Paul Moon was leaned by AUT to either change his narrative about the Treaty or get another job. I used to meet with Paul regularly in a cafe in West Auckland (Westgate) just down the road from where he lives. I know his history / journey well. I felt very sad listening to this interview. As the saying goes, very man has his price.
Just like Shane Jones. All fake frauds and after hearing John Harawera Waitangi speech about him I don’t pay no attention to any of these paid off bums
You're only sad because his journey has taken him through the process of facts and upon realisation of facts, his position has changed. Ya know, like any real researcher?
@Kult365 more bovine scattology,moon is a paid off scab,and if he had a conscience would be ashamed, because he knows the truth,but is too scared to stand up for it
@@Kult365 You're sad because the writing is on the wall,victimhood days are over,the majority of the population have had a gutsful of it,and are finally being given a chance to have their say. Tick tock mf
Just listened to the full interview for better context. Very enlightening as to how we got to where we are and probably puts a lot of what he is saying into greater context.
What about the Musket wars where one Tribe attacked another, North Island Iwi raided the South Island, slaves were made, people were cooked, and eaten. Some Iwi still hate others to this day! I have been shocked as a South Island Country boy who has since reached out to Māori and heard their different points of view. The History of Musket wars shocked me! Thanks Michael for those references, I’ll try to get them out of my local Library!
I'd like to hear Julian Batchelor, Winnie, and David Seymour's views on his interpretation... he used to be credible and objective but has been bought out by the funding monopoly. He'd lose his lofty position if he swayed into honest discussions. It's so transparent.
@DaHandDatFeeds She was discussing having expert opinion rather than unelected,self prescribed 'experts' telling us how it is. Thats called democracy,not 'feelings'
@@davidanscombe1106 Julian bachelor is an expert white supremacist. Let's ask him and ignore an educated rational Professor who has spent years and years and years studying the topic and eventually evolved his thinking to the truth 😆
@Kult365 Spout all the rhetoric and associated b.s. you like. Moon sold his soul to the devil. And you wouldn't know what a fact was if it hit you between the eyes. Denial is that river in egypt eh?
My favourite thing about these videos is the comments. We see the clash between colonial and tangata whenua ideologies. One groups says the treaty confirms and guarantees full exclusive undisturbed possession and the other group says it was just a piece of paper "a simply nullity". The truth is under the treaty we could reset the national debt, make housing FREE for all and literally create prosperity for ALL peoples here. This government system and royals are just webs of international powers looking at taking over everything, housing, food, health, education, technology and NOT for our gain. We need a reset but not their version.
Your actually onto something. The new world order. One Government and one currency. AI government to digital chip and control all man kind. Thats where everything is heading.
You don't have to go to law school to know an agreement is seen as a contract in moden days, If its a marriage can we get a divorce and claim half the assets @@rod-contracts1616
Nope, the confusion toward the treaty does not stem from 1840, but from the academic idea [Ruth Ross] in 1972, with a focus on the two 'texts', that the treaty is hopelessly confusing. Before the 70s, radicals cried oiut 'the treaty is a fraud'. After the 70s, it was 'honour the treaty'... or their interpretation of it as now it was acknowledged that it meant anything to anyone. Yet, to do history, you need to go back and see what it meant to the actual chiefs who signed... and they knew well enough what it meant, so much so that some powerful chiefs to the south refused to sign it.
Despite that trite. The Maori have been seriously wronged on a massive scale. Nz democracy is a sham imposed on the inhabitants and now a majority rules tyranny.
It's always interesting when those who for the most part have more English DNA than they do Maori DNA ( no DNA-dominated Maori are left) call others colonizers etc, they are more of the ethnicity of those they call bad people (who they say are only here as guest etc) than they are of the lot they say were colonized. Do they hate one side of thier ancestry for doing bad to the other?
I have brown skin and black hair I'm judged to be maori by packy haa by my appearance, yet I am 2 thirds irish who do I fight for packy ha ha? Pokokohau
I hear this excuse from europeans as if it actually means something lol it doesnt, one drop equates to a million drops, you cannot always decide who are your descendants and who inherits the same rights as their parents, black, white or green if you Maori you tangata whenua by birth right
So this was all about protecting wayward British subjects: "Victoria, the Queen of England, in her concern to protect the chiefs and the subtribes of New Zealand and in her desire to preserve their chieftainship1 and their lands to them and to maintain peace2 and good order considers it just to appoint an administrator3 one who will negotiate with the people of New Zealand to the end that their chiefs will agree to the Queen's Government being established over all parts of this land and (adjoining) islands4 and also because there are many of her subjects already living on this land and others yet to come"
After listening to this interview, I have a question: According to Wikipedia and others:" A treaty is a formal, legally binding written contract." (Wikipedia) The difference between a treaty and an agreement is that an agreement is less formal. According to Mr. Moon a treaty is less formal. That puzzles me a little. For 150 years both parties have honored (not totally as we know) the Treaty, but that all changed. So, what is the value of a Treaty if experts claim that it is more of a nice gesture?
It is incorrect to label all New Zealands original settlers Anglo Saxon as Celts made up a very large number of the original Whalers that first settled in this nation.
@@manamaori100 Who says Maoris were the original settlers, there used to be videos I saw with my own eyes of Mori Ori elders talking about Mori Ori being on the main Islands of NZ and there's the question of Celtic ruins and of Asian boat wrecks earlier than Maoris ... People argue over what dies indigenous mean too ... Maoris don't originate from here and nor do the European settlers so Who is really indigenous ?
@@ronnymcdonald2543 “It is incorrect to label all New Zealand’s original settlers as Anglo Saxon as Celts made up a very large number of the original Whalers that first settled this nation” they weren’t the first to settle this land, and why are pākeha so fixated on who’s really indigenous does it really matter? At the end of the day Māori had settled here centuries before Europeans arrived, I’ve read comments from Australians saying the Aboriginal aren’t indigenous, their culture is 50,000 years old how are they not indigenous, and by the way aren’t Anglo saxons and Celts all British anyway?
Professor was very wrong in saying to say it did not take over sovereignty over Maori and British subjects alike. We know this as we have a record of the debates at the time. Some Maori chiefs such as Te Heu Heu declined to sign at the time because of it. (He was the man who gave Tongariro to the nation later on). Anything this professor says now, I will take as a piece of shit and ignore accordingly.
Only because it doesnt fit your false narrative. You seem to be sold on the idea that Maori gave all land and resources to enrich your lives while we live in poverty? What right mind would ever think that? Look here pakeha ill give you all my wealth for free so i can be poor and live in poverty? Yeah right! Its more like the crown will trick you into a peace treaty and not give you a copy so we can alter and make fradulent changes so we can sneak through the back door and confiscate your land. Thats called stealing pakeha. Do you UNDERSTAND what STEALING and THEFT means pakeha?? Its when you take something that doesnt belong to you. Pack of racist liers. Go back to england where you belong. You dont belong here with Maori and you never will. We hate you just as much as you hate us! Go now pakeha. Leave now!
He lost me when he said that a treaty is not a contract. He must have a post-modernist view of language, where the meaning of words can be whatever you want them to be, also known as relativism. A treaty is a legally binding agreement i.e. a contract.
Paul Moon is a lazy researcher as he has shown when researching my 2nd cousin Haane Manahi's history. There is much he has missed ie the only cleric employed by England to cover the Irish famine is Haanes great grandfather....he is also my great grandfather who was asked by the King of England to finance General Wynyards British Army to New Zealand to protect the surveying and road making teams in the region of todays Auckland. No mention of this at all. There is more but no one seems interested in the old history of the ANZACS.
I notice you havent provided any specific context as to what exactly that these facts were missing from, nor any reason as to why those facts were relevant and should have been included. Biographical accounts invariably require omitting facts that aren't germane in order to ensure that written works aren't a million pages long. That doesn't make one "lazy".
I’ve personally met Dr Paul Moon. I think the reason why the media use him is partly because he hasn’t got an axe to grind with any tribe and it’s easy for him to be completely subjective about the Treaty of Waitangi. Sure some won’t like his interpretations and that’s nothing new in the world of academia. Eg you can have 2 extreme right wingers in USA who will interpret the American Constitution in slightly different ways. Have you notified Dr Paul Moon concerning your 2nd cousin. He’s very approachable and a down to earth person. Cheers.
I think there is room for the amateur historian today... they are not pressured to tow the line as an academic is with a career to protect. The British had every intention of not allowing barbaric customs to continue among the tribes - this is a clear intention to limit their 'sovereignty'/ absolute authority. The British also allowed the chiefs to continue in the customary role as an authority for the tribe [as long as it did not conflict with the prior statement]. The idea of heirarchy solves the perceived contradication here - Queen, governors, chiefs, tribes. Of course, in a nascent state, the expansion of law and enforcement could only develop with the building of institutions/ state machinery. The same old line that the British were invited to NZ in order to govern their own lawless subjects [the lawlessness of these vagabonds is always exaggerated]. This is the missionary line, and as far as some of the statesmen were also card-carrying members of the evangelical movement sweeping the church, was also their line. But there was also the hard-headed and pragmatic intention by the British to establish law throughout the territory [always territorial], which required a sovereignty over the whole lands, and over all living in those lands. This practicality is the crucial aspect of the treaty, where sovereignty [that chiefs little understood] was to be ceded, and accordingly requires emphasis. 'Maori complained how bad settlers were behaving'. lol This reads like a nice neat narrative to serve a political discourse. The historical reality is that the chiefs were much more worried about how other chiefs were going to behave... in utu for their having decimated the tribal populations in the south. The musket wars overshadowed all else, and the chiefs realised they couldn't govern themselves. "After the treaty was signed, British law didn't apply to Maori'. Really? Then why did the legalistic Shortland ask his superiors whether Britain had the right to interfer with the tribal warfar between Nga Te Rangi Na Te Arawa at Maketiu in 1841? The answer was to his quibbling was a resounding one - sovereignty had been declared over the whole of NZ a few months after the signing of the treaty [before the ink had even dried], and accordingly, there was a show of force/ of British law, and the hostilities ceased. The treaty, and British sovereignty is why the tribal wars ceased. The problem with Moon's history here is he takes a 'treaty-centric' approach [and accepts the modern interpreation of the treaty/ post 1970s that no-one thought at an earlier date]. he says at a later date that most come to [somehow[ accept the sovereignty of the British/ settler government... without recognizing that the British declared sovereignty over the whol country in May 1840 [a few months after the signing]. This was backed by the full force of the empire, not by a few signatures. Sovereignty was also achieved over the central North Island tribes, that had never signed and rejected British rule, through the 1860s wars, and eventual submission to the government of the king country in late 19 century. Moon downplays the musket wars. The tide had swung away from northern Nga Puhi, where they had been losing their raids on the southern tribes just previous to 1840. Why? Because the southern tribes had managed to arm themselves with muskets towards parity with northern tribes. They were coming for revenge... remember, whole populations were slaughtered... and the rest. This is why northern chiefs were keen to sign the treaty for lawa and order, and protection forom their own. On a positive note, good to hear Moon say that the treaty is not a legal contract.... but then. oh dear, uses the analogy of a wedding... and a partnership. lol Moon view on the treaty seems to tow the orthodox line since the Ruth Ross view came out in 1972 - that the treaty is a mess, and chaotic, and confusing yadeedyadeeya. The historical reality is different. The Brits had something definite to comunnicate, the did communicate the meaning orally and through much discussion to those that signed. They communicated it so well that some powerful chiefs to the south refused to sign [the trojan horse of the radicals]. That all said, it's a storm in a teacup as the Brits declared sovereignty over the whole country a few months after the treaty was signed. NZ politics was never, and can never be, 'treaty-centric'.
@@djhemirukahemisphere8893 You are right that some chiefs did not sign the treaty. But that is really irrlevant to history. The fact is the British *declared* sovereignty over all of NZ a few months after the signing.... and in the 1860s enforced that sovereignty over the powerful central North Island chiefs that rejected it. Consider also that before the signing of the treaty, there was no law, agreement, or morality - in the early 19th century, the most powerful tribes utterly destroyed the weaker ones with Hongi Hika, Te WheroWhero, and Te Rauparaha being the terror of the land.
Finally the Truth!. The Treaty stated Maori will govern there own They lived on there land and followed there traditions unmolested by the British and this agreement was the British could live on their land and unmolested by Maori. But many Maori youth was curious about these Britons there culture the way they dressed and there technologies. These young Maori left there tribes and iwi and jumped waka to the British side and had to go to school and had to learn English to gain work to make money and they also had to obey British Law. Now the Elders became very angry because more and more Maori started moving to the English side they wern't forced it was a choice the comforts of living in a warm house with a fireplace and warm clothes meeting women with different colored hair and eyes with makeup was all new and exciting to a young Maori man you worked but food can be bought including exotic food you just cook it and even then baked goods were more easily available.
he has changed the narrative.....what about the letter penned on behalf of 13 paramount Nga Puhi chiefs asking for the Kings protection...not from unruly settlers, but from other Maori and other colonial forces.....unruly settlers is a new concept to blame the Treaty on.....what a load of rubbish.....
There is something illogical in what Paul Moon says, and that is that British didn’t intend to govern Māori. British people knew English language very well and they explicitly said in their version of treaty that Māori will be subjects to British government. Therefore, their explicit intention was to govern. Whatever and however was that translated to Māori, and understood by Māori, is a completely different subject, but the clear intention of English empire was to have a governing system including Māori. Saying that, English seems to have allowed Māori to self govern to a certain degree, but as long as their self governing is within umbrella of the English law.
@@StGammon77 word pakeha is racist because it determines people by their skin colour. It should not be used in a non-racist society. It is as bad as a “n” word.
@@badchefi yeah. You bald heads didnt show good will. Now we dont show good will. You dont like the taste of your own medicine. Go back to england where you come from and belong. Dont ever come back!!!!!
The Treaty is an international agreement between two sovereign nations, its a standard practice even today, have you heard of Natio? literally a treaty agreement
@@badchefi we showed good will by welcoming you into our natural world pakeha. Since you have been here last 184 years you have shown us nothing but disrespect, lies, no honor, theft, greed, racism, hate, disloyal, unfaithfulness, the list goes on. Hence Hone Heke cut the british flag down to insult and terminate the treaty and any future partnership and any future friendships. We didnt want you here pakeha once we seen your disrespect and no honour. We wanted you to go back to england straight away. And even today we still feel that way! Just go! They have planes now. We dont even want you hear ever since Hone Heke cut your flag down. Didnt yous get it when we cut the flag down? We dont want you here! GO NOW. LEAVE NOW!!! Now we show yous no good will. You burnt our good will 184 years ago. The HATE is very real.
@@badchefi we showed good will by welcoming you into our natural world pakeha. Since you have been here last 184 years you have shown us nothing but disrespect, lies, no honor, theft, greed, racism, hate, disloyal, unfaithfulness, the list goes on. Hence Hone Heke cut the british flag down to insult and terminate the treaty and any future partnership and any future friendships. We didnt want you here pakeha once we seen your disrespect and no honour. We wanted you to go back to england straight away. And even today we still feel that way! Just go! They have planes now. We dont even want you hear ever since Hone Heke cut your flag down. Didnt yous get it when we cut the flag down? We dont want you here! GO NOW. LEAVE NOW!!! Now we show yous no good will. You burnt our good will 184 years ago. The HATE is very real.
how about you actually do a segment with reading the both copies of the treaty, as in 1840 the words given by maori meant the same , he is correct, maori held their sovereignty on tribal lands and tribal matters, then do a segment on the lead up to why the treaty was asked for by maori, with the waitangi tribunal we have move so far away what the treaty was meant to mean, it has become ridiculous.
@tama5570 Unlike you,I dont need a therapist. 'You lot' are all the people who dont know,and will never realise that you are not victims. If you are not part of a united solution,you are part of the problem. Dividing people into racial groups and setting them against each other solves nothing
@tama5570 Therapy is for people who have issues,often based on falsely identifying as a victim. I am in no need of therapy,unlike yourself and mr moon. I am not a victim, I enjoy the rights that everyone in new zealand are entitled to. Dividing people into racial groups and setting them against each other solves nothing, and what moon has done is tantamount to selling his soul,because he knows the truth
Whakaputanga and te tiriti were translated by the same father and son duo. There was no confusion about sovereignty as Whakaputanga was written b4 te tiriti and also had a "sovereignty" article. Doesn't quite fit the narrative 😂 missing the very obvious because you have already made you mind up and think you know everything. But ya don't. Just another pakeha dinosaur terrified that it didnt actually go down how you thought. And pakeha have much to answer for.
Not another so called "expert" trying to justify why NZ should not follow the laws of the treaty. We get it, you dont like the deal and you want to pretend its not important. The reason the treaty is still very relevant still today is because for 184 years the tangat whenua have been telling you we are the lawful owners of all these lands and your government is illegitimate and has no mandate over Maori except for those kupapa like Apirana Ngata
Most New Zealanders know it but are in denial because they dont believe Maori are capable of ruling ourselves on our own lands like we done for thousands of years. Bloody sound like a terrorist to them on my own lands lol @@Kult365
Paul Moon was leaned by AUT to either change his narrative about the Treaty or get another job. I used to meet with Paul regularly in a cafe in West Auckland (Westgate) just down the road from where he lives. I know his history / journey well. I felt very sad listening to this interview. As the saying goes, very man has his price.
Just like Shane Jones. All fake frauds and after hearing John Harawera Waitangi speech about him I don’t pay no attention to any of these paid off bums
Funny how you use co-governance to grift book sales. "Every man has their price" I guess. 🤷🏽♂
You're only sad because his journey has taken him through the process of facts and upon realisation of facts, his position has changed. Ya know, like any real researcher?
@Kult365 more bovine scattology,moon is a paid off scab,and if he had a conscience would be ashamed, because he knows the truth,but is too scared to stand up for it
@@Kult365
You're sad because the writing is on the wall,victimhood days are over,the majority of the population have had a gutsful of it,and are finally being given a chance to have their say.
Tick tock mf
Just listened to the full interview for better context. Very enlightening as to how we got to where we are and probably puts a lot of what he is saying into greater context.
Can you share a link?
@murrayclarke2171 it's available to Platform Plus members via the Platform.AP - podcast tab.
What about the Musket wars where one Tribe attacked another, North Island Iwi raided the South Island, slaves were made, people were cooked, and eaten. Some Iwi still hate others to this day! I have been shocked as a South Island Country boy who has since reached out to Māori and heard their different points of view. The History of Musket wars shocked me! Thanks Michael for those references, I’ll try to get them out of my local Library!
What about it
Look up European history before you judge Maori. Europeans were cannibals to
@@RaewynTairi lol wen was tht?
I'd like to hear Julian Batchelor, Winnie, and David Seymour's views on his interpretation... he used to be credible and objective but has been bought out by the funding monopoly. He'd lose his lofty position if he swayed into honest discussions. It's so transparent.
Exactly he's a sellout
Facts not feelings Gill
@DaHandDatFeeds
She was discussing having expert opinion rather than unelected,self prescribed 'experts' telling us how it is.
Thats called democracy,not 'feelings'
@@davidanscombe1106 Julian bachelor is an expert white supremacist. Let's ask him and ignore an educated rational Professor who has spent years and years and years studying the topic and eventually evolved his thinking to the truth 😆
@Kult365
Spout all the rhetoric and associated b.s. you like.
Moon sold his soul to the devil.
And you wouldn't know what a fact was if it hit you between the eyes. Denial is that river in egypt eh?
My favourite thing about these videos is the comments. We see the clash between colonial and tangata whenua ideologies. One groups says the treaty confirms and guarantees full exclusive undisturbed possession and the other group says it was just a piece of paper "a simply nullity". The truth is under the treaty we could reset the national debt, make housing FREE for all and literally create prosperity for ALL peoples here. This government system and royals are just webs of international powers looking at taking over everything, housing, food, health, education, technology and NOT for our gain. We need a reset but not their version.
Your actually onto something. The new world order. One Government and one currency. AI government to digital chip and control all man kind. Thats where everything is heading.
New Zealand has the ability to be self-sufficient. Why we decide against that is an absolute mystery
@@IcchiNutz because its 'organised'
@@IcchiNutz Unknown = scary
The treaty is a agreement, In the Moden world that is much a contract which have laws. To think of the treat as a marriage is odd ball.
Care to disclose which law school you graduated from and date of your passing the bar exams?
You don't have to go to law school to know an agreement is seen as a contract in moden days, If its a marriage can we get a divorce and claim half the assets @@rod-contracts1616
Nope, the confusion toward the treaty does not stem from 1840, but from the academic idea [Ruth Ross] in 1972, with a focus on the two 'texts', that the treaty is hopelessly confusing. Before the 70s, radicals cried oiut 'the treaty is a fraud'. After the 70s, it was 'honour the treaty'... or their interpretation of it as now it was acknowledged that it meant anything to anyone. Yet, to do history, you need to go back and see what it meant to the actual chiefs who signed... and they knew well enough what it meant, so much so that some powerful chiefs to the south refused to sign it.
Yes,agreed. You know how it is/was
Despite that trite. The Maori have been seriously wronged on a massive scale. Nz democracy is a sham imposed on the inhabitants and now a majority rules tyranny.
Quite a surprise to hear a researcher back the fact that Maaori never ceded sovereignty.
I never signed it so therefore I never ceded sauverignty either.
@@honeyholly001 are you in NZ as an Anglo Saxon under Crown governance?
Paul Moon is fake news. Even if you take the Maori version, it cedes governance absolutely, that is the ability to govern.
He is full of crap and everyone knows it
@@pgreen8531 do you have facts to back that up or...?
It's always interesting when those who for the most part have more English DNA than they do Maori DNA ( no DNA-dominated Maori are left) call others colonizers etc, they are more of the ethnicity of those they call bad people (who they say are only here as guest etc) than they are of the lot they say were colonized. Do they hate one side of thier ancestry for doing bad to the other?
I have brown skin and black hair I'm judged to be maori by packy haa by my appearance, yet I am 2 thirds irish who do I fight for packy ha ha? Pokokohau
You dont want no smoke with the fighting Irish in you brother, best leave it alone lol @@rangisullivan1591
I hear this excuse from europeans as if it actually means something lol it doesnt, one drop equates to a million drops, you cannot always decide who are your descendants and who inherits the same rights as their parents, black, white or green if you Maori you tangata whenua by birth right
Any evidence that there’s no one with more than 50% Māori DNA? References?
@@edenmonu9956 You sound like the Jews! 🤣 Did god promise you this land as well 🤣
any view left after this discussion cannot conclude that British descendants have any mandate to rule nz or rule Maori
So this was all about protecting wayward British subjects: "Victoria, the Queen of England, in her concern to protect the chiefs and the subtribes of New Zealand and in her desire to preserve their chieftainship1 and their lands to them and to maintain peace2 and good order considers it just to appoint an administrator3 one who will negotiate with the people of New Zealand to the end that their chiefs will agree to the Queen's Government being established over all parts of this land and (adjoining) islands4 and also because there are many of her subjects already living on this land and others yet to come"
were is this quote frm?
@@222-i6o nzhistory.govt.nz/sites/default/files/documents/treaty-kawharu-footnotes.pdf
After listening to this interview, I have a question: According to Wikipedia and others:" A treaty is a formal, legally binding written contract." (Wikipedia) The difference between a treaty and an agreement is that an agreement is less formal. According to Mr. Moon a treaty is less formal. That puzzles me a little. For 150 years both parties have honored (not totally as we know) the Treaty, but that all changed. So, what is the value of a Treaty if experts claim that it is more of a nice gesture?
Terrific 👏
It is incorrect to label all New Zealands original settlers Anglo Saxon as Celts made up a very large number of the original Whalers that first settled in this nation.
You mean original settlers from Great Britain?
@@manamaori100 The English are Saxons and it goes back to Ger-mania, NOT the Celts !
@@ronnymcdonald2543 The point I was trying to make is how are they the original settlers when Māori were here hundreds of years prior.
@@manamaori100 Who says Maoris were the original settlers, there used to be videos I saw with my own eyes of Mori Ori elders talking about Mori Ori being on the main Islands of NZ and there's the question of Celtic ruins and of Asian boat wrecks earlier than Maoris ... People argue over what dies indigenous mean too ... Maoris don't originate from here and nor do the European settlers so Who is really indigenous ?
@@ronnymcdonald2543 “It is incorrect to label all New Zealand’s original settlers as Anglo Saxon as Celts made up a very large number of the original Whalers that first settled this nation” they weren’t the first to settle this land, and why are pākeha so fixated on who’s really indigenous does it really matter? At the end of the day Māori had settled here centuries before Europeans arrived, I’ve read comments from Australians saying the Aboriginal aren’t indigenous, their culture is 50,000 years old how are they not indigenous, and by the way aren’t Anglo saxons and Celts all British anyway?
A treaty is an agreement between two or more countries.
Professor was very wrong in saying to say it did not take over sovereignty over Maori and British subjects alike. We know this as we have a record of the debates at the time. Some Maori chiefs such as Te Heu Heu declined to sign at the time because of it. (He was the man who gave Tongariro to the nation later on).
Anything this professor says now, I will take as a piece of shit and ignore accordingly.
Yup,he's a sellout
Only because it doesnt fit your false narrative. You seem to be sold on the idea that Maori gave all land and resources to enrich your lives while we live in poverty? What right mind would ever think that? Look here pakeha ill give you all my wealth for free so i can be poor and live in poverty? Yeah right!
Its more like the crown will trick you into a peace treaty and not give you a copy so we can alter and make fradulent changes so we can sneak through the back door and confiscate your land. Thats called stealing pakeha. Do you UNDERSTAND what STEALING and THEFT means pakeha?? Its when you take something that doesnt belong to you. Pack of racist liers. Go back to england where you belong. You dont belong here with Maori and you never will. We hate you just as much as you hate us! Go now pakeha. Leave now!
Butt hurt much😂
@@fxt363 another PoS spouting rubbish. You should grow up. Living a lie makes you less and less smart.
You should intervies Bruce Moon, a very good NZ historian.
That's what I was thinking, if only. I worry for Michael laws, lots of his views on the treaty are a bit woke lefty
How were Maori involved in with the 1852 constitutiuon act? Thanks
The NZ wars contributed to colonial authorisation of the administration over Maori.
One people
One land
One ocean
Its a joke of course.
Come on live together!!!
So in plain speak it’s a mess
He lost me when he said that a treaty is not a contract. He must have a post-modernist view of language, where the meaning of words can be whatever you want them to be, also known as relativism. A treaty is a legally binding agreement i.e. a contract.
Paul Moon is a lazy researcher as he has shown when researching my 2nd cousin Haane Manahi's history. There is much he has missed ie the only cleric employed by England to cover the Irish famine is Haanes great grandfather....he is also my great grandfather who was asked by the King of England to finance General Wynyards British Army to New Zealand to protect the surveying and road making teams in the region of todays Auckland. No mention of this at all. There is more but no one seems interested in the old history of the ANZACS.
I notice you havent provided any specific context as to what exactly that these facts were missing from, nor any reason as to why those facts were relevant and should have been included. Biographical accounts invariably require omitting facts that aren't germane in order to ensure that written works aren't a million pages long. That doesn't make one "lazy".
At least hes done better than the politicians.
Politics is about white lies and rounding up supporters....he better be better.@@annetteblack9573
It is not a dissertation....prove me wrong, dont just state your view.@@XXXX-yc6wv
I’ve personally met Dr Paul Moon. I think the reason why the media use him is partly because he hasn’t got an axe to grind with any tribe and it’s easy for him to be completely subjective about the Treaty of Waitangi.
Sure some won’t like his interpretations and that’s nothing new in the world of academia. Eg you can have 2 extreme right wingers in USA who will interpret the American Constitution in slightly different ways.
Have you notified Dr Paul Moon concerning your 2nd cousin. He’s very approachable and a down to earth person.
Cheers.
I think there is room for the amateur historian today... they are not pressured to tow the line as an academic is with a career to protect.
The British had every intention of not allowing barbaric customs to continue among the tribes - this is a clear intention to limit their 'sovereignty'/ absolute authority. The British also allowed the chiefs to continue in the customary role as an authority for the tribe [as long as it did not conflict with the prior statement]. The idea of heirarchy solves the perceived contradication here - Queen, governors, chiefs, tribes. Of course, in a nascent state, the expansion of law and enforcement could only develop with the building of institutions/ state machinery.
The same old line that the British were invited to NZ in order to govern their own lawless subjects [the lawlessness of these vagabonds is always exaggerated]. This is the missionary line, and as far as some of the statesmen were also card-carrying members of the evangelical movement sweeping the church, was also their line. But there was also the hard-headed and pragmatic intention by the British to establish law throughout the territory [always territorial], which required a sovereignty over the whole lands, and over all living in those lands. This practicality is the crucial aspect of the treaty, where sovereignty [that chiefs little understood] was to be ceded, and accordingly requires emphasis.
'Maori complained how bad settlers were behaving'. lol This reads like a nice neat narrative to serve a political discourse. The historical reality is that the chiefs were much more worried about how other chiefs were going to behave... in utu for their having decimated the tribal populations in the south. The musket wars overshadowed all else, and the chiefs realised they couldn't govern themselves.
"After the treaty was signed, British law didn't apply to Maori'. Really? Then why did the legalistic Shortland ask his superiors whether Britain had the right to interfer with the tribal warfar between Nga Te Rangi Na Te Arawa at Maketiu in 1841? The answer was to his quibbling was a resounding one - sovereignty had been declared over the whole of NZ a few months after the signing of the treaty [before the ink had even dried], and accordingly, there was a show of force/ of British law, and the hostilities ceased. The treaty, and British sovereignty is why the tribal wars ceased.
The problem with Moon's history here is he takes a 'treaty-centric' approach [and accepts the modern interpreation of the treaty/ post 1970s that no-one thought at an earlier date]. he says at a later date that most come to [somehow[ accept the sovereignty of the British/ settler government... without recognizing that the British declared sovereignty over the whol country in May 1840 [a few months after the signing]. This was backed by the full force of the empire, not by a few signatures. Sovereignty was also achieved over the central North Island tribes, that had never signed and rejected British rule, through the 1860s wars, and eventual submission to the government of the king country in late 19 century.
Moon downplays the musket wars. The tide had swung away from northern Nga Puhi, where they had been losing their raids on the southern tribes just previous to 1840. Why? Because the southern tribes had managed to arm themselves with muskets towards parity with northern tribes. They were coming for revenge... remember, whole populations were slaughtered... and the rest. This is why northern chiefs were keen to sign the treaty for lawa and order, and protection forom their own.
On a positive note, good to hear Moon say that the treaty is not a legal contract.... but then. oh dear, uses the analogy of a wedding... and a partnership. lol
Moon view on the treaty seems to tow the orthodox line since the Ruth Ross view came out in 1972 - that the treaty is a mess, and chaotic, and confusing yadeedyadeeya. The historical reality is different. The Brits had something definite to comunnicate, the did communicate the meaning orally and through much discussion to those that signed. They communicated it so well that some powerful chiefs to the south refused to sign [the trojan horse of the radicals]. That all said, it's a storm in a teacup as the Brits declared sovereignty over the whole country a few months after the treaty was signed. NZ politics was never, and can never be, 'treaty-centric'.
none the less. the British belong in britian
and any agreement they make with Maori is binding . 500 chiefs did not cede
@@djhemirukahemisphere8893 You are right that some chiefs did not sign the treaty. But that is really irrlevant to history. The fact is the British *declared* sovereignty over all of NZ a few months after the signing.... and in the 1860s enforced that sovereignty over the powerful central North Island chiefs that rejected it. Consider also that before the signing of the treaty, there was no law, agreement, or morality - in the early 19th century, the most powerful tribes utterly destroyed the weaker ones with Hongi Hika, Te WheroWhero, and Te Rauparaha being the terror of the land.
Finally the Truth!. The Treaty stated Maori will govern there own They lived on there land and followed there traditions unmolested by the British and this agreement was the British could live on their land and unmolested by Maori. But many Maori youth was curious about these Britons there culture the way they dressed and there technologies. These young Maori left there tribes and iwi and jumped waka to the British side and had to go to school and had to learn English to gain work to make money and they also had to obey British Law. Now the Elders became very angry because more and more Maori started moving to the English side they wern't forced it was a choice the comforts of living in a warm house with a fireplace and warm clothes meeting women with different colored hair and eyes with makeup was all new and exciting to a young Maori man you worked but food can be bought including exotic food you just cook it and even then baked goods were more easily available.
NZ wars 900 British soldiers killed by Maori. 2000 Maori killed by British. Musket wars 20,000 Maori killed by Maori.
Shhhh! Don't say that! It's not nice!
Don't hate each other like some arabs and jews.
That gives already to much dividing in this world....
et tu Paul??
he has changed the narrative.....what about the letter penned on behalf of 13 paramount Nga Puhi chiefs asking for the Kings protection...not from unruly settlers, but from other Maori and other colonial forces.....unruly settlers is a new concept to blame the Treaty on.....what a load of rubbish.....
It's quite the oxymoron to say Pakeha were unruly and maori were well behaved lol
There is something illogical in what Paul Moon says, and that is that British didn’t intend to govern Māori. British people knew English language very well and they explicitly said in their version of treaty that Māori will be subjects to British government. Therefore, their explicit intention was to govern. Whatever and however was that translated to Māori, and understood by Māori, is a completely different subject, but the clear intention of English empire was to have a governing system including Māori.
Saying that, English seems to have allowed Māori to self govern to a certain degree, but as long as their self governing is within umbrella of the English law.
Don't pretend you know anything about our Pakeha history
@@StGammon77 word pakeha is racist because it determines people by their skin colour. It should not be used in a non-racist society. It is as bad as a “n” word.
A Treaty is basically a "Good Will Covenant"
Coming from you? Sure buddy…
@@badchefi yeah. You bald heads didnt show good will. Now we dont show good will. You dont like the taste of your own medicine. Go back to england where you come from and belong. Dont ever come back!!!!!
The Treaty is an international agreement between two sovereign nations, its a standard practice even today, have you heard of Natio? literally a treaty agreement
@@badchefi we showed good will by welcoming you into our natural world pakeha. Since you have been here last 184 years you have shown us nothing but disrespect, lies, no honor, theft, greed, racism, hate, disloyal, unfaithfulness, the list goes on. Hence Hone Heke cut the british flag down to insult and terminate the treaty and any future partnership and any future friendships. We didnt want you here pakeha once we seen your disrespect and no honour. We wanted you to go back to england straight away. And even today we still feel that way! Just go! They have planes now. We dont even want you hear ever since Hone Heke cut your flag down. Didnt yous get it when we cut the flag down? We dont want you here! GO NOW. LEAVE NOW!!! Now we show yous no good will. You burnt our good will 184 years ago. The HATE is very real.
@@badchefi we showed good will by welcoming you into our natural world pakeha. Since you have been here last 184 years you have shown us nothing but disrespect, lies, no honor, theft, greed, racism, hate, disloyal, unfaithfulness, the list goes on. Hence Hone Heke cut the british flag down to insult and terminate the treaty and any future partnership and any future friendships. We didnt want you here pakeha once we seen your disrespect and no honour. We wanted you to go back to england straight away. And even today we still feel that way! Just go! They have planes now. We dont even want you hear ever since Hone Heke cut your flag down. Didnt yous get it when we cut the flag down? We dont want you here! GO NOW. LEAVE NOW!!! Now we show yous no good will. You burnt our good will 184 years ago. The HATE is very real.
It’s called progress
IMO
how about you actually do a segment with reading the both copies of the treaty, as in 1840 the words given by maori meant the same , he is correct, maori held their sovereignty on tribal lands and tribal matters,
then do a segment on the lead up to why the treaty was asked for by maori,
with the waitangi tribunal we have move so far away what the treaty was meant to mean, it has become ridiculous.
Someone listened. Paul Moon is the man.
Moon,should be offensive to you lot,y'know,browneye??
Moon is a schill
@@davidanscombe1106 I think you need a therapist. Not sure who ‘you lot’ refers to - I don’t expect you can write a coherent argument.
@tama5570
Unlike you,I dont need a therapist.
'You lot' are all the people who dont know,and will never realise that you are not victims.
If you are not part of a united solution,you are part of the problem.
Dividing people into racial groups and setting them against each other solves nothing
@tama5570
Therapy is for people who have issues,often based on falsely identifying as a victim.
I am in no need of therapy,unlike yourself and mr moon.
I am not a victim, I enjoy the rights that everyone in new zealand are entitled to.
Dividing people into racial groups and setting them against each other solves nothing, and what moon has done is tantamount to selling his soul,because he knows the truth
Whakaputanga and te tiriti were translated by the same father and son duo. There was no confusion about sovereignty as Whakaputanga was written b4 te tiriti and also had a "sovereignty" article. Doesn't quite fit the narrative 😂 missing the very obvious because you have already made you mind up and think you know everything. But ya don't. Just another pakeha dinosaur terrified that it didnt actually go down how you thought. And pakeha have much to answer for.
🐾🐾 🐺
Not another so called "expert" trying to justify why NZ should not follow the laws of the treaty. We get it, you dont like the deal and you want to pretend its not important. The reason the treaty is still very relevant still today is because for 184 years the tangat whenua have been telling you we are the lawful owners of all these lands and your government is illegitimate and has no mandate over Maori except for those kupapa like Apirana Ngata
I think most New Zealanders would agree with your statement
Ignore moon,he is corrupt, and a sellout running false narratives
Most New Zealanders know it but are in denial because they dont believe Maori are capable of ruling ourselves on our own lands like we done for thousands of years. Bloody sound like a terrorist to them on my own lands lol
@@Kult365
Ignore moon,he is a quack and a sellout.
Professor of bovine scattology
And that's why a war was fought in the 60s to show the tribes who was boss~