Heading: Te Tiriti: The differences between the Māori and English texts explained
By Te Aniwa Hurihanganui, Māori Affairs Correspondent
We HAVE to get the story straight; our Country depends on it!
So, consider Hurihanganui’s text with observations in Bold Italic thus.
There are two versions of Te Tiriti o Waitangi - one written in English and one written in te reo Māori.
FALSE: there is only one treaty, in the Ngapuhi dialect of Maori.
More than 500 Māori chiefs signed the Māori text. Only around 40 signed the English text.
In 1840, nine copies of the agreement were sent around the country to be signed by various Māori chiefs. Just one of those copies was in English.
FALSE; no English text was sent around the country to be signed by various Māori chiefs. A fake version in English by Freeman was used for an overflow of signatures at Waikato Heads in an emergency.
The Māori text is not an exact translation of the English text. In fact, there are some big differences between the two.
Because the Freeman fake is referred too here, of course there are big differences. The TRUTH is that the treaty, in Maori, is a very good translation of Hobson’s final text of 4th February (the so-called “Littlewood” text) with the singular addition of the word “maori” in Article Third. Officialdom, for what can only be deduced to be various dubious motives, having dubbed it the ”Littlewood treaty”, denies its provenance, i.e. that it was written by Busby on 4th February 1840 at Hobson’s direction at the home of Clendon, using paper from Clendon’s private stock, identifiable by its watermark.
Article One
In the English text of the Treaty, Māori cede sovereignty to the Queen of England. In other words, they surrender their authority, and agree that the Queen can make laws over their people.
But in the Māori text they agreed to the Queen’s kāwanatanga, or governorship.
FALSE: kawanatanga was the Williams translation of “sovereignty” in default of a word in classic Maori for it. As any fool can see, it is derived from a maorification of “governor” with an ending meaning “ship” but translation is not the same as derivation.!! Just get that everybody. (“Mutton” is derived from French “mouton” whose meaning is “sheep.)
Many (so-called) experts have said that kāwanatanga was a limited authority and meant the Queen could manage British settlers, while Māori retained the authority to manage their own people.
FALSE: This is trash, whatever the so-called “experts” say.
In 2014, the Waitangi Tribunal released a landmark report agreeing with this position and emphasised that Māori never ceded sovereignty.
FALSE This report of the tribunal, whether “landmark” or not, was a travesty of the truth. As veteran newspaperman, Brian Priestley, observed:”It would be hard to imagine any public body less well organised to get at the truth.” As Alan Everton saw it: “any settlement of Ngai Tahu’s claims based on its report will be nothing short of a fraud.” (Such a settlement was made anyway.)
Article Two
In the English text, the Queen confirms and guarantees to Māori the full exclusive and undisturbed possession of their lands, estates, forests, fisheries, and other properties.
This is from the fake text in English. It has led to millions of dollars worth of fisheries rights being given fraudulently to tribal corporations. The rest of us have been swindled by it.
It also provides for the Queen’s exclusive right to purchase any land that Māori wish to sell.
Let us be clear: this provision was made for the protection of tribal landowners.
In Article Two of the Māori text, Māori retain tino rangatiratanga, or independent and absolute authority, over their land, homes and taonga.
FALSE This is another gross falsehood. The provisions of Article Second were granted to “tangata katoa o Nu Tirani” which unequivocally means “all the people of New Zealand”. “Tino rangatiratanga” was simply the Williams’ translation of Hobson’s “possession”, the term “rangatiratanga” having been invented by Williams, material possessions in Maori society being virtually exclusively confined to chiefs.
Some argue the retention of tino rangatiratanga contradicts the idea that Māori ceded sovereignty.
FALSE: Whatever “some argue” is an utterly fake argument based on false premises.
The word taonga is important too. Taonga encompasses all things that are highly prized, including intangible things, like language and customary knowledge.
This is the least contentious article in terms of its translation, however there are ongoing debates as to its meaning and effect.
It provides that Māori will receive all the rights and privileges of British subjects.
It ought to be realized just what a great gift this was indeed the first time in history such privileges being explicitly granted to a native people anywhere.
One key consistency in both versions is the promise that the Crown would protect Māori. In the preamble to the Treaty, the protection of Māori from lawless settlers was a key concern, and one of the main reasons a Treaty was needed in the first place.
FALSE: The suggestion that thousands of warlike and fully armed Maoris needed “protection” from a couple of thousand “lawless” settlers is just laughable nonsense. What the Maoris really wanted was protection from the French and themselves. What Hobson knew was of the active plans of the New Zealand Company for orderly settlement and indeed the first batch of such colonists had arrived in Wellington one week before his own arrival. As events were to prove, they needed protection from lawless Maoris. (The Gillespies and Richard Rush murdered at the Hutt, the Branks family at Johnsonville, the Gilfillans at Wanganui. See Adam Plover, “Blood and Tears”. ISBN 9781872970583)
The dynamics of human activity were in full play over those few critical weeks. How fortunate for all concerned that British sovereignty was duly asserted over all of New Zealand and that Maori people could partake in the enormous benefits and privileges which were freely granted to them as British subjects.
There is much to be said for this being recognized with grace by Hurihanganui and her fellow-travellers and for us all to work together today as equals to maintain and advance the status and wellbeing of all the people of New Zealand: tangata katoa o Nu Tirani, in the words of the Treaty of Waitangi.
Postscript: Every honest New Zealander who wants to understand the truth about proceedings at Waitangi on 5th February 1840 should, indeed must, read and absorb Colenso’s report of proceedings on that day, checked by Busby at the time. (Easily ‘googled” at http://www.waitangi.com/colenso/colhis1.html noting that the penultimate ‘l’ may be a ‘one”!
Bruce Moon is a retired computer pioneer who wrote "Real Treaty; False Treaty - The True Waitangi Story".
FALSE: there is only one treaty, in the Ngapuhi dialect of Maori.
More than 500 Māori chiefs signed the Māori text. Only around 40 signed the English text.
In 1840, nine copies of the agreement were sent around the country to be signed by various Māori chiefs. Just one of those copies was in English.
FALSE; no English text was sent around the country to be signed by various Māori chiefs. A fake version in English by Freeman was used for an overflow of signatures at Waikato Heads in an emergency.
The Māori text is not an exact translation of the English text. In fact, there are some big differences between the two.
Because the Freeman fake is referred too here, of course there are big differences. The TRUTH is that the treaty, in Maori, is a very good translation of Hobson’s final text of 4th February (the so-called “Littlewood” text) with the singular addition of the word “maori” in Article Third. Officialdom, for what can only be deduced to be various dubious motives, having dubbed it the ”Littlewood treaty”, denies its provenance, i.e. that it was written by Busby on 4th February 1840 at Hobson’s direction at the home of Clendon, using paper from Clendon’s private stock, identifiable by its watermark.
Article One
In the English text of the Treaty, Māori cede sovereignty to the Queen of England. In other words, they surrender their authority, and agree that the Queen can make laws over their people.
But in the Māori text they agreed to the Queen’s kāwanatanga, or governorship.
FALSE: kawanatanga was the Williams translation of “sovereignty” in default of a word in classic Maori for it. As any fool can see, it is derived from a maorification of “governor” with an ending meaning “ship” but translation is not the same as derivation.!! Just get that everybody. (“Mutton” is derived from French “mouton” whose meaning is “sheep.)
Many (so-called) experts have said that kāwanatanga was a limited authority and meant the Queen could manage British settlers, while Māori retained the authority to manage their own people.
FALSE: This is trash, whatever the so-called “experts” say.
In 2014, the Waitangi Tribunal released a landmark report agreeing with this position and emphasised that Māori never ceded sovereignty.
FALSE This report of the tribunal, whether “landmark” or not, was a travesty of the truth. As veteran newspaperman, Brian Priestley, observed:”It would be hard to imagine any public body less well organised to get at the truth.” As Alan Everton saw it: “any settlement of Ngai Tahu’s claims based on its report will be nothing short of a fraud.” (Such a settlement was made anyway.)
Article Two
In the English text, the Queen confirms and guarantees to Māori the full exclusive and undisturbed possession of their lands, estates, forests, fisheries, and other properties.
This is from the fake text in English. It has led to millions of dollars worth of fisheries rights being given fraudulently to tribal corporations. The rest of us have been swindled by it.
It also provides for the Queen’s exclusive right to purchase any land that Māori wish to sell.
Let us be clear: this provision was made for the protection of tribal landowners.
In Article Two of the Māori text, Māori retain tino rangatiratanga, or independent and absolute authority, over their land, homes and taonga.
FALSE This is another gross falsehood. The provisions of Article Second were granted to “tangata katoa o Nu Tirani” which unequivocally means “all the people of New Zealand”. “Tino rangatiratanga” was simply the Williams’ translation of Hobson’s “possession”, the term “rangatiratanga” having been invented by Williams, material possessions in Maori society being virtually exclusively confined to chiefs.
Some argue the retention of tino rangatiratanga contradicts the idea that Māori ceded sovereignty.
FALSE: Whatever “some argue” is an utterly fake argument based on false premises.
The word taonga is important too. Taonga encompasses all things that are highly prized, including intangible things, like language and customary knowledge.
FALSE, because it uses a modern meaning. In 1820, to Hongi, “taonga” was “property procured by the spear”. In 1831 to 13 Ngapuhi chiefs their “property” was “timber, flax, pork and potatoes; in 1840 to Maning “goods, property”. It was Professor Sir Hugh Kawharu’s profoundly flawed methodology, using a greatly augmented modern meaning in his treaty translation which Hurihanganui copies here. So her following statement here would be laughable if its consequences were not so extremely serious!
So, the guarantee of tino rangatiratanga to Māori over taonga was seen as a promise of independent and absolute authority over everything that they treasured.
So, the guarantee of tino rangatiratanga to Māori over taonga was seen as a promise of independent and absolute authority over everything that they treasured.
Totally false!
Article Three
Article Three
This is the least contentious article in terms of its translation, however there are ongoing debates as to its meaning and effect.
It provides that Māori will receive all the rights and privileges of British subjects.
It ought to be realized just what a great gift this was indeed the first time in history such privileges being explicitly granted to a native people anywhere.
One key consistency in both versions is the promise that the Crown would protect Māori. In the preamble to the Treaty, the protection of Māori from lawless settlers was a key concern, and one of the main reasons a Treaty was needed in the first place.
FALSE: The suggestion that thousands of warlike and fully armed Maoris needed “protection” from a couple of thousand “lawless” settlers is just laughable nonsense. What the Maoris really wanted was protection from the French and themselves. What Hobson knew was of the active plans of the New Zealand Company for orderly settlement and indeed the first batch of such colonists had arrived in Wellington one week before his own arrival. As events were to prove, they needed protection from lawless Maoris. (The Gillespies and Richard Rush murdered at the Hutt, the Branks family at Johnsonville, the Gilfillans at Wanganui. See Adam Plover, “Blood and Tears”. ISBN 9781872970583)
* * * * *
The dynamics of human activity were in full play over those few critical weeks. How fortunate for all concerned that British sovereignty was duly asserted over all of New Zealand and that Maori people could partake in the enormous benefits and privileges which were freely granted to them as British subjects.
There is much to be said for this being recognized with grace by Hurihanganui and her fellow-travellers and for us all to work together today as equals to maintain and advance the status and wellbeing of all the people of New Zealand: tangata katoa o Nu Tirani, in the words of the Treaty of Waitangi.
Postscript: Every honest New Zealander who wants to understand the truth about proceedings at Waitangi on 5th February 1840 should, indeed must, read and absorb Colenso’s report of proceedings on that day, checked by Busby at the time. (Easily ‘googled” at http://www.waitangi.com/colenso/colhis1.html noting that the penultimate ‘l’ may be a ‘one”!
Bruce Moon is a retired computer pioneer who wrote "Real Treaty; False Treaty - The True Waitangi Story".
3 comments:
1. Governor Hobson never made or authorised an English version of the Treaty of Waitangi to be signed by the chiefs. He stated in a letter to Major Bunbury, “The treaty which the base of all my proceedings was signed at Waitangi on the 6th February 1840, by 52 chiefs, 26 of whom were of the federation, and formed a majority of those who signed the Declaration of Independence. This instrument I consider to be de facto the treaty, and all signatures that are subsequently obtained are merely testimonials of adherence to the terms of that original document”.
2. But in the Māori text they agreed to the Queen’s kāwanatanga, or governorship. (Clever, but wrong).
Kawanatanga translates to “Government” and it is written twice in the preamble, once in the Article first and once in the Article third. Mr T E Young’s 1869 ‘official’ back translation translates Kawanatanga to Government in every instance.
(Sovereignty is written once in the preamble, once in the Article first and once in the Article third in the final draft?)
Kawana in the Tiriti preamble, as in, “Wiremu Hopihona he Kapitana I te Roiara Nawi hei Kawana” in Mr Young’s 1869 ‘official’ back translation and in the final draft, translates to, “William Hobson, a captain in the Royal Navy, to be Governor”.
Before the Tiriti o Waitangi was read and explained to the people gathered at Waitangi, Hobson, Busby and Williams met behind locked doors with police guards to make sure they all agreed with the translation, “For the tangata Maori to give up their governments to the Queen and make the tangata Maori British Subjects with the same rights as the people of England under one flag and one law”.
They must have examined it thoroughly as Busby did change whakaminenga for huihuinga at this late stage.
Anonymous are you saying the Maori surrendered governship not sovereignty or are you saying whatever it was they surrendered, it equated to Maori being subject to the Crown?
In my opinion, the intent was clear ie Maori subject to Crown and therefore protected by the Crown.
Maori understood the Governor was boss for the Crown. Maori had no concept of and ipso facto no word for sovereignty. Kawanatanga was a jolly good effort to state the intent between stone age tribal culture and English common law drawn from Greek, Latin and European influence.
In this day and age it is sophistry to pretend otherwise.
ToW protected a lot of people (Maori and other) from being killed and possibly eaten, enslaved and possibly raped and abused. That is an extraordinarily feature of NZ history.
The other approach to the question of sovereignty and Maori understanding of the meaning of the Treaty is to look at the transcripts of the speeches of the chiefs on the day of the signing. These were recorded in detail by William Colenso. It’s abundantly clear from the speeches that the chiefs understood what was at stake. Many of the early speakers were opposed to signing. They did not want to give up their “chiefly authority”, to quote Sir Apirana Ngata. In fact early in the day it looked like it would not be signed. It took cooler heads later in the day to turn the views of the opposing chiefs.
Post a Comment