Love the Pilot (Kawanatanga) and Kingdom (Rangatiratanga) example of the value difference and context of these words from the Maori version. Just brilliant matauranga backed by te Paipera. That is exactly what Jesus does through His gift of salvation for all of humanity. His value of everlasting love demonstrated on the cross sets a new value where no man can boast and where He resists the prideful and where the oppressed and humble are lifted up. He speaks in te reo just as He speaks in every language of humanity because He is God. In His book Matthew chapter 1 all He speaks about is whakapapa and the entire old testament book are all the stories of His whanaunga and their lives. He is amazing and is all about whanau restoration. He gave His life up on the cross so that all of humanity could be restored to Te Papa Atua. God is all about whanau, whakapapa, generations and honoring covenants. Kia kaha nga Maori ki te whakapono ki a Ihu Karaiti me tona aroha orangatanga ki a tatou katoa. Ahakoa ko wai, ahakoa he aha. Nou tona aroha mena ka whakapono koe. Amine x
'If the Treaty died. you had to walk away'. Arguably, this is what happened at a later date with the advent of the NZ/ Maori wars. Here the Europeans were compelled to enforce sovereignty through force of arms. Interestingly, at the practical level, a show of arms enforced sovereignty at the Maketu area during the late musket wars [1843] over tribes that had not signed the Treaty. The legal experts at the time argued that Britain had no authority over unsigned chiefs. But this was considered irrelevant by both NZ statesmen and the colonial office back in London for NZ sovereignty had been *declared* over the whole of NZ in May 1840. This is the practicality of a sovereign power as opposed to the theory [law].
I'm bawling my eye's out listening to Simon's story because that's excitley what happened to me and my siblings because my mother chose to be white because mum thought she could get further afield if she spoke English by her doing that she Robbed us of our heritage 😢
Prendergast said the Treaty was a *legal* nullity [not just a nullity]. This qualification is important. Law is only something that arises once a sovereign power is established. The Treat is arguably the establishment of that power, and therefore transcends the law... and in turn provides a basis for law [and order]. Does that mean the Treaty could be dismissed? No, but its basis is moral, cultural, historical... and should be [truly] honoured on those principles.
The crucial text was the Maori text as this is what Maori understood and signed. Yet today it seems the crucial text has become the English text. The problem here is that the final draft was lost. The issue becomes one therefore of which English text is being used - a literary one penned by Freemean for a royal audience, or the actual one, which was rediscovered in 1992 and known as the Littlewood draft. Compare the Littlewood draft to the Maori version, and you've a line by line translation... with no superflous language.
'Rangatiratanga' is chieftainship. Enjoyment of chieftain rights are property rights.... not sovereignty. Chiefs such as Te Heu Heu of Taupo refused to sign because he knwo all too well that he'd be submitting his authority/ mana to the Queen... something he castigated other chiefs for. This is the fatal flaw for this 'two treaty' approach that has developed since the '80s
Not really bro. A chief had domain over maunga and awa and even foreshore and seabed hence the protest 20 years ago. But even if you are right, and chieftainship doesn’t mean sovereignty, there is nothing in te tiriti that signs away the sovereignty of Maori. The word generally taken to mean ceding sovereignty, kawanatanga, actually means governorship, not governance. So we never ceded. Search Anne Salmond the historian and she will say even the waitangi tribunal admits we never ceded anymore. Just look at the recent Nga Puhi claim, they never ceded. But the govt, who is illegal and the ones who stole land anyway so why should they be the ones to give it back? But anyway, they won’t conform to what the tribunal says so we are in a stalemate.
@@Thewandereringanzac The thing is the chiefs had no conception of 'sovereignty' back in the day, for it is a general abstract universal idea. The challenge was to communicate to the chiefs something they could get a handle on. They understood power/ mana/ unlimited authority.. of which they had a very earthy notion. So kawantatanga, as actually being the head honcho in a heirarchical system, they understood [article 1 deals with the politics]. This is why powerful chiefs to the south, such as Te HeuHeu, Te Waharoa, and Te WheroWhero, refused to sign. They understood it only too well.
@@davethewave7248 they were giving the queen a governor to govern over their own subjects. That’s what the governor was doing at the time so they thought little of it.
@@Thewandereringanzac Imagine just for a moment that what you say is a story that has been concocted in recent times. Now consider what the chiefs themselves actually thought about the treaty arrangement; that is, if you're interested in historical truth - Hierarchy in rule, equality in rights. From the journal of Major Bunbury, who travelled throughout the country collecting signatures - "He endeavoured then to explain the meaning by a sort of diagram on a piece of board [to chief Te Hapuku], placing the Queen by herself over the chiefs as these were over the tribes. I told him it was literally as he described it, but not for an evil purpose as they supposed, but to enable her to enforce the execution of justice and good government equally amongst her subjects….. Captain Nias ordered a gun to be fired, at their request, and having signed the treaty and received some blankets and tobacco as a present, they were put on shore in a native village in the Bay."
@@davethewave7248 this persons diary, that persons diary, they could say anything. One thing that doesn’t change is what it says in te tiriti. And that’s all the factual evidence I need to put forward a case for us not ceding.
The word treaty derives from the old testament word or Hebrew meaning covenant(kawenata). A covenant that was established between God and Abraham the promised land for his sons Isaac, Jacob and the children of Israel which stands to this day.bSame thing applies to the treaty established between the British & Maori which still stands today.
Pity my comments of yesterday have been deleted. Does it not fit your narrative.. The point is you are using the wrong "copy" of the Treaty. Try the genuine original Te Reo Maori one. The only Treaty!! "is" the Maori one. Do the hard yards and try and find it. Its there online. I accessed the Te Reo Maori document (the text based one produced by Colenso, the Missionary printer of 1840) and used two separate GPT-4 Artificial Intelligence Bots to translate. The two translations came out very close to each other. Both do not mention Forests , Rivers or Treasured possessions in any way. It mentions land. This could be offered for sale "if the Maori wanted to" only through the Crowns agent. The Crown would protect possession of this land before and after the sale. Oh. By the way, the Treaty is Not a partnership!! Who invented this idea??
You could also try googling the Littlewood draft that was found in 1992 [in a deceased estate]. It was a copy of the final English draft form which Colenso's Maori version was translated. Put side to side, the language lies up perfectly... and not such specific language either of "Both do not mention Forests , Rivers or Treasured possessions in any way". I think that the English version that has made its way into officialdom since the 80s was based on Freeman's literary product that was meant for a royal audience. By the way, the handwriting of the Littlewood draft is Busby's.^^
Mana is not the greatest thing. Because Mana was not... 'softened', you had the continual escalation of violence in the Musket Wars. Once the mana [authority/ absolute freedom/ pride] of the chiefs submitted to the new sovereign power [which infuriated proud chiefs such as Te Wahaorao and te Heu Heu] the musket wars quickly came to an end. This is also the practicality of conversion to Christianity, which involved a humbling of all involved... civility.
The language of the Traety is diplomatic not legalistic. Diplomacy IS relational [which was the point being made about Maori culture at that time]. And yes, I agrre that the Treaty should be understood by asking what it meant to them... as opposed to what it means to us [with our own modern preconceptions]. Historicism not legalism should be at work here.
Woah.... is this the same genteel Simon Dallow I see on the news everynight? A little alarming to see an almost seething anger bubbling to the surface..... What is happening to this country. : (
Land, sea and foreshore belongs to the creator not Māori not Pakeha or any other ethnicities, we're all tenant's under one landlord and expected to keep the place tidy and get along with our neighbours. Māori and Pakeha caused the deaths of hundreds of others so they both have no moral ground to stand on.
when we regurgitate the pakeha lies as to what transpired around the treaty Joe is that we did not sign nothing The Treaty was not signed it was forged, it came already forged by the british Sovereign to establish this illegal government. The Treaty can only be discussed or and decided on by the Two Sovereigns. The colonisers Monarch and the direct descendent of the 1857 Arikinui Waikato Tairea, no one else. The Administration or Government cannot have this discussion it is reserved for Charles Philip Arthur George and Maori Sovereign by whakapapa Geoffrey Karena Puhi.
Te Tiriti o Waitangi is the Treaty of death by water baptised in Christ the Chiefs journey with God is the greatest story never told. The maori translation is a mirror of the Littlewood draft the final English writ, lost but found in 1989 concealed by maori and Te Papa a crime against NZdrs so bring that Mother document out we all understand English!
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, 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 the primary industry of the Maoris. 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 Maori today would be offspring of Europeans & Upoke slaves - the filters of inter Maori fratricide between the Ariki clans & disease acted as an filter to remove both Ariki and full bloods. 'This Horrid Practice' - Professor Paul Moon, 'Behind The Tattooed Face' - Heretaunga Pat Baker, 'A History Of New Zealand Anthropology In The 19th Century' - H D Skinner
Of course, this interpretation becomes absurd [that kawanatanga is way below rangatiratanga] because the whole point of the Treaty was to establish sovereignty over NZ and all of its inhabitants in order to institute law and order. Of course, then the argument could be that the Maori version was to pull the wool over the eyes of Maori, but that would entail that the English statesmen and the missionaries were being completely dishonest and malevolent. This is equally absurd. As for the [so-called] English version], why would they have been so specific as to everything that Maori continued to own? There are just too many contractions and absurdities for this reading of the Treat to make sense.
@@Matikemai2040 What kind of law allowed the chief absolute mana/ authority over the life of others... that was seen so horrifically in the decades of musket/ tribal wars before the treaty was signed? That is not law, but just brute power.
This is where ideology and history merge into a hodgepodge of half truths or revisionism. It was colonization that saved Reo, that recorded it and systematized it and here you are saying the colonization stoped reo. Nonsense. No one stopped Naori speaking reo at home. And obviously to tech english to Maori. Maori choosing to focus on english was wise. But to stop using it entirely is no one’s fault but those that chose to stop speaking it.Northern Maori had great pride in reading and writing and boasted about it. That was colonization. If the French had colonized, things would be very different. What’s modsinvhere is respect. Respect for the gift of colonization that rapidly modernized Maori. That brought the ease of the wheel. Steel axe and hoe, Wool, the horse. Priceless revolutionary tools. Not to mention emancipation from slavery and tribal war. The musket wars killed 20,000 and 30,000 wounded. The land wars in contrast led to around 2000 Maori. No comparison. Yes war happened all over the world. Though 50% of Maori were killed or wounded. That’s the back drop fir the signing of the treaty yet it’s seldom mentioned. So good it’s mentioned here. The virtue and revisionism of the grievance industry outdated do with a reality check.
1:06:30 Why is he lying? The New Zealand Maori Council v Attorney-General [1987] 1 NZLR 641 clearly states, "What has already been said amounts to acceptance of the submission for the applicants that the relationship between the Treaty partners creates responsibilities ***analogous to fiduciary duties***. Counsel were also right, in my opinion, in saying that the duty of the Crown is not merely passive but extends to active protection of Maori people in the use of their lands and waters to the fullest extent practicable." The English Crown and Maori were never a "partnership". Williams tries to fool these plebs by stating Maori were not a contractual people and then in his next breath states that the signing of a treaty was a partnership. Huh? As for his fictional tale of Maori taking on the greatest military power in the World is farcical at best. Maori knew all too well the military might of the English. The Westminster constitutional principle of parliamentary sovereignty was not given away to New Zealand lightly. It was not until 1987 that New Zealand became a free-standing constitutional monarchy whose parliament has unlimited sovereign power. Yet according to the revisionist Joe Williams 1840 Maori entered into a partnership with Queen Victoria???? Yeah right!!! English sovereignty could not have ever been considered to be a partnership under the 1840 concept of sovereignty under English constitutional law. Even now the Scottish parliament is not in a partnership with Westminster. The partnership Joe Willliams is calling is going to be the same trainwreck as is happening in the UK. Devolution to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland was implemented in the late 1990s without much consideration (read hubris) of how such a radical reform would affect the UK Parliament and Government. Even though devolution marked a major change in the governance of the devolved nations, Westminster and Whitehall did not initially need to adapt very much to the new context. Why was that? Because devolution in the eyes of Westminster did not change the constitutional principle of parliamentary sovereignty. Westminster transferred only certain powers to Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast, but retained the ability to legislate in all areas, devolved or not. Also, devolution retained the Barnett formula for distributing money to the three nations and the guiding approach to devolution has been to draw a clear division between what is devolved and what is ‘reserved’ to Westminster. Few functions are formally shared between central and devolved governments. As a result, the UK Government did not create systems or processes for joint working with the devolved administrations. In practice, however, devolution has had several significant effects on Westminster and Whitehall. The arrangements for funding devolution have evolved significantly since 1999. The UK Parliament has also had to develop new mechanisms for dealing with legislation for the different nations of the UK, and the UK Government has had to manage tensions and disputes with the devolved administrations, not least over Brexit. Not least the ways in which Westminster and Whitehall have had to adapt to devolution, and consider the state of the relationship between central and devolved governments after the EU referendum. Partnership will not work in New Zealand. Not least because Maori and English common law have opposing views over fundamental concepts like the ownership of water and other resources.
You clearly didn't comprehend what he said. I can't tell if that was willfully so or unfortunately so. You are correct though that partnership will not work here; if one side has its head, its heart and its hubris face-planted in Westminster - which appears to be your only real reference point.
@@titiro1 I'll use small words for you. He lied, I timestamped the video where he lied, and cited the judgment and posted the passage from the judgment that showed he lied. There was nothing gnomic, equivocal, or esotric about this. It's really simple. Thanks for highlighting your lack of argument and use of ad hominem. Stone Age cultures don't have an utility today.
Look - the guy with the Diploma in UA-cam comments trying to argue against a Supreme Court judge, a Knight and a life long Treaty expert … Far cough When you use misinformation AND disinformation to argue for your limitations you achieve the self fulfilling deficit in your aspirations. The past can never speak to the future with mana when the mouths throwing the words are fed on nihilistic pessimism born if colonisation. Paulo Freire said, “…the fear of freedom is embodied by the oppressors but in a different way than by the oppressed. For the oppressed, the fear of freedom is the fear to assume or own up to their own freedom. For the oppressors, the fear is fear of losing the “freedom” to oppress.” Your rhetoric speaks to the false equivalency of colonisations impact against Tāngata Whenua aspiration for emancipation - Judge Joe s’poke to that co-evolution of aspiration as a Tiriti grounded post-colonisation people.
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
''The Polynesian triangle'' the three points are Hawaii, New Zealand and East Island/Rapa nui. It takes in all the islands within the triangle and a few outside. There are financial benefits being a signed up member but NZ was not a member as at 2016. I think from memory Fiji did not join the triangle. NZ has the largest Polynesian population and 14 of the 17 Island representatives use to live in NZ.
Papal Bull decrees Romanus Pontifix 1455 declared that if all indigenous Nations were non-Christian they had to be invaded, vanquished, captured, subdued reduced to perpetual slavery, and have their possessions and properties seized by the European Monarch. Tera Nullus 1493 determined that if land was empty it could be claimed by the European Crown who found it. Secondly if there is Indigenous peoples there and they were not Christian, they didn't have rights to entitlement of land only rights of occupancy. What that means is this, their status as human was lower to that of a hedgehog, a hare, or rabbit. watch TEDx talk at Transforming Lives By Exploring Histories | Rawiri Waretini
Love the Pilot (Kawanatanga) and Kingdom (Rangatiratanga) example of the value difference and context of these words from the Maori version. Just brilliant matauranga backed by te Paipera. That is exactly what Jesus does through His gift of salvation for all of humanity. His value of everlasting love demonstrated on the cross sets a new value where no man can boast and where He resists the prideful and where the oppressed and humble are lifted up. He speaks in te reo just as He speaks in every language of humanity because He is God. In His book Matthew chapter 1 all He speaks about is whakapapa and the entire old testament book are all the stories of His whanaunga and their lives. He is amazing and is all about whanau restoration. He gave His life up on the cross so that all of humanity could be restored to Te Papa Atua. God is all about whanau, whakapapa, generations and honoring covenants. Kia kaha nga Maori ki te whakapono ki a Ihu Karaiti me tona aroha orangatanga ki a tatou katoa. Ahakoa ko wai, ahakoa he aha. Nou tona aroha mena ka whakapono koe. Amine x
Thank you Simon Dallow !!
What a wonderful whakakpapa !!
And amazing introduction of Sir Joe Williams !!
Sir Joe Williams is our key 🗝
'If the Treaty died. you had to walk away'. Arguably, this is what happened at a later date with the advent of the NZ/ Maori wars. Here the Europeans were compelled to enforce sovereignty through force of arms. Interestingly, at the practical level, a show of arms enforced sovereignty at the Maketu area during the late musket wars [1843] over tribes that had not signed the Treaty. The legal experts at the time argued that Britain had no authority over unsigned chiefs. But this was considered irrelevant by both NZ statesmen and the colonial office back in London for NZ sovereignty had been *declared* over the whole of NZ in May 1840. This is the practicality of a sovereign power as opposed to the theory [law].
I'm bawling my eye's out listening to Simon's story because that's excitley what happened to me and my siblings because my mother chose to be white because mum thought she could get further afield if she spoke English by her doing that she Robbed us of our heritage 😢
Mihinui ki a koe e Ta Hohepa Williams
Very insightful and informative...Joe Williams now a Supreme Court Justice
Prendergast said the Treaty was a *legal* nullity [not just a nullity]. This qualification is important. Law is only something that arises once a sovereign power is established. The Treat is arguably the establishment of that power, and therefore transcends the law... and in turn provides a basis for law [and order]. Does that mean the Treaty could be dismissed? No, but its basis is moral, cultural, historical... and should be [truly] honoured on those principles.
The crucial text was the Maori text as this is what Maori understood and signed. Yet today it seems the crucial text has become the English text. The problem here is that the final draft was lost. The issue becomes one therefore of which English text is being used - a literary one penned by Freemean for a royal audience, or the actual one, which was rediscovered in 1992 and known as the Littlewood draft. Compare the Littlewood draft to the Maori version, and you've a line by line translation... with no superflous language.
Exactly, the concealment of this fact is criminal
"Rediscovered" 😅
'Rangatiratanga' is chieftainship. Enjoyment of chieftain rights are property rights.... not sovereignty. Chiefs such as Te Heu Heu of Taupo refused to sign because he knwo all too well that he'd be submitting his authority/ mana to the Queen... something he castigated other chiefs for. This is the fatal flaw for this 'two treaty' approach that has developed since the '80s
Not really bro. A chief had domain over maunga and awa and even foreshore and seabed hence the protest 20 years ago. But even if you are right, and chieftainship doesn’t mean sovereignty, there is nothing in te tiriti that signs away the sovereignty of Maori. The word generally taken to mean ceding sovereignty, kawanatanga, actually means governorship, not governance. So we never ceded. Search Anne Salmond the historian and she will say even the waitangi tribunal admits we never ceded anymore. Just look at the recent Nga Puhi claim, they never ceded. But the govt, who is illegal and the ones who stole land anyway so why should they be the ones to give it back? But anyway, they won’t conform to what the tribunal says so we are in a stalemate.
@@Thewandereringanzac The thing is the chiefs had no conception of 'sovereignty' back in the day, for it is a general abstract universal idea. The challenge was to communicate to the chiefs something they could get a handle on. They understood power/ mana/ unlimited authority.. of which they had a very earthy notion. So kawantatanga, as actually being the head honcho in a heirarchical system, they understood [article 1 deals with the politics]. This is why powerful chiefs to the south, such as Te HeuHeu, Te Waharoa, and Te WheroWhero, refused to sign. They understood it only too well.
@@davethewave7248 they were giving the queen a governor to govern over their own subjects. That’s what the governor was doing at the time so they thought little of it.
@@Thewandereringanzac Imagine just for a moment that what you say is a story that has been concocted in recent times. Now consider what the chiefs themselves actually thought about the treaty arrangement; that is, if you're interested in historical truth - Hierarchy in rule, equality in rights.
From the journal of Major Bunbury, who travelled throughout the country collecting signatures -
"He endeavoured then to explain the meaning by a sort of diagram on a piece of board [to chief Te Hapuku], placing the Queen by herself over the chiefs as these were over the tribes. I told him it was literally as he described it, but not for an evil purpose as they supposed, but to enable her to enforce the execution of justice and good government equally amongst her subjects….. Captain Nias ordered a gun to be fired, at their request, and having signed the treaty and received some blankets and tobacco as a present, they were put on shore in a native village in the Bay."
@@davethewave7248 this persons diary, that persons diary, they could say anything. One thing that doesn’t change is what it says in te tiriti. And that’s all the factual evidence I need to put forward a case for us not ceding.
The word treaty derives from the old testament word or Hebrew meaning covenant(kawenata). A covenant that was established between God and Abraham the promised land for his sons Isaac, Jacob and the children of Israel which stands to this day.bSame thing applies to the treaty established between the British & Maori which still stands today.
Pity my comments of yesterday have been deleted. Does it not fit your narrative.. The point is you are using the wrong "copy" of the Treaty. Try the genuine original Te Reo Maori one.
The only Treaty!! "is" the Maori one. Do the hard yards and try and find it. Its there online.
I accessed the Te Reo Maori document (the text based one produced by Colenso, the Missionary printer of 1840) and used two separate GPT-4 Artificial Intelligence Bots to translate. The two translations came out very close to each other. Both do not mention Forests , Rivers or Treasured possessions in any way. It mentions land. This could be offered for sale "if the Maori wanted to" only through the Crowns agent. The Crown would protect possession of this land before and after the sale.
Oh. By the way, the Treaty is Not a partnership!! Who invented this idea??
You could also try googling the Littlewood draft that was found in 1992 [in a deceased estate]. It was a copy of the final English draft form which Colenso's Maori version was translated. Put side to side, the language lies up perfectly... and not such specific language either of "Both do not mention Forests , Rivers or Treasured possessions in any way". I think that the English version that has made its way into officialdom since the 80s was based on Freeman's literary product that was meant for a royal audience. By the way, the handwriting of the Littlewood draft is Busby's.^^
"Rediscovered" 😂
Yes, the speaker's generation were *radicalized* as he says.^^
Mana is not the greatest thing. Because Mana was not... 'softened', you had the continual escalation of violence in the Musket Wars. Once the mana [authority/ absolute freedom/ pride] of the chiefs submitted to the new sovereign power [which infuriated proud chiefs such as Te Wahaorao and te Heu Heu] the musket wars quickly came to an end. This is also the practicality of conversion to Christianity, which involved a humbling of all involved... civility.
Precisely
WTF all these online academics and Historians keep your comments to yourself lol if you had any real credibility we be the ones watching you
"We are all Polynesians" hehehe LOVE IT!
The language of the Traety is diplomatic not legalistic. Diplomacy IS relational [which was the point being made about Maori culture at that time]. And yes, I agrre that the Treaty should be understood by asking what it meant to them... as opposed to what it means to us [with our own modern preconceptions]. Historicism not legalism should be at work here.
Woah.... is this the same genteel Simon Dallow I see on the news everynight? A little alarming to see an almost seething anger bubbling to the surface..... What is happening to this country. : (
Land, sea and foreshore belongs to the creator not Māori not Pakeha or any other ethnicities, we're all tenant's under one landlord and expected to keep the place tidy and get along with our neighbours. Māori and Pakeha caused the deaths of hundreds of others so they both have no moral ground to stand on.
when we regurgitate the pakeha lies as to what transpired around the treaty Joe is that we did not sign nothing The Treaty was not signed it was forged, it came already forged by the british Sovereign to establish this illegal government. The Treaty can only be discussed or and decided on by the Two Sovereigns. The colonisers Monarch and the direct descendent of the 1857 Arikinui Waikato Tairea, no one else. The Administration or Government cannot have this discussion it is reserved for Charles Philip Arthur George and Maori Sovereign by whakapapa Geoffrey Karena Puhi.
Bro whats your view on Zealandea
Think the terminology for slave back in the day was taurekareka and at the time it was actually the only swear word in te rep maori
Te Tiriti o Waitangi is the Treaty of death by water baptised in Christ the Chiefs journey with God is the greatest story never told. The maori translation is a mirror of the Littlewood draft the final English writ, lost but found in 1989 concealed by maori and Te Papa a crime against NZdrs so bring that Mother document out we all understand English!
lol, get some professional mental health help
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, 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 the primary industry of the Maoris. 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 Maori today would be offspring of Europeans & Upoke slaves - the filters of inter Maori fratricide between the Ariki clans & disease acted as an filter to remove both Ariki and full bloods.
'This Horrid Practice' - Professor Paul Moon, 'Behind The Tattooed Face' - Heretaunga Pat Baker, 'A History Of New Zealand Anthropology In The 19th Century' - H D Skinner
The prophet Ratana had the hardest job in cleansing Aotearoa
What a load of rubbish
What a load of bullshit
Complete tripe. Hobson's pledge loonies are everywhere it seems..
Of course, this interpretation becomes absurd [that kawanatanga is way below rangatiratanga] because the whole point of the Treaty was to establish sovereignty over NZ and all of its inhabitants in order to institute law and order. Of course, then the argument could be that the Maori version was to pull the wool over the eyes of Maori, but that would entail that the English statesmen and the missionaries were being completely dishonest and malevolent. This is equally absurd. As for the [so-called] English version], why would they have been so specific as to everything that Maori continued to own? There are just too many contractions and absurdities for this reading of the Treat to make sense.
Law and order mate we had that already. Tikanga Māori the first laws of Aotearoa NZ
@@Matikemai2040 What kind of law allowed the chief absolute mana/ authority over the life of others... that was seen so horrifically in the decades of musket/ tribal wars before the treaty was signed? That is not law, but just brute power.
@@davethewave7248 Tikanga Māori the first laws of these lands
@@davethewave7248 utu otherwise known as the justice system
This is where ideology and history merge into a hodgepodge of half truths or revisionism.
It was colonization that saved Reo, that recorded it and systematized it and here you are saying the colonization stoped reo. Nonsense. No one stopped Naori speaking reo at home. And obviously to tech english to Maori. Maori choosing to focus on english was wise. But to stop using it entirely is no one’s fault but those that chose to stop speaking it.Northern Maori had great pride in reading and writing and boasted about it. That was colonization. If the French had colonized, things would be very different. What’s modsinvhere is respect. Respect for the gift of colonization that rapidly modernized Maori. That brought the ease of the wheel. Steel axe and hoe, Wool, the horse. Priceless revolutionary tools. Not to mention emancipation from slavery and tribal war.
The musket wars killed 20,000 and 30,000 wounded. The land wars in contrast led to around 2000 Maori. No comparison. Yes war happened all over the world. Though 50% of Maori were killed or wounded. That’s the back drop fir the signing of the treaty yet it’s seldom mentioned. So good it’s mentioned here.
The virtue and revisionism of the grievance industry outdated do with a reality check.
So the European paternal ancestor was a 'warmonger', and the maternal ancestor was a 'Maori princess'. Wow, what a 'history'. lol
1:06:30 Why is he lying? The New Zealand Maori Council v Attorney-General [1987] 1 NZLR 641 clearly states, "What has already been said amounts to acceptance of the submission for the applicants that the relationship between the Treaty partners creates responsibilities ***analogous to fiduciary duties***. Counsel were also right, in my opinion, in saying that the duty of the Crown is not merely passive but extends to active protection of Maori people in the use of their lands and waters to the fullest extent practicable."
The English Crown and Maori were never a "partnership". Williams tries to fool these plebs by stating Maori were not a contractual people and then in his next breath states that the signing of a treaty was a partnership. Huh? As for his fictional tale of Maori taking on the greatest military power in the World is farcical at best. Maori knew all too well the military might of the English. The Westminster constitutional principle of parliamentary sovereignty was not given away to New Zealand lightly. It was not until 1987 that New Zealand became a free-standing constitutional monarchy whose parliament has unlimited sovereign power. Yet according to the revisionist Joe Williams 1840 Maori entered into a partnership with Queen Victoria???? Yeah right!!!
English sovereignty could not have ever been considered to be a partnership under the 1840 concept of sovereignty under English constitutional law. Even now the Scottish parliament is not in a partnership with Westminster. The partnership Joe Willliams is calling is going to be the same trainwreck as is happening in the UK.
Devolution to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland was implemented in the late 1990s without much consideration (read hubris) of how such a radical reform would affect the UK Parliament and Government. Even though devolution marked a major change in the governance of the devolved nations, Westminster and Whitehall did not initially need to adapt very much to the new context.
Why was that? Because devolution in the eyes of Westminster did not change the constitutional principle of parliamentary sovereignty. Westminster transferred only certain powers to Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast, but retained the ability to legislate in all areas, devolved or not. Also, devolution retained the Barnett formula for distributing money to the three nations and the guiding approach to devolution has been to draw a clear division between what is devolved and what is ‘reserved’ to Westminster. Few functions are formally shared between central and devolved governments. As a result, the UK Government did not create systems or processes for joint working with the devolved administrations.
In practice, however, devolution has had several significant effects on Westminster and Whitehall. The arrangements for funding devolution have evolved significantly since 1999. The UK Parliament has also had to develop new mechanisms for dealing with legislation for the different nations of the UK, and the UK Government has had to manage tensions and disputes with the devolved administrations, not least over Brexit. Not least the ways in which Westminster and Whitehall have had to adapt to devolution, and consider the state of the relationship between central and devolved governments after the EU referendum.
Partnership will not work in New Zealand. Not least because Maori and English common law have opposing views over fundamental concepts like the ownership of water and other resources.
You clearly didn't comprehend what he said. I can't tell if that was willfully so or unfortunately so. You are correct though that partnership will not work here; if one side has its head, its heart and its hubris face-planted in Westminster - which appears to be your only real reference point.
@@titiro1 I'll use small words for you. He lied, I timestamped the video where he lied, and cited the judgment and posted the passage from the judgment that showed he lied. There was nothing gnomic, equivocal, or esotric about this.
It's
really
simple.
Thanks for highlighting your lack of argument and use of ad hominem. Stone Age cultures don't have an utility today.
@@titiro1 you don't know what hubris means LMFAO!!!
@@montyscooter1965 Correctly used as a noun. But, feel free to replace with any of its synonyms. The common ones all apply.
Look - the guy with the Diploma in UA-cam comments trying to argue against a Supreme Court judge, a Knight and a life long Treaty expert …
Far cough
When you use misinformation AND disinformation to argue for your limitations you achieve the self fulfilling deficit in your aspirations.
The past can never speak to the future with mana when the mouths throwing the words are fed on nihilistic pessimism born if colonisation.
Paulo Freire said, “…the fear of freedom is embodied by the oppressors but in a different way than by the oppressed. For the oppressed, the fear of freedom is the fear to assume or own up to their own freedom. For the oppressors, the fear is fear of losing the “freedom” to oppress.”
Your rhetoric speaks to the false equivalency of colonisations impact against Tāngata Whenua aspiration for emancipation - Judge Joe s’poke to that co-evolution of aspiration as a Tiriti grounded post-colonisation people.
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
Talking Whakapapa to a room full of White-man, the irony lol
I tell you what. We "need" to talk!!
That's a MIGHTY WHITE title SIR JOE. You crack me up.
Why are you acting like there was a choice?
''The Polynesian triangle'' the three points are Hawaii, New Zealand and East Island/Rapa nui. It takes in all the islands within the triangle and a few outside. There are financial benefits being a signed up member but NZ was not a member as at 2016.
I think from memory Fiji did not join the triangle.
NZ has the largest Polynesian population and 14 of the 17 Island representatives use to live in NZ.
Papal Bull decrees
Romanus Pontifix 1455 declared that if all indigenous Nations were non-Christian they had to be invaded, vanquished, captured, subdued reduced to perpetual slavery, and have their possessions and properties seized by the European Monarch.
Tera Nullus 1493 determined that if land was empty it could be claimed by the European Crown who found it. Secondly if there is Indigenous peoples there and they were not Christian, they didn't have rights to entitlement of land only rights of occupancy. What that means is this, their status as human was lower to that of a hedgehog, a hare, or rabbit.
watch TEDx talk at Transforming Lives By Exploring Histories | Rawiri Waretini
💯