There Godfery claims that “the Māori language version reaffirming Māori sovereignty” which is profoundly the most utter nonsense. The entire point of the activities of early February 1840 was to ascertain whether the assembled Maori chiefs assented to the transfer of such sovereignty as each possessed to the Queen in return for the undoubted benefits to the Maori people of becoming British subjects.
That the chiefs understood this and that they would become subordinate to the Governor and hence in turn to his superior, the Queen, is abundantly clear from their words, minuted with care by Colenso and checked by Busby at the time, though not published until 1890.[1] Anybody who is not thoroughly conversant with Colenso’s record simply cannot be said to be conversant with the substance and intent of the Treaty of Waitangi and the chiefs understanding and, with very few exceptions, their acceptance of it.
The concept of co-governance is a recent absurdity which should be laughed out of court by every sensible and realistic New Zealander, whatever his or her lines of descent.
Godfery states that “few chiefs signed the English language version, rendering ‘the Treaty of Waitangi’ a dead document”. In fact the so-called “English version” is a fake composed by Hobson’s dismissed private secretary, Freeman and, as we have explained many times, used by Maunsell in an exigency at Waikato Heads for an overflow of chiefs’ signatures as the second page of his proceedings recorded there.
How Godfery decides that this rendered the ToW a “dead document” is beyond me!
So, in Godfery’s opinion, “The courts deal with that fact in an admirably centrist manner, choosing to ignore both language texts in favour of extracting ‘principles’ like ‘partnership’”. This looks to me remarkably like chucking the baby out with the bath water and thus, it would appear, thereby giving themselves liberty to decide what the ToW said as anything that happens to enter their minds. They had of course, plenty of precedents – beloved by jurists – for their position, thus part-Maori Sandy Morrison, then an associate professor at the University of Waikato declaring that “The chiefs do allow the Queen to have kawanatanga, a nominal and delegated authority so that she can control her people.”[2] Really? If that was all the Hobson had managed to get, he might as well simply have packed his bags and gone home!
In fact of course, wiser counsels prevailed at the time and in the event, 512 chiefs, eagerly in most cases, signed the treaty with their people enjoying the tremendous benefits thereafter of being in every sense, British subjects. Since significant numbers of their people were in fact slaves, sometimes taken by war parties on their forays as beef “on the hoof”, in the words of the song “they don’t know how lucky they are”.
And so Godfery’s somewhat tortuous article concludes with: “Few historians and legal scholars would disagree that the relevant language version is the (Māori) Te Tiriti.” Well, true enough but Godfery and the rest of them conspicuously do not dare to mention what the ToW said in plain English and that is Hobson’s final text in English of 4th February 1840, tabbed the “Littlewood Treaty” because that really and clearly describes exactly in English the meaning and substance of the ToW, just as clearly as it did on that fateful day, 5th February 1840!
[1]
http://www.waitangi.com/colenso/colhis1.html
[2] “Waikato Times”, 1 December 2017
7 comments:
Thanks Bruce, for your crystal clear description of the Treaty interpretation and meaning, backed up by actual witness documentation.
I understood Hobson was promoter of the Treaty. He had the English version prepared, translated into maori then presented the treaty in maori to the many chiefs at Waitangi for signing, after extensive discussion.
Efforts were also made by Hobson to have all other chiefs in NZ sign.
It seems to me that we must start with Hobson. Without Hobson there would have been no treaty, and maori would have continued there fights to death and extinction, at which point the colonials could indeed have assumed rights by occupation of terra nullius. So why has this starting point been supplanted by a small collection of signatures on a piece paper with writing in English first, created after Hobson's work and secondly, unauthorised and thirdly, notwithstanding Maunsell also collected signatures on the Maori language document.
Perhaps Godfery and his ilk can explain this in a logical and coherent way using facts not fantasy. Until then, the treaty industry is, in my opinion, a fraud on all New Zealanders, including the signatory chiefs.
“The concept of co-governance is a recent absurdity which should be laughed out of court by every sensible and realistic New Zealander, whatever his or her lines of descent”.
Agreed, but it was our ‘democratic’ governments who via the fallacy of ‘Partnership and Principles’ foisted this co-governance absurdity on us in the first place. And that’s no laughing matter as we are finding out day by day of its treasonous intentions.
“Godfery states that “few chiefs signed the English language version, rendering ‘the Treaty of Waitangi’ a dead document”.
Hobson never MADE OR AUTHORISED a treaty in English to be read, discussed or signed by the chiefs.
Hobson’s instructions to those GATHERING further signatures to the Tiriti o Waitangi.
“The treaty which forms 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”.
Sir Apirana Ngata, in his explanation of what the Treaty meant, was in no doubt that Maori had ceded sovereignty to the British crown.
Godfery is a known revisionist, but I concur with him on one point, and that is there is only one version of the ToW and that is Te Tiriti signed on 6th February 1840.
As to that document’s meaning, it’s hard to go past the English draft as you mention, Bruce.
But a good substitute is that, as translated by Judge T E Young (1844 - 1879) of the Native Land Court, who had been the Native Interpreter to the Māori members of the House of Representatives and which clearly calls out Godfery’s nonsense for what it is:
As he translated:
"The First
The Chiefs of the Assembly, and all chiefs also who have not joined the Assembly, give up entirely to the Queen of England forever all the Government of their lands.
The Second
The Queen of England arranges and agrees to give to the chiefs, the Hapus and all the people of New Zealand, the full chieftainship of their lands, their settlements and their property. But the Chiefs of the Assembly, and all other chiefs, gives to the Queen the purchase of those pieces of land which the proprietors may wish, for payment as may be agreed upon by them and the purchaser who is appointed by the Queen to be Her purchaser.
The Third
This is an arrangement for the consent to the Government of the Queen. The Queen of England will protect all the Maori of New Zealand. All the rights will be given to them the same as Her doings to the people of England."
So, Godfery (and others of his ilk) can prattle on about his false interpretation of 'rangatiratanga' as much as he likes, but it really meant the equivalent of ownership and that applied to ALL THE PEOPLE of New Zealand. Governorship, is not and cannot be subordinate there to, and it's unworkability on such a basis should be patently obvious - even to deluded revisionist fools, like Godfery.
So Waitangi Tribunal l wants Chhour sacked and Otago University is being maorified out of all recognition? All in the name of the Treaty of Waitangi?
When is this going to stop? When are Luxon and friends going to pull the plug on this unbelievable ongoing waste of resources and destruction of NZ?
When will they stand up and say ENOUGH!
When will they put this so called treaty back in the archives as having done its dash in 1840 ?
When will they honour Hobsons ' one people'? Why is this so ignored in favour of maori lies and propganda?
Only a fool would attempt to argue with Bruce Moon.
He, through analysis and research is an expert on the ToW. Full stop!
All his detractors have a motive. He has none beyond the truth and commo0n sense.
Post a Comment