This conversation is long overdue. Expose the lies,propaganda, half truths and hidden agendas. Let us all keep an open mind and search for the truth where consensus cane be agreed upon to the benefit to all peoples of this land.
Thank you for stepping in and trying to educate the country about all this. The lies are really getting out of hand and threatening our nation. Hopefully, the public makes better choices in its politicians in the future, too.
@@davidthomson692There's no gravy train when the theiving crown only repaid 2 % of what they stole proven in your white courts and there are more whites on the benefit than Maori do some research
The only way to honour the treaty is to accept that in article one the chiefs ceded sovereignty. To ensure property rights or the law is guaranteed to all the people of New Zealand, article two. And in article three, all the people of NZ were promised equal rights. Unfortunately, until the Crown stops allowing race-based legislation they will be in breach of article three.
@: It’s always been, say one thing,, but do another, Hidden Agenda’s & Ulterior Motives from the beginning. It’s been that way since the beginning of Time itself, the same ole, same. From hostile takeover, to subtle coaxing with word play, to just fabrication & blatant lies about ownership.
@@andyoakley7372: It’s always been, say one thing,, but do another, Hidden Agenda’s & Ulterior Motives from the beginning. It’s been that way since the beginning of Time itself, the same ole, same. From hostile takeover, to subtle coaxing with word play, to just fabrication & blatant lies about ownership.
@@andyoakley7372: It’s always been, say one thing,, but do another, Hidden Agenda’s & Ulterior Motives from the beginning. It’s been that way since the beginning of Time itself, the same ole, same. From hostile takeover, to subtle coaxing with word play, to just fabrication & blatant lies about ownership.
This is the content and context around Britain offering to Maori. That is; Accepting common law governance over this land. And accepted (Maori) they did!! We now need a conversation over all this. Somehow. (Maori activists and elites) have twisted this original treaty into something that is out of all recognition
So what happens Maori govern themselves,ok go for it but you receive no income from any current government departments you finance yourselves,but remember not all Maori want this,so how the hell will that work,they live in the past and keep repeating the past. They need to move on they have the same rights as all of us,in fact in certain things they are given preferential trea5ment. We are all kiwis in a modern society,stop trying to take us back to the last century,tribal rule was violent and had no law,stop pretending it was all wine and roses.
The facts are that there is no such thing as Maori. Just as there is no such people as Pakeha. Once you buy into the narrative that these entities exist, it's all down hill from there.
The IWI's have been givin billions over the years and hardly a cent is spent on the average maori and it was all tax free as well..........they are just another corporation using hate to turn us against each other
The Chinese and Japanese did great without Western Colonisation and Maori DNA is Taiwanese so we may well could've been further advanced than we are now if left alone
Did Maori cede sovereignty? Clause One of the Treaty quite explicitly says they did. No misinterpretation is possible of the English text is possible. If the Maori translation of Clause One now says Maori didn't cede sovereignty, the whole Treaty needs to be abandoned. You can't have a treaty where the one side signed something different from what the other side signed. That's absurd. Personally I'd be perfectly happy to abandon the Treaty AND OUR ASSOCIATION WITH THE BRITISH CROWN. Let's just entrench the Bill of Rights Act 1990, use that as a Consitution and become a Constitutional Republic. I'm sick of this constant bickering.
Because to show what is meant by that, Article One took sovereignty of New Zealand as a whole. Article Two returned the original sovereignty of Maori back to Maori. Article Three states that Maori also get the rights of British Subjects in addition to their original rights returned to them in the same moment, and was sworn to protect the rights of both of them.
@@Digmen1 both sound very impartial to maori and the crown lol. As maori we don't accept your biased sources, they have been proven to be biased but people still take them as gospel because it fits their narrative. Buick, Doutre, hobson and anyone else with a european name and heritage FROM THAT TIME should not be used as fact.
Thank you, Andy. For 50 years activists have been rewriting history twisting the treaty and driving this country to tribal rule. What you are bringing is the untouched and actual history of how the treaty came about and what it meant.
Thank you for your comment. Do you mean, what happened to Bruce Moon, or what happened to Julian? Bruce Moon is very old, but I still see him in some email groups, and obvioulsy, Julian has his RUclips channel.
I have read a number of assertions by academics that say sovereignty wasn't ceded because of translation issues, or that they can't see when it happened. And in Tribunal proceedings - the Whanganui River Claims, and the endless hearing into Ngapuhi claims. Re Whanganui, the Tribunal advised (key term) that the tribes didn't think they had ceded sovereignty, but their actions over the next 20 years belied that and they behaved as if they had. The academics forget that there is a third party - other sovereigns. It was good enough for the French, Americans et al to recognize the British Crown, and that is a vital test: an entity is only sovereign insofar as it it self-governing, AND recognized by others. That's the whole point. Of course there is application of the rule of law domestically, but that's actually not determinative. At the same time NZ was brought into the Crown ambit, there were vast chunks of America which were not under the active control of the United States - the territories, mainly - but no other power contested their sovereignty. To me the obfuscation around the Treaty missed the point that sufficient consent had been sought and given for Hobson to make the Crown Proclamation in May 1840, and for the machinery of sovereign government to grind away and the Constitution Act of 1852 to be enacted. If there's any doubt about sovereign mutual recognition, it should be settled by the 1947 Acts adopting the Statute of Westminster and enabling New Zealand to establish a full Embassy in Washington.
Not to mention that sovereignty was asserted against Heke's rebellion [and where most chiefs remained loyal to the Crown], and that it was once again enforced against the Kingite movement of the 1860s in the NZ wars. All tribes since then have practically recognised the sovereignty of the NZ state... until academics of the 1970s started to question it along radical/ theoretical political grounds. The problem is the paradigm/ cultural shift from an imperial politics of the day to a democratic/ nationalist one today. Within this new paradigm that the majority think, the past is turned on its head.
@@davethewave7248 Quite. Part of the challenge is that there are wave after wave of BS flooding the "conversation", and yet the Crown does not state an official, legal, summary of position. It seems everything is interpretation and relative facts and values. But the position of the Crown should be clear - and have a standing beyond each settlement or court case. There's a speech by Glazebrook J on the NZSC website on "a common law approach to constitutionalism" which drives me totally spare because she's arguing for precisely the endless activism masquerading as consensus-driven iterations of fact and position, and denying the legitimacy of the Crown/Parliament making declarative judgements on constitutional matters. It's maddening.
So Heke was a Rebel for fighting for what was right? He saw right through the deceit and who is this majority of chiefs who were loyal to the crown? And have all tribes recognized the sovereignty of the state or did they not have a choice? ..Why would a proud warrior race who'd been here for hundreds of years and developed a strong spiritual connection with this land just hand everything over to foreigners from the otherside of the world who only just turned up?
@@manamaori100 Most chiefs disagreed with Heke's desire to trun back to the old ways [research Waka Nene]. The chiefs wanted to move forward after two decades of the most brutal tribal warfare [the musket wars].. even Nga Puhi was falling into civil wars. They wanted law and order, security of person and property, trade and economy, which is why they signed. The reasons are there for anyone to read - look at the recorded speeches of the chiefs at Waitangi.
Thank you putting this out to inform Nzers and give the Very Important background to the Treaty and what was going on at the time. Appreciate your perspective. I hope people share this in good faith
One of the points you have missed here Andy, and they reason why Pakeha are angry, is not because they believe or disbelieve that Maori ceded sovereignty, but whether they were treaty fairly by Pakeha both pre-1840 and afterwards. Most people believe on the whole they were treated fairly, apart from certain egregious cases which should rightly addressed. However, Te Pati Maori and Rawiri Waititi has made it clear that he despises Pakeha and he believes that colonisation was bad for Maori and he bears an unquenchable grudge. He cannot be reasoned with and does not accept Maori also derived some benefits from Colonisation. As such he cannot satisfied and so the left's policy of continual appeasement of Maori is leading NZ down a very dark road.
I agree with you. Although I wouldn't say Pakeha think this or that, nor would I say Maori think this or that. New Zealanders are individuals and they each hold their own personal views about topics. However, as you say Te Pati Maori are racists and 'do' think all Maori think like them, and all Pakeha don't.
What was the point of a treaty other than to cede sovereignty, sshhhh. People are so thick these days. Obviously the status quo was not working for Māori and they wanted something better.
obviously to stop the fighting between maori and settlers stealing land...................you are the pot calling the kettle black. maori outnumbered pakeha why would they need crown protection, in fact pakeha were protected for over 100 years in aotearoa before europeans decided they wanted everything and started bringing troops instead of settlers
@ Māori were trading land themselves in exchange for what was considered by them at that time unobtainable and never before available luxury goods . Some tribes gave land for schools. Education was a prized and otherwise unattainable luxury. Some Māori shafted their own people by lying about the deeds ripping off their elders because their old folk trusted them they couldn’t read or write just signed with an X. I know this for a fact because a lady I used to take shopping told me and that that there were faults on both sides. which human nature being what it is, I believe her. No amount of revisionist thinking changes the actual facts of history. Many tribes were still fighting each other so it’s pretty difficult to have time and resources to improve your living standards at the same time. There is only one path and it’s together. Equal rights for all. Any other way is a roadmap of constant fear, death,distruction of valuable resources and eventual possible starvation for most. Just watch overseas wars Life is what it is, there is no such thing as a perfect life or indeed race, the concept is ridiculous.it is our duty to work hard and get n with each other in present time. Working together for the good of all. People of all races are struggling our immigrants are the ones being disrespected the most and having the hardest time time at the moment in my opinion, no one trying to improve their lives or dangerous workplaces. We can do better but only together..
not wrong ,that people aren't all that quick . what is a treaty ? 'an agreement between two parties ' ..two parties .. The problem we have now is the current govt corporation wants to take us into the globaal UN WEF enslavement model .The same model used in china .
In 1840 there were 10,000 Māori slaves - their master were Māori. Life expectancy of Māori make -30 From 1820 -1840 population went from 150,000 to less than 100,000 . Butchery , savagery ,cannibalism , trading of tattooed heads for muskets for utu ended. Māori pleaded to King George to save Māori from wiping themselves out. Queen Victoria obliged to save the Māori race. Thanks to Christianity and Colonialism Māori have survived. It’s the white Māori elite activists pushing the lies and not wanting the gravy train to end. Of course Māori ceded sovereignty and New Zealand has been operating for the last 180 years because it . Queen Victoria would have left Māori to destroy each other otherwise.
Thanks for your comment Keith. The most accurate population decline I have seen is from academic Dr John Robinson, which is a drop from 120,000 in 1800 to 72,000 by 1840. Approximately 60,000 though which you state. Lord Normanby stated that there were about 2000 Europeans living here in 1838 and my estimate is that there were about 5000 in 1840, or about 7% of the entire population, and bigger that most tribes. The point I keep trying to make is that prior to the mid-1840s the people in New Zealand were not known as Māori by themselves or by anyone else. We now know that there were people in Poukawa trapping Moa at least 7000 years ago. So, people have been arriving here for many thousands of years and colonising those before them. But our whole country has fallen for a completely false set of beliefs fostered on us by a political and academic class that hasn’t got a clue how to identify themselves let alone anyone else. There is no such thing as the Māori race and so it is impossible to gather any statistics about them. But people do it anyway.
Thanks for that. Very useful. Interesting that the Crown acknowledged a type of sovereignty by the chiefs, and considered NZ as akin to a nation when it was actually many tribal nations. Such acknowledgements may have been to show maximum respect leading into the negotiations.
@@andyoakley7372but in practice, good faith was indeed not employed. It appeared that way internationally, but even within out own country we do not acknowledge the reality of things so I don't expect people from overseas to know better when citizens don't. If good faith was indeed employed, we wouldn't have had eugenics, we couldn't have had a white nz policy among other things. We can read the words, however we also must observe how those words were acted upon. That's how we get the intent and truth. That supposed maximum respect shown hasn't translated into today's society, that's apparent from alot of the comments made on this video. It's not good faith of you're doing it for self gain, I actually implore you to see how they chose to enact those words they wrote. I'm pretty sure Maori were indeed deprived of their lands, the "land protector" didn't protect Maori assets rather used the Maori land court to sell the land to their friends and doctors, Mps etc. Actually. They still had foot races for Maori land, like literal 100m sprints. There's stories in HB in the 1900s of farmers openly bragging about raping Maori children to instil fear in future generations to landlocked Maori land I think after a certain amount of time spent away from the land meant it was alloted off or sold to the nearest neighbour, or they'd just claim it. It's almost like whiplash reading the words and then actually looking at how it was enacted bc they certainly do not align, other than setting up a British colony and assertion assimilation is the only way forward. It's a sad history, but a history we need to learn nonetheless.
The problem is Māori interbred with White folk hence the "bloodlines " were not full blooded Māori. Once they interbred the question of who would look after those with White bloodlines running through there veins . Claims of being Māori aren't under the rules / laws of NZ will only lead to Lawlessness/ corruption which we are seeing right now .One people, One law ,One people....
Prior to the mid-1840s, no one in New Zealand was referred to as 'Maori.' Instead, there were simply humans living mostly in tribes, and it is unknown which of these tribes arrived first or even when they arrived. After 1840, people who subscribed to the now-discredited concept of 'race' grouped all the separate tribes into one collective identity known as 'Maori.' This is an example of a social construct-something that exists in perception but not in biological reality.
I don't see any problem with my bloodlines being intertwined on both sides. What kind of nonsense is this. "The problem being bloodlines mixed" seems to me you are the problem.
@@fraserwilson9852 stupid comments 🤡...Interbreeding is where NZ is now . Anyone can identify as Māori which is exactly why "Plastic Māori " think they've got a right to the piece of the pie .Who gives a fuck about ceded sovereignty. NZ needs law and order more than ever after 184 years .Yep ,Laws and regulations to keep NZ safe .
In reality, what happened after the signing of the treaty was natives were murdered woman and children were raped and 90percent of native land was stolen. You forgot to mention this. No wonder new Zealand was rich in 1900. Your version of avents is one sided. There were 2 people the crown and chiefs.
Thank you for your comment Tracy, you and people like you are why I make these videos. You are entirely ignorant about New Zealand's history. The signing of the treaty was the end of slavery, cannibalism and the wars between the tribes. Those wars reduced the native population from around 120,000 to 70,000 between about 1810 and 1840. I think what you are referring to is the 5 or so incidents where tribes refused to accept the sovereignty of the Queen, and rose up against the state including other tribes. In those wars between disloyal tribes and loyal tribes including British soldiers that began in about 1845 and went on to about 1872. Each side lost about 2500 people in those wars. The tribes who opposed the state, which was a breach of the treaty, were warned that if they did not surrender to the Queen, they may have land confiscated. They failed to surrender, were attacked and had land confiscated as result after the wars (not stolen). By 1940 all of these tribes had received full and final settlements for those land confiscations. This was as a result of the Simms Commision and involved about 4% of the total land mass of New Zealand, not 90%. The other incident I think you are referring to was Parihaka, which was a settlement of people who were occupying land that did not belong to them. They were moved on without injury or death, and although there is a story that circulates that someone was raped, there is no evidence that happened at all. If you have evidence that natives were murdered, women and children were raped please post it. You are also incorrect about the parties to the treaty, it was between the British Crown, the chiefs, and all the people of New Zealand. The noun “Maori” does not appear in any of the 1840 treaty documents.
@ray-rm4zz This is why the New Zealand government has treaty grievances.This is why the Waitangi tribunal was set up.When your ancestors get murdered, raped, and your land gets stolen you don't need to search Google.Tangatawhenua know the names of those who were murdered and raped and their lands that were stolen clown.Another fact
Maori did not cede sovereignty because they did not have it in the first place. They had no word on for sovereignty as they had no concept of nationhood.
You obviously have not read the speeches from the chiefs on the day, and also the speeches 20 years later at the Kohimarama Conference. Also, you have not factored in that that is how almost all tribes acted they accepted the Queen as their sovereign.
@@andyoakley7372 Accepting a sovereign does not presuppose that a sovereignty was ceded. What does not exist cannot be ceded. @brianmariewilson1042 is 100% correct.
Wrong! Read the Parliamentary papers from the house of Commons. They assumed that Maori had sovergiency based on the 1835 Deceleration of "Independence"
@@brianmariewilson1042 I think you are largely correct, except that there was no concept of Maori prior to the mid 1840s. Maori never claimed sovereignty, James Busby claimed sovereignty on behalf of a few mostly Nga PUhi chiefs in the north Lord Glenelg recognized the DoI in 1836, but I think this was nothing more than diplomacy because he qualified it with the understanding that the people of New Zealand were composed of numerous, dispersed tribes, not necessarily forming a centralized government.
If you agreed to be under the protection of Queen Victoria in 1840 then you signed up to be a member of the British Empire and ultimately a New Zealander. Maori are not better than everyone else. They are, as they should be, equal with everybody else. E Q U A L !
Waitaha didn't surrender nor did we let a foreigner the oueen of England authority over our kuia we maintain our mana motu hake the best armed forces from the world turnd up for war along with the best weapons the world had English along with the many outher nations they came thinking the world is there's 1 mor race of savages to coucure wat happens their getting beaten their loosing their running backwards her comes the best of their best many of them withdrawn from outher theaters going on and bigger and better fier power to fight my ancestors who are we tangata whenua who are they foreigner s you say the foreigner s won I'm here to tell yous your aload of bullshit ,the one telling his story doesn't become a qualified learned historian on aotearoa nz history he's going back wards talking as if he was there on the battle feild running away me and my generation are doing wat our tupuna Hakaraia had to do and the many outher tribes had to do and it wasn't surrender were still here besides our.maunga our awa our mana motu hake do use own mountains ,and rives we won through peace and war it became war and peace your storyof British superiority how can a great and mighty powerful nation change tactics battle plans they shouldn't of used the Bible gods word attack Ed tangata whenua while having whakamoemiti on Sunday burning the whare karakia with the congregation inside disrespect ing the treaty and the Bible adds up to the true laws of this country . Not this government our politicians and there lies more amateur s talking shit trying their best to win their war against the tirity c mor needs more dummy s only through peace will a true victory be one
For those who have watched the video and still argue Lord Normanby gave instructions to Hobson to set up a Government in New Zealand for the settlers only and leave everyone else alone. I inserted the full set of instructions from Normanby to Hobson and asked A,I. the following question. Please review the following text and tell me which statement is correct. 1. The British wanted to set up a Government in New Zealand only for the settlers, or 2. The British Crown wanted to set up a government for all of the people of New Zealand. Answer Based on the text provided, the correct statement is: 2. The British Crown wanted to set up a government for all of the people of New Zealand. This is evident from several points in the text: • The passage mentions the intent to establish a settled form of civil government to rescue emigrants from the evils of a lawless state of society and to mitigate disasters for both the settlers and the native population. • It discusses the need for the natives' "free intelligent consent" for the British Crown to govern, indicating an inclusive approach towards governance which would cover all inhabitants, not just settlers. • There is an explicit mention of the desire to promote the civilization, religious, intellectual, and social advancement of the native population alongside the settlers, suggesting a government intended for all the people of New Zealand. • The establishment of a system where land dealings with the natives would be conducted with sincerity, justice, and good faith, and the appointment of officials like the "Protector of the Aborigines," further supports the idea that the governance was meant to encompass and protect the interests of all inhabitants, including the natives. There you have it, after a large language model A.I. analyzed every word written in the instructions from Normanby, it is clear, that the British intended, and did set up a government for all of the people of New Zealand.
Let’s face it NZ was uninhabited for most of human history. Maori arrived a few hundred years before Europeans - it’s a country full of people can’t everyone just get on with democracy and living a good life?
Have you published this ‘modern day translation’ of the instructions for framing the treaty documentation + detailing the AI LLM utilised ? This would make a useful doc for modern day students / scholars - as a means of broadened understanding beyond the political rhetoric !
@@nickbuck4744 I used Grok as it seems to be the least biased. In a few days I am about to release a much more detailed video challenging Prof Paul Moons rhetoric on the subject of cession of sovereignty in NZ. Where do think I should publish such a document?
Prior to 1840 Maniapoto owned 4 ships and a number of mills. Fresh produce was regularly delivered and sold at Sydney market. At that time we already counted several europeans as kinsmen such as my great grandfather Samuel Aron Joseph and French/Englishmen Ludovios Hetet. There was also the reknowned ships captain and cartographer Adolphus Kent as well as one William Turner plus many others... So what was in it for us ?
Interested in obtaining a copy of another rebuttal of non-extinguished tribal sovereignty? It takes the form of a 2002 Public Law Lecture delivered by Bill English (as he then was) on the topic of unitary sovereignty established throughout 1840. If so, please send me an email link and I shall try to press the correct buttons in the correct order to despatch a copy. It's a good piece of work. Studiously ignored by all the right people, of course.
The treaty came about in order to resolve intertribal warfare which had resulted in the death of some 30,000 tribal members. There was also the potential of the French coming down mob handed to take revenge over the deaths of Captain Marion du Fresne and his men in the Bay of Islands. The French navy had units in Tahiti plus a ship with colonisers on its way. This vessel finally ended up in Akaroa harbour. Fortunately Hobson had heard about this and sent a ship to establish a presence in the South. The French arrived too late.
There’s a lot of conversation to be had around the technicalities of all this but regardless even if we follow the English translation of the treaty, at the core of this, we were deceived and taken for all we had. Governor Grey borrowed the equivalent of $420 million to invade the Waikato, hoping to make it back in land sales (which he didn’t) the context of the history around the treaty is important. Even William Colenso (the man who wrote it) told William Hobson that he wasn’t sure Maori understood what they were signing to which he replied “she’ll be right, let’s make some money”
There is no English version of the Treaty. The document used by the Crown in legislation was used at Waikato Heads to gather signatures after the people there were read The Printed Sheet in the Nga Puhi dialect. No one read the treaty to the natives in English outside Waitangi as not a sole would have understood a word of it. The English Treaty used by the Crown in Legislation is quite simply fraudulent.
@ I did say translation. I definitely agree with everything you said. What I’m saying is more around that we signed the treaty written and spoken in Maori, then the English translation was adhered to. The “natives” were rangatira and Hone Heke would have understood, amongst others.
Just think about the practicalities of having a Westminster based government/legal system for the small number of settlers and Tikanga for the majority Maori population. Utu, revenge and Muru, plunder would be acceptable under Tikanga but these would be criminal offences for the settlers, under British law. The only way it could possibly work is if everyone is treated equally under the same system.
Some things to note, borders within new zealand were assigned by iwi and enforced. Each iwi owned thier own slice of new zealand. A large proportion of the north island iwi agreed to and signed the treaty yet 40 iwi did not. Tuhoe was the most notable to not agree to terms and they held the south island. So the chiefs who agreed to the treaty represented some of the north island. Its like going to europe and agreeing with france and spain that all of europe is now under your control. It was weak then and its weak now.
I am looking at a map showing the tribal positions in 1800. Ngati Apa and Rangitane top of the S.I., Poutini and a small group of Ngai Tahu Westcoast, and Ngati Mamoe over most of the bottom of the S.I., with a small Ngai Tahu presence in Dunedin. No Tuhoe mentioned at all. These tribes did not own anything, nor did any of their members have rights. Ownership and rights are products of a central government and a legislature.
Here we go! Another European view point on Māori sovereignty and all the other comments from people using a white coloured lens to justify their own existence/ legitimacy to Aotearoa. Māori are and always will be tangata whenua. We don’t need to prove our sovereignty. 1835 signed and sealed.
I'm a New Zealander, like you, not a European. I was born on the Pacific Islands of New Zealand, where my mother's family have resided since the mid 1840's, that makes me a Pacific Islander. The DoI was an English Document written by James Busby in 1835. It was not an official document, it had no bearing on NZ's history, there was no such thing as the United Tribes of NZ, they never held a single meeting, and the document was not formally accepted by the British Crown. Initially only 34 northern (Nga Puhi) chiefs signed it, however there were more than 600 tribes in NZ at the time who didn't sign it.
Good insight to those old texts. They always referred to Māori as native or indigenous. I don’t know why people these days are so hell bent on making sure Māori are not considered indigenous . Trying to make out they turned up yesterday. The word Māori itself means native. Māori culture and language is unique to NZ. Most pacific nations are similar in some respects but not the same expression.
Maori meaning 'native' didn't happen till the 1850s, see The Dictionary of the Maori Language. There was no noun Maori in 1850, that's why if you look at all of the 1840 treaty documents the noun 'Maori' does not appear in any of them.
Hey Andy did you happen to look at the first translations of te reo Maori by the early missionaries? William Colenso made a publication of the new testament in 1837. Subtext on the cover says ' he mea whakamaori i te reo kariki'. I believe parts of the bible were published earlier from the 1820s onwards by other missionaries. Work on translating te reo into text began around 1812. My understanding of the application of the word Maori came from explorers always referring to the local inhabitants as natives and the corresponding word in the local language that fit that description was the word Maori. Cheers 🍻
I'll take my chances with Prof Moon. Your efforts to interpret history feel like a dog whistle to the lame and miserable. Arguing about te tiriti is a pointless exercise. It's a great little country. Can't we all just shut-up and get on with it?
For those who have watched the video and still argue Lord Normanby gave instructions to Hobson to set up a Government in New Zealand for the settlers only and leave everyone else alone. I inserted the full set of instructions from Normanby to Hobson and asked A,I. the following question. Please review the following text and tell me which statement is correct. 1. The British wanted to set up a Government in New Zealand only for the settlers, or 2. The British Crown wanted to set up a government for all of the people of New Zealand. Answer Based on the text provided, the correct statement is: 2. The British Crown wanted to set up a government for all of the people of New Zealand. This is evident from several points in the text: • The passage mentions the intent to establish a settled form of civil government to rescue emigrants from the evils of a lawless state of society and to mitigate disasters for both the settlers and the native population. • It discusses the need for the natives' "free intelligent consent" for the British Crown to govern, indicating an inclusive approach towards governance which would cover all inhabitants, not just settlers. • There is an explicit mention of the desire to promote the civilization, religious, intellectual, and social advancement of the native population alongside the settlers, suggesting a government intended for all the people of New Zealand. • The establishment of a system where land dealings with the natives would be conducted with sincerity, justice, and good faith, and the appointment of officials like the "Protector of the Aborigines," further supports the idea that the governance was meant to encompass and protect the interests of all inhabitants, including the natives. There you have it, after a large language model A.I. analyzed every word written in the instructions from Normanby, it is clear, that the British intended, and did set up a government for all of the people of New Zealand.
Thanks Andy ,nice to have yet another take on it all ..... But the actual documents ,as opposed to Normanby's intentions ,do leave the door open ,people can/should read for themselves . The 1835 doc claims independence ,and sovereignty ,a flag was given and recognized internationally ,that flag still flies at Waitangi . Our real problem ,and its seeds were well in play in 1840's ,the people ,or entities behind the scenes lusting after power and wealth [ and actual satan worshipers ,do people not think they are there ,and in high places ?]. These people belong to secret societies ,they know if the people actually knew their plans there would be pitchforks and nasty things produced . Those naughty Americans had escaped ,formed a shocking olde/new form of governing ,with the people having the actual authority ,under God ,did this play a part ?. When we see the current government system going and sucking up to the davos/WEF crowd [ those that have so lusted after money and power they now own 50-90% of it ,Claws Swab openly boasts of controlling the world cabinets ,and tells us his plans, 'hunger games ', 'own nothing and like it ', why ? so they can own it , 100% control ,and they smile . Actually worse, his side kick Evil noah Harrarie wants to 'evolve' us into cyborgs , a euphemism for robots !? ] . i think it is time for the Good NZers to use any lawful means to stop them . Sadly these same shadow creatures know how to manipulate the masses all to well [ lots of history in this ,french revolution , Bolsheviks, WW1 and 2 , the destruction of yugoslavia ,and now Ukraine ,all manipulation of useful idiots ]. so most of what we are seeing is this manipulation ,and just like the covid 'scamdemic' it is scary how the sheeple fell for it . But From what I see the actual NZ Maori government are making a genuine and lawful attempt at a reset ,all welcome ,providing they agree to treat all with honor before the creator God . [ They are still in admiralty law but that's another story ].
Instead of confusing things by looking at the treaty with modern eyes verse what it was like back then. Things where different. 1834 Briton abolished slavery those days Slavery was everywhere. The British Government brought laws to New Zealand in 1852 So what happened to Briton is they had gone through some morality changes which meant instead of defeating or mistreating those they colonized they followed a more Christian path of insimalation through the Bible as many Missionaries since 1814 and not only did they bring music and musical instruments they helped Maori along with some Maori speakers translate and write Maori a written language. There plan was to bring them to the lord and bring peace amongst the many waring Maori tribes. But these missionaries where sceptical of the Royal Navy and British officers asserting there Dominance over this land looking at the way colonization had treated other natives at other locations around the world. But here's the thing as i said back then things where different and many Maori who were waring with other tribes made deals with the British government by giving land and allowing them to stay in return help them defeat other tribes they claimed where wicked In most cases the British soldiers kept out of internal politics but did enter a few battles probably to asserts it's dominance among Maori. Maori back then could capture enemies and enslave them, Chiefs could narry who ever they like including multiple wives and if slaves refused to hunt, build or fight for them would be killed and even eaten. And some practiced the eating of one's enemy as taking Mana and pooping them out as an insult. Women and even children could be killed or graped depending on the rules each tribe had and terrirtorry was taken that's land from each conquered tribe that was the way. Maori back then most didn't care about giving away land because they knew no value to the land they also knew if the want it back they could just take it back if they wanted to. Because many Europeans taken advantage of the country being lawless and knowing how they can take advantage of Maori many bad deals where made mainly with land including getting chiefs drunk to make decisions easy. The British Government ordered that NZ needs Laws all must follow but the damage was to late as the land wars broke out. A governing body was formed to protect Maori from land grabs but that left Many Maori tribes fighting over who's land was who's?. There where also some missionaries and whalers that did not want British law accross the country abd sided with opposing Maori against the crown. The crown won and it was settled all Maori will become citizens of Briton which meant all laws can be enforced and adds the protection of the royal navy against outside countries entering nz bringing harm to the Maori people. The Treaty was written allowing Maori not just protecting by the crown and it's laws but to allow Maori to co exist along side Colonizers each staying in there own territory. That would of been that and that's all the treaty was about leaving them alone on there side while we exist on our side in peace. Here's where the problem is. Most Maori mainly the younger one's wanted to jump Waka to the European side leaving there old ways and triditions behind, learning new things and technology learning English and getting jobs earing money and trade wearing new clothes living in solid houses. Over time a benifit system was introduced for all New Zealanders including Those Maori who jumped Waka. Many Maori elders resented these Europeans taking away there young which started a negative effect rippling all the way to modern times. Now those who did not give sovereignty means they are not of British rule nor citizenship. If that is the case there would be no laws against the government for compansation in the courts for past land or grievences nor would the crown offer housing or benefits to non citizens of the crown government so choosing to say sworn no sovereigncy is shoiting yourself in the foot you would loose everything including healthcare and childcare and education and jobs. You would be given back any outstanding land whats left and not legitamately sold to live on where you can govern yourselves without Laws or policing and would be segragated from all modern society to start again no power etc. Any money you have can be traded for goods but you would have to give up all your money. Any country entering can lay waste to your people and the British government would sit on idle hands doing nothing to protect you. And the inhouse fighting back to being tribes and back and fourth fighting with the British would dwindle your people down to very few over time. You couldn't survive.
u tube videos titled stop co governance by julian batchelor is very informative and shows evidence of the activists lies, that all nzers need to see, also under stop co governance the treaty of waitangi for newbies series. If you start at the beginning it is in a series sequence, it makes sense then one after the other
That's sad as all Maori don't want what is on the agenda Proposed by TPM and elite radical activist extremist separatist tribal racist Maori. Many Maori and possibly most don't want a bar of what TPM and elite radical activist extremist separatist tribal Maori are doing as they are not a good look for Maoridom and they are giving honest hardworking good Maori a bad rap.
You should try living in the South where everything i 9:51 s dominated by North Island media. breakfast television shows, RNZ etc..we don't care about this shite although as tax payers we also fund it..Aotearoa Me Te Waiponamu..North and South Island..we don't care about your shite down here and never did..stop trying to Maorify us..also be great if you all stay in your own country and stop moving down here..Shortland Street 😂
Give Maori the right to their sovereignty but only if they return all that's come to them from colonialisation including all govt grants/ benefits, the hundreds of millions paid out to settle land disputes, cars, woolen/cotton or synthetic clothes, supermarkets anything to do with metal because of course they were stone age before colonialisation, hospitals, Schools, universities, law and order which now prevents murdering, slaving and committing unmentionable acts on people from other tribes. Not sure there will be many Maori willing to give everything up that's benefited them from the introduction of colonialisation so they can have sovereignty but give them the choice and see because you can't have your cake and eat it too
@@erina4586 If that were to happen their would be another country taking over NZ. Nothing good would come out of the country with lack of skills, resources and self determination to succeed, otherwise we would be seeing it happening now instead of this self made victim culture that seems to be all the rage right now.
It's worse than that, these modern day Karen's think that they know what was in the heads of every chief who stepped up to sign the Treaty in 1840, are you kidding? Besides Maori are not mentioned in any of the 1840 treaty documents.
Great question. Plus the earlier declaration of independence tends to suggest sovereignty was never on the table for either party. Arguing about te tiriti is a pointless exercise. The truth is there for anyone who wants to see it. Trouble is, few people want to see the truth, it's now more attractive to virtue signal in a RUclips clip than silently sit with the discomfort of ignorance.
@@siix477 The whole point of Hobson coming here was to gain sovereignty. Read clause 1 and 2 of both versions. And then study the Kohimarama conference of 1860. Maori have lived under British Sovereignty for 180 years - its only been the last 50 years that some activists etc decided to bring it up. Hobson was careful to get most of the maori chiefs who signed the Declaration to sign the Treaty of Waitangi
yes heard this version, correct in some, maori never ceeded their mana/sovereignty, misinterpreted in the 1840 rushed busby contract-the botched treaty, the rest we know, today is how to mend & unite equally, major cleansing our kiwi paradise of all the snakes among us, would relish the end of the botched busby treaty
MaoriOri were here before "Maori" other pacifica groups. Maori didnt then identity as one people and wernt of the same origins. We need all of us to be recognised. We also have many new migrants. Where will they stand? Many of us are mixed ethnic Kiwi, so its very conflicting for our families when people are trying to glorify one group while demonising another.
A key piece of information was that no group either individually or collectively, defined as Maori in 1840 when the treaty was signed. The tribes were separate entities, those who signed did so for their own reasons.
The remnants of the peace civilisation of Waitaha with a 93 generation whakapapa, were minimised as Moriori. In 1835 two boatloads of Maori arrived on the Chatham Islands to genocide by extreme cannibalism these remnants who had lawful "native title". This genocide began with the boning out of a 12 year old girl and Gangi g her flesh on the village entry post. Most of these Chatham Islanders were staked to "Waitangi" beach to die as slowly and sadistically as possible, after "healing" these Maori back to life after a near death sea voyage from Taranaki. Who for their extreme kindness then killed them as sadistically as possible. Thereby gaining native title, which would allow land sales under British common law. So the British land company effectively gave the Maori "native title"., via satanic extreme cannibalism on "Waitangi" beach. Wether satanic cannibalism of the true native title holders actually gave the Maori "native title" is highly unlikely.
I agree, that was a terrible act carried out by Ngati Tama and Ngati Mutanga. The ship they went on was called The Rodney and it was captained by John Guard. He was not a representative of the British Crown.
Did Maori cede soveriegnty? You first need to understand what soveriegnty is; which you have not explained. "The supreme right and recognition to rule over a defined territory." So which Maori was the supreme ruler ? Which defined territory did the alleged supreme ruler rule over?
On behalf of Her Majesty, Lord Nomanby got around that by stating the following in his instructions to Hobson. "we acknowledge New Zealand as a sovereign and independent state so far at least as is possible to make that acknowledgement in favour of a people composed of numerous dispersed and petty tribes, who possess few political relations to each other, and are incompetent to act or even deliberate in concert. But the admission of their rights, though inevitably qualified by this consideration, is binding on the faith of the British Crown." So they acknowledged that NZ was a sovereign state just so they could get the chiefs to cede whatever sovereignty they imagined they had.
@@andyoakley7372 Exactly. The positon of the Crown was inherently contradictory. On the one hand it held as a matter of fact that there was no sovereign ruler and on the other it recognised the territory as a sovereign state... without mentioning who the sovereign was. The correct legal postion is that "Maori" (whoever that is) or "Maoris" (collectively) did not cede soveriengty of all New Zealand territory because there was none to cede (regardless of the British opinion.) The British Crown extended its pre-existing sovereign rule to ALL the territory of what is now New Zealand; it did not assume control of an existing soveriegn state; nor did it create a new one.
@@rick-the-anglo-saxon I don’t think that trying to look at the matter through a purely legal framework helps. The cession of sovereignty is the act of giving up the ‘right’ to supreme power or authority over a territory and includes the right to govern. You are saying that the chiefs had no right to power or authority over their territory. I think that view is problematic because the fact is they often did have supreme power or authority over a territory. They didn’t govern in the sense of a government as we know it, but they did control, direct, or regulate people's actions. However, whatever we think about that nominal sovereignty, the British asked them to cede it to Her Majesty, and almost everyone asked did.
@@andyoakley7372 A legal framework must be the starting point because sovereignty is a constitutional law issue. I agree with your account of what was understood in 1840 but you still have to know what claim is being made before you can answer the question. There was no sovereign with the right and recognition to rule over all New Zealand territory prior to 1840 and as you suggest, sovereignty means "supreme." So if the question is, did a Maori person have sovereignty of all New Zealand territory prior to 1840, the answer is no; and therefore whoever that proposed Maori person might be, could not cede something they don't have. Likewise all the 550 odd Chiefs that signed the treaty, collectively they do not amount to a supreme ruler. Some Maori's think that soveriengty is the power to rule an ethnicity; not a territory. Others think that there is such a thing as collective sovereignty. I've even had one Maori tell me ALL Maoris are sovereigns. See you have to know what claim is being before you can debunk them. So whenever I hear the usual Maori trope "Maori didn't cede soveriegnty" .. I always ask.. which Maori and sovereignty of what?
Here it is , 1835 indigenous people created a nation(company - corporation) within the British system for the purpose of trade hence the 1835 declaration and the giving of the flag so when going port to port the flag was recognised as a friendly vessel and it was the British commerce system. Without this document a treaty was not possible. Only nations deal in treaties. Now the word sovereignty in commerce means authority. Now authority to do what. Authority to administrate , so there should be no confusion as to who has sovereignty or who administrate the nation the indigenous created in 1835 its the crown. The indigenous could but aren't capable. Maori were created later as trustee to the trust created by the treaty. The trust remains unfunded & is defected, why today Maori suffer. Between 1835 to 1840 i think the indigenous struggled with the commercial system & didn't really understand that the commerce system , soon after the treaty the federal reserve bank moved in.
You're getting mixed up. The flag was accepted in 1834 by the British Crown for the purposes of New Zealand's identity in an international maritime context. There was no implication of sovereignty. There were more than 600 separate tribes here and none of them held any central sovereignty. Although a chief may have had sovereignty (authority) over the people in his tribe. The DoI was an English Document written by James Busby in 1835. It was not an official document, it had no bearing on NZ's history, there was no such thing as the United Tribes of NZ, they never held a single meeting, and the document was not formally accepted by the British Crown.
I think you need to read my post again. Pre 1835 Maori cargo were confiscated by the British after 1835 doi that stopped. they were now registered in a system were they could trade, now there was laws that govern contracts, negotiatble instruments , bonds, taxes. its irelavant who wrote it the doi and its ovious to help maori trade , the treaty 1840 is evidence that 1835 created a sovereign nation just like Australia 1901 and American 1776. Sovereignty just means authority to administrate. The federal reserve system is a private banking system and is thier because most of the world is under military administration.
Do you remember Parihaka? Orakau? Te Urewera and Maunga Pohatu? This is a woke idea that the British were some just an advanced peace force wanting to grow the economy while protecting the rights of the natives. This does not line up with history nor the intension of colonisation of exploiting the rich natural resources by exercise of the queens authority without consent particularly highlighted in your video, This is about haves and have nots, Maori and Pakeha have become peasants of our own lands to foreign rulers.
Come on Andy - don’t be selective. Adddess the concerns mentioned in this comment. Otherwise hiu are being disingenuous and selective to suit your narrative. Your AI generated text also really only shows ‘Intent’. Can you do another podcast on the Maori version of the treaty - you know the one that the imaginary people ‘Maori’ signed. Or would that not suit your narrative? Intent is wonderful, hindsight of intent is wonderful - however does that intent tie in with the Maori version and the Maori understanding of what they were signing? That is where your supposition is flawed and we are back to “he said - she said”. Thanks for the hard yards and groundwork you have put in to showing us the honourable .. yet arrogant and patronising stance of the great British crown/colonisers at that time. Again Intent is only that .. intent.
Andy is simply highlighting what was going on during this particular time from Lord Normanbys instructions. No need to shoot the messenger. Lets start a discussion on what happened to the people who had settled in NZ before the warrior immigrants from the Tuamotu's arrived in the 1300s shall we? because it's all relevant. We could start with the Whakapapa's of the 34 Chiefs that signed He Whakaputanga. Who amongst them was Inuit-Finn, Native American, Andean & Egyptian? I'll give you a hint for research: Hawaiki 2000BC to Hokianga - Joan Leaf. There's no point in looking back in time to understand things if were just going to stop at the 1700s. Our history is much older, and a lot more fascinating than that.
@ He was highlighting the intent only. Not the actual reality. If he was being balanced - he would have pointed out that nobody knows how the Intent actually went. Did he convince them to sign based on that intent - or was a compromise made to get them to sign. Or what it was the Maori who signed were actually signing. I would have based that on the Maori version of the Treaty that they signed. Why would we ever go back prior to the signing (1840? If we did that then the Crown / Britain would have looked truly bad. I agree - don’t shoot the messenger. However the messenger needs to be balanced as well. He was not. I see he has answered other comments … yet has not with this comment. The Crown / Britain historically were abhorrent with all indigenous peoples they tried to conquer by way of Colonisation. The extract that was translated - although appearing wonderful and generous in its intent actually reeked of patronising arrogance. But based on how Britain was back then - it is quite impressive. But it still only remains their intent and their version. I am sure those that signed on behalf of the Hapū and Iwi had their own version of their own intent. That’s the problem. It’s only supposition. So let’s have a podcast on the Maori version and discuss what their intent would have been.
@@tommytato3988 Thanks for your comments, I have addressed the other concerns mentioned in that comment elsewhere in the thread. One thing though, there is no Maori version of the treaty, there is just Te Tiriti o Waitangi written in the Nga Puhi dialect and the Feb 4 English draft written by James Busby, neither are addressed to Maori. There is no he said she said in the analysis of Lord Normanby's instructions, that was the intent.
@ There is a ‘Maori’ version. In your opinion only - there is not. So I will keep referring to it as the Maori version thank you very much. Agree to disagree with you on that one. Do we call our country Aotearoa, Aotearoa New Zealand, or just New Zealand? I am not debating Lord Normanby’s intent … as generated by your AI. Intent is a wonderful thing. Reality is different. Do you know if any compromises were made by the British to get the 500 Maori signatures (representing their Hapū and Iwi) Can you categorically claim to know the Intent of those signatories? They only signed the Maori version not the British one. So my issue with your article is it is not balanced. Even though the concept of the Intent is good - it comes across as Patronising, condescending and arrogant. And Intent is not the best way to say what either side of the Treaty signing - were actually signing. It’s a nice goal - but does not dictate the result. And like the commenter was saying - the original comment we are replying to - the Crown/Britain quickly showed their TRUE abhorrent, despicable colours. So to me - that reveals their actual True intent rather than the nicely worded Lord Normanby’s spiel. So - we have had many great minds trying to break down what the Intent at the actual signing of the Treaty was for both sides. We will never actually know. Common sense does not appear to be a factor in reaching a conclusion as that is purely subjective to each individual and their own agenda. You for instance - are trying to make the Maori appear less than with your insistence that there were never such things as Maori. So that just lessens who they were and legitimises your OPINION that the the big Daddy, all wise, all civilized Crown - came in with open loving arms to look after these savage beast/children … with all the best intentions at heart. And the Maori wanted them to look after them because realised that they were useless and the loving Crown and its wonderful representatives and upright citizens would look after them and treat them right. And all they had to do was give up their Kāwanatanga of the land for that to happen. Am I right? Can you research the Maori version of the Treaty and just as ardently come up with a credible document of intent to reveal what you think their focus was? Many scholars have tried. I see you have skills and I would be quite interested in what you come back with. I don’t want to believe you have a certain narrative/agenda only.
The crown settlers the treaty pertains to breached the Treaty and still breach the treaty this topic provides people with racist idela to speak up and judge the past
In my view, the Treaty is a simple document Article 1, sovereignty is ceded, Article 2, property rights for all will be introduced, Article 3) All people with be protected and receive equal rights. Because all of those things are still in place, there are no breaches of the treaty. In individual cases we have the law to investigate breaches of property rights or protection. It has nothing to do with the Treaty.
Yes, 'Maori' were referred to as New Zealanders.... a word also used in the 1835 He Whakaputunga document - Nu Tireni. The treaty was always problematic though... and in a different way then to what is usually assumed. The missionaries and the Church Missionary Society had way too much influence in its construction, both here in NZ and back in London. The earliest governors, Hobson and Fitzroy were also way too much under the influence of the missionaries [who had blurred the long observed distinction between church and state]. Back in London, Parliament realised this in evaluating the treaty as an 'injudicious document' in the 1844 Select Committee Report into NZ. Back here, once our settler government got up and running, the treaty was quietly shelved and our history moved on... after of course ratifying the rights of Maori in our own Parliament.. hence no apartheid system developed. The marvel is that the 'dead albatross' hung around the neck of early NZ has now been resurrected thanks to the academic class of radicals and Maori nationalists since the 70s. There was no resistance [too much appeasement from the politicians], and it has now gone mainstream gaining a mass political following. God save NZ.^^
Perhaps get hold of HG Wells' Time Machine and travel back to acquire the truth/facts! This shit is never going to be resolved because everybody has different interpretations on the gravy train diatribe! AND MAORI ARE NOT INDIGENOUS, for Christ's sake! 😡🤬😡🤬
@@andyoakley7372 I disagree. However you and the unbalanced angry person you were replying to are entitled to YOUR OPINION - because that is purely what it is. Your opinion.
Indigenous people:. "inhabiting or existing in a land from the earliest times or from before the arrival of colonists" Maori are therefore indigenous to this land. The Anglo-Celtic majority are not indigenous to New Zealand.
The first The Princes of the Commonwealth and all the Sovereigns who are heirs to that Commonwealth surrender to the Queen of England for ever - the whole Government of their lands. The second The Queen of England agrees to grant to the Princes and Clans - to all the people of New Zealand the sovereignty of their lands, their homes and all their property. But the Lords of the Wakaminenga and all the other Lords will offer to the Queen the sale of those lands that the owner of the land is satisfied with - according to the price that they and the buyer are willing to pay. by the Queen as her vendor. The third This is also a sign of acceptance of the Government of the Queen - The Queen of England will protect all citizens of New Zealand and grant them all the same conditions as those of England. [signed] W. Hobson Consul & Lieutenant Governor Source, Te Tiriti o Waitangi Translation, Google translate.
Fabricated receipts to push what ever agender it wants you mean. Who tf would give up everything to a foreign ruller willingly. So if putin took over nz you would happily hand over everything you have for the greater good of all Russians???
Tax is voluntary. Fact. Where's the sfigned contract that says i agree to contribute to war, wokism blah blah. Govcorp have a good couple of hundred businesses therefore incomes., Our 'con tribution' is unecessary and only goes overseas anyway
If you want to learn more about tax, economics and the way out of perpetual debt, head over to the Unite New Zealand Party @unitenzparty, I'm a member.
Great another pakeha ''teaching maori history'' of course it's picked and chosen which facts to present and which ones to ignore just like all the other pakeha sources of the time. No, maori never ceded sovereignty, but what would we know about ourselves and our past, of course the white saviour has the truth and all the answers, if you ask pakeha they are more maori than actual maori's, someone told me it's ''woke'' being maori and not a kiwi lol most of you have lost the plot. But who even cares about race when we ALL can't afford a full shopping and a full tank of gas, we are ALL losing jobs and life is getting harder and THIS is what you want to argue about? race? tell me again how you people aren't racist.................for people that always want to argue about race.
Firstly, I don’t think you listened to a word of what I said because I never said anything about Māori history. I was discussing Lord Normanby’s instructions to Hobson which make it clear that the British Crown sought sovereignty of the islands and people of New Zealand. By the way, there is no such thing as Māori history, it’s just history. Also, I don’t identify as a pakeha, I am Andy Oakley, and I speak only for myself. Unlike nameless you, who states “but what would WE know about ourselves and OUR past” as if you are speaking for all Māori, and all of them think the same as you.
You don’t speak for all Māori, you only speak for yourself, and you have no idea what almost all people who identify as Maori think. I agree with you about race, it has no meaning in biological terms, it’s just a social construct. A construct that I reject and you buy into from what I can tell. In terms of the economic situation, I agree with you. I have made several videos about the economy and will soon be releasing more. However, suppose we are having a racial civil war because they have taught our school children that Māori are a separate race and they did not cede sovereignty. In that case, few people will be worrying about the economy. So discussing these matters is a better way to have the conversation.
The Maori text of the treaty has precedent therefore thank you Andy for your facts or fiction. I’m sure your Hobsons Pledge movement are in total agreement with you. Let’s see whose facts stack up with the correct references to what happened in 1840 and the years leading up to the signing. For me Maori did not understand the English interpretation but understood the Maori Te Tiriti version ( agreed by the UN as the primary source of interpretation ). Tino Rangatiratanga and Kawanatanga are two separate forms of governance and authority. Maori did not cede their Tino Rangatiratanga. Maori allowed the Crown not the NSW’s Governor the right to govern their own subjects through Kawanatanga ( Governorship ) not claim authority and ownership over the entire land and its people. The excuse oused of external pressures is another smoke screen littered with lies. Andy you’re not convincing but leave yourself full of holes.
I never gave you any facts or fiction, I used an AI large language model to interpret the 9000 word instructions given to Hobson by Lord Normanby to draw up the Treaty. The AI language model states it is 100% certain that the British intended to set a government to govern all the people of New Zealand. If you read the English draft, The Treaty is addressed to “chiefs and people of New Zealand.” So, the document they wrote made it clear. The translation by the Williams’s says the same thing in the Nga Puhi dialect “ki nga Rangatira me nga Hapu o Nu Tirani.” So, it is also clear in the Nga Puhi dialect translation. If you read Busby’s draft of the Treaty it states in Article Two, “The Queen of England confirms and guarantees to the chiefs & tribes and to all the people of New Zealand the POSSESSION of their lands, dwellings and all their property.” The Queen addressed ALL the people of New Zealand and doesn’t mention chiefly authority, she is talking about property rights. Which was translated by the Williams’s into “Ko te Kuini o Ingarani ka wakarite ka wakaae ki nga Rangatira ki nga hapu-ki nga tangata katoa o Nu Tirani te TINO RANGATIRATANGA o ratou wenua o ratou kainga me o ratou taonga katoa. So, the word “possession” was translated into the word “Rangatiratanga”, that is an undeniable fact. Then if you look up the current Te Aka Maori Dictionary it states “ownership” under the word rangatiratanga. Although that is a modern interpretation of the word. If you go back to the early Williams’s “A Dictionary of the Maori Language”, the only meaning of the word ‘rangatiratanga’, is “Evidence of breeding and greatness.” Not chiefly authority. So, the facts are clear, and it is only by the twisting of those facts that you and others come up with other opinions. The rather shocking thing is that you and others believe that based on your shonky opinions we should live in a country that does not have equal rights for its citizens, and you think that is ok.
Similar to historian Paul Moon, it's all about the ethnocentric mindset was assumption of whether the Crown's intentions were in "Good or Bad Faith". Be mindful that the Crown never invested any financial assistance to establish a colony, it was an "in house" policy. I totally understand the manipulation and underhand tactics utilized to acquire resources necessary to grow economically at the expense of the native aboriginies (Maori) of New Zealand.
If you listened to the A.I. analysis of Lord Normanby’s instructions to Hobson, we know the intent was to establish a sovereign Government for all of the people who “lived” in NZ. But not at the expense of the natives, with their consent. Prior to 1840, there was no one known as “Maori” in NZ, just 600 or so separate tribes, all with their own identity and tribal name. Almost all of those tribes agreed to cede sovereignty and as a result were protected and received rights equal to British Subjects. Apart from an uprising against the sovereignty in 5 or 6 cases, which were quickly quelled by kupapa and the Crown, and who lost land because it, everyone benefited. Slavery ended, life spans were extended, the ordinary people (tangata maori) could now own property and had rights, whereas prior, only chiefs had rights and property. Stop being a victim and start realizing the benefits we all have in NZ as a result of no warfare since the late 1800s.
@andyoakley7372 you don't know me? Typical white privileged ethnocentric ASSUMPTION... How sad, if you don't like it, go somewhere else. The treaty isn't going anywhere except FORWARD😭😭😭😭😭😭
NZ Paarliament show Māori your proof in right of occupation, Parliament was never party to te tiriti therefore Parliament cannot legislate on Maori affairsThe Native Title is Unextinguished refer to Court of Appeal decision over Affairs. God save your king my equitable partner Maori have prerogative!🤪
The British Crown was one of the most unracist in the world. Nobody spent as much or did as much to end slavery in the entire world. It was the British Crown that ended slavery in New Zealand.
We are all sovereign, period. Governments are corporations, a Money making cartel. Would you let mcmacs or burger king dictate how you must conduct yourself and your life. Show me the contract that i signed givin!g my power away and i must either comply or renegotiate the terms. Contracts cnan be cancelled also.
Indigenous Communities around the World did not Cede their Sovereinty to any Colonial Entity. Western Europe was originally established by melanated black ancestry, that Colonialism has hidden from World History. The term “Māori” came into use during the late 1820s (1828). The Waikato Immigration Scheme provided free passage free land packages for its people of military backgrounds living in Britain Sth Africa Scotland & Ireland during & after the Māori Land Wars including Whenua in Te Tai Tokerau. No matter how tauiwi pakeha explain the history of Aotearoa, First & Foremost it was a Total Scam here in this country & around the Indigenous World. 👁️⚫️🕳️🌍🌎🌏👽☠️🐰✨
If the term "Maori" i.e., the noun that collectivizes all the different tribal entities into one entity was in common use by 1828, how come the collective noun "Maori" with a capital 'M' is not used in a single 1840 treaty document whether in English or in the Nga Puhi dialect? When you use the term "Pakeha" and state "No matter how pakeha explain this or that, you are insinuating that all white people think the same... ask yourself, are you being racist? All Maori people don't think the same, and no entire ethnicity think the same about anything.
'It is easier to feed the fish then kill it'... The diabolical bias of Pakeha goes forth (again). It is similar to most conquered territories/lands, stolen by British Colonialism. Just make up a treaty but DEFINITELY NOT ADHERE to the meaning, instead pretend we are dumb and uphold our own (British) ideologies.
New Zealand was one of the few colonies where there was a treaty, so Maori shoudl count themsleves lucky. And it was the maori who broke the treaty later on after 20 years of following Brtish law.
Givingvup Sovereignty for any nation is false as the paper it is written on. Tuhoe never ceded, or had a delegation present in 1840. like Seymor changed the dates, of the latest hearings, in 1840 they moved the dates forward. Without informing those of importance.
This just blows my mind,how many of you believe in truth and justice,so everyone in hear we’re are your ancestors from,where ever you are from has your race been so ,judged,questioned and so on,so why is this land and its peoples history been questioned,and what gives anyone the right to say your race and culture is better then anyone’s else’s.Maori had there own governess,they were all ready trading with other nations, and yet listen to all the hate ,lies,that has been going on for years,everyone has had a go,even the Altas Network,and yous that talk about the graving train ,that started in 1840 mate ,and it’s still going on.The sad thing about all of this,the real people of this nation the ones that love and call this land their home no matter what colour your skin ,the ones that stand on truth and believe in justice,for the treaty,because weather you believe it or not that treaty has been the saving grace of this nation,it was not given by man ,the people of the land had formed a relationship with God ,He spoke to them ,the treaty will not be honoured,but there will come a time when He would address it,this is that time,look whats happening around the world,changers are happening in governments,this system is going to be exposed,what previous governments of the time right to this government have being doing,an awaking to the truth,a shaking ,but a good shaking,for the people of each nation, new changers , in the whole political system,in health, education,currency,every area of our society,so get ready for exposure.
I don't think you understand, I have not given you my opinion on anything. I have asked a A.I. large language model to analyze a 9000 word Victorian document written by Lord Normanby. The instruction was to keep all of it's meanings just as they were intended in 1839, but to rewrite this document using modern day language. What do you disagree with?
@GaryPeters-nv8pj The thumb nail is actually presented as a question and I simply answered it. And I don't like the maori party anymore than the act or any government organization . There all power hungry individuals using what ever shit stirring tactics to divide the people anyway. Just like you @GaryPeters-nv8pj
As soon as it says “unless the free intelligent consent of the natives, expressed according to their established usages” it makes a mistranslated treaty pretty murky, we were not given an opportunity to make a complete and fully informed decision, we were tricked. Now people are angry that Maori are angry about being tricked.
@ Not at all in any sense, I’m saying the British were more informed about their own laws and had the firepower to enforce them without consent. If I were to write two translations of a document now and use them to trick someone, that would just make me more comfortable with misleading someone for my own greed.
@@Ngatidread546 There weren't two translations in 1840 when the treaty was signed. At Waitangi on Feb 5 the English draft was read because there were a lot of English-speaking people there, and then the Nga Puhi dialect Treaty was read to the natives. The natives understood the basic premise and signed the Nga Puhi document. At no other place in New Zealand was an English document read to anyone, they wouldn't have understood a word of it.
@ yeah you’ve said this before and you are completely correct. The problem is in modern times this English translation you talk about being read has been used in political conversation for the last 50 years even though as you say it isn’t valid. 39 Maori did sign an English translation of the treaty though.
@@Ngatidread546 At Waikato Heads on April 14, 1840, Rev Maunsell read the Nga Puhi dialect Printed Sheet, a small document, to the 1500 people gathered there. This was because the official large sheet had not arrived. No English treaty was read at all and this was the case at every signing except at Waitangi. The first 5 chiefs who signed at Waikato Heads signed the Printed Sheet and they ran out of room. So, they had with them an unofficial and ruined large version of the Treaty in English. It contained a ruined wobbly signature of Hobson. However, they used that sheet to gather the remaining signatures, a further 39. They then attached a wax seal between the Printed Sheet and the large ruined English sheet used to gather the signatures, and those two joined documents were filed away. In the 1970s when they opened the suitcase containing the Treaty docs, either those two joined papers had become separated, or they separated them. Apart from receiving the signatures, that English document is irrelevant.
The bible and the tirity o waitangi spiritual law fisical law not some pakeha teacher again tell us maori kids to listen listen up ouryour get the cain or stap telling us nothing maori definitely not the treaty. I now know he talked to much shit same to the preacher who loved to hear himself and an audience to sound educated to he got sacked for being a no it all both the teacher and preacher were found to have told their audiences that the treaty is there leaned subject thell probably wanna be in c mors team talking to who eva listens to the new updated treaty versions
This is the basic fact on which all else rests, and it’s vital the truth is spread far and wide.
Yea like John 3:18 😮
This conversation is long overdue. Expose the lies,propaganda, half truths and hidden agendas. Let us all keep an open mind and search for the truth where consensus cane be agreed upon to the benefit to all peoples of this land.
No. Disagree. Let's not bother with all that window dressing shit. Just treat everybody, that's everybody including Maori, EQUALLY. Problem solved.
Thank you for stepping in and trying to educate the country about all this. The lies are really getting out of hand and threatening our nation.
Hopefully, the public makes better choices in its politicians in the future, too.
Brain washed education, to make us the fool. - Bob Marley.
It's good to hear some one with facts. Nice change from opinions.
Trouble is public does not get to make decisions ( referendum)
Self serving MP’s look after the gravy train for their mates
@@davidthomson692 agreed. That's why I said the 2nd part
@@davidthomson692the sooner we have this referendum the better. Win or not you losers are out...
@@davidthomson692There's no gravy train when the theiving crown only repaid 2 % of what they stole proven in your white courts and there are more whites on the benefit than Maori do some research
Honour the treaty first, than look to change the flaws,, for the betterment of all…
The only way to honour the treaty is to accept that in article one the chiefs ceded sovereignty. To ensure property rights or the law is guaranteed to all the people of New Zealand, article two. And in article three, all the people of NZ were promised equal rights. Unfortunately, until the Crown stops allowing race-based legislation they will be in breach of article three.
@:
It’s always been, say one thing,, but do another, Hidden Agenda’s & Ulterior Motives from the beginning.
It’s been that way since the beginning of Time itself, the same ole, same. From hostile takeover, to subtle coaxing with word play, to just fabrication & blatant lies about ownership.
@@andyoakley7372:
It’s always been, say one thing,, but do another, Hidden Agenda’s & Ulterior Motives from the beginning.
It’s been that way since the beginning of Time itself, the same ole, same. From hostile takeover, to subtle coaxing with word play, to just fabrication & blatant lies about ownership.
@@andyoakley7372:
It’s always been, say one thing,, but do another, Hidden Agenda’s & Ulterior Motives from the beginning.
It’s been that way since the beginning of Time itself, the same ole, same. From hostile takeover, to subtle coaxing with word play, to just fabrication & blatant lies about ownership.
This is the content and context around Britain offering to Maori. That is; Accepting common law governance over this land. And accepted (Maori) they did!!
We now need a conversation over all this. Somehow. (Maori activists and elites) have twisted this original treaty into something that is out of all recognition
So what happens Maori govern themselves,ok go for it but you receive no income from any current government departments you finance yourselves,but remember not all Maori want this,so how the hell will that work,they live in the past and keep repeating the past.
They need to move on they have the same rights as all of us,in fact in certain things they are given preferential trea5ment.
We are all kiwis in a modern society,stop trying to take us back to the last century,tribal rule was violent and had no law,stop pretending it was all wine and roses.
The facts are that there is no such thing as Maori. Just as there is no such people as Pakeha.
Once you buy into the narrative that these entities exist, it's all down hill from there.
The IWI's have been givin billions over the years and hardly a cent is spent on the average maori and it was all tax free as well..........they are just another corporation using hate to turn us against each other
The Chinese and Japanese did great without Western Colonisation and Maori DNA is Taiwanese so we may well could've been further advanced than we are now if left alone
We will be funded by the trillions of reparation that the Crown will pay us
The only thing japanese about japan is there old culture, Everything else they learnt through education from the British and yanks!
Did Maori cede sovereignty? Clause One of the Treaty quite explicitly says they did. No misinterpretation is possible of the English text is possible. If the Maori translation of Clause One now says Maori didn't cede sovereignty, the whole Treaty needs to be abandoned. You can't have a treaty where the one side signed something different from what the other side signed. That's absurd. Personally I'd be perfectly happy to abandon the Treaty AND OUR ASSOCIATION WITH THE BRITISH CROWN. Let's just entrench the Bill of Rights Act 1990, use that as a Consitution and become a Constitutional Republic. I'm sick of this constant bickering.
Yes, you have to read article on out to some maori very slowly, the maori text says the same thins. But they probably cant read that!
Because to show what is meant by that, Article One took sovereignty of New Zealand as a whole.
Article Two returned the original sovereignty of Maori back to Maori.
Article Three states that Maori also get the rights of British Subjects in addition to their original rights returned to them in the same moment, and was sworn to protect the rights of both of them.
Could a link to this document be provided please for all to re-read and clearly take it in. Thank you
ruclips.net/video/Os7NlOSvtuc/видео.htmlsi=JIMpi3qHzfolPEmT
Done
Also to be found in the book 'The Treaty of Waitangi' by Buick.
@@davethewave7248 And at the back of Martin Doutre's book The Littlewood Treaty
@@Digmen1 both sound very impartial to maori and the crown lol. As maori we don't accept your biased sources, they have been proven to be biased but people still take them as gospel because it fits their narrative. Buick, Doutre, hobson and anyone else with a european name and heritage FROM THAT TIME should not be used as fact.
Thank you, Andy. For 50 years activists have been rewriting history twisting the treaty and driving this country to tribal rule. What you are bringing is the untouched and actual history of how the treaty came about and what it meant.
Thank you for your comment. Do you mean, what happened to Bruce Moon, or what happened to Julian?
Bruce Moon is very old, but I still see him in some email groups, and obvioulsy, Julian has his RUclips channel.
I have read a number of assertions by academics that say sovereignty wasn't ceded because of translation issues, or that they can't see when it happened. And in Tribunal proceedings - the Whanganui River Claims, and the endless hearing into Ngapuhi claims. Re Whanganui, the Tribunal advised (key term) that the tribes didn't think they had ceded sovereignty, but their actions over the next 20 years belied that and they behaved as if they had. The academics forget that there is a third party - other sovereigns. It was good enough for the French, Americans et al to recognize the British Crown, and that is a vital test: an entity is only sovereign insofar as it it self-governing, AND recognized by others. That's the whole point. Of course there is application of the rule of law domestically, but that's actually not determinative. At the same time NZ was brought into the Crown ambit, there were vast chunks of America which were not under the active control of the United States - the territories, mainly - but no other power contested their sovereignty.
To me the obfuscation around the Treaty missed the point that sufficient consent had been sought and given for Hobson to make the Crown Proclamation in May 1840, and for the machinery of sovereign government to grind away and the Constitution Act of 1852 to be enacted. If there's any doubt about sovereign mutual recognition, it should be settled by the 1947 Acts adopting the Statute of Westminster and enabling New Zealand to establish a full Embassy in Washington.
Not to mention that sovereignty was asserted against Heke's rebellion [and where most chiefs remained loyal to the Crown], and that it was once again enforced against the Kingite movement of the 1860s in the NZ wars. All tribes since then have practically recognised the sovereignty of the NZ state... until academics of the 1970s started to question it along radical/ theoretical political grounds. The problem is the paradigm/ cultural shift from an imperial politics of the day to a democratic/ nationalist one today. Within this new paradigm that the majority think, the past is turned on its head.
@@davethewave7248 Quite. Part of the challenge is that there are wave after wave of BS flooding the "conversation", and yet the Crown does not state an official, legal, summary of position. It seems everything is interpretation and relative facts and values. But the position of the Crown should be clear - and have a standing beyond each settlement or court case.
There's a speech by Glazebrook J on the NZSC website on "a common law approach to constitutionalism" which drives me totally spare because she's arguing for precisely the endless activism masquerading as consensus-driven iterations of fact and position, and denying the legitimacy of the Crown/Parliament making declarative judgements on constitutional matters. It's maddening.
So Heke was a Rebel for fighting for what was right? He saw right through the deceit and who is this majority of chiefs who were loyal to the crown? And have all tribes recognized the sovereignty of the state or did they not have a choice? ..Why would a proud warrior race who'd been here for hundreds of years and developed a strong spiritual connection with this land just hand everything over to foreigners from the otherside of the world who only just turned up?
@@manamaori100 Most chiefs disagreed with Heke's desire to trun back to the old ways [research Waka Nene]. The chiefs wanted to move forward after two decades of the most brutal tribal warfare [the musket wars].. even Nga Puhi was falling into civil wars. They wanted law and order, security of person and property, trade and economy, which is why they signed. The reasons are there for anyone to read - look at the recorded speeches of the chiefs at Waitangi.
@@manamaori100 But they did, and for very sensible reasons after debating whether to sign at Waitangi, Hokianga and elsewhere.
The Maori gave but sovereignty gave up sovereignty for a treaty to protect Maori against Maori
The Maori never ceeded Sovereignty to the British, ever!
@@erina4586paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/MMTKM18600714.2.4 the chiefs at Kohimarama acknowledged that fact, get educated
@@erina4586 Where is your evidence for that?
We have all the written and verbal recorded evidence
From 1840? Lol!@@Digmen1
It's obvious you ppl have no clue what tinorangatiratanga means.
Thank you. Best wishes from Nelson.
👍Nothing but verified facts. No politics. Subbed.
Andy is the best!
Thank you putting this out to inform Nzers and give the Very Important background to the Treaty and what was going on at the time. Appreciate your perspective. I hope people share this in good faith
One of the points you have missed here Andy, and they reason why Pakeha are angry, is not because they believe or disbelieve that Maori ceded sovereignty, but whether they were treaty fairly by Pakeha both pre-1840 and afterwards. Most people believe on the whole they were treated fairly, apart from certain egregious cases which should rightly addressed. However, Te Pati Maori and Rawiri Waititi has made it clear that he despises Pakeha and he believes that colonisation was bad for Maori and he bears an unquenchable grudge. He cannot be reasoned with and does not accept Maori also derived some benefits from Colonisation. As such he cannot satisfied and so the left's policy of continual appeasement of Maori is leading NZ down a very dark road.
I agree with you.
Although I wouldn't say Pakeha think this or that, nor would I say Maori think this or that. New Zealanders are individuals and they each hold their own personal views about topics. However, as you say Te Pati Maori are racists and 'do' think all Maori think like them, and all Pakeha don't.
'.........the left's policy of continual appeasement of Maori.....'
Indeed, and I would include Humpty Dumpty Luxon in that process.
What was the point of a treaty other than to cede sovereignty, sshhhh. People are so thick these days. Obviously the status quo was not working for Māori and they wanted something better.
obviously to stop the fighting between maori and settlers stealing land...................you are the pot calling the kettle black. maori outnumbered pakeha why would they need crown protection, in fact pakeha were protected for over 100 years in aotearoa before europeans decided they wanted everything and started bringing troops instead of settlers
@ Māori were trading land themselves in exchange for what was considered by them at that time unobtainable and never before available luxury goods .
Some tribes gave land for schools. Education was a prized and otherwise unattainable luxury. Some Māori shafted their own people by lying about the deeds ripping off their elders because their old folk trusted them they couldn’t read or write just signed with an X. I know this for a fact because a lady I used to take shopping told me and that that there were faults on both sides. which human nature being what it is, I believe her.
No amount of revisionist thinking changes the actual facts of history. Many tribes were still fighting each other so it’s pretty difficult to have time and resources to improve your living standards at the same time.
There is only one path and it’s together. Equal rights for all. Any other way is a roadmap of constant fear, death,distruction of valuable resources and eventual possible starvation for most. Just watch overseas wars
Life is what it is, there is no such thing as a perfect life or indeed race, the concept is ridiculous.it is our duty to work hard and get n with each other in present time. Working together for the good of all. People of all races are struggling our immigrants are the ones being disrespected the most and having the hardest time time at the moment in my opinion, no one trying to improve their lives or dangerous workplaces. We can do better but only together..
not wrong ,that people aren't all that quick . what is a treaty ? 'an agreement between two parties ' ..two parties .. The problem we have now is the current govt corporation wants to take us into the globaal UN WEF enslavement model .The same model used in china .
In 1840 there were 10,000 Māori slaves - their master were Māori.
Life expectancy of Māori make -30
From 1820 -1840 population went from 150,000 to less than 100,000 .
Butchery , savagery ,cannibalism , trading of tattooed heads for muskets for utu ended.
Māori pleaded to King George to save Māori from wiping themselves out.
Queen Victoria obliged to save the Māori race.
Thanks to Christianity and Colonialism Māori have survived. It’s the white Māori elite activists pushing the lies and not wanting the gravy train to end.
Of course Māori ceded sovereignty and New Zealand has been operating for the last 180 years because it . Queen Victoria would have left Māori to destroy each other otherwise.
Thanks for your comment Keith.
The most accurate population decline I have seen is from academic Dr John Robinson, which is a drop from 120,000 in 1800 to 72,000 by 1840. Approximately 60,000 though which you state.
Lord Normanby stated that there were about 2000 Europeans living here in 1838 and my estimate is that there were about 5000 in 1840, or about 7% of the entire population, and bigger that most tribes.
The point I keep trying to make is that prior to the mid-1840s the people in New Zealand were not known as Māori by themselves or by anyone else. We now know that there were people in Poukawa trapping Moa at least 7000 years ago. So, people have been arriving here for many thousands of years and colonising those before them. But our whole country has fallen for a completely false set of beliefs fostered on us by a political and academic class that hasn’t got a clue how to identify themselves let alone anyone else.
There is no such thing as the Māori race and so it is impossible to gather any statistics about them. But people do it anyway.
@@andyoakley7372Thanks Andy, thats fascinating as well. We are in the end all children of migrants here (or new migrants).
Nice Work Sir...👍
Thanks for that. Very useful. Interesting that the Crown acknowledged a type of sovereignty by the chiefs, and considered NZ as akin to a nation when it was actually many tribal nations. Such acknowledgements may have been to show maximum respect leading into the negotiations.
I suspect that was the case, but also that internationally, the British had to be seen to be acting in good faith.
@@andyoakley7372but in practice, good faith was indeed not employed. It appeared that way internationally, but even within out own country we do not acknowledge the reality of things so I don't expect people from overseas to know better when citizens don't. If good faith was indeed employed, we wouldn't have had eugenics, we couldn't have had a white nz policy among other things.
We can read the words, however we also must observe how those words were acted upon. That's how we get the intent and truth. That supposed maximum respect shown hasn't translated into today's society, that's apparent from alot of the comments made on this video. It's not good faith of you're doing it for self gain, I actually implore you to see how they chose to enact those words they wrote. I'm pretty sure Maori were indeed deprived of their lands, the "land protector" didn't protect Maori assets rather used the Maori land court to sell the land to their friends and doctors, Mps etc. Actually. They still had foot races for Maori land, like literal 100m sprints. There's stories in HB in the 1900s of farmers openly bragging about raping Maori children to instil fear in future generations to landlocked Maori land I think after a certain amount of time spent away from the land meant it was alloted off or sold to the nearest neighbour, or they'd just claim it. It's almost like whiplash reading the words and then actually looking at how it was enacted bc they certainly do not align, other than setting up a British colony and assertion assimilation is the only way forward. It's a sad history, but a history we need to learn nonetheless.
The problem is Māori interbred with White folk hence the "bloodlines " were not full blooded Māori. Once they interbred the question of who would look after those with White bloodlines running through there veins . Claims of being Māori aren't under the rules / laws of NZ will only lead to Lawlessness/ corruption which we are seeing right now .One people, One law ,One people....
Prior to the mid-1840s, no one in New Zealand was referred to as 'Maori.' Instead, there were simply humans living mostly in tribes, and it is unknown which of these tribes arrived first or even when they arrived.
After 1840, people who subscribed to the now-discredited concept of 'race' grouped all the separate tribes into one collective identity known as 'Maori.' This is an example of a social construct-something that exists in perception but not in biological reality.
Stop with the lies .. those white people raped and murdered Maori for the land.
I don't see any problem with my bloodlines being intertwined on both sides. What kind of nonsense is this. "The problem being bloodlines mixed" seems to me you are the problem.
Oh wreck tim, piles would be the problem in your case.
@@fraserwilson9852 stupid comments 🤡...Interbreeding is where NZ is now . Anyone can identify as Māori which is exactly why "Plastic Māori " think they've got a right to the piece of the pie .Who gives a fuck about ceded sovereignty. NZ needs law and order more than ever after 184 years .Yep ,Laws and regulations to keep NZ safe .
In reality, what happened after the signing of the treaty was natives were murdered woman and children were raped and 90percent of native land was stolen. You forgot to mention this. No wonder new Zealand was rich in 1900. Your version of avents is one sided. There were 2 people the crown and chiefs.
Thank you for your comment Tracy, you and people like you are why I make these videos. You are entirely ignorant about New Zealand's history.
The signing of the treaty was the end of slavery, cannibalism and the wars between the tribes. Those wars reduced the native population from around 120,000 to 70,000 between about 1810 and 1840. I think what you are referring to is the 5 or so incidents where tribes refused to accept the sovereignty of the Queen, and rose up against the state including other tribes. In those wars between disloyal tribes and loyal tribes including British soldiers that began in about 1845 and went on to about 1872. Each side lost about 2500 people in those wars.
The tribes who opposed the state, which was a breach of the treaty, were warned that if they did not surrender to the Queen, they may have land confiscated. They failed to surrender, were attacked and had land confiscated as result after the wars (not stolen). By 1940 all of these tribes had received full and final settlements for those land confiscations. This was as a result of the Simms Commision and involved about 4% of the total land mass of New Zealand, not 90%.
The other incident I think you are referring to was Parihaka, which was a settlement of people who were occupying land that did not belong to them. They were moved on without injury or death, and although there is a story that circulates that someone was raped, there is no evidence that happened at all.
If you have evidence that natives were murdered, women and children were raped please post it.
You are also incorrect about the parties to the treaty, it was between the British Crown, the chiefs, and all the people of New Zealand. The noun “Maori” does not appear in any of the 1840 treaty documents.
@ray-rm4zz This is why the New Zealand government has treaty grievances.This is why the Waitangi tribunal was set up.When your ancestors get murdered, raped, and your land gets stolen you don't need to search Google.Tangatawhenua know the names of those who were murdered and raped and their lands that were stolen clown.Another fact
Yea and yea to both questions
Maori did not cede sovereignty because they did not have it in the first place. They had no word on for sovereignty as they had no concept of nationhood.
You obviously have not read the speeches from the chiefs on the day, and also the speeches 20 years later at the Kohimarama Conference. Also, you have not factored in that that is how almost all tribes acted they accepted the Queen as their sovereign.
@@andyoakley7372 Accepting a sovereign does not presuppose that a sovereignty was ceded. What does not exist cannot be ceded. @brianmariewilson1042 is 100% correct.
Wrong! Read the Parliamentary papers from the house of Commons. They assumed that Maori had sovergiency based on the 1835 Deceleration of "Independence"
@@DW_Kiwi I always had the impression Maori were tribal and did not see NZ as a nation but as tribal areas they could take over through warfare .
@@brianmariewilson1042 I think you are largely correct, except that there was no concept of Maori prior to the mid 1840s.
Maori never claimed sovereignty, James Busby claimed sovereignty on behalf of a few mostly Nga PUhi chiefs in the north
Lord Glenelg recognized the DoI in 1836, but I think this was nothing more than diplomacy because he qualified it with the understanding that the people of New Zealand were composed of numerous, dispersed tribes, not necessarily forming a centralized government.
If you agreed to be under the protection of Queen Victoria in 1840 then you signed up to be a member of the British Empire and ultimately a New Zealander.
Maori are not better than everyone else. They are, as they should be, equal with everybody else. E Q U A L !
Bunch of conquered cave people had no choice but to surrender unconditionally to the greatest force of its time. Silly question.
Waitaha didn't surrender nor did we let a foreigner the oueen of England authority over our kuia we maintain our mana motu hake the best armed forces from the world turnd up for war along with the best weapons the world had English along with the many outher nations they came thinking the world is there's 1 mor race of savages to coucure wat happens their getting beaten their loosing their running backwards her comes the best of their best many of them withdrawn from outher theaters going on and bigger and better fier power to fight my ancestors who are we tangata whenua who are they foreigner s you say the foreigner s won I'm here to tell yous your aload of bullshit ,the one telling his story doesn't become a qualified learned historian on aotearoa nz history he's going back wards talking as if he was there on the battle feild running away me and my generation are doing wat our tupuna Hakaraia had to do and the many outher tribes had to do and it wasn't surrender were still here besides our.maunga our awa our mana motu hake do use own mountains ,and rives we won through peace and war it became war and peace your storyof British superiority how can a great and mighty powerful nation change tactics battle plans they shouldn't of used the Bible gods word attack Ed tangata whenua while having whakamoemiti on Sunday burning the whare karakia with the congregation inside disrespect ing the treaty and the Bible adds up to the true laws of this country . Not this government our politicians and there lies more amateur s talking shit trying their best to win their war against the tirity c mor needs more dummy s only through peace will a true victory be one
For those who have watched the video and still argue Lord Normanby gave instructions to Hobson to set up a Government in New Zealand for the settlers only and leave everyone else alone.
I inserted the full set of instructions from Normanby to Hobson and asked A,I. the following question.
Please review the following text and tell me which statement is correct.
1. The British wanted to set up a Government in New Zealand only for the settlers, or
2. The British Crown wanted to set up a government for all of the people of New Zealand.
Answer
Based on the text provided, the correct statement is:
2. The British Crown wanted to set up a government for all of the people of New Zealand.
This is evident from several points in the text:
• The passage mentions the intent to establish a settled form of civil government to rescue emigrants from the evils of a lawless state of society and to mitigate disasters for both the settlers and the native population.
• It discusses the need for the natives' "free intelligent consent" for the British Crown to govern, indicating an inclusive approach towards governance which would cover all inhabitants, not just settlers.
• There is an explicit mention of the desire to promote the civilization, religious, intellectual, and social advancement of the native population alongside the settlers, suggesting a government intended for all the people of New Zealand.
• The establishment of a system where land dealings with the natives would be conducted with sincerity, justice, and good faith, and the appointment of officials like the "Protector of the Aborigines," further supports the idea that the governance was meant to encompass and protect the interests of all inhabitants, including the natives.
There you have it, after a large language model A.I. analyzed every word written in the instructions from Normanby, it is clear, that the British intended, and did set up a government for all of the people of New Zealand.
Yes they did. We agreed to be together and work together and our ancestors did that.
Let’s face it NZ was uninhabited for most of human history. Maori arrived a few hundred years before Europeans - it’s a country full of people can’t everyone just get on with democracy and living a good life?
Have you published this ‘modern day translation’ of the instructions for framing the treaty documentation + detailing the AI LLM utilised ? This would make a useful doc for modern day students / scholars - as a means of broadened understanding beyond the political rhetoric !
@@nickbuck4744 I used Grok as it seems to be the least biased.
In a few days I am about to release a much more detailed video challenging Prof Paul Moons rhetoric on the subject of cession of sovereignty in NZ.
Where do think I should publish such a document?
Prior to 1840 Maniapoto owned 4 ships and a number of mills. Fresh produce was regularly delivered and sold at Sydney market.
At that time we already counted several europeans as kinsmen such as my great grandfather Samuel Aron Joseph and French/Englishmen Ludovios Hetet. There was also the reknowned ships captain and cartographer Adolphus Kent as well as one William Turner plus many others...
So what was in it for us ?
Interested in obtaining a copy of another rebuttal of non-extinguished tribal sovereignty? It takes the form of a 2002 Public Law Lecture delivered by Bill English (as he then was) on the topic of unitary sovereignty established throughout 1840.
If so, please send me an email link and I shall try to press the correct buttons in the correct order to despatch a copy. It's a good piece of work. Studiously ignored by all the right people, of course.
I remember reading that document, I'll see if I can find it.
The treaty came about in order to resolve intertribal warfare which had resulted in the death of some 30,000 tribal members. There was also the potential of the French coming down mob handed to take revenge over the deaths of Captain Marion du Fresne and his men in the Bay of Islands. The French navy had units in Tahiti plus a ship with colonisers on its way. This vessel finally ended up in Akaroa harbour. Fortunately Hobson had heard about this and sent a ship to establish a presence in the South. The French arrived too late.
There’s a lot of conversation to be had around the technicalities of all this but regardless even if we follow the English translation of the treaty, at the core of this, we were deceived and taken for all we had. Governor Grey borrowed the equivalent of $420 million to invade the Waikato, hoping to make it back in land sales (which he didn’t) the context of the history around the treaty is important. Even William Colenso (the man who wrote it) told William Hobson that he wasn’t sure Maori understood what they were signing to which he replied “she’ll be right, let’s make some money”
There is no English version of the Treaty. The document used by the Crown in legislation was used at Waikato Heads to gather signatures after the people there were read The Printed Sheet in the Nga Puhi dialect. No one read the treaty to the natives in English outside Waitangi as not a sole would have understood a word of it.
The English Treaty used by the Crown in Legislation is quite simply fraudulent.
@ I did say translation. I definitely agree with everything you said. What I’m saying is more around that we signed the treaty written and spoken in Maori, then the English translation was adhered to. The “natives” were rangatira and Hone Heke would have understood, amongst others.
Just think about the practicalities of having a Westminster based government/legal system for the small number of settlers and Tikanga for the majority Maori population. Utu, revenge and Muru, plunder would be acceptable under Tikanga but these would be criminal offences for the settlers, under British law.
The only way it could possibly work is if everyone is treated equally under the same system.
Some things to note, borders within new zealand were assigned by iwi and enforced. Each iwi owned thier own slice of new zealand. A large proportion of the north island iwi agreed to and signed the treaty yet 40 iwi did not. Tuhoe was the most notable to not agree to terms and they held the south island. So the chiefs who agreed to the treaty represented some of the north island. Its like going to europe and agreeing with france and spain that all of europe is now under your control. It was weak then and its weak now.
I am looking at a map showing the tribal positions in 1800. Ngati Apa and Rangitane top of the S.I., Poutini and a small group of Ngai Tahu Westcoast, and Ngati Mamoe over most of the bottom of the S.I., with a small Ngai Tahu presence in Dunedin. No Tuhoe mentioned at all.
These tribes did not own anything, nor did any of their members have rights. Ownership and rights are products of a central government and a legislature.
Here we go! Another European view point on Māori sovereignty and all the other comments from people using a white coloured lens to justify their own existence/ legitimacy to Aotearoa. Māori are and always will be tangata whenua. We don’t need to prove our sovereignty. 1835 signed and sealed.
I'm a New Zealander, like you, not a European. I was born on the Pacific Islands of New Zealand, where my mother's family have resided since the mid 1840's, that makes me a Pacific Islander.
The DoI was an English Document written by James Busby in 1835. It was not an official document, it had no bearing on NZ's history, there was no such thing as the United Tribes of NZ, they never held a single meeting, and the document was not formally accepted by the British Crown.
Initially only 34 northern (Nga Puhi) chiefs signed it, however there were more than 600 tribes in NZ at the time who didn't sign it.
Good insight to those old texts. They always referred to Māori as native or indigenous. I don’t know why people these days are so hell bent on making sure Māori are not considered indigenous . Trying to make out they turned up yesterday. The word Māori itself means native. Māori culture and language is unique to NZ. Most pacific nations are similar in some respects but not the same expression.
Maori meaning 'native' didn't happen till the 1850s, see The Dictionary of the Maori Language. There was no noun Maori in 1850, that's why if you look at all of the 1840 treaty documents the noun 'Maori' does not appear in any of them.
Thanks for your feedback, appreciate your work on our fascinating history 👍🏼
Hey Andy did you happen to look at the first translations of te reo Maori by the early missionaries? William Colenso made a publication of the new testament in 1837. Subtext on the cover says ' he mea whakamaori i te reo kariki'. I believe parts of the bible were published earlier from the 1820s onwards by other missionaries. Work on translating te reo into text began around 1812. My understanding of the application of the word Maori came from explorers always referring to the local inhabitants as natives and the corresponding word in the local language that fit that description was the word Maori. Cheers 🍻
Shhhhh....stop thinking Maori were stupid! We already knew how treaty worked, we had one remember!
I'll take my chances with Prof Moon. Your efforts to interpret history feel like a dog whistle to the lame and miserable. Arguing about te tiriti is a pointless exercise. It's a great little country. Can't we all just shut-up and get on with it?
For those who have watched the video and still argue Lord Normanby gave instructions to Hobson to set up a Government in New Zealand for the settlers only and leave everyone else alone.
I inserted the full set of instructions from Normanby to Hobson and asked A,I. the following question.
Please review the following text and tell me which statement is correct.
1. The British wanted to set up a Government in New Zealand only for the settlers, or
2. The British Crown wanted to set up a government for all of the people of New Zealand.
Answer
Based on the text provided, the correct statement is:
2. The British Crown wanted to set up a government for all of the people of New Zealand.
This is evident from several points in the text:
• The passage mentions the intent to establish a settled form of civil government to rescue emigrants from the evils of a lawless state of society and to mitigate disasters for both the settlers and the native population.
• It discusses the need for the natives' "free intelligent consent" for the British Crown to govern, indicating an inclusive approach towards governance which would cover all inhabitants, not just settlers.
• There is an explicit mention of the desire to promote the civilization, religious, intellectual, and social advancement of the native population alongside the settlers, suggesting a government intended for all the people of New Zealand.
• The establishment of a system where land dealings with the natives would be conducted with sincerity, justice, and good faith, and the appointment of officials like the "Protector of the Aborigines," further supports the idea that the governance was meant to encompass and protect the interests of all inhabitants, including the natives.
There you have it, after a large language model A.I. analyzed every word written in the instructions from Normanby, it is clear, that the British intended, and did set up a government for all of the people of New Zealand.
Thanks Andy ,nice to have yet another take on it all ..... But the actual documents ,as opposed to Normanby's intentions ,do leave the door open ,people can/should read for themselves . The 1835 doc claims independence ,and sovereignty ,a flag was given and recognized internationally ,that flag still flies at Waitangi . Our real problem ,and its seeds were well in play in 1840's ,the people ,or entities behind the scenes lusting after power and wealth [ and actual satan worshipers ,do people not think they are there ,and in high places ?]. These people belong to secret societies ,they know if the people actually knew their plans there would be pitchforks and nasty things produced . Those naughty Americans had escaped ,formed a shocking olde/new form of governing ,with the people having the actual authority ,under God ,did this play a part ?. When we see the current government system going and sucking up to the davos/WEF crowd [ those that have so lusted after money and power they now own 50-90% of it ,Claws Swab openly boasts of controlling the world cabinets ,and tells us his plans, 'hunger games ', 'own nothing and like it ', why ? so they can own it , 100% control ,and they smile . Actually worse, his side kick Evil noah Harrarie wants to 'evolve' us into cyborgs , a euphemism for robots !? ] . i think it is time for the Good NZers to use any lawful means to stop them . Sadly these same shadow creatures know how to manipulate the masses all to well [ lots of history in this ,french revolution , Bolsheviks, WW1 and 2 , the destruction of yugoslavia ,and now Ukraine ,all manipulation of useful idiots ]. so most of what we are seeing is this manipulation ,and just like the covid 'scamdemic' it is scary how the sheeple fell for it . But From what I see the actual NZ Maori government are making a genuine and lawful attempt at a reset ,all welcome ,providing they agree to treat all with honor before the creator God . [ They are still in admiralty law but that's another story ].
The answer is YES to the title.
Instead of confusing things by looking at the treaty with modern eyes verse what it was like back then. Things where different. 1834 Briton abolished slavery those days Slavery was everywhere. The British Government brought laws to New Zealand in 1852 So what happened to Briton is they had gone through some morality changes which meant instead of defeating or mistreating those they colonized they followed a more Christian path of insimalation through the Bible as many Missionaries since 1814 and not only did they bring music and musical instruments they helped Maori along with some Maori speakers translate and write Maori a written language. There plan was to bring them to the lord and bring peace amongst the many waring Maori tribes. But these missionaries where sceptical of the Royal Navy and British officers asserting there Dominance over this land looking at the way colonization had treated other natives at other locations around the world. But here's the thing as i said back then things where different and many Maori who were waring with other tribes made deals with the British government by giving land and allowing them to stay in return help them defeat other tribes they claimed where wicked In most cases the British soldiers kept out of internal politics but did enter a few battles probably to asserts it's dominance among Maori. Maori back then could capture enemies and enslave them, Chiefs could narry who ever they like including multiple wives and if slaves refused to hunt, build or fight for them would be killed and even eaten. And some practiced the eating of one's enemy as taking Mana and pooping them out as an insult. Women and even children could be killed or graped depending on the rules each tribe had and terrirtorry was taken that's land from each conquered tribe that was the way. Maori back then most didn't care about giving away land because they knew no value to the land they also knew if the want it back they could just take it back if they wanted to. Because many Europeans taken advantage of the country being lawless and knowing how they can take advantage of Maori many bad deals where made mainly with land including getting chiefs drunk to make decisions easy. The British Government ordered that NZ needs Laws all must follow but the damage was to late as the land wars broke out. A governing body was formed to protect Maori from land grabs but that left Many Maori tribes fighting over who's land was who's?. There where also some missionaries and whalers that did not want British law accross the country abd sided with opposing Maori against the crown. The crown won and it was settled all Maori will become citizens of Briton which meant all laws can be enforced and adds the protection of the royal navy against outside countries entering nz bringing harm to the Maori people. The Treaty was written allowing Maori not just protecting by the crown and it's laws but to allow Maori to co exist along side Colonizers each staying in there own territory. That would of been that and that's all the treaty was about leaving them alone on there side while we exist on our side in peace. Here's where the problem is. Most Maori mainly the younger one's wanted to jump Waka to the European side leaving there old ways and triditions behind, learning new things and technology learning English and getting jobs earing money and trade wearing new clothes living in solid houses. Over time a benifit system was introduced for all New Zealanders including Those Maori who jumped Waka. Many Maori elders resented these Europeans taking away there young which started a negative effect rippling all the way to modern times. Now those who did not give sovereignty means they are not of British rule nor citizenship. If that is the case there would be no laws against the government for compansation in the courts for past land or grievences nor would the crown offer housing or benefits to non citizens of the crown government so choosing to say sworn no sovereigncy is shoiting yourself in the foot you would loose everything including healthcare and childcare and education and jobs. You would be given back any outstanding land whats left and not legitamately sold to live on where you can govern yourselves without Laws or policing and would be segragated from all modern society to start again no power etc. Any money you have can be traded for goods but you would have to give up all your money. Any country entering can lay waste to your people and the British government would sit on idle hands doing nothing to protect you. And the inhouse fighting back to being tribes and back and fourth fighting with the British would dwindle your people down to very few over time. You couldn't survive.
Thank you Andy, excellent explanation and clarification😊
They signed the treaty that says so, so yes. Signatures all over it.
Sorry forest keep gumping
@@fraserwilson9852 Dumb dumb.
Referendum will sought it out
No we didn't Hobsons Pledge.
u tube videos titled stop co governance by julian batchelor is very informative and shows evidence of the activists lies, that all nzers need to see, also under stop co governance the treaty of waitangi for newbies series. If you start at the beginning it is in a series sequence, it makes sense then one after the other
There was no referendum.
Absolutely over everything "Maori"
Australia is waiting for you goodbye
That's sad as all Maori don't want what is on the agenda Proposed by TPM and elite radical activist extremist separatist tribal racist Maori. Many Maori and possibly most don't want a bar of what TPM and elite radical activist extremist separatist tribal Maori are doing as they are not a good look for Maoridom and they are giving honest hardworking good Maori a bad rap.
Australia and their rednecks are waiting for you goodbye
You could move to Australia?
You should try living in the South where everything i 9:51 s dominated by North Island media. breakfast television shows, RNZ etc..we don't care about this shite although as tax payers we also fund it..Aotearoa Me Te Waiponamu..North and South Island..we don't care about your shite down here and never did..stop trying to Maorify us..also be great if you all stay in your own country and stop moving down here..Shortland Street 😂
Give Maori the right to their sovereignty but only if they return all that's come to them from colonialisation including all govt grants/ benefits, the hundreds of millions paid out to settle land disputes, cars, woolen/cotton or synthetic clothes, supermarkets anything to do with metal because of course they were stone age before colonialisation, hospitals, Schools, universities, law and order which now prevents murdering, slaving and committing unmentionable acts on people from other tribes. Not sure there will be many Maori willing to give everything up that's benefited them from the introduction of colonialisation so they can have sovereignty but give them the choice and see because you can't have your cake and eat it too
Yeah nah, take it all with you when you leave.
Then you would have to pack your bags and return to England. Maori may have to do business with China, Japan, Russia and other nations.
@@fordfalcon1965nah easier to move out 20% of the settlers than the other 80%. Not sure where they would go as they are all mixed DNA nowadays 😂
If it wasn't for colonisation New Zealand would be just another 3rd world Pacific Island like Fiji Tonga or Samoa
@@erina4586 If that were to happen their would be another country taking over NZ. Nothing good would come out of the country with lack of skills, resources and self determination to succeed, otherwise we would be seeing it happening now instead of this self made victim culture that seems to be all the rage right now.
The British wrote the treaty so why do part maori think they are experts on what it says
It's worse than that, these modern day Karen's think that they know what was in the heads of every chief who stepped up to sign the Treaty in 1840, are you kidding? Besides Maori are not mentioned in any of the 1840 treaty documents.
Signed contract 😳 my bad
ruclips.net/video/Os7NlOSvtuc/видео.htmlsi=JIMpi3qHzfolPEmT my bad🫢
There were over 100,000 Māori in Nz,when the treaty was signed,2000 whites ,who in their right mind would cede sovereignty under those circumstances
Many tribes did not sign,and there were 2 suffering copies one white, one Maori
Is that you Margaret?
Yes with those numbers the fact the 500 chiefs ceded their sovereignty shows that they wanted to. Hobson has 3 armed policemen!
People of the mind that they were over getting raped, pillaged, and eaten by invading tribes!
Great question. Plus the earlier declaration of independence tends to suggest sovereignty was never on the table for either party. Arguing about te tiriti is a pointless exercise. The truth is there for anyone who wants to see it. Trouble is, few people want to see the truth, it's
now more attractive
to virtue signal in a RUclips clip than silently sit with the discomfort of ignorance.
@@siix477 The whole point of Hobson coming here was to gain sovereignty. Read clause 1 and 2 of both versions. And then study the Kohimarama conference of 1860. Maori have lived under British Sovereignty for 180 years - its only been the last 50 years that some activists etc decided to bring it up.
Hobson was careful to get most of the maori chiefs who signed the Declaration to sign the Treaty of Waitangi
Ask them they'll tell you
yes heard this version, correct in some, maori never ceeded their mana/sovereignty, misinterpreted in the 1840 rushed busby contract-the botched treaty, the rest we know, today is how to mend & unite equally, major cleansing our kiwi paradise of all the snakes among us, would relish the end of the botched busby treaty
Perhaps you should give us all the A I Version of Now Time Quantum Grammar & what that means for Maritime Law under the
UCC 1- 308 Andy Oakley.
MaoriOri were here before "Maori" other pacifica groups. Maori didnt then identity as one people and wernt of the same origins. We need all of us to be recognised. We also have many new migrants. Where will they stand? Many of us are mixed ethnic Kiwi, so its very conflicting for our families when people are trying to glorify one group while demonising another.
A key piece of information was that no group either individually or collectively, defined as Maori in 1840 when the treaty was signed. The tribes were separate entities, those who signed did so for their own reasons.
Māori male - 30 years life expectancy
The remnants of the peace civilisation of Waitaha with a 93 generation whakapapa, were minimised as Moriori. In 1835 two boatloads of Maori arrived on the Chatham Islands to genocide by extreme cannibalism these remnants who had lawful "native title". This genocide began with the boning out of a 12 year old girl and Gangi g her flesh on the village entry post. Most of these Chatham Islanders were staked to "Waitangi" beach to die as slowly and sadistically as possible, after "healing" these Maori back to life after a near death sea voyage from Taranaki. Who for their extreme kindness then killed them as sadistically as possible. Thereby gaining native title, which would allow land sales under British common law. So the British land company effectively gave the Maori "native title"., via satanic extreme cannibalism on "Waitangi" beach. Wether satanic cannibalism of the true native title holders actually gave the Maori "native title" is highly unlikely.
I agree, that was a terrible act carried out by Ngati Tama and Ngati Mutanga.
The ship they went on was called The Rodney and it was captained by John Guard. He was not a representative of the British Crown.
Did Maori cede soveriegnty?
You first need to understand what soveriegnty is; which you have not explained. "The supreme right and recognition to rule over a defined territory."
So which Maori was the supreme ruler ?
Which defined territory did the alleged supreme ruler rule over?
On behalf of Her Majesty, Lord Nomanby got around that by stating the following in his instructions to Hobson.
"we acknowledge New Zealand as a sovereign and independent state so far at least as is possible to make that acknowledgement in favour of a people composed of numerous dispersed and petty tribes, who possess few political relations to each other, and are incompetent to act or even deliberate in concert. But the admission of their rights, though inevitably qualified by this consideration, is binding on the faith of the British Crown."
So they acknowledged that NZ was a sovereign state just so they could get the chiefs to cede whatever sovereignty they imagined they had.
@@andyoakley7372 Exactly. The positon of the Crown was inherently contradictory. On the one hand it held as a matter of fact that there was no sovereign ruler and on the other it recognised the territory as a sovereign state... without mentioning who the sovereign was. The correct legal postion is that "Maori" (whoever that is) or "Maoris" (collectively) did not cede soveriengty of all New Zealand territory because there was none to cede (regardless of the British opinion.) The British Crown extended its pre-existing sovereign rule to ALL the territory of what is now New Zealand; it did not assume control of an existing soveriegn state; nor did it create a new one.
@@rick-the-anglo-saxon I don’t think that trying to look at the matter through a purely legal framework helps.
The cession of sovereignty is the act of giving up the ‘right’ to supreme power or authority over a territory and includes the right to govern. You are saying that the chiefs had no right to power or authority over their territory. I think that view is problematic because the fact is they often did have supreme power or authority over a territory. They didn’t govern in the sense of a government as we know it, but they did control, direct, or regulate people's actions.
However, whatever we think about that nominal sovereignty, the British asked them to cede it to Her Majesty, and almost everyone asked did.
@@andyoakley7372 A legal framework must be the starting point because sovereignty is a constitutional law issue.
I agree with your account of what was understood in 1840 but you still have to know what claim is being made before you can answer the question. There was no sovereign with the right and recognition to rule over all New Zealand territory prior to 1840 and as you suggest, sovereignty means "supreme." So if the question is, did a Maori person have sovereignty of all New Zealand territory prior to 1840, the answer is no; and therefore whoever that proposed Maori person might be, could not cede something they don't have. Likewise all the 550 odd Chiefs that signed the treaty, collectively they do not amount to a supreme ruler.
Some Maori's think that soveriengty is the power to rule an ethnicity; not a territory. Others think that there is such a thing as collective sovereignty. I've even had one Maori tell me ALL Maoris are sovereigns. See you have to know what claim is being before you can debunk them. So whenever I hear the usual Maori trope "Maori didn't cede soveriegnty" .. I always ask.. which Maori and sovereignty of what?
Here it is , 1835 indigenous people created a nation(company - corporation) within the British system for the purpose of trade hence the 1835 declaration and the giving of the flag so when going port to port the flag was recognised as a friendly vessel and it was the British commerce system. Without this document a treaty was not possible. Only nations deal in treaties. Now the word sovereignty in commerce means authority. Now authority to do what. Authority to administrate , so there should be no confusion as to who has sovereignty or who administrate the nation the indigenous created in 1835 its the crown. The indigenous could but aren't capable. Maori were created later as trustee to the trust created by the treaty. The trust remains unfunded & is defected, why today Maori suffer. Between 1835 to 1840 i think the indigenous struggled with the commercial system & didn't really understand that the commerce system , soon after the treaty the federal reserve bank moved in.
You're getting mixed up.
The flag was accepted in 1834 by the British Crown for the purposes of New Zealand's identity in an international maritime context. There was no implication of sovereignty. There were more than 600 separate tribes here and none of them held any central sovereignty. Although a chief may have had sovereignty (authority) over the people in his tribe.
The DoI was an English Document written by James Busby in 1835. It was not an official document, it had no bearing on NZ's history, there was no such thing as the United Tribes of NZ, they never held a single meeting, and the document was not formally accepted by the British Crown.
I think you need to read my post again. Pre 1835 Maori cargo were confiscated by the British after 1835 doi that stopped. they were now registered in a system were they could trade, now there was laws that govern contracts, negotiatble instruments , bonds, taxes. its irelavant who wrote it the doi and its ovious to help maori trade , the treaty 1840 is evidence that 1835 created a sovereign nation just like Australia 1901 and American 1776. Sovereignty just means authority to administrate. The federal reserve system is a private banking system and is thier because most of the world is under military administration.
Do you remember Parihaka? Orakau? Te Urewera and Maunga Pohatu? This is a woke idea that the British were some just an advanced peace force wanting to grow the economy while protecting the rights of the natives. This does not line up with history nor the intension of colonisation of exploiting the rich natural resources by exercise of the queens authority without consent particularly highlighted in your video, This is about haves and have nots, Maori and Pakeha have become peasants of our own lands to foreign rulers.
Come on Andy - don’t be selective.
Adddess the concerns mentioned in this comment.
Otherwise hiu are being disingenuous and selective to suit your narrative.
Your AI generated text also really only shows ‘Intent’.
Can you do another podcast on the Maori version of the treaty - you know the one that the imaginary people ‘Maori’ signed.
Or would that not suit your narrative?
Intent is wonderful, hindsight of intent is wonderful - however does that intent tie in with the Maori version and the Maori understanding of what they were signing?
That is where your supposition is flawed and we are back to “he said - she said”.
Thanks for the hard yards and groundwork you have put in to showing us the honourable .. yet arrogant and patronising stance of the great British crown/colonisers at that time.
Again Intent is only that .. intent.
Andy is simply highlighting what was going on during this particular time from Lord Normanbys instructions. No need to shoot the messenger.
Lets start a discussion on what happened to the people who had settled in NZ before the warrior immigrants from the Tuamotu's arrived in the 1300s shall we? because it's all relevant. We could start with the Whakapapa's of the 34 Chiefs that signed He Whakaputanga. Who amongst them was Inuit-Finn, Native American, Andean & Egyptian? I'll give you a hint for research: Hawaiki 2000BC to Hokianga - Joan Leaf.
There's no point in looking back in time to understand things if were just going to stop at the 1700s. Our history is much older, and a lot more fascinating than that.
@
He was highlighting the intent only. Not the actual reality.
If he was being balanced - he would have pointed out that nobody knows how the Intent actually went. Did he convince them to sign based on that intent - or was a compromise made to get them to sign. Or what it was the Maori who signed were actually signing.
I would have based that on the Maori version of the Treaty that they signed.
Why would we ever go back prior to the signing (1840? If we did that then the Crown / Britain would have looked truly bad.
I agree - don’t shoot the messenger. However the messenger needs to be balanced as well. He was not.
I see he has answered other comments … yet has not with this comment.
The Crown / Britain historically were abhorrent with all indigenous peoples they tried to conquer by way of Colonisation. The extract that was translated - although appearing wonderful and generous in its intent actually reeked of patronising arrogance.
But based on how Britain was back then - it is quite impressive. But it still only remains their intent and their version.
I am sure those that signed on behalf of the Hapū and Iwi had their own version of their own intent.
That’s the problem. It’s only supposition.
So let’s have a podcast on the Maori version and discuss what their intent would have been.
@@tommytato3988 Thanks for your comments, I have addressed the other concerns mentioned in that comment elsewhere in the thread.
One thing though, there is no Maori version of the treaty, there is just Te Tiriti o Waitangi written in the Nga Puhi dialect and the Feb 4 English draft written by James Busby, neither are addressed to Maori.
There is no he said she said in the analysis of Lord Normanby's instructions, that was the intent.
@
There is a ‘Maori’ version. In your opinion only - there is not. So I will keep referring to it as the Maori version thank you very much.
Agree to disagree with you on that one.
Do we call our country Aotearoa, Aotearoa New Zealand, or just New Zealand?
I am not debating Lord Normanby’s intent … as generated by your AI. Intent is a wonderful thing.
Reality is different.
Do you know if any compromises were made by the British to get the 500 Maori signatures (representing their Hapū and Iwi)
Can you categorically claim to know the Intent of those signatories?
They only signed the Maori version not the British one.
So my issue with your article is it is not balanced.
Even though the concept of the Intent is good - it comes across as Patronising, condescending and arrogant.
And Intent is not the best way to say what either side of the Treaty signing - were actually signing.
It’s a nice goal - but does not dictate the result.
And like the commenter was saying - the original comment we are replying to - the Crown/Britain quickly showed their TRUE abhorrent, despicable colours.
So to me - that reveals their actual True intent rather than the nicely worded Lord Normanby’s spiel.
So - we have had many great minds trying to break down what the Intent at the actual signing of the Treaty was for both sides. We will never actually know.
Common sense does not appear to be a factor in reaching a conclusion as that is purely subjective to each individual and their own agenda.
You for instance - are trying to make the Maori appear less than with your insistence that there were never such things as Maori. So that just lessens who they were and legitimises your OPINION that the the big Daddy, all wise, all civilized Crown - came in with open loving arms to look after these savage beast/children … with all the best intentions at heart. And the Maori wanted them to look after them because realised that they were useless and the loving Crown and its wonderful representatives and upright citizens would look after them and treat them right. And all they had to do was give up their Kāwanatanga of the land for that to happen.
Am I right?
Can you research the Maori version of the Treaty and just as ardently come up with a credible document of intent to reveal what you think their focus was?
Many scholars have tried.
I see you have skills and I would be quite interested in what you come back with.
I don’t want to believe you have a certain narrative/agenda only.
Great work Andy. Keep up the fight! 🇳🇿🇳🇿🇳🇿
They did
The crown settlers the treaty pertains to breached the Treaty and still breach the treaty this topic provides people with racist idela to speak up and judge the past
In my view, the Treaty is a simple document Article 1, sovereignty is ceded, Article 2, property rights for all will be introduced, Article 3) All people with be protected and receive equal rights.
Because all of those things are still in place, there are no breaches of the treaty.
In individual cases we have the law to investigate breaches of property rights or protection. It has nothing to do with the Treaty.
Yes, 'Maori' were referred to as New Zealanders.... a word also used in the 1835 He Whakaputunga document - Nu Tireni.
The treaty was always problematic though... and in a different way then to what is usually assumed. The missionaries and the Church Missionary Society had way too much influence in its construction, both here in NZ and back in London. The earliest governors, Hobson and Fitzroy were also way too much under the influence of the missionaries [who had blurred the long observed distinction between church and state]. Back in London, Parliament realised this in evaluating the treaty as an 'injudicious document' in the 1844 Select Committee Report into NZ. Back here, once our settler government got up and running, the treaty was quietly shelved and our history moved on... after of course ratifying the rights of Maori in our own Parliament.. hence no apartheid system developed. The marvel is that the 'dead albatross' hung around the neck of early NZ has now been resurrected thanks to the academic class of radicals and Maori nationalists since the 70s. There was no resistance [too much appeasement from the politicians], and it has now gone mainstream gaining a mass political following. God save NZ.^^
Lol! Does any conquered people cede sovereignty?
Yeah nah, they are
Perhaps get hold of HG Wells' Time Machine and travel back to acquire the truth/facts! This shit is never going to be resolved because everybody has different interpretations on the gravy train diatribe! AND MAORI ARE NOT INDIGENOUS, for Christ's sake! 😡🤬😡🤬
I agree that Maori are not indigenous, however, that is the word used by Lord Normanby and it was his instructions I was reviewing.
@@andyoakley7372 Ok, fair point! 👍
@@andyoakley7372 oxford dictionary doesn't agree with you bud
@@andyoakley7372
I disagree.
However you and the unbalanced angry person you were replying to are entitled to YOUR OPINION - because that is purely what it is. Your opinion.
Indigenous people:. "inhabiting or existing in a land from the earliest times or from before the arrival of colonists" Maori are therefore indigenous to this land. The Anglo-Celtic majority are not indigenous to New Zealand.
Māori are tangata whenua no Aotearoa ..Pakeha are not….kua mutu tenei mahi !
The first
The Princes of the Commonwealth and all the Sovereigns who are heirs to that Commonwealth surrender to the Queen of England for ever - the whole Government of their lands.
The second
The Queen of England agrees to grant to the Princes and Clans - to all the people of New Zealand the sovereignty of their lands, their homes and all their property. But the Lords of the Wakaminenga and all the other Lords will offer to the Queen the sale of those lands that the owner of the land is satisfied with - according to the price that they and the buyer are willing to pay. by the Queen as her vendor.
The third
This is also a sign of acceptance of the Government of the Queen - The Queen of England will protect all citizens of New Zealand and grant them all the same conditions as those of England.
[signed] W. Hobson Consul & Lieutenant Governor
Source, Te Tiriti o Waitangi
Translation, Google translate.
How do they say? Bringing the receipts.
Fabricated receipts to push what ever agender it wants you mean. Who tf would give up everything to a foreign ruller willingly. So if putin took over nz you would happily hand over everything you have for the greater good of all Russians???
@@BlueBlue-j4wruclips.net/video/Os7NlOSvtuc/видео.htmlsi=JIMpi3qHzfolPEmT and your government broke that deal.
Tax is voluntary. Fact. Where's the sfigned contract that says i agree to contribute to war, wokism blah blah. Govcorp have a good couple of hundred businesses therefore incomes., Our 'con tribution' is unecessary and only goes overseas anyway
If you want to learn more about tax, economics and the way out of perpetual debt, head over to the Unite New Zealand Party @unitenzparty, I'm a member.
Natives
Great another pakeha ''teaching maori history'' of course it's picked and chosen which facts to present and which ones to ignore just like all the other pakeha sources of the time. No, maori never ceded sovereignty, but what would we know about ourselves and our past, of course the white saviour has the truth and all the answers, if you ask pakeha they are more maori than actual maori's, someone told me it's ''woke'' being maori and not a kiwi lol most of you have lost the plot. But who even cares about race when we ALL can't afford a full shopping and a full tank of gas, we are ALL losing jobs and life is getting harder and THIS is what you want to argue about? race? tell me again how you people aren't racist.................for people that always want to argue about race.
Firstly, I don’t think you listened to a word of what I said because I never said anything about Māori history. I was discussing Lord Normanby’s instructions to Hobson which make it clear that the British Crown sought sovereignty of the islands and people of New Zealand.
By the way, there is no such thing as Māori history, it’s just history.
Also, I don’t identify as a pakeha, I am Andy Oakley, and I speak only for myself. Unlike nameless you, who states “but what would WE know about ourselves and OUR past” as if you are speaking for all Māori, and all of them think the same as you.
You don’t speak for all Māori, you only speak for yourself, and you have no idea what almost all people who identify as Maori think.
I agree with you about race, it has no meaning in biological terms, it’s just a social construct. A construct that I reject and you buy into from what I can tell.
In terms of the economic situation, I agree with you. I have made several videos about the economy and will soon be releasing more. However, suppose we are having a racial civil war because they have taught our school children that Māori are a separate race and they did not cede sovereignty. In that case, few people will be worrying about the economy.
So discussing these matters is a better way to have the conversation.
2$ lambs wat a joke 🤣
The Maori text of the treaty has precedent therefore thank you Andy for your facts or fiction. I’m sure your Hobsons Pledge movement are in total agreement with you. Let’s see whose facts stack up with the correct references to what happened in 1840 and the years leading up to the signing. For me Maori did not understand the English interpretation but understood the Maori Te Tiriti version ( agreed by the UN as the primary source of interpretation ). Tino Rangatiratanga and Kawanatanga are two separate forms of governance and authority. Maori did not cede their Tino Rangatiratanga. Maori allowed the Crown not the NSW’s Governor the right to govern their own subjects through Kawanatanga ( Governorship ) not claim authority and ownership over the entire land and its people. The excuse oused of external pressures is another smoke screen littered with lies. Andy you’re not convincing but leave yourself full of holes.
I never gave you any facts or fiction, I used an AI large language model to interpret the 9000 word instructions given to Hobson by Lord Normanby to draw up the Treaty.
The AI language model states it is 100% certain that the British intended to set a government to govern all the people of New Zealand.
If you read the English draft, The Treaty is addressed to “chiefs and people of New Zealand.” So, the document they wrote made it clear.
The translation by the Williams’s says the same thing in the Nga Puhi dialect “ki nga Rangatira me nga Hapu o Nu Tirani.” So, it is also clear in the Nga Puhi dialect translation.
If you read Busby’s draft of the Treaty it states in Article Two, “The Queen of England confirms and guarantees to the chiefs & tribes and to all the people of New Zealand the POSSESSION of their lands, dwellings and all their property.”
The Queen addressed ALL the people of New Zealand and doesn’t mention chiefly authority, she is talking about property rights.
Which was translated by the Williams’s into “Ko te Kuini o Ingarani ka wakarite ka wakaae ki nga Rangatira ki nga hapu-ki nga tangata katoa o Nu Tirani te TINO RANGATIRATANGA o ratou wenua o ratou kainga me o ratou taonga katoa.
So, the word “possession” was translated into the word “Rangatiratanga”, that is an undeniable fact.
Then if you look up the current Te Aka Maori Dictionary it states “ownership” under the word rangatiratanga. Although that is a modern interpretation of the word.
If you go back to the early Williams’s “A Dictionary of the Maori Language”, the only meaning of the word ‘rangatiratanga’, is “Evidence of breeding and greatness.” Not chiefly authority.
So, the facts are clear, and it is only by the twisting of those facts that you and others come up with other opinions. The rather shocking thing is that you and others believe that based on your shonky opinions we should live in a country that does not have equal rights for its citizens, and you think that is ok.
The queen didn't want sovereignty over new Zealand.
Similar to historian Paul Moon, it's all about the ethnocentric mindset was assumption of whether the Crown's intentions were in "Good or Bad Faith". Be mindful that the Crown never invested any financial assistance to establish a colony, it was an "in house" policy. I totally understand the manipulation and underhand tactics utilized to acquire resources necessary to grow economically at the expense of the native aboriginies (Maori) of New Zealand.
If you listened to the A.I. analysis of Lord Normanby’s instructions to Hobson, we know the intent was to establish a sovereign Government for all of the people who “lived” in NZ. But not at the expense of the natives, with their consent.
Prior to 1840, there was no one known as “Maori” in NZ, just 600 or so separate tribes, all with their own identity and tribal name. Almost all of those tribes agreed to cede sovereignty and as a result were protected and received rights equal to British Subjects. Apart from an uprising against the sovereignty in 5 or 6 cases, which were quickly quelled by kupapa and the Crown, and who lost land because it, everyone benefited.
Slavery ended, life spans were extended, the ordinary people (tangata maori) could now own property and had rights, whereas prior, only chiefs had rights and property.
Stop being a victim and start realizing the benefits we all have in NZ as a result of no warfare since the late 1800s.
@andyoakley7372 😭😭😭😭😭😭😂😂🤣😂🤣🤣🤣
@andyoakley7372 I smell fear 🤣😂🤣😂🤣
@andyoakley7372 there is only ONE text that matters, the Maori version!!!! 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣😀
@andyoakley7372 you don't know me? Typical white privileged ethnocentric ASSUMPTION... How sad, if you don't like it, go somewhere else. The treaty isn't going anywhere except FORWARD😭😭😭😭😭😭
NZ Paarliament show Māori your proof in right of occupation, Parliament was never party to te tiriti therefore Parliament cannot legislate on Maori affairsThe Native Title is Unextinguished refer to Court of Appeal decision over Affairs. God save your king my equitable partner Maori have prerogative!🤪
Move on
Did he just say the british crown wasnt racist??? Thats funny
The British Crown was one of the most unracist in the world. Nobody spent as much or did as much to end slavery in the entire world. It was the British Crown that ended slavery in New Zealand.
We are all sovereign, period. Governments are corporations, a Money making cartel. Would you let mcmacs or burger king dictate how you must conduct yourself and your life. Show me the contract that i signed givin!g my power away and i must either comply or renegotiate the terms. Contracts cnan be cancelled also.
ruclips.net/video/Os7NlOSvtuc/видео.htmlsi=JIMpi3qHzfolPEmT Your Queens apology.
Nothing in that apology that refers to sovereignty. It just refers to land grievances.
@@davethewave7248 and yet here we are, taxing the tax man 😂😂😂
And yet here we are taxing the tax man 😂😂😂
Indigenous Communities around the World did not Cede their Sovereinty to any Colonial Entity.
Western Europe was originally established by melanated black ancestry, that Colonialism has hidden from World History.
The term “Māori” came into use during the late 1820s (1828).
The Waikato Immigration Scheme provided free passage free land packages for its people of military backgrounds living in Britain Sth Africa Scotland & Ireland during & after the Māori Land Wars including Whenua in Te Tai Tokerau.
No matter how tauiwi pakeha explain the history of Aotearoa, First & Foremost it was a Total Scam here in this country & around the Indigenous World.
👁️⚫️🕳️🌍🌎🌏👽☠️🐰✨
If the term "Maori" i.e., the noun that collectivizes all the different tribal entities into one entity was in common use by 1828, how come the collective noun "Maori" with a capital 'M' is not used in a single 1840 treaty document whether in English or in the Nga Puhi dialect?
When you use the term "Pakeha" and state "No matter how pakeha explain this or that, you are insinuating that all white people think the same... ask yourself, are you being racist?
All Maori people don't think the same, and no entire ethnicity think the same about anything.
Stop waffling on settlers means tahae whenua land thieves
'It is easier to feed the fish then kill it'...
The diabolical bias of Pakeha goes forth (again).
It is similar to most conquered territories/lands, stolen by British Colonialism. Just make up a treaty but DEFINITELY NOT ADHERE to the meaning, instead pretend we are dumb and uphold our own (British) ideologies.
New Zealand was one of the few colonies where there was a treaty, so Maori shoudl count themsleves lucky.
And it was the maori who broke the treaty later on after 20 years of following Brtish law.
Hang on hang on, when did I and everyone else cede their sovereignty??
Givingvup Sovereignty for any nation is false as the paper it is written on. Tuhoe never ceded, or had a delegation present in 1840. like Seymor changed the dates, of the latest hearings, in 1840 they moved the dates forward. Without informing those of importance.
This just blows my mind,how many of you believe in truth and justice,so everyone in hear we’re are your ancestors from,where ever you are from has your race been so ,judged,questioned and so on,so why is this land and its peoples history been questioned,and what gives anyone the right to say your race and culture is better then anyone’s else’s.Maori had there own governess,they were all ready trading with other nations, and yet listen to all the hate ,lies,that has been going on for years,everyone has had a go,even the Altas Network,and yous that talk about the graving train ,that started in 1840 mate ,and it’s still going on.The sad thing about all of this,the real people of this nation the ones that love and call this land their home no matter what colour your skin ,the ones that stand on truth and believe in justice,for the treaty,because weather you believe it or not that treaty has been the saving grace of this nation,it was not given by man ,the people of the land had formed a relationship with God ,He spoke to them ,the treaty will not be honoured,but there will come a time when He would address it,this is that time,look whats happening around the world,changers are happening in governments,this system is going to be exposed,what previous governments of the time right to this government have being doing,an awaking to the truth,a shaking ,but a good shaking,for the people of each nation, new changers , in the whole political system,in health, education,currency,every area of our society,so get ready for exposure.
Thanks for your opinion I differ
I don't think you understand, I have not given you my opinion on anything.
I have asked a A.I. large language model to analyze a 9000 word Victorian document written by Lord Normanby. The instruction was to keep all of it's meanings just as they were intended in 1839, but to rewrite this document using modern day language.
What do you disagree with?
The answer is No maori did NOT cede sovereignty!
Sorry. They really did and they understood what they were doing. You can argue it as much as you like but the truth always prevails.
What was the treaty for then?
Sorry Rangi but there wasn't a question, and there doesn't need to be one except to racist Tea Part Maori Party and supporters.
@GaryPeters-nv8pj The thumb nail is actually presented as a question and I simply answered it. And I don't like the maori party anymore than the act or any government organization . There all power hungry individuals using what ever shit stirring tactics to divide the people anyway. Just like you @GaryPeters-nv8pj
As soon as it says “unless the free intelligent consent of the natives, expressed according to their established usages” it makes a mistranslated treaty pretty murky, we were not given an opportunity to make a complete and fully informed decision, we were tricked. Now people are angry that Maori are angry about being tricked.
"Maori were tricked"? So you're saying the English colonists were smarter than the maori? Guess you're right.
@ Not at all in any sense, I’m saying the British were more informed about their own laws and had the firepower to enforce them without consent. If I were to write two translations of a document now and use them to trick someone, that would just make me more comfortable with misleading someone for my own greed.
@@Ngatidread546 There weren't two translations in 1840 when the treaty was signed.
At Waitangi on Feb 5 the English draft was read because there were a lot of English-speaking people there, and then the Nga Puhi dialect Treaty was read to the natives. The natives understood the basic premise and signed the Nga Puhi document. At no other place in New Zealand was an English document read to anyone, they wouldn't have understood a word of it.
@ yeah you’ve said this before and you are completely correct. The problem is in modern times this English translation you talk about being read has been used in political conversation for the last 50 years even though as you say it isn’t valid. 39 Maori did sign an English translation of the treaty though.
@@Ngatidread546 At Waikato Heads on April 14, 1840, Rev Maunsell read the Nga Puhi dialect Printed Sheet, a small document, to the 1500 people gathered there. This was because the official large sheet had not arrived. No English treaty was read at all and this was the case at every signing except at Waitangi.
The first 5 chiefs who signed at Waikato Heads signed the Printed Sheet and they ran out of room. So, they had with them an unofficial and ruined large version of the Treaty in English. It contained a ruined wobbly signature of Hobson. However, they used that sheet to gather the remaining signatures, a further 39. They then attached a wax seal between the Printed Sheet and the large ruined English sheet used to gather the signatures, and those two joined documents were filed away.
In the 1970s when they opened the suitcase containing the Treaty docs, either those two joined papers had become separated, or they separated them.
Apart from receiving the signatures, that English document is irrelevant.
rubbish
It's just Lord Normanby's instructions to Hobson, it can't be rubbish.
wow what a fairy tale world he lives in but i listened to it any way
What a load of Crap
You mean "What a load of crap" all my Tea Part Maori Party mates dribble, and I stupidly go along with.
No didn't cede
Yes,quite clear maori ceded soverignty
Yes they did and there is partnership
The bible and the tirity o waitangi spiritual law fisical law not some pakeha teacher again tell us maori kids to listen listen up ouryour get the cain or stap telling us nothing maori definitely not the treaty. I now know he talked to much shit same to the preacher who loved to hear himself and an audience to sound educated to he got sacked for being a no it all both the teacher and preacher were found to have told their audiences that the treaty is there leaned subject thell probably wanna be in c mors team talking to who eva listens to the new updated treaty versions