So true! The MORE KIWI understand the Treaty and its promise, the more WE UNDERSTAND, that our Tupuna knew the future was 0with the Powerful Pakeha and his INDUSTRIALISM and TE AO Maori....share or perish, MAORI, survival instincts kick in by adapting to a coming future. Still keep our MANA and TAONGA.
@@teawaruaedwards274 you are correct. But Maori MANA has been lost when they deliberately went against the 1987 ruling in the high court when the five Justices ruled that their is no Partnership written in the Treaty, that there is NO SUCH THING AS A PARTNERSHIP between Maori and the crown. All five Justices were also lawyers... and understood clearly that the Treaty says Maori ceded all sovereignty to the British Crown. Those words cannot be altered... By anyone. The Waitangi Tribunal has no jurisdiction to make or change any of New Zealand's statutes. They have no powers to just say that Maori have a partnership with the Crown or subvert the course of law and Justice... BUT.... this is exactly what has occured over the past fifty years.
This was really informative and encouraging. Reconcilliation for the win. Jesus Christ for the win, we need Him in this covenant relationship of peoples
Religion and Politics got Jesus Killed and rejected as the son of God... whats needed is for the current treaty principals is to remain exactly as they are. If you take the time to read them, you will dee the reason why.
Good on you Rhema for hosting this topic. How about hearing from the other view (the treaty bill?). Can there be another panel to hear from both sides?
As a church minister in an amazing relationship with Ihu Karaiti, Jesus Christ , approx 20 years ago , I was driving my children somewhere, and the Holy Spirit spoke ever so gently to me. He said put your children into Kura Kaupapa Māori School. My tamariki were in the Christian School where I was teaching . I said to my children ‘ do you want to go to Kura Kaupapa ‘ , they all yelled out yes . All their cousins were at the Kura. I said, well you know how your dad feels about Kura Kaupapa. If God can change his heart , then it’s yes but don’t tell dad . When we got home, I said to their father, can the children go to Kura Kaupapa and he said sternly , NO. So I left it and on walking away I said , he’s all yours now Lord 😊. A week later the dad said ‘ why did you ask me about Kura Kaupapa ‘ I said nothing why ? He said yes they can go ❤ The moral of the story is , that God cares about them being Māori as much as them going to the Christian school . The children are now adults , are fluent in Te Reo and hold great creative jobs . The only thing I said to God , as long as you keep them safe from nga Tikanga wairua kino . God has honoured it . The cuzzys cannot tell the difference between a familiar wairua and a dead relative that visits them . I pray that their eyes will be opened. Thank God He has been faithful and takes care of my tamariki mokopuna. ❤
Keith is right that the treaty is essentially a missionary one [and in that respect, was quite idealistic]. But what they looked for in that treaty was a humanitarian legitimacy in declaring sovereignty and establishing law and order over the country. This was the essence of the treaty, where the chiefs trusted the missionaries to act in their best interest. Once a majority of the chiefs signed, the British felt justified in declaring sovereignty over the whole country.
@@StGammon77 Sovereignty over NZ was not established by the treaty. It was established by the Declaration of sovereignty of the whole of NZ a few months later. This is why British power could be used to stop tribes fighting in the BOP that had not signed the treaty. The treaty was just a way of helping to legitimize the establishing of British power/ sovereignty over the islands to the new humanitarian movement back in England.
Māori have suffered from the western idea of one rule of law. George Orwell in Animal Farm made the statement to the effect "All animals are equal, some more equal than others". To me this reflects the experience of indigenous peoples across the world of dominant colonising regiemes. Our history of this in Aotearoa is no exception. The loss of land language and culture of Māori represent this "some being more equal." If passed, the Treaty Principles bill will see all reference to the Treaty removed in current legislation and regulation in our country. This would be a travesty. The Treaty represents a Covenant. An ongoing relationship based on good faith toward two peoples. This should remain threaded throughout the fabric of our society.
Pure, and as a nonsense. It was Crown government that ended the Maori Tikanga of tribal war, genocide, infanticide, cannibalism, slavery, etc… It brought in the recognition of the presumption of innocence. It gave oppresses and downtrodden maori property and voting rights and dignity/respect that was never afforded to them under the oppression of the war lords tikanga. The church and Crown liberated Maori.
How Many Christians Speak and understand fluent " *Hebrew / Aramaic & Greek* " 🤔 Can the English Translation be Trusted 🤔 if so why are there so many different TRANSLATIONS in English 🙋 Something to Ponder 🙋
Article 1 deals with sovereignty.. Article 2 deals with land. Article 3 deals with equality. Kawanatanga mean sovereignty through the governor or Kawana. In article two, rangitiratanga has been wronly translated as chieftainship. It means possession (of land). All English drafts of the treaty say this. Maori had no disagreement with this in1860, 20 years later. They all endorsed the Queens rule. See The kohimarameeting of Maori chiefs.
Some good points made, but the conversation didn't make it past introductions. Can we get a part 2 about the impact of the act? (Same people) Please and thank you!
1831 Māori petition the British government Growing lawlessness among Europeans in New Zealand and fears of a French annexation of the country led 13 northern chiefs to ask King William IV for his protection. Missionary William Yate helped the chiefs draft the letter to the King.
@@stephenlennon7369 The French were looking at it. After all, Vanuatu is right next door north of us. Which France had just annexed precisely one year earlier in 1830.
You forgot to mention the at least 20,000 maori killed by intertribal warfare. That's equal to killing one million people of todays population. They were desperate for the english to provide peace and progress.
I thought we might actually get a real discussion on the text of the Articles of the Treaty . Sadly all we got was the old smokescreen of differences between the Maori and English versions. The Maori version (as translated by Sir Hugh Kawharu on the Waitangi Tribunal website) is plain and clear: THE FIRST - The Chiefs of the Confederation and all the Chiefs who have not joined that Confederation give absolutely to the Queen of England for ever the complete government over their land. THE SECOND - The Queen of England agrees to protect the chiefs, the subtribes and all the people of New Zealand in the unqualified exercise of their chieftainship over their lands, villages and all their treasures. But on the other hand the Chiefs of the Confederation and all the Chiefs will sell land to the Queen at a price agreed to by the person owning it and by the person buying it (the latter being) appointed by the Queen as her purchase agent. THE THIRD - For this agreed arrangement therefore concerning the Government of the Queen, the Queen of England will protect all the ordinary people of New Zealand and will give them the same rights and duties of citizenship as the people of England.
But the maori have changed the meaning of words so it's been bastardised, the true final English Treaty document translated into Te Reo went missing early in the picture but was found in 1989! Someone call Te Papa to get it out and show the public
@@stephenlennon7369there were 80'000 in 1840, half a million Europeans four decades later. The queen who had control of 1/4 of the globe, the sun never set on the British empire. The Queen wasn't in the business of sharing sovereignty with anyone. It is not possible to retain sovereignty if you've agreed to only sell your land to a greater power. I'm glad I could have been of help.
He Whakaputunga [1835] supports the notion that chiefs ceded [a nominal] sovereignty. In the preamble of the Waitangi Treaty it is explicitly referred to, and becomes the basis on which the chiefs can be said to cede a nominal sovereignty. The treaty is a secular treaty/ compact between the British Crown/ Colonial Office and NZ chiefs. It is not a sacred covenant. A covenant is omething between God and man. On signing the treaty, Maori gained the rights and privileges of British subjects as framed by the law. Before this might was right. They only had a 'right' to their land as long as they could defend it from a neigbouring tribe. In the decade and a half before the treaty was signed, up to 50,000 Maori died as stronger tribes with no sense of maori rights at all felt free to slaughter and enslve weaker tribes. In recognising the rights of chiefs, the Crown was recognizing their authority of their tribes... even as this was quickly eroding away. Also recognized was the right of chiefs to sell their surplus land to the Crown.... though only to the Crown. Here is a direct limitation of the rights of chiefs. the treaty was never meant as a partnership. It sought amalgamation between the two peoples - Hobson's 'we are now one'. The intent of the treaty is so easy to understand. It is clearly expressed in the English tetx as put together by Busby. This is the meaning that was communicated to maori as best it could be. This also explains why the more proud chiefs refused to sign. Tino Rangatiratanga does not exquate to self-governance. It translates into very chieftainship [the rights a chief has over their own immediate tribe]. They did not give up their mana, which is why the word was not used. What Kawanatanga described was a chief above the chiefs, a heirarchical system where chiefly mana was preserved in a relative sense [over the tribe] but not absolute - they were no longer free to wage war on each other as subjects to British law/ sovereignty. This is all common sense stuff, the British would not have done it any other way. From the journal of Major Bunbury, who travelled throughout the country collecting signatures - "He endeavoured then to explain the meaning by a sort of diagram on a piece of board [to chief Te Hapuku], placing the Queen by herself over the chiefs as these were over the tribes. I told him it was literally as he described it, but not for an evil purpose as they supposed, but to enable her to enforce the execution of justice and good government equally amongst her subjects….. Captain Nias ordered a gun to be fired, at their request, and having signed the treaty and received some blankets and tobacco as a present, they were put on shore in a native village in the Bay." You can not have two sovereignties in one territory. Each sovereignty would have its law... and then its police, and then perhaps its own militia and army. The country would soon become a banana republic. The raod to hell is paved with good intentions. As for warning about a novel interpretation of the treaty. Arguably, the Waitangi Tribunal has put a novel interpretation on the treaty compared to what came before. Nice in theory, but not true in history; 'when those two partners, those two sovereign nations signed in good faith'. There was no politcial unity/ nation in NZ at the time... just disconnected tribes at war with eachother. This program mixes up religion with politics to the detriment of each.
I could write a book in reply to this but will stick to pointing out that covenants are not just a God - man thing. Christian Marriage is seen as a 'covenant' - a sacred agreement between a man and a woman. I.e. between 2 people/peoples.
@@richardwordsworth3067 OK, but Parliament, the democratically-elected representatives of New Zealand's citizens, has passed laws permitting divorce. Believing Christians call marriage a covenant, but it is now a voluntary covenant. The main point of the message you replied to is about history and sovereignty. Do you have anything to share about that?
"Treaty of pre-existing rights", true... the British subjects have pre-existing rights that Māori did not have if they came under the Sovereignty of the Queen, the Royal family at that stage hsd signed the Magna Carta That basically meant they had not more rights than anyone else, and gave them all rights based on that document. The Māori at that stage had not made a constitution or anything else setting out their rights. they could be killed and eaten by another tribe without any law being broken, This document gave them rights in a new NZ that were the same as the British subjects had, gave them British Citizenship. The reason it set them out was because they did not know what was being offered, but the British did not need that, they knew what they had. Maybe they thought of that but I doubt it, having rights was a new thing to them. My understanding of it, is that correct, if not, why not?
There are no principles behind the treaty. There are three articles written in plain English for everyone to understand. It was written by missionaries and statesmen, the missionaries translated it as best they could and further explained the articles to the chiefs on their signing [context besides the text]. All sources at the time, journals, diaries, letters etc show the meaning and intent clearly as in the English. No-one talked of principle until the 1970s, when the academics started to re-interpret the maori 'version'. Before that time all understood it along the English, even the discontented Maori. Before the 1970s they discontetnted stated that the 'treaty is a fraud' as they thought they were tricked into ceding their sovereingty. After the 1970s, they changed their tune to 'honour the treaty' as they re-interpreted the Maori 'version' to mean that sovereignty was not ceded.
Why do you keep referring to the English text? That doesn't make logical sense, it's well understood that only Te Tiriti (maori doc) was discussed, agreed and signed (hence the 500+ signatures). The few that signed the English doc were misinformed that it said the exact same thing as the Maori doc. And instead of honoring Te Tiriti.. in the 1970s they just created the principles
As a pakeha kiwi I was told there was two versions of the Treaty ( english / Maori ) . And that they did not match up . But in 1989 the " Littlewood Document " was found by the Littlewood family ( descendants of Henry Littlewood who was a lawyer involved with the treaty creation and signing ). It has Busby's hand writing , correct dates and identical paper with water marks and pin hole marks . Which means it has strong providence to be the " mother english document that created the Treaty of Waitangi in Maori . It matches word for word the Treaty . It is very likely the mother document of the Treaty . But politicians and bureaucrats buried it and covered it up as they believed it would inflame more Maori activism and protest .Essentially it means that Maori did ceed sovereignty to the Queen and crown and WE ALL BECAME ONE PEOPLE ! This was clearly proved 20 years later at the Kohimarama Conference where 112 chiefs ratified the treaty ( read their speeches ). It means today the democratic parliament is a legitimate end-result of the historical development of New Zealand . And to pretend there is not 120 ish different languages and culture here today and expect that they have no right to have they say is absurd . The bill does not extinguish Maori culture or language . It allows parallel development of all cultures presently here in NZ . ( which is democratic and humanistic ) . biculturalism is a myth . People intermarry and naturally migrate to either one or both partners cultures . Peoples choice and path should never be forced by law or others . We just need to respect all cultures /languages and backgrounds and beliefs . And fundarmentally respect and celebrate diversity and freedom of choice ! If the Littlewood treaty mother document was recognised and brought into this conversation then "we could all be one people "
dumb reply to the subject, you have no clue, educate yourself on the true meaning of the treaty, if you yourself live here then there is a meaning to why you can and that is the Maori version of the covenant of the treaty, and Maori would never cede their ship over anything,as NO HuMAN WOULD.
It is interesting to further understand the argument offered by you, Hosbon's choice, et al, that the Littlewood Treaty co- written by my ancestor, Henry Williams - who's major intention was to protect Māori from the assault of colonisation - strengthens an argument that Māori ceded absolute "sovereignty". (Just the very statement "ceded sovereignty" suggests some kind of competitive one-upmanship that many some people default to - which is a very boring and destructive approach, in my opinion.) Sure, I agree that we live in a modern multicultural democracy that would best work if we create one law for all people under one flag, but you and all others who assume the superiority of Western Enlightenment legislative, corporatocracy for a thing called a citizen, fail to have the grace and cognition to consider that the notion of YOUR sovereignty could actually be just a constitutional and societal representation of executive power and decision making from YOUR world...and that some people from some other culture, from a piece of dirt on the other side of the planet may think act and execute their sovereignty in a completely different way. And then we could consider that, for some strange and divine reason, these two peoples and their associated definitions of executive power and decision making decided to create a new nation state of mutual respect and sharing.
To those who are concerned about redefining the meaning of the treaty... what are you imaging is going to be such a terrible outcome?? how can it be such a terrible thing for all people in this land, all people who contibute and pay tax to have the equal rights and privilages?? redefining what the treaty means is not taking anything away from maori at all, nothing will change for them, except make EVERYONE equal. Why do maori not want that? why do so many want to have a rascially divied country, which doesnt even make sense when maori are also just as much pakeha as they are maori. what do maori expect they should get that others shouldnt??
Read One Sun Under the Sky by Ewen McQueen...and read the actual Treaty in English and then the translation of the Maori version by Sir Hugh Kawharu in 1986. Also Sir Apirana Ngata had no sense that the Treaty was a partnership Constitutionally speaking, as sovereignty was clearly ceded. However we two peoples work out the nuts and bolts of this through our relationship, our partnership. Ive heard it said that the Treaty was like a marriage covenant that may have begun in good faith but sadly, largely one side (Pakeha leadership) betrayed the trust given and so we have the mess we have today.
Pakeha did nothing wrong the Treaty Chiefs said it at the 1860 Kohimarama Conferences where they convened and spoke these speeches can be read by anyone anytime. It was the Kingi rebels they were worried about and called upon the Sovereign to help and they did. After Kingis slaughtered Pakeha and Christian Maori and breached the Treaty their land was confiscated and rightly so! Kingis should never be allowed to exist looks what's happening now, our Govt is out of order!
Just because Sir Apirana Ngata stated that the Queen gained sovereignty doesn't mean he had a personal agenda, or opportunistic, or was not a victim of a world that had turned te Ao Māori upside down. Would you refer to contemporary Māori leader of similar historical context Hone Harawira's comment, that Māori never ceded sovereignty, because he said it? Or would you think there's a lot more going on in this space than meets the eye...
20:00 good talk, although saying that we need to look to the indigenous version because of some international treaty convention is nonsense. If other countries want to take that approach, that is their business, NZers will work things out their way
Yeah, and the approach this country could take is one of grace, compassion, and using the language the partner receiving the Treaty could best understand. What is your point? What outcomes are you really wanting from the treaty? What kind of country you envisage? How does this country do it OUR way?
Principles? What principles... Where are they written down.? Did New Zealanders get any say in these divisive principles being created? Are they in legal statute?...
@Matikemai2040 USED? where? Where are they enshrined on paper, in New Zealand statutory law books..or on the Treaty? Show me.... Show New Zealand... Please... The Waitangi Tribunal is not able to write it's own laws.... The five high court Justices in a case taken before it by Maori... All unanimously agreed and signed off the decree in their ruling that there was NEVER a partnership with Maori...... They all agreed that Maori ceded sovereignty to the Crown. Maori have been nothing but duplicitous in their attempt to subvert the course of Justice...
@ If I can provide evidence to support the claim that ngā Rangatira did not cede sovereignty are you willing to change your mind? And what evidence would you need to see? Are you willing to change your mind
Wow! This is the first time I have seen hope for this conversation, revealing truthful intent. I want this forum to push hard for a national coming together, via the intent of building a beautiful country.
Article 3 in " *Te Titiriti O Waitangi & The Treaty of Waitangi* " have EQUAL RIGHTS to ALL New Zealanders under the Law so whats Seymore Bill really About 🤔 🙏 Yeshua is LORD *Come Ihu Karaiti* 🙏
Co-governance is in the treaty. Brits replaced rangatiratanga (run by local chiefs) with sovereignty (run by UK royals). We've tried the colonial system for 184 years and now is the time to give the actual documented deal a fair go. My tipuna, Pōmare II signed He Whakaputanga on 28 October 1835. On 17 February 1840 he signed Te Tiriti o Waitangi and we're still waiting. Focus on getting in the waka and working together - Kiingi Tuheitia. Kotahitanga ngā iwi Māori katoa.
i dont think any 1 in the 21st centuary is keen for tribal rule, i think u shuld maybe take yor nxt holiday in png, but dont bother buying a return ticket u want be coming back alive....
@@222-i6o What tribal rule? C'mon it's the backward west that arms Israel's genocide and tries to con the world into thinking Muslims and China are the enemy.
@@kevynharris1217 Just because the Queen didn't share power with anyone else doesn't mean it is correct. Yeah, Hitler didn't want to share power with anyone else either, but we seem to not put too much credence with his sentiment.
An early speaker states maori "were an agricultural people' NO they weren't. agriculture was centred around KUMERA a frost tender plant difficult to supply enough so reliance was on gathering natural foods fish ,birds, eels etc the MOA was very quickly hunted to extinction! Maori society had a population boom following Cooks introduction of POTATOS! sadly this brought on more sustained warfare. Maori society was a typical slave using tribal society, with ball that means . Study history NOT the kid next door who has only verbal accounts not facts
NEVER land wars, police actions.The New Zealand Settlements Act enabled the confiscation (raupatu) of land from Māori tribes deemed to have 'engaged in open rebellion against Her Majesty's authority'. Pākehā settlers would occupy the confiscated land.
What is the point of having a panel that all agrees? You’re not getting any relevant context you just kidding narrative. I one of these people is putting on Maori accent When he speaks English. Murry did not have government. They had tribal war lords And stratified separate societies. So no, murry did not have central authority. They did not have sovereignty over the borders of the country. They had no law to stop slavery, infanticide, cannibalism, genocide, tribal war, because that was all tikanga. That was all permissible. The reason those practices ended Was because Christian missionaries the crown Set up a centralized government at the request of rangatira Who seeded sovereignty to the crown. There is a difference between being a leader, and being a government. The treaty talks about the leadership of Maori communities, because those communities were distinct at the time. So local council like leadership like we have today with Tane city council, they manage local areas that’s totally different government the council uphold, central government laws.
@HabitualFixation Academics can be the most foolish, unwise people. A degree doesn't necessarily impart wisdom or common sense... Sorry to say. I earned a degree 40 years ago, yet have been a hands on farmer/builder throughout life. My working life gives me my credentials..
@@StGammon77 exactly right. For people to say they can't see any difference or don't know why people would contest Seymore's completely revised versions of the "3 simple articles" is absolutely mind blowing. Ps my comment was actually referring to many who give cultural and historical points on Maori tikanga and history itself
As a New Zealander I have no interest in anything Maori. Retaining a family Identity based on the Bible, education and work platform in the English language provides wisdom and knowledge in a field of expertise. The Treaty in 1976 became bitter and twisted and a tool for Maori racists and activists to point at New Zealand families.
Your disinterest is not a problem, it's the meddling and taking away from Maori, land, language, education that's the issue. If you believe in what you say, you should be the first the support Maori keep their own dignity. No Maori cares if YOU like or dislike Maori, that's a YOU problem. It's our lands.
what a whole lot of shit. better off with your statement living in south africa and dealing with blacks, sooner or later they'll track you down and do the waatusi over your ass!
The Anthropic Principle are the absolute moral categories of the Bible that represents the Method of Antithesis in human reason process whereby intellectual certainty is guaranteed. Anything else is a product of Kant and Hegel particularly Hegel's Dialectical Methodology. Mauriora 💪🏾🙏🏾🇳🇿.
5mins in and as a foreigner it strikes me as sad that everyone has to start by listing their heritage. Seems like race is becoming increasingly prominent in your society…
Greatness, well spoken ❤, we are descendants and will Always recognize the Natives of the country as Head Chieftains owner real law of Aotearoa as the Maori not the Corporations, NZ
Natives😏 C'mon. Christianity recognises the commonality of humankind and nature.. Honest interpretation of long term history and humanity would do away with the present juvenile approach..
The comments here on the Treaty of Waitangi is revisionism at best. Maori neva ceeded sovereignty. The treaty was signed at Waitangi on the 6 Feb 1840 in Maori only there was no english text and remember most pakeha at that time learnt and spoke Maori so was the only language spoken during the signing of the Treaty The english version was only rolled out at Manukau Kawhia in March what wasn't present was the original Maori version and the only language spoken was Maori. There a lot of misrepresentation with your speakers as most of this history has already been covered and opined on since as early as the 1930s and more seriously in the 1950s onwards so its a bit rich hearing these revisionist adding their own takes about our country hiatory 😅
@@StGammon77rubbish that not based on facts and if English was spoken by some Maori it was very minor words lkke hello, goodbye etc..they didn't grasp the nuances that made up the structure of the sentence
@@mrFizzboatit is absurd to think that those who didn't sign it ceded sovereignty. That was not respected and land was taken and they had to beg to get it back. Now they want a bill to respect land rights? What a joke.
@@nz_proud the bill is to define the principles, which have been contorted all out of shape by the courts since 1972. Just bringing it back to what it says in article one, the crown shall govern.
So true! The MORE KIWI understand the Treaty and its promise, the more WE UNDERSTAND, that our Tupuna knew the future was 0with the Powerful Pakeha and his INDUSTRIALISM and TE AO Maori....share or perish, MAORI, survival instincts kick in by adapting to a coming future.
Still keep our MANA and TAONGA.
@@teawaruaedwards274 you are correct. But Maori MANA has been lost when they deliberately went against the 1987 ruling in the high court when the five Justices ruled that their is no Partnership written in the Treaty, that there is NO SUCH THING AS A PARTNERSHIP between Maori and the crown. All five Justices were also lawyers... and understood clearly that the Treaty says Maori ceded all sovereignty to the British Crown. Those words cannot be altered... By anyone.
The Waitangi Tribunal has no jurisdiction to make or change any of New Zealand's statutes. They have no powers to just say that Maori have a partnership with the Crown or subvert the course of law and Justice... BUT.... this is exactly what has occured over the past fifty years.
This was really informative and encouraging.
Reconcilliation for the win.
Jesus Christ for the win, we need Him in this covenant relationship of peoples
Amene
Religion and Politics got Jesus Killed and rejected as the son of God... whats needed is for the current treaty principals is to remain exactly as they are. If you take the time to read them, you will dee the reason why.
@@andytucker9573 Is it then the principles of the 'covenant' which require a Godly (Christian) definition?
Good on you Rhema for hosting this topic. How about hearing from the other view (the treaty bill?). Can there be another panel to hear from both sides?
Agreed
Good idea.
The treaty bill is just seymours opinionated dribble
As a church minister in an amazing relationship with Ihu Karaiti, Jesus Christ , approx 20 years ago , I was driving my children somewhere, and the Holy Spirit spoke ever so gently to me. He said put your children into Kura Kaupapa Māori School. My tamariki were in the Christian School where I was teaching . I said to my children ‘ do you want to go to Kura Kaupapa ‘ , they all yelled out yes . All their cousins were at the Kura. I said, well you know how your dad feels about Kura Kaupapa. If God can change his heart , then it’s yes but don’t tell dad . When we got home, I said to their father, can the children go to Kura Kaupapa and he said sternly , NO. So I left it and on walking away I said , he’s all yours now Lord 😊. A week later the dad said ‘ why did you ask me about Kura Kaupapa ‘ I said nothing why ?
He said yes they can go ❤
The moral of the story is , that God cares about them being Māori as much as them going to the Christian school . The children are now adults , are fluent in Te Reo and hold great creative jobs . The only thing I said to God , as long as you keep them safe from nga Tikanga wairua kino . God has honoured it . The cuzzys cannot tell the difference between a familiar wairua and a dead relative that visits them . I pray that their eyes will be opened.
Thank God He has been faithful and takes care of my tamariki mokopuna. ❤
Keith is right that the treaty is essentially a missionary one [and in that respect, was quite idealistic]. But what they looked for in that treaty was a humanitarian legitimacy in declaring sovereignty and establishing law and order over the country. This was the essence of the treaty, where the chiefs trusted the missionaries to act in their best interest. Once a majority of the chiefs signed, the British felt justified in declaring sovereignty over the whole country.
Felt justified? it was written in the articles
@@StGammon77 Sovereignty over NZ was not established by the treaty. It was established by the Declaration of sovereignty of the whole of NZ a few months later. This is why British power could be used to stop tribes fighting in the BOP that had not signed the treaty. The treaty was just a way of helping to legitimize the establishing of British power/ sovereignty over the islands to the new humanitarian movement back in England.
You mean change the rules and punish Maori? Justified???
@@saregama-r8td wht rules? ther wer no rules nz prior to british rule was a state of anarchy
Of course. Surely both are true @@StGammon77
Māori have suffered from the western idea of one rule of law. George Orwell in Animal Farm made the statement to the effect "All animals are equal, some more equal than others". To me this reflects the experience of indigenous peoples across the world of dominant colonising regiemes. Our history of this in Aotearoa is no exception. The loss of land language and culture of Māori represent this "some being more equal." If passed, the Treaty Principles bill will see all reference to the Treaty removed in current legislation and regulation in our country. This would be a travesty. The Treaty represents a Covenant. An ongoing relationship based on good faith toward two peoples. This should remain threaded throughout the fabric of our society.
Pure, and as a nonsense. It was Crown government that ended the Maori Tikanga of tribal war, genocide, infanticide, cannibalism, slavery, etc… It brought in the recognition of the presumption of innocence. It gave oppresses and downtrodden maori property and voting rights and dignity/respect that was never afforded to them under the oppression of the war lords tikanga.
The church and Crown liberated Maori.
A thoroughly interesting discussion. Thank you to all involved.
How Many Christians Speak and understand fluent " *Hebrew / Aramaic & Greek* " 🤔 Can the English Translation be Trusted 🤔 if so why are there so many different TRANSLATIONS in English 🙋 Something to Ponder 🙋
Article 1 deals with sovereignty.. Article 2 deals with land. Article 3 deals with equality. Kawanatanga mean sovereignty through the governor or Kawana.
In article two, rangitiratanga has been wronly translated as chieftainship. It means possession (of land). All English drafts of the treaty say this. Maori had no disagreement with this in1860, 20 years later. They all endorsed the Queens rule. See The kohimarameeting of Maori chiefs.
Love u Sister Hana..thankyou for sharing.
Some good points made, but the conversation didn't make it past introductions. Can we get a part 2 about the impact of the act? (Same people) Please and thank you!
God dosen't make covenants with other gods
Jesus knows who's who 😊
He does make Covenant with people though.
1831 Māori petition the British government Growing lawlessness among Europeans in New Zealand and fears of a French annexation of the country led 13 northern chiefs to ask King William IV for his protection. Missionary William Yate helped the chiefs draft the letter to the King.
That also made up historical revisionism the French weren't going to annex NZ off Maori that just made up from you
The natives were barbaric savages, Pakeha came to save them end of story greatest achievement ever
Have you been to akaroa?@@stephenlennon7369
@@stephenlennon7369 The French were looking at it. After all, Vanuatu is right next door north of us.
Which France had just annexed precisely one year earlier in 1830.
You forgot to mention the at least 20,000 maori killed by intertribal warfare. That's equal to killing one million people of todays population. They were desperate for the english to provide peace and progress.
Well done to all you speakers
I believe Jesus is in this and keeping our treaty as it is now and not trying to change it
Thank you Hana,Mark and Keith, Radio rehma for hosting this important conversation
I thought we might actually get a real discussion on the text of the Articles of the Treaty . Sadly all we got was the old smokescreen of differences between the Maori and English versions. The Maori version (as translated by Sir Hugh Kawharu on the Waitangi Tribunal website) is plain and clear:
THE FIRST - The Chiefs of the Confederation and all the Chiefs who have not joined that Confederation give absolutely to the Queen of England for ever the complete government over their land.
THE SECOND - The Queen of England agrees to protect the chiefs, the subtribes and all the people of New Zealand in the unqualified exercise of their chieftainship over their lands, villages and all their treasures. But on the other hand the Chiefs of the Confederation and all the Chiefs will sell land to the Queen at a price agreed to by the person owning it and by the person buying it (the latter being) appointed by the Queen as her purchase agent.
THE THIRD - For this agreed arrangement therefore concerning the Government of the Queen, the Queen of England will protect all the ordinary people of New Zealand and will give them the same rights and duties of citizenship as the people of England.
No they didn't 200,000 Maori did not cede sovereignty to 1000 pakeha that just make believe
But the maori have changed the meaning of words so it's been bastardised, the true final English Treaty document translated into Te Reo went missing early in the picture but was found in 1989! Someone call Te Papa to get it out and show the public
@@StGammon77more lies 😅 and you pakeha wanted a discussion based on lies apparently
@@stephenlennon7369there were 80'000 in 1840, half a million Europeans four decades later.
The queen who had control of 1/4 of the globe, the sun never set on the British empire. The Queen wasn't in the business of sharing sovereignty with anyone.
It is not possible to retain sovereignty if you've agreed to only sell your land to a greater power.
I'm glad I could have been of help.
@@StGammon77 "someone?"...why don't you call Te Papa. They'll laugh at you.
He Whakaputunga [1835] supports the notion that chiefs ceded [a nominal] sovereignty. In the preamble of the Waitangi Treaty it is explicitly referred to, and becomes the basis on which the chiefs can be said to cede a nominal sovereignty.
The treaty is a secular treaty/ compact between the British Crown/ Colonial Office and NZ chiefs. It is not a sacred covenant. A covenant is omething between God and man.
On signing the treaty, Maori gained the rights and privileges of British subjects as framed by the law. Before this might was right. They only had a 'right' to their land as long as they could defend it from a neigbouring tribe. In the decade and a half before the treaty was signed, up to 50,000 Maori died as stronger tribes with no sense of maori rights at all felt free to slaughter and enslve weaker tribes. In recognising the rights of chiefs, the Crown was recognizing their authority of their tribes... even as this was quickly eroding away. Also recognized was the right of chiefs to sell their surplus land to the Crown.... though only to the Crown. Here is a direct limitation of the rights of chiefs.
the treaty was never meant as a partnership. It sought amalgamation between the two peoples - Hobson's 'we are now one'.
The intent of the treaty is so easy to understand. It is clearly expressed in the English tetx as put together by Busby. This is the meaning that was communicated to maori as best it could be. This also explains why the more proud chiefs refused to sign.
Tino Rangatiratanga does not exquate to self-governance. It translates into very chieftainship [the rights a chief has over their own immediate tribe].
They did not give up their mana, which is why the word was not used. What Kawanatanga described was a chief above the chiefs, a heirarchical system where chiefly mana was preserved in a relative sense [over the tribe] but not absolute - they were no longer free to wage war on each other as subjects to British law/ sovereignty. This is all common sense stuff, the British would not have done it any other way. From the journal of Major Bunbury, who travelled throughout the country collecting signatures -
"He endeavoured then to explain the meaning by a sort of diagram on a piece of board [to chief Te Hapuku], placing the Queen by herself over the chiefs as these were over the tribes. I told him it was literally as he described it, but not for an evil purpose as they supposed, but to enable her to enforce the execution of justice and good government equally amongst her subjects….. Captain Nias ordered a gun to be fired, at their request, and having signed the treaty and received some blankets and tobacco as a present, they were put on shore in a native village in the Bay."
You can not have two sovereignties in one territory. Each sovereignty would have its law... and then its police, and then perhaps its own militia and army. The country would soon become a banana republic. The raod to hell is paved with good intentions.
As for warning about a novel interpretation of the treaty. Arguably, the Waitangi Tribunal has put a novel interpretation on the treaty compared to what came before.
Nice in theory, but not true in history; 'when those two partners, those two sovereign nations signed in good faith'. There was no politcial unity/ nation in NZ at the time... just disconnected tribes at war with eachother.
This program mixes up religion with politics to the detriment of each.
This narrative is all lies based on a white supremacist revisionist BS Maori neva ceded sovereignty
Buhahaha keep the jokes coming lol 😂
I could write a book in reply to this but will stick to pointing out that covenants are not just a God - man thing. Christian Marriage is seen as a 'covenant' - a sacred agreement between a man and a woman. I.e. between 2 people/peoples.
@@richardwordsworth3067 OK, but Parliament, the democratically-elected representatives of New Zealand's citizens, has passed laws permitting divorce. Believing Christians call marriage a covenant, but it is now a voluntary covenant. The main point of the message you replied to is about history and sovereignty. Do you have anything to share about that?
@@richardwordsworth3067 Divorce is now legal in a secular society.
Oh my God Jesus knows thankyou ake ake tonu ake amene 🎉❤
Absolute Tosh...ideological spin from a religious perspective.
"Treaty of pre-existing rights", true... the British subjects have pre-existing rights that Māori did not have if they came under the Sovereignty of the Queen, the Royal family at that stage hsd signed the Magna Carta That basically meant they had not more rights than anyone else, and gave them all rights based on that document. The Māori at that stage had not made a constitution or anything else setting out their rights. they could be killed and eaten by another tribe without any law being broken, This document gave them rights in a new NZ that were the same as the British subjects had, gave them British Citizenship. The reason it set them out was because they did not know what was being offered, but the British did not need that, they knew what they had. Maybe they thought of that but I doubt it, having rights was a new thing to them. My understanding of it, is that correct, if not, why not?
There are no principles behind the treaty. There are three articles written in plain English for everyone to understand. It was written by missionaries and statesmen, the missionaries translated it as best they could and further explained the articles to the chiefs on their signing [context besides the text]. All sources at the time, journals, diaries, letters etc show the meaning and intent clearly as in the English. No-one talked of principle until the 1970s, when the academics started to re-interpret the maori 'version'. Before that time all understood it along the English, even the discontented Maori. Before the 1970s they discontetnted stated that the 'treaty is a fraud' as they thought they were tricked into ceding their sovereingty. After the 1970s, they changed their tune to 'honour the treaty' as they re-interpreted the Maori 'version' to mean that sovereignty was not ceded.
Agree. We need to recognise that the current debate is new and politicised. This is neither here nor there, but it's the debate we have.
If you don't know keep quite
All these revisionist making there own history to suit their europeanist its all made up
Davids Bill is simply a reinforcement of the Treaty articles, essentially for dummies that can't understand it.
Why do you keep referring to the English text? That doesn't make logical sense, it's well understood that only Te Tiriti (maori doc) was discussed, agreed and signed (hence the 500+ signatures). The few that signed the English doc were misinformed that it said the exact same thing as the Maori doc. And instead of honoring Te Tiriti.. in the 1970s they just created the principles
As a pakeha kiwi I was told there was two versions of the Treaty ( english / Maori ) . And that they did not match up . But in 1989 the " Littlewood Document " was found by the Littlewood family ( descendants of Henry Littlewood who was a lawyer involved with the treaty creation and signing ). It has Busby's hand writing , correct dates and identical paper with water marks and pin hole marks . Which means it has strong providence to be the " mother english document that created the Treaty of Waitangi in Maori . It matches word for word the Treaty . It is very likely the mother document of the Treaty . But politicians and bureaucrats buried it and covered it up as they believed it would inflame more Maori activism and protest .Essentially it means that Maori did ceed sovereignty to the Queen and crown and WE ALL BECAME ONE PEOPLE ! This was clearly proved 20 years later at the Kohimarama Conference where 112 chiefs ratified the treaty ( read their speeches ). It means today the democratic parliament is a legitimate end-result of the historical development of New Zealand . And to pretend there is not 120 ish different languages and culture here today and expect that they have no right to have they say is absurd . The bill does not extinguish Maori culture or language . It allows parallel development of all cultures presently here in NZ . ( which is democratic and humanistic ) . biculturalism is a myth . People intermarry and naturally migrate to either one or both partners cultures . Peoples choice and path should never be forced by law or others . We just need to respect all cultures /languages and backgrounds and beliefs . And fundarmentally respect and celebrate diversity and freedom of choice ! If the Littlewood treaty mother document was recognised and brought into this conversation then "we could all be one people "
dumb reply to the subject, you have no clue, educate yourself on the true meaning of the treaty, if you yourself live here then there is a meaning to why you can and that is the Maori version of the covenant of the treaty, and Maori would never cede their ship over anything,as NO HuMAN WOULD.
It is interesting to further understand the argument offered by you, Hosbon's choice, et al, that the Littlewood Treaty co- written by my ancestor, Henry Williams - who's major intention was to protect Māori from the assault of colonisation - strengthens an argument that Māori ceded absolute "sovereignty". (Just the very statement "ceded sovereignty" suggests some kind of competitive one-upmanship that many some people default to - which is a very boring and destructive approach, in my opinion.)
Sure, I agree that we live in a modern multicultural democracy that would best work if we create one law for all people under one flag, but you and all others who assume the superiority of Western Enlightenment legislative, corporatocracy for a thing called a citizen, fail to have the grace and cognition to consider that the notion of YOUR sovereignty could actually be just a constitutional and societal representation of executive power and decision making from YOUR world...and that some people from some other culture, from a piece of dirt on the other side of the planet may think act and execute their sovereignty in a completely different way. And then we could consider that, for some strange and divine reason, these two peoples and their associated definitions of executive power and decision making decided to create a new nation state of mutual respect and sharing.
To those who are concerned about redefining the meaning of the treaty... what are you imaging is going to be such a terrible outcome?? how can it be such a terrible thing for all people in this land, all people who contibute and pay tax to have the equal rights and privilages?? redefining what the treaty means is not taking anything away from maori at all, nothing will change for them, except make EVERYONE equal. Why do maori not want that? why do so many want to have a rascially divied country, which doesnt even make sense when maori are also just as much pakeha as they are maori. what do maori expect they should get that others shouldnt??
@wildflower1988 because they loose special underserved treatment
Tino Rangatiratanga but I say you should ask yourself the same question. What do the obligations of the crown under Te Tīriti mean for you
Read One Sun Under the Sky by Ewen McQueen...and read the actual Treaty in English and then the translation of the Maori version by Sir Hugh Kawharu in 1986. Also Sir Apirana Ngata had no sense that the Treaty was a partnership Constitutionally speaking, as sovereignty was clearly ceded. However we two peoples work out the nuts and bolts of this through our relationship, our partnership. Ive heard it said that the Treaty was like a marriage covenant that may have begun in good faith but sadly, largely one side (Pakeha leadership) betrayed the trust given and so we have the mess we have today.
Pakeha did nothing wrong the Treaty Chiefs said it at the 1860 Kohimarama Conferences where they convened and spoke these speeches can be read by anyone anytime. It was the Kingi rebels they were worried about and called upon the Sovereign to help and they did. After Kingis slaughtered Pakeha and Christian Maori and breached the Treaty their land was confiscated and rightly so! Kingis should never be allowed to exist looks what's happening now, our Govt is out of order!
Just because Sir Apirana Ngata stated that the Queen gained sovereignty doesn't mean he had a personal agenda, or opportunistic, or was not a victim of a world that had turned te Ao Māori upside down.
Would you refer to contemporary Māori leader of similar historical context Hone Harawira's comment, that Māori never ceded sovereignty, because he said it? Or would you think there's a lot more going on in this space than meets the eye...
20:00 good talk, although saying that we need to look to the indigenous version because of some international treaty convention is nonsense. If other countries want to take that approach, that is their business, NZers will work things out their way
Yeah, and the approach this country could take is one of grace, compassion, and using the language the partner receiving the Treaty could best understand. What is your point? What outcomes are you really wanting from the treaty? What kind of country you envisage? How does this country do it OUR way?
Principles? What principles... Where are they written down.? Did New Zealanders get any say in these divisive principles being created? Are they in legal statute?...
The principles are used 2300 times in law and partnership is used 1900 times
@Matikemai2040 USED? where? Where are they enshrined on paper, in New Zealand statutory law books..or on the Treaty? Show me.... Show New Zealand... Please...
The Waitangi Tribunal is not able to write it's own laws....
The five high court Justices in a case taken before it by Maori... All unanimously agreed and signed off the decree in their ruling that there was NEVER a partnership with Maori...... They all agreed that Maori ceded sovereignty to the Crown. Maori have been nothing but duplicitous in their attempt to subvert the course of Justice...
@ 2300 times in law by the crown not Māori
@
enshrine in law through Acts of Parliament.
@
If I can provide evidence to support the claim that ngā Rangatira did not cede sovereignty are you willing to change your mind?
And what evidence would you need to see?
Are you willing to change your mind
Can we get anyone from the indigenous Mori Ori to speak?
@richardansell1895 no they were slaughtered raped wiped out and put into slavery by Maori
Wow! This is the first time I have seen hope for this conversation, revealing truthful intent. I want this forum to push hard for a national coming together, via the intent of building a beautiful country.
Careful what you wish for~
@@davethewave7248, be careful what you wish for. Bro, you sound like some sort of psychic who knows something no body else knows.
Article 3 in " *Te Titiriti O Waitangi & The Treaty of Waitangi* " have EQUAL RIGHTS to ALL New Zealanders under the Law so whats Seymore Bill really About 🤔
🙏 Yeshua is LORD *Come Ihu Karaiti* 🙏
Name the principal's. Please
Just so I know.
Co-governance is in the treaty. Brits replaced rangatiratanga (run by local chiefs) with sovereignty (run by UK royals). We've tried the colonial system for 184 years and now is the time to give the actual documented deal a fair go. My tipuna, Pōmare II signed He Whakaputanga on 28 October 1835. On 17 February 1840 he signed Te Tiriti o Waitangi and we're still waiting. Focus on getting in the waka and working together - Kiingi Tuheitia. Kotahitanga ngā iwi Māori katoa.
i dont think any 1 in the 21st centuary is keen for tribal rule, i think u shuld maybe take yor nxt holiday in png, but dont bother buying a return ticket u want be coming back alive....
@@222-i6o What tribal rule? C'mon it's the backward west that arms Israel's genocide and tries to con the world into thinking Muslims and China are the enemy.
Nah. There is no co governance in the Treaty. The King/Queen of an Empire did not share power with anyone.
@@kevynharris1217 There isn't in the English version. That is agreed.
@@kevynharris1217 Just because the Queen didn't share power with anyone else doesn't mean it is correct. Yeah, Hitler didn't want to share power with anyone else either, but we seem to not put too much credence with his sentiment.
An early speaker states maori "were an agricultural people' NO they weren't. agriculture was centred around KUMERA a frost tender plant difficult to supply enough so reliance was on gathering natural foods fish ,birds, eels etc the MOA was very quickly hunted to extinction! Maori society had a population boom following Cooks introduction of POTATOS! sadly this brought on more sustained warfare. Maori society was a typical slave using tribal society, with ball that means . Study history NOT the kid next door who has only verbal accounts not facts
Just six minutes in and the fairy tails start. I would recommend everyone on the panel read Ewen McQueen's book One Sun In The Sky.
Nono
Captain Cook also brought pigs. Potatoes and pigs were the main trading items followed later by flax and timber.
So colonialists bought disease, war, pests, enslavement, deforestation........ what's your point?
NEVER land wars, police actions.The New Zealand Settlements Act enabled the confiscation (raupatu) of land from Māori tribes deemed to have 'engaged in open rebellion against Her Majesty's authority'. Pākehā settlers would occupy the confiscated land.
No-one is taking mardy party seriously either Shane Jones said they could be imprisoned for what they are doing
Appreciate this korero
What is the point of having a panel that all agrees? You’re not getting any relevant context you just kidding narrative. I one of these people is putting on Maori accent When he speaks English.
Murry did not have government. They had tribal war lords And stratified separate societies. So no, murry did not have central authority. They did not have sovereignty over the borders of the country. They had no law to stop slavery, infanticide, cannibalism, genocide, tribal war, because that was all tikanga. That was all permissible. The reason those practices ended Was because Christian missionaries the crown Set up a centralized government at the request of rangatira Who seeded sovereignty to the crown. There is a difference between being a leader, and being a government. The treaty talks about the leadership of Maori communities, because those communities were distinct at the time. So local council like leadership like we have today with Tane city council, they manage local areas that’s totally different government the council uphold, central government laws.
really grateful for this approach and insight -- nga mihi tatou.
Every body here in the comments think they have a PhD in Philosophy (New Zealand History) lol!
You don't need a PhD to understand 3 simple articles
And yourself?😂
@ No but my sister does and she has workshops we attend in our community :)
@HabitualFixation Academics can be the most foolish, unwise people.
A degree doesn't necessarily impart wisdom or common sense...
Sorry to say.
I earned a degree 40 years ago, yet have been a hands on farmer/builder throughout life. My working life gives me my credentials..
@@StGammon77 exactly right. For people to say they can't see any difference or don't know why people would contest Seymore's completely revised versions of the "3 simple articles" is absolutely mind blowing. Ps my comment was actually referring to many who give cultural and historical points on Maori tikanga and history itself
As a New Zealander I have no interest in anything Maori. Retaining a family Identity based on the Bible, education and work platform in the English language provides wisdom and knowledge in a field of expertise. The Treaty in 1976 became bitter and twisted and a tool for Maori racists and activists to point at New Zealand families.
The treaty is in Māori and about Māori!!🤦🏽♀️
What did Māori do to you??
Your disinterest is not a problem, it's the meddling and taking away from Maori, land, language, education that's the issue. If you believe in what you say, you should be the first the support Maori keep their own dignity. No Maori cares if YOU like or dislike Maori, that's a YOU problem. It's our lands.
what a whole lot of shit. better off with your statement living in south africa and dealing with blacks, sooner or later they'll track you down and do the waatusi over your ass!
@@saregama-r8tdstolen from moriori
@@Rowanfbirdlike your mum
There are no 'principles'. It's a three point document.
The Anthropic Principle are the absolute moral categories of the Bible that represents the Method of Antithesis in human reason process whereby intellectual certainty is guaranteed. Anything else is a product of Kant and Hegel particularly Hegel's Dialectical Methodology. Mauriora 💪🏾🙏🏾🇳🇿.
5mins in and as a foreigner it strikes me as sad that everyone has to start by listing their heritage. Seems like race is becoming increasingly prominent in your society…
So how do you introduce your self?
Greatness, well spoken ❤, we are descendants and will Always recognize the Natives of the country as Head Chieftains owner real law of Aotearoa as the Maori not the Corporations, NZ
No-one wants that except rebels it's never going to happen because mardy have not included Pakeha around the table
Natives😏 C'mon. Christianity recognises the commonality of humankind and nature..
Honest interpretation of long term history and humanity would do away with the present juvenile approach..
The Treaty records the name of our country as Nu Tirani. Aotearoa is only the name of the North Island.
The comments here on the Treaty of Waitangi is revisionism at best. Maori neva ceeded sovereignty. The treaty was signed at Waitangi on the 6 Feb 1840 in Maori only there was no english text and remember most pakeha at that time learnt and spoke Maori so was the only language spoken during the signing of the Treaty
The english version was only rolled out at Manukau Kawhia in March what wasn't present was the original Maori version and the only language spoken was Maori.
There a lot of misrepresentation with your speakers as most of this history has already been covered and opined on since as early as the 1930s and more seriously in the 1950s onwards so its a bit rich hearing these revisionist adding their own takes about our country hiatory 😅
Most Chiefs spoke English actually by that time, they chose Pakeha ways and that's what we have everyone loves it
@@StGammon77rubbish that not based on facts and if English was spoken by some Maori it was very minor words lkke hello, goodbye etc..they didn't grasp the nuances that made up the structure of the sentence
The notion that Māori didn't ceed sovereignty is absurd.
@@mrFizzboatit is absurd to think that those who didn't sign it ceded sovereignty. That was not respected and land was taken and they had to beg to get it back. Now they want a bill to respect land rights? What a joke.
@@nz_proud the bill is to define the principles, which have been contorted all out of shape by the courts since 1972. Just bringing it back to what it says in article one, the crown shall govern.
Contra proferentem