Should teaching about the Treaty of Waitangi be compulsory?

226 comments on “Should teaching about the Treaty of Waitangi be compulsory? ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Siobhan 1

   7 February 2019 at 1:56 pm

   Why even use the term ‘compulsory’, why not present it as a ‘core’ subject?.

   Though if we really care, as we should, it might pay to keep an eye on our Universities who are sidelining History papers left right and centre, not to mention the brutal and self defeating cuts at Te Papa. So far the University cuts are aimed at things like Art History and other traditionally Euro centric topics , but its a pattern of disrespect for the Humanities that is well entrenched and easily spreads.
   Our History should be presented to the general population not just as ‘learning about the Treaty’, which will both encourage racist pushback, and which, to be fair, sounds boring as hell.

   It should be part of a wider conversation about all the interesting and cool people and places in our History that never get talked about, our artists, vagabonds, land barons, mercenaries like Von Tempsky etc etc. This ‘background would be so helpful in helping all of us, including newer immigrants, in understanding who we were, who we are, and who we want to be.

   A bit more NZ History might also make our Politicians pick up their game, a reminder to both them and Us that we haven’t always been so passive.
   • gsays 1.1

     7 February 2019 at 4:21 pm

     Good point Siobhan, describing it as core.

     A wider political issue is the opportunity to get some bipartisan korero happening.
     Someone, education or Maori affairs minister, needs to grab this issue, their Nat minister and get some agreement.
     • Marcus Morris 1.1.1

       8 February 2019 at 9:51 am

       “In terms of teaching Te Tiriti in schools, remember that schools are self-governing, self-managing. It’s inappropriate for governments to come along and dictate specifics of what’s taught in schools.”

       How disingenuous. Every Level 1, level 2 and Level 3 student knows that there is a national curriculum for each subject that they study. This sentiment is yet another unforeseen consequence of “Tomorrows Schools”.
2. Poission 2

   7 February 2019 at 2:14 pm

   Similarly, provincial government was arguably more useful and powerful than central government in New Zealand until they were abolished in 1876. That accelerated weakening of regional coherence in favour of a centralised state in a very small agrarian country is also worth teaching in a curriculum.

   1876 Was also the implementation of the Maori seats which allowed representation in parliament.The maori males had universal suffrage,the white males not receiving this till 1881.
   • solkta 2.1

     7 February 2019 at 3:38 pm

     maori males had universal suffrage

     But the number of seats allocated to Maori was not on a per capita basis so yeh nah:

     Four seats were a fairly modest concession: on a per capita basis at that time, Māori deserved 14 to 16 members (Europeans then had 72).

     https://nzhistory.govt.nz/politics/maori-and-the-vote/setting-up-seats

     Yeh they had universal suffrage, but nah they only had a quarter vote each.
3. Dennis Frank 3

   7 February 2019 at 2:35 pm

   It ought only to be compulsory if an elementary civics course is compulsory, and it ought to be part of that. Functionality as a citizen is currently optional. Hardly a surprise that democracy often seems dysfunctional, eh?

   Blather about the responsibilities of citizens tends to accompany any discussion of civil rights. Citizens aren’t fooled. They know such responsibilities are optional. If they were necessary, children would be taught them as an education necessity.
   • greywarshark 3.1

     7 February 2019 at 5:17 pm

     Yes Maori and the Treaty and the way the country officially started, and the unofficial status of things beforehand should be taught. Learning tikanga and how we look at things differently and have adapted a little on each side, should be incorporated into a civics course, a separate part and not an optional extra. If we all understood how pakeha and Maori interact in the bicultural arrangement and how important Maori is to the strength and belief in NZ there would not be the feeling of otherness, even though there might be a feeling of being different.
4. Gosman 4

   7 February 2019 at 3:21 pm

   I have yet to see why teaching of the Treaty of Waitangi and the surrounding history will make a difference. You mention the emphasis on Anzac day yet people knowing about Anzac day does little to change people’s views on war, either past or present, other than people are required to sacrifice a lot if not everything. What is it that you think people will get out of knowing about the history surrounding the Treaty?
   • McFlock 4.1

     7 February 2019 at 5:14 pm

     Who the hell thinks ANZAC Day is about changing views on war?

     Knowing our history and why we commemorate certain events is part of how we bond as a nation – even if we disagree on a position (red vs white poppies, for example), we are all talking about the same things. Knowing our shared history enables us to understand, at least a little bit, each other’s points of view. It helps show that people who have been here for generations love this land and its people, and gives new immigrants a shared connection with us.

     But then that goes towards building a community, and I wouldn’t expect a soulless mercenary to understand the value of that.
   • left_forward 4.2

     8 February 2019 at 7:16 am

     I have yet to see why teaching of the Treaty of Waitangi and the surrounding history will make a difference.
     Make a difference to what Goss?
     I think if you honestly try to answer your own question you might start on what you would like to see for the world around you – your community.
     If it is important to you to that we all have empathy and understanding for people with different histories, cultures, religions, ways of doing things, faces, and skin colours, then I suggest that the answer would be obvious and you wouldn’t need to ask yourself this question. Or perhaps this is the beginning of a new awareness for you?
     • Gosman 4.2.1

       8 February 2019 at 7:37 am

       You don’t need to teach history to gain empathy with other people. Indeed lots of people despise others BECAUSE of history (Greeks and Turks, Protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland etc). What about teaching the history surrounding the Treaty of Waitangi will ensure people develop empathy for one another?
       • left_forward 4.2.1.1

         8 February 2019 at 8:23 am

         So is this your answer?
         You do want to see more empathy, understanding, and compassion from one another in your community?
         • Gosman 4.2.1.1.1

           8 February 2019 at 8:28 am

           That seems like a good thing. Now WHY WOULD TEACHING THE HISTORY AROUND THE TOW MAKE THIS MORE LIKELY?
           • left_forward 4.2.1.1.1.1

             8 February 2019 at 8:58 am

             So still having to assume that this is the difference you were referring to, then discourse about important aspects of our histories develops knowledge that we can then build upon to understand why we have different worldviews.
             For both Maori and Pakeha, the signing of Te Tiriti and the commitments made by each party to each other are not only important parts of our mutual histories, but still form the basis of partnership today.
             Then knowing how poorly the Crown’s commitments have been honoured develops an appreciation for the long suffering experience for Maori including an admiration for their patience.
             Knowledge of this is essential to deeply appreciate the contemporary politics of NZ from the vantage of these different perspectives.
             • Gosman …

               8 February 2019 at 9:05 am

               That is an assumption made on your part. As I have pointed out being aware of history does not necessarily make you more empathetic to the other sie and in fact can make you despise them.
               • left_forward …

                 8 February 2019 at 9:28 am

                 No. I have acknowledged my assumptions.

                 You have pointed at something distracting and mostly asked questions (albeit the passive-aggressive indirect habit of making statements with questions).

                 Its bleeding obvious Mr Gossman! – on its own, knowledge will not necessarily lead to empathy and compassion. It is equally bleeding obvious that it will not happen without such prerequisite knowledge.

                 If knowledge of the experiences of others leads to despising them, then it is unlikely that the despiser values compassion and empathy at that moment. That is why I asked you first to ask yourself what is the outcome that you seek.
                 • Gosman …

                   8 February 2019 at 9:31 am

                   I have shown you below why knowing the history around the Treaty of Waitangi does not necessarily lead to greater empathy or understanding between the different groups in the country. If you disagree then explain why in relation to my example.
                   • left_forward …

                     8 February 2019 at 9:40 am

                     You will see that I had already agreed with you – but read a little less superficially on what I said and reflect on the point – It is equally obvious that empathy and compassion will not develop in this context without knowledge of Te Tiriti / the Treaty and the history of dishonour that followed.

                     Here endeth my participation in this thread 🙂
             • Gosman …

               8 February 2019 at 9:23 am

               I’ll give you another example of why knowing the history does not actually encourage empathy or understanding specifically related to the Treaty of Waitangi.

               The British authorities authorised William Hobson to go to NZ in 1839 and establish a Crown colony. A Crown Colony is distinct from a Protectorate. The British authorities were expecting Hobson to gain Sovereignty over NZ not just establish a British Protectorate.

               This is why the English version of the Treat was very precise in detailing what it was trying to achieve. Two of the three articles spelled out that NZ, and ALL of the people living there, would be under the Sovereignty of the British Crown.

               Hobson then realised he needed to translate the document in to Maori to allow the Maori chiefs present at Waitangi to debate the document. This he delegated to missionary Henry Williams and his son Edward . This translated document was therefore put together by people not authorised to give anything away on behalf of the British Crown.

               The resulting mess of a document contains two separate articles which seemingly contradict themselves if we are to accept the view that Maori never ceded sovereignty. The British would never have offered Article Three if Maori had not agreed to become a British Crown Colony and gave away sovereignty to the British.

               Many Maori obviously argue that if they knew they were giving up sovereignty they would never have signed the Treaty which therefore means the whole Treaty is a bit of a nullity as it is a document that is meaningless without a transfer of Sovereignty as that was what Hobson was instructed by his superiors in London to achieve.

               So knowing this history how does that make it more likely to have empathy or understanding for either side?
               • left_forward …

                 8 February 2019 at 9:52 am

                 Why do you only identify with the Crown’s perspective?

                 Just read the Maori version and you would not then need to say such a stupid thing – …if we are to accept the view that Maori never ceded sovereignty.

                 It is in plain language – but clearly one you do not understand. Therefore make an effort to learn – get out the Maori dictionary (I assume you have one – not!), and do the work!
                 • Gosman …

                   8 February 2019 at 10:00 am

                   Why do you not see that Hobson was only authorised by his superiors to gain sovereignty over NZ by making it a Crown Colony? He was not authorised to make it a protectorate nor was he authorised to make it a unique protectorate where Maori became British Subjects while retaining sovereignty. That goes to the heart of what was driiving the British in drawing up the Treaty of Waitangi. All your argument consists of is that the Maori really didn’t want to agree to that. In which case then the Treaty is a nullity.
                   • left_forward …

                     8 February 2019 at 11:39 am

                     What?! There isn’t any confusion about what the Crown’s motives were. While this was a more enlightened age (in relation to what had come before); conquer, greed and exploitation still remained the primary motivation.

                     Now open your eyes and look at the other side of the coin. What do you see?

                     Maori chiefs signed the page that was written for them, the part in their language. In 1840 this is the version that mattered to them and they had no reason to suspect that the English version was different. They did not sign up to what was written in the English version.

                     The fact that the Crown produced copies in two languages with different meanings does not make what Maori signed up to, null and void. What they understood was the only relevant treaty. That is why we correctly refer to it as Te Tiriti o Waitangi to distinguish it from the less relevant, but historically important Treaty of Waitangi.
                   • veutoviper …

                     8 February 2019 at 12:29 pm

                     Gosman, as left-forward says you seem to be relying only on the English version of the Treaty and the situation existent at the time it was drawn up.

                     The difference between the two versions has been discussed, analysed, debated for decades by many constitutional lawyers and others with the general consensus that the Maori version is taken as the predominant version in any areas of dispute.

                     There was a long discussion on this yesterday on the ” What should Jacinda Ardern say in here state of the nation speech” post.

                     As marty mars correctly pointed out there, this general consensus to focus/rely on the Maori version (Te Tiriti) rather than the English one (The Treaty) is in accord with the principles under contract law of “Contra proferentem”, also known as “interpretation against the draftsman”. This is a doctrine of contractual interpretation providing that, where a promise, agreement or term is ambiguous, the preferred meaning should be the one that works against the interests of the party who provided the wording.

                     Sure, this is not totally without its problems, but the reality is that the TOW itself is never going to be declared null and void because of the discrepancy between the two versions. The consequences (legal, political, cultural etc) would be massive and incalculable.

                     For example, to do so would effectively declare null and void all other agreements, laws etc made to date under the auspices of or in accordance with Te Tiriti/TOW, including all settlements and payments made as a result of claims (both historical and current) under it.

                     It is not going to happen. So we are left with what we have got.

                     IMHO, the only way forward is to work with it as it stands, and use it as a basis for a constitution that incorporates the principles of Te Tiriti/TOW, as well as other constitutional law such as BORA – and clarifies these documents further while leaving flexibility to allow the constitution to be a living document able to be adapted to changes in the future.
                   • Gosman …

                     8 February 2019 at 1:16 pm

                     You have just highlighted why teaching the history of the Treaty won’t make a difference in empathy or understanding. You are expecting people to accept the narrative that the perfidious British sent their agent to try and trick the local Maori in giving up sovereignty when they were quite open about what their primary goal was and it was only the translators who screwed up the translation in the second article in the Maori version. There were Maori at Waitangi who could read and write English as well as Maori so it would be stupid of the British to try and hide their “real” motivation by putting it in the original English version and making it available for all to view.
                   • Gosman …

                     8 February 2019 at 1:24 pm

                     You can’t take the Maori version as the main version because it makes no sense as an international treaty. As such it is a legal nullity. It cannot stand. You may well argue that Maori did not cede sovereignty but the reality is the British Crown is now Sovereign in New Zealand and the powers of law enforcement recogniser that fact over the entire country. Not a single international authority disputes this fact that I am aware of.
                   • left_forward …

                     8 February 2019 at 1:28 pm

                     It is what it is Gossy – you are spinning in circles so fast that you are tripping over your feet. Around again, and back into your unavoidable denial of the legitimacy of the Maori view.

                     Slow down, stop the spin, breathe, keep still, and let it soak in. Who knows, like a child in the future history class, with an open non-cynical mind, you might even develop some understanding yourself!
                   • Gosman …

                     8 February 2019 at 1:45 pm

                     You yourself have stated history is meant to give understanding yet you supposedly know the history but can’t give your understanding. As I asked why would the British grant Maori British Subject status if they did not gain sovereignty over New Zealand?
                   • left_forward …

                     8 February 2019 at 2:04 pm

                     Sit down and sit up straight Gooseman – stop gazing out of the window!
                     I want you to really concentrate this time.

                     Now, the Crown was prepared to advance protection to Maori from unruly and unlawful British subjects as a deal to protect their valuable and critical trade with Maori. This was doubly important to the British because of the threat of developing French / Maori trade interests.

                     You might not like it Gos, but Maori had the upper hand.
                   • McFlock …

                     8 February 2019 at 2:04 pm

                     Gosman, your own relitigation of the ToW is a distinct issue from the reasons why it should be taught in schools. If anything, your position supports the concept because it would provide all NZers with a more nuanced interpretation and an appreciation that the Treaty might mean different things to other New Zealanders. Your argument seems to be that the chiefs should have known that the agreement they were signing was “a legal nullity”, and that your position is correct until someone presents another definitive view. Maybe there is no definitive view that overrides all the others. Maybe some people signed X, some people signed Y, some people signed neither but still had their lands stolen, and a hundred and eighty years later we still have to figure out how to live together.

                     tl,dr: regardles of whether they agree with your uncommon interpretation, kids will at least be more likely to avoid your conviction that just because you thinks it, it must be so.
                   • Gosman …

                     8 February 2019 at 2:13 pm

                     No, my position is that it matters not a jot what the Maori chiefs thought they were signing if they were not in agreement with the British on the key element of being a British Subject.

                     In any agreement both sides have to agree. It is not just a one way street. The British gave something to the Maori in return for something and the Maori did likewise. The British did not just give British Subject Status to people that did not accept the Sovereignty of the British crown.

                     You had to live in a Colony or (later) a Dominion of the British empire to receive that. If you were just under the jurisdiction of the British Empire in an area that retained sovereignty (i.e. a Protectorate) you were treated as a British Protected Person not a British Subject.

                     It was the difference between Tongans and Fijians. Tongans were British Protected Person as Tonga was a British protectorate whereas Fijians were British Subjects because Fiji was a Colony.

                     You guys need to learn mor history 😉
                   • McFlock …

                     8 February 2019 at 2:23 pm

                     Of course it matters what Maori thought they were signing, because it was a contract.

                     And what the British did elsewhere is irrelevant. What they promised in that Treaty is what is relevant to that treaty.

                     And besides all of that, the land confiscations were not consistent with the protection of British subjects, anyway. So the British didn’t even live up to the interpretation you’re arguing for.

                     And understanding these issues, and these arguments, is essential to understanding some of the divisions and inequities in our society today.

                     And that is why the Treaty of Waitangi should be taught in schools.
                   • left_forward …

                     8 February 2019 at 2:25 pm

                     Aha – yes! A glimpse of resolution this time round!

                     Indeed, we all need to learn more history Gosman!
                     And preferably a New Zealand / Maori one and not just the same old boring pommie one.
                   • Gosman …

                     8 February 2019 at 2:28 pm

                     You are aware I presume that contracts go BOTH ways. The British would not offer British Subject status to people living in a place that was not part of the UK or a Crown colony or (later) a Dominion. you seem to think that because the Maori signed up for something they thought they were getting that must automatically mean they get it. That is not how international Treaties work.

                     Left_forward’s last coment here is really instructive about the true intentions of this idea though. You don’t want people to learn about the history of the Treaty. You want people to be indoctrinated to support a particular view of that history and what that means.
                   • McFlock …

                     8 February 2019 at 2:52 pm

                     You don’t want people to learn about the history of the Treaty. You want people to be indoctrinated to support a particular view of that history and what that means.

                     I just think you’re afraid of any history being taught, just in case people learn from the mistakes of the past.

                     For fucks sake, you’re trying to defend Victorian colonialism on the grounds that they got people to sign what you call “legal nullities” and then confiscated the land anyway.
                   • Gosman …

                     8 February 2019 at 3:00 pm

                     I have no problem with history being taught. I love history. I am just a realist in terms of what it actually means. It does not necessarily mean more understanding or learning from past mistakes.
                   • McFlock …

                     8 February 2019 at 4:07 pm

                     It is necessary for both of those things, though.
5. rata 5

   7 February 2019 at 3:29 pm

   Youngsters should be encouraged to learn about life.
   They should be encouraged to see that
   people see life differently and the same depending
   on time place and circumstance.
   Learn about New Zealand from 1505 to 2020.
   Learn from a wide range of sources.
   Anzac day should be a lesson relating to the stupidity of war
   and how Kiwis foolishly went to war for fun
   but they were badly beaten by the Turks a race they believed was inferior.
   Imperial arrogance can have tragic consequences.
   • Gosman 5.1

     7 February 2019 at 3:45 pm

     Anzac day does not make people more or less inclined to War I would state. In fact some people who are very pro a strong and aggressive military are big supporters of Anzac day celebrations.
6. Cinny 6

   7 February 2019 at 3:32 pm

   Yes please and thank you.
7. WILD KATIPO 7

   7 February 2019 at 4:56 pm

   Nice to learn history but not from the whitewashed revisionist history children have to learn about today. At its best it is insipid, at its worst , it is a cringeworthy , creepy humanist rewriting of the history books to suit current agendas.

   New Zealand Skeletons in the Cupboard Episode 1. The … – YouTube
   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2z6PlYiQSTs

   Skeletons in the Cupboard. Episode 2. Under The Carpet – YouTube
   
   • solkta 7.1

     7 February 2019 at 5:00 pm

     Oh fuck off with that pile of crap. A more dishonest ‘documentary’ i have never viewed. If you take the rat DNA stuff, they use that to try and say the opposite of the conclusion of the researchers. Just blatant lying.
     • greywarshark 7.1.1

       7 February 2019 at 5:12 pm

       solkta
       I prefer to accept the stories and tikanga that prominent Maori have passed on and when I looked at these speculative videos I just felt that there was too much hoha about them.
       • WILD KATIPO 7.1.1.1

         7 February 2019 at 5:26 pm

         Unfortunately , that ‘ hoha’ was actually backed up by the elder Maoris themselves who spoke of a small fair skinned race that were here before them.

         And up until the 1960’s was common knowledge .

         And they had many names for them.

         One was the ‘ Patupaiarehe ‘.

         Do some homework.
     • WILD KATIPO 7.1.2

       7 February 2019 at 5:22 pm

       Why? are you afraid of possible truth?

       Or did the Maori race just sprout out of the dust and suddenly appear in NZ?

       Surely they had an origin?

       Why are you afraid?

       Take your blinkers off. Have a cup of tea and get an interest outside of what you’ve always been led to believe . I’m afraid this universe doesn’t stop and start with your cherished preconceived notions . Next you’ll be trying to tell me they flew here in Hercules aircraft.

       And if they managed to arrive here,… what on earth leads you to believe others didn’t or couldn’t as well ? L0L !!!

       The Chinese, the Phonecians , the Vikings ALL were more than capable of doing so.
       • Dennis Frank 7.1.2.1

         7 February 2019 at 5:41 pm

         https://www.culturalsurvival.org/news/genetic-link-brings-indigenous-taiwanese-and-maori-together

         https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11721849
         • WILD KATIPO 7.1.2.1.1

           7 February 2019 at 6:47 pm

           Yep and if you look at the similarity’s between the two they are striking.
       • solkta 7.1.2.2

         7 February 2019 at 5:42 pm

         There is no archaeologic evidence for any of the crap that they talk. If you want to understand the science of pacific migration google “Lapita People”. Here you go:

         https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=Lapita+People

         The rat DNA research that they try to use to try and say that Maui was Egyptian and discovered the Pacific by coming under Australia to New Zealand actually confirms the Lapita migration but with a second population added.

         See my notes below for the exact moment in the vid where they tell the lie and also links to the actual research.
     • solkta 7.1.3

       7 February 2019 at 5:30 pm

       I knew i had some notes somewhere:

       ““““`

       The film, i won’t call it a doco, represents the work of Anthropologist Lisa Matisoo-Smith as saying that rats spread from Aotearoa to the rest of the Pacific and uses that to back up a claim that Maui was Egyptian and discovered the Pacific by coming under Australia to New Zealand 37:41. But when you go to the very document that they show a diagram from at 40:35, you find you find a nice little map showing the accepted migration from the west but with a second population:

       http://lens.auckland.ac.nz/images/3/31/Pacific_Migration_Seminar_Paper.pdf

       ““““`

       Conclusion

       These results have led Lisa and her colleagues to suggest a new model for Polynesian origins. It is based on an existing framework for Lapita origins suggested by Roger Green in 1991. Here are the key ideas:

       1. The Lapita colonists in West Polynesia and the rest of Remote Oceania look very much like the current indigenous populations of Vanuatu, New Caledonia and western Fiji

       2.Around 1500 BP a new population arrived in Western Polynesia with new and more typically Asian derived physical characteristics, and mtDNA lineages.

       3. These new people also introduced new mtDNA lineages of commensal rats, dogs and chickens.

       4.There was intense and complex interactions with the existing Lapita-descended populations as
       they spread over West Polynesia.

       5. This resulted in the formation of the Ancestral Polynesian culture, who then dispersed east, and north into the rest of Polynesia.

       This possible scenario is shown in Figure 9. The grey arrows show the initial Lapita expansion through Near Oceania and into Remote Oceania. The dotted arrows show the proposed arrival of new population(or populations) from Asia into West Polynesia. The black arrows show the settlement of East Polynesia and a back migration into Melanesia.

       ““““`

       ALSO, in Lisa Matisoo-Smith Doctoral Thesis she states quite clearly on page 81:

       https://researchspace.auckland.ac.nz/handle/2292/597

       ““““`

       Third, New Zealand R. exulans populations are clearly derived from both Cook Island and Society Island populations, which parallels the strong indications of
       archaeology and language. Again, the dual settlement interpretation suggests particular models of colonisation of New Zealand which may include colonisation and later contact from a large “homeland region”.

       In terms of the theoretical issue of homelands, as discussed above, the results suggest that a region encompassing the Southern Cook Islands and the Society Islands is the likely source of all identified R. exulans mtDNA lineages in East Polynesia.

       ““““`
       • WILD KATIPO 7.1.3.1

         7 February 2019 at 6:44 pm

         [ Third, New Zealand R. exulans populations are clearly derived from both Cook Island and Society Island populations, ]

         So,… rats just sprang out of the dust in the Cook Islands and Society Islands….

         [ which parallels the strong indications of
         archaeology and language. Again, the dual settlement interpretation suggests particular models of colonisation of New Zealand which may include colonisation and later contact from a large “homeland region”.]

         Any thoughts of South America and trade/ oceanic voyages? – or even continental Asia ? Taro? Yam? Kumara?

         All found [ and variants ] in South America .

         [In terms of the theoretical issue of homelands, as discussed above, the results suggest that a region encompassing the Southern Cook Islands and the Society Islands is the likely source of all identified R. exulans mtDNA lineages in East Polynesia.]

         Annnnd rats don’t travel on board ships/watercraft nibbling on the food resources. Dang… I guess those microbiologists that assert Genovese sailors docking at Italian ports spread the Bubonic Plague by the ship borne rat flea were wrong after all. Back to the drawing board…

         What I’m getting at is that there was more than ample opportunity for vast oceanic voyages undertaken by many cultures, this Captain Cook shit is exactly that- a crock of shit. Its just a load of Britophile propaganda left over from the 19th century. The Chinese were doing it across the globe a thousand years before that in great fleets.

         Why the hell have we got this prejudice about the Polynesians confined to the central Pacific ocean or any other maritime culture not being able to reach these shores for petes sake?

         Human beings- they move, they travel , they adapt. They find a way.

         Like rats.
         • solkta 7.1.3.1.1

           7 February 2019 at 6:50 pm

           So,… rats just sprang out of the dust in the Cook Islands and Society Islands

           Actually read the research and stop being a fuckwit.
           • WILD KATIPO 7.1.3.1.1.1

             7 February 2019 at 8:18 pm

             Try not being gullible . And looking for ‘research’ that backs up what you want to hear.

             Oh, and one other thing,… you should try getting a sense of humor you aggressive little bitch.
         • Drowsy M. Kram 7.1.3.1.2

           7 February 2019 at 6:57 pm

           WK, the truth is out there. Have fun, be safe.

           https://teara.govt.nz/en/patupaiarehe

           What did they look like?

           Patupaiarehe had light skin and red or fair hair. They did not have tattoos. Some people said they were small, and others said they were a normal size. In Whanganui stories, patupaiarehe were giants.”
           • WILD KATIPO 7.1.3.1.2.1

             7 February 2019 at 8:16 pm

             Yep,- read that one and much more.

             It appears they were a small scattered population , who , like many defeated smaller Maori tribes took refuge in mountainous regions that formed a natural defense and an easy escape route into the deep bush when pursued,… much like the Kawerau people of the Waitakere Ranges in Auckland. Who were sandwiched between the Waikato tribes and the Northen tribes and were slaughtered by both.

             In the deep south of the South Island there are many Maoris who have a reddish hue to their hair and green eyes. And it wasn’t all the result of a wild Scotsman getting up to hanky panky in the whaling days either…. as it was noted at the very beginning of exploration into those regions.
             • marty mars …

               7 February 2019 at 8:27 pm

               Lol you’re a joke mate – you have zero idea. Have a lie down
               • WILD KATIPO …

                 7 February 2019 at 9:46 pm

                 I think you should practice standing up for a change ( more for your own self esteem than anything ) … sitting too long in cold nearly empty halls for hours on end listening to your woke trendy leftie buddy’s recitals of bullshit is bad for the back , dontcha know…

                 Get out in the sunshine, lose that palid looking complexion… may I suggest an excursion into Waipoua state forest in Northland to look at some rock walls for a healthy body and mind…
                 • marty mars …

                   7 February 2019 at 10:57 pm

                   This is what I say to my friends that spout this bullshit. What do you want to happen? What’s the point of knowing this information?

                   What’s your honest answer to that?
   • Gosman 7.2

     7 February 2019 at 5:05 pm

     Whether or not this was accurate (which I strongly suspect it is not true) is irrelevant in the context of the history around the Treaty of Waitangi.
     • solkta 7.2.1

       7 February 2019 at 5:18 pm

       Yes that is the crux of it. These idiots think that if they can prove that Pakeha were here before Maori then that somehow negates the Treaty.
       • WILD KATIPO 7.2.1.1

         7 February 2019 at 5:28 pm

         No idiots like to accept that if other races were here before the ‘ Maori’ that in the Alice in Wonderland world that they live in it didn’t include intermarriage and inter-tribal warfare – and that of complete annihilation.

         Give us a break.
         • solkta 7.2.1.1.1

           7 February 2019 at 5:44 pm

           What would that have to do with the Treaty?
           • RedLogix 7.2.1.1.1.1

             7 February 2019 at 11:01 pm

             Because there was no history in this country before then? Or that the claim that Maori were the first, indigenous people to occupy Aoteoroa may be less than 100% accurate? Maybe there were others here prior, but as with the Chatham Is example, they were all wiped out or enslaved. These are all possibilities; the full story of human history is lost to us, it is almost certainly much more complex than any of us imagine.

             Or maybe ‘right of conquest’ was the norm in that time and our modern values when back-fitted onto history give us wonky answers.

             No matter where we look in human history it is woven from some common threads, the movement of peoples, displacement and invasion. This is our ancient legacy which laid down the shape of our modern world.

             Yet the Treaty represents a landmark, a turning point in our history. I personally interpret it as something akin to the formation of the UN in the aftermath of WW2.

             By 1840 Maori themselves had just passed through a terrible inter-tribal genocide. In the period from 1800 an estimated 40% of their own population had been killed in the Musket Wars. And at the same time their more far-sighted leaders who had visited Europe, could readily see that the future was not going to be like their past. And at this critical, sobering, moment the leaders of their society set aside their historic enmities, gathered in one place and agreed on a treaty with this new world.

             In many ways the ToW is a triumph, Maori establishing themselves as the first indigenous citizens of the global super-power of the time, the British Empire. It represents Maori making the first critical step beyond conquest and tribalism, into nationhood. A quantum widening of the scope of their society that has enabled them to negotiate a treacherous and difficult journey into the modern world with considerable success.

             As with all human endeavours, the reality has fallen short of the dream, but a modern NZ is virtually inconceivable without the Treaty. It was the line we drew in the sands on a past where force was the rule of the day, to one where law became the force of our future.

             In another 1000 years time this country will be different again; maybe the people of that time will look back on us as we contemplate say the Romans and Etruscans. Or maybe the Treaty will prove an enduring foundation, a building block that will enable a Pacific peoples to stand firm in the mid-most heart of the ocean, a vibrant spiritually strong people, whose beacons navigated a path for a broken humanity, embracing every race and culture, healing and melding, nurturing and growing all humans under the shelter of a global Treaty, citizens of a one planet.
             • solkta …

               8 February 2019 at 7:23 am

               Or that the claim that Maori were the first, indigenous people to occupy Aoteoroa may be less than 100% accurate?

               How would these this, if true, in any way change things re the Treaty?
               • RedLogix …

                 8 February 2019 at 7:37 am

                 Where did I say that it would “change things re the Treaty”?

                 Maybe it was where I said In many ways the ToW is a triumph? Was that it?
                 • solkta …

                   8 February 2019 at 7:44 am

                   WK is saying that be he can’t say how. You jumped in.
8. WILD KATIPO 8

   7 February 2019 at 4:57 pm

   ALIEN WEAPONRY – Kai Tangata (Official Video) | Napalm Records …
   Video for alien weaponry kai tangata▶ 7:17
   
9. WILD KATIPO 9

   7 February 2019 at 5:05 pm

   Anddddd,… then there is THIS ….

   Ancient Celtic New Zealand
   http://www.celticnz.co.nz/
   • Gosman 9.1

     7 February 2019 at 5:10 pm

     How is that relevant to the history around the Treaty of Waitangi?
     • WILD KATIPO 9.1.1

       7 February 2019 at 5:14 pm

       It is very very relevant .
       • Gosman 9.1.1.1

         7 February 2019 at 5:15 pm

         Explain please.
         • WILD KATIPO 9.1.1.1.1

           7 February 2019 at 5:40 pm

           Quite simple. If people want to deny a pre history that involved other races besides the Polynesians – and haven’t even got the balls to even look into it, travel to those sites, interview the people and sit at their computers as armchair critics and nay sayers- how on earth do you think something as potentially game changing as the Littlewood Treaty would ever be received.

           You see, in part , that’s the problem with New Zealanders. They lack guts.

           At least after much denial and resistance the Americans had to accept that the Vikings arrived in Canada wayyyyy before Columbus ,- and that really fucked up a lot of arrogant academics who flat out refused to rewrite the history books and University courses stating that Columbus was the first.

           And now there’s compelling evidence that black people were there before the Native Americans ! Whats more?- DNA links them to the Australian Aborigines !

           And then there were the Spanish, the Phonecians, the Egyptians in the Grand Canyon. And more than possible trade links from the Chinese mainland with the peoples of South America!

           What the fuck are people so afraid of ?!!?

           Its exciting !. Its history !. Its how people managed back then !!. And more than likely , – its the damn truth !!

           But we are dealing with human beings. So frail. So afraid. So damn gutless.

           At the end of the day who gives a shit who arrived first?
           • marty mars 9.1.1.1.1.1

             7 February 2019 at 5:50 pm

             All the rubbish you’ve put up has been shown to be rubbish – all of it. But you won’t care about facts or the truth will you nah.
             • WILD KATIPO …

               7 February 2019 at 6:04 pm

               Anddddd… your the guy whose the expert armchair critic who furnishes NO links, no evidence , no rationale , no quotes from a balanced historian (except from those who back up your woke left views, of course ) and no field evidence to back up your claims.

               Just lil’ ole marty squealing ” rubbish ! – its all rubbish !!! – because I feel it is!!! ”.

               Uhuh. OK.

               Well I dunno mate.

               When the Greeks termed the phrase and valued a scientific ‘inquiring mind’ I guess they didn’t have you at the forefront of their thoughts , did they….
               • solkta …

                 7 February 2019 at 6:07 pm

                 Ummm you haven’t put anything from Historian or Archeologist or Anthropologist. One of the very funny things in the vid is how they are always describing there sources as “author”.
                 • WILD KATIPO …

                   7 February 2019 at 6:24 pm

                   Well aside from marty and his burning witches at the stake because an asteroid shower flew overhead all in the name of his medieval ‘science’ and that he ‘felt’ it was right because someone else told him so , I could mention the stone rock dwellings found in Waipoua state forest in Northland that pre dates Maori settlement and validates older Maori traditions of a white / fair race that preceded them …

                   And that DOC closed that area down from the public with hefty legal penalty’s if you go in there.

                   It just might bugger up a few sacred cows if a bunch of archaeologists were allowed to go in there for a year and ascertain the truth, eh what?

                   Or the Red Haired 7 footers found near Raglan and other areas on that coast that the local Iwi said weren’t theirs yet were ancient , – and caused problems with the accepted narratives so DOC and the ‘gubbamint’ had the bones removed and the caves they were in sealed off with concrete and blasted with dynamite…

                   There’s no political spin in New Zealand, … NAHHHHHH … and there’s no sheep on our farms either.

                   Gutless, gutless, gutless ….
                   • solkta …

                     7 February 2019 at 6:34 pm

                     The rocks in Waipoua forest are just rocks. Just more bullshit and wishful thinking.
                   • solkta …

                     7 February 2019 at 6:39 pm

                     It real deep state that DOC thing.
                   • WILD KATIPO …

                     7 February 2019 at 6:55 pm

                     Lol… rock on top of one another that form into circular walls similar to many other cultures in Europe and elsewhere… yep… rocks seem to have a habit of putting themselves one on top of another to form a wall in a circle,… yep… gotta hand it to them rocks. Them’s smart things , them rocks.

                     And whats more, they like to make lots and lots more rings , – big enough even to house a whole family of human beings , sort of like a big village of rocks wall circles if you please…

                     ugh.
                   • solkta …

                     7 February 2019 at 6:57 pm

                     Well since yiv been ther and seen it ya can sneak back and takes some pics for us all.
                   • WILD KATIPO …

                     7 February 2019 at 8:24 pm

                     And since you haven’t then you can shut the hell up and stop trying to sound like some pompous authoritative expert on the issue, perhaps…?
               • McFlock …

                 7 February 2019 at 6:15 pm

                 Meh. Knowing next to fuckall about the issues of variuos ToW versions or prehistoric migration patterns, I think I’ll go with MM because he looks like less of a nutbar.

                 Egyptians getting to the Colorado river without putting up BIG signs there and BIG boasts in Egypt is even less likely than enslaving thousands of people, having every firstborn drop dead, then the thousands of slaves just up and walk away (drowning your army and ending your predecessor’s reign in the process), without recording a single word of it. Apparently we’re down to translating the pay rates of individual pyramid craftsmen and looking at their records of notable trials, and yet everything about getting to the US West Coast has been lost or suppressed…
                 • solkta …

                   7 February 2019 at 6:36 pm

                   “everything about getting to the US West Coast has been lost or suppressed…”

                   That proves just how long this conspiracy has been going on for.
                   • WILD KATIPO …

                     7 February 2019 at 7:13 pm

                     Soooo… because YOU in your incredible expertise on each and every subject under the sun ‘feel’ its improbable if it challenges your current political dogma and conformist publicly accepted points of view .

                     So this entitles you to sit in your armchair and be the scoffer, the skeptic and the nay sayer because its a safe place to be on the sidelines labeling anything that threatens that comfortable worldview as a ‘conspiracy’.

                     You woke lefters are sounding more and more like conservative denialist right wingers with every post you make ! L0L !
                   • solkta …

                     7 February 2019 at 7:32 pm

                     You haven’t provided a shred of anything. You are just a joke so why not make one.
                   • WILD KATIPO …

                     7 February 2019 at 8:03 pm

                     solkta …

                     [ You haven’t provided a shred of anything. You are just a joke so why not make one.]

                     And you my friend , like the witch trial marty boy have only provided dubious ‘evidence’ that backs up your pseudo leftie agenda. Look, it is a strange paradox that woke leftists are so wedded to their dogma they will happily attack anything that challenges it. Including the truth. In that you bear more resemblance to fascists than to the ‘caring, sharing, peace love and natural foods’ crowd.

                     You would do better to relabel yourselves as fifth columnists to the far right wing. At least then you would be more honest about it. And along with that far right wing conservatism [ which changes to suit as popular opinion changes ] comes the same sort of book burning anti science anti truth attitudes displayed 60 odd years ago.

                     Anything that challenges your dogma is fair game as long as those eye blinkers are in handy reach.
                   • WILD KATIPO …

                     7 February 2019 at 8:06 pm

                     Oh ,…and one another thing…

                     P A T U P A I A R E H E

                     Are you trying to tell me those Maori elders were lying to everyone, mate?
                   • solkta …

                     7 February 2019 at 8:10 pm

                     Well HAVE YOU ACTUALLY READ the rat DNA research yet? Have you had a look in your vid at the time point i provided to see these people tell the most blatant lies possible with this research?

                     Oh, and the woke lefty stuff is just fuckwitery of the highest order.
                   • WILD KATIPO …

                     7 February 2019 at 8:25 pm

                     P A T U P A I A R E H E

                     Are you trying to tell me those Maori elders were lying to everyone, mate?
                 • WILD KATIPO …

                   7 February 2019 at 7:04 pm

                   Your rambling and showing a prejudice against Biblical beliefs, McFlock… tell me , McFlock , – have you SEEN those artifacts / hieroglyphics in the Grand Canyon let alone traveled there to qualify your opinions?

                   Are you afraid to venture out from the cozy secure comfort of the accepted woke left opinion on this site, mate?

                   Nutbar? nutbar? … didn’t they once say that those who believed man would never fly let alone reach the moon and said the earth is spherical were nutbars, McFlock?
                   • McFlock …

                     7 February 2019 at 7:22 pm

                     Hey, it’s always a microscopic possibility that a culture well known for keeping precise and extensive records of their most minor events and preserving those records by literally carving them into giant stone monuments might have established a global trade network without leaving even two vast and trunkless legs of stone standing in the desert to commemorate that achievement.

                     It would make someone’s career to produce plausible evidence of it.

                     But my point was simply that you come across as a nutbar, and Marty Mars comes across as pretty reasonable. So I’ll take his word over yours.

                     People might have said the same about the Wright Brothers, or whomever (Wegener comes to mind). The point is that when their argument was actually proved, the vast majority of the mocking stopped. So maybe gather some evidence for your claims, and prove me wrong.
                   • WILD KATIPO …

                     7 February 2019 at 7:40 pm

                     Again , McFlock,…you are half a world away in another continent and you do not have a vast army of slaves and artisans to make your ‘precise and extensive records of their most minor events and preserving those records by literally carving them into giant stone monuments’…

                     Did the Roman legions based in Germany on the frontiers make great stone coliseums and massive stone temples for their gods on the frontier as well ???

                     Really ???

                     And as for ‘gathering some evidence for your claims, and proving me wrong ‘ – that’s already been done. But you can drag a person kicking and screaming to see for themselves yet they will still deny up until the point that they will feel socially foolish in continuing their denials.

                     Example in the natural world for western skeptics ? – L0L ! the Panda, the Gorilla , – all treated as fanciful myths and uneducated savages foklore until they stepped in a stinking pile of gorilla shit and smelt it for themselves for the first time…
                   • McFlock …

                     7 February 2019 at 7:52 pm

                     Ah, so your position is that there was some sort of lost expedition from Egypt that ended up in the Grand Canyon.

                     Again, unlikely. But what evidence do you have for it? Could haves is one thing. Did is another thing entirely.
                   • solkta …

                     7 February 2019 at 7:53 pm

                     It’s easy to get lost on your way home from the pub.
                   • WILD KATIPO …

                     7 February 2019 at 8:48 pm

                     Ha !.. what evidence do I have of long ocean going voyages ?… amusing… well… they’ve got a hundred meter long wharf in Australia that appears to have been built by none other than the Phoneticians…why?

                     Gold mining for one.

                     And as we all know frontier centers are not famed for all the trappings of ‘home’.

                     Now,… if the Phoneticians did it,… why not the Chinese, the Egyptians?, the Polynesians, the Europeans at an early date? I think where this is all going is the incredulity of having your conventional world view shaken. Many of these society’s were empires and kingdoms in their own right and the sea and rivers were the natural way to transport large body’s of cargo and personnel for trade and natural resources.

                     Deal with it.

                     Phoenicia, Phoenicians in Australia – Phoenicia.org
                     https://phoenicia.org/australia.html
                   • McFlock …

                     7 February 2019 at 9:47 pm

                     That’s your malfunction right there.

                     So someone thinks that a section of rainforest looks like Tyre and an artificial construction. Has some theory about non-Aboriginal land claims as a reason for suppression (rather than everyone falling about laughing at the thought), and no other evidence. Not even a single picture of this “platform”. You then take that incredibly bold (and incredibly unsubstantiated) claim, and say if that then why not some other bold claim. As if it’s my job to prove that you’re not a nutbar.

                     You’ve got the claim. People don’t need research dollars to take pictures and show artifacts. They need research dollars to do it professionally, but anyone can take a photo. People have allegedly seen these things, where are the pictures and context surrounding the artifacts? Where are the artifacts themselves?

                     It’s a bit like the guy I saw in a “documentary” who claimed to have walked around Noah’s Ark while climbing Mt Ararat with a buddy – they took lots of pictures, but when his buddy was taking the last photo of him next to the ark, the buddy stepped backwards over a cliff and all the photos and samples were in his pack lol. Yeah, right. There’s a difference between having an open mind and letting the air blow all your critical reasoning out the other side.
               • marty mars …

                 7 February 2019 at 6:27 pm

                 The stuff you think is some great knowledge or insight is not. It has been debunked ages ago and keeps coming up as newbies like you to the big story get all excited and want to be the big knowledge giver. I could put plenty of links up and you could find lots of debunking articles if you wanted – but as I said before you don’t care about facts or evidence.

                 I used to get angry, then sad and now I just think it’s just a symptom of a lack of connection. It can be created in this country without going down these roads imo.
                 • WILD KATIPO …

                   7 February 2019 at 6:57 pm

                   Who’s the debunkers, marty?

                   Smithonians?

                   Haven’t you got a witch to put on trial over there at Salem , mate?
                   • marty mars …

                     7 February 2019 at 8:24 pm

                     Here is one, Scott is awesome.

                     http://readingthemaps.blogspot.com/2009/01/pseudo-history-countering-cranks.html?m=1
                   • WILD KATIPO …

                     7 February 2019 at 9:57 pm

                     Backpacks are relatively cheap , marty , though a good pair of tramping boots can set you back a bit…hey look,… Northland’s quite accessible to most New Zealanders , there’s a state forest called Waipoua that you can take a nice wee tramp in.

                     You might even find some interesting rock walls that predate the Maori by several thousand years if your lucky…

                     I suggest you go and take a hike,..

                     Mate.
                   • marty mars …

                     7 February 2019 at 11:14 pm

                     Have you been there?
           • Gosman 9.1.1.1.1.2

             7 February 2019 at 5:59 pm

             It is still irrelevant in relation to the history surrounding the Treaty of Waitangi though.
             • WILD KATIPO …

               7 February 2019 at 7:29 pm

               First off, we know how and why the treaty ‘happened’ , – but what we have been led to believe is that one translation was ‘ lost’.

               Secondly , if this nation cant even be honest with its ancient pre history past for purely political reasons, WHY do we even begin to believe it can be honest about such things as the Littlewood version of the treaty of Waitangi ?

               THAT’S the real issue here.

               Fundamental dishonesty.
               • solkta …

                 7 February 2019 at 7:39 pm

                 The dishonesty has been yours and the lying arseholes who made that vid. You have nothing.
                 • WILD KATIPO …

                   7 February 2019 at 7:46 pm

                   Whens your next trip to Waipoua state forest, mate?

                   Hey its summertime, – how about a trip to Raglans concreted over caves perhaps ?
                   • solkta …

                     7 February 2019 at 7:49 pm

                     If all that covering up was happening don’t you think the people who actuality study this stuff would making a fuss? You have nothing but your agenda.
                   • WILD KATIPO …

                     7 February 2019 at 9:11 pm

                     My agenda?

                     L0L !

                     [ ” If all that covering up was happening don’t you think the people who actuality study this stuff would making a fuss? ” ]

                     Who pays the grants for research , solkta ?

                     Have wee think… now… that’s it… nice and slow like… you’ll get there… and while having a wee think did you possibly come to the realization that politicians might be involved?

                     And did you recall on that hazy state of thinking a NZ band called Blam Blam Blam who had a song that mentioned there’s no sheep on our farm? And did you not realize that was a sarcastic reference to denial and ‘everyone staying perfectly calm’? – another reference to people remaining silent on speaking the truth for fear of reprisals?

                     Now have another wee think, solkta… just imagine what might happen if it was found that A ) the whole academic exercise of stating that there was no one else here but the Maori when Cook arrived was proven to be false.

                     Oh what a shit sandwich academia and all the rest of us would have to eat.

                     And the scientific community may not get their Christmas bonus from the gubbamint that year. Think of all the ‘ Sirs’ and ‘Ladies’ with eggs on their faces… all the pontificating Professors who would have to admit they were wrong about that for all those years… and that they had made a deliberate effort to play down any such research and finding , that in effect, – they had lied to New Zealanders… because in some way it might have jeopardized the Treaty and their anthropological narrative…

                     And B ) think of all the characters running and ducking for cover if the Littlewood treaty was taken out of the dusty vaults of the National Archives and given a REAL and HONEST research grant to establish once and for all if it is in fact the long ‘ lost’ English treaty version.

                     Oh what a web we weave when we choose to deceive…

                     All those ‘Sirs’ and ‘ladies’ again, all those same academics who were given grants, comfy positions and public accolades for fixing problems they themselves fabricated…

                     There ya go solkta .

                     Just for you, mate.

                     ……………………………………………………………

                     There is no depression in New Zealand
                     There are no sheep on our farms
                     There is no depression in New Zealand
                     We can all keep perfectly calm

                     But everybody’s talking about World War Three
                     ‘cos everybody’s talking about World War Three
                     But we’re as safe as safe can be
                     There’s no unrest in this country

                     We have no dole queues
                     We have no drug addicts
                     We have no racism
                     We have no sexism
                     Sexism, no, no

                     There is no depression in New Zealand
                     There are no teeth in our heads
                     There is no depression in New Zealand
                     We sleep in a well made bed

                     Oh, but everybody’s talking about World War Three
                     Yes, everybody’s talking about World War Three
                     But we’re as safe as safe can be
                     There’s no unrest in this country

                     We have no SIS
                     We have no secrets
                     We have no rebellion
                     We have no Valium
                     Valium, no, no

                     There is no depression in New Zealand
                     There are no sheep on our farms
                     There is no depression in New Zealand
                     We can all keep perfectly calm
                     Perfectly calm
                     Perfectly calm
                     Perfectly calm

                     P A T U P A I A R E H E

                     Are you trying to tell me those Maori elders were lying to everyone, mate?
                   • solkta …

                     8 February 2019 at 7:10 am

                     because in some way it might have jeopardized the Treaty

                     In what way would a change of prehistory jeopardize the Treaty? If you could only get it through your thick skull that all this would be irrelevant then you would have no agenda and therefore need to peddle this shit.
                   • solkta …

                     8 February 2019 at 7:13 am

                     P A T U P A I A R E H E

                     Are you trying to tell me those Maori elders were lying to everyone, mate?

                     No they wouldn’t lie. Elves and pixies are real too. And Maui literally captured the sun in a net and fished up the North Island.
           • Wayne 9.1.1.1.1.3

             7 February 2019 at 10:00 pm

             Wild Katipo,

             The point you miss about the Vikings and North America, is that that early discovery by the Vikings had zero impact on the future of the Americas.

             All European impact in the Americas is entirely derived from Columbus onward.

             So even if you were right (pretty sure you are not) about a much earlier discovery of New Zealand, it had zero impact by 1840 and the Treaty of Waitangi.
             • WILD KATIPO …

               8 February 2019 at 4:50 pm

               No Wayne, I’m quite right,… that it took decades- in fact over 100 years for academics in their arrogance to admit they had been wrong all along.

               Same holds true here for NZ.

               Andddd….. personally?

               I don’t give a fuck about your ChiNational party Treaty negotiator Chris Findlayson. Just another big eared opportunist ,double dealing freak.

               And that’s the point ; that neither weirdos like you in the ChiNational party or freaks from the neo liberal Labour party caucus have been either honest or upfront with the true history of this country because of your bullshit, petty political history revisionist agendas.

               Hows Operation Burnham, WAYNE?
               • Brigid …

                 8 February 2019 at 9:01 pm

                 “that it took decades- in fact over 100 years for academics in their arrogance to admit they had been wrong all along.”

                 Which ‘academics’ are these WK?
10. WILD KATIPO 10

    7 February 2019 at 5:08 pm

    And this….

    Treaty of Waitangi – the Littlewood version | Your NZ
    https://yournz.org/2013/01/03/treaty-of-waitangi-the-littlewood-version/
    • Gosman 10.1

      7 February 2019 at 5:15 pm

      If the Littlewood Treaty was actually a constitutional document it would mean that NZ would be essentially ungovernable as all land could only be sold via the State.
      • WILD KATIPO 10.1.1

        7 February 2019 at 5:45 pm

        Well after all that gobbeldy gook would you please care to explain why ?

        Or is your predilection towards private property rights just far too ingrained to see that just maybe it might’ve protected both party’s land sales. And clear up the confusion of interpretation that has existed ever since the English translation went ‘ missing’ .
        But then , along with being a ‘ private property’ rights person you’re also a small government advocate , eh. Like ACT.
        • Gosman 10.1.1.1

          7 February 2019 at 5:57 pm

          Any transaction involving land would first have to be processed via the State as the State had exclusive rights to purchase lands belonging to ALL New Zealanders.
          • WILD KATIPO 10.1.1.1.1

            7 February 2019 at 6:08 pm

            Soooooo,… the next time the ‘ state ‘ wants to relocate your house to make way for a major highway just let me know how you get on….

            Look,… here’s a straw….. grasp on hard…
11. WILD KATIPO 11

    7 February 2019 at 5:13 pm

    Sooooo,… should it be compulsory ?

    Well ,… which version ?

    And to whom is the final authority given to select which version , – and if it is,… who’s to say that the status quo , orthodox ‘official’ version is actually the correct one in these politically correct days ?

    And just because it suits some to accept the status quo for political and financial reasons , and blithely ignore the English translation , is that what this is really all about? Isn’t that just bad science to cowardly hide your head down a hole and reject something as important as the Little wood treaty version which could actually be the ‘ long lost English translation ‘ ???
    • Gosman 11.1

      7 February 2019 at 5:25 pm

      What is clear is that the British would not have lightly given out a prize as great (in the mid 19th Century) as full British Subject rights without gaining something significant in return like Sovereignty. Maori can argue all they like that they didn’t give up Sovereignty but then the question becomes how did they become British Subjects (which was specified in the Maori version)? The British did not extend the rights of British Subjects WITHOUT gaining Sovereignty over them.
      • WILD KATIPO 11.1.1

        7 February 2019 at 5:54 pm

        And thats exactly why the Little wood Treaty version just might be so important.

        It was the different nuances of the two languages that has been argued over and debated ever since,

        The very fact you have to pose that question demonstrates that grey area. When you align the Little wood treaty version with the Maori treaty version it is at once compatible for both party’s.Things that have been manipulated by various party’s with the current situation would never have been given oxygen if the Littlewood version had not been furtively stuffed away in the National archives to gather dust – while political opportunists milked the Maori version for all they could get.
      • Stuart Munro 11.1.2

        7 February 2019 at 11:59 pm

        Sovereignty wasn’t a quid pro quo deal. Britannia wanted NZ signed up to save the trouble of having to root out the French, with whom they were perennially at war.

        Maori did surrender that sovereignty – none of the subsequent disputes are to do with the right to court tutelary relationships with other powers.
        • Gosman 11.1.2.1

          8 February 2019 at 1:48 am

          You can achieve the same thing signing a protection treaty. In that case people living there became British Protected Persons (if they were not a British subject already)
          https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_protected_person
        • Gosman 11.1.2.2

          8 February 2019 at 2:15 am

          Have a look at the difference in treaties the British signed with Tonga and Fiji. Tonga was a protected State whereas Fiji was a colony. Both were regarded as being under the umbrella of the British Empire and other powers were not able to intervene in them.

          https://atojs.natlib.govt.nz/cgi-bin/atojs?a=d&d=AJHR1880-I.2.1.2.9

          https://www.usp.ac.fj/index.php?id=13527
          • Stuart Munro 11.1.2.2.1

            8 February 2019 at 12:32 pm

            Well of course Tonga being a monarchy, the evolutionary endpoint of political evolution from the late monarchist standpoint, would be approached as an equal. It was accepted as inevitable by late monarchists that democracies always collapse into demagoguery and them despotism – and the examples of the contemporary US and Russia would be regarded as confirming that.

            I always thought Raffles’ treaty was good indication of British imperial intent, and, being a little earlier than ToW, it may have influenced it.

            http://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/infopedia/articles/SIP_2014-05-16_133354.html
            • Gosman 11.1.2.2.1.1

              8 February 2019 at 3:24 pm

              Fiji was also a Monarchy at the time it became a Crown Colony.
    • marty mars 11.2

      7 February 2019 at 5:27 pm

      Lol
      • Gosman 11.2.1

        7 February 2019 at 5:29 pm

        What is so funny about this?
        • marty mars 11.2.1.1

          7 February 2019 at 5:53 pm

          I’ve heard this crap for years mate – after a while the pathetic nature of it elicits an exasperated sigh of humor from me.
          • Gosman 11.2.1.1.1

            7 February 2019 at 5:54 pm

            You haven’t explained why you believe it is pathetic.
            • marty mars 11.2.1.1.1.1

              7 February 2019 at 6:20 pm

              So? Want me to explain why the moon landings aren’t fake too? Try thinking.
          • WILD KATIPO 11.2.1.1.2

            7 February 2019 at 5:56 pm

            Yeah I’m with you , marty , the earth is flat eh.

            And alchemy cured the Black Death as well.
            • marty mars 11.2.1.1.2.1

              7 February 2019 at 6:16 pm

              You’re the flat earthern idiot. Tell us about the fake moon landings again mate lol
              • WILD KATIPO …

                7 February 2019 at 7:19 pm

                Nah mate thats your field.

                Little comparison.

                There was a bloke called Newton . He reckoned there was such a thing as ‘ gravity’. He may not have fully understood it at the time but he was on to something. Then there was the peasant in the field trudging along behind his ox planting grain. He never thought much about those sorts of things and poured scorn on those who did.

                You are the latter, mate.
                • marty mars …

                  7 February 2019 at 8:01 pm

                  Lol that genuinely make me laugh out loud – good one 😂
                  • WILD KATIPO …

                    7 February 2019 at 9:29 pm

                    Nice. Laugh long and hard.

                    Just remember to water the ox from time to time. Sometimes animals have more sense than their owners…
12. Chris T 12

    7 February 2019 at 5:19 pm

    No, not really if it is a topic on it’s own.

    Pre history of Maori before they came to NZ and the history of them coming to NZ and how Iwi developed and separated, history of europeans (all the countries) coming and the relationship with Maori , how it lead to the Treaty, yes

    The Treaty, no
13. rata 13

    7 February 2019 at 5:58 pm

    Ceasar came here in 27 AD
    The Egyptians in 2700 BC
    Africans came here in 5000 BC
    Aliens landed 30,000 years ago.
    The truth is Chinese were here first 67,572 years ago.
    This land belongs to the Chinese.
    They can now migrate here in their tens of millions
    and we all acknowledge they are the rightful owners.
    • solkta 13.1

      7 February 2019 at 6:00 pm

      But from where was China inhabited? I bet they were Welsh.
      • WILD KATIPO 13.1.1

        7 February 2019 at 6:12 pm

        Stupid person . They were obviously Swedes.
        • veutoviper 13.1.1.1

          7 February 2019 at 7:58 pm

          I protest – they had to be Turnips.
          • WILD KATIPO 13.1.1.1.1

            7 February 2019 at 9:31 pm

            Nay Harrogate. You’ve got it all wrong!

            They were Swedes I tell ya! – S W E D E S !

            the Historical Vegetable – Swede (Neeps!) Rutabaga … – YouTube
            
      • veutoviper 13.1.2

        7 February 2019 at 8:21 pm

        Sorry, solkta – what a waste of a day re DF. I have put up post-its on my computer etc saying do not reply to DF. If you do, more fool you. That is to me, myself, I …
        • left_forward 13.1.2.1

          8 February 2019 at 10:28 am

          I agree – excellent work solkta and others.

          I did happen to go quite a few years ago with a Pakeha group to Waipoua Forest and I saw the very rocks.

          I was completely underwhelmed by all of the hype about it by the people I was with. An unusual pile of rocks for sure – but formless. If they were indeed put there by ancient white people, there would be no way of telling that without extensive archeological excavation. Somebody said that a Spanish conquistador’s helmet had been found nearby.

          The group I was with extrapolated the fact that local Maori do not want their land excavated as evidence that they are covering up this ancient knowledge! They thought that such knowledge would undermine Maori rights under the Treaty. There was a collective murmur of agreement.

          We then went further south to see another site that was claimed to be a ‘celtic rock circle’ calendar. Again the only evidence seemed to be that the area was significant and tapu to local Maori and that the exposed rocks on the hill we were on appeared somewhat to be in a circular pattern. The leader of the group reverently explained that he had visited the site on many occasions and had aligned a notch on a distant hill with the sunset at the equinox.
          • veutoviper 13.1.2.1.1

            8 February 2019 at 10:48 am

            Must admit I had had a few wines, probably one or two too many! I wanted to apologise to Solkta because I drew S into a conversation I was having with DF on OM 7 Jan 2019 starting with his comment at 3 where he tried to bring in patriarchy issues re Marama Davidson not speaking in the powhiri for parliamentary representatives at Waitangi. As a non-Maori, I respect solkta’s greater knowledge of tikanga, and connections to Waitangi etc. Despite solkta, my and even Morrissey’s efforts it became evident that we were dealing with a very fixed mindset. Head meets desk stuff. Then having taken some time out and a few wines I found S having to fight this battle here with help from a few others.

            But as you say excellent work by solkta and these others. I agree. But your contributions have also been excellent also, left-forward. Thank you.

            Looking at it from another perspective, it is actually good to be having the conversations we have had here in the last day or so. It certainly has brought out a number of issues/misconceptions etc which I was vaguely aware of and now know a lot more about. Hence my full support for civics and NZ history, including the Treaty, to be included as core subjects in the NZ school curriculum.
14. Sacha 14

    8 February 2019 at 2:50 am

    Yes, teaching our nation’s Treaty history should be compulsory. Revisionist oxygen thieves can get in the sea. It is amazing the lengths some people will go to, to feel special.
    • Gosman 14.1

      8 February 2019 at 5:33 am

      What do you mean?
      • Sacha 14.1.1

        8 February 2019 at 9:22 am

        Looking at the lengthy diversions above.
        • Gosman 14.1.1.1

          8 February 2019 at 9:29 am

          While I doubt that is an accurate reflection of history it is an element of history. Unless you are naive enough to think there is some sort of “official” and “true” history that is self evident for all to see.
          • Sacha 14.1.1.1.1

            8 February 2019 at 1:57 pm

            Flat earthers do not get space in the textbook. Tough luck.
            • Gosman 14.1.1.1.1.1

              8 February 2019 at 2:52 pm

              Who gets to decide who is a “Flat earther”?
15. left_forward 15

    8 February 2019 at 7:44 am

    Excellent thought provoking piece Advantage.
    There was one detail however that I want to respond to:
    With the taming of Waitangi Day commemorations at Waitangi…
    Who is it that is doing the taming?
    Many Maori are getting on with their lives, exploring different ways to improve health and wellbeing for their whanau and hapu, and within a deep connection to tikanga. Some say that this is the foundation of a more deeper transformation – something quite radical in our western political world – tino rangatiratanga.
    The Government and media may think that they are engaged in a process of taming, but actually the opposite is occuring as Maori set a pathway for themselves.
16. WeTheBleeple 16

    8 February 2019 at 8:34 am

    I’d hope we’d get Maori and European scholars together to form the syllabus. There will be a Eurocentric view and a Maori view, we should present both. It can be a history lesson that also teaches the need to think critically about the sources of history. And a lesson in the existence of opposing views and context. An attempt to throw light on a history of obfuscation.

    And of course, teach NZ history. It really helps ground people to know about the place. It adds more respect for a place when it has stories.
    • Gosman 16.1

      8 February 2019 at 8:38 am

      What is a Eurocentric view? Can you give me an example please?
      • left_forward 16.1.1

        8 February 2019 at 12:03 pm

        O the irony! 😉
        • Gosman 16.1.1.1

          8 February 2019 at 12:25 pm

          How is this in anyway ironic?
          • left_forward 16.1.1.1.1

            8 February 2019 at 12:36 pm

            Seriously? (quoting my 9 year-old grand-daughter, said in a particular way with a slight rolling of the eyes).

            Because your view is Eurocentric.

            Your question / statement discloses your bias in the context of your comments on this thread, that steadfastly refuse to acknowledge the legitimacy of a Maori view.

            This is irony.
            • Gosman 16.1.1.1.1.1

              8 February 2019 at 1:51 pm

              How is my view Eurocentric in anyway? I am acknowledging BOTH sides in the Treaty of Waitangi. I am not disputing ANY Maori view. I am presenting the background on all sides or do you not think History should be taught from all angles?
              • McFlock …

                8 February 2019 at 3:47 pm

                You literally said the Māori copy was a legal nullity.
    • left_forward 16.2

      8 February 2019 at 12:07 pm

      E tautoko ana ahau.
17. Dennis Frank 17

    8 February 2019 at 10:40 am

    Just the thought of teachers trying to explain to a class of kids something they don’t understand themselves puts a smile on my face. What will happen the first time an intelligent child explains why the teacher is wrong? Will they be made to stand in a corner wearing a pointy dunce’s cap as in the old days?

    Unlikely, but you can imagine the psychodynamic that will operate. It could easily produce a generation of rebels via contagion. Other kids catch on real fast when one of them points out the error in the teacher’s explanation!

    Most likely trigger: the ideological clash between the principle of gender equality and the article in Te Tiriti that acknowledges the supreme status of the chiefs – all of whom are male…
    • left_forward 17.1

      8 February 2019 at 12:32 pm

      Tino rangatiratanga does not mean the supreme status of chiefs in the sense that you are inferring. The -tanga’ refers to the quality of chieftainship, authority or leadership, and is not gender specific. In signing the Maori version of Te Tiriti, the Crown guaranteed and supported the rights of Maori; the chiefs, the hapu, and to all the people of Nu Tirani to governance (absolute authority and responsibility) over their own affairs; their land, their homes, and all their possessions and valuables (o ratou whenua, o ratou kainga, o ratou taonga katoa).

      There is no room for debate about what the Maori version of Te Tiriti says. It says what it says – the only things that are missing are understanding, and the desire to understand.
      • Gosman 17.1.1

        8 February 2019 at 1:29 pm

        How did they become British Subjects (which is specified in Article 3 of both the English AND Te Reo versions) if they did nod cede sovereignty to the British Crown?

        The British did not grant British Subject status to people living in British Protectorates.
        • left_forward 17.1.1.1

          8 February 2019 at 1:51 pm

          Because the Crown proposed and agreed to it in Te Tiriti o Waitangi.
          Pretty cool eh bro?
          • Gosman 17.1.1.1.1

            8 February 2019 at 2:01 pm

            Ummm… no that is not how the British worked at that time. The British authorities would not give their representatives the authority to create a brand new status of a British relationship with another country (one that involved granting British Subject rights) without EXPLICIT agreement with the Government in the UK. Hobson had ZERO mandate to create some sort of brand new entity that did not exist under British law until that time and which DID NOT exist in any other situation afterwards.

            But thank you for highlighting exactly my point that knowing history provides zero understanding or empathy between the people that history is about.
            • left_forward 17.1.1.1.1.1

              8 February 2019 at 2:11 pm

              Cheers Gosman, and thanks for highlighting my point that if you do not have empathy in your heart, to try to understand what motivates people with backgrounds other than your own, free of cynicism and cultural baggage, you will remain in a state of complete ignorance,

              Signing off – nga mihi ki a koe.
          • Gosman 17.1.1.1.2

            8 February 2019 at 2:06 pm

            This is how much your lack of understanding is showing through.

            You somehow expect people to believe that Hobson would send back the details of the Treaty to the UK with the message that whilst he hadn’t been able to gain sovereignty over NZ he had granted all the Maori living in the country the rights and privileges of British Subjects and YOU seem to think the Colonial authorities in London would just accept this fact as if it was nothing major. Of course they wouldn’t have. They would have told him that he had failed in his mandate and there was no legal way that Maori could become British subjects without them accepting the Sovereignty of the British Crown. The Treaty would have been consigned to the dustbin of history.
            • left_forward 17.1.1.1.2.1

              8 February 2019 at 2:15 pm

              and yet they did and it wasn’t.
              • Gosman …

                8 February 2019 at 2:20 pm

                Hobson had NO AUTHORITY to grant that status UNLESS they accepted British Sovereignty. What about that do you not understand?

                It would be like if the British colonial office sent out Hobson to negotiate with the Maori and he got them to sign some agreement with a proviso that all the Chiefs would become members of the House of Lords. HE HAD NO POWER TO DO THAT. In that case the British would tell Maori that Hobson’s article was not valid and hence the Treaty was not able to be ratified.
                • McFlock …

                  8 February 2019 at 2:26 pm

                  But he did, the Crown didn’t, it was, and here we are today. Deal with it.
                  • Gosman …

                    8 February 2019 at 2:35 pm

                    Yes and what is clear is the Crown DOES have Sovereignty and Maori DON’T. Even the Treaty of Waitangi tribunal acknowledges this fact. All Maori have is a plead to the Crown to be understanding of them because they didn’t think they were signing away sovereignty. Well they lost it because the British( and the rest of the World at the time) did accept that fact.
                    • McFlock …

                      8 February 2019 at 2:45 pm

                      Hence one of the reasons the Tribunal has to exist in the first place.
                    • solkta …

                      8 February 2019 at 3:59 pm

                      they didn’t think they were signing away sovereignty

                      This is why your view is Eurocentric. They DIDN’T sign away sovereignty as they DIDN’T (well the very vast majority) sign the English version.

                      They did however eventually lose sovereignty after the British waged several wars against them and generally used violence and dodgy legal process to reduce Maori control of everything.
                  • Gosman …

                    8 February 2019 at 2:48 pm

                    The Tribunal itself in under the jurisdiction of the Crown. It owes it’s existence to the Crown and as such the Crown can direct the Tribunal over what it can and cannot recommend. There is no room for Maori sovereignty in how the Tribunal operates.
                    • McFlock …

                      8 February 2019 at 3:15 pm

                      If the ToW was as clear cut as you say, there’d be no need for the tribunal.
                    • Gosman …

                      8 February 2019 at 3:18 pm

                      The tribunal is meant to rule on breaches of the Treaty. Noone is denying there hasn’t been many of those.
                    • McFlock …

                      8 February 2019 at 3:44 pm

                      By interpreting both copies of the Treaty. Not just the English version.
                    • Gosman …

                      8 February 2019 at 3:51 pm

                      Yes because they have been directed to do so by the authority they operate under (i.e. thje Crown)
                    • McFlock …

                      8 February 2019 at 4:04 pm

                      Victors write the rules. Even victors of unjust wars.
      • Dennis Frank 17.1.2

        8 February 2019 at 2:19 pm

        Your opinion only. Definition: “Tino rangatiratanga is a Māori language term that can be interpreted as ‘absolute sovereignty’.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tino_rangatiratanga

        So what part of supreme authority do you not understand? Or do you believe it’s the wrong definition? “A rangatira is a chief, the nominalising suffix -tanga makes the word an abstract noun referring to the quality or attributes of chieftainship, and the addition of intensifier tino in this context means the phrase can be translated as ‘highest chieftainship’ (Kawharu, 1989, p. 314)”.
        • left_forward 17.1.2.1

          8 February 2019 at 2:29 pm

          I appreciate that you went and looked it up. Brilliant we are now on the same page.
        • Gosman 17.1.2.2

          8 February 2019 at 2:36 pm

          What is this in relation to Dennis?
          • Dennis Frank 17.1.2.2.1

            8 February 2019 at 3:03 pm

            The response (17.1) to what I wrote above. I’m trying to alert folks to the false assumption a lot of people seem to have in their minds: that recognition of the Treaty can bind us in the future. I believe it is valid only for treaty settlements.

            I support Palmer’s advocacy of an updated constitution and have contributed substantially to his consensus-based process for redrafting since it started. I will oppose any attempt to adopt it on a flawed basis.

            I don’t believe patriarchy ought to be recycled in the new millennium. I am just as opposed to the Maori version of that as I am to the pakeha version. 😎
            • Gosman 17.1.2.2.1.1

              8 February 2019 at 3:20 pm

              The Treaty is an appallingly constructed document. There would be no way it could be used as a foundation document for a NZ written constitution. It is a useful referene document but it is essentially a legal nullity despite many people (Maori and New Zealand European) trying to argue otherwise.
    • solkta 17.2

      8 February 2019 at 12:40 pm

      the article in Te Tiriti that acknowledges the supreme status of the chiefs – all of whom are male…

      You tried this yesterday. Today is a new day, how about some new bullshit?
      • Dennis Frank 17.2.1

        8 February 2019 at 2:08 pm

        Don’t need to – you’re providing enough. Wanna try specifying a female chief? Just one example will suffice… 🙄
        • left_forward 17.2.1.1

          8 February 2019 at 2:34 pm

          Although reluctant to play your silly game – just for the record:
          Te Atairangikaahu
          Whina
          Although there will be many who will disagree about Whina being a chief, but nobody could deny how influential she was.
          • left_forward 17.2.1.1.1

            8 February 2019 at 2:37 pm

            Also please note that rangatira is a term of respect used for both men and women of wisdom and distinction.
        • marty mars 17.2.1.2

          8 February 2019 at 2:39 pm

          Yes Dennis you are out of your knowledge depth here. Time for some humility and listening methinks.
          • Dennis Frank 17.2.1.2.1

            8 February 2019 at 2:55 pm

            Possibly, but fishing for evidence of that hasn’t elicited any such proof. Merely personal opinions thus far. I’ve got an open mind on the topic…
18. vto 18

    8 February 2019 at 10:54 am

    Been reading a great deal of NZ history the last wee while, and our history is fascinating. It is of course on a par with any other society or community on the planet, as all humans have displayed similar traits and experienced similar events over time..

    Early and pre-‘fleet’ history is fascinating and raises much curiosity. The early times around 1300 to 1600 sound particularly interesting. And of course the arrival of the euro mobs and te tiriti loom large – Maori got worked hard by the british crown. This treatment by the british crown should not surprise when you see how they treated pretty much everyone, e.g. the scots. Many scots have less time for the crown than even our tangata whenua. Their actions were nothing new. F&%k the british crown.

    New Zealand history is to be valued, read, understood. There seems a lot left to learn as well.

    Compulsion?? In our country’s circumstances and on balance, yes
    • left_forward 18.1

      8 February 2019 at 1:02 pm

      This is pretty much what the Irishman, Frederic Maning said at Mangungu six days after Waitangi, at the largest gathering of Maori to sign the documents, trying to warn Hokianga chiefs not to trust the Crown to honour it.
      • Gosman 18.1.1

        8 February 2019 at 2:45 pm

        Honour what? The Treaty was essentially an impossible document on both sides if the Maori language version is taken as the definitive version. By the way, what precedent at the time stated that the local language version of an International treaty or agreement took precedence over the other language version?
      • greywarshark 18.1.2

        8 February 2019 at 2:51 pm

        Maori should have been warned about the possibility of getting the Gosman strain as the trick part of the treaty. They would have taken the strain in the tug of war then suddenly let it go and knocked over all the Brits. Maori were then and now pretty clever, but they didn’t understand the pretty legal side of things in the way that Key revealed.

        The Brits played a long game in their approach to trickery or treaty, and met their equals in Maori who in the words of Dr Ranginui Walker’s book ‘Ka Whawahi Tonu Matou: Struggle without End (1990)’.

        Moana Maniapoto talks about Dr Walker and touches on the enduring smarts that so many Maori bring to bear in their dealings with others they meet seeking or in leadership positions.
        https://e-tangata.co.nz/reflections/ranginui-walker-no-beating-about-the-bush-with-him/
        • Gosman 18.1.2.1

          8 February 2019 at 2:54 pm

          There WAS NO TRICK. The British were quite open about what they wanted. Henry Williams and his son messed up the translation which is what is causing the disagreement all the way through to today.
        • Gosman 18.1.2.2

          8 February 2019 at 2:58 pm

          By the way the British did not meet their match in the Maori. The passification and settlement of New Zealand by the British went quite smoothly. Conflicty between Maori and the colonial authorities was largely contained by the 1870’s and European settlement activity continued apace throughout the conflict years. Contrast between this and South Africa. The British took over the Cape Colony for good in 1806 and were still fighting the locals over 90 years later.
19. Gosman 19

    8 February 2019 at 2:50 pm

    I think I have illustrated here why knowing history does not lead to greater understanding between people. There is a lot of good knowledge of the history surrounding the Treaty yet we have massive difference sin the view of what it means both then and now.
    • McFlock 19.1

      8 February 2019 at 3:05 pm

      Understanding your perspective doesn’t mean I have to agree with you.

      It does mean that I’ve had to try to consider things from a perspective approaching your point of view.
      • Gosman 19.1.1

        8 February 2019 at 3:15 pm

        Yes but it can also make you angry at the other. Just look at the ideas expressed here about the British “tricking” the Maori in to signing the Treaty. This seems to be based on a view that Hobson deliberately hid the concept of ceding Sovereignty to the British Crown from the Maori chiefs via the Te Reo translation. If that is what you get from your history (which people like Left_forward seem to get) then knowing history is positively damaging.
        • solkta 19.1.1.1

          8 February 2019 at 3:34 pm

          There was certainly a degree of dishonesty with the translation. The most favorable interpretation is that they “fudged it”. The worst that they simply lied.
          • Gosman 19.1.1.1.1

            8 February 2019 at 3:42 pm

            The term used that equated with Governorship rather than Sovereignty was apparently from what was known at the time as Missionary Maori. This coupled with the fact that they wrote the English language version first and only put the Te Reo translation together the night before the discussion on it suggests less of a conspiracy and more of a rush to get things out without really thinking through the consequences.
        • McFlock 19.1.1.2

          8 February 2019 at 3:41 pm

          Which is why it’s good to discuss it with other people. If a perspective is not tenable but is discussed in good faith (and, frankly, the only one I’ve read so far with issues of good faith is you), then sooner or later it falls down.

          It’s not about “indoctrination” into a particular perspective. Put the facts down and discuss where the ball lies. The fact is the Māori signed a copy that meant one thing, the British signed something else. The British then just enforced their copy when it suited them, and ignored the entire thing when it didn’t. And hoped Māori would die out.

          So there’s your position that the British copy takes primacy because they wouldn’t have ratified the Māori copy if they’d understood the contents. Some people feel the same applies to the Māori copy.

          We can work through this with maybe a bit of anger, or we can pretend it’s not a problem for a hundred years – because that worked so well in the past.
          • Gosman 19.1.1.2.1

            8 February 2019 at 3:45 pm

            Serious question McFlock. Putting aside your ideological dislike of my position on many topics for a moment what element of my understanding of the History surrounding the Treaty has issues with good faith? As I stated I love history and have attempted to present both sides of the topic without prejudice. Which elements of my narrative do you take issue with and why? I haven’t expressed the view that the English language version should take precedence just that the Te Reo version has a massive contradiction which means it can’t take precendence.
            • gsays 19.1.1.2.1.1

              8 February 2019 at 3:58 pm

              ‘scuse me for butting in, I am a history novice.

              I understood when there is a discrepancy in interpretations of a treaty, the indigenous version took priority over the others.
              • Gosman …

                8 February 2019 at 3:59 pm

                Where does it state this in international law and when did that become common practice?

                See I suspect that if this is correct (a big if at this stage) it is a far more recent thing than when the Treaty was signed. There is no way that powerful nations like Great Britain at almost the height of it’s power would allow itself to be constrained by local language interpretations especially over something as important to the British as who qualifies as a British Subject.
                • McFlock …

                  8 February 2019 at 4:02 pm

                  Relevant principles are:

                  a) The primary duty of a tribunal charged with interpreting a treaty is to give effect to the expressed intention of the parties, that is, their intention as expressed in the words used by them in the light of surrounding circumstances.

                  b) It is necessary to bear in mind the overall aim and purpose of the treaty.

                  c) In relation to bilingual treaties neither text is superior.

                  d) Given that almost all Māori signatories signed the Māori text, considerable weight should be given to that version.

                  e) The contra proferentem rule that in the event of ambiguity such a provision should be construed against the party which drafted or proposed that provision (in this case the Crown) applies.

                  f) The United States Supreme Court ‘indulgent rule’ that treaties with indigenous people (American Indians) should be construed ‘in the sense which they would naturally be understood by Indians’ supports the principle (d) above.

                  g) Treaties should be interpreted in the spirit in which they were drawn taking into account the surrounding circumstances and any declared or apparent objects and purposes. (1)
                  • Gosman …

                    8 February 2019 at 4:09 pm

                    Thanks for that McFlock. This means it was done well over a hundred years AFTER the Treaty was signed and is a set of guidelines only set done by the Waitangi Tribunal (itself under the power of the Crown).

                    The reference to tghe US Supreme court ‘indulgent rule’ is interesting. It only mentions that the biew the Tribunal has is consistent with this not that there is some principle in international law that is universally accepted. I can also not find a reference to this rule online.
                    • McFlock …

                      8 February 2019 at 4:17 pm

                      If you’d googled it yourself, you needn’t have asked three or four times. just saying….

                      But yes, it’s a set of guidelines on how to get something fair out of the ToW clusterfuck. If they’d recognised a need for those guidelines at the time, they’d have actually done a better job translating and renegotiating it.
                  • gsays …

                    10 February 2019 at 10:28 pm

                    Chur.
            • McFlock 19.1.1.2.1.2

              8 February 2019 at 4:01 pm

              I think the main thing that irks me is that you put out positions and then demand other people should knock them down, rather than actually supporting them. But you also expect other people to support their arguments, rather than going to the effort of knocking them down yourself.

              For example, you claim that the British would never have given sovreignty away so the Māori copy is a “legal nullity” (which opens a whole other can of worms about fraud), with no support. So folks disagree, but then when they claims that there might be a convention that actually the indiginous peoples’ copy might be the document of record you demand chapter and verse of the precedent at the time the Treaty was signed.

              And then there’s your claim of attempting to present all sides without prejudice, in the face of what to me looks like blatant bias in favour of the British.
              • Gosman …

                8 February 2019 at 4:12 pm

                I support my claim. I have done so consistently here. Which claim have I not supported? The basis for the Treaty being a legal nullity is that if the Maori did not cede Sovereignty (a possibility) and the British did not grant British Subject status without gaining Sovereignty (A even stronger probability) then the agreement between the two parties was not there. Hence the two sides did not get what they wanted and the Treaty gave the British no basis for Sovereignty but also the Maori no basis to claim the rights of British Subjects
                • McFlock …

                  8 February 2019 at 4:25 pm

                  So the Māori “possibility” is based on the Māori copy of the Treaty that explicitly makes that statement, and your British “stronger probability” is based on ???

                  And this is you presenting all sides without prejudice lol.

                  And the British took not just sovereignty but all the land and fisheries etc as well within a couple of decades, so if the Treaty is void how do you untangle that?

                  And maybe recognising some of these issues might explain why some people are fucked off to this day, let alone socioeconomically marginalised. So that’s why it should be taught in schools.
                  • Dennis Frank …

                    8 February 2019 at 4:43 pm

                    I agree with your reasoning, but just because it ought to be taught, we must not fall victim to the assumption that it would be taught competently.

                    Such a nuanced topic – which adults seem unable to form a consensus on – is likely to test the comprehension of the teachers more than that of the students. My guess is that maybe 20% would do a reasonable job of framing it appropriately, and I doubt more than 2% would actually get it right in all respects. 😎
                    • McFlock …

                      8 February 2019 at 5:00 pm

                      Still a better rate than we have currently.
                    • greywarshark …

                      8 February 2019 at 5:08 pm

                      Let’s have trained Maori and pakeha teachers do it, and give it a go. Remembering things can look quite different from a different perspective, like looking in one of those three part mirrors on a dressing table. Perhaps a Maori and a Pakeha teacher, and divide the class into two teams as in a debate. A part of history is being studied and each team present their case for who was right. And then swop over, and that would be a good mind and understanding exercise.
                    • McFlock …

                      8 February 2019 at 5:35 pm

                      I reckon it’s more than one lesson or term – can develop more complex themes over the basics as the kids progress through schools. So they’ll get exposed to the perspectives of a number of different teachers.
                  • left_forward …

                    8 February 2019 at 5:02 pm

                    I think that Gossy is genuinely shocked by all this today and his colonialist right wing brain has gotten all confused. We were talking about the difference in the English and Māori (thanks for the macron) versions of article 2, and when he finally got it his brain went ‘fizzz’. And because he clealry cannot concede anything, he wierdly came up with the delusionary claim that if this is so, then neither the English nor Māori versions of article 3 can be true, something that has never been in dispute until today.
                    By now he is in a deep hole and rather than finally concede he came up with the Treaty must be null crap, when it clealry isn’t.
                    Perhaps afetr a good nights sleep, we will now see a different Goss, one ready to accept his shortcomings with his vulnerable human side all showing.
                    • McFlock …

                      8 February 2019 at 5:08 pm

                      He must have run off to the library in order to demonstrate the the Treaty is inconsisted with the policies of Cecil Rhodes or Clive of India, therefore it is just a figment of our collective imagination.
                    • Gosman …

                      8 February 2019 at 5:42 pm

                      I’m having free drinks at work. Although there really is no such thing as a free anything 😉
                    • veutoviper …

                      8 February 2019 at 5:44 pm

                      While I did say earlier today that it is good we are discussing these issues (LOL), I am astounded by the ignorance and closed minds demonstrated by some on things like the application of the rule of law and other legal provisions and principles such as contra proferentem etc to Te Tiriti; with ideas that the difference in the provisions of the two versions mean the whole treaty must be null and void etc.

                      I also had to sit down when I read this – ” I’m trying to alert folks to the false assumption a lot of people seem to have in their minds: that recognition of the Treaty can bind us in the future. I believe it is valid only for treaty settlements.”

                      IMO this demonstrates absolutely no understanding of (A) the difference between historical treaty claims and contemporary treat claims and the ongoing nature of the latter; or of (B) the timescales for settling historical claims (2014-2020) and existing contemporary claims (2020 – 2025) under the Waitangi Tribunal’s current Strategic Direction 2014 – 2025. And the fact that the ability to lay contemporary claims is ongoing …

                      I have actually dug out links to the latter document and others relevant to the ongoing nature of the application of Te Tiriti, and also various legal opinions, Waitangi Tribunal decisions etc on the application of the Contra Proferentem principle to Te Tiriti but am not going to attempt to post these today. Might do so as suggested reading in a more neutral comment on OM tomorrow perhaps. But think everyone needs to take a deep breath = I certainly do!
                    • greywarshark …

                      8 February 2019 at 6:42 pm

                      Gosman thinks there is nothing that is really free. What does he pay in cash or kind to come here with his endless questions like a three year old?
                  • Gosman …

                    8 February 2019 at 5:41 pm

                    People are not socioeconomically marginalised because of the Treaty
                    • McFlock …

                      8 February 2019 at 6:03 pm

                      Well, that’s an entire other discussion, as well as being another example of your prove_me_wrong/support_your_statement approach.
20. Ad 20

    8 February 2019 at 5:51 pm

    OMG I am never doing another Waitangi post ever again.
    • lprent 20.1

      8 February 2019 at 6:36 pm

      You could have hardly expected that a singleton of the ancient celtic stupidity would have arrived.

      I did get amused to think that a few thousand kilometres from Greenland to Vinland (even with much later technology than the Celtics had) was a short trip. But it is as inevitable that someone somewhere would expect that a currach or coracle or one of the other celtic craft got here over more than 18,000 km (and that is in a direct line) without leaving intervening archaeological traces.

      Fantasy kerosene time…

      The rest of the discussion wasn’t tooooo…… bad. At least if you can stop laughing at the binary choice logic being used in quite a few places. (Humans are analogue – not binary).
      • veutoviper 20.1.1

        8 February 2019 at 7:01 pm

        LOL. It drove me to drink last night! I am trying to be circumspect tonight but what the hell …

        Seriously, quite revealing as I mentioned at 5.44pm above. Might throw up a few links etc tomorrow as mentioned there – and then run for cover.

        My warped mind/sense of humour is also thinking that Chris Finlayson has nothing to do now. Perhaps we could him on here on a Q & A to answer a few questions on Te Tiriti … I am happy to invite him as I live in the same electorate, after all he can only say no!

        Might have to suspend one or two of the TS rules of behaviour – for him, not the rest of us such as ad hominems (he is the master of that one!).

        OTOH, probably would not make any difference to the ostriches.
      • Ad 20.1.2

        8 February 2019 at 9:35 pm

        Sigh
    • greywarshark 20.2

      8 February 2019 at 7:06 pm

      But this is supposed to be good for us – a bit of argy-bargy and everyone having a chance to get educated, informed, put their view forward. What could go wrong with that?

      Let’s get a bit closer together with Herbs band.

      Beautiful children come into my life.
      Sensitive to a smile.
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDmZRvJBS-E

      Terrific arcapella E Papa
      (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wPLW7G1J_w

      Parihaka
      (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yn7a7xMeRkw
21. greywarshark 21

    10 February 2019 at 11:34 am

    Schools could get behind a series of learning workshops, or even class periods where they watch the work of an experienced historical recorder interviewing a local Maori kaumatua about the general history of the area.

    This could be included within a private discussion between the researcher (agreed or chosen by the local marae) as a means of garnering their history for the marae’s own purposes before they lose their kaumatua and their memories.

    Eco Maori says this at Open Mike 21 on 10 Feb 2019
    I BACK the Idear that we NEED to record our Kaumatua knowledge no one is doing that I have heard of at the minute that needs to stepped up.
    There is a big surge in the demand for Tangata Whenua Art in the motu and Papatuanuku not just Aotearoa Art all indigenous cultures art is getting a great increase in demand .

    Maori I am sure would all agree with him, and that what has been already done, is just a drop in the bucket so to speak.

    Kaumātua are respected tribal elders of either gender in a Māori community who have been involved with their whānau for a number of years. They are appointed by their people who believe the chosen elders have the capacity to teach and guide both current and future generations. Wikipedia

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS