Was the Treaty of Waitangi an act of love or a vast deception?
The answer to that question is neither of those alternatives!!
It is indeed a common trick of hucksters and even, sadly, of politicians, to present false alternative answers to a question (sidestepping the correct answer) and inviting the audience to choose between them. We should be decidedly naive if we fell for that trick on this occasion.
The article states correctly that at the great meeting on 5th February 1840, after Hobson had read the text of his final draft of 4th February, Henry Williams read the text in Maori, which he and his son, Edward had translated on the intervening evening and quotes Williams, many years later, saying that it was “an act of love towards [the Maori people] by the Queen.
However, Matthews’ current article then goes on to ask, in bold type: “But was it really an act of love, or was it a vast deception? And if Williams deliberately mistranslated the treaty into Māori, as historians believe, why did he do so? And what are the implications for New Zealand in 2022?”
The answer to the question: “was it a vast deception?”, is a categorical and emphatic “NO!”.
That question is indeed no more than a nasty piece of latter-day politicking. And do all historians believe that “Williams deliberately mistranslated” Hobson’s text? Matthews’ “why did he do so?” is a fake question since the premise on which he bases it is false. While indeed the Williams, father and son and both very competent speakers of the local Maori tongue, did have some difficulty in choosing Maori terms for words in English for which there was no equivalent in classic Maori, a comparison of their translation with Hobson’s final draft of 4th February makes it abundantly clear that they performed their task faithfully to provide an accurate Maori version. Moreover, the following morning, several persons reviewed their text with Busby suggesting the change of one word: substitution of “wakaminenga” for “huihuinga”. Can any honest person seriously believe, in these known circumstances, that, as Matthews asks, “[Did] Williams deliberately mistranslate the treaty into Māori?”
Well, Orange, maybe? We refer to her text of which thousands of copies have been sold, (Claudia Orange, “The Treaty of Waitangi”, Allen and Unwin, 1987 – 2nd edition 2015).
On page 40 she states “Williams may have decided to recast the English draft as translators often do. A comparison of the English and Maori texts tends to confirm this view." and on the next page: “It is possible that [Williams] chose an obscure and ambiguous wording in order to secure Maori agreement" - a base slur on Williams' integrity and no more than guesswork.
Then Orange claims that the Williams, father and son, were not competent translators although she did know that Williams’ biographer, Hugh Carleton, (who actually used the Latin tag: “facile princeps”) had said that Edward was a scholar in the Maori language “without peer”, which she dismisses as “something of an exaggeration”. This is speculation, not scholarship.
Matthews proceeds by making a decided change of tack, by discussing Williams’ “morality”. He refers to Williams’ letter of 1837 which asserted a need for British government to protect “respectable Europeans and ‘the natives’ [sic]” from “a swarm of rogues and vagabonds” [sic], presumably the disreputable inhabitants of Kororareka. Yet in reality, the warlike and well-armed Ngapuhi could have massacred most of those “rogues” in a matter of hours and swept the remainder into the sea, had they chosen to do so. Indeed, in his 1844 rebellion, Hone Heke very nearly did so, Kororareka, or Russell as it became, being saved only by the intervention of loyal Ngapuhi under the leadership of Waka Nene. In fact, as Hazel Petrie makes clear in her 2006 book “Chiefs of Industry”, ISBN 978-1-869403768, the Ngapuhi chiefs actually welcomed the presence of outsiders for the various benefits they perceived that they brought. So that issue is entirely irrelevant!
Matthews continues at this point with:”Fast-forward to February 1840. Williams had one night to turn the Treaty into Te Tiriti. Yet he got it wrong in significant ways, and the mystery remains: why was the most important translation in New Zealand history deliberately botched?” While indeed Williams and his son had just one night to translate Hobson’s final drat in English into Maori, the second sentence of this statement is a gross falsehood, indeed a foul lie, repeatedly stated in similar terms by racist provocateurs today setting out to destroy democracy in our once fair country.
Let it be stated here, loudly and clearly:
1. The Williams did not get their translation wrong in any significant way whatever.
2. Their translation was not “deliberately botched” and anybody saying so commits a gross slander on their memory.
3. Whether it was “the most important translation in New Zealand history” is merely a matter of opinion.
In short, Matthews' statement is a gross distortion of the truth.
He proceeds with his justification for what he says, thus: “In the first article of the Treaty, Williams translated the English word 'sovereignty' into the Māori word ‘kāwanatanga’, meaning governorship." Yet Māori would not have assumed governorship meant the absolute power that was sovereignty. ‘Mana’ would have been better, which Williams had used when translating the Declaration of Independence in 1835.”
This is yet another falsehood, first in his reference to ‘the Māori word “kāwanatanga”’ because there was no such Maori word as “kawanatanga” and indeed the concept of sovereignty in any sense was but vaguely developed in pre-European Maori society, albeit the power of a multitude of chiefs of varying rank was well understood. This difficulty was indeed plain enough to Henry Williams who had used “mana” for “sovereignty” in translating Busby’s 1835 paper tiger the “Declaration of Independence” but which by 1840 and therefore, after lengthy consideration, he had decided was inappropriate.
“Mana” may be rejected for the reason that it is a personal attribute of any person in whom it is recognized but “sovereignty” is an enduring one passing to a sovereign’s heir, however chosen, on the death or deposition of the current sovereign.
These are not trivial issues. They have exercised better minds than Matthews’ for many a year.
The real issue to be addressed is what the chiefs assembled at Waitangi understood to be the meaning of “kawanatanga” at that time and here we have no cause for doubt, since the proceedings on 5th February were faithfully and fully recorded by mission printer Colenso and checked by Busby at the time, albeit they were not published by Colenso until 1890.
This important record is entirely ignored by a multitude of today’s treaty-twisters though it is addressed in P.Moon and P.Biggs’ 2004 treatise: “The Treaty and its Times”, ISBN0908618-18-2.
Colenso’s record leaves absolutely no cause for doubt that chiefs who spoke at Waitangi that day, both for and against signing, understood fully that by signing they would become subordinate to the Governor and hence a fortiori to the Queen.
One critically important point ignored by today’s treaty-twisters is that translation is not the same as derivation. It must be patently obvious to all that “kawanatanga” is derived from “kawana”, a maorification of “governor”, with the suffix “tanga” meaning “attribute of” or “-ship” but its meaning is “sovereignty” (Many examples from other languages maybe cited.)
In summary: those chiefs who signed the Treaty of Waitangi ceded whatever rights of sovereignty the possessed completely and for ever to the Queen of England. No amount of denial by the corrupt Waitangi Tribunal (in 2014) (as described by Matthews in bold type as a “landmark ruling”) or anybody else can alter that plain fact.
Matthews next turns his attention to Article second of the Treaty, stating correctly that the Williams translated “possession” of property as “tino rangatiratanga”. The problem here once again for the Williams, is that the Maori language lacked a word for “possession”, simply because Maoris did not have any clear idea of personal possession of property, beyond “taonga”, that is, as stated by Hongi Hika to Lee and Kendall who in 1822 were compiling the first dictionary of the Maori language, as “property acquired by the spear” (tao).
Apparently, since there is no sure way of telling, the chiefs had greater rights over property than commoners, and with the emphasis given by “tino”, the Williams made their translation accordingly. But and this is the bit which the twisters almost invariably ignore entirely, tino rangatiratanga was assured to “tangata katoa o Nu Tirani”! That unequivocally means just one thing: “All the people of New Zealand” and “all” means “all”, without distinction. (Note in passing that at no point whatever, does the Treaty refer to “Aotearoa” a fancy name for our country not even invented in 1840.)
Matthews continues with the unfounded speculation that all this “suggest[ed] that a greater level of control and authority stayed with Māori than in the English language document.” What nonsense! Nobody at Waitangi had any time for such devious manoeuvring.
Then he says: “Historians and commentators have debated these changes at length. The most flattering version is that Williams fudged the meanings so that chiefs would sign, as having no treaty may have been even worse for Māori.” Historians and commentators in their armchairs may have indulged in such speculation but any suggestion that “Williams fudged the meanings” is an unfounded slur upon his integrity.
Any reading of Colonial Secretary Normandy’s instructions makes it abundantly clear that Hobson was to proceed in the utmost good faith in his proceedings and there can be no honest doubt that he, ably supported by Busby, Williams, Colenso, and others, did exactly that.
Matthews proceeds to ask: “What did Māori really want?” quoting Swainson in 1859 saying that if Maori had been aware that giving away sovereignty meant “they gave us the power to abrogate their own usages and customs, to destroy the power of their own chiefs, and to impose our own laws upon them”, it is unlikely a single chief would have signed.”
But Swainson’s speculation was entirely wrong since the very next year at the concluding meeting of the great assembly of Maori chiefs at Kohimarama on 10th August 1860, the 104 chiefs present unanimously passed the resolution: “That this Conference takes cognizance of the fact that the several Chiefs, members thereof, are pledged to each other to do nothing inconsistent with their declared recognition of the Queen’s sovereignty, and of the union of the two races; also to discountenance all proceedings tending to a breach of the covenant here solemnly entered into by them.”
That e hoa, is unequivocal! Every Member of Parliament, every part-Maori radical, every university vice-chancellor and professor, every judge in the country, every member of the Waitangi Tribunal, past and present, every school principal, every bishop and everybody else who loves this country, should read and reread that solemn statement until it is burned into their brains for ever.
There is more in Matthews’ diatribe almost too tiresome to relate. “[W]ater”, he says, “is a taonga, mentioned in the Treaty”. This yet again, is blatantly untrue, and illustrates the common and nasty trick of the treaty-twisters of asserting that anything they might claim to be a “taonga” today was guaranteed to them by the Treaty. Not so! The only “taonga” guaranteed to anybody by the Treaty was what were considered to be “taonga” in 1840 - personal property, guaranteed to “all the people of New Zealand” irrespective of race or any other qualification.
“A treaty”, he claims, “can evolve ... just as Treaty Principles became law in 1989 and have guided decision-making since.” Well, no it can’t - and to assume that this semi-formal agreement, the so-called “Treaty of Waitangi” continues to “evolve” 182 years later is the height of hypocrisy by any standard.
He quotes also some wild hypotheses by Paul Moon (not a relation) such as that “They wanted permission from the chiefs to exercise British law over British subjects. That explains the Treaty completely.” If indeed that is what Moon thinks, I suggest that he – and Matthews – read carefully the Colonial Secretary’s 4200-word brief to Hobson of 14th August 1839 and Hobson’s words at Waitangi on 5th February 1840 and continue to study both until they understand them fully.
It would be too much, I surmise, to expect "Stuff" to cease publicising the racist propaganda for which it is well subsidised with taxpayer money by the Government. Matthews, a former arts and book editor with the "Listener" would be well advised to stay with subjects he knows something about. As for Orange ... !
He concludes with a quotation from her: “People should feel really pleased that we have an unusual country and a unique Treaty relationship, and Crown-Māori relationship, or Māori-Crown relationship”. Yeah! Right!
Bruce Moon is a retired computer pioneer who wrote "Real Treaty; False Treaty - The True Waitangi Story". Also authored - New Zealand: The Fair Colony
However, Matthews’ current article then goes on to ask, in bold type: “But was it really an act of love, or was it a vast deception? And if Williams deliberately mistranslated the treaty into Māori, as historians believe, why did he do so? And what are the implications for New Zealand in 2022?”
The answer to the question: “was it a vast deception?”, is a categorical and emphatic “NO!”.
That question is indeed no more than a nasty piece of latter-day politicking. And do all historians believe that “Williams deliberately mistranslated” Hobson’s text? Matthews’ “why did he do so?” is a fake question since the premise on which he bases it is false. While indeed the Williams, father and son and both very competent speakers of the local Maori tongue, did have some difficulty in choosing Maori terms for words in English for which there was no equivalent in classic Maori, a comparison of their translation with Hobson’s final draft of 4th February makes it abundantly clear that they performed their task faithfully to provide an accurate Maori version. Moreover, the following morning, several persons reviewed their text with Busby suggesting the change of one word: substitution of “wakaminenga” for “huihuinga”. Can any honest person seriously believe, in these known circumstances, that, as Matthews asks, “[Did] Williams deliberately mistranslate the treaty into Māori?”
Well, Orange, maybe? We refer to her text of which thousands of copies have been sold, (Claudia Orange, “The Treaty of Waitangi”, Allen and Unwin, 1987 – 2nd edition 2015).
On page 40 she states “Williams may have decided to recast the English draft as translators often do. A comparison of the English and Maori texts tends to confirm this view." and on the next page: “It is possible that [Williams] chose an obscure and ambiguous wording in order to secure Maori agreement" - a base slur on Williams' integrity and no more than guesswork.
Then Orange claims that the Williams, father and son, were not competent translators although she did know that Williams’ biographer, Hugh Carleton, (who actually used the Latin tag: “facile princeps”) had said that Edward was a scholar in the Maori language “without peer”, which she dismisses as “something of an exaggeration”. This is speculation, not scholarship.
Matthews proceeds by making a decided change of tack, by discussing Williams’ “morality”. He refers to Williams’ letter of 1837 which asserted a need for British government to protect “respectable Europeans and ‘the natives’ [sic]” from “a swarm of rogues and vagabonds” [sic], presumably the disreputable inhabitants of Kororareka. Yet in reality, the warlike and well-armed Ngapuhi could have massacred most of those “rogues” in a matter of hours and swept the remainder into the sea, had they chosen to do so. Indeed, in his 1844 rebellion, Hone Heke very nearly did so, Kororareka, or Russell as it became, being saved only by the intervention of loyal Ngapuhi under the leadership of Waka Nene. In fact, as Hazel Petrie makes clear in her 2006 book “Chiefs of Industry”, ISBN 978-1-869403768, the Ngapuhi chiefs actually welcomed the presence of outsiders for the various benefits they perceived that they brought. So that issue is entirely irrelevant!
Matthews continues at this point with:”Fast-forward to February 1840. Williams had one night to turn the Treaty into Te Tiriti. Yet he got it wrong in significant ways, and the mystery remains: why was the most important translation in New Zealand history deliberately botched?” While indeed Williams and his son had just one night to translate Hobson’s final drat in English into Maori, the second sentence of this statement is a gross falsehood, indeed a foul lie, repeatedly stated in similar terms by racist provocateurs today setting out to destroy democracy in our once fair country.
Let it be stated here, loudly and clearly:
1. The Williams did not get their translation wrong in any significant way whatever.
2. Their translation was not “deliberately botched” and anybody saying so commits a gross slander on their memory.
3. Whether it was “the most important translation in New Zealand history” is merely a matter of opinion.
In short, Matthews' statement is a gross distortion of the truth.
He proceeds with his justification for what he says, thus: “In the first article of the Treaty, Williams translated the English word 'sovereignty' into the Māori word ‘kāwanatanga’, meaning governorship." Yet Māori would not have assumed governorship meant the absolute power that was sovereignty. ‘Mana’ would have been better, which Williams had used when translating the Declaration of Independence in 1835.”
This is yet another falsehood, first in his reference to ‘the Māori word “kāwanatanga”’ because there was no such Maori word as “kawanatanga” and indeed the concept of sovereignty in any sense was but vaguely developed in pre-European Maori society, albeit the power of a multitude of chiefs of varying rank was well understood. This difficulty was indeed plain enough to Henry Williams who had used “mana” for “sovereignty” in translating Busby’s 1835 paper tiger the “Declaration of Independence” but which by 1840 and therefore, after lengthy consideration, he had decided was inappropriate.
“Mana” may be rejected for the reason that it is a personal attribute of any person in whom it is recognized but “sovereignty” is an enduring one passing to a sovereign’s heir, however chosen, on the death or deposition of the current sovereign.
These are not trivial issues. They have exercised better minds than Matthews’ for many a year.
The real issue to be addressed is what the chiefs assembled at Waitangi understood to be the meaning of “kawanatanga” at that time and here we have no cause for doubt, since the proceedings on 5th February were faithfully and fully recorded by mission printer Colenso and checked by Busby at the time, albeit they were not published by Colenso until 1890.
This important record is entirely ignored by a multitude of today’s treaty-twisters though it is addressed in P.Moon and P.Biggs’ 2004 treatise: “The Treaty and its Times”, ISBN0908618-18-2.
Colenso’s record leaves absolutely no cause for doubt that chiefs who spoke at Waitangi that day, both for and against signing, understood fully that by signing they would become subordinate to the Governor and hence a fortiori to the Queen.
One critically important point ignored by today’s treaty-twisters is that translation is not the same as derivation. It must be patently obvious to all that “kawanatanga” is derived from “kawana”, a maorification of “governor”, with the suffix “tanga” meaning “attribute of” or “-ship” but its meaning is “sovereignty” (Many examples from other languages maybe cited.)
In summary: those chiefs who signed the Treaty of Waitangi ceded whatever rights of sovereignty the possessed completely and for ever to the Queen of England. No amount of denial by the corrupt Waitangi Tribunal (in 2014) (as described by Matthews in bold type as a “landmark ruling”) or anybody else can alter that plain fact.
Matthews next turns his attention to Article second of the Treaty, stating correctly that the Williams translated “possession” of property as “tino rangatiratanga”. The problem here once again for the Williams, is that the Maori language lacked a word for “possession”, simply because Maoris did not have any clear idea of personal possession of property, beyond “taonga”, that is, as stated by Hongi Hika to Lee and Kendall who in 1822 were compiling the first dictionary of the Maori language, as “property acquired by the spear” (tao).
Apparently, since there is no sure way of telling, the chiefs had greater rights over property than commoners, and with the emphasis given by “tino”, the Williams made their translation accordingly. But and this is the bit which the twisters almost invariably ignore entirely, tino rangatiratanga was assured to “tangata katoa o Nu Tirani”! That unequivocally means just one thing: “All the people of New Zealand” and “all” means “all”, without distinction. (Note in passing that at no point whatever, does the Treaty refer to “Aotearoa” a fancy name for our country not even invented in 1840.)
Matthews continues with the unfounded speculation that all this “suggest[ed] that a greater level of control and authority stayed with Māori than in the English language document.” What nonsense! Nobody at Waitangi had any time for such devious manoeuvring.
Then he says: “Historians and commentators have debated these changes at length. The most flattering version is that Williams fudged the meanings so that chiefs would sign, as having no treaty may have been even worse for Māori.” Historians and commentators in their armchairs may have indulged in such speculation but any suggestion that “Williams fudged the meanings” is an unfounded slur upon his integrity.
Any reading of Colonial Secretary Normandy’s instructions makes it abundantly clear that Hobson was to proceed in the utmost good faith in his proceedings and there can be no honest doubt that he, ably supported by Busby, Williams, Colenso, and others, did exactly that.
Matthews proceeds to ask: “What did Māori really want?” quoting Swainson in 1859 saying that if Maori had been aware that giving away sovereignty meant “they gave us the power to abrogate their own usages and customs, to destroy the power of their own chiefs, and to impose our own laws upon them”, it is unlikely a single chief would have signed.”
But Swainson’s speculation was entirely wrong since the very next year at the concluding meeting of the great assembly of Maori chiefs at Kohimarama on 10th August 1860, the 104 chiefs present unanimously passed the resolution: “That this Conference takes cognizance of the fact that the several Chiefs, members thereof, are pledged to each other to do nothing inconsistent with their declared recognition of the Queen’s sovereignty, and of the union of the two races; also to discountenance all proceedings tending to a breach of the covenant here solemnly entered into by them.”
That e hoa, is unequivocal! Every Member of Parliament, every part-Maori radical, every university vice-chancellor and professor, every judge in the country, every member of the Waitangi Tribunal, past and present, every school principal, every bishop and everybody else who loves this country, should read and reread that solemn statement until it is burned into their brains for ever.
There is more in Matthews’ diatribe almost too tiresome to relate. “[W]ater”, he says, “is a taonga, mentioned in the Treaty”. This yet again, is blatantly untrue, and illustrates the common and nasty trick of the treaty-twisters of asserting that anything they might claim to be a “taonga” today was guaranteed to them by the Treaty. Not so! The only “taonga” guaranteed to anybody by the Treaty was what were considered to be “taonga” in 1840 - personal property, guaranteed to “all the people of New Zealand” irrespective of race or any other qualification.
“A treaty”, he claims, “can evolve ... just as Treaty Principles became law in 1989 and have guided decision-making since.” Well, no it can’t - and to assume that this semi-formal agreement, the so-called “Treaty of Waitangi” continues to “evolve” 182 years later is the height of hypocrisy by any standard.
He quotes also some wild hypotheses by Paul Moon (not a relation) such as that “They wanted permission from the chiefs to exercise British law over British subjects. That explains the Treaty completely.” If indeed that is what Moon thinks, I suggest that he – and Matthews – read carefully the Colonial Secretary’s 4200-word brief to Hobson of 14th August 1839 and Hobson’s words at Waitangi on 5th February 1840 and continue to study both until they understand them fully.
It would be too much, I surmise, to expect "Stuff" to cease publicising the racist propaganda for which it is well subsidised with taxpayer money by the Government. Matthews, a former arts and book editor with the "Listener" would be well advised to stay with subjects he knows something about. As for Orange ... !
He concludes with a quotation from her: “People should feel really pleased that we have an unusual country and a unique Treaty relationship, and Crown-Māori relationship, or Māori-Crown relationship”. Yeah! Right!
Bruce Moon is a retired computer pioneer who wrote "Real Treaty; False Treaty - The True Waitangi Story". Also authored - New Zealand: The Fair Colony
8 comments:
They are called culture vultures Bruce. Just hang around the periphery cheering the protagonists on the off chance that they may pick up a few leftovers from the main troughers. Not unlike hyenas.
Kawanatanga did already exist in the Maori language, albeit as a borrow word from English based on "Governor". It is the word used in the Maori bible for the authority of God - that is, an authority over which there is no other. Christianity was rapidly embraced by Maori and by 1860 the word 'kawanatanga' would have been instantly recognisable as that which was greater than the authority of the chiefs. This makes it the perfect choice to indicate total cession of sovereignty and, as you note, was absolutely not lost on the chiefs who spoke.
Kawanatanga may not have existed then but it is alive and kicking in this revisionistic, selective truther society we current exit in.
Have a glance at any government literature and the NZ Government is now in bold branded as Te Kawanatanga o Aoteatoa.
Even yesterday Mahuta on an official comment about the Russia/Ukraine conflict use Aotearoa New Zealand as our name. That is nuts when the public have had no say and our OFFICIAL name is still New Zealand.
Brilliant analysis Bruce and one that deserves a wide audience. These academic pseudo-historians have a vested interest in twisting their interpretations to ensure that their tenure is not in jeopardy but continues to provide their employment; that is assuming that they can understand the material with which they work. I would like to think their misleading opinions are the result of their lack of insight rather than anything deliberate and that its meshing in with the aspirations of those on the gravy train is coincidental.
T[ return to the initial question, the ToW was one of many hundreds of treaties that the British concluded with local 'strong men' particularly in Africa during the 19th century. The International Court of Justice in 2002 held that these were not binding under international law. The ToW is no exception.
Just “haters and wreckers” according to Helen !!
Claudia Orange, sometime Keith Sinclair protégée, fails to mention except in a small footnote the refusal of major tribes to adhere to what she nowhere mentions they called 'that Ngapuhi thing'. The mighty Tuwharetoa, whose Te HeuHeu Tukino IV presented part of their realm in the middle of the N. Is. as the first national park, saw no reason in 1840 to have any dealings with the foreigners; similarly most of the Arawa and Tainui never acceded to the "treaty". But that doesn't hinder their staking claims pursuant to it!
I once asked Doug Graham, in a public meeting convened by his party (at Awhitu), whether it matters that those tribes rejected the "treaty". He replied with a confident 'no'.
The racist programme of He PuaPua is certainly not justifiable by reference to that well-meaning declaration of 1840.
Please do keep quoting from that under-rated Kohimarama gathering.
I don't care what the participants to the TOW signing are assumed to believe by as many latter day experts as you like. Unless he Treaty means that all New Zealanders are equal before the laws it is not fit for the purpose in a free and democratic society. Put this nonsense debate to bed.
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.