29 November 2017

As reported in Stuff.

Sir William Gallagher is woefully ill-informed about the Treaty of Waitangi, notable academics say.

University of Auckland professor Dame Anne Salmond, one of the country’s most distinguished historians, said, “If you haven’t taken the trouble to get a balanced view, your views aren’t worth a lot. We need to stop having double standards, and stop allowing people who really don’t know much to be given some sort of credence, because the fact they claim the authority on such matters is worrying.”

Maori didn’t cede sovereignty (Sic. Stuff can’t even spell the word correctly)

As with any contract, it’s the signed version of the Treaty of Waitangi that counts, Dame Anne said. There is no questioning the legitimacy of the Treaty of Waitangi, signed and marked with moko, and since validated by scholars.

The Maori version of the Treaty of Waitangi was the most important for understanding the contract, as the agreement was debated in Maori, Dame Anne said.

It shows Maori did not cede sovereignty, but instead agreed to a gift exchange: kawanatanga for tino rangatiratanga.

“Kawanatanga was given to the Queen, and that was very clearly the right to have a governor, but a governor was not the same as a sovereign. The chiefs were granted tino rangatiratanga too, and those are the absolute powers of a chief.

“Working out how those things balance out, and how they’ve balanced out over time, is really what we’re dealing with in discussions around the Treaty.”

National co-ordinator for education program Tangata Tirirti, Dr Ingrid Huygens, said it was ignorance that put Sir William so wrong.

“The 2014 Waitangi Tribunal found Maori did not give up sovereignty, in Te Tiriti, the Maori text.

“I’m guessing that William Gallagher will only ever have read the English version of the Treaty, which does say that Maori hereby cede sovereignty. But Te Tiriti o Waitangi doesn’t say that, in fact it affirms that Maori retain their rangatiratanga.”

Guesswork is what it’s all about! And “double standards” are rife in academia. And ‘notable’ because of their bias and self-imposed, politically-correct ignorance. Is that because of thoroughly well-informed self-interest? Or real ignorance? Neither option is reassuring.

Seemingly – that 100% pro-Maori advocacy group, the racially-biased Waitangi Tribunal – decided in 2014, 174 years after-the-fact, just what the signatories were thinking way back then, when the tangata Maori chiefs signed the Treaty in 1840!

Let’s deal with that one item in that load of bollocks that the Stuff article is.

But before getting into those details, it’s important to be aware that the written and oral Maori language of 1840 did not have translations of certain English words. That was a difficulty facing the two men who translated the final English draft into the Maori language Treaty text. Examples of no corresponding Maori language meaning for English words are captain, lieutenant and democracy. (An unthinkable concept to the feudal, tribal Maori society of that era.)

Now, looking at the details in the Littlewood document, the final English language draft that was translated into the Treaty that was signed at Waitangi in February, 1840 . . .

Click here to see the first page. Quoted below is the text.

Her Majesty Victoria, Queen of England in Her gracious consideration of the chiefs and the people of New Zealand – and Her desire to preserve to them their lands and to maintain peace and order amongst them, has been pleased to appoint an officer to treat with them for the cession of the Sovereignty of their country and of the islands adjacent, to the Queen. Seeing that many of Her Majesty’s subjects have already settled in the country and are constantly arriving, and it is desirable for their protection as well as the protection of the natives, to establish a government amongst them.

Her Majesty has accordingly been pleased to appoint Mr. William Hobson, a captain in the Royal Navy to be Governor of such parts of New Zealand as may now or hereafter be ceded to Her Majesty and proposes to the chiefs of the Confederation of United Tribes of New Zealand and the other chiefs to agree to the following articles.

Article first –
The chiefs of the Confederation of the United Tribes and the other chiefs who have not joined the confederation, cede to the Queen of England for ever the . . .

(End of side one of the paper)

Click here to view the second page.

Transcription of page two of the Littlewood draft:

. . . entire Sovereignty of their country.

Article second –
The Queen of England confirms and guarantees to the chiefs and the tribes and to all the people of New Zealand, the possession of their lands, dwellings and all their property. But the chiefs of the Confederation of United Tribes and the other chiefs grant to the Queen, the exclusive rights of purchasing such lands as the proprietors thereof may be disposed to sell at such prices as may be agreed upon between them and the person appointed by the Queen to purchase from them.

Article third –
In return for the cession of their Sovereignty to the Queen, the people of New Zealand shall be protected by the Queen of England and the rights and privileges of British subjects will be granted to them.

Signed William Hobson
Consul and Lieut. Governor.

Now we the chiefs of the Confederation of United Tribes of New Zealand assembled at Waitangi, and we the other tribes of New Zealand, having understood the meaning of these articles, accept them and agree to them all. In witness whereof our names or marks are affixed. Done at Waitangi on the 4th of February, 1840.

(End of side two of the paper)

Did you see the expression “cession of the Sovereignty?” The experts and academics are wilfully blind. They don’t want to see it. It matters not that the Maori-language Treaty is referenced by the blinded-by-their-qualifications brainwashed. The meaning was unambiguous – even in the Maori language – and accounts of the reactions of the assembled chiefs made it abundantly clear that they knew what they were surrendering.

Some of the assembled chiefs found it abhorrent that they were surrendering their sovereignty to a woman – Queen Victoria. But others could see the advantages of British rule-of-law and its protections and persuaded the dissenters to change their views.

Note that the Littlewood draft is carefully concealed from public gaze by not being displayed in the ‘Constitution room’  (or elsewhere) along with the fake documents Sir William referred to, in his speech. The copy you’ll see in the links provided here had to be specifically requested from Archives New Zealand.

Without the starry-eyed notions of politically correctness, over-qualification and brain-washed guesswork, you be the judge.

3 thoughts on “Pseudo-Experts Attempt de-construction of Sir William’s claims

  1. Its a religion for them, one cannot argue against dogma. In essence Maoridom today is no different from a religion, a dangerous one at that as more fools are being indoctrinated everyday at the expense of all Kiwis including Maori.

  2. Sir Apirana Ngata, Minister of Native Affairs stated in his book, The Treaty of Waitangi – An Explanation in 1922: The chiefs placed in the hands of the Queen of England, the sovereignty and authority to make laws. Some sections of the maori people violated that authority, war arose and blood was spilled. The law came into operation and land was taken in payment. It was their chiefs who ceded that right to the Queen. The confiscations cannot therefore be objected to in the light of the Treaty.”

    If the confiscations cannot therefore be objected to in the light of the Treaty of Waitangi, why do we have a Waitangi Tribunal Act?

    The tribes that caused most of the trouble such as Waikato, Ngaitahu, Taranaki and Tuhoe were the tribes that in one case did not sign the Treaty but have used it to gain compensation and assets.

    How did that work?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.Required fields are marked *

%d bloggers like this: