time, if it was futile to fight them, if they thought colonization was inevitable is simply conjecture, because no one actually knows. All we have is context of the time and within that context, there is no way that Maori could have know or even comprehended how big or powerful the British Empire was, so that comment, in all fairness, is merely speculation. I can't speak to anyone else, but I for one are most worried about if we were to vote on peoples fundamental human rights. its been affirmed many times both in the courts, tribunal, etc that Maori did not cede soverignty, did not cede the right to self determination and that the ongoing breaches were from the Crown. This is a pretty good article on the Maori Conderations declaration of independence and what they did seek from the British Empire at the time. nzhistory.govt.nz/culture/declaration-of-independence-taming-the-frontier
@@jamesreynolds170 "there is no way that Maori could have know or even comprehended how big or powerful the British Empire was"... however James Reynolds is unaware or neglects to mention that many pre-treaty Maori had travelled throughout the British Empire returning to tell all of how big and powerful Queen Wikitoria was, including (1804-1806) New Zealand's most powerful chief Hongi Hika who spent extensive time in London being accomodated by the Sovereign Royal Crown at Her Majesty Queen Victoria's pleasure and was very generously showered with many expensive royal gifts. Hongi Hika, Nga Puhi Chief, related all he had witnessed declaring how big and powerful the British Empire was to all. For more detail on Hongi Hika's travel within the empire and his activities upon his return one should read 'The Musket Wars' (Ron Crosby). The Truth will set us free...
Maori leaders should tell us what they believe the principles are too. Then we can debate that as well And people have been asking them and they refuse to tell us. So one person in a relationship defining the principles without the other getting a say is not an accurate analogy.
The principles were formulated by the best legal minds in the country and endorsed and accepted by both Māori AND the government and have not been questioned by anyone on either side of the treaty signers UNTIL this tiny group of fwits turned up.
The treaty is very simple. Activists have changed the meaning of it and corrupted the history. The principle of the treaty is maori ceded sovereignty and sold 92% of the country by 1865. I would love to here pauls thoughts on co governance.
In your english language version of the treaty you translated false fraudulent misinterpreted claims that Maori Chief Warriors ceded sovereignty. This is absolute false. If this was true? then Hone Heke wouldnt of insulted your Queen Victoria and your british millitary by disrespectfully cutting your british flag down to end all treaty agreements and any future partnerships. By Hone Heke cutting down the british flag it symbolizes firstly that he did not cede sovereignty and you do not have authority over us and our land. Therefore you frauded and misinterpreted the treaty. Secondly you dishounured your own Queen Victoria by going against her declaration that she promised to those Chiefs that everything still belongs to them. But straight away once those Chiefs signed because of Queen Victorias declaration general Fitzroy and general Grey started stealing and confiscating land!? Miscommunication and language barriers you may say from both sides?? The reality is by hook or by crook. You wanted Maori land and resources to expand your british empire if they signed or not. The only reason you presented a peace treaty is because you couldnt genocide conquest or conquered Maori Warriors through war battle. You had to steal everything through a misinterpreted peace treaty. How weak and disgraceful. Now the world can see through your BULLSHIT pakeka. Shameful shameful shameful. You invaded other countrys before you invaded us to expand your empire. So you already had plenty of practice. You defeated everyone else in war battle except for Maori Warriors. You failed. Truth be told. Now all you pakeha peasants who are under crown want crown status privileges to dictate to Maori what they can and cant do? Who the hell are you? Your just a farken peasant with no status or mana trying to be a king or a Chief. Maori did not cede sovereignty! It defies all logic that free men of a Warrior race would surrender ownership of thier lands waters forest and seas who have occupied these resources and ocean voyaged the pacific realm for thousands of years when you have only been here 200 years by our invitation? When you have owned everything as your generational home? You have to be totally stupid and ignorant to the truth that these war lords of a Warrior race would give you everything when you did not defeat them in war battle? Your thinking is absolute horrendous false and fradulent. Your false narratives dont make any sense. Just lies to protect your other lies. Truth be told! Go back to england where you come from pakeha you shameful dishonesty people. You dont belong here with Maori. FARK OFF or prepare for battle like your ancestors! Send your fattest soldiers to the front line battle. For we are hungry!!!! TOA TOA TOA!!!!!
This is dumb lol article 2 says Māori retain rangatiratanga. Which is autonomy and chiefly authority. Article 1 gives the crown the right to govern, kawanatanga (a word which many rangatira didn’t even know, as it is a transliteration of a concept they didn’t even know about), and does not mention sovereignty. 92% ? I would love to know where you got that from. The most land sold was about 2/3 of the South Island, much of which was uninhabited. Even then it is not certain that those sales were without pressure and free of any underhandedness. The majority of inhabited Māori land was stolen.
@@shaayd12 100% correct. Maori did not cede sovereignty. The pakeha frauded this idea of giving everything to them through a misinterpreted language they didnt understand. Those Warrior Chiefs only understood Mana and Power? They didn't have an abstract concept of the english language let alone what the word sovereignty means? Pakeha are false and fradulent people who invaded many countries to expand their British Empire by hook or by crook to steal land wealth and resources to pay off war debts!
3 місяці тому+4
@@shaayd12The chiefs retained control of their land at an iwi/hapu level and could sell to the crown if they so wished, and they did, selling 92% of their land
That word "principles" is always going create ideoligical , contensious disagreements. Maori leaders weren't all in agreement then , and will never all agree in the future ,especially if there is any compensations without total democratic and realistic agreement. But we must find a way where we can all co-exist side by side ,otherwise, we'll become an apartheid country .
These Māori at the top don't really care about their people they care about being appointed to position were they can benefit themselves and their close whanau and friends, whether by being paid a salary or access to funding they can mismanage. either way the ones at the bottom stay at the bottom propping them up the whole time.
The same could be said for Pakeha at the top. Or any race "at the top" who use their resources, connections and positions to feather their own nests. I also know many, many Iwi leaders who work extremely hard to support and strengthen their people ❤
Yeah but I know just as many that drive flash cars wear designer suits and all the cool stuff highlighting they are no different to any other material culture
Before you can interpert the treaty now you have to define what it meant in 1840 and go from there....... an investigation of the above might conclude its still valid now or might conclude that it is not......
Maori are not somehow married to 'Pakeha', where we just need to get some good counseling and then we'd all get along so well. Nope, the chiefs ceded sovereignty, enjoyed law and order... for a time, and Parliament became the sovereign of the land. Time for it to man up.
In your english language version of the treaty you translated false fraudulent misinterpreted claims that Maori Chief Warriors ceded sovereignty. This is absolute false. If this was true? then Hone Heke wouldnt of insulted your Queen Victoria and your british millitary by disrespectfully cutting your british flag down to end all treaty agreements and any future partnerships. By Hone Heke cutting down the british flag it symbolizes firstly that he did not cede sovereignty and you do not have authority over us and our land. Therefore you frauded and misinterpreted the treaty. Secondly you dishounured your own Queen Victoria by going against her declaration that she promised to those Chiefs that everything still belongs to them. But straight away once those Chiefs signed because of Queen Victorias declaration general Fitzroy and general Grey started stealing and confiscating land!? Miscommunication and language barriers you may say from both sides?? The reality is by hook or by crook. You wanted Maori land and resources to expand your british empire if they signed or not. The only reason you presented a peace treaty is because you couldnt genocide conquest or conquered Maori Warriors through war battle. You had to steal everything through a misinterpreted peace treaty. How weak and disgraceful. Now the world can see through your BULLSHIT pakeka. Shameful shameful shameful. You invaded other countrys before you invaded us to expand your empire. So you already had plenty of practice. You defeated everyone else in war battle except for Maori Warriors. You failed. Truth be told. Now all you pakeha peasants who are under crown want crown status privileges to dictate to Maori what they can and cant do? Who the hell are you? Your just a farken peasant with no status or mana trying to be a king or a Chief. Maori did not cede sovereignty! It defies all logic that free men of a Warrior race would surrender ownership of thier lands waters forest and seas who have occupied these resources and ocean voyaged the pacific realm for thousands of years when you have only been here 200 years by our invitation? When you have owned everything as your generational home? You have to be totally stupid and ignorant to the truth that these war lords of a Warrior race would give you everything when you did not defeat them in war battle? Your thinking is absolute horrendous false and fradulent. Your false narratives dont make any sense. Just lies to protect your other lies. Truth be told! Go back to england where you come from pakeha you shameful dishonesty people. You dont belong here with Maori. FARK OFF or prepare for battle like your ancestors! Send your fattest soldiers to the front line battle. For we are hungry!!!! TOA TOA TOA!!!!!
In your english language version of the treaty you translated false fraudulent misinterpreted claims that Maori Chief Warriors ceded sovereignty. This is absolute false. If this was true? then Hone Heke wouldnt of insulted your Queen Victoria and your british millitary by disrespectfully cutting your british flag down to end all treaty agreements and any future partnerships. By Hone Heke cutting down the british flag it symbolizes firstly that he did not cede sovereignty and you do not have authority over us and our land. Therefore you frauded and misinterpreted the treaty. Secondly you dishounured your own Queen Victoria by going against her declaration that she promised to those Chiefs that everything still belongs to them. But straight away once those Chiefs signed because of Queen Victorias declaration general Fitzroy and general Grey started stealing and confiscating land!? Miscommunication and language barriers you may say from both sides?? The reality is by hook or by crook. You wanted Maori land and resources to expand your british empire if they signed or not. The only reason you presented a peace treaty is because you couldnt genocide conquest or conquered Maori Warriors through war battle. You had to steal everything through a misinterpreted peace treaty. How weak and disgraceful. Now the world can see through your BULLSHIT pakeka. Shameful shameful shameful. You invaded other countrys before you invaded us to expand your empire. So you already had plenty of practice. You defeated everyone else in war battle except for Maori Warriors. You failed. Truth be told. Now all you pakeha peasants who are under crown want crown status privileges to dictate to Maori what they can and cant do? Who the hell are you? Your just a farken peasant with no status or mana trying to be a king or a Chief. Maori did not cede sovereignty! It defies all logic that free men of a Warrior race would surrender ownership of thier lands waters forest and seas who have occupied these resources and ocean voyaged the pacific realm for thousands of years when you have only been here 200 years by our invitation? When you have owned everything as your generational home? You have to be totally stupid and ignorant to the truth that these war lords of a Warrior race would give you everything when you did not defeat them in war battle? Your thinking is absolute horrendous false and fradulent. Your false narratives dont make any sense. Just lies to protect your other lies. Truth be told! Go back to england where you come from pakeha you shameful dishonesty people. You dont belong here with Maori. FARK OFF or prepare for battle like your ancestors! Send your fattest soldiers to the front line battle. For we are hungry!!!! TOA TOA TOA!!!!!
In your english language version of the treaty you translated false fraudulent misinterpreted claims that Maori Chief Warriors ceded sovereignty. This is absolute false. If this was true? then Hone Heke wouldnt of insulted your Queen Victoria and your british millitary by disrespectfully cutting your british flag down to end all treaty agreements and any future partnerships. By Hone Heke cutting down the british flag it symbolizes firstly that he did not cede sovereignty and you do not have authority over us and our land. Therefore you frauded and misinterpreted the treaty. Secondly you dishounured your own Queen Victoria by going against her declaration that she promised to those Chiefs that everything still belongs to them. But straight away once those Chiefs signed because of Queen Victorias declaration general Fitzroy and general Grey started stealing and confiscating land!? Miscommunication and language barriers you may say from both sides?? The reality is by hook or by crook. You wanted Maori land and resources to expand your british empire if they signed or not. The only reason you presented a peace treaty is because you couldnt genocide conquest or conquered Maori Warriors through war battle. You had to steal everything through a misinterpreted peace treaty. How weak and disgraceful. Now the world can see through your BULLSHIT pakeka. Shameful shameful shameful. You invaded other countrys before you invaded us to expand your empire. So you already had plenty of practice. You defeated everyone else in war battle except for Maori Warriors. You failed. Truth be told. Now all you pakeha peasants who are under crown want crown status privileges to dictate to Maori what they can and cant do? Who the hell are you? Your just a farken peasant with no status or mana trying to be a king or a Chief. Maori did not cede sovereignty! It defies all logic that free men of a Warrior race would surrender ownership of thier lands waters forest and seas who have occupied these resources and ocean voyaged the pacific realm for thousands of years when you have only been here 200 years by our invitation? When you have owned everything as your generational home? You have to be totally stupid and ignorant to the truth that these war lords of a Warrior race would give you everything when you did not defeat them in war battle? Your thinking is absolute horrendous false and fradulent. Your false narratives dont make any sense. Just lies to protect your other lies. Truth be told! Go back to england where you come from pakeha you shameful dishonesty people. You dont belong here with Maori. FARK OFF or prepare for battle like your ancestors! Send your fattest soldiers to the front line battle. For we are hungry!!!! TOA TOA TOA!!!!!!
Its time for all tribes to unite and sign the DIVORCE papers with the UNFAITHFUL Crown!!! and send all pakeha PEASANTS back to england where they come from!!!!
The Treaty is not a partnership. If Moon was an expert he'd have no problem with telling it like it is, yet he takes the soft "I want to make everybody happy" jellyfish option every time. Tell the people what the Treaty is all about Moon, anything else adds to the hysteria!!!
If the Treaty does not mean total equality for everyone in NZ under Government laws then it needs to be scrapped as a historical document made for the time but unnecessary in todays 21st century world. We can not go back, the only way should be forward. The few historical land claims should be put to bed so we all can move on.
@@derekcravenPT The signed treaty between Maori and the British Crown has an English version called the littlewood draft which was interpreted to the Maori chiefs by a Maori that was fluent in English. Why has this document been locked away until 2065 by Helen Clarks labour govt.The translation is word for word of the Maori version,not the bastard version accepted by lazy politicians and Maori with their hidden agenda
ALL forms of stable governance are based on equality, the inequal a government structure, the less stable the government, that is what history shows very clearly.
@@kidd2hoi524 Wakey-wakey, it's everyone has equal lawful rights, equality under the law, everyone is equal, it's like 'hi iwi tahi tatou' - 'we are now one people', equal people, aye... yup 'cos that is exactly what te Tiriti says, aye...
@@stevecooper9896 nothing to do with Te Tiriti or iwi. Western systems are not designed to have two people equal even under the law. Why else do different people get different charges for the same crime. And we know for sure that the law purposely targeted Maori historically instead of Pākehā. No equality in that.
Quite a history about the Maori - put the Inca's or the Aztecs to shame in degeneration. Outcast from the Cook Islands during the 13th century as weaker primitive Neolithic people by later waves of Polynesians (Maori were from the original wave of primitive Polynesians pushed right out across the Eastern Pacific by successive stronger more advanced groups arriving from the west). They were outcast on rafts and some floated to the North East Coast of NZ driven by the South Equatorial Current and were stranded for 500 years. The weaker were pushed down to the South Island or Chathams etc. So the South Island Maori (had their own language) were the weakest of the weak. They were captured and eaten as 'Slave flesh' by the northern Maori doing raids. (Well they all ate each other - 80% of Maori pre European were dark skinned easily fattened slaves farmed and eaten by a lighter skinned 'Ariki' thin wiry elite royal caste). So it was with some righteousness as well as British cunning that they armed the southern Maori who then with muskets launched a genocidal war on the north.. That plus measles & flu halved the Maori population and removed most of the elite. The British then liberated the slaves and outlawed cannibalism. The northern Maori fought with the British against the south bad west Maori 'rebels'. The Maori sued for peace and a treaty was signed that removed all sovereignty and made them subjects to the English crown where the English would protect them from each other. Land could only be sold to or via the Crown. Maori could live on their reservations with native custom but none did. The treaty of Waitangi is strikingly clear in that the Maori cede sovereignty completely and become citizens of Great Britain - all 3 clauses lock that in. Nothing in today's 'Maori' culture is authentic. The music - all European (Maoris did not have tonal music, the songs are missionary tunes or introduced - Poi dance is from Islands and Stick dance from old Malaya. The carvings and art - all European - Arabesques that was the fashion at the time. Original Maori had limited dash carving and no painting of objects. No written language - all the syntax & grammar plus vowel inflection is European. No technology - some lagoon canoes and wood or stone Neolithic tools. No food sources - like pigs or crops - they left that all behind, all they had was a weak inbred fox (now extinct), some rats and a weak dismal pacific yam. They ate out all the bird-life including 10 species of Moa and 46 other bird species, didn't know how to farm the sea as were island people and so they turned to societal cannibalism. Today - no full blood or half blood left. No genuine tradition and almost all are offspring of Maori slave females sold to white settlers for muskets or food. -So more fake than the 'Sioux' or 'Cherokee' or 'Crow' who had at least retained some genuineness about who they were and their history. -Everything you 'saw or experienced' is fake. A totally convected disneyfied tokenistic set of inventions fueled by a grievance culture of mixed-race imposters fetishing a false past bad history because it pays benefits. 'This Horrid Practice' - Professor Paul Moon, "A Savage Country" Professor Paul Moon 'Behind The Tattooed Face' - Heretaunga Pat Baker, 'Anthropology In The South Seas' - H D Skinner
Thank you for that dissertation...l think you have expressed it wonderfully ....l agree nothing in Maoridom s authentic....l have always thought they make it up as they go along....
@@lindamckenzie6500 Upoke is the term for Maori slaves. They were about 80% of the population prior to the Europeans. They were the primary source of protein in what was a horrific degeneration of Polynesian society into rampart structural cannibalism - a period of horror that lasted some 500 years until they were rescued by the European. The Maori had come with the original Polynesian caste structure of royals and bonded commoners after being outcast and set adrift on rafts to end up stranded in NZ. Within a recorded period of about 8 generations this then degenerated into 9 different language groups ( no common language) and a horrific two tier ethnically and racially based caste structure. - Ariki / from the original royal elite - these were documented and painted or drawn as lighter to white skinned, wiry, smaller boned, fine featured, thin nose, thin lipped, straight hair, anxious, aggressive cannibalistic ruling class. Upoke / from the original bonded commoners (such bonding or serfdom broke down in NZ as land was unconstrained) and slaves. Upoke or poke was used in conjunction with Kuku or Kiko ie a Upoke Kiko was slave flesh - or else poke singular or pokes group). The Upoke slaves were the 'wealth' of the Maoris and raiding and capturing other clans and tribes Upoke was their primary industry. These Upoke were dark skinned, larger limbed, thick lipped, flat nosed, curly haired, easily fattened, low IQ and sedentary. The settlements of the Maoris (Pa's) were in valley passes where they could anticipate attack from the sea and run into the bush behind. A Pa's very design is as a cannibal storage camp of humans as slave eating flesh with perimeters controlling access and confining the slaves. Have a good look at the original designs of the Pa's and what their real purpose was. Upoke females were normally killed and eaten at birth but on arrival of the Europeans -( trade was for Upoke boiled male heads carved with European arabesques eg 'Maori Moko designs - all European) but with a shortage of that & the trade being policed - the Maori Ariki turned to selling young Upoke slave girls to the sailors and settlers for guns. Often as records show, the Ariki would line up the young Upoke on the beach or field and then tell the Europeans they would all be slaughtered and eaten unless the European met their demands. As such the European settlements were flooded with Upoke slaves, mainly young females being the demand. The Europeans bred with these slave females gave immunity to the mixed race offspring disease such as measles & flu that full blood Maori did not have. Again this is subject to much record (1880 onwards) about the 'revitalization' and out breeding of the Maori being their only path of survival / there was much concern the Maori would become extinct so all Europeans & Maori were much focused on such outbreeding to ensure that a trace of Maori may exist in the future. By 1903 there were no Ariki left and only 14 very old full blood Upoke. The last full blood died in 1944 - as reported by the minister of Maori affairs much later to the NZ parliament. The marked differences between the Ariki and the slave caste were much commented on, discussed and captured in paintings & portraits. Almost all part Maori today would be offspring of Europeans & Upoke slaves - the filters of inter Maori fratricide between the Ariki clans & disease acted as a filter to remove both Ariki and full bloods. "A Savage Country" Professor Paul Moon' This Horrid Practice' - Professor Paul Moon, 'Behind The Tattooed Face' - Heretaunga Pat Baker, 'Anthropology In The South Seas' - H D Skinner
We did the same, the decline in the fisharys is an insult to our new found understanding and ability. It's the same trajectory as the mob, no one collected eggs and hatched them, yourd need the brains to invent nylon AND consider breeding sites for that forward thinking.
Thanks Duncan, keep the debate going, the wider and mo😊re diverse opinions aired in the discussions the better. Let everyone have thier say. The truth will come out based on facts and historical records. I think this refreshing for our country and what ever the consensus it must apply Equally to all people under the laws of the land.
@@cyrillawless it’s the document that was sign on 6 February 1840 with two different translations of it and two different meanings that ended the war between the crown and the Māori not everyone else.
@@reganmaconaghie2612 all it was was an agreement to give Maori the same rights and protection as all British subjects if they seceded sovereignty to they English crown. In other words protect the weaker tribes from the warrior tribes that were systematically wiping them out. The British crown didn’t want it but were asked/pleaded by Maori to protect them. Everything else has been made up in recent times so a greedy few may get an advantage.
@@reganmaconaghie2612 the Maori wars were from 1845 to 1872 and were mainly Maori on Maori with the British trying to contain them. They were after the signing of the Treaty. Before that the only fighting by British troops against Maori were when they attacked British settlers.
Just as a technical matter - if Maori indeed think, "you've stolen everything and given nothing back to us". This is not correct. The NZ taxpayer has already given 2.6 Billion dollars back. That's not nothing.
Remember South Canterbury Finance? 35,000 investors paid out $1.6 billion when that investment company was poorly managed. In comparison, there are 890,000 odd Maori in the country and growing. Millions of acres of land stolen/ seized/ illegally sold, a pittance was actually sold by Maori owners. 200 odd years of government policy deliberately designed to systemically alienate Maori from their land and culture. Legal redress of $1.2 billion for systemic abuse, theft of resources, injustice, torture and murder of children and our most vulnerable and the continuation of blatant political racism and hate is a pittance.
"Pittance sold" - that's not quantitative, essentially useless. This sounds like the sort of confected grievance and resentment harvesting that accumulates grievances and adverbs to fuel neo Marxist envy politics. The vast body of NZrs had no hand in, and are not beneficiaries of, historical injustices, though many Maori have been beneficiaries of state welfare.
The discussion is still in the preparatory and throat-clearing stage, establishing key terms, what the thing is, what the thing is not, what the arguments back and forth might be, and letting some actors reveal the motivations, whether in good faith or not. A range of experts, lawyers, local leaders, journalists and bureaucrats have revealed themselves to be partisan hacks. That's fine. They will be reminded of their early, rash statements as the cycles of debate go on and on. I reckon kiwis don't much like hard and fast conclusions to anything - this is why we have such an iterative constitutional framework. We would much prefer to discuss what's fair and reasonable, depending on context. And for that reason, a Treaty Principles Bill is just an insight into a much bigger issue - where does the absence of a formal constitution leave us in this century?
The treaty as it is needs gone, we need to form a simple constitution that’s says “ we are all one people, devoid of race creed or religion bias, the simple requirement of any parties in government are that they work for the betterment of all, we stand alone with no commitment to any world orgsnisation.
Tried that... did it become the most popular bar of Whittakers ever... perhaps they could have changed the name of that particularcon batch meant to WHITI TAKE MILK TE TAX PAYER OR THROW THEM BEHIND BARS during maori language wiki.@@kidd2hoi524
In 1840, Maori were very much a distinct entity, represented by the chiefs. Today, who are Maori? Are there any real Maori anymore? If there are, who represents them? Paul Moon talks about "Two parties." We know one party is the Crown. Who is the other?
The Treaty was between Maori and the Crown... not all NZers. If the rights of all NZers need discussion I would suggest a referendum on the NZ Bill of Rights, not Te Tiriti o Waitangi.
Garner is wrong on this issue. We need the debate and if necessary a change in the way the treaty is being used ie robbing nz of progress and costing councils millions.
I don’t agree with the bill but do agree with this sentiment as don’t think the bill is way to go but I do believe that born citizens should only be able to comment on the matter as this our nation blood and land not by choice
Asolutely fed up with hearing about this every day. I think the media are trying to use it as a diversion from more important matters. Come on Winston - get it sorted ASAP!
The Emperors Penguin has no Feathers.... Willy Nilly Jackson doesn't want clarity on the treaty.... His mates have a hussle flying around NZ educating docile Pakeha on what the Treaty means... If Willy Nilly & his mates acted in good faith, they would be like '''''sweet as, money well spent, finally the country is going to get some clarity on what the treaty stipulates'''... If NZ's established commercial broadcasters weren't biased they would be echoing the same opinion... line charts showed a downward trend in consumption across all NZ media platforms, Radio, Print & TV.... so Willy Nilly threw 55 million dollars at them... 'PUBLIC INTEREST JOURNALISM FUND? More like Jackson's Public Relations hedge fund...
It's not a relationship between two parties. There were about 550 parties. If 'principles' of Te Tiriti can be shown through evidence and reasoning to have existed, they would not be fluid over time to suit whatever developing political agenda of any of the parties. But the Waitangi Tribunal has invented various principles, not supported by good evidence (either the wording of Te Tiriti or speeches of kaumatua around the time of signing), and sees those principles as changing over time mainly to suit Maori.
@@hospitalcleaner As for 'negative outcomes', those that exist are not necessarily caused by colonialism. Violent behaviour was the norm pre-colonialism and many rangatira signed to have a more powerful governance that would stop the tribal wars, slavery and cannibalism that had been potentiated by the musket but had been common well before that. Unfortunately, the violence propensity appears to have an intergenerational quality, speaking on average over the populations and acknowledging that most Maori do not resort to violence normally. Many other 'negative outcomes' are comparative with other races but actually involved positive outcomes when compared to pre-colonial times. Average lifespan increased greatly, a European model of ownership rights protected by government meant that iwi no longer lived in fear of other tribes' rampaging war parties, the wheel provided a massive step forward and the blessings of modern life (electricity, more reliable construction, entertainment, education) are enjoyed by those Maori who choose to value them.
@@hospitalcleaner Thanks for that. Firstly, because that would be dishonest. What were the principles intended and understood by the forefathers who signed Te Tiriti? Secondly, because nations that try to operate different rights and privileges based on race usually don't do well.
I strongly support David Seymour's TPB. i'm not against strongly recognizing Maori and their culture and language but yep I am now very confused about the Treaty and I want to understand what it means going forward. The problem to me is that one side seems to be interpreting the Treaty in a way that increasingly looks like a path towards future separatism and inequality (ie apartheid). If it is not about all NZers being equal but saying that Maori somehow are a future elite (Tangata Whenua, kaitiaki etc) there is a problem.
Breathing a sigh of relief that I'm not the only one who is having Duncan and Paul's conversation in this country. There is still some sanity out there after all it would seem!
Colonizers thought iwi would die and that the land would be theirs..and the treaty would be a nullity...however the iwi are here and want the treaty honored
It has been in fact it is only Maori that have breached the Treaty up to today and broken their honor to the Chiefs who you wouldn't even be able to quote a sentence recorded of them would you? No I guess not. But anyway the Treaty Chiefs at the Kohimarama Conference 1860 said the new Tikanga was Christianity with the Man of the Queen and that it was Maori who were doing the wrongs (Kingis) not the Pakeha, Read and weep lol
This letter of the Treaty Principles Bill is formed so that discussions can take place, as people are unclear as to what the Treaty actually means to all NZers not just Maori and what the interpretations mean, that's my take on it
500+ Maori Chiefs who signed the Maori Version did not cede sovereignty. 39 southern Maori Chiefs signed the Pakeha version in Port Jackson that said they did cede sovereignty because pakeha left the Maori version behind. How fraudulent are Pakeha! This has been documented. Pakeha built the country on the pakeha version which is false!
The original treaty was written in English. It was translated, imperfectly, into Maori by an Englishman. The definitive version must be the English one.
@@JB-ch9ws No they did not cede sovereignty. It was misinterpreted and confused by two different languages. The pakeha changed altered and frauded it!!!!
Either way economic reality drives decisions. Air NZ are filling planes with young motivated NZ citizens and families, with one way tickets. To be replaced with Bottle O employees, who are skilled immigrants allegedly.
Seymour is not changing the Treaty principles he wants them defined and the truth about the principles.Because since 1975 there has been changes to the Treaty principles,lying about what the Treaty says.The Crown of the Treaty says we are all equal under the law,meaning everyone the same. There is no such thing as co-governance or partnership under one law for all,it is time everyone call ourselves New Zealanders again.That's what civilized means.
I think the treaty is very simple and clear, its only 3 paragraphs long. The treaty is for eveyone to be kiwis and have equal rights, simple! Anyone who says its confusing or it depends on interpretation is just mudding the waters with the intention of continuing the victimhood grift on tax payers money
I remember watching Duncan an that other show he used to be on. Watched him try and interview Chlöe Swarbrick and he made an absolute ass of himself. All he could do was constantly interrupt her and attempt to shut her down. I’m not a Greenie’ but remember thinking wow she’s actually really articulate and very good, while he was an absolute asshole. Completely utterly incompetent and out classed in every aspect. My opinion of him has never changed since, the guys a moron.
The inequities are self inflicted by way of culture Maori were better off during the 60s and 70s when government had a Maori Affairs dept. Maori could buy their own home on low interest gov. loans as well as access other needs, NZ'ERS shouldn't be accountable for retribution for things that happen 200years ago, Maori are no different to any other ethnicities who in all things are equal.
What the Bill is trying to achieve has merit. There is only one race, the human race. In NZ there should not be one rule for some, especially based on race. That in itself is what has generated the division. Maori could learn the word "thank-you" rather than this grievance mindset that is being rolled out...
Unbelievable that politicians didn't have full understanding of what the Treaty said - back in the 1970's. It is such an easy document to understand. Claims of need to reinterpret such a document enables corruption - which, is the very thing that seems to have happened. Born in NZ with NZ/European parents & Grandparents.
from the statement made by Duncan 'that the bill re-writes the principles' relies on the fact the principles exist? is not the question: what are the 'principles' to be resolved before an accusation of 're-writing' can occur?????
In 1840: the principles are simple 1 - it is going to be a fair deal in the best interest of both parties; 2 - both parties will give and get; 3 - once done, no change of mind. Then, let's do the deal : Article 1, Article 2, Article 3. And let's celebrate the deal. 90 years after: invented fake principleas and distortion from the deal. Today: let's straight the things once for ever - Articles 1, 2, 3 as originaly stated. Keep it simple people.
As a non NZ lawyer familiar with many constitutions, my question, given the history ,( I apologize in advance for omissions or knowledge shortfalls on my part) is why have these issues of contention, remained stuck in the past and linked to a treaty, whose evident shortcomings simply lead to repetitive visits to the courts- and clear dissatisfactions? Surely, a constitutional convention leading to a Bill of Rights, a Constitution and a constitutional court is the way out and the way forward? As lawyers we make money out of vagueness.Every time.
A constitutional approach would be great. But no one in NZ would trust the current political environment to get a just result. It is probably fair to say globally that division is so great that outcomes would be impossible.
We already have Magna Carta and I am suspect over why we are not taught this Great Charter that obviously works when enacted and confidently outworked. It's worked for me 4 years since the Common Law Court issued a Lawful Notice to Heads of State April 2020 over lockdowns. Hundreds of Kiwis did it and more are each week striking on taxes and fines until the Govt will start running out of money that's the whole idea so yeh that's the redress, enact and save!
exactly you are at the table of lifting the confusion that most of us have concerning the principles of the Treaty. You will overlook all things no spitting the dummy. Nothing in the world is perfect globally agreed upon! That means everything can be better even the Treaty whanau!
Isn’t it interesting that David Seymour wants to clearly articulate the principles is clear from this discussion? You guys are pretty confused even the historian doesn’t seem to really be able to articulate very clearly Seymour doesn’t want to rewrite the treaty. He just wants to define what’s already been articulated into some extent in the so-called principles, that doesn’t seem unreasonable and it certainly not about putting either party in the equation at Alyssa advantage seems to be about trying to find a balance
Seymour’s rationale is very solid, it will go further, no doubt. The sad thing is that Maori culture is actually revered in our country, claims of institutional racism towards Maori is a joke, personal responsibility is all that’s needed, stop blaming modern, western style, liberal, secular democracy.
Yeh like I have no idea what they keep moaning about now that settlements about land have been dealt with we paid for that plus it wasn't stolen it had been confiscated after the war cos of Kingitanga terror. The propaganda about whites and our history has caused hell on Earth I don't know how the Govt can stop it now it's up to us Pakeha to defend our heritage and teach our kids to be resilient and not fall for the colonial guilt, we have an exemplary history of successful and welcomed humanitarian and evangelical efforts the Treaty Chiefs became Christians.
We don't need English interpreted and we don't understand maori or trust their works it's all corrupted for 5 years you cannot hide it, we know what the Treaty means so Davids Bill is the Treaty articles repeated for dummies
I'm Maori, the treaty is a historical document and in the modern era we need to work together under 1 government. Treaty settlements are a separate issue, where blatant land theft should be sorted. But what the Maori party, Labour & Greens are trying to do only serves to divide us.
They call it our founding document, its not. Its not a constitution, its not about a partnership, its not permission to land. Its a peace deal , whic Maori signed to give some protection during initial settlement, it wasn't meant to used to create legislation for eternity. Its simply promised Maori woukd recieve sovereignty, and settlers couldn't just throw them off their land. People viewing the treaty need to place themselves in that time period. The British empire was the strongest army in the world. It didn’t need to offer anyone special deals , it surely didn't view native people as worthy of co governance, its just the reality of the time. Understand some land was unfairly taken and those instances hsve been mostly settled, but there's no special rights or privileged owed , no positions in government gifted. No entitlement to government, no special fishing quotas.
Disappointing Duncan. Typical academic attitude. Paul Moon dismisses ACTs referendum. He seems to think that the current poor race relations is caused by ACT. However, it is radical Maori that is causing disunity. Suck as Rawiri Waititi's call for a separate Maori Parliament that is stirring racial tensions. Where is the outcry towards radical Maori's insidious agenda?
Here's an understanding: So if I came into your house with my foreign language, set myself up alongside you and over time became THE dominant resident in YOUR HOUSE that your pay/paid for, and start to tell you how to eat, dress, speak, and think, and then we put an agreement in writing about how we will live together, and we will be equal throughout the arrangement, but over time, I who invaded your house started stealing from you some of your most prized possessions, and started to ignore what you thought and enacted what I believed would be good for the whole of the house, even though you aren't happy and at times you are the one losing from the arrangement, what and how would you resolve that....
I recall Don Brash getting a wad of mud thrown at his face at Waitangi. This is how Maori tend to sort their grievances rather than sensible dialogue. We need clear concise management of this country or we will be a treaty joke.
Plenty of bills are not put through the first time they are introduced, the voluntary suicide act is a good example, getting it past first reading does two very important things that are very valuable: 1)gets it put through a public submission process, which will bring out written opposition to the bill from interested parties, who will now have to state their position and be held accountable for that. 2) Can now be used as a proposed legislation to pull our public services, the law proffession, the universities, and our out of control councils back from the bizarre place they have got themselves to. You either stop all this racist nonsense or we will define your nonsense away once and for all formally. The treaty is a very simple document, has been part of our law less time than it has been removed from law, and is in no way a constitution. This rot needs to stop
There are no principles, the treaty is a historical document, it is in now way a constitution and the professor knows this. It does not meet ANY of the criterion of a constitution, it has been not part of our law for LONGER than it has been part of our law. It was not part of our law during WW1 or WW2 for example. These principles are not part of the treaty, so are not Treaty principles, they are from 1975, over a hundred AFTER the treaty.
Mentioning relationship expectations or loyalty to Duncan Garner by Paul bit like trying to discuss mullets and quiffs with Luxon or how to nurture children with Seymour.
There are two distinct types of authorities in this world - territorial and non-territorial. Authorities who govern over controlled territory enforce their rule over anyone who appear within the boundaries of their domain. For those outside their domain - they don't. Those type of authorities are known as countries or states. Non-territorial authorities claim their rule over people regardless of their location in the world. They name people as "their people" and enforce their rule over those people anywhere they can. These type of authorities are known as Mafia, Church and Sects. Which one do you want to be governed by?
A thought worth considering: The rangatiratanga of the second clause is inextricably linked to the retention of land in aboriginal title. An essential part of British requirements was pre-emption- in the legal sense, the sole right of the Crown to extinguish aboriginal title. The English text indicates this by making the guarantee subject to sale- tino rangatiratanga of their tribal estates and lands would remain 'as long as they wished to retain them'- implying an end with sale to the Crown. Te Tiriti, the authoritative document, phrases it in the sense of a binary: the Queen guarantees to Maori the continuation of their ownership and chiefship over their tribal territories. OR they can sell land to the Queen- who as the greater chief would thereafter hold that land under her rangatiratanga. Essentially the intended process was one of gradual and voluntary transfer by sale, of aboriginal title to Crown ownership and title- essentially colonisation by purchase. The key principle here is one of aboriginal versus Crown title. Traditional title and ownership (tino rangatiratanga o o ratou whenua) ends with a transfer to the Crown, the Queen thereafter held the "tino rangatiratanga" of that land and could assign it as she chose, under Crown derived title. So in the early years, Pakeha settlements under Crown title came under the Governor, while unsold lands remained under the traditioinal ownership structure of autonomous hapu, with disputes being arbitrated by the protector of aborigines, George Clarke and his staff, responsible to the Governor. The difficulty is, that the intended process was overwhelmed by colonisation and aggressive acquisition of Maori land. However, regardless of how, the reality is that as soon as the land passed into Crown ownership, by raupatu, purchase, or however; or later came under the Native land courts and was issued Crown derived title, - the tino rangatiratanga- chiefship- of that land permanently passed to the Crown. All private land held under Crown title is by grant from, and under authority of, the Crown. Fast forward to the present and we have a particular issue- almost all land in NZ is now held under Crown derived title. Essentially the provisions of the Second Clause have been superseded by the simple fact that aboriginal title has been all but replaced by Crown derived title, and the process of pre-emption is virtually complete. Maori landowners are no longer bound to sell only to the Crown, as they now hold a sound and transferable Crown title. It is essential to remember that the protected "tino rangatiratanga" of clause 2 was explicitly linked to the retention of land in its unsold state, and the chiefship of that land transferred to the highest chief, the Queen, with the land. Either/or, no exceptions are given in te tiriti. This is why it is not possible to apply te tiriti verbatim to modern contexts, as the whole nature of society has moved on. As it does. Most land is in Crown title, and the Crown is now the New Zealand government, no longer directly under the Queen. It would be equally ludicrous to try to apply Magna Carta verbatim to modern English society- the issues of the time have passed, and only the general principles remain. So in a sense David Seymour is right- all NZ citizens hold the rights and safeguards pertaining to Crown derived title. It is no longer possible to apply the second clause of the Treaty verbatim, but the essential principle is that of the equal protection afforded to all citizens, of the security and rights embodied in Crown derived title. Each landowner is "chief" of his own land- secured against trespass and encroachment- but under the overall chiefship and law of the Crown. The Treaty was a means to an end, not an end in itself.
Yes and that is what David is trying to teach the dummies that we all have tino rangatiratanga which came by the Treaty just because it's a Maori word doesn't mean it has a meaning only for them quite ridiculous stuff has been disseminated for 50 years we are in the shit tbh
So,here we are 2024 David is in the shithouse wiping his arss all over the bill 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😮😮😢😢😢😮😢😮😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😮😂😂😂😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊
people will have the opportunity to comment through the select committee process. Iwi will have a chance as will every other interest group. The three key parts to the treaty cannot be changed. Its the interpretation that needs properly defining. Hopefully after all this we can all get on with being New Zealanders and accept that we are even though our DNA might have different components.
Let’s say 150years ago, I come and stay at your big house with heaps of rooms. Eventually you tell me to leave, because you want some personal autonomy back. Instead, I propose a partnership deal where I become the property manager, but you still own the house. You agree. What instead happens is I invite all of my family over to fill the rest of the rooms, and make you live in the dog-box outside. For the next 150 years you have to raise the next generations out of that dog-box, even though you supposedly own the house. Furthermore in the present day, the “property-manager’s”descendants are telling the Dog-Box crew “It’s time to stop with this victim mentality… let’s cut out this woke stuff… get a job… you already get plenty of handouts… where’s our equality?” Now they want to erase and change the original “property-manager”agreement that cemented their rights in the first place. But it’s fine, because it happened 150years ago, so they should just get over it?
It is less like a marriage and more like a flatting situation. How much does "I have been in the flat the longest" count towards who is cleaning the toilet? Yea relationships are a two way street...
the fact of the matter is , there won't be any changes, there however there will be proper definition of the meaning, and those who say there should be a debate or discussion on the matter are those who, when you look into it are those who are making a living of the misinterpretations of the text in the treaty, its only really been a problem since the 1975 interpretations that have cause the dissension, and mistrust on both sides.
This is exactly the sort of politically correct, arbitrary obfuscation of the treaty that people are sick of. Both Duncan and Paul Moon surely understand that the divorce lawyer analogy is a chalk and cheese argument. You can't compare settled 20th/21st century law with a vague 19th century peace agreement.
Sorry Duncan, I don't think that most Kiwi's are confused by the Treaty. Sir Apirana Ngata wasn't confused, and Sir Hugh Kawharu wasn't confused, even I'm not confused. If there is any confusion it's been created by those who want to add meaning to it that could never have been envisaged by any of the people who signed it. Had those parties wanted Maori to control the seabed and foreshore, it would have been written into it.
There are only three parts to it, all in easy to understand language.
Yes, the whole point is to create confusion since Ruth Ross in the 70s claimed it was 'a bloody difficult subject'. But it is actually very very simple. 1] The meaning and intent of the treaty is clear in the English, which was what the missionaries had in mind when translating as best they could, and which was in mind whne explaining and discussing the meaning and intent with the chiefs. 2] The treaty was soon eclipsed in the *declaration* of sovereignty over thew hole country a few months after Waitangi, where the signing just gave the British a moral/ humanitarian legitimacy to assume sovereignty over the country.
That is dead right ,well said
The world is having similar problems engineerd by some obscenely wealthy people who want us all at each other's throats
The old Roman ideal ,Divide and conquer
@@davethewave7248 Many local people, including the Irish. were bowled over by the British crown and some were judicially murdered. Others imprisoned and transported. Exiled, in other words. They attacked the Boer farmers in southern Africa. No respecters of race, or culture. Turned this around in AoNZ should take time- and a fair bit of patience...
@@Dave183 Are you familiar with the crisis of conscience that British statesmen had in the early 19th century in regards to indigenous populations? This was due to the religious revival that swept the country... and put those very sympathetic to the missionary cause in the Colonial Office. This had a huge impact on British policy in NZ, with the treaty etc.
@@Dave183 one things for damn sure , , Aotearoa NZ must move forward as one sovereign nation without corporate take overs
I think that there is an expectation amongst people who voted National, ACT and NZ First, that between them they would get rid of any "interpretations' of the Treaty, and restore equality to every aspect of Kiwi life. Voting/ seats, health, education, access to facilities.... no preference based on race. Also get rid the WOKE mind virus that has infected so much of our society.
Anyone or any party who is perceived to not pull their weight on this will probably pay a price for this at the next election.
Shutup with your white bullshit. You clowns can see the statistical societal data and to claim you are disadvantaged is statistically and factually a blatant fallacy, and your bullshit honkey belief that removing the pre existing rights of Maori Maori somehow makes everyone equal.
Absabloodylutely
The Treaty is a good historic document without all the add ons.I f those who act under the misguided veiw about the principals without any public discussion is democratly wrong
Funny how the same boollsheet is being played in Australia (look what it has done already to the UK), in the USA it is causing economic collapse and destabilization (exactly what the corrupt want) and it has destroyed Europe, Canada wails, and South Africa, once a proud and equal commonwealth partner, now the highest crime boasting civic failure, is the future you/we are looking at. It will happen here!
You’re talking out of your arse.
as a Maori, my Iwi discriminate against our own people. If we don't tow the Iwi line, they discriminate against Iwi members. We aren't allowed to have our own opinion. While my Iwi leader gets on his podium spouting Kotahitanga, behind the scenes he creates division. It's not a happy place amongst maori, the power given to some maori leaders has gone to their head, for all the wrong reasons, and they are not accountable. Im sick of been bullied by my own people.
You are a BRAVE Maori indeed. NZers need to hear more from you.
You'll never tell them that in person though. Even if you don't agree with them. You all conform
two of my friends now live in australia to get away from mad members of their own family spoiling family gatherings with this shite, they share your view. One Nz where we are all equal, whoever we are
Sadly, our politics is all getting a bit hysterical. Good to hear that there are some among the iwi with some common sense~
Well said, it’s a shame you cannot unite with fellow moari who feel the same and stand up to the parasites, you would get immense support from all New Zealanders
Maori Green MP Ferris stands on a seperate Maori education System. The Treaty needs to have a clear and concise definition. The ACT Party will destroy the National Vote if Luxon does not take a firm stand on the divisions that have been created by the many different Treaty Interpretations.
National will go the way of Labour and lose voters to its coalition partners.
So you are ok with Charter schools which won’t need to follow the national curriculum and the future privatisation of public schools, but instead your biggest concern is an MP advocating for seperate Maori schools (which we already have) Kura kaupapa. Let me guess, you’re worried for Maori children?
The Bill is about correcting the inequalities that have been created by the 'principles of the treaty'. And despite Luxon's cowardice, this problem won't go away
It sounds like the principal’s of the Treaty are what ever some one wants to make up if it benefits them, predominately part Māori.
I thought it was mainly about defining what actually the principals are..
100 percent right. Luxon is a coward. But he will surely pay for it at the next election.
It's not inequal that maoris choose to join gangs rather than work. Maori have options but act like they don't. Bore off sympathizers
Exactly, the principles are fantasy, like unicorns and rainbows
Why are the 20 people in Waitangi Treaty tribunal allowed to interpret the Treaty the way they want to???
It needs an update
They are mostly Maori activists on the Tribunal
Anyone can interpret the treaty the way you want to lol just google it, read it and think about it.
@@jameskatte1175 That's like a maori moving to china then after 20years asking China he wants equal rights the same as his fellow chinese
Could you be more specific because my wife and l are trying to fathom previsely how uour response, relates to the comment. Please. @robbiedavis664m
@@robbiedavis6643 No it's not
New Zealanders. WANT the bloody treaty SHIT. FIXED. Once and for all Stop the * grifting* and division
The face-value words of the Treaty (Maori version as translated on the Waitangi Tribunal website) are simple and clear. The problem is that the 'Principles' dreamed up over the last 50 years are 'open-ended' in both number and application. They are made up 'on the hoof' to extend the scope of the Treaty - for example the Principle of 'active protection' has since been invented to impose responsibility for the Maori language (ie an exclusive taonga of Maori) on the Crown. In that context the Principles actually water down Maori rights guaranteed under the Treaty. Whatever, the 'moving feast' of 'Principles' is ludicrous in country claiming to be a Parliamentary democracy based on law and order. If there are to be 'Treaty principles' then they need to be agreed and codified in an open and negotiated public process.
At what point will the millionaire and billionaire tribes such as Tainui and Ngai (Kai) Tahu who pay NO TAX, will they help their own people?
What is your evidance that they don't help their own people?
I grew up in Ngaruawahia, and I don't know a single person who benefits from their Iwi. My best mates have fallen to gang life, drugs, crime and suicide though.
Do you ask millionaire and billionaire companies to spend their money on providing things that taxpayers pay the government to provide?
Yes please when??????
absolutely appalling!
Ban the cheaty
Once Maori Chiefs scrap the treaty and divorce the Crown? All pakeha will instantly be deported back to england. All land wealth and resources will be returned back to the original traditional land owners.
@@dgm2593lies. Everyone born here is of this land and is a rightful citizens of it. Those born here regardless of race are the People of this land. All our ancestors were tangata Waka.
Wrong @@missbluerain
@@kidd2hoi524 I'm wrong that people born here are citizens of this land regardless of race?? Prove me wrong then.
@@missbluerain tangata whenua is not Pākehā.
Paul Moon says the treaty is akin to a relationship. But it's not. It's simply a compact between most chiefs and the British Crown, whereby most chiefs ceded sovereignty to the Crown and became subjects of the British empire.
Paul is an academic and professional historian. This is great, but it also incentivizes him to tow the line to some extent... to fall in with the modern academic consensus. He says it is a 'constitutional document' but it is not. The constitution of this country was worked out by the Brbitish government, and then by George Grey on the slopes of Ruapehu when NZ became a self-governing country. The rights Maori gained were ratified by our new Parliament. The treaty of Waitangi was simply between chiefs and the British Crown.
The error lies in thinking that our politics can be treaty-centric... as if the treaty is our/ NZ's founding document. The treaty, significant though it is as part of our hsitory, was very soon superceded by events. Indeed, as soon as a few months after Waitangi when the British *declared* sovereignty over the whole country... irrespective of who did or did not sign [the treaty just gave the Brits the moral / humanitarian legitimacy of doing so].
'Who has the right to define those principles'. If only historians got back to the actual meaning and intent of the treaty on the day as it was signed in real time, the way in which it was well explained and discussed by the missionaries and statesmen, the way in which a majirty of chiefs agreed to sign [and the way in which a minority refused], none of this would be an issue. Instead people insist that there are two 'versions'. and then project their own modern meaning onto the Maori text [that began in the 70s].
Mate, you need to write this up properly with references and get it out there. Very interesting!
You clearly don't know the history
@@JB-ch9ws Title being 'Contra a Treaty-centric Politics'. The problem is the paradigm that the treaty is a 'foundational' document for NZ is very strong... among all parties concerened. Once our politics is understood to have developed or evolved organically, the argument over 'treaty principles' becomes irrelevant.
@@kidd2hoi524 I've plenty of first-hand records, testimonies, and histories of the events on my bookshelf. The earlier, the better.
@@davethewave7248 most chiefs ceded sovereignty lol
Time to ditch the document and start again. We are all equal
As long as we start again with the same assets and properties we had when we first started, sounds good.
@raniera13 how about the same technology?
@@raniera13Also the same technology and science from that era, just to be fair.
@raniera13 but you must promise not to grow gorse and blackberry on the land
Once Maori Chiefs scrap the treaty and divorce the Crown? All pakeha will instantly be deported back to england. All land wealth and resources will be returned back to the original traditional land owners.
It was a historic document until the 1970s [very early on it had been eclipsed and superceded by events]. The attempt of the past few decades has been to make it a working document on the basis of the Te tiriti interpretation. The conversation that needs to be had should lead to the treaty once again becoming a historical document [the rights gained there were ratified by Parliament, and economic settlements have continued throughout the decades]. What would be disastrous for the country is to continue down the road of trying to make our politics 'treaty-centric', where it is imagined that maori did not cede sovereignty and the Crown is suppoed to be in partnership/ share sovereignty with Maori.
How many times do we need to say it: THERE ARE NO PRINCIPLES TO THE TREATY. ITS A VERY SIMPLE THING WITH ONLY 3 articles that say maori cede sovereignty to the crown, in return they got to have ownership over their own property and be treated as equals.
In none of the Maori version (the legal document that's consulted if there is any question) of tbe Treaty has no mention of ceding Soverignty. Furthermore, Maori at the time didn't have a concept for one person to control/own all land. Lastly, Maori were 50-1 in terms of population at the time. It would defy all logic to cede anything being the dominant partner (at the time) in the negotiation and signing.
@@jamesreynolds170 Well , at the time of the treaty , Maori were distinctly tribal . There was no such thing as a Maori nation was there ? I am thinking that the 45 or so chiefs who did sign it , did so because they saw advantages at least for their own tribes . They would have realised that the British were a stronger culture and that ultimately it would be futile to fight the Crown . The British obviously had so much that naturally Maori would like to have as well .
The current anti colonial fervour has been stirred up by a minority and it would be interesting to know how much time your everyday Maori worries about that now . They are most likely a lot more concerned about housing , low wages , etc , etc . I would venture to say that in truth it is time to move on . I will stop here for a cuppa now . Good night everybody !
@@andrewcampbell2903 You are correct, there wasn't a Maori "Nation" as such, but that's much like how in the UK, the King relied on the fuedel system whereby he was supported by Dukes and the like before the Parliamentary system was established.
There was however the United Tribes of New Zealand that went someway to representing the thoughts and actions as Maori as a whole. The idea of ceding soverignty, or who owns what, is inherently viewed through the anglo-sphere, without taking into consideration of understanding at a deeper level, how Maori saw the world.
Your thoughts on what Maori thought of the British at the time, if it was futile to fight them, if they thought colonization was inevitable is simply conjecture, because no one actually knows. All we have is context of the time and within that context, there is no way that Maori could have know or even comprehended how big or powerful the British Empire was, so that comment, in all fairness, is merely speculation.
I can't speak to anyone else, but I for one are most worried about if we were to vote on peoples fundamental human rights. its been affirmed many times both in the courts, tribunal, etc that Maori did not cede soverignty, did not cede the right to self determination and that the ongoing breaches were from the Crown.
This is a pretty good article on the Maori Conderations declaration of independence and what they did seek from the British Empire at the time.
nzhistory.govt.nz/culture/declaration-of-independence-taming-the-frontier
@@jamesreynolds170 "there is no way that Maori could have know or even comprehended how big or powerful the British Empire was"... however James Reynolds is unaware or neglects to mention that many pre-treaty Maori had travelled throughout the British Empire returning to tell all of how big and powerful Queen Wikitoria was, including (1804-1806) New Zealand's most powerful chief Hongi Hika who spent extensive time in London being accomodated by the Sovereign Royal Crown at Her Majesty Queen Victoria's pleasure and was very generously showered with many expensive royal gifts.
Hongi Hika, Nga Puhi Chief, related all he had witnessed declaring how big and powerful the British Empire was to all. For more detail on Hongi Hika's travel within the empire and his activities upon his return one should read 'The Musket Wars' (Ron Crosby). The Truth will set us free...
@@andrewcampbell2903 Um, about 540 chiefs signed it.
Maori leaders should tell us what they believe the principles are too. Then we can debate that as well And people have been asking them and they refuse to tell us. So one person in a relationship defining the principles without the other getting a say is not an accurate analogy.
They dont want a debate that's why they're trying to get the conversation shut down.
@@GrantasaurusRex The Maori leaders don't wantr debate, but remember they BULLY their own kin...
The principles were formulated by the best legal minds in the country and endorsed and accepted by both Māori AND the government and have not been questioned by anyone on either side of the treaty signers UNTIL this tiny group of fwits turned up.
@@nigelralphmurphy2852 the debate it is a philisophical one. It is far deeper than just lawyer issues It is about the,ideas that underpin those laws
@@nigelralphmurphy2852 We'll see about the tiny group. And as for calling those who disagree with you fwits, that's just childish.
The treaty is very simple. Activists have changed the meaning of it and corrupted the history. The principle of the treaty is maori ceded sovereignty and sold 92% of the country by 1865. I would love to here pauls thoughts on co governance.
In your english language version of the treaty you translated false fraudulent misinterpreted claims that Maori Chief Warriors ceded sovereignty. This is absolute false.
If this was true? then Hone Heke wouldnt of insulted your Queen Victoria and your british millitary by disrespectfully cutting your british flag down to end all treaty agreements and any future partnerships.
By Hone Heke cutting down the british flag it symbolizes firstly that he did not cede sovereignty and you do not have authority over us and our land. Therefore you frauded and misinterpreted the treaty.
Secondly you dishounured your own Queen Victoria by going against her declaration that she promised to those Chiefs that everything still belongs to them. But straight away once those Chiefs signed because of Queen Victorias declaration general Fitzroy and general Grey started stealing and confiscating land!? Miscommunication and language barriers you may say from both sides??
The reality is by hook or by crook. You wanted Maori land and resources to expand your british empire if they signed or not. The only reason you presented a peace treaty is because you couldnt genocide conquest or conquered Maori Warriors through war battle. You had to steal everything through a misinterpreted peace treaty. How weak and disgraceful. Now the world can see through your BULLSHIT pakeka. Shameful shameful shameful. You invaded other countrys before you invaded us to expand your empire. So you already had plenty of practice. You defeated everyone else in war battle except for Maori Warriors. You failed. Truth be told.
Now all you pakeha peasants who are under crown want crown status privileges to dictate to Maori what they can and cant do? Who the hell are you? Your just a farken peasant with no status or mana trying to be a king or a Chief.
Maori did not cede sovereignty! It defies all logic that free men of a Warrior race would surrender ownership of thier lands waters forest and seas who have occupied these resources and ocean voyaged the pacific realm for thousands of years when you have only been here 200 years by our invitation?
When you have owned everything as your generational home? You have to be totally stupid and ignorant to the truth that these war lords of a Warrior race would give you everything when you did not defeat them in war battle? Your thinking is absolute horrendous false and fradulent. Your false narratives dont make any sense. Just lies to protect your other lies. Truth be told!
Go back to england where you come from pakeha you shameful dishonesty people. You dont belong here with Maori. FARK OFF or prepare for battle like your ancestors!
Send your fattest soldiers to the front line battle. For we are hungry!!!! TOA TOA TOA!!!!!
this guy is a well known shit stirrer of the first order
This is dumb lol article 2 says Māori retain rangatiratanga. Which is autonomy and chiefly authority. Article 1 gives the crown the right to govern, kawanatanga (a word which many rangatira didn’t even know, as it is a transliteration of a concept they didn’t even know about), and does not mention sovereignty. 92% ? I would love to know where you got that from. The most land sold was about 2/3 of the South Island, much of which was uninhabited. Even then it is not certain that those sales were without pressure and free of any underhandedness. The majority of inhabited Māori land was stolen.
@@shaayd12 100% correct. Maori did not cede sovereignty. The pakeha frauded this idea of giving everything to them through a misinterpreted language they didnt understand. Those Warrior Chiefs only understood Mana and Power? They didn't have an abstract concept of the english language let alone what the word sovereignty means? Pakeha are false and fradulent people who invaded many countries to expand their British Empire by hook or by crook to steal land wealth and resources to pay off war debts!
@@shaayd12The chiefs retained control of their land at an iwi/hapu level and could sell to the crown if they so wished, and they did, selling 92% of their land
I want to know if there are principles in the treaty, and if so what are they.
HighlyValid Point G.
That word "principles" is always going create ideoligical , contensious disagreements. Maori leaders weren't all in agreement then , and will never all agree in the future ,especially if there is any compensations without total democratic and realistic agreement. But we must find a way where we can all co-exist side by side ,otherwise, we'll become an apartheid country .
Labour's interpretation appears to be a mandate to act as a nanny state to maori
There is no principles? There is only articles!
@@dgm2593 Excellent point DG, but anyway, all good we have a look? Or what? Why Spoil the Suspense.
These Māori at the top don't really care about their people they care about being appointed to position were they can benefit themselves and their close whanau and friends, whether by being paid a salary or access to funding they can mismanage. either way the ones at the bottom stay at the bottom propping them up the whole time.
The same could be said for Pakeha at the top. Or any race "at the top" who use their resources, connections and positions to feather their own nests. I also know many, many Iwi leaders who work extremely hard to support and strengthen their people ❤
Yeah but I know just as many that drive flash cars wear designer suits and all the cool stuff highlighting they are no different to any other material culture
Nanaia mahuta is a prime example of nepotism
Before you can interpert the treaty now you have to define what it meant in 1840 and go from there.......
an investigation of the above might conclude its still valid now or might conclude that it is not......
Maori are not somehow married to 'Pakeha', where we just need to get some good counseling and then we'd all get along so well. Nope, the chiefs ceded sovereignty, enjoyed law and order... for a time, and Parliament became the sovereign of the land. Time for it to man up.
Nō law and order for Tūhoe. Even into the 19th century. Look at the illegal invasion of Maungapohatu.
In your english language version of the treaty you translated false fraudulent misinterpreted claims that Maori Chief Warriors ceded sovereignty. This is absolute false.
If this was true? then Hone Heke wouldnt of insulted your Queen Victoria and your british millitary by disrespectfully cutting your british flag down to end all treaty agreements and any future partnerships.
By Hone Heke cutting down the british flag it symbolizes firstly that he did not cede sovereignty and you do not have authority over us and our land. Therefore you frauded and misinterpreted the treaty.
Secondly you dishounured your own Queen Victoria by going against her declaration that she promised to those Chiefs that everything still belongs to them. But straight away once those Chiefs signed because of Queen Victorias declaration general Fitzroy and general Grey started stealing and confiscating land!? Miscommunication and language barriers you may say from both sides??
The reality is by hook or by crook. You wanted Maori land and resources to expand your british empire if they signed or not. The only reason you presented a peace treaty is because you couldnt genocide conquest or conquered Maori Warriors through war battle. You had to steal everything through a misinterpreted peace treaty. How weak and disgraceful. Now the world can see through your BULLSHIT pakeka. Shameful shameful shameful. You invaded other countrys before you invaded us to expand your empire. So you already had plenty of practice. You defeated everyone else in war battle except for Maori Warriors. You failed. Truth be told.
Now all you pakeha peasants who are under crown want crown status privileges to dictate to Maori what they can and cant do? Who the hell are you? Your just a farken peasant with no status or mana trying to be a king or a Chief.
Maori did not cede sovereignty! It defies all logic that free men of a Warrior race would surrender ownership of thier lands waters forest and seas who have occupied these resources and ocean voyaged the pacific realm for thousands of years when you have only been here 200 years by our invitation?
When you have owned everything as your generational home? You have to be totally stupid and ignorant to the truth that these war lords of a Warrior race would give you everything when you did not defeat them in war battle? Your thinking is absolute horrendous false and fradulent. Your false narratives dont make any sense. Just lies to protect your other lies. Truth be told!
Go back to england where you come from pakeha you shameful dishonesty people. You dont belong here with Maori. FARK OFF or prepare for battle like your ancestors!
Send your fattest soldiers to the front line battle. For we are hungry!!!! TOA TOA TOA!!!!!
In your english language version of the treaty you translated false fraudulent misinterpreted claims that Maori Chief Warriors ceded sovereignty. This is absolute false.
If this was true? then Hone Heke wouldnt of insulted your Queen Victoria and your british millitary by disrespectfully cutting your british flag down to end all treaty agreements and any future partnerships.
By Hone Heke cutting down the british flag it symbolizes firstly that he did not cede sovereignty and you do not have authority over us and our land. Therefore you frauded and misinterpreted the treaty.
Secondly you dishounured your own Queen Victoria by going against her declaration that she promised to those Chiefs that everything still belongs to them. But straight away once those Chiefs signed because of Queen Victorias declaration general Fitzroy and general Grey started stealing and confiscating land!? Miscommunication and language barriers you may say from both sides??
The reality is by hook or by crook. You wanted Maori land and resources to expand your british empire if they signed or not. The only reason you presented a peace treaty is because you couldnt genocide conquest or conquered Maori Warriors through war battle. You had to steal everything through a misinterpreted peace treaty. How weak and disgraceful. Now the world can see through your BULLSHIT pakeka. Shameful shameful shameful. You invaded other countrys before you invaded us to expand your empire. So you already had plenty of practice. You defeated everyone else in war battle except for Maori Warriors. You failed. Truth be told.
Now all you pakeha peasants who are under crown want crown status privileges to dictate to Maori what they can and cant do? Who the hell are you? Your just a farken peasant with no status or mana trying to be a king or a Chief.
Maori did not cede sovereignty! It defies all logic that free men of a Warrior race would surrender ownership of thier lands waters forest and seas who have occupied these resources and ocean voyaged the pacific realm for thousands of years when you have only been here 200 years by our invitation?
When you have owned everything as your generational home? You have to be totally stupid and ignorant to the truth that these war lords of a Warrior race would give you everything when you did not defeat them in war battle? Your thinking is absolute horrendous false and fradulent. Your false narratives dont make any sense. Just lies to protect your other lies. Truth be told!
Go back to england where you come from pakeha you shameful dishonesty people. You dont belong here with Maori. FARK OFF or prepare for battle like your ancestors!
Send your fattest soldiers to the front line battle. For we are hungry!!!! TOA TOA TOA!!!!!
In your english language version of the treaty you translated false fraudulent misinterpreted claims that Maori Chief Warriors ceded sovereignty. This is absolute false.
If this was true? then Hone Heke wouldnt of insulted your Queen Victoria and your british millitary by disrespectfully cutting your british flag down to end all treaty agreements and any future partnerships.
By Hone Heke cutting down the british flag it symbolizes firstly that he did not cede sovereignty and you do not have authority over us and our land. Therefore you frauded and misinterpreted the treaty.
Secondly you dishounured your own Queen Victoria by going against her declaration that she promised to those Chiefs that everything still belongs to them. But straight away once those Chiefs signed because of Queen Victorias declaration general Fitzroy and general Grey started stealing and confiscating land!? Miscommunication and language barriers you may say from both sides??
The reality is by hook or by crook. You wanted Maori land and resources to expand your british empire if they signed or not. The only reason you presented a peace treaty is because you couldnt genocide conquest or conquered Maori Warriors through war battle. You had to steal everything through a misinterpreted peace treaty. How weak and disgraceful. Now the world can see through your BULLSHIT pakeka. Shameful shameful shameful. You invaded other countrys before you invaded us to expand your empire. So you already had plenty of practice. You defeated everyone else in war battle except for Maori Warriors. You failed. Truth be told.
Now all you pakeha peasants who are under crown want crown status privileges to dictate to Maori what they can and cant do? Who the hell are you? Your just a farken peasant with no status or mana trying to be a king or a Chief.
Maori did not cede sovereignty! It defies all logic that free men of a Warrior race would surrender ownership of thier lands waters forest and seas who have occupied these resources and ocean voyaged the pacific realm for thousands of years when you have only been here 200 years by our invitation?
When you have owned everything as your generational home? You have to be totally stupid and ignorant to the truth that these war lords of a Warrior race would give you everything when you did not defeat them in war battle? Your thinking is absolute horrendous false and fradulent. Your false narratives dont make any sense. Just lies to protect your other lies. Truth be told!
Go back to england where you come from pakeha you shameful dishonesty people. You dont belong here with Maori. FARK OFF or prepare for battle like your ancestors!
Send your fattest soldiers to the front line battle. For we are hungry!!!! TOA TOA TOA!!!!!!
Its time for all tribes to unite and sign the DIVORCE papers with the UNFAITHFUL Crown!!! and send all pakeha PEASANTS back to england where they come from!!!!
The Treaty is not a partnership. If Moon was an expert he'd have no problem with telling it like it is, yet he takes the soft "I want to make everybody happy" jellyfish option every time. Tell the people what the Treaty is all about Moon, anything else adds to the hysteria!!!
If the Treaty does not mean total equality for everyone in NZ under Government laws then it needs to be scrapped as a historical document made for the time but unnecessary in todays 21st century world. We can not go back, the only way should be forward. The few historical land claims should be put to bed so we all can move on.
@@derekcravenPT The signed treaty between Maori and the British Crown has an English version called the littlewood draft which was interpreted to the Maori chiefs by a Maori that was fluent in English. Why has this document been locked away until 2065 by Helen Clarks labour govt.The translation is word for word of the Maori version,not the bastard version accepted by lazy politicians and Maori with their hidden agenda
Maori will interpret it as you have taken everything and given nothing back…. YEAH RIGHT,,,Maori get way more than the rest of us Kiwis.
Where? Stats say otherwise. Past legislation that destroyed Māori economic opportunities and culture.
They sure do and it has not gone unnoticed.
@@Graham-fo8zv evidence... Examples....
Everyone equal? What's the argument against that?
That's lies. Nō two people are equal
ALL forms of stable governance are based on equality, the inequal a government structure, the less stable the government, that is what history shows very clearly.
@@J.Smith-rc6wh no they are not. Kleptocracy states otherwise. No equality in democracy.
@@kidd2hoi524 Wakey-wakey, it's everyone has equal lawful rights, equality under the law, everyone is equal, it's like 'hi iwi tahi tatou' - 'we are now one people', equal people, aye... yup 'cos that is exactly what te Tiriti says, aye...
@@stevecooper9896 nothing to do with Te Tiriti or iwi. Western systems are not designed to have two people equal even under the law. Why else do different people get different charges for the same crime. And we know for sure that the law purposely targeted Maori historically instead of Pākehā. No equality in that.
Duncan Garner, you have it wrong. There is no partnership. There never was. That's the problem. Sovereignty was seeded.
Quite a history about the Maori - put the Inca's or the Aztecs to shame in degeneration. Outcast from the Cook Islands during the 13th century as weaker primitive Neolithic people by later waves of Polynesians (Maori were from the original wave of primitive Polynesians pushed right out across the Eastern Pacific by successive stronger more advanced groups arriving from the west). They were outcast on rafts and some floated to the North East Coast of NZ driven by the South Equatorial Current and were stranded for 500 years. The weaker were pushed down to the South Island or Chathams etc. So the South Island Maori (had their own language) were the weakest of the weak. They were captured and eaten as 'Slave flesh' by the northern Maori doing raids. (Well they all ate each other - 80% of Maori pre European were dark skinned easily fattened slaves farmed and eaten by a lighter skinned 'Ariki' thin wiry elite royal caste). So it was with some righteousness as well as British cunning that they armed the southern Maori who then with muskets launched a genocidal war on the north.. That plus measles & flu halved the Maori population and removed most of the elite. The British then liberated the slaves and outlawed cannibalism. The northern Maori fought with the British against the south bad west Maori 'rebels'. The Maori sued for peace and a treaty was signed that removed all sovereignty and made them subjects to the English crown where the English would protect them from each other. Land could only be sold to or via the Crown. Maori could live on their reservations with native custom but none did. The treaty of Waitangi is strikingly clear in that the Maori cede sovereignty completely and become citizens of Great Britain - all 3 clauses lock that in. Nothing in today's 'Maori' culture is authentic. The music - all European (Maoris did not have tonal music, the songs are missionary tunes or introduced - Poi dance is from Islands and Stick dance from old Malaya. The carvings and art - all European - Arabesques that was the fashion at the time. Original Maori had limited dash carving and no painting of objects. No written language - all the syntax & grammar plus vowel inflection is European. No technology - some lagoon canoes and wood or stone Neolithic tools. No food sources - like pigs or crops - they left that all behind, all they had was a weak inbred fox (now extinct), some rats and a weak dismal pacific yam. They ate out all the bird-life including 10 species of Moa and 46 other bird species, didn't know how to farm the sea as were island people and so they turned to societal cannibalism. Today - no full blood or half blood left. No genuine tradition and almost all are offspring of Maori slave females sold to white settlers for muskets or food. -So more fake than the 'Sioux' or 'Cherokee' or 'Crow' who had at least retained some genuineness about who they were and their history. -Everything you 'saw or experienced' is fake. A totally convected disneyfied tokenistic set of inventions fueled by a grievance culture of mixed-race imposters fetishing a false past bad history because it pays benefits. 'This Horrid Practice' - Professor Paul Moon, "A Savage Country" Professor Paul Moon 'Behind The Tattooed Face' - Heretaunga Pat Baker, 'Anthropology In The South Seas' - H D Skinner
Thank you for that dissertation...l think you have expressed it wonderfully ....l agree nothing in Maoridom s authentic....l have always thought they make it up as they go along....
@@lindamckenzie6500 Upoke is the term for Maori slaves. They were about 80% of the population prior to the Europeans. They were the primary source of protein in what was a horrific degeneration of Polynesian society into rampart structural cannibalism - a period of horror that lasted some 500 years until they were rescued by the European. The Maori had come with the original Polynesian caste structure of royals and bonded commoners after being outcast and set adrift on rafts to end up stranded in NZ.
Within a recorded period of about 8 generations this then degenerated into 9 different language groups ( no common language) and a horrific two tier ethnically and racially based caste structure.
- Ariki / from the original royal elite - these were documented and painted or drawn as lighter to white skinned, wiry, smaller boned, fine featured, thin nose, thin lipped, straight hair, anxious, aggressive cannibalistic ruling class. Upoke / from the original bonded commoners (such bonding or serfdom broke down in NZ as land was unconstrained) and slaves. Upoke or poke was used in conjunction with Kuku or Kiko ie a Upoke Kiko was slave flesh - or else poke singular or pokes group).
The Upoke slaves were the 'wealth' of the Maoris and raiding and capturing other clans and tribes Upoke was their primary industry. These Upoke were dark skinned, larger limbed, thick lipped, flat nosed, curly haired, easily fattened, low IQ and sedentary. The settlements of the Maoris (Pa's) were in valley passes where they could anticipate attack from the sea and run into the bush behind. A Pa's very design is as a cannibal storage camp of humans as slave eating flesh with perimeters controlling access and confining the slaves. Have a good look at the original designs of the Pa's and what their real purpose was. Upoke females were normally killed and eaten at birth but on arrival of the Europeans -( trade was for Upoke boiled male heads carved with European arabesques eg 'Maori Moko designs - all European) but with a shortage of that & the trade being policed - the Maori Ariki turned to selling young Upoke slave girls to the sailors and settlers for guns. Often as records show, the Ariki would line up the young Upoke on the beach or field and then tell the Europeans they would all be slaughtered and eaten unless the European met their demands. As such the European settlements were flooded with Upoke slaves, mainly young females being the demand. The Europeans bred with these slave females gave immunity to the mixed race offspring disease such as measles & flu that full blood Maori did not have. Again this is subject to much record (1880 onwards) about the 'revitalization' and out breeding of the Maori being their only path of survival / there was much concern the Maori would become extinct so all Europeans & Maori were much focused on such outbreeding to ensure that a trace of Maori may exist in the future. By 1903 there were no Ariki left and only 14 very old full blood Upoke. The last full blood died in 1944 - as reported by the minister of Maori affairs much later to the NZ parliament. The marked differences between the Ariki and the slave caste were much commented on, discussed and captured in paintings & portraits. Almost all part Maori today would be offspring of Europeans & Upoke slaves - the filters of inter Maori fratricide between the Ariki clans & disease acted as a filter to remove both Ariki and full bloods.
"A Savage Country" Professor Paul Moon' This Horrid Practice' - Professor Paul Moon, 'Behind The Tattooed Face' - Heretaunga Pat Baker, 'Anthropology In The South Seas' - H D Skinner
We did the same, the decline in the fisharys is an insult to our new found understanding and ability.
It's the same trajectory as the mob, no one collected eggs and hatched them, yourd need the brains to invent nylon AND consider breeding sites for that forward thinking.
@@torqingheads Rubbish.
Thanks Duncan, keep the debate going, the wider and mo😊re diverse opinions aired in the discussions the better. Let everyone have thier say. The truth will come out based on facts and historical records. I think this refreshing for our country and what ever the consensus it must apply Equally to all people under the laws of the land.
The treaty isn’t a constitutional document
It is literally the founding document of New Zealand
@@reganmaconaghie2612 why do you say that
@@cyrillawless it’s the document that was sign on 6 February 1840 with two different translations of it and two different meanings that ended the war between the crown and the Māori not everyone else.
@@reganmaconaghie2612 all it was was an agreement to give Maori the same rights and protection as all British subjects if they seceded sovereignty to they English crown. In other words protect the weaker tribes from the warrior tribes that were systematically wiping them out. The British crown didn’t want it but were asked/pleaded by Maori to protect them. Everything else has been made up in recent times so a greedy few may get an advantage.
@@reganmaconaghie2612 the Maori wars were from 1845 to 1872 and were mainly Maori on Maori with the British trying to contain them. They were after the signing of the Treaty. Before that the only fighting by British troops against Maori were when they attacked British settlers.
Im not british so why should the treaty apply to me?
And
Just as a technical matter - if Maori indeed think, "you've stolen everything and given nothing back to us". This is not correct. The NZ taxpayer has already given 2.6 Billion dollars back. That's not nothing.
Not even 1 cent in the dollar, is what's settled on. So you're right, it's not nothing 😂
1 cent in the dollar. What is the source of that?
Remember South Canterbury Finance? 35,000 investors paid out $1.6 billion when that investment company was poorly managed. In comparison, there are 890,000 odd Maori in the country and growing. Millions of acres of land stolen/ seized/ illegally sold, a pittance was actually sold by Maori owners. 200 odd years of government policy deliberately designed to systemically alienate Maori from their land and culture. Legal redress of $1.2 billion for systemic abuse, theft of resources, injustice, torture and murder of children and our most vulnerable and the continuation of blatant political racism and hate is a pittance.
"Pittance sold" - that's not quantitative, essentially useless. This sounds like the sort of confected grievance and resentment harvesting that accumulates grievances and adverbs to fuel neo Marxist envy politics. The vast body of NZrs had no hand in, and are not beneficiaries of, historical injustices, though many Maori have been beneficiaries of state welfare.
@@himalayan8315
Inflation and health care make it 5%.
Damn Duncan, crazy to see you here brother all the best! Hope they give you some good dosh, check the types of comments these viewers drop
The treaty isn’t a partnership like a marriage, maori ceded sovereignty to become British citizens or citizens of the British empire.
The discussion is still in the preparatory and throat-clearing stage, establishing key terms, what the thing is, what the thing is not, what the arguments back and forth might be, and letting some actors reveal the motivations, whether in good faith or not. A range of experts, lawyers, local leaders, journalists and bureaucrats have revealed themselves to be partisan hacks. That's fine. They will be reminded of their early, rash statements as the cycles of debate go on and on.
I reckon kiwis don't much like hard and fast conclusions to anything - this is why we have such an iterative constitutional framework. We would much prefer to discuss what's fair and reasonable, depending on context. And for that reason, a Treaty Principles Bill is just an insight into a much bigger issue - where does the absence of a formal constitution leave us in this century?
The treaty as it is needs gone, we need to form a simple constitution that’s says “ we are all one people, devoid of race creed or religion bias, the simple requirement of any parties in government are that they work for the betterment of all, we stand alone with no commitment to any world orgsnisation.
Dreamer. Can't even have Whittakers put one bar into Māori for Māori language week without bitching and hatred.
Tried that... did it become the most popular bar of Whittakers ever... perhaps they could have changed the name of that particularcon batch meant to WHITI TAKE MILK TE TAX PAYER OR THROW THEM BEHIND BARS during maori language wiki.@@kidd2hoi524
Like... communism?
@@CITA7687 communism isn't putting Maori Reo on food products.
@@CITA7687 you must think I like Ardern and the Left. You'd be so close to wrong that you'd be wrong anyway. 😂
In 1840, Maori were very much a distinct entity, represented by the chiefs. Today, who are Maori? Are there any real Maori anymore? If there are, who represents them? Paul Moon talks about "Two parties." We know one party is the Crown. Who is the other?
Thanks to David Seymour we can discuss the whole treaty issue and if necessary commit to specific principles in the interest of all kiwis
The Treaty was between Maori and the Crown... not all NZers. If the rights of all NZers need discussion I would suggest a referendum on the NZ Bill of Rights, not Te Tiriti o Waitangi.
This is the first time I have ever seen so much media on the 'Principles'. At last I am learning what has been going on for the last 30 yrs.
Thank you
Yes it is all a bit of an awaking for many. You are not alone.
So what would that be. What does our founding document say
@@Graham-fo8zvyou sound alone. We as Maori sending our condolences to you cockhead
You can't reinterprete what was never formally interpreted...
Garner is wrong on this issue. We need the debate and if necessary a change in the way the treaty is being used ie robbing nz of progress and costing councils millions.
Maintaining indigenous rights does not cost councils. Just like maintaining patient rights doesn't cost the health system anything.
If it goes to referendum, only those born here should have a say qnd not those who ran away from there previous countries they ruined.
And only those living here not expatriates, in Aussie etc, people living here with ! Citizenship cannot be excluded 😮
@@robertwoodroffe123na na our people are our people not there fault theres better pay else where so hopfully they come home one day.
I don’t agree with the bill but do agree with this sentiment as don’t think the bill is way to go but I do believe that born citizens should only be able to comment on the matter as this our nation blood and land not by choice
@@reganmaconaghie2612 oath brother
Keep it simple - scrap the Treaty. Remove Treaty references from the legislative framework asap.
Asolutely fed up with hearing about this every day. I think the media are trying to use it as a diversion from more important matters. Come on Winston - get it sorted ASAP!
The Emperors Penguin has no Feathers.... Willy Nilly Jackson doesn't want clarity on the treaty.... His mates have a hussle flying around NZ educating docile Pakeha on what the Treaty means... If Willy Nilly & his mates acted in good faith, they would be like '''''sweet as, money well spent, finally the country is going to get some clarity on what the treaty stipulates'''... If NZ's established commercial broadcasters weren't biased they would be echoing the same opinion... line charts showed a downward trend in consumption across all NZ media platforms, Radio, Print & TV.... so Willy Nilly threw 55 million dollars at them... 'PUBLIC INTEREST JOURNALISM FUND? More like Jackson's Public Relations hedge fund...
Don't S#*T me Moonie..¿⚠️⛔🚫
It up to the people to decide no one else we are a multiculture country now
It's not a relationship between two parties. There were about 550 parties.
If 'principles' of Te Tiriti can be shown through evidence and reasoning to have existed, they would not be fluid over time to suit whatever developing political agenda of any of the parties. But the Waitangi Tribunal has invented various principles, not supported by good evidence (either the wording of Te Tiriti or speeches of kaumatua around the time of signing), and sees those principles as changing over time mainly to suit Maori.
They should suit māori you dunce, look at all the negative outcomes post colonialism
@@hospitalcleaner Well I respect your right to your opinion but I have zero respect for your childish name-calling.
@@hospitalcleaner As for 'negative outcomes', those that exist are not necessarily caused by colonialism. Violent behaviour was the norm pre-colonialism and many rangatira signed to have a more powerful governance that would stop the tribal wars, slavery and cannibalism that had been potentiated by the musket but had been common well before that. Unfortunately, the violence propensity appears to have an intergenerational quality, speaking on average over the populations and acknowledging that most Maori do not resort to violence normally. Many other 'negative outcomes' are comparative with other races but actually involved positive outcomes when compared to pre-colonial times. Average lifespan increased greatly, a European model of ownership rights protected by government meant that iwi no longer lived in fear of other tribes' rampaging war parties, the wheel provided a massive step forward and the blessings of modern life (electricity, more reliable construction, entertainment, education) are enjoyed by those Maori who choose to value them.
@Empathiclistener well sorry but why should the treaty principles not favor Māori
@@hospitalcleaner Thanks for that. Firstly, because that would be dishonest. What were the principles intended and understood by the forefathers who signed Te Tiriti? Secondly, because nations that try to operate different rights and privileges based on race usually don't do well.
I’m Maori and there’s been division since i was a young fulla I’m 50 now and things have gotten worse!
I strongly support David Seymour's TPB. i'm not against strongly recognizing Maori and their culture and language but yep I am now very confused about the Treaty and I want to understand what it means going forward. The problem to me is that one side seems to be interpreting the Treaty in a way that increasingly looks like a path towards future separatism and inequality (ie apartheid). If it is not about all NZers being equal but saying that Maori somehow are a future elite (Tangata Whenua, kaitiaki etc) there is a problem.
Breathing a sigh of relief that I'm not the only one who is having Duncan and Paul's conversation in this country. There is still some sanity out there after all it would seem!
Yes but Labour Party created principals without input from other parties!
Huge respect for Paul Moon . The treaty can be interpreted in many ways -the most noble is to strive for cultural harmony.
What a wishy washy expert. The document means what it says and says what it means. There is no confusion.
Colonizers thought iwi would die and that the land would be theirs..and the treaty would be a nullity...however the iwi are here and want the treaty honored
It has been in fact it is only Maori that have breached the Treaty up to today and broken their honor to the Chiefs who you wouldn't even be able to quote a sentence recorded of them would you? No I guess not. But anyway the Treaty Chiefs at the Kohimarama Conference 1860 said the new Tikanga was Christianity with the Man of the Queen and that it was Maori who were doing the wrongs (Kingis) not the Pakeha, Read and weep lol
Stop it crybaby colonizers
The bill has not yet been draughed so how do you conclude Seymore wants to rewright the treaty.
This letter of the Treaty Principles Bill is formed so that discussions can take place, as people are unclear as to what the Treaty actually means to all NZers not just Maori and what the interpretations mean, that's my take on it
There are two Treatys ..there is the original ..then there is the Maori diy version .
What?
500+ Maori Chiefs who signed the Maori Version did not cede sovereignty.
39 southern Maori Chiefs signed the Pakeha version in Port Jackson that said they did cede sovereignty because pakeha left the Maori version behind. How fraudulent are Pakeha! This has been documented.
Pakeha built the country on the pakeha version which is false!
@@dgm2593They did cede sovereignty and knew that well. Go read the transcripts of the Chiefs talks at Waitangi.
The original treaty was written in English. It was translated, imperfectly, into Maori by an Englishman. The definitive version must be the English one.
@@JB-ch9ws No they did not cede sovereignty. It was misinterpreted and confused by two different languages. The pakeha changed altered and frauded it!!!!
Either way economic reality drives decisions. Air NZ are filling planes with young motivated NZ citizens and families, with one way tickets. To be replaced with Bottle O employees, who are skilled immigrants allegedly.
The Principle, Spirit and Meaning of te Tirity is: hi iwi tahi tatou - we are now one people. Truth against the world.
There was a feeling that Maori would assimilate, after war with some. Maori have choices, with respect... and this notion is changing.
Seymour is not changing the Treaty principles he wants them defined and the truth about the principles.Because since 1975 there has been changes to the Treaty principles,lying about what the Treaty says.The Crown of the Treaty says we are all equal under the law,meaning everyone the same.
There is no such thing as co-governance or partnership under one law for all,it is time everyone call ourselves New Zealanders again.That's what civilized means.
I think the treaty is very simple and clear, its only 3 paragraphs long.
The treaty is for eveyone to be kiwis and have equal rights, simple!
Anyone who says its confusing or it depends on interpretation is just mudding the waters with the intention of continuing the victimhood grift on tax payers money
The Minority doesn't Rule 😢
I remember watching Duncan an that other show he used to be on. Watched him try and interview Chlöe Swarbrick and he made an absolute ass of himself. All he could do was constantly interrupt her and attempt to shut her down. I’m not a Greenie’ but remember thinking wow she’s actually really articulate and very good, while he was an absolute asshole. Completely utterly incompetent and out classed in every aspect.
My opinion of him has never changed since, the guys a moron.
NZ needs a constitution. One that enshrines equality and democracy. Hepuapua cant be allowed to infect NZ society.
The inequities are self inflicted by way of culture Maori were better off during the 60s and 70s when government had a Maori Affairs dept. Maori could buy their own home on low interest gov. loans as well as access other needs, NZ'ERS shouldn't be accountable for retribution for things that happen 200years ago, Maori are no different to any other ethnicities who in all things are equal.
What the Bill is trying to achieve has merit. There is only one race, the human race. In NZ there should not be one rule for some, especially based on race. That in itself is what has generated the division. Maori could learn the word "thank-you" rather than this grievance mindset that is being rolled out...
Unbelievable that politicians didn't have full understanding of what the Treaty said - back in the 1970's. It is such an easy document to understand. Claims of need to reinterpret such a document enables corruption - which, is the very thing that seems to have happened. Born in NZ with NZ/European parents & Grandparents.
I also have children who are a mix of European, Maori & Polynesian
It's about definition of the treaty ,
Because of all the racism especially in the last 8 years !!🤨😡
from the statement made by Duncan 'that the bill re-writes the principles' relies on the fact the principles exist?
is not the question: what are the 'principles' to be resolved before an accusation of 're-writing' can occur?????
The principles David has are just the Treaty articles for dummies
In 1840: the principles are simple 1 - it is going to be a fair deal in the best interest of both parties; 2 - both parties will give and get; 3 - once done, no change of mind. Then, let's do the deal : Article 1, Article 2, Article 3. And let's celebrate the deal. 90 years after: invented fake principleas and distortion from the deal. Today: let's straight the things once for ever - Articles 1, 2, 3 as originaly stated. Keep it simple people.
Yes cut the nonsense and get it done.
As a non NZ lawyer familiar with many constitutions, my question, given the history ,( I apologize in advance for omissions or knowledge shortfalls on my part) is why have these issues of contention, remained stuck in the past and linked to a treaty, whose evident shortcomings simply lead to repetitive visits to the courts- and clear dissatisfactions?
Surely, a constitutional convention leading to a Bill of Rights, a Constitution and a constitutional court is the way out and the way forward?
As lawyers we make money out of vagueness.Every time.
A constitutional approach would be great. But no one in NZ would trust the current political environment to get a just result. It is probably fair to say globally that division is so great that outcomes would be impossible.
I do wonder if that vagueness is what is presently lining too many pockets in this country.
We already have Magna Carta and I am suspect over why we are not taught this Great Charter that obviously works when enacted and confidently outworked. It's worked for me 4 years since the Common Law Court issued a Lawful Notice to Heads of State April 2020 over lockdowns. Hundreds of Kiwis did it and more are each week striking on taxes and fines until the Govt will start running out of money that's the whole idea so yeh that's the redress, enact and save!
Very good explanation paul thanku.
Scrap the treaty. It was simply about bringing maori into british citizenship and uniting the people into one nation. Thats done, and its now obsolete
Question. Why has Seymour removed all reference to maori in his rewrite of the Treat of Waitangi.
exactly you are at the table of lifting the confusion that most of us have concerning the principles of the Treaty. You will overlook all things no spitting the dummy. Nothing in the world is perfect globally agreed upon! That means everything can be better even the Treaty whanau!
Isn’t it interesting that David Seymour wants to clearly articulate the principles is clear from this discussion? You guys are pretty confused even the historian doesn’t seem to really be able to articulate very clearly Seymour doesn’t want to rewrite the treaty. He just wants to define what’s already been articulated into some extent in the so-called principles, that doesn’t seem unreasonable and it certainly not about putting either party in the equation at Alyssa advantage seems to be about trying to find a balance
It's the Treaty for dummies
Seymour’s rationale is very solid, it will go further, no doubt. The sad thing is that Maori culture is actually revered in our country, claims of institutional racism towards Maori is a joke, personal responsibility is all that’s needed, stop blaming modern, western style, liberal, secular democracy.
Yeh like I have no idea what they keep moaning about now that settlements about land have been dealt with we paid for that plus it wasn't stolen it had been confiscated after the war cos of Kingitanga terror. The propaganda about whites and our history has caused hell on Earth I don't know how the Govt can stop it now it's up to us Pakeha to defend our heritage and teach our kids to be resilient and not fall for the colonial guilt, we have an exemplary history of successful and welcomed humanitarian and evangelical efforts the Treaty Chiefs became Christians.
Very well, clearly and rationally presented, Paul Moon.
The only party to the Treaty that has a say on interpretation is Maori and the Waitangi Tribunal. Not a very balanced relationship is it?
We don't need English interpreted and we don't understand maori or trust their works it's all corrupted for 5 years you cannot hide it, we know what the Treaty means so Davids Bill is the Treaty articles repeated for dummies
I'm Maori, the treaty is a historical document and in the modern era we need to work together under 1 government. Treaty settlements are a separate issue, where blatant land theft should be sorted. But what the Maori party, Labour & Greens are trying to do only serves to divide us.
They call it our founding document, its not. Its not a constitution, its not about a partnership, its not permission to land. Its a peace deal , whic Maori signed to give some protection during initial settlement, it wasn't meant to used to create legislation for eternity.
Its simply promised Maori woukd recieve sovereignty, and settlers couldn't just throw them off their land.
People viewing the treaty need to place themselves in that time period. The British empire was the strongest army in the world. It didn’t need to offer anyone special deals , it surely didn't view native people as worthy of co governance, its just the reality of the time. Understand some land was unfairly taken and those instances hsve been mostly settled, but there's no special rights or privileged owed , no positions in government gifted. No entitlement to government, no special fishing quotas.
Yeh and in fact the Treaty Chiefs have the principles if any when they warned their people not to start political partys
Taking back what is Maori suck it up cockhead
Suck it up cockhead. Maori are coming for it all
Don Brash knows a thing rooting woman at a act party. It's a free for all . This is a public servent. Cheating on your wife Don the Donky
Disappointing Duncan. Typical academic attitude. Paul Moon dismisses ACTs referendum. He seems to think that the current poor race relations is caused by ACT. However, it is radical Maori that is causing disunity. Suck as Rawiri Waititi's call for a separate Maori Parliament that is stirring racial tensions. Where is the outcry towards radical Maori's insidious agenda?
Maori have obligations as well they forget that, I cannot understand why they accuse while breaching
Here's an understanding: So if I came into your house with my foreign language, set myself up alongside you and over time became THE dominant resident in YOUR HOUSE that your pay/paid for, and start to tell you how to eat, dress, speak, and think, and then we put an agreement in writing about how we will live together, and we will be equal throughout the arrangement, but over time, I who invaded your house started stealing from you some of your most prized possessions, and started to ignore what you thought and enacted what I believed would be good for the whole of the house, even though you aren't happy and at times you are the one losing from the arrangement, what and how would you resolve that....
Aren't most people dubious about the credibility of Professors at AUT? Some academics at AUT claimed that Maori science is as valid as real science.
I recall Don Brash getting a wad of mud thrown at his face at Waitangi. This is how Maori tend to sort their grievances rather than sensible dialogue. We need clear concise management of this country or we will be a treaty joke.
Plenty of bills are not put through the first time they are introduced, the voluntary suicide act is a good example, getting it past first reading does two very important things that are very valuable: 1)gets it put through a public submission process, which will bring out written opposition to the bill from interested parties, who will now have to state their position and be held accountable for that. 2) Can now be used as a proposed legislation to pull our public services, the law proffession, the universities, and our out of control councils back from the bizarre place they have got themselves to. You either stop all this racist nonsense or we will define your nonsense away once and for all formally. The treaty is a very simple document, has been part of our law less time than it has been removed from law, and is in no way a constitution. This rot needs to stop
There are no principles, the treaty is a historical document, it is in now way a constitution and the professor knows this. It does not meet ANY of the criterion of a constitution, it has been not part of our law for LONGER than it has been part of our law. It was not part of our law during WW1 or WW2 for example. These principles are not part of the treaty, so are not Treaty principles, they are from 1975, over a hundred AFTER the treaty.
Mentioning relationship expectations or loyalty to Duncan Garner by Paul bit like trying to discuss mullets and quiffs with Luxon or how to nurture children with Seymour.
Exactly the point of the bill in the first place...
Paul moon is an Activist
We all have been activated so look out!
I did not find him to be ideal for this discussion
There are two distinct types of authorities in this world - territorial and non-territorial.
Authorities who govern over controlled territory enforce their rule over anyone who appear within the boundaries of their domain. For those outside their domain - they don't. Those type of authorities are known as countries or states.
Non-territorial authorities claim their rule over people regardless of their location in the world. They name people as "their people" and enforce their rule over those people anywhere they can. These type of authorities are known as Mafia, Church and Sects.
Which one do you want to be governed by?
Within context, more divisive than TPM calling for separate parliament and modern spinning treaty that Sovereignty wasn't given to the Crown 🤔🤔🤔
Wah,wah,wah partnership bs.
A thought worth considering:
The rangatiratanga of the second clause is inextricably linked to the retention of land in aboriginal title.
An essential part of British requirements was pre-emption- in the legal sense, the sole right of the Crown to extinguish aboriginal title. The English text indicates this by making the guarantee subject to sale- tino rangatiratanga of their tribal estates and lands would remain 'as long as they wished to retain them'- implying an end with sale to the Crown.
Te Tiriti, the authoritative document, phrases it in the sense of a binary: the Queen guarantees to Maori the continuation of their ownership and chiefship over their tribal territories. OR they can sell land to the Queen- who as the greater chief would thereafter hold that land under her rangatiratanga. Essentially the intended process was one of gradual and voluntary transfer by sale, of aboriginal title to Crown ownership and title- essentially colonisation by purchase.
The key principle here is one of aboriginal versus Crown title. Traditional title and ownership (tino rangatiratanga o o ratou whenua) ends with a transfer to the Crown, the Queen thereafter held the "tino rangatiratanga" of that land and could assign it as she chose, under Crown derived title.
So in the early years, Pakeha settlements under Crown title came under the Governor, while unsold lands remained under the traditioinal ownership structure of autonomous hapu, with disputes being arbitrated by the protector of aborigines, George Clarke and his staff, responsible to the Governor.
The difficulty is, that the intended process was overwhelmed by colonisation and aggressive acquisition of Maori land. However, regardless of how, the reality is that as soon as the land passed into Crown ownership, by raupatu, purchase, or however; or later came under the Native land courts and was issued Crown derived title, - the tino rangatiratanga- chiefship- of that land permanently passed to the Crown.
All private land held under Crown title is by grant from, and under authority of, the Crown.
Fast forward to the present and we have a particular issue- almost all land in NZ is now held under Crown derived title. Essentially the provisions of the Second Clause have been superseded by the simple fact that aboriginal title has been all but replaced by Crown derived title, and the process of pre-emption is virtually complete. Maori landowners are no longer bound to sell only to the Crown, as they now hold a sound and transferable Crown title.
It is essential to remember that the protected "tino rangatiratanga" of clause 2 was explicitly linked to the retention of land in its unsold state, and the chiefship of that land transferred to the highest chief, the Queen, with the land. Either/or, no exceptions are given in te tiriti.
This is why it is not possible to apply te tiriti verbatim to modern contexts, as the whole nature of society has moved on. As it does. Most land is in Crown title, and the Crown is now the New Zealand government, no longer directly under the Queen. It would be equally ludicrous to try to apply Magna Carta verbatim to modern English society- the issues of the time have passed, and only the general principles remain.
So in a sense David Seymour is right- all NZ citizens hold the rights and safeguards pertaining to Crown derived title. It is no longer possible to apply the second clause of the Treaty verbatim, but the essential principle is that of the equal protection afforded to all citizens, of the security and rights embodied in Crown derived title. Each landowner is "chief" of his own land- secured against trespass and encroachment- but under the overall chiefship and law of the Crown.
The Treaty was a means to an end, not an end in itself.
Yes and that is what David is trying to teach the dummies that we all have tino rangatiratanga which came by the Treaty just because it's a Maori word doesn't mean it has a meaning only for them quite ridiculous stuff has been disseminated for 50 years we are in the shit tbh
So,here we are 2024 David is in the shithouse wiping his arss all over the bill 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😮😮😢😢😢😮😢😮😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😮😂😂😂😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊
David is one of them maori elite you cry about
people will have the opportunity to comment through the select committee process. Iwi will have a chance as will every other interest group. The three key parts to the treaty cannot be changed. Its the interpretation that needs properly defining. Hopefully after all this we can all get on with being New Zealanders and accept that we are even though our DNA might have different components.
Let’s say 150years ago, I come and stay at your big house with heaps of rooms. Eventually you tell me to leave, because you want some personal autonomy back. Instead, I propose a partnership deal where I become the property manager, but you still own the house. You agree. What instead happens is I invite all of my family over to fill the rest of the rooms, and make you live in the dog-box outside. For the next 150 years you have to raise the next generations out of that dog-box, even though you supposedly own the house. Furthermore in the present day, the “property-manager’s”descendants are telling the Dog-Box crew “It’s time to stop with this victim mentality… let’s cut out this woke stuff… get a job… you already get plenty of handouts… where’s our equality?” Now they want to erase and change the original “property-manager”agreement that cemented their rights in the first place. But it’s fine, because it happened 150years ago, so they should just get over it?
Ahh no maori were already in a dog box
@@StGammon77Racist white supremacist crybaby right there thank you
Paul Moon seems more like an activist historian. Treaty is very clear, as is the historical evidence.. Maori gave up sovereignty for citizenship.
It is less like a marriage and more like a flatting situation. How much does "I have been in the flat the longest" count towards who is cleaning the toilet? Yea relationships are a two way street...
the fact of the matter is , there won't be any changes, there however there will be proper definition of the meaning, and those who say there should be a debate or discussion on the matter are those who, when you look into it are those who are making a living of the misinterpretations of the text in the treaty, its only really been a problem since the 1975 interpretations that have cause the dissension, and mistrust on both sides.
The Treaty is not being altered.
This is exactly the sort of politically correct, arbitrary obfuscation of the treaty that people are sick of.
Both Duncan and Paul Moon surely understand that the divorce lawyer analogy is a chalk and cheese argument. You can't compare settled 20th/21st century law with a vague 19th century peace agreement.