Ngāti Toa CEO Helmut Modlik on the Treaty Principles Debate
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 25 ноя 2024
- Sean Plunket talks to Ngāti Toa CEO Helmut Modlik on the Treaty Principles debate.
Watch the full video at theplatform.kiwi/
Support The Platform & become a RUclips VIP! - / @theplatformnz
Join Platform Plus for enhanced access and features: theplatform.ki...
Download The Platform app for free:
App Store: apps.apple.com...
Google Play: play.google.co...
Call 0800 DEBATE or text us at 5050 (Standard SMS text charges will apply)
Listen to The Platform's straight-talking, free-thinking hosts every weekday.
Sean Plunket: 7am - 10am
Michael Laws: 10am - 1pm
Martin Devlin: 1pm - 4pm
Leah Panapa: 4pm - 6pm
#ThePlatformNZ
So what part of the coast are Ngati Toa claiming? They gave up their ancestral lands around Kawhia to Waikato then heading south on a conquering binge. They then sold their rights to much of the land at the top of the South Island to the NZ company. What about the remnant of the poor tribes that got wiped out on the Waikanae coast and at the top of the South Island?
they set foot in the south island so are probably claiming the whole south island . . .
@@J.Smith-rc6wh Did more than step foot in it... absolutely wreaked havoc along with allied tribes such as Atiawa.
Dave mate. Do you seriously think the colonial negotiations were fair? There were times when the Maori were taken advantage of. The treaty was an attempt to rectify the power imbalance. Learn history.
@@LarryMilmine-e9r No, the Treaty was in response to Maori asking the Crown via a letter in 1831 for help. Learn history, real history. Avoid brainwashing.
@@LarryMilmine-e9r After the signing of the treaty, all land claims were fairly investigated by a government commission. Many settleres were seriously unsettled by this news.... it also served to stop the landsharks that were swooping in from Sydney~
Trying to sound smart and being smart are 2 different things Helmut .
At least Helmut has the guts to appear on the Platform unlike Luxon and Tamihere
To be fair (and it’s not meant as a defence) Luxon has made it pretty clear he didn’t want a bar of this and isn’t supporting anything past a first reading in Parliament. He probably feels it’s for to Seymour to front up to.
That said without first reading everything pure conjecture and much ado about nothing as yet.
Tamahere too busy for racist fringe korero
Yep spot on 👍
@@NZsarge1but he won’t appear on the platform period! Regardless of topic
@@NZsarge1he’s a coward and his nickname luxflakes suits him
All Tainui present themselves like the people who trace their ancestory back to the immigrants off the Mayflower in America. Elitist and highly political. They do not realise how racist their positions are because they only argue amongst themselves. We need less of this and more unity. No one cares about ancestry, we all have it and it is a personal thing. We are all one. We are all the same. The treaty has been part of NZ law for less time than it has had no place in our law. This guy talks absolute nonsense and circles. Dump the treaty back to be a founding document, a historical artefact, a starting point. It has caused nothing but blooshed. When the maori battalion charged, the treaty was not part of our law.
Tainui need to get their heads around: they are not the majority, they are a minority, NZ is a great place with a great system of governance, reparations have already been made from everyone's taxes, The treaty has been part of our law for less years than it had no place in our law.
The Treaty pre-dates parliament in NZ the fact that it was ignored for so long doesn't mean recognizing it in law and the length of time it was recognized in law doesn't mean it less relevant because it was left out of law.
@@IanG2120 Well said. Sweeping truth under the carpet of time is an old worn out trick.
Of no one cared about ancestry why is king charles king umm ancestry
Sorry he twist the truth again, like they do. He said its not 1840 its 2024 so he wants to change the treaty that was signed in 1840!
Yea what a joke this guy is.
Give them nothing, in fact take anything we have already given them back......
Womp womp
Daniel has been a naughty boy. 😳 he not like Maori. In fact, he gives me the feeling he does not like himself. If you disappear, no one going to care
Māori should do the same!
Then you'll be on the next flight home Danny Boy.
What do you mean “we” you had no part in the partnership with Māori did you? Why are you trying to take credit for something you didn’t do? Do you claim you went to the moon as well?
Come and take it all off me then Daniel San...let's see how far you get with that idea...
A German-Slavic Maori!
Why does that matter?
@@njm361 it's just interesting...
@@njm361 Because one side of his ancestry killed members of the Maori Battalion! He must pay compensation to, er, himself.
I know it’s all so laughable that I find it hard to believe.
Damned silly thing to say.
Sounds like "GRAVY TRAIN " always was ..always will be ..
Yep - Pākehā been on the gravy train since they stole the Māori economy in the 20 years between 1860 to 1880 in an invasion by illegal corporate sponsorship of NSW military force. Now the hosts want the gravy jug back because the guests have outstayed their welcome.
@@1Ma9iN8tive well said
Pakeha always subscribe to your theory. Have you done any research on Te Tiriti O Waitangi? Have you been to any lectures of same? It is about compensation and the theft of Maori Land. And the theft still goes on today.
@@annebatistich6438 so true
THERE ARE NO PRINCIPLES, WE ALL OWN THE RESOURCES, MAORI DO NOT NEED TO HAVE ANY FORM OF CONTROL FOR THEIR CULTURE
IF I USE CAPS IT MAKES MY GIBBERISH MAKES SENSE
@@LarryMilmine-e9r got your attention noddy and who says we can't use caps,thick tosser
Thats clear
Shut up
He would make a good salesman trying to sell something about nothing.
Then your comprehension skills need tuning.
we didn't teach early NZ history because the musket wars between the tribes was so horrific. It was thought better to pass over it in silence I guess.
And two horrific world wars were just fine, grow up.
I had to read about the detail of the musket wars (1807 - 1837) everything changed during this rampage of killing.
What tribes were left in their ancestral lands after these brutal wars, what reparations to those killed and driven from lands in the settlements ?
The records are so gruesome I had to stop reading, early missionaries recorded what they could and again it was beyond anything I've read in terms of how brutal and gruesome it was.
I assume most at that time were seeking a way to survive the slaughter and the treaty offered safety and security.
@@jameslovering9158 Yes, this was the background against which the treaty was signed... and makes that signing comprehensible. And yet this history is lost to the point that Helmot can express astonishment that chiefs would want to sign away ther [right of] sovereignty. They got more than they gave away - law and order and protection while giving away an abstraction that had no reality.
I taught it in 1970s secondary schools..... and learned it myself in 40/50s. alongside kids from the Pa well used to stories re cannibalism etc.. and theft/lies/sly behaviour....
Interestingly, the new NZ Histories curriculum brought out under the Labour/Greens government eliminates all teaching of the Musket Wars, and starts its teaching at 1840. Without the context of what went on before, it doesn’t make complete sense.
..Toa where driven out of the Kawhia area by Waikato, moved south where they joined their cousins Raukawa in the destruction of the south island people..
I'm sure it was mostly peaceful destruction. I could go on, but I don't want anyone to invoke the Moriori equivalent of Godwin's Law...
Hitler of the south Pacific
@@mr2981 ..one massacre after another, the northern tribes had muskets and tomahawks. Read John Crosby's 'Musket Wars, a history of inter- iwi conflict 1805 - 1845..'
@@mr2981 sorry, Ron Crosby..
To know what was said, you would need to go back in time, you cannot speak for the past, your kidding yourself or telling lies.
It was written down in a document and then copied and those copies were sent to Sydney and to London. That document is The Treaty of Waitangi.
It is only from the past that we can learn. Wisdom comes from hindsight. If agreements and contracts can change over time, we are in trouble. What if the business your grand parents bought and developed and handed down to you was taken from you because the purchase contract, all of a sudden didn't mean what it meant back in the day it was signed. Because the original owners said under the spirit of the agreement, the ownership was temporary.
@@IanG2120 Also sent to the US. This is the "same" as the Littlewood draft!!
@DW_Kiwi
That Littlewood document is just what you say a draft the Treaty that was presented and signed had been revised and changed.
Maoris today never quote the Treaty Chiefs cos they clash with their decisions for Tikanga Christianity
Helmut is up for the conversation which is great but before NZ Europeans are held to task on what relevence the treaty did or didnt have keep in mind Ngāti Toa were engaged in on of the most egregious genocides of modern history . Dont talk about legislative culpabilities sunshine.
So what about the Robinson Book that shows where Maori over the decades have broken the Treaty.
Ssshhh ya not allowed to bring up any facts on this subject stop it ✋ 😊
@@tpaine1815 name them
@matiupyro660 lawlessness to begin with. Every time a Maori breaks the law, they're violating the treaty.
@@AmonAnon-vw3hr 🤣😆🤪🤭😆🤣🤣u sure that's not the pakeha in us
NZ Government broke the treaty in 1975 with its fictional 'official' version made to accomodate the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People, the real Tiriti was scrapped in favour of another UN dictate. NZ independent national sovereignty? Not with globalist treasonous National/Labor Tweedledum/Tweedledee Left/Right wings of the same filthy globalist bird. Hi iwi tahi tatou.
An interesting point people should keep in mind is that Maori are not the architects of the so-called "principals of the treaty"... though they have used them to their advantage.
who are the architects?
@@LarryMilmine-e9r Geoffrey Palmer (Labour) back in 86 was the first to introduce the concept, then judges such as Robin Cooke proceeded to do an interpretation.
@@Jay-oh1li the concept of extracting principals from a written document goes back far further than that. Splicing the treaty into components (principals) is what you are supposed to do when applying it practically.
@@LarryMilmine-e9r What we do with the ToW is for the nation to decide. In any case, I will be interested to see David Seymour's take on the principals and how they intend to be applied.
Also, when I say Geoffrey Palmer introduced the concept, I am speaking in relation to ToW principals. I figured you'd figure that out given what I was speaking in relation to, but I'll spell it out for you.
@@Jay-oh1li the implication you were making by linking palmer (labour) and the Maori benefitting from it reeked of right wing conspiracy theories. It was pointless and adds to the hype.
That bloke is more European than Maori. He's a human being, a NZ'er, like the rest of us, no more nor less special. We should today all have the same rights and responsibilities.
Same pay and same house. When can I move in...😊
Calm down, buddy. I am here to see what closet racists have to say.
Why do you even point that out? shows your true colours
@@senseisaitama8684 its obvious ....His name suggests he's European , possibly German , so he has two cultures, or more. I don't know if he has any interest, or knowledge of his European ancestry , or if he has the will to explore it. He maybe adopted. However I suspect only one Race/Culture has prevalence over the others.
@@seanodwyer4322 What planet were you born on Sean ?
Shawn, he said they came to the district a number of years ago. Who was there beforehand and were they displaced by force?
That guy spoke very well and debated calmly with Shaun and did not waffle on like many of the maori activists.
its positive to see people discuss things which for many years has not been done and instead just have a narrative. We havent seen this on the mainstream media for many years and applaud the discussion. Congrats to you Shaun on your excellent channel and also to Helmut Modlik for fronting up and enabling a much needed dialogue for all.
Was the recent 800 million not really cutting it for them build you fellas some houses
Maori arrived in NZ between 1250 & 1300 so they’ve been here 800 years not 1000, and their population is around 750 -800,000 not a million. You can’t change a treaty because it no longer suits you and I can’t respect maori any more.
It’s not all Māori it is just the ones that want something for nothing.
@@olliemoose2020 yes you’re right, but sadly the maori that don’t agree with it stay quiet…
What use are these tribal corporations?
Gravy trains as to try and claim money for ancestor land, etc to make claims in the courts, I could do the same with my family now and claim for my ancestor lands a 100 to 150 years ago, as they own a lot of land by the coast, but I think this is a waste of my time and energy, as they legally sold there land and move onto other areas of New Zealand, as the past is the past, and I will buy my own land and create my own money, not been dependent on government for historic events
Normally they have charity status and don’t pay any tax. And because of the inefficient communist ownership model they are often not efficiently run.
@@pauldansby8285exactly.
Let’s just get rid of the document. I’m sick of this nonsense from Māori
Hey look someones got an opinion
Would you tell the US to just get rid of their document- the US Constitution?
The Treaty is NOT New Zealand's Constitution get your Facts Rite
@@briansatchell2319 go back to law school and ask for a refund
@briansatchell2319
I never said it was. I stated as a comparison, would you expect the US just to bin their Constitution? No, they wouldn't nor should we bin the Treaty that is our founding document .
The ToW Maori version (as translated by Sir Hugh Kawharu) is very clear. Article 1 ceded Government to the Crown in perpetuity, and exercising Government is a manifestation of sovereignty. In other words, a government can only exercise its authority because it is sovereign. The 'Principles of the Treaty' are a contemporary attempt to stretch the Treaty to mean vastly more than the face value of its clauses. As an example, although Te Reo Maori is not actually mentioned in the ToW, it is clearly a Taonga under article 2 for which Maori are guaranteed their Chieftainship. In other words the use and promotion of Te Reo is under Maori control. But wait, there's more....... this has been turned on its head by a contemporary open-ended Treaty principle of 'duty of active protection' by the Crown. Suddenly what was the preserve of Maori to use and promote their language as they see fit, has somehow morphed into a Crown responsibility (and cost) by an invented Treaty 'principle'.
@@Billy.Sastard OK. Use Sir Apirana Ngata's 1922 translation if you like. It doesn't change my comments on Article 1 (kawanatanga) or Article 2 (tino rangatiratanga) above.
Ask him why all these Maori huge companies Pay NO tax unlike all other NZ companies.
These Maori companies should not be exempt at all.
Also Maori pay no rates on Marea in NZ yet reap all the benefits & at the cost of Ratepayers, these racist rules need to be rectified.
sanitarium church rd mission wines what about those businesses
We, Hubby and I operated as a limited company during his working years and paid the same tax as everyone else. He has since retired. We paid and continue to pay land rates where we reside in Mangonui in the Far North. However my brother and I own a 100 acre property in the country (about 20 minutes from our house) that is designated Maori Freehold land and we do not pay rates on that property. We received legal advice pertaining to this property and the land rates thereof. However should we make a profit on any business operated on that land we are expected to pay land rates. I do not know who designated the land as Maori Freehold Land. The 04 acres of flat land that we cleared of gorse is prone to flooding, 96 acres is comprised of teatree bush and is hilly land.
Who said Maori corps don't pay taxes. Where on earth did you get that from
The concept of the Treaty is a Western ("colonial") concept. If Maori mores were adhered to, might was right; under Maori custom, the conqueror took the land and enslaved or killed the people.
Really! Have another joint or whatever your'er on, good god, no wonder you natives are full of shit!
Came down about 1825 (with their allies Te Ati Awa) and killed and drove out the Maaori (Ngati Tara, Ngati Ira and Ngati Kahugnunu) that were living here in Wellington and the Hutt Valley during the Musket wars. A history that Helmut was quick to brush past and is often overlooked and not mentioned.
A sad fact that history in NZ is thought to begin in 1840. And yet there was a hell of a lot of settle, whaler, missionary, tribal [recorded] history going for decades before 1840.
And Te Ati Awa pretty nasty lot, ruined many a farm in the Naki... Read Prof Paul Moon on 1802s... IF you are allowed the library books. Big Brother is VOTCHING!!!
@@davethewave7248 Yep, one of my European Tipuna got here about 1830. My Maaori ones..... well, about 1300 I guess.
Don't forget Ngati Moe Moe in Totaranui (Queen Charlotte Sounds) who were wiped out with British guns by North Island mauraders. Te Rauparaha and his gang.
@@lynnebarnes3840 Te Rauparaha
I don't care about 'what happened X' or what 'X group thought'. We are ONE COUNTRY filled with people. We should act like that and have a law that serves all of those people.
" The problem has been shortly after its signing, pretty much straight away." Perhaps the man should read the Minutes of the Kohimaramara Conference, they will show this man is a liar, an out and out liar. The minutes are on the National Library's website for any and everybody to read if they care to. All 47 pages of them.
Was his the first Tribe to occupy land at Porirua Harbour, I think not. What happened to the previous Tribe/s...?
In particular the very first resolution on Friday 10th August 1860 of the Kohimaramara Conference. I think Helmut owes us all an apology, especially his Ancestors whom he has been extremely disrespectful of. Let us hear it Helmut, let us hear it...
For those new to this the 1860 Kohimaramara Conference was attended by over 200 Chiefs who had signed the Treaty twenty years earlier, they reaffirmed their commitment to the Treaty and the Queen unanimously. The transcript of their speech's at this week long conference are online too so you can read what each and every one of them had to say, and, it is clear that they were very, very keen indeed on the matter of ceding sovereignty, and the fact that the Queen was there to protect them, AND, had protected them. EVERY New Zealander should read this for themselves, it is straight from the horses mouth and is irrefutable evidence of the the facts surrounding the Treaty, not the propaganda that we have rammed down our throats today.
Oh, so now it's a "de facto" situation and this "CEO" doesn't accept that Maori ceded sovereignty to the Crown. We've already had enough shenanigans over the interpretations of the so-called Principles. without Maori seeking to interpret the most basic element of The Treaty.
Wrong he's saying you have never honoured your side of the agreement
@@carlmark1013 Wrong, he's saying "de facto" instead of de jure (of law). So, he's not really admitting the existence or validity of the The Treaty.
All I heard was a load of rubbish,just give me money because I’m maori,
He doesn’t look very maori
@@carlmark1013 But what was "your" side of the Treaty. "All" the context and background documents indicate very plainly that Maori ceded sovereignty!!
@@mattheweden-pc5pk Sorry. That wont do anymore. Put up an argument that sovereignty wasn't ceded!!
He looks as "White as me..." how long do we make this fuss about "Race"? Benefiting only some... Regarding the 70 - 90,000 Māori vs. 2000 Pakeha and the signing of the ToW - the Māori knew how powerful the British were and most Māori did not have muskets and cannon and so on... Māori were a fractured people who constantly fought each other (hence the "Musket Wars") and a 'titular head' (Queen Victoria's peace and protection) who was 'neutral' was the brokered idea. Māori knew it was the best option rather than both fighting each other and losing everything if they fought the innumerable and very powerful (by their standards) flood of British, French, Dutch and so on... Maybe they made a "bad deal" but it was their deal to make...
Maori certainly had muskets [bought by selling shrunken heads] by 1840...
@@gjlander100 ... and certainly had the knowledge of the respective power of the British Empire compared to tribes that were plagued by infighting... and they had "not so many" cannon and ships...
Ngāti Toa lived on the coastal west Waikato region until forced out by conflict with other Tainui iwi. Ngāti Toa, Ngāti Rārua and Ngāti Koata, led by Te Rauparaha (c. 1765-1849), escaped south and invaded Taranaki and the Wellington regions together with three North Taranaki iwi, Te Āti Awa, Ngāti Tama and Ngāti Mutunga. Together they fought with and conquered the turangawaewae of Wellington, Ngāti Ira, wiping out their existence as an independent iwi. After the 1820s, the region conquered by Ngāti Toa extended from Miria-te-kakara at Rangitikei to Wellington, and across Cook Strait to Wairau and Nelson.
My ancestors saved Hobson, started the regular mail, fought for NZ in the Boer and both world wars. Settled New Plymouth and Wairarapa.
We drained the swamps in our towns not Maori, stuff off with ya treaty lies
😂 who cares
@@lifes_abeach6040 sorry you have a pathetic bloodline
There was only one Treaty, not two. There is only the Maori version. Maori ceded sovereignty because the British system gave them a better life than the system they had. The British system with its protection of laws, allows for some freedom, whereas the system they were living under was one where they were always under threat and engaging in revenge attacks. There is no conflict between the first article and the second. The first relates to sovereignty. The second is about ownership. Ownership includes the right to sell. Once you sell you lose ownership of that thing, and you get whatever you sold it for instead. .
JUST ANOTHER OF THE GRAVY TRAIN MOB
2000 settlers backed by an empire with armies and the Royal Navy... Not that hard to imagine.
Yes, but the Royal Navy and the army were a long way away at that time. Hobson had 3 armed policemen from Sydney when they signed the treaty
@@Digmen1 What does that have to do with anything. If the Empire didn't 'partner' with places like India, or anyone, they sure were not going to 'partner' with an annoyance on a few inconsequential islands.
@@mr2981What does that have to do with anything you ask?
Māori could have wiped them ALL off the face of the earth...that's what!
But Māori are a reasonable people and let the filth remain on their lands.
@@_.Marz._ tell it to the Moriori.
@@_.Marz._😂 they were divided as was normal for maori….too much ego and no self control
100,000 maori in 1840? Really?
They ceded sovereignty because the tribes were at war of the most horrendous type with eachother, and realized they could not govern themselves. They were desperate for law and order. Simples.
lol, a Pākēha making storys up that fit their narrative...
@@maorifilm It happens to be true. At first the chiefs were all against the treaty, telling Hobson to go away,. Then Waaka Nene and Pauone, major chiefs of Nga Puhi, stepped up to the plate, gave a great speech and swung the tide in its favour. History gives you the context... politics a fairytale.
Dave mate, open a history text book.
@@LarryMilmine-e9r What do you mean. My bookshelf is full of NZ history books. You might like to consider reading 'The Musket Wars' by Ron Crosby, which went right through the 1820s and 1830s only ending with the signing of the treaty. Whole tribes were wiped out by the more powerful tribes. The chiefs were sick and tired of it, and were desirous of law and order. This is why they signed.
@davethewave7248 oh yes.. again, Pākēha telling storys to fit their narrative
Do Māori corporations pay the same tax as non Māori corporations if not why not?
What makes you think Maori corps don't pay taxes
They pay a lower rate
I believe they pay a lower rate
@@PhilippeGianni who told you that
@PhilippeGianni who told you that. I mean everyone has to pay the right amount of tax. Maori aren't that privileged.
the argument of 100,000 maori vs 2000 british is statistical misrepresentation of what was happening in NZ.
There are 200? Iwi, so that is only 500 per Iwi say, half of those women, and 1/4 maybe children. So about 200 were fighting warriors? And Iwi were fighting Iwi, they were not a unified nation working together. Seems more like the Treaty was an acceptance that EVERYONE lost but the Brits knew how to govern a nation.
And the Treaty does NOT say that Iwi chiefs will govern their Iwi still. How does he state that? It says that Hapu and whanau will be entitled to live as free citizens under the governance of the crown, NOT Iwi, and that the chiefs were protected from retaliation.
Exactly no more and no less.
A lot of respect for this man for coming on the platform! Good to see a clear and open discussion!
What a complete load of old tosh , when will this bloody nonsense ever end , this country will continue to go down the gurgler until it stops , somebody has to have balls to stand up and say enough is enough !!!!!
It will be hard because to many people are making big money out of this TOW crap.
People are Leaving New Zealand because of the Maori crap People are absolutely sick of all the Poor * Maori Victims* all the Bloody Time
@@briansatchell2319 Yep, bloody sad , I wonder what woe is me shite will be in today's episode.
What gurgler are you talking about? The reality is that Te Tiriti O Waitangi was signed umpteen years ago (not the English version) and successive governments have made agreements with some and not with others. It is all about negotiation and that can take a long. long time as some Maori Iwi (tribes) know. So being patient is the name of the game!
You should to@@briansatchell2319
Ah Yes, Ngāti Toa who pillaged the land and possessions of Ngāti Ira.
As Sir Apirana Ngata pointed out, the Brits put a stop to that sort of lawless behaviour by inviting Māori to sign the Treaty and become subjects of the Crown.
Maybe Ngati Toa could apologize for the genocide and ethnic cleansing they did in the lower NI and SÌ?
Te Rauparaha Didn’t have a problem with NZ being settled, he was happy to sell newly conquered lands off conquered tribes. Not so much fun for the defenceless tribes around the South Island who had to flee their lands. Ngati Toa are still today reaping the rewards of conquest as they become a multi billion dollar enterprise
Yep he even signed the Treaty twice!!!
They signed the Treaty because until the Crown stepped in, they were busy massacring themselves in the Musket Wars. If you want to know just how utterly terrible that was, read Crosby's The Musket Wars. It was brutal!
Its high time that those we allow to live in New Zealand, show their respect to our Flag, to our amazing country, her name, our English language....if dont want to comply, then we must send them away. Please let the New Zealand Citizens live and thive in peace.
The never ending grift that is the treaty of waitamgi
Sovereignty WAS ceeded - Both spirit and principle of te Tirity is: hi iwi tahi tatou - we are now one people, as any real democracy by definition must be...
That’s right no special treatment just because of ancestry.
Whether or not you agree with his views, I really liked Helmut's attitude overall. There was nothing combative about what he was saying. As Shaun said at the very end, it's only through conversations that we are going to make any headway. Both parties were prepared to listen to one another, and to explain their point of view. It was a really refreshing interview all round.
wht ppl dnt relise is tht england / britain was a colonised cuntry colonised by the exsisting norman crown, the anglosaxon north is still repressed till this day
There seems to be an issue here with Māori leaders thinking their ancestors didn't understand what they were doing in ceding sovereignty to the crown. There is plenty of evidence to believe they totally understood - (debates over being ruled by a woman for one!) So now the modern Māori thinks they have missed out on something. They actually gained a huge amount. Rule of law, voting rights, dismantling horrible practices - slavery, cannibalism, infanticide etc. So now here we come to today when they are trying to say no no no, it was a partnership. Sean even reminded Helmut that we all have the same rights and no one is in a partnership with the crown. I guess many think they can grab what they can from a soft government.
Yes it is a clear case of trying to muddy the water’s by a greedy few.
They taught plenty of NZ history back when I was at school. It was in the Social Studies syllabus. It does become a bit of a grind of remembering dates, but the Musket Wars and NZ wars were in there.
I taught Social studies to 13/14vyear olds in the 70s.. TOW too,, And in the 40s/50s at school myself we DID the Maoris every bloooody year... including muskets, wars, cannibalism.... and the Maori kids in class [half the class in country school] quite agreeable. Knew the troooth... Mind you they were sly, and took yer stuff quick as!!!
@@gjlander100 there does seem to be some false assertion these days that despite Maori being a "warrior culture" that there somehow wasn't bloodshed until the British showed up. You quite clearly can't live in peace and be warriors at the same time.
@@greybuckleton in my 65 years ahh have had fights with most off them and am still here.- it all started on my grandfathers farm- 'Gwavas B. - which is 40 miles from Hastings on highway 50 , when gangs off them would come and steal and rob mainly at night- time.
I learnt far more about new Zealand history in school then I did European history.
@@AmonAnon-vw3hr I think WW1 and 2 were in the syllabus and then it changed depending on the school. I don't recall the US civil war or war of Independence being at school. It was basically only NZ history as an actual history topic. Other counties were covered lightly in things like "developing nations" and "tourism".
Who pays his salary, the 9k he apparently represents?
Your tax dollars
The iwi operates businesses.
It's interesting how names travel across the globe ... Helmut is a very common male name in Austria, while Modlik is a common surname in the Czech Republic.
I enjoyed listening to Helmut. As he mentioned, he is half German through his father. Like so many Kiwis, he is of mixed heritage, so I often ponder, does he equally acknowledge both his Māori side as well as his German side? And he possibly has some British in him too, through his mother. I also find the issue of settlement of claims of iwi who arrived in new areas in 1824, in the same decade as British settlers arriving in the same area, as a little perplexing.
There's know doubt about the Maori people are indebted to the people of NZ.
Full credit to this guy for fronting and engaging constructively.
BRING IN DNA TESTING AND SORT OUT WHO IS A MAORI ANS WHO IS NOT ...
Everyone born in NZ is Maori.
Maori means 'native New Zealander; ordinary; native; belonging to New Zealand'. (the natives of NZ were not known as Maori until middle of 19th century. Up to that time they were called natives or NZers. Cook called them Indians. We are all Maori if we were born here.
It gets more interesting on the Platform's website folks
I grew up as a country boy just out of Oamaru in the 1970’s and I knew of only 1 Māori at Primary School, ……..Māori were happy to sign the Treaty to stop the different Iwi from killing each other in continuous musket wars.
Another Maori who didn't Really Know wot the Treaty REALLY SAYS and MEANS Twisting it to suit an Agender Time for SEYMOR to FIX it
He sounds like he says what was written in the treaty in 1840 has changed meaning today because it’s different times. No it has not. Maori were fighting amongst themselves wiping each other out as they did to Moriori. The chiefs signed the treaty to stop that and bring peace. If it wasn’t for the British maori would have kept their savage ways.
Loving the diverse guests on the show. Well done. This takes the platform from being a (perceived) far right echo chamber to a more critically thinking minded talk show with (I hope) the intention for constructive feedback loops between open minded yet stubborn sorts of people ultimately making for a better Aotearoa (yup) NZ 🎉
So the British empire surrendered to Maori! …who knew?
Dream on.
Didn't Maori sign sovereignty because they were worried about the Spanish.at that Time ? . And at least this man came onto the show to explain things which is more than what the others have done
Māori were afraid of the French.
No it was to stop the bloodshed between tribes.
@@nancy-margaretheyes2445nope
They would have been colonised by the French if the British hadn’t got here first.
The northern tribes were afraid of the 'tribes of Marion' [the French] due to some earlier contact with Capt Marion Dufresne whom they killed and ate.
The only debate that New Zealanders want to and NEED to have is a vote! This is not a maori country, and we are not maoris. New Zealand is a MODERN multicultural country with people who have their own culture, and who are free to speak their own tongue.
Wtf Maori are not expecting other cultures, to be Maori. What we are asking for is our culture to be accepted , and let Maori embrace their culture in their country. Aorearoa nz. What's annoying is a certain few don't want Maori culture and te reo in Aotearoa nz. Who the f$#k do they think they are.
There aren't any Principles in the Treaty !🤔🤨
"Helmut" - decidely German.... "Modlik"...??? German ? === gravy train... clinging to another Fletcher !
"You can marry/Maori in" 😅
wat u goin n about
That's what he said,@@adelaidewilson7917
In denial 😂
One of the best discussions on The Platform, ever.
Kawanatanga = Governorship, not Sovereignty. Iwi were happy to have the British Governor present to protect their just Rights and Property and to secure to them the enjoyment of Peace and Good Order. In return they would let British subjects settle while they continued to have Tino Rangatiratanga (Independence)
The text of the Treaty isnt hard to get through
Thats not the way Sir Apirana Ngata explains it…he said they ceded sovereignty…
Does the 1840 Maori version say Kawanatanga and is "governorship" even a Maori concept ? I thought Chiefs held land by force (or mana acquired by superior force)
Except they weren't guaranteed 'absolute chieftainship'... this would mean they would still have the right to wage war against eachother. What was guaranteed was a relative chieftainship over theri own tribes and lands etc.. part of which involved the free right to sell what they didn't need.
Fletcher is an idealistic neo-missionary.
Wow Sean! I’m impressed with the questions and being open minded. Don’t have to agree but at least you were curious enough to ask about Maori Iwi and Hapu and gain some understanding of another people’s lens. Again don’t have to agree, but an interview without the insults is refreshing.
Sean is a prat, any journo worth his salt would have asked him the simple question "does the system you have used to vote and represent your people in any way represent how it was in pre-european times?"
The more I hear about the Waitangi Treaty, the more I am convinced it needs to be removed from our legislative framework.
Yup.
Would it be crass to point out this gentleman's name .? This is the problem, I presume he has some Maori lineage, and I don't care about how much Maori blood he has up to the point he tells me he is special and should have more rights than I, because at that point I fell justify in telling he wear to go and how far. To me, if one of the parties in a treaty is not satisfied with what was signed up to, then the treaty is null and void, ( you don't, 150 odd years latter get to rewrite it )and at that stage, all hell breaks loose.?
The Kaiser forgot to mention the fact that the Maori were pleased to have the British treaty as at that time they were killing each other at a far faster rate than they could reproduce.
The northern tribes strongly promoted the treaty with the British as they had experienced some very times with the French ie the 'tribes of Marion'.
Yes why didn’t they teach that at school.
So ;Helmut did not answer to the question of "are there Principles?" He also referred to two versions of the Treaty 1/. The one in Maori 2/. The wrong English version. Number 1 is correct the problem is number 2 because he refers to the rogue (& incorrect) Freeman version. The version that the maori version was translated word-for-word from is the "BUSBY" version , often referred to as the "Littlewood" version. (Littlewood was only actually given the only & true "BUSBY" version for safekeeping!). The rogue "Freeman" version is the root of all the unnecessary 'debate', and to assist understanding of all this it is worth noting that the rogue Freeman English version is the one used at Te Papa!?
This is a large topic......largely distorted by Helmut, along with his Activist colleagues, by continuous reference to the rogue "Freeman" English version.....quite conveniently!?
NB: The rogue "Freeman" version is the one the Waitangi Tribunal uses also...!
It becomes very clear when a thorough study is made of the Treaty.
BRILLIANT CONVO...the CEO makes some bloody valid points
As I understand this nonsense. There was a so-called Treat. Then the land wars making the Treat null and void! This Treat was made with the Crown and not people of NZ so why are the tax payers paying for imagined grievances? What did Europeans do to Maori that Maori weren't doing to each other before the advent of European immigration? British rule put an end to unsavoury Maori practices and catapulted Maori into the modern world. Maori grievance culture has hurt Maori more than benefited a once proud honourable people. That's my opinion.
Exactly, it’s all a bit of a joke really.
Grate interview 😊
Tribalisms needs power and authority to survive, hence the pursuit.
It wasn't a treaty it was a surrender. You lost maori, handle it
Why hasn't Shaun know this? Is that a reflection of NZ?
Thanks for the best articulation I've heard portraying the signing of the treaty. However, something Noone talks about is 5 generations born in the land makes Anyone ngati whatua, or people Of the land, regardless of their genealogy.
Seems also that spouses (Pakeha?) can be Maori in this iwi. Now that is a turn up for the books. No quantum blood here!!
If this guys Māori I’m Italian and you can marry in ? What a joke
Yeah, more size more power.
For F's sake, his attempt to argue that the 100,000 Maori had dominance over the 2,000 Pakeha utterly fails to understand why the treaty was made. the 100,000 Maori were murdering each other with Pakeha muskets for 40 years.50,000 dead. They were selling land for muskets. The only way to stop the supply was for British sovereignty to stop gun traders under British law. That is why the land could only be sold to the Crown. Maori wanted protection from other Maori.
"Not the problem with the words" because the words say one thing...
Thankyou Helmut for fronting up and discussing this subject ,
Oh. Ned Fletcher. Extend the discussion to such an extent that everyone loses interest.
And why would Maori cede sovereignty? How many casualties were there in the Iwi wars from 1819 to 1840? There's your reason, I think.
Who pays ??...😅 Winston has the answers.... not this guy..he is dreaming ...
We are sick of hearing about the Treaty Principles Bill, Sean. Do not give it any airtime
"What democratic government cannot do is acknowledge the existence of a separate sovereignty. As soon as it does that, it isn’t a democracy. We can have a democratic form of government or we can have indigenous sovereignty. They can’t coexist and we can’t have them both….The treaty itself contains no principles which can usefully guide government or courts." David Lange 2000........He foresaw just where his party was going......
The issue is not what happened in the past. We all know that the meaning of the Treaty is debatable and clearly bad things happened, and keep happening, to many Maori people. The issue is What do we want for the future? A country divided by race and the inadequacies of the past ? Or a country where we move forward with everyone equal in the hope that that is the best way for all of us to be?
There are no treaty principles, only three paragraphs.
The question I will put to you is this ,What did previous NZ achievers do differently , they rose in their chosen fields by doing hard work ,diligence, explored avenues , to better themselves, they asked how can I better our country , what can I do for my country , stand take some responsibility for what I do.
Sir Howard Morrison, Dame Kiri Te Kanawa, Sir Apirana Ngtea , Dame Lisa ,Lydia Ko., many of my brothers I served with in the forces were upstanding Maori men and women , proud to call them brothers and sisters ,The best of the best , ,Willie Apiata ,Colonial Ponanga , yes supposedly colonization gave them these opportunities, that's obviously how they saw colonization, at the end of the day ,We are our only problem and we are our only solution.