The 1840 document – the only valid treaty – was a very far-sighted agreement at the time which guaranteed British sovereignty and protection; the rule of law; the protection of property ownership, and equal citizenship rights for all New Zealanders. In other words – democracy, equality and fairness. However, the process would only be complete when voting rights for all adults, with the exception of Chinese, came in 1893. (Chinese first voted in 1952.)
Nowhere else in the world did native peoples gain equality at this time. So New Zealand natives, later called Maori, won equal rights, but not special rights, in the 1840 Te Tiriti o Waitangi.
By instituting the rule of law, “Maori” society was saved from possible extinction because
Fundamentally, the new government wants equality and democracy.
What did the 1840 Treaty say?
In Article One, the native signatories ceded sovereignty (Kawanatanga) forever to Queen Victoria and her heirs. Some chiefs didn’t — showing their understanding of what they would be giving up — but the majority did. Well over a hundred chiefs endorsed relinquishing sovereignty to the Crown twenty years later at the Kohimarama Conference and emphasized the value of the protection of the monarch thorough the governors and the New Zealand governments.
In Article Two. Chiefs and Tribes and all the people of New Zealand were guaranteed the possession of their lands, dwellings and all their property (taonga). (There was no specific mention of “Forests and Fisheries”.) Chiefs could sell land through the government.
In Article Three in return for granting sovereignty, the people on New Zealand would be granted the rights and privileges of British subjects.
Does the Maori Party and its followers understand this?
Te Tiriti o Waitangi was translated into the Nga Puhi dialect from an English draft formulated by James Busby. The Busby draft is the English version of the document, sometimes known as the Littlewood Treaty, and it is located in New Zealand Archives in Wellington.
Fake treaties: Freeman’s, Kawharu’s, Waitangi Tribunal’s mish mash
James Freeman was Hobson’s Secretary, and when a treaty for signing was needed at Waikato Heads and Manakau, he took it upon himself to write his own. (Hobson was sick at the time.)
His Treaty in English excluded the reference in Article 2 to “all the people of New Zealand” and he added “Estates, Forests Fisheries” to the possessions list in the same article.
Freeman sent his copy to the Governor of New South Wales.
Professor Hugh Kawharu’s 1989 version changed the meaning of three crucial words:
Maori Party-led protest spectacles – of limited impact?
The actual turnout around the country on Tuesday was modest and did not come up to Maori Party expectations. TV Channel News First made the planned gatherings its top story on Monday and had locations beeping red on their New Zealand map. Then on Wednesday The Post made only a few passing references to what happened.
The Maori Party gained only 3.08% of the overall party vote in the October election and wouldn’t have any representation in Parliament if the undemocratic seven special seats for Maori didn’t exist. It will be interesting to see if the National-led Coalition is prepared to abolish this glaring example of inequality and favourtism.
Roger Childs is a retired teacher who taught History, Social Studies and Geography for 40 years. This article was first published HERE
By instituting the rule of law, “Maori” society was saved from possible extinction because
- inter-tribal warfare was forbidden
- slavery, the killing of war prisoners, cannibalism and female infanticide were outlawed.
- Breaches of the law were to be settled by discussion or in the courts.
Do the Maori Party and agitating elites, iwi leaders, politicians, academics, journalists and their non-Maori fellow travellers explain these realities and truths to their followers?
Fundamentally, the new government wants equality and democracy.
What did the 1840 Treaty say?
In Article One, the native signatories ceded sovereignty (Kawanatanga) forever to Queen Victoria and her heirs. Some chiefs didn’t — showing their understanding of what they would be giving up — but the majority did. Well over a hundred chiefs endorsed relinquishing sovereignty to the Crown twenty years later at the Kohimarama Conference and emphasized the value of the protection of the monarch thorough the governors and the New Zealand governments.
In Article Two. Chiefs and Tribes and all the people of New Zealand were guaranteed the possession of their lands, dwellings and all their property (taonga). (There was no specific mention of “Forests and Fisheries”.) Chiefs could sell land through the government.
In Article Three in return for granting sovereignty, the people on New Zealand would be granted the rights and privileges of British subjects.
There was no mention of partnership, principles or co-governance. In constitutional law the British Crown cannot enter into a partnership with a section of its people.
Does the Maori Party and its followers understand this?
Te Tiriti o Waitangi was translated into the Nga Puhi dialect from an English draft formulated by James Busby. The Busby draft is the English version of the document, sometimes known as the Littlewood Treaty, and it is located in New Zealand Archives in Wellington.
So there is no different English version of the 1840 Treaty. The Littlewood document has exactly the same wording as Te Tiriti. How many people know this? The Waitangi Tribunal, if it does understand this truth, does not acknowledge it.
Fake treaties: Freeman’s, Kawharu’s, Waitangi Tribunal’s mish mash
James Freeman was Hobson’s Secretary, and when a treaty for signing was needed at Waikato Heads and Manakau, he took it upon himself to write his own. (Hobson was sick at the time.)
His Treaty in English excluded the reference in Article 2 to “all the people of New Zealand” and he added “Estates, Forests Fisheries” to the possessions list in the same article.
Freeman sent his copy to the Governor of New South Wales.
His treaty was un-authorised and nobody signed it as the text was never read to chiefs at Waikato Heads and Manakau.
Professor Hugh Kawharu’s 1989 version changed the meaning of three crucial words:
- Kawanatanga meant “sovereignty” in 1840, Kawharu made it “government”.
- Rangitiratanga appeared in the original preamble but not in the articles. In 1840 it meant “possession”. Kawharu translated it as “chieftainship”.
- Taonga meant property, however controversially Kawharu widened the meaning to “treasures” which opened the floodgates for claims to the Waitangi Tribunal.
The Waitangi Tribunal uses a mix of the Freeman and Kawharu versions. Kawharu served on the Tribunal for a time and was also a claimant. Why the Tribunal doesn’t use Te Tiriti and the Littlewood English version is beyond belief.
Maori Party-led protest spectacles – of limited impact?
The actual turnout around the country on Tuesday was modest and did not come up to Maori Party expectations. TV Channel News First made the planned gatherings its top story on Monday and had locations beeping red on their New Zealand map. Then on Wednesday The Post made only a few passing references to what happened.
The Maori Party gained only 3.08% of the overall party vote in the October election and wouldn’t have any representation in Parliament if the undemocratic seven special seats for Maori didn’t exist. It will be interesting to see if the National-led Coalition is prepared to abolish this glaring example of inequality and favourtism.
Roger Childs is a retired teacher who taught History, Social Studies and Geography for 40 years. This article was first published HERE
12 comments:
Sadly I think the 'protesters' choose not recognise the original TOW.
They now prescribe to the one as defined since 1975 and beyond, all brainwashed, falsified to narrative etc.
We will be unable to have a rational conversation about it because these people do not want a rational discussion and never will because the newer made up version suits them far better.
You're preaching to the converted Roger. Well said, of course. We know the MPs from Te Pati Maori can read because they managed the Oath - in the end. But DO they? Not a lot I suspect, and I'm sure quite a few of their adherents can not read - and the rest don't bother. We are pinning such hope on the new government, who face a huge task. Let us pray.
Thanks Roger, please keep hammering these points home.
One question - where do I find the contemporary accounts of the signing? As I understand it, there is a record of chiefs debating, rejecting, then eventually agreeing to the need to give up sovereignty to the Queen, which shows they knew exactly what they were doing.
I'm keen to read the first hand accounts if you can point me to them. Thanks.
Thanks for clarifying several matters here.
How do we get this important information out into the mainstream media and out into public knowledge.?
There is a bizarre announcement that there is a second Human Rights Commissioner to accommodate the Maori / Treaty aspects of the role.
Who on the new government has sanctioned this?
In answer to the question from Anonymous: it was William Colenso who recorded the speeches of the chiefs at the singing of the Treaty. Google that. These transcripts show clearly that the chiefs knew what they were agreeing to. Many opposed signing. It was only later in the day that some older chiefs win over the younger chaps.
Re the anonymous request, there is a very detailed account of the background to the signing of the Treaty in the Waitangi Tribunal's 2014 stage 1 report on the Te Raki (Northland claim) here:
https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/WT/wt_DOC_85648980/Te%20RakiW_1.pdf
It also sets out the non-binding conclusions and recommendations of the Tribunal which gave rise to the co-governance fairy tale.
The Stage 2 report of December 2022 is here:
https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/WT/reports/reportSummary.html?reportId=wt_DOC_192668456
The Tribunal accepts the fact that in law full sovereignty of the Crown was asserted by Lieutenant-Governor Hobson through his proclamations of 1840 and their subsequent gazetting in London. This decision of the Tribunal has not been publicised for obvious reasons.
The issue is discussed here:
https://thetreatyfacts.blogspot.com/p/the-sovereignty-solution.html
To anonymous. A recent book by Ewen McQueen entitled One Sun In the Sky is excellent, well referenced and offers a very comprehensive view of the signing of the Treaty. I don’t think it is available in bookshops, but if you Google the title and author you can buy online.
Wrong - it was an agreement between Queen Victoria and the Maori Chiefs. It asked them to give up their governments and in return they would become British Subjects with the same rights as the people of England.
The only document that belonged to all the poeople of New Zealand was Queen Victoria's Royal Charter/Letters Patent dated 16 November 1840.
It made New Zealand into a British Colony with a Governor and Constitution that set up our political. legal and justice systems under one flag and one law, irrespective of race, colour or creed.
I have seen one definition of “taonga” offered up by a scholar as property gained at the point of the spear, ie, tao
William Colenso, published 1890 but closely following his notes from 1840
1890 - Colenso, W. The Authentic and Genuine History of the Signing of the Treaty of Waitangi
https://www.enzb.auckland.ac.nz/document/?wid=121&action=null
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.