The protestors want a direct translation of the Maori text added to the display so that visitors could understand clearly what the Te Tiriti actually says.
After all, Te Tiriti was the text that was debated and agreed to by chiefs in 1840.
The Busby February 4 document is a perfect match - but for a single word added to in Article 3 of Te Tiriti, and, of course, the date.
That single word is the word “Maori”, which clarifies that it would be the Maori people of New Zealand who would become British subjects, and be protected.
Brits living in New Zealand in 1840 were already British subjects and protected.
If the Busby February 4 document replaced the now defaced English text at Te Papa, every visitor to the treaty exhibition could easily see exactly what Te Tiriti said.
If there was any doubt, any fluent Maori speaker there could be called on compare the texts line by line.
Such a comparison would confirm that the two texts are identical – except for the extra word “Maori” in Article 3 of Te Tiriti, and the date.
Now, to be very clear, the text that was defaced at Te Papa is a document which is referred to as “the official English text”. This is NOT the final draft in English.
The final draft from which Te Tiriti was translated went missing.
That final draft was not available when the Treaty of Waitangi Act was drafted, debated, and passed in 1975.
For that reason, it could not be appended to the Treaty of Waitangi Act back then.
But the Busby February 4 document (aka the Littlewood Treaty) has been available since 1989.
That was when it was discovered among the belongings of Ethel Littlewood of Pukekohe, who passed away on February 27 of that year.
That document is dated February 4, 1840, is handwritten in English by the then British Resident, James Busby, on paper with an 1833 water mark on it.
That document looks very much like the final draft in English of the Treaty of Waitangi.
This is because the only differences from Te Tiriti are the date, and the absence of the word “Maori” in Article 3, as already mentioned.
The discovery was first reported in the New Zealand Herald on September 11, 1992, and historian (the late) Donald Loveridge was paid to do an official appraisal in 2006.
His finding was that it was either a translation or the missing final draft.
The Busby February 4 document was on display at National Archives in Wellington until the He Tohu display of “constitutional documents” opened in 2017.
Now it remains out of sight and accepted treaty experts won’t talk about it.
Perhaps now is the time to put the Busby February 4, 1840, document on display at Te Papa.
It could also be included in the He Tohu exhibition, and could replace the English treaty text appended to the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975.
With the simple explanation of why the word “Maori” was added to Te Tiriti, if the Busby document was included in the Te Papa display, visitors could understand clearly what the treaty actually says, as the treaty protesters suggest.
After all, the treaty was drafted in English and translated into Maori. The meaning and intent of the treaty is as clear in English as it is in Maori.
For your interest, I have reproduced the text of the Busby February 4, 1840, document below.
Note, there is no mention of “lands estates forest fisheries” or “pre-emption”, and Article 2 simply refers to “the possession of their lands, dwellings and all their property”, not “unqualified exercise of the chieftainship”.
Mike Butler wrote "The Treaty: Basic facts," which is available at https://trosspublishing.com/product/the-treaty-basic-facts/
Brits living in New Zealand in 1840 were already British subjects and protected.
If the Busby February 4 document replaced the now defaced English text at Te Papa, every visitor to the treaty exhibition could easily see exactly what Te Tiriti said.
If there was any doubt, any fluent Maori speaker there could be called on compare the texts line by line.
Such a comparison would confirm that the two texts are identical – except for the extra word “Maori” in Article 3 of Te Tiriti, and the date.
Now, to be very clear, the text that was defaced at Te Papa is a document which is referred to as “the official English text”. This is NOT the final draft in English.
The final draft from which Te Tiriti was translated went missing.
That final draft was not available when the Treaty of Waitangi Act was drafted, debated, and passed in 1975.
For that reason, it could not be appended to the Treaty of Waitangi Act back then.
But the Busby February 4 document (aka the Littlewood Treaty) has been available since 1989.
That was when it was discovered among the belongings of Ethel Littlewood of Pukekohe, who passed away on February 27 of that year.
That document is dated February 4, 1840, is handwritten in English by the then British Resident, James Busby, on paper with an 1833 water mark on it.
That document looks very much like the final draft in English of the Treaty of Waitangi.
This is because the only differences from Te Tiriti are the date, and the absence of the word “Maori” in Article 3, as already mentioned.
The discovery was first reported in the New Zealand Herald on September 11, 1992, and historian (the late) Donald Loveridge was paid to do an official appraisal in 2006.
His finding was that it was either a translation or the missing final draft.
The Busby February 4 document was on display at National Archives in Wellington until the He Tohu display of “constitutional documents” opened in 2017.
Now it remains out of sight and accepted treaty experts won’t talk about it.
Perhaps now is the time to put the Busby February 4, 1840, document on display at Te Papa.
It could also be included in the He Tohu exhibition, and could replace the English treaty text appended to the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975.
With the simple explanation of why the word “Maori” was added to Te Tiriti, if the Busby document was included in the Te Papa display, visitors could understand clearly what the treaty actually says, as the treaty protesters suggest.
After all, the treaty was drafted in English and translated into Maori. The meaning and intent of the treaty is as clear in English as it is in Maori.
For your interest, I have reproduced the text of the Busby February 4, 1840, document below.
Note, there is no mention of “lands estates forest fisheries” or “pre-emption”, and Article 2 simply refers to “the possession of their lands, dwellings and all their property”, not “unqualified exercise of the chieftainship”.
Preamble
Her Majesty Victoria, Queen of England in her gracious consideration for the chiefs and people of New Zealand, and her desire to preserve them their land and to maintain peace and order amongst them, has been pleased to appoint an officer to treat with them for the cession of the Sovreignty [sic] of their country and of the islands adjacent to the Queen. Seeing that already many of Her Majesty’s subjects have already settled in the country and are constantly arriving: And that 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 me 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 entire Sovreignty [sic] 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 Sovreignty [sic] 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.
16 comments:
Totally agree, although I'm sure it wasn't what the protesters had in mind. The Littlewood document has been deliberately 'buried' since it's discovery, initially under the Helen Clark Labour government. Ian Wishart's 'The Great Divide' covers this in some detail. The Treaty settlement process may have been quite different.
the Littlewood document is arguably the authentic translation of Te Tiriti.
Translation of Te Tiriti has become a national sport - the original Busby document from which the Maori document was created provides the incontrovertible translation from the correct era.
It ends the translation debate.
Well said Mike.
I note that the vandals arrested at Te Papa were primarily protesting against the word Sovereignty. They, and the Waitangi Tribunal, claim that Sovereignty was not ceded. They are wrong. The instructions from Lord Normanby to Hobson clearly stated this. "Her Majesty's Gov[ernmen]t have resolved to authorise you to treat with the Aborigines of New Zealand for the recognition of Her Majesty's Sovereign authority over the whole or any parts of those Islands which they may be willing to place under Her Majesty's Dominion." The fact is Hobson would have sailed away if he couldn't attain that objective.
Brilliant. Very educational. Thank you.
To the first Anonymous -- thank you for your comment. However, I wish to point out that the Busby February 4 document is not a translation. It is the final draft. Te Tiriti is the translation of that document.
Total agreement. Just re read your book earlier in week.
Had forgotten Wishart covered in The Great Divide not read since 2012 so that revision now on my list.
Absolutely past time, thank you Mike. It is entirely indefensible to keep going around in circles, while this matter of "the Littlewood Treaty" is unresolved. We do not yet have an honest government until this is addressed. I trust David Seymour and Winston Peters to be honest as so few politicians have been of late.
Seems to me the vandals probably not informed much beyond the current standard pro maori brain wash.They have stirred up a topic previously too obscure for most of the public and not previously elaborated on by the msm, especilly with the PIJF in the background. Looks like maori/trace maori/pro maori have shot themsleves in the (insert te reo for "foot"). Or any abseillers in ACT?
Again, anyone know where Tremain is when needed? Or has he been overwhelmed by subject aatter?
Totally agree Mike, but that aside, does not anyone wonder how it came to pass that these idiots could set up what appears to be abseiling equipment and go about what they were doing for quite some little time before they were accosted? For a facility with many valuable artefacts on display does that not highlight a very significant security issue?
And as as for the perpetrators, clearly none of them have a sufficient grasp of Te Reo to understand what Te Tiriti actually says. Nor do they understand the provenance and contents of the Littlewood Treaty, nor for that matter what Sir Apirana Ngata had said of the Treaty, without knowing of nor the benefit of the Littlewood document. No, these clowns have been brainwashed by the likes of those TPM activists in Parliament, and that entirely partisan laughing stock, which is called the Waitangi Tribunal.
Now that the sovereignty debate is reaching a crescendo it’s time to clarify: if a chief signed then he was ceding sovereignty; if he didn’t sign then the ToW does not apply ie no compensation. They can’t have it both ways.
The ‘Littlewood Treaty’ is NOT the treaty and should stop being referred to as a treaty.
Time to display the FINAL DRAFT dated 4th February 1840 and the 1869 OFFICIAL BACK TRANSLATION by Mr T E Young of the Native Affairs Department alongside TE TIRITI O WAITANGI (The Treaty).
That final draft was not available when the Treaty of Waitangi Act was drafted, debated, and passed in 1975, BUT the 1869 Official Back Translation by Mr T E Young of the Native Affairs Department was.
Why was this official back translation overlooked? There would have been NO 1975 Treaty of Waitangi Act, that’s why.
Actually, NONE of the versions of the "Treaty" is a treaty.
1) Treaties are between States, each with a single government that is sovereign in that state. My dictionary says:
treaty n 1: a written agreement between two states or sovereigns.
2) The British Crown never made treaties with tribes, only with States. In 1840, New Zealand was not a State, but a collection of separate tribes, often doing each other in with guns acquired from Europeans (see The Musket Wars), and that is one of the main reason the tribal chiefs wanted Crown Law, to stop the wholesale bloodshed of inter tribal warfare.
3) Time to end this long running drama/comedy. Elite Part-Maori activists will NEVER stop demanding more $ and power as long as guilt-ridden woke non-Maori let them get away with it. The sacred Treaty is a nullity and an excuse for a continuous rort. The Waitangi Tribunal is corrupt and needs to be abolished.
Anonymous@2.13pm - apologies, you're correct about the "Littlewood DRAFT" and you make a very valid point about the existence of the TE Young back translation. They also would have had the benefit of Sir Apirana Ngata's explanation of 1922 and (not withstanding the typo in Article The Second where "positions" was presumably meant to be "possessions") it's fairly clear what it all meant and the whole pretext of the ToW Act being needed and founded on the text of the Treaty in the English differing from the text of the Treaty in Maori, should really never have arisen if proper scholarship had been invoked.
Geoffrey Palmer, and the Labour Party, did NZ'rs a massive disservice with the introduction of that ToW Act and they certainly opened Pandora's Box, all on an ill-conceived premise that opened the door for Maori to shuffle between the two iterations, and allowing a re-interpreting of their language - all, of course, to their advantage. And this all over something that is supposed to be inherently founded on the good faith of both parties.
It's time this was all openly debated with a view to repealing that legislation and sorting the sovereignty issue out once and for all by way of a referendum. Given all NZ'rs are in effect taking on the responsibilities of the Crown, shouldn't we all have that long overdue say?
You will never convince the agenda driven racists. They are so extreme the attack Te Papa.
As Communist and anti-colonialist, Frantz Fanon reminds us: "The native is an oppressed person, whose constant dream is to become the persecutor."
So what is often referred to as "The Treaty Grievance Industry" is perhaps better understood as ‘The Treaty Grudge Industry.’
The ‘Maorification of Everything’ going on right before our largely unseeing eyes is driven by pathological haters and wreckers looking to bully and dominate non-Maori by way of payback for being brown in a country created and civilised by white people.
Quite why public policy should validate someone else’s adjustment issues eludes me, especially as it is destroying our country and rapidly approaching the point at which only a civil war won by the good guys will suffice to turn it back.
I laugh when I hear or read people saying the Littlewood Treaty is a translation of Te Tiriti. I have to go out of my way to tell them its the other way round. Last time I was at Te Papa and asked to see the Littlewood Treaty I was told it is too precious to be displayed or in public sight. When I suggested an exact copy could be made and that displayed I was fobbed off with some mumbled excuse so all the best of Kiwi to whomever manages it as its long past time for the public to see the final English draft.
Thanks, Mike Howell
Post a Comment