Of course Maori ceded sovereignty, they wanted and needed the protection of the British to stop each tribe from killing and eating each other, but also against a French occupation on NZ.
@@darrenford8988 guess your one off them. Find out what that reading and writing really is. Those books that are nothing but lies. Fool. English is spell work. Actually casting spells. The numbers taught are all lies. Again. Research stop being an ignorant fool by choice.
Well if you've read the Maori treaty version Queen Victoria is referred to as Rangitara twice To become "subjects" and gain the privileges of being subjects means exactly that Also Aotearoa is not mentioned at all in the Maori version Our founding document is 1 page Not how ever hundred pages it is now Google lists 736 pages ?????? The principles is basically a Christmas present list We need to loose the other 735 pages and return back to our founding document
As Winston points out NZ was never referred to as Aotearoa... in fact it is a word that does not appear in many tribal dialects.. You are correct the treaty has to return to our original founding document.. it became a nonsense when the Activists turned the ancient document into a living document in the 80's.
Maori version says Victoria Queen of England other version says Her Majesty of the United Kingdom of Great Britain Scotland and Ireland...is this a change of Office.. Looks to me one are people's and the other is a corporation.. Maori only sign with the Queen of England...
William the Conqueror said I have conquered this land, I don't own it, I will lease it..setting the precedent for all Kings, Queen, Majesty,record in the Doomsday Book... Magna Carta created the corporation of the United Kingdom of the Great Britain Kingdom.. Freedom of the church.
What's wrong with Chris Bishop. Can't he answer the question directly? Maori did cede for ever, Sovereignty to Queen Victoria. Its is there, black & white in the print of the Treaty of Waitangi.
@@user-mc6js8or3r read the Maori version. There are three articles. Each one spells out word by word the covenant between the Crown & 500 Maori Chiefs. It is clearly written so no one can misinterpret each article. There are no five principals as annunciated by Jeffery Palmer, in the Treaty of Waitangi. None what so ever!
look at who is fueling all this divison here! it is neither the maori nor the pakeha, but the corporate iwi, and the corporate government masquerading as benevolent while actually being malevolent.
Im Māori and they laugh at the Word, Corporate Māori.. Heres my opinion, Kai Tahu own billions, why is kai tahu people still poor... Where dose the money go to house ourr people..
@@Emtyone A wise post... Maori tribes are the richest people in NZ...but the tribal wealth is held by those on the top... their people see nothing of it... If all the multi billions given had filtered down every Maori in NZ would be a millionaire instead of just those on the top! The settlements should have been made in the form of housing, schooling or medical centres... anything that the people needed instead the fat cats on the top got some swish houses and big cars! The demand it was to be koha and therefore a gift and the crown could then not direct them how to spend it. In the meantime these fat Elites are fearful that the gravy trains are coming to an end... the treaty & Te Reo are responsible of taking zillions of dollars out of the economy... the country is now struggling and we need every taxpayer dollar to be spent to build the economy for ALL OUR PEOPLE for all their needs. TPM and the Activists just use Maori for their own gain, stirring them up with lies and misinformation - all the time threatening, and in the meantime they divide our people and bring disharmony and hatred to our country. Real Maori and all citizens of NZ must stand together as one equal people together. We must remain a proud democracy.
@@Thewandereringanzac The government has already given billions of dollars to Maori tribes and now these tribes are the wealthiest people in NZ... their leaders are amongst the richest people in NZ.. but they have kept everything for themselves and not filtered it down to their tribes.
@@valeriehughes1008 I agree to some degree. I know tribal leaders and they’re not rich believe me. They have heaps of land yes, but they don’t have millions in the bank.
English version of treaty they cede sovereignty Māori version says give absolute to the queen of England for ever the complete government over there land
@@chrismckellar9350maori didn't sign the english version of the treaty because they did not trust the packyha.that mistrust has been proven to be well founded.
The English version of the Treaty states that sovereignty is ceded. Unequivocally. NZMC v AG case confirms it. End of story. Why doesn't the Minister tell the truth. Chris Bishop is THE reason I didn't vote National at the last election.
Only the final English version applies now we all speak and understand English, that final version sits hidden away in the backstalls of Te Papa found miraculously in 1989 but never made public knowledge! The FINAL English Draft is the Key.
@user-mc6js8or3r Meticulously translated from the FINAL draft which was lost but miraculously found in 1989, it is in the backstalls of Te Papa museum not really acknowledged to the public very treasonous concealment! ThebEnglish draft that has been used at Waitangi Tribunal is a rogue James Freeman version, there were many drafts but the final one was accepted by all Chiefs of whom many spoke and understood English of course. You can learn all the facts from the Stop Co-Governance campaign seminars Julian Bachelor presents, quality work showing the details and documents.
In 1834 they had signed a declaration with George IV giving them independent statehood. The treaty was supposed to be a 50/50 partnership, they weren’t dum, they were an independent state.
Exactly and 20 years later at the Great Assembly of Chiefs in Kohimarama the majority of Chiefs were well pleased with their lot... they were more than happy... also Apirana Ngata explains well in his journal Maori thinking at the time. It all only went pair shaped when the treaty was fiddled with by Activists and their Lawyers and made the ancient document into a "living document" in the 80's... thus started the gravy train and all the problems.
I'd love to read those, as I would like to base my position going forward on 'fact' if possible (hard these days) any chance you can point me in the right direction where they can be found/read
The Maoris did not cede full sovereignty at Waitangi in 1840. This lie has recently been put out by the Waitangi Tribunal at the behest of part-Maori radicals. By Article One of the Treaty the chiefs ceded full sovereignty of these violent and anarchic islands to Queen Victoria forever as the speeches of Rewa, Te Kemara, Kawiti and other chiefs of the time show. Twenty years later at the Kohimarama (Auckland) conference, the largest gathering of chiefs in New Zealand history, they declared that full sovereignty had been ceded in 1840. If the chiefs did not cede sovereignty, they would have continued their cannibalism, which meant a lot to some of them.
Both participants' statements seem a little simplistic, where simplifying is not helpful in such an important and basic matter. For instance, the statement 'the Treaty is the Foundation Document for the country'. Rather, I'd say, the treaty is one of the foundation documents. Since the Treaty allows for governance according to English law, there are thus two other 'foundation documents' that apply: one is the Magna Carta, of 1215, setting out the principles of English Law, very importantly including a statement of fundamental 'human rights', and allowing for the authority of the English Church. The latter authority involves a further basic founding document; the Sermon on the Mount, from which came the Ten Commandments ('Thou shall not kill' etc.) So, there are at least three 'Founding Documents' to which the parties to the 1840 treaty agreed.
Sounds like national is sitting on the fence, looks like in 3 years we have a NZF or ACT lead government as 2.5 million people voted for change to liebour racist policies and nat may not want to change them.
Lots people did not vote for the government. Also is vote for mixture of policies. So those voted for the new government may dislike polices of ACT but like NZ First policy. Not simple
Very true signing the treaty gave them protection from utu... these wars had raged more than 20 years and Maori had wiped out 1/3 of their own and committed genocide on the Moriori...the treaty would protect them from land grabbing by utu, rape, slavery, and cannibalism.... Robert Stout our first PM as late as 1845 was still struggling to stop some of the more vicious tribes from the practise of cannibalism... he reported that they seemed to lust for human flesh and had little regard for all other tribes.
@@chrismckellar9350 When Luxton finally gets the message the majority want an end to the separatist nonsense he will fall into line... the country can't afford all these separatist groups and their demands... we must go forward as one equal people.
THE MAORI RACE DID NOT HAVE "SOVERIGNTY" TO SELL, OR GIVE, OR TRADE AWAY. THEY HAD DIVISION AND WAR, HATE, AND "UTU" AS THEIR "SOVERIGNTY" AND WAY OF LIFE. WHERE DO YOU THINK THEIR HAKA DANCE CAME FROM ? OUT OF A BOTTLE OF BEER ?
I have read some childish statements but you win the prize. You no nothing of Maoridom society while selling out your own so you are in no position to make judgement on any culture.
OH DEAR @@matakitaki1 !!! TRUTH HURT ? THE FACTS ARE IN THE MULTIPLE INTER TRIBAL WARS THAT WERE HAPPENING ALL OVER NEW ZEALAND BEFORE THE BRITISH MANAGED TO ORGANISE THE MEETINGS AND AGREEMENTS WITH ALL THE MAORI TRIBES, SO GO LOOK UP WHAT THE DEFINITION OF "SOVERIGNTY" IS ( IN AN ENGLISH DICTIONARY ) AND YOU WILL DISCOVER THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO CLAIM TO HAVE IT, WHEN ALL THESE ARGUMENTS AND WARS WERE HAPPENING. AND ARE YOU DENYING THE ORIGINS OF YOUR HAKA DANCE TOO ? THE FACTS CANNOT EVER BE CHANGED, ABOUT ANYTHING RECORDED IN HISTORY. DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND THAT ? THE MAORIS THAT VOTED FOR THE RACIST MAORI PARTY ( 3% ) SHOULD ALL GET REAL HISTORY LESSONS, AND STOP THE BULLSHIT LIES AND OPINIONS THAT THEY TREAT AS FACTUAL. HOW MANY IWI WOULD BE LEFT ALIVE TODAY WITHOUT THE PEACE AGREEMENTS THE BRITISH MANAGED TO GET BETWEEN YOU ALL ? ( AND I DO NOT BELIEVE ANY RELIGIOUS STORIES ABOUT NEW ZEALAND, EITHER )
Chris Bishop dancing on the head of a pin when asked about ceding sovereignty. This ambiguous response which also comes from Chris Luxon is only going to embolden treaty separatists. Thankfully the two other parties in the coalition seem clearer on their position.
Hasn't got the guts to answer the question I am part Maori, the answer is yes. One nation, one people Hipkins the then Prime Minister was asked " What is a woman" He didn't answer.. He didn't have the guts.
Stop sitting on the fence Chris Bishop. Just as well David Seymour & NZ First have the balls to standup and speak the truth. That's what we voted for. We want a referendum.
It clearly says that on the documents. Saying "they didn't translate it correctly" would imply ignorance is the defense. Due diligence is required when signing a document (concept that is foriegn). Ignorance has never been a defensible position
There was no " ignorance involved" The Treaty in Maori is the one Maori signed and is the only Treaty recognised by British Law, New Zealand Law and International Law. The original translation into English which l have had a copy of since the first time it was ever reproduced is NOT LEGAL Tender. Never was and never will be and was never signed by a single Maori. Hobson and Banbury Gough who presented the Treaty to Maori to be signed or took the Treaty around the Country to be signed had them read and sign The Maori Version. 2. The deviation of interpretation found in The Original English Translation was noted from 1845 onwards and has been the subject of multiple and many legal cases to as high a Court as The Privy Council and United Nations many many many times since 1846. This means the Proof of Fact that there has been a LEGAL disagreement, discussion, dispute over some of wording in the English Version has Precedent In Law that is indisputable LEGALLY in New Zealand Courts, The Privy Council and International Law. The Maori Version has been Ratified in New Zealand Law, British Law and International Law. Has this made the case clearer for you?
Just say yes Mr Bishop. Stop trying to sidestep the obvious answer. You are a Minister of the Crown and if you as a Minister of the Crown don't believe Maori ceded sovereignty in 1840 then you should resign from parliament.
But thats one sided... Imagine Chinese came over, and wrote in their language and say.. This means this, just sign it.. Hard to believe that at the time, a language to the natives.. Made sence to them.. Use logic Mate....
Using ''your logic'' then no written document would have made sense to them as they had no written language. People forget that some Maori could understand, read, and write in English and interpret and explain the document to their people, as well as English scholars who studied Maori, there had been enough interaction between Maori and Europeans before the treaty was presented. Every Maori tribe was aware of the English presence and influence and it was their practice to align themselves with the most powerful or influential tribe for their own protection and or advantage, they took it.
@@onepup-pr3ylThe Treaty Was Written in Te Reo Maori. Hobsons Treaty and the copy Banbury Gough took around NZ was in Te Reo Maori. The Internationally Ratified Treaty IS the Te Reo Maori Version. Of course many Maori could read and write in English, Latin and Greek and French. Numerically and Socially they were far more literate in 1836 to 1860 than 99% of English in the Country. Their Chiefs were widely traveled especially to England and The USA, India, Indonesia and South Africa, South America, The Pacific. They had a broad racial and Historical pool of others to discuss Colonisation and experience of it with them. Major meetings were held in Fiji of all Western Pacific Chiefs in 1826..The Marrakar Piloted most British and French Ships arriving in NZ.. The basic Precedence on Law and Facts on Law stand now just as they did in 1972. The English Version is null and void. It means nothing in law. The Te Reo Version is The Only Treaty. Maori signed The Te Reo Maori Version. Maori did NOT Cede Sovereignty. In NZ and in International Law the Waitangi Tribunal are the Official expert historical and legal research body whose Findings and Reporting will be followed by any NZ, British or International Court of Law.
Power through force [if you need force] IS part of sovereignty. It was not a foreign concept at all, Te Murries lived by force and the associated sovereignty it brought them every singe day.
It was a yes or no question... hilarious how he tries to spin around multiple times only to end up with an answer that could have been answered with one word. "YES".
We are spreading the truth about the Treaty The only correct treaty is the Maori version, which was translated from Busby's draft and then translated into Maori by the Williams. There is a rogue English version by James Freeman in 1840 And in 1975 the Waitangi Tribunal changed the meaning and added principles which were never there! So which version should we follow'? Or just scrap the whole thing and have a proper modern constitution. One man one vote No to tribal rule
How do you know. Where you at the sighing of the Maori version of the Treaty and do you witness the the chiefs signing the English version of the treaty?
Would be a good panel discussion Sean defining the difference between the Māori text of the Treaty of Waitangi versus the English text version. This discussion will help all citizens of New Zealand understand with informed clarity of what the Treaty of Waitangi is - English version, and te Tiriti o Waitangi is - Māori version.
... as long as it did not conflict to horrifically with British laws. The Brits were tolerant of slavery for a while... but the conversion to Christianity soon put paid to that~~
Just a thought, since it is the foundation of law in early nz, Chris should be charged with wilfully inciting people to break law. I look forward to his trial
Orh yeah hey look, the reality is, with respect to the issue, at the end of the day, what I would say to you is that, with regard to the issue you raise is that, the bottom line is, and we’ve been very clear on this, and I want to be crystal clear that our position hasn’t changed.
He's obviously only read the English version that barely any chiefs signed. Most chiefs only signed the Reo version of Te Tiriti which states: A1; Kāwanatanga-Crown can make laws over non Maori. A2; Tino Rangatiratanga- Hapū Power and Authority continues. A3; Rite Tahi- Māori will be treated equally
@@itsjustweard2328 don't even try and act like you care about my opinion bruh 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 the real question here is... What do you expect??? It's just cause and effect bro, the kkkolonisers can't run from their fate, they will reap what they sow whether they like it or not, they can only blame themsleves. Not our fault they're genocidal land & resource theiving kkkolonisers lol
No, they did not cede sovereignty. How could they when they did not actually have it? What they ceded was a nominal sovereignty [in name only] based on the diplomatically recognized previous 1835 'Confederation of Chiefs'. Actual sovereignty was *declared* over the whole of NZ shortly after the signing of the treaty.
The Peace Treaty (The Peace Treaty Of Waitangi) was initiated by the British Crown simply because the British Military couldn't genocide, conquest or conquer the Northern Maori of the 18th century. Ngapuhi was a force to be reckoned with. They butchered the British Military, amputated there bodies and cooked them in a hangi. Those cheifs who did die and spilled blood in battle defending there land culture and family died an honourable death. They paid with there lives and paid in full with there blood. So dont ever think those warrior chiefs bowed down or surrendered sovereignty, sold there souls to a foreign king or queen in England. Dont ever think or believe those warrior chiefs defended and died for there land culture and family to bow down or surrendered sovereign to a foreign king. Dont ever think those warrior chiefs who paid with there blood cede sovereignty to a foreign entity. Those warrior chiefs ate and killed there enemies. Dont ever think or believe those warrior chiefs bowed down to a foreign entity. Those Chiefs welcomed a partnership to work together with British Crown to share power and resources and new technology. Pakeha to govern there own people and Maori to govern there own people. That never happened. The British government took power, wealth and government control by 100%. Hone Heke cut the British flag pole down to symbolize that the treaty was a fraudulent contract being misinterpreted. To those who think Ngapuhi cede sovereignty to the British Crown and military better get a reality check. When you kill butcher and eat your enemy, dont ever think thats an act of ceding sovereignty, to bow down or surrender, to be fearful or be afraid. Dont ever think those warrior chiefs sold there souls to a foreign king and queen. NEVER!!!!! ake ake Amen. They died honourable to defend there land culture and family.
@@Emtyone The Maori Chiefs "ceded absolutely to the Queen of England for ever the government of all their lands." Word for word of the first article of the Treaty.
No, Maori didn't cede sovereignty. The main issue with the difference in versions, is in Te Reo, it gives the "Queen te kawanatanga katoa". The word kawanatanga is not our word. It was introduced to us by the missionaries and an English translated word for governorship. The treaty authors, Hobson, Busby and Williams knew they couldn't use the words "Tino Rangatira", or "Ariki Tapairu", absolute chieftanship. They knew the natives wouldn't agree to it. These words would be more comparable to 'sovereignty". Effectively, Maori thought they had signed, "we have rulership over our lands" but the Queen can come govern their unruly settlers that were causing trouble, especially in Russel. This is the main reason why Maori even requested an agreement with the Queen, was to give her power to control her Brittish subjects in a different country.
The interview with Chris Bishop, a key figure in the New Zealand National Party, unveils a subtle yet profound illustration of systemic racism, white supremacy, and the neoliberal agenda that subtly undermines Māori sovereignty and rights, reflecting broader trends of marginalization. This conversation, while appearing innocuous on the surface, cleverly perpetuates a neoliberal ideology that inherently dismisses the specific needs of marginalized communities, particularly Māori, under the guise of national unity and efficiency. Bishop's comments on the approach to Māori health and sovereignty exemplify a neoliberal contempt for bespoke systems designed to address the distinct needs of marginalized groups. Advocating for a "unified" system, rather than supporting the establishment of a Māori Health Authority, starkly represents institutional racism. This stance overlooks the significant disparities and historical injustices Māori face, emblematic of how neoliberal policies often solidify existing power dynamics, sidelining indigenous needs and voices. The dialogue surrounding Māori sovereignty and the Treaty of Waitangi further exposes entrenched colonial mindsets within New Zealand's political sphere. The reluctance to fully acknowledge the unceded sovereignty of Māori, alongside a vague affirmation of the Treaty as New Zealand's foundational document, signals a deep disregard for Māori rights. This avoidance to directly recognize Māori sovereignty continues a narrative of white supremacy, maintaining colonial power structures and minimizing the rights and voices of the indigenous population. Moreover, the interview's downplaying of media narratives about a Māori "revolution" and dismissive references to the government coalition as fascist and racist trivializes genuine concerns regarding racial justice and equality. This not only belittles the Māori struggle but also demonstrates a broader neoliberal strategy of deflecting critique by undermining the legitimacy of opposing voices. The discussion on the ceding of sovereignty is particularly telling of the ongoing colonial narrative that seeks to negate Māori rights and sovereignty. Bishop's evasive and complex answers regarding Māori sovereignty cession to the British crown underscore a reluctance to address the realities of colonial oppression and its lasting impact on Māori. This hesitancy to affirm the sovereignty Māori never ceded is indicative of the systemic racism and white supremacy that pervades New Zealand's political discourse. By suggesting that Māori willingly relinquished sovereignty, there's a veiled attempt to legitimize the colonial takeover, undermining Māori as equal Treaty partners and overlooking the complexities and imbalances of colonial treaties. This narrative, along with the advocacy for a singular system of governance and health care, further embeds colonial mindsets, promoting an approach that erases Māori's unique status and needs. Such neoliberal priorities, emphasizing centralization and efficiency, starkly conflict with Māori aspirations for sovereignty and self-determination, highlighting how neoliberal policies serve as contemporary mechanisms of colonialism. The conversation encapsulated in the interview is not merely political but a vivid reminder of the struggle against systemic racism and white supremacy in New Zealand. It calls for a critical examination of neoliberal policies' role in perpetuating inequalities and marginalization, particularly against Māori. This transcript, through its nuanced perpetuation of colonial and neoliberal ideologies, underscores the need for political discourse and policies to truly embody the Treaty of Waitangi's principles, respecting Māori sovereignty and ensuring equitable partnership in governance and societal progress.
Sovereignty on a national basis was ceded... as well, there are the simple facts that, you accept all the benefits of this modern society and as such you implicitly accept the costs and responsibilities - i.e., "social justice"/"social contract". (Glad you understand that idea.)
No no that is just an assumption. The partnership continues whether you like it or not and will hold the crown responsible for any degredation of rights to anybody. You should appreciate that and use it.
First article of treaty says the chiefs of the confederation of the united tribes and the separate independent chiefs who have not become members of the confederation cede to her majesty the queen of England absolute and without reservation all the rights and the powers of sovereignty etc etc direct quote from treaty not my words bro
Oh look ive been hearing this argument for years and still nobody knows and fewer can agree what it says means or suppose to mean. There's to much guessing what the treaty says. 3 people could read it and you'll get 3 different answers. Question. If someone gets a paint brush and covers over large parts of the treaty then tells everyone, " this is what it's supposed to say" and demand unconditional acceptance. Is that right/legal?
What bugs me is that I don't care and realistically I think that is the majority view. Whether or not Maori ceded sovereignty in the Treaty of Waitangi has realistically no effect towards whether we have Maori sovereignty now. Our values have progressed and we are now completely self governed in that the crown has no power over us either. It's irritating that there is this much attention given to radicals which will obviously achieve nothing because their goals are psychotic and they absolutely do not represent the nice Maori people of NZ.
@@stewatparkpark2933criminals? They have a chip because they don't like the treaty and steal to hit back at govt. Strange that they always quote the treaty as a means to excuse.Excuses Excuses Excuses
@@neilstuarr2278 What bugs me is that I don't care and realistically I think that is the majority view. Whether or not Maori ceded sovereignty in the Treaty of Waitangi has realistically no effect towards whether we have Maori sovereignty now. Our values have progressed and we are now completely self governed in that the crown has no power over us either. It's irritating that there is this much attention given to radicals which will obviously achieve nothing because their goals are psychotic and they absolutely do not represent the nice Maori people of NZ.
Bishop - go READ the treaty. Nowhere is forests or fiseries mentioned. Crikey, I would have thought the leader of the house would be somewhat conversant with this document.
MAori knew they were ceding sovereignty becuase it was they only way they could get ahead and not remain cavemen...Now for the maori, ignorance is bliss and entitles them to everything the pakeha brought to NZ
@@kikimarama6652 yeah....Maori rewrote their whole history, changed what the treaty meant to get a LOT...MAori didnt have anything pre pakeha and now try to get everyt BY PHINGLAYING THE VIVTIM CARD
Minister who gets confused at times. The caucus needs to understand the 100% of discussion between the three government parties. They need to look ahead to the 31 March ( still some economic on follow from Labour) and 30 June Qtrs ( new government).
Alot of criticism of Chris Bishop on here. But he got my respect during that interview with Matty McLean. I mean he let Matty make a complete cock of himself and he didn't even roll around the floor in laughter. He's not that bad.
WTF is wrong with answering a question truthfully instead of the mealy-mouthed apology given by Bishop. I thought he was better than this.The waffling is unbelievable.
Interesting question isn't it. One could also ask when there were a significant amount more Maori than Pakeha settlers during these times, do we really believe that Maori said "sure, take control of and have our land and country, we don't mind". The Pakeha were the minority back then so I find this hard to believe.
Really? It's not hard to believe when you think how much of a technological advantage the settlers would have had its pretty easy to imagine why Maori might have thought there were advantages to changing their way of life
Yes but they understood the power of British institutions and that more were coming. It was smart to negotiate from a position of strength while they had it
Maori signed sovereignty away in regards to protection from international interests and control over non Maori.Maori didnt sign away cheiftainship authority over their people,as in day to day order and culture.I would think the best solution is to allow them delegated self autnomy in areas such as education ,language,economic development and for lesser crimes involving Maori victims( exludes rape,murder,treason,aggravated assault)
Rubbish, Maori ceded sovereignty, not a little bit here and a little bit there. They have all the choices they could ever want now, far more than they had before, they can choose their education and everything under the Crown's rules, and vote for things like we all do. That is the way of the Crown it is the most successful Government of all time and we all get to play a part in it.
That's areal worry if Luxon is a WEF puppet....we realise of course the Labour Party were definitely under the WEF and WHO....Two of the most evil and melevonant Groups of People ever to exist
Last question I heard him answer directly was "Are Maori indigenous to New Zealand?" His answer to that was very revealing.....and obviously very wrong!
Its time we stopped referring to Maori as a group We need to refer to The tribes iwi and hapu who signed the treaty. So we have powerful Nation writing a document of intent to get buy in from relativity minor groups. To establish a system to bring some sort of order to NZ. Prior it was the wild west. Or wild south as you could say. Hell hole of the pacific murder slaves general lawless ness. It was a start of the nation we have today but well past its use by!
Everybody is talking about sovereignty like it's the inalienable deed to a house. The only thing that keeps sovereignty alive is the recognition of the people because it originates in the individual and it needs the people to support it, unless it can be upheld by a minority through force of arms. Signing a treaty does not guarantee sovereignty if the majority of people reject it and it can not be upheld through coercion. So yes, Maori did cede sovereignty. They succumb to disease, they lost the wars, they lost economic and cultural power and they became a minority race in NZ. The Treaty is a nice little fiction to pull out for all parties. Maori can claim they never ceded sovereignty and pakeha can claim Maori gave away their sovereignty and they weren't conquered by a colonial power.
Chris seems to think questions about sovereignty are beyond his pay grade. lol 'The treaty is the foundation document for the country' = treaty-centric. This is a risky approach to take.
There are principles of the Treaty. No, the Treaty was a very simple document of only three Articles, none of which mentions “principles” or “partnership.” Since the Treaty gave equality for the first time to all the people of New Zealand, the grievance industry of the late twentieth century knew that they could not get special race based privileges from the Treaty itself and so, 150 years after the event, they invented for the first time the fictions of “principles” and “partnership” to give them what the Treaty does not. There are two conflicting versions of the Treaty one in English and the other in Maori. There is only one Treaty and it’s in Maori - (Te Tiriti). It was signed by around 500 chiefs. It was translated from the English draft, known as the Littlewood document. Hobson’s secretary, James Freeman, later made some English replica versions of the Treaty, adding his own phrases here and there. Those were neither drafts of the Treaty nor translations of it. But one of these replica versions in English was signed by some chiefs at Waikato Heads because the genuine manuscript copy intended for signing had not arrived in time for the meeting. By the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 the government has adopted this illegitimate version, signed by a mere 49 chiefs in the abovementioned circumstances, as the “official” English Treaty, displacing Te Tiriti that was signed by nearly 500 chiefs!!
Honestly who gives a fig this is the 21st century,rip up the bloody treaty and let’s all live as one under one set of rules,this country is so divided labour and the media have done evthis,and they have the nerve to say it’s this government that’s dividing the country,only had to look at the news story about the fishing comp blockade,with one of the blockades stating its pakeha that are causing the problem with the fishing,racism at its height but because a Maori said it totally ignored.
Isnt strange how kiwis say Americans are stupid re their constitution in that the amendment wereby anyone can bare arms. So you have all these US citizens with hand guns saying its my right and you aint going to take it away. So these same kiwis that think that is stupid (yet they have a signed constitution) go one about the treaty as if we have to follow every letter to the law and that it is a living document. I would say the yanks have more of a right to bare arms than anything written in the treaty
Why would around 200,000 Maori cede sovereignty to 2000 settlers? Were you guys born yesterday? The Treaty was signed so the crown could govern their lawless settlers who were causing havoc.
How there is even an argument is downright bizarre, what has been status quo for the last 180+ years will prevail, that is maori are answerable to the same system as everyone else 😂 ffs
Who the f are these so call Maori is a label that . Was give to them by a Government. They are not Maori but Native people of a country.in 1946 the government made up that name. Not so called Maori we didn’t have a name as a people.Because we where tribe’s
The Treaty of Waitangi validated and secured a colonial idea of NZ. Rooted in the absolute moral categories of the Bible, but never in practice. However, those Maori that watched both boat people arrive from other shores weren't included in the Treaty of Waitangi debacle. So Maori sovereignty was usurped rather than Maori ceceding anything. The Treaty of Waitangi fails as a consequence. Get rid of it and start again with all New Zealand included. The UN Maori Pati doesn't speak for non-woke Maori. God defend New Zealand.
It’s perfectly obvious they ceded power. Otherwise there wouldn’t have been a treaty, all Māori knew perfectly what they were doing, having said that, I understand one chef independently refused to sign. Learnt this at school we also learned from special book and from lessons , many customs and way of living. Played the stick game in class and watched tried the poi’s. I recall one boy got the strap we thought it must been for speaking Māori but when we asked another one laughed and said no it was for calling the head mistress a turd in Māori. Can’t remember her name now, but she was a tall mannish woman, sharp as, with a built up shoe and slight limp had a huge presence. Hillcrest Normal school in Hamilton. Actually I’m pretty sure I recall now her name being Miss White. Haha quite funny. Edited to say she was head mistress of the Primmers not the whole school.
Why couldn't he just yes if it was a yes Sean? ...how many times did you ask? ...sounded like classic political double speak that you cut to support your own views ...be something that's good in a range of ways doesn't necessarily make it good thing, jack the ripper was good in a range of ways.
To all these idiots, no Māori didn’t cede sovereignty. Bishop won’t say it because he knows they don’t especially in the way Sean is asking. Embarrassing that after 180+ years and now decades of treaty and law experts you still have drongos on here who just don’t get it
Actually you are the embarrassment - the only reason for all this argument is to keep your gravy train alive so you can milk more money from the country...such is Maori greed you will never be satisfied - you just rewrite history to suit yourself and the country keeps carrying you as you do not pull your own weight! Now the majority of the country have had enough. The country simply can't afford to indulge you any more... For 180 years we have lived our lives under democracy as one equal people and the majority of us have worked, loved, intermarried, happily shared each other's cultures and moved together as one people... but not the vicious ranting, racist, Activist who have brought us to this place they need more and more. There is a wealth of true records of what went on in early NZ history - they are held in our archives, NSW archives, English archives... also a great deal of writings by outstanding Maori and European alike who lived the times and recorded the thoughts of the people - Maori and European alike ... oh but you don't bother about them, what they had to say would end your arguments, so you close your ears happy to remain ignorant and a racist.... all for the greed of your back pocket! Shame on you thinking you have the right to call Arpirana Ngata a liar, he was a man of great mana and wisdom who achieved much and all NZ of the day (all cultures) revered him!
Maori did not cede Sovereignty to the Crown. That is total rubbish. Why would Maori give up their country to people from another Country. That is why the racist remarks are comng from Maori because the Government is wording the Treaty to make it sound like they did. We all know a lot of the land was stolen from Maori. You don't call that cede more like theft.
![ARGENTINA vs. CHILE [3-0] | RESUMEN | ELIMINATORIAS SUDAMERICANAS | FECHA 7](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/De3AWmXzhuA/mqdefault.jpg)
Of course Maori ceded sovereignty, they wanted and needed the protection of the British to stop each tribe from killing and eating each other, but also against a French occupation on NZ.
😂😂😂😂 rubbish
Bullshit. Research learn truth.
Koretake.
@@verjanhamilton6287 The British also taught them how to read and write, but it looks like it hasn't been passed down.
@@darrenford8988 guess your one off them. Find out what that reading and writing really is.
Those books that are nothing but lies. Fool. English is spell work.
Actually casting spells.
The numbers taught are all lies.
Again. Research stop being an ignorant fool by choice.
Well if you've read the Maori treaty version
Queen Victoria is referred to as Rangitara twice
To become "subjects" and gain the privileges of being subjects means exactly that
Also
Aotearoa is not mentioned at all in the Maori version
Our founding document is 1 page
Not how ever hundred pages it is now
Google lists 736 pages ??????
The principles is basically a Christmas present list
We need to loose the other 735 pages and return back to our founding document
As Winston points out NZ was never referred to as Aotearoa... in fact it is a word that does not appear in many tribal dialects..
You are correct the treaty has to return to our original founding document.. it became a nonsense when the Activists turned the ancient document into a living document in the 80's.
😂😂😂
Maori version says Victoria Queen of England other version says Her Majesty of the United Kingdom of Great Britain Scotland and Ireland...is this a change of Office..
Looks to me one are people's and the other is a corporation..
Maori only sign with the Queen of England...
William the Conqueror said I have conquered this land, I don't own it, I will lease it..setting the precedent for all Kings, Queen, Majesty,record in the Doomsday Book...
Magna Carta created the corporation of the United Kingdom of the Great Britain Kingdom.. Freedom of the church.
What's wrong with Chris Bishop. Can't he answer the question directly? Maori did cede for ever, Sovereignty to Queen Victoria. Its is there, black & white in the print of the Treaty of Waitangi.
NOT IN TE REO IT DOESN'T
@@tikeipere8725 yes, it is in the Maori version of the Treaty of Waitangi.
it says cedes governorship but it does not say Sovereignty@@jamesproudlove1527
And the Maori version???
Needs to bring reo maori for all iwi n kiwi 2 learn the real truth 😊
@@user-mc6js8or3r read the Maori version. There are three articles. Each one spells out word by word the covenant between the Crown & 500 Maori Chiefs. It is clearly written so no one can misinterpret each article. There are no five principals as annunciated by Jeffery Palmer, in the Treaty of Waitangi. None what so ever!
look at who is fueling all this divison here! it is neither the maori nor the pakeha, but the corporate iwi, and the corporate government masquerading as benevolent while actually being malevolent.
Im Māori and they laugh at the Word, Corporate Māori.. Heres my opinion, Kai Tahu own billions, why is kai tahu people still poor... Where dose the money go to house ourr people..
@@Emtyonethe govt has billions yet we are all still poor.
@@Emtyone A wise post... Maori tribes are the richest people in NZ...but the tribal wealth is held by those on the top... their people see nothing of it... If all the multi billions given had filtered down every Maori in NZ would be a millionaire instead of just those on the top! The settlements should have been made in the form of housing, schooling or medical centres... anything that the people needed instead the fat cats on the top got some swish houses and big cars! The demand it was to be koha and therefore a gift and the crown could then not direct them how to spend it. In the meantime these fat Elites are fearful that the gravy trains are coming to an end... the treaty & Te Reo are responsible of taking zillions of dollars out of the economy... the country is now struggling and we need every taxpayer dollar to be spent to build the economy for ALL OUR PEOPLE for all their needs. TPM and the Activists just use Maori for their own gain, stirring them up with lies and misinformation - all the time threatening, and in the meantime they divide our people and bring disharmony and hatred to our country. Real Maori and all citizens of NZ must stand together as one equal people together. We must remain a proud democracy.
@@Thewandereringanzac The government has already given billions of dollars to Maori tribes and now these tribes are the wealthiest people in NZ... their leaders are amongst the richest people in NZ.. but they have kept everything for themselves and not filtered it down to their tribes.
@@valeriehughes1008 I agree to some degree. I know tribal leaders and they’re not rich believe me. They have heaps of land yes, but they don’t have millions in the bank.
Sir Apirana Ngata was very clear that Maori had ceded sovereignty to the British Crown, he also gave a detailed explanation of what the treaty meant.
Is that because Brash saids so?
Look it up Google it . The TOW an explanation Ngata. It's all there.
@@madalynnewton2897
And got paid well for that 😉
Equal rights for all New Zealanders. Black, white, brown, yellow, pink, etc etc Except the Vegans.
Is Vegan classified as GREEN party ?😂😂
When has there ever been equal rights in history lol? The ones who have rights above everyone else, are the rich.
Lol good one....not the vegans and not the greens
The exceptions could grow!
🤣except vegans,,,
English version of treaty they cede sovereignty Māori version says give absolute to the queen of England for ever the complete government over there land
The princess has new plans
The English version of the Treaty wan't signed by the Chiefs.
@@chrismckellar9350maori didn't sign the english version of the treaty because they did not trust the packyha.that mistrust has been proven to be well founded.
@@NA-sj9jy the crown, ie the government represents the queen or king.
Thankyou for asking the question "Did Maori cede sovereignty"
The English version of the Treaty states that sovereignty is ceded. Unequivocally. NZMC v AG case confirms it. End of story. Why doesn't the Minister tell the truth. Chris Bishop is THE reason I didn't vote National at the last election.
What did the Maori treaty state???
Only the final English version applies now we all speak and understand English, that final version sits hidden away in the backstalls of Te Papa found miraculously in 1989 but never made public knowledge! The FINAL English Draft is the Key.
@user-mc6js8or3r Meticulously translated from the FINAL draft which was lost but miraculously found in 1989, it is in the backstalls of Te Papa museum not really acknowledged to the public very treasonous concealment! ThebEnglish draft that has been used at Waitangi Tribunal is a rogue James Freeman version, there were many drafts but the final one was accepted by all Chiefs of whom many spoke and understood English of course. You can learn all the facts from the Stop Co-Governance campaign seminars Julian Bachelor presents, quality work showing the details and documents.
The english version is not what the Maoris were given. Do some research before talking kaka
And the Appeal Court case addresses that point and still held that sovereignty was ceded.
So Chris why are there so many examples of Co Governance in New Zealand
Why do Maori get so many special privilidges
Institutionalized racism is knot special treatment
Can you give us an actual example of insitutionalised racism in NZ lately
yes they did!
If you read the speeches Chiefs gave in 1840, they knew what was going on.
In 1834 they had signed a declaration with George IV giving them independent statehood. The treaty was supposed to be a 50/50 partnership, they weren’t dum, they were an independent state.
Exactly and 20 years later at the Great Assembly of Chiefs in Kohimarama the majority of Chiefs were well pleased with their lot... they were more than happy... also Apirana Ngata explains well in his journal Maori thinking at the time. It all only went pair shaped when the treaty was fiddled with by Activists and their Lawyers and made the ancient document into a "living document" in the 80's... thus started the gravy train and all the problems.
I'd love to read those, as I would like to base my position going forward on 'fact' if possible (hard these days) any chance you can point me in the right direction where they can be found/read
@@valeriehughes1008which activists and lawyers????
@@klburroughsnz read "The Great Divide" by Ian Wishart.
The Maoris did not cede full sovereignty at Waitangi in 1840.
This lie has recently been put out by the Waitangi Tribunal at the behest of part-Maori radicals. By Article One of the Treaty the chiefs ceded full sovereignty of these violent and anarchic islands to Queen Victoria forever as the speeches of Rewa, Te Kemara, Kawiti and other chiefs of the time show. Twenty years later at the Kohimarama (Auckland) conference, the largest gathering of chiefs in New Zealand history, they declared that full sovereignty had been ceded in 1840. If the chiefs did not cede sovereignty, they would have continued their cannibalism, which meant a lot to some of them.
So it didn't happen in ancient Britain ??? 😊
Both participants' statements seem a little simplistic, where simplifying is not helpful in such an important and basic matter. For instance, the statement 'the Treaty is the Foundation Document for the country'. Rather, I'd say, the treaty is one of the foundation documents. Since the Treaty allows for governance according to English law, there are thus two other 'foundation documents' that apply: one is the Magna Carta, of 1215, setting out the principles of English Law, very importantly including a statement of fundamental 'human rights', and allowing for the authority of the English Church. The latter authority involves a further basic founding document; the Sermon on the Mount, from which came the Ten Commandments ('Thou shall not kill' etc.) So, there are at least three 'Founding Documents' to which the parties to the 1840 treaty agreed.
Thankyou!!
Sounds like national is sitting on the fence, looks like in 3 years we have a NZF or ACT lead government as 2.5 million people voted for change to liebour racist policies and nat may not want to change them.
Lots people did not vote for the government. Also is vote for mixture of policies. So those voted for the new government may dislike polices of ACT but like NZ First policy. Not simple
Biggest fear Luxon and National are just another Labour. You get what you vote for.
that's why Winston did so well ... enough people realised the Nats and Lab are basically the same
i always thought Maori ceded sovereignty as a ways of protection from themselves as they were slaughtering each other at the time.
And eating each other....
Bishop didn't clear yes except Sean accepted the response as a definite 'yes'
Very true signing the treaty gave them protection from utu... these wars had raged more than 20 years and Maori had wiped out 1/3 of their own and committed genocide on the Moriori...the treaty would protect them from land grabbing by utu, rape, slavery, and cannibalism.... Robert Stout our first PM as late as 1845 was still struggling to stop some of the more vicious tribes from the practise of cannibalism... he reported that they seemed to lust for human flesh and had little regard for all other tribes.
@@chrismckellar9350 When Luxton finally gets the message the majority want an end to the separatist nonsense he will fall into line... the country can't afford all these separatist groups and their demands... we must go forward as one equal people.
That and they wanted to benefit from a far more advanced society .
Another excellent Plunket interview, the media the way I like my media.
You like your media racist … got it.
@@1Ma9iN8tive If I don't get MY WAY I accuse people of being racist. Is that you mate?
Which is why they now sit in opposition and hopefully for a long time.
THE MAORI RACE DID NOT HAVE "SOVERIGNTY" TO SELL, OR GIVE, OR TRADE AWAY.
THEY HAD DIVISION AND WAR, HATE, AND "UTU" AS THEIR "SOVERIGNTY" AND WAY OF LIFE.
WHERE DO YOU THINK THEIR HAKA DANCE CAME FROM ?
OUT OF A BOTTLE OF BEER ?
I have read some childish statements but you win the prize.
You no nothing of Maoridom society while selling out your own so you are in no position to make judgement on any culture.
I dont see how that was Englands business tbh weather we were fishing or otherwise?
OH DEAR @@matakitaki1 !!!
TRUTH HURT ?
THE FACTS ARE IN THE MULTIPLE INTER TRIBAL WARS THAT WERE HAPPENING ALL OVER NEW ZEALAND BEFORE THE BRITISH MANAGED TO ORGANISE THE MEETINGS AND AGREEMENTS WITH ALL THE MAORI TRIBES, SO GO LOOK UP WHAT THE DEFINITION OF "SOVERIGNTY" IS
( IN AN ENGLISH DICTIONARY ) AND YOU WILL DISCOVER THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO CLAIM TO HAVE IT, WHEN ALL THESE ARGUMENTS AND WARS WERE HAPPENING.
AND ARE YOU DENYING THE ORIGINS OF YOUR HAKA DANCE TOO ?
THE FACTS CANNOT EVER BE CHANGED, ABOUT ANYTHING RECORDED IN HISTORY.
DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND THAT ?
THE MAORIS THAT VOTED FOR THE RACIST MAORI PARTY ( 3% ) SHOULD ALL GET REAL HISTORY LESSONS, AND STOP THE BULLSHIT LIES AND OPINIONS THAT THEY TREAT AS FACTUAL.
HOW MANY IWI WOULD BE LEFT ALIVE TODAY WITHOUT THE PEACE AGREEMENTS THE BRITISH MANAGED TO GET BETWEEN YOU ALL ?
( AND I DO NOT BELIEVE ANY RELIGIOUS
STORIES ABOUT NEW ZEALAND, EITHER )
Chris Bishop dancing on the head of a pin when asked about ceding sovereignty. This ambiguous response which also comes from Chris Luxon is only going to embolden treaty separatists. Thankfully the two other parties in the coalition seem clearer on their position.
If the treaty had Been honored ! So it's know !
Honor the treaty !!!
Hasn't got the guts to answer the question
I am part Maori, the answer is yes.
One nation, one people
Hipkins the then Prime Minister was asked
" What is a woman"
He didn't answer..
He didn't have the guts.
he waffled
Stop sitting on the fence Chris Bishop. Just as well David Seymour & NZ First have the balls to standup and speak the truth. That's what we voted for. We want a referendum.
you won't get one
@@tikeipere8725ae ra pono
In these times Act wants a referendum, , ,
Needs a referee actually😅
He couldn’t just come out a say YES, that would be being too honest and truthful, instead waffle, National need to harden up.
He knows the truth
" Maori did knot cede sovereignty to Britain "
😊
It clearly says that on the documents. Saying "they didn't translate it correctly" would imply ignorance is the defense. Due diligence is required when signing a document (concept that is foriegn). Ignorance has never been a defensible position
It has actually if favour of those who didn't draft
Do you know the full situation ( or near full ) situation at the signing??
These chiefs were smart men - they knew what they were signing. They understood sovereignty.
There was no " ignorance involved"
The Treaty in Maori is the one Maori signed and is the only Treaty recognised by British Law, New Zealand Law and International Law.
The original translation into English which l have had a copy of since the first time it was ever reproduced is NOT LEGAL Tender.
Never was and never will be and was never signed by a single Maori.
Hobson and Banbury Gough who presented the Treaty to Maori to be signed or took the Treaty around the Country to be signed had them read and sign The Maori Version.
2. The deviation of interpretation found in The Original English Translation was noted from 1845 onwards and has been the subject of multiple and many legal cases to as high a Court as The Privy Council and United Nations many many many times since 1846.
This means the Proof of Fact that there has been a LEGAL disagreement, discussion, dispute over some of wording in the English Version has Precedent In Law that is indisputable LEGALLY in New Zealand Courts, The Privy Council and International Law.
The Maori Version has been Ratified in New Zealand Law, British Law and International Law.
Has this made the case clearer for you?
@@glassini do your Arguement is the chiefs were ignorant? Well done 🤣😄
Mana Maaori Motuhake ✊🏽
Just say yes Mr Bishop. Stop trying to sidestep the obvious answer. You are a Minister of the Crown and if you as a Minister of the Crown don't believe Maori ceded sovereignty in 1840 then you should resign from parliament.
I have just re read treaty and article one they clearly cede sovereignty to the queen
But thats one sided... Imagine Chinese came over, and wrote in their language and say.. This means this, just sign it.. Hard to believe that at the time, a language to the natives.. Made sence to them.. Use logic Mate....
Using ''your logic'' then no written document would have made sense to them as they had no written language. People forget that some Maori could understand, read, and write in English and interpret and explain the document to their people, as well as English scholars who studied Maori, there had been enough interaction between Maori and Europeans before the treaty was presented. Every Maori tribe was aware of the English presence and influence and it was their practice to align themselves with the most powerful or influential tribe for their own protection and or advantage, they took it.
@@onepup-pr3ylThe Treaty Was Written in Te Reo Maori.
Hobsons Treaty and the copy Banbury Gough took around NZ was in Te Reo Maori.
The Internationally Ratified Treaty IS the Te Reo Maori Version.
Of course many Maori could read and write in English, Latin and Greek and French.
Numerically and Socially they were far more literate in 1836 to 1860 than 99% of English in the Country.
Their Chiefs were widely traveled especially to England and The USA, India, Indonesia and South Africa, South America, The Pacific.
They had a broad racial and Historical pool of others to discuss Colonisation and experience of it with them.
Major meetings were held in Fiji of all Western Pacific Chiefs in 1826..The Marrakar Piloted most British and French Ships arriving in NZ..
The basic Precedence on Law and Facts on Law stand now just as they did in 1972.
The English Version is null and void.
It means nothing in law.
The Te Reo Version is The Only Treaty.
Maori signed The Te Reo Maori Version.
Maori did NOT Cede Sovereignty.
In NZ and in International Law the Waitangi Tribunal are the Official expert historical and legal research body whose Findings and Reporting will be followed by any NZ, British or International Court of Law.
It’s a matter of record not about sides
Well let's go down the middle then and scrap it and start again with equality @@Emtyone
"Sovereignty" was a foreign concept in pre-European NZ society. Before the pakeha there was only power through force.
Power through force [if you need force] IS part of sovereignty. It was not a foreign concept at all, Te Murries lived by force and the associated sovereignty it brought them every singe day.
It was a yes or no question... hilarious how he tries to spin around multiple times only to end up with an answer that could have been answered with one word. "YES".
Thanks for the discussion
Simple answer NO yes I am a Williams from the Bay of Islands related to the original translator Rev Henry Williams
Thank you 🙂
We are spreading the truth about the Treaty
The only correct treaty is the Maori version, which was translated from Busby's draft and then translated into Maori by the Williams.
There is a rogue English version by James Freeman in 1840
And in 1975 the Waitangi Tribunal changed the meaning and added principles which were never there!
So which version should we follow'?
Or just scrap the whole thing and have a proper modern constitution.
One man one vote
No to tribal rule
Bcos the original maori version in their own lands is the proper treaty without principles added to hide a fraudulent truth
The final draft was found in 1989 its in Te Papa museum probably on a dusty shelf but hey let's get copies and disseminate
Not going to happen sorry.
Take the cheaty of waitangi to a referendum
No thanks. uninformed people like you shouldn't be able to rewrite history
Mob rule. Perfect idea. Worked out great for the Indigenous Australians eh. 🤦🏽
Maori did cede Sovereignty.
Doesnt even mention soveriegnty in either text hahaha
How do you know. Where you at the sighing of the Maori version of the Treaty and do you witness the the chiefs signing the English version of the treaty?
you must need glasses @@pokethepakeha8043
The Maori that didn't sign up didn't sign up because they didn't want to cede sovereignty .
But they did 500 chiefs, read the history
@@Digmen1 But not all .
Chris Bishop is a bob each way man, you can never really take what he says is gospel
That's a national trait😊
Would be a good panel discussion Sean defining the difference between the Māori text of the Treaty of Waitangi versus the English text version. This discussion will help all citizens of New Zealand understand with informed clarity of what the Treaty of Waitangi is - English version, and te Tiriti o Waitangi is - Māori version.
Maori ceded sovereignty over NZ as a whole but not the individual blocks owned by Hapu in which they could live their traditional way
... as long as it did not conflict to horrifically with British laws. The Brits were tolerant of slavery for a while... but the conversion to Christianity soon put paid to that~~
Just a thought, since it is the foundation of law in early nz, Chris should be charged with wilfully inciting people to break law. I look forward to his trial
Taonga is war booty able to be taken at the point of a spear, modern usage is mistaken.
Orh yeah hey look, the reality is, with respect to the issue, at the end of the day, what I would say to you is that, with regard to the issue you raise is that, the bottom line is, and we’ve been very clear on this, and I want to be crystal clear that our position hasn’t changed.
And this is why I will no longer vote National. Gutless, gutless, gutless
Gutless and trying to please everyone
Your so right put your next vote to Te party Maori when they get pressure they are ready to fight for what they believe in ✊🏾
@@geraldseymour5044 silly boy
They are being FULL ON ATTACKED by the media, no wonder National don't want to speak up. They are treated horrendously by the media
@@nowhereman6540 is that or you can say another keyboard warrior 😂
He's obviously only read the English version that barely any chiefs signed. Most chiefs only signed the Reo version of Te Tiriti which states:
A1; Kāwanatanga-Crown can make laws over non Maori.
A2; Tino Rangatiratanga- Hapū Power and Authority continues.
A3; Rite Tahi- Māori will be treated equally
We Did Not Cede Sovereignty!
So What do you want
@@itsjustweard2328 don't even try and act like you care about my opinion bruh 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 the real question here is... What do you expect??? It's just cause and effect bro, the kkkolonisers can't run from their fate, they will reap what they sow whether they like it or not, they can only blame themsleves. Not our fault they're genocidal land & resource theiving kkkolonisers lol
👍🏽
@@itsjustweard2328more to the point, what do you want?
Anyways Honour the treaty
Now National "needs" to come out and say that Maori ceded sovereignty in the Main stream media. Why do they fiddle around this pivotal point!!
Māori did NOT cede sovereignty. End of.
No, they did not cede sovereignty. How could they when they did not actually have it? What they ceded was a nominal sovereignty [in name only] based on the diplomatically recognized previous 1835 'Confederation of Chiefs'. Actual sovereignty was *declared* over the whole of NZ shortly after the signing of the treaty.
The Peace Treaty (The Peace Treaty Of Waitangi) was initiated by the British Crown simply because the British Military couldn't genocide, conquest or conquer the Northern Maori of the 18th century. Ngapuhi was a force to be reckoned with. They butchered the British Military, amputated there bodies and cooked them in a hangi. Those cheifs who did die and spilled blood in battle defending there land culture and family died an honourable death. They paid with there lives and paid in full with there blood. So dont ever think those warrior chiefs bowed down or surrendered sovereignty, sold there souls to a foreign king or queen in England. Dont ever think or believe those warrior chiefs defended and died for there land culture and family to bow down or surrendered sovereign to a foreign king. Dont ever think those warrior chiefs who paid with there blood cede sovereignty to a foreign entity. Those warrior chiefs ate and killed there enemies. Dont ever think or believe those warrior chiefs bowed down to a foreign entity. Those Chiefs welcomed a partnership to work together with British Crown to share power and resources and new technology. Pakeha to govern there own people and Maori to govern there own people. That never happened. The British government took power, wealth and government control by 100%. Hone Heke cut the British flag pole down to symbolize that the treaty was a fraudulent contract being misinterpreted. To those who think Ngapuhi cede sovereignty to the British Crown and military better get a reality check. When you kill butcher and eat your enemy, dont ever think thats an act of ceding sovereignty, to bow down or surrender, to be fearful or be afraid. Dont ever think those warrior chiefs sold there souls to a foreign king and queen. NEVER!!!!! ake ake Amen. They died honourable to defend there land culture and family.
Yes the Maori did cede sovereignty.
No we didnt... Lmao
@@Emtyone The Maori Chiefs "ceded absolutely to the Queen of England for ever the government of all their lands." Word for word of the first article of the Treaty.
@@jamesproudlove1527 - which version are you referring too - Maori or English?
@@jamesproudlove1527you’re reading the English treaty. Totally different and in fact a defunct document. Totally irrelevant and a non issue.
@@Thewandereringanzac No. That is the Maori version as explained by Sir Apirana Ngata.
No, Maori didn't cede sovereignty. The main issue with the difference in versions, is in Te Reo, it gives the "Queen te kawanatanga katoa". The word kawanatanga is not our word. It was introduced to us by the missionaries and an English translated word for governorship.
The treaty authors, Hobson, Busby and Williams knew they couldn't use the words "Tino Rangatira", or "Ariki Tapairu", absolute chieftanship. They knew the natives wouldn't agree to it. These words would be more comparable to 'sovereignty".
Effectively, Maori thought they had signed, "we have rulership over our lands" but the Queen can come govern their unruly settlers that were causing trouble, especially in Russel. This is the main reason why Maori even requested an agreement with the Queen, was to give her power to control her Brittish subjects in a different country.
The interview with Chris Bishop, a key figure in the New Zealand National Party, unveils a subtle yet profound illustration of systemic racism, white supremacy, and the neoliberal agenda that subtly undermines Māori sovereignty and rights, reflecting broader trends of marginalization. This conversation, while appearing innocuous on the surface, cleverly perpetuates a neoliberal ideology that inherently dismisses the specific needs of marginalized communities, particularly Māori, under the guise of national unity and efficiency.
Bishop's comments on the approach to Māori health and sovereignty exemplify a neoliberal contempt for bespoke systems designed to address the distinct needs of marginalized groups. Advocating for a "unified" system, rather than supporting the establishment of a Māori Health Authority, starkly represents institutional racism. This stance overlooks the significant disparities and historical injustices Māori face, emblematic of how neoliberal policies often solidify existing power dynamics, sidelining indigenous needs and voices.
The dialogue surrounding Māori sovereignty and the Treaty of Waitangi further exposes entrenched colonial mindsets within New Zealand's political sphere. The reluctance to fully acknowledge the unceded sovereignty of Māori, alongside a vague affirmation of the Treaty as New Zealand's foundational document, signals a deep disregard for Māori rights. This avoidance to directly recognize Māori sovereignty continues a narrative of white supremacy, maintaining colonial power structures and minimizing the rights and voices of the indigenous population.
Moreover, the interview's downplaying of media narratives about a Māori "revolution" and dismissive references to the government coalition as fascist and racist trivializes genuine concerns regarding racial justice and equality. This not only belittles the Māori struggle but also demonstrates a broader neoliberal strategy of deflecting critique by undermining the legitimacy of opposing voices.
The discussion on the ceding of sovereignty is particularly telling of the ongoing colonial narrative that seeks to negate Māori rights and sovereignty. Bishop's evasive and complex answers regarding Māori sovereignty cession to the British crown underscore a reluctance to address the realities of colonial oppression and its lasting impact on Māori. This hesitancy to affirm the sovereignty Māori never ceded is indicative of the systemic racism and white supremacy that pervades New Zealand's political discourse. By suggesting that Māori willingly relinquished sovereignty, there's a veiled attempt to legitimize the colonial takeover, undermining Māori as equal Treaty partners and overlooking the complexities and imbalances of colonial treaties.
This narrative, along with the advocacy for a singular system of governance and health care, further embeds colonial mindsets, promoting an approach that erases Māori's unique status and needs. Such neoliberal priorities, emphasizing centralization and efficiency, starkly conflict with Māori aspirations for sovereignty and self-determination, highlighting how neoliberal policies serve as contemporary mechanisms of colonialism.
The conversation encapsulated in the interview is not merely political but a vivid reminder of the struggle against systemic racism and white supremacy in New Zealand. It calls for a critical examination of neoliberal policies' role in perpetuating inequalities and marginalization, particularly against Māori. This transcript, through its nuanced perpetuation of colonial and neoliberal ideologies, underscores the need for political discourse and policies to truly embody the Treaty of Waitangi's principles, respecting Māori sovereignty and ensuring equitable partnership in governance and societal progress.
If they didnt its an insurrection or rebellion. You cant have a racial grojp in a country not ceed sovereignty how the f would that work.
A bit late to claim you didn't want to play while you drive to the bach for the weekend.
YES they did.
Nope
"Ya know...ya know....ya know...." (Chris Bishop)
????????? [Na Chris, I don't know!]
Oh gawd I cant unhear that now 😂😂
Yay, you’ve fixed the tile!
Seans not a National fan he clearly thinks their too liberal
NZ's need a clear yes or no, not a willy- nilly, namby-pamby, pussy-footing eh um maybe, I suppose you could say so!
the answer was the same as chris hipkins not knowing what a woman is
Sovereignty on a national basis was ceded... as well, there are the simple facts that, you accept all the benefits of this modern society and as such you implicitly accept the costs and responsibilities - i.e., "social justice"/"social contract". (Glad you understand that idea.)
No no that is just an assumption. The partnership continues whether you like it or not and will hold the crown responsible for any degredation of rights to anybody.
You should appreciate that and use it.
Maori signed a contract with the Crown, not pakeha.
Youre not even a party in the deal so shaaarrdarp 😂
First article of treaty says the chiefs of the confederation of the united tribes and the separate independent chiefs who have not become members of the confederation cede to her majesty the queen of England absolute and without reservation all the rights and the powers of sovereignty etc etc direct quote from treaty not my words bro
@@dancocks7790 Wrong version pal
No it wasnt Tuhoi never sogned the treaty.. Your never ready both treatys ae because you only know English... Relax
Oh look ive been hearing this argument for years and still nobody knows and fewer can agree what it says means or suppose to mean. There's to much guessing what the treaty says. 3 people could read it and you'll get 3 different answers.
Question. If someone gets a paint brush and covers over large parts of the treaty then tells everyone, " this is what it's supposed to say" and demand unconditional acceptance. Is that right/legal?
What bugs me is that I don't care and realistically I think that is the majority view. Whether or not Maori ceded sovereignty in the Treaty of Waitangi has realistically no effect towards whether we have Maori sovereignty now. Our values have progressed and we are now completely self governed in that the crown has no power over us either. It's irritating that there is this much attention given to radicals which will obviously achieve nothing because their goals are psychotic and they absolutely do not represent the nice Maori people of NZ.
How do you account for all the Maori locked up in jail then ?
Wtf are you saying , makes no sense
@@stewatparkpark2933criminals? They have a chip because they don't like the treaty and steal to hit back at govt. Strange that they always quote the treaty as a means to excuse.Excuses Excuses Excuses
@@neilstuarr2278 What bugs me is that I don't care and realistically I think that is the majority view. Whether or not Maori ceded sovereignty in the Treaty of Waitangi has realistically no effect towards whether we have Maori sovereignty now. Our values have progressed and we are now completely self governed in that the crown has no power over us either. It's irritating that there is this much attention given to radicals which will obviously achieve nothing because their goals are psychotic and they absolutely do not represent the nice Maori people of NZ.
Quite simple, you do the crime you do the time@@stewatparkpark2933
How will each MP get expert at understand law?
Why are National such cowards when it comes to treaty issues?
Its not Chris, its Act and Winston
Chris should get work. In a waffle factory 😊
He's in National isn't that waffle enuff😅
Bishop - go READ the treaty. Nowhere is forests or fiseries mentioned. Crikey, I would have thought the leader of the house would be somewhat conversant with this document.
The Labour Party has basically been on holiday for the last decade, which has been reflexed in their performance.
MAori knew they were ceding sovereignty becuase it was they only way they could get ahead and not remain cavemen...Now for the maori, ignorance is bliss and entitles them to everything the pakeha brought to NZ
You ignoramus born of a monkey's arse
Bullshit.
@@kikimarama6652 yeah....Maori rewrote their whole history, changed what the treaty meant to get a LOT...MAori didnt have anything pre pakeha and now try to get everyt BY PHINGLAYING THE VIVTIM CARD
Bullshit.
. @@gloria2383
Go to google type TE TIRITI O WAITANGI GO AND LIE OVER THERE
a clusterfook that will never be resolved, jeez the maori should have spoken to the irish before they made any agreements with the brits.
And like the Irish
" ka whai whai tonu maatou
Ake ake ake !!!
Obviously they did cede something they never has. Maori had no “government” or even unity.
Just say YES, instead of dumb sentences that actually mean........YES
Minister who gets confused at times. The caucus needs to understand the 100% of discussion between the three government parties.
They need to look ahead to the 31 March ( still some economic on follow from Labour) and 30 June Qtrs ( new government).
Alot of criticism of Chris Bishop on here. But he got my respect during that interview with Matty McLean. I mean he let Matty make a complete cock of himself and he didn't even roll around the floor in laughter. He's not that bad.
Yes it was fantastic to see Matty McLean have his lgbqrst tantrum whst a laugh unstable unhinged ssd little ponce
Good to finally hear it!
Hear what? There wasn't a clear yes except Sean accepted the response as a definite 'yes'
WTF is wrong with answering a question truthfully instead of the mealy-mouthed apology given by Bishop. I thought he was better than this.The waffling is unbelievable.
Bishop dances around " THE QUESTION ".
Interesting question isn't it. One could also ask when there were a significant amount more Maori than Pakeha settlers during these times, do we really believe that Maori said "sure, take control of and have our land and country, we don't mind". The Pakeha were the minority back then so I find this hard to believe.
Really? It's not hard to believe when you think how much of a technological advantage the settlers would have had its pretty easy to imagine why Maori might have thought there were advantages to changing their way of life
Yes but they understood the power of British institutions and that more were coming. It was smart to negotiate from a position of strength while they had it
Protection.
Hongi Hika an George 1Vs suit of armour killed and enslaved more maori , in total, than all previous tribal atrocities.
@@mobbarley7517 Really? Do you think Maori were more concerned about some "technology" than their way of life?
@@brent3855 if the technology results in a significantly easier way of life you'd be stupid not to
Maori signed sovereignty away in regards to protection from international interests and control over non Maori.Maori didnt sign away cheiftainship authority over their people,as in day to day order and culture.I would think the best solution is to allow them delegated self autnomy in areas such as education ,language,economic development and for lesser crimes involving Maori victims( exludes rape,murder,treason,aggravated assault)
So Apartheid then?
Bingo , , , truth inda house 😊
@Clanman5769 been active but hidden since 1840
Rubbish, Maori ceded sovereignty, not a little bit here and a little bit there. They have all the choices they could ever want now, far more than they had before, they can choose their education and everything under the Crown's rules, and vote for things like we all do. That is the way of the Crown it is the most successful Government of all time and we all get to play a part in it.
@@paulmeersa7162 we obviously disagree. All good
Luxon is a WEF puppet and Chris doesn't want to answer a direct question! Hmmm🤔
That's areal worry if Luxon is a WEF puppet....we realise of course the Labour Party were definitely under the WEF and WHO....Two of the most evil and melevonant Groups of People ever to exist
That is why this country has a coalition waffle government that has no plans other giving tax cuts to wealthy and property investors.
Last question I heard him answer directly was "Are Maori indigenous to New Zealand?" His answer to that was very revealing.....and obviously very wrong!
W Peters is still there from National.
Its time we stopped referring to Maori as a group We need to refer to The tribes iwi and hapu who signed the treaty. So we have powerful Nation writing a document of intent to get buy in from relativity minor groups. To establish a system to bring some sort of order to NZ. Prior it was the wild west. Or wild south as you could say. Hell hole of the pacific murder slaves general lawless ness. It was a start of the nation we have today but well past its use by!
the tribes signed
Everybody is talking about sovereignty like it's the inalienable deed to a house. The only thing that keeps sovereignty alive is the recognition of the people because it originates in the individual and it needs the people to support it, unless it can be upheld by a minority through force of arms. Signing a treaty does not guarantee sovereignty if the majority of people reject it and it can not be upheld through coercion. So yes, Maori did cede sovereignty. They succumb to disease, they lost the wars, they lost economic and cultural power and they became a minority race in NZ. The Treaty is a nice little fiction to pull out for all parties. Maori can claim they never ceded sovereignty and pakeha can claim Maori gave away their sovereignty and they weren't conquered by a colonial power.
Chris seems to think questions about sovereignty are beyond his pay grade. lol
'The treaty is the foundation document for the country' = treaty-centric. This is a risky approach to take.
There are principles of the Treaty.
No, the Treaty was a very simple document of only three Articles, none of which mentions “principles” or “partnership.” Since the Treaty gave equality for the first time to all the people of New Zealand, the grievance industry of the late twentieth century knew that they could not get special race based privileges from the Treaty itself and so, 150 years after the event, they invented for the first time the fictions of “principles” and “partnership” to give them what the Treaty does not.
There are two conflicting versions of the Treaty one in English and the other in Maori.
There is only one Treaty and it’s in Maori - (Te Tiriti). It was signed by around 500 chiefs. It was translated from the English draft, known as the Littlewood document. Hobson’s secretary, James Freeman, later made some English replica versions of the Treaty, adding his own phrases here and there. Those were neither drafts of the Treaty nor translations of it. But one of these replica versions in English was signed by some chiefs at Waikato Heads because the genuine manuscript copy intended for signing had not arrived in time for the meeting. By the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 the government has adopted this illegitimate version, signed by a mere 49 chiefs in the abovementioned circumstances, as the “official” English Treaty, displacing Te Tiriti that was signed by nearly 500 chiefs!!
Honestly who gives a fig this is the 21st century,rip up the bloody treaty and let’s all live as one under one set of rules,this country is so divided labour and the media have done evthis,and they have the nerve to say it’s this government that’s dividing the country,only had to look at the news story about the fishing comp blockade,with one of the blockades stating its pakeha that are causing the problem with the fishing,racism at its height but because a Maori said it totally ignored.
Conveniently another non Maori wanting to do away with the treaty. Pah.
Isnt strange how kiwis say Americans are stupid re their constitution in that the amendment wereby anyone can bare arms. So you have all these US citizens with hand guns saying its my right and you aint going to take it away. So these same kiwis that think that is stupid (yet they have a signed constitution) go one about the treaty as if we have to follow every letter to the law and that it is a living document. I would say the yanks have more of a right to bare arms than anything written in the treaty
No. Why. Tuhoe has Sovereignty over their whenua, lakes, fauna etc...
They were not even signatories
Why would around 200,000 Maori cede sovereignty to 2000 settlers? Were you guys born yesterday? The Treaty was signed so the crown could govern their lawless settlers who were causing havoc.
and the tribes killing other tribes
How there is even an argument is downright bizarre, what has been status quo for the last 180+ years will prevail, that is maori are answerable to the same system as everyone else 😂 ffs
Shockingly weak answer from Chris on sovereignty.
Absolutely not dummy what part of no don't you understand.
Who the f are these so call Maori is a label that . Was give to them by a Government. They are not Maori but Native people of a country.in 1946 the government made up that name. Not so called Maori we didn’t have a name as a people.Because we where tribe’s
Exactly... the world Maori means natural. The word pakeha means unnatural.
The Treaty of Waitangi validated and secured a colonial idea of NZ. Rooted in the absolute moral categories of the Bible, but never in practice. However, those Maori that watched both boat people arrive from other shores weren't included in the Treaty of Waitangi debacle. So Maori sovereignty was usurped rather than Maori ceceding anything. The Treaty of Waitangi fails as a consequence. Get rid of it and start again with all New Zealand included. The UN Maori Pati doesn't speak for non-woke Maori. God defend New Zealand.
Maori didn't have sovereignty they were mere savages not even a wheel!!
Said absolutely nothing worth listening to.
David semor for new Zealander of the year.
It’s perfectly obvious they ceded power. Otherwise there wouldn’t have been a treaty, all Māori knew perfectly what they were doing, having said that, I understand one chef independently refused to sign. Learnt this at school we also learned from special book and from lessons , many customs and way of living. Played the stick game in class and watched tried the poi’s. I recall one boy got the strap we thought it must been for speaking Māori but when we asked another one laughed and said no it was for calling the head mistress a turd in Māori.
Can’t remember her name now, but she was a tall mannish woman, sharp as, with a built up shoe and slight limp had a huge presence. Hillcrest Normal school in Hamilton. Actually I’m pretty sure I recall now her name being Miss White. Haha quite funny. Edited to say she was head mistress of the Primmers not the whole school.
Why couldn't he just yes if it was a yes Sean? ...how many times did you ask? ...sounded like classic political double speak that you cut to support your own views ...be something that's good in a range of ways doesn't necessarily make it good thing, jack the ripper was good in a range of ways.
To all these idiots, no Māori didn’t cede sovereignty. Bishop won’t say it because he knows they don’t especially in the way Sean is asking. Embarrassing that after 180+ years and now decades of treaty and law experts you still have drongos on here who just don’t get it
Actually you are the embarrassment - the only reason for all this argument is to keep your gravy train alive so you can milk more money from the country...such is Maori greed you will never be satisfied - you just rewrite history to suit yourself and the country keeps carrying you as you do not pull your own weight! Now the majority of the country have had enough. The country simply can't afford to indulge you any more... For 180 years we have lived our lives under democracy as one equal people and the majority of us have worked, loved, intermarried, happily shared each other's cultures and moved together as one people... but not the vicious ranting, racist, Activist who have brought us to this place they need more and more. There is a wealth of true records of what went on in early NZ history - they are held in our archives, NSW archives, English archives... also a great deal of writings by outstanding Maori and European alike who lived the times and recorded the thoughts of the people - Maori and European alike ... oh but you don't bother about them, what they had to say would end your arguments, so you close your ears happy to remain ignorant and a racist.... all for the greed of your back pocket! Shame on you thinking you have the right to call Arpirana Ngata a liar, he was a man of great mana and wisdom who achieved much and all NZ of the day (all cultures) revered him!
Maori did not cede Sovereignty to the Crown. That is total rubbish. Why would Maori give up their country to people from another Country. That is why the racist remarks are comng from Maori
because the Government is wording the Treaty to make it sound like they did. We all know a lot of the land was stolen from Maori. You don't call that cede more like theft.
those tribes that didnt sign have alot to give back to the crown
The crown has the responsibility to look after generations of welfare recipients not me or my family