Writing in a Stuff publication, a 34-year-old activist named Max Harris said that the ACT Party is “threatened by tino rangatiratanga – the absolute authority for Maori over their taonga, promised in te Tiriti. And the ACT Party wants to cement in its place private property rights for all”. (1)
Age is relevant here because this “rangatiratanga” is something that was quietly created shortly before Harris was born and flowered as Harris bloomed.
We can know Harris’ age because of a hagiography about him published, again by Stuff, in 2017, which shows that he was born in 1989. (2)
New Zealanders of Harris’ age have been groomed into a specific view of the treaty through their entire education.
I know this because our offspring are around Harris’ age and I have seen what they have been exposed to at every stage of their education.
What is “tino rangatiratanga – the absolute authority for Maori over their taonga, promised in te Tiriti” and where did it come from?
Harris says that it is in the treaty – Te Tiriti, the Maori text that is – and looks no further.
Now here is where I’m asking you to read more Maori words than you’ll ever be exposed to on a woke news bulletin. But stay with me. It’s easier than you think.
Since the treaty was drafted in English and translated into Maori, what English word did the word “rangatiratanga” translate?
If you put the English text of Article 2 next to the Te Tiriti Article 2, you will see that “te tino rangatiratanga o o ratou wenua o ratou kainga me o ratou taonga katoa” translates “the possession of their lands, dwellings and all their property”.
So “te tino rangatiratanga” translates “the possession”.
So where does Harris get his phrase “the absolute authority for Maori over their taonga, promised in te Tiriti”?
He does not say, but it looks like of comes from a retranslation into English of Te Tiriti done by Waitangi Tribunal member Sir Hugh Kawharu around 1985.
That was when I was the age that Harris is now.
Kawharu translated “te tino rangatiratanga o o ratou wenua o ratou kainga me o ratou taonga katoa” into “the unqualified exercise of their chieftainship over their lands, villages and all their treasures”.
On that point, Kawharu asserts (in a footnote) that “'unqualified exercise' of the chieftainship — would emphasise to a chief the Queen's intention to give them complete control according to their customs.”
Now, it is clear that Kawharu’s “'unqualified exercise' of the chieftainship” is vastly different from “possession”.
Tasked with doing this new re-translation of Te Tiriti into English in the 1980s, Kawharu appeared to stray beyond re-translating into giving his opinion on what he thought the chiefs might have understood when they heard the treaty read to them.
Since there were no words in Maori at that time for “sovereignty” (Article 1), “possession” (Article 2) and “rights and privileges of British subjects” (Article 3), Kawharu defined them.
However, he did so without reference to missionary William Colenso’s eyewitness written account which recorded what the chiefs said and did when they listened to and debated Te Tiriti.
Colenso’s account shows that a number of chiefs did not like the prospect of having a governor over them, and while most eventually signed, some refused to.
The Kawharu re-translation has become the Waitangi Tribunal’s sacred text that true believers, like Harris, must adhere to.
The question is whether Kawharu’s creation of a version of treaty history unsupported by any evidence resulted from incompetence, negligence, or was intended to set the scene for future pecuniary advantage for someone.
To be quite clear, from 1840 to 1985, the Treaty of Waitangi simply meant that:
And the something that Harris fears that the ACT Party wants to take away is something that has been conjured into existence since 1985, as you have seen.
The Post (3) identified Harris as a campaigner, among other things. Who or what he is campaigning for was not disclosed.
In the interests of full disclosure, I spent a year as a volunteer campaigning for the ACT Party.
This piece was offered to The Post for publication but was politely declined.
Mike Butler wrote 'The Treaty: Basic Facts', which is available at https://trosspublishing.com/product/the-treaty-basic-facts/
Sources
1. The promise we should be keeping around the treaty. https://www.thepost.co.nz/a/nz-news/350131505/promise-we-should-be-keeping-around-treaty
2. Max Harris: Young, gifted, and political. https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/91486979/max-harris-young-gifted-and-political
3. The Post, formerly the Dominion-Post, is a Stuff publication.
We can know Harris’ age because of a hagiography about him published, again by Stuff, in 2017, which shows that he was born in 1989. (2)
New Zealanders of Harris’ age have been groomed into a specific view of the treaty through their entire education.
I know this because our offspring are around Harris’ age and I have seen what they have been exposed to at every stage of their education.
What is “tino rangatiratanga – the absolute authority for Maori over their taonga, promised in te Tiriti” and where did it come from?
Harris says that it is in the treaty – Te Tiriti, the Maori text that is – and looks no further.
Now here is where I’m asking you to read more Maori words than you’ll ever be exposed to on a woke news bulletin. But stay with me. It’s easier than you think.
Since the treaty was drafted in English and translated into Maori, what English word did the word “rangatiratanga” translate?
If you put the English text of Article 2 next to the Te Tiriti Article 2, you will see that “te tino rangatiratanga o o ratou wenua o ratou kainga me o ratou taonga katoa” translates “the possession of their lands, dwellings and all their property”.
So “te tino rangatiratanga” translates “the possession”.
So where does Harris get his phrase “the absolute authority for Maori over their taonga, promised in te Tiriti”?
He does not say, but it looks like of comes from a retranslation into English of Te Tiriti done by Waitangi Tribunal member Sir Hugh Kawharu around 1985.
That was when I was the age that Harris is now.
Kawharu translated “te tino rangatiratanga o o ratou wenua o ratou kainga me o ratou taonga katoa” into “the unqualified exercise of their chieftainship over their lands, villages and all their treasures”.
On that point, Kawharu asserts (in a footnote) that “'unqualified exercise' of the chieftainship — would emphasise to a chief the Queen's intention to give them complete control according to their customs.”
Now, it is clear that Kawharu’s “'unqualified exercise' of the chieftainship” is vastly different from “possession”.
Tasked with doing this new re-translation of Te Tiriti into English in the 1980s, Kawharu appeared to stray beyond re-translating into giving his opinion on what he thought the chiefs might have understood when they heard the treaty read to them.
Since there were no words in Maori at that time for “sovereignty” (Article 1), “possession” (Article 2) and “rights and privileges of British subjects” (Article 3), Kawharu defined them.
However, he did so without reference to missionary William Colenso’s eyewitness written account which recorded what the chiefs said and did when they listened to and debated Te Tiriti.
Colenso’s account shows that a number of chiefs did not like the prospect of having a governor over them, and while most eventually signed, some refused to.
The Kawharu re-translation has become the Waitangi Tribunal’s sacred text that true believers, like Harris, must adhere to.
The question is whether Kawharu’s creation of a version of treaty history unsupported by any evidence resulted from incompetence, negligence, or was intended to set the scene for future pecuniary advantage for someone.
To be quite clear, from 1840 to 1985, the Treaty of Waitangi simply meant that:
Article 1, chiefs agreed to cede sovereignty;After Kawharu and the Waitangi Tribunal and in the eyes of activists like Harris, the treaty says:
Article 2, the Queen confirmed that the chiefs owned what they owned and could sell to an agent of the Queen if they so wished;
Article 3, the Queen extended to the Maori people of New Zealand the status of British subjects who would be protected.
Article 1, chiefs agreed to cede the right for a governor to govern unruly British settlers;Harris appeared to be pretty worked up when he wrote:
Article 2, the Queen agreed to protect the chiefs in exercising their chieftainship over their lands, villages, and treasures, but chiefs could sell land to the Queen at an agreed price.
Article 3, the Queen protected the Maori people's right to exercise their customs (tikanga).
“ ‘Tino rangatiratanga’ is what Maori are guaranteed in Article Two of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and in te Tiriti it means absolute authority over Maori lands, villages, and other taonga (or treasures). The Treaty Principles Bill wants to take this away – to remove Maori rights”.But the ACT Party’s proposed Treaty Principles Act simply says:
1. All citizens of New Zealand have the same political rights and duties.That looks like an uncontroversial statement of what New Zealanders, and migrants attracted here, expect the country to be. It is hardly an attempt to take away anything.
2. All political authority comes from the people by democratic means including universal suffrage, regular and free elections with a secret ballot.
3. New Zealand is a multi-ethnic liberal democracy where discrimination based on ethnicity is illegal.
And the something that Harris fears that the ACT Party wants to take away is something that has been conjured into existence since 1985, as you have seen.
The Post (3) identified Harris as a campaigner, among other things. Who or what he is campaigning for was not disclosed.
In the interests of full disclosure, I spent a year as a volunteer campaigning for the ACT Party.
This piece was offered to The Post for publication but was politely declined.
Mike Butler wrote 'The Treaty: Basic Facts', which is available at https://trosspublishing.com/product/the-treaty-basic-facts/
Sources
1. The promise we should be keeping around the treaty. https://www.thepost.co.nz/a/nz-news/350131505/promise-we-should-be-keeping-around-treaty
2. Max Harris: Young, gifted, and political. https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/91486979/max-harris-young-gifted-and-political
3. The Post, formerly the Dominion-Post, is a Stuff publication.
14 comments:
If you put the English text of Article 2 next to the Te Tiriti Article 2, you will see that "KI NGA TANGATA KATOA O NU TIRANI te tino rangatiratanga o ratou wenua o ratou kainga me o ratou taonga katoa” translates to "ALL THE PEOPLE OF NEW ZEALAND, the possession of their lands, dwellings and all their property”.
If you put Mr T E Young's official back translation Article second next to Te Tiriti Article Second as above, it translates to "ALL THE PEOPLE OF NEW ZEALAND, the full chieftainship of their lands, their settlements, and their property."
So for context 'Possession of' or 'full Chieftainship of' is for ALL the people of New Zealand, and not some 'made up' absolute authority for Maori only.
I fear that sensible commentary like this means nothing to those with a manic preoccupation with ToW.
Let's just have the conversation. Unfortunately the indoctrinated are radically opposed to any attempt to review history and historical documents.
Reality has been displaced by how people feel about things and what they believe. David Seymour could have a burning ceremony but that could end badly.
MC
Imagine the outrage if the Treaty clause that Maori could only sell their land through the Government was enforced.
Again hypocrisy when some elite Maori want the Treaty to be selectively enforced.
Yes - logic and hard evidence will be dismissed as irrelevant.
1. Good luck with that, Mike - in getting The Post to publish your response. They, since it's inception, have been sucking on the PIJF teat and aligning with those policy requirements by consistently publishing Maori are our “Treaty Partners" type nonsense and invariably referring to our country as ‘Aotearoa’ at every opportunity. Their “Letters”, in the majority of cases, have been critical of the new Govt. and are very woke, with a pro-activist Maori and climate change narrative. You’ll of course know all this, but others from further afield might not realise how indoctrinated, left-wing and mono-dimensional Stuff and its publications have become.
2. In that piece by Max Harris, we were told that he's a lawyer with "postgraduate degrees in law and public policy" - as if we should really sit up and take note of what he has to say? It's a shame all his past endeavour didn't go so far as involve him in learning to undertake a bit of scholarship and study of the historical record of what the Treaty actually said and meant, in the vocabulary and context of the time. But, the state of universities, and their output, is another story for another time.
3. If rangatiratanga is ‘absolute authority’ as he claims, perhaps Harris could explain why Maori gave up their slaves? After all, the latter would surely have been a Chief’s ‘treasures’, having been won as a spoil of war. And, of course, that goes for all their other less than entirely wholesome tikanga, like inter-tribal warfare and murder, the taking of another tribe’s possessions, infanticide and that (soon to be expunged from 'history') practice of cannibalism. And then why would Maori be subject to other ‘pakeha rules and regulations’ in respect to their property, like building consents and pay things like fees and rates in relation to the same, or be governed by things like licences and usage rules in relation to their buildings, vehicles and boats and the like? Why can’t they just do what and where they like with any of their possessions without any regard whatsoever to the rest and vast majority of society - as the Treaty (in Harris's distorted view) promised? But then, why should wider society provide things like reticulated power, water and sewage to those Maori holdings, or allow Maori to use things like roads and waterways as they please, if the intention was for them not to be governed by the same rules and regulations as everyone else?
People like Max Harris (and, alas, he’s far from alone), really are deluded and plainly are bereft of any appreciation of history, the facts, yet alone just plain common sense. Then, again, maybe that’s just his legal training coming to the fore?
Although considerable forethought seems to have gone into the guidelines for the Treaty, and there was time on the journey to nut out a sound draft, the whole thing seems to have been handled in a somewhat casual manner, and with a very hasty translation. Presumably none or few of the parties dreamed of the words being analysed with such legal scrutiny for decades and centuries after. And in a developed environment unimaginable to even the most travelled and learned senior colonial administrators, none of such were present. And even less so to maori.
The use of the word rangatiratanga in the Declaration of independence seems a further complication.
It is quite absurd the time, effort spent chasing treaty rainbows, and also the mountains of tax money ladled out for the effort and for supposed captures.
With all the problems facing the world in future I doubt if many will be interested in studying how a bunch of trace indigenous persons sabotaged a country at one time idyllic for all. The technique employed will make for a fascinating and disturbing study. But study is unlikely. No PIJF or equivalent will be available for. Despite the topicality for hundreds of millions, few are now interested in how Hitler conquered Germany. So probably none will be interested in the anatomy of a takeover affecting a speck at the bottom of the world, despite the artfulness, gall and enormity of the coup by ungrateful trace indigenous citizenss.
so what you are saying is that if i truly want to honour the treaty, i cannot buy anything from a maori directly - instead they need to sell it to the crown and crown will sell it to me. that alone should be a good reason to bin this nonsense!
I thought tino rangatiratanga was a flag?
One of the earlier comments on this article rebuts Mr Butlers opinion with the use of words like ,garbage and redneck.
Well that sort of language wouldn't be given worth in a junior high school debate , nor should it be given any worth in a forum like this.
First year Law students are told that Treaty itself is not binding in Law. Only that which is in sympathy with the Treaty and is subsequently passed into Law is so binding.
Many are weary of the Treaty Revisionist superficial analysis. How long will
they be finding more beneficial and new meaning in the Treaty . As they constantly bemoan their previous full and final Treaty settlements to now be less than sufficient.
To read the issues as expressed as Mike Butler does so often and more recently Dr Laurie Knight leaves me in no doubt.
I would love to see a poll of how many everyday maori kiwis want to live under maori authoritarian control john tamihere style and wage 'war" because he says to. It is a joke.
Perhaps Max Harris, who is "young, gifted, and political", can tell me how we can have a partnership when we are one people? I have been asking that question for years and, would you believe, I have not received one answer from the intelligentsia. I am still waiting, but I will not hold my breath!
Kevan
I think everyone wants to 'clip the ticket'.
Using the word colloquially as I am not medically trained, I suggest those that do not recognise we are one people are schizophrenic in trying to recognise the pre 1840 Maori heritage and reconcile with the post 1840 colonial advantages which they still get. So as they grapple with their condition coupled with hysteria we can only watch and feel sorry for them that being one as New Zealanders has eluded them.
Post a Comment