My first impressions were very favourable. As is obvious in the book's references and bibliography, the author has drawn from a very wide range of primary sources, notably early correspondence collections and government reports.
My high hopes, however, were
short-lived. In her introduction the author stated that “the Maori were
guaranteed full rights of ownership of their lands, forests, fisheries and
other prized possessions.” As even a quick look makes clear, there is nothing
about forests and fisheries in Te Tiriti.
I then wondered what the
author would have made of the word 'taonga' in Te Tiriti. I assumed she would
have spent some time in researching its 1840 meaning.
In her copious notes,
however, I found no mention of Kendall and Lee's 1820 vocabulary, the Williams'
1844 dictionary or Frederick Maning's account of old New Zealand. Had she
checked these, she would have learnt that taonga were simply goods, property,
things, chattels, or in modern parlance – stuff! (Note: Some may have been
treasures, but this is a secondary meaning).
Claudia Orange, however, has
relied on others for translation. On page 250 of her book (1987 edition) she
talks of the Waitangi Tribunal's report on the Maori Language Claim. The
'taonga' guaranteed by article two of the treaty, the report noted, had
incorporated the Maori language, because taonga included intangible as well as
tangible things! She also noted that the Tribunal's terms of reference included
the task of determining the treaty's meaning and intent.
As is becoming increasingly
clear, the Waitangi Tribunal relies a lot more on wishful thinking than solid
research. Yet it continues have the Government, its departments and agencies
firmly in its grip.
I would have expected better
of Claudia Orange though. By not independently researching the meaning of Te Tiriti
she has badly let her readers down. For those wanting this vital information
her book is indeed a lemon.
5 comments:
The problem of treaty interpretation starts with Section 5 of the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975, which says the Waitangi Tribunal "shall have exclusive authority to determine the meaning and effect of the treaty as embodied in the 2 texts and to decide issues raised by the differences between them".
Never let the truth interfere with a good story....I believe that's the waitangi tribunals motto
The question remains as to how relevant is the Waitangi Tribunal? Far to many decisions and comments show an unacceptably low level of historical knowledge. There is an increasing level of distrust and disrespect for the Tribunal. That makes it redundant.
The Constitution Advisory Panel intend to advise that The Treaty of Waitangi be enshrined as the basis of a new written constitution that they will recommend to Government.
It would be silly beyond belief to adopt such a recommendation about a document (or documents in its various editions)which has been argued and disagreed about, as to its original meaning, for the past 150 years.
It is staggering that an English speaking, and dare I say it white society, has put such a cross on its back. But we have to consider now seventy and more years of cultural relativism and Cultural Marxism have had their affect. Plus this happening in a society that puts Barry Crump as its model. And since at least the 1970s has systematically destroyed professional education. Sociologists must be rubbing their hands in glee.
Post a Comment
Thanks for engaging in the debate!
Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.