The quote, on page 24 of the new report in a section discussing the sovereignty and the treaty, is from a book by former Native Affairs Minister Sir Apirana Ngata. The report said:
As a politician of his time, Apirana Ngata was committed to the English text of the Treaty. However, in considering article 2 of the Maori version he asked ‘ko tehea tenei mana, tenei rangatiratanga e korerotia nei hoki e te Upoko Tuarua ?’ (‘What is this authority, this sovereignty that is referred to in the second article?’) Simply by his need to ask this question, he demonstrates that on any literal interpretation of article 2 of the Maori text, the chiefs would have understood that they retained their authority. Apirana Ngata uses mana and rangatiratanga synonymously.But on page 21 of his 1922 book The Treaty of Waitangi – an explanation, Ngata actually wrote:
What is this authority, this sovereignty that is referred to in the second article? It is quite clear, the right of a Maori to his land, to his property, to his individual right to such possessions whereby he could declare, "This is my land, there are the boundaries, descended from my ancestor so and so, or conquered by him, or as the first occupier, or so and so gave it to him, or it had been occupied by his descendents down to me. These properties are mine, this canoe, that taiaha (combination spear and club), that greenstone patu (club), that kumera (sweet potato) pit, that cultivation. These things are mine and do not belong to anyone else".Ngata was clear that “this sovereignty” is “the right of a Maori to his land, to his property, to his individual right to such possessions”.
This is different in meaning from “they retained their authority” as the tribunal report stated. (I displayed the key words in bold.)
To spell it out further, in 1922, Ngata said that the sovereignty referred to in Article 2 referred to the individual right of a Maori to his possessions.
But from 1986, when the Waitangi Tribunal exercised its sole right to interpret the treaty, the sovereignty in Article 2 was the sovereignty that chiefs retained.
So, why do you think the Waitangi Tribunal selectively quoted Ngata while asserting a view on what Article 2 means?
The answer centres on the word “rangatatiratanga” and how the tribunal changed the meaning of that word over 40 years.
Originally, “rangatiratanga” appeared in Article 2 of Te Tiriti to translate the word “ownership” in the English draft, as Ngata clearly wrote in his full quote.
A 1980s incarnation of the tribunal took “rangatiratanga” out of its context and declared that it meant “chiefly authority”.
This definition over the years has morphed into “the exercise of ultimate and paramount power and authority” as declared in this latest report.
An internet search shows that AI would pick "rangatiratanga” to mean “the right of Maori people to rule themselves, self-determination”.
Among activists, "rangatiratanga” has become a mantra, a dogma, a term laid down by the tribunal as incontrovertibly true.
But the history of the word shows that it is merely a self-serving creation of the tribunal.
What drew my attention to the quote in the Nga Matapono - The Principles report was the claim by the tribunal that Ngata supported its current ideology. I had read Ngata’s book so had to look again at what he wrote and this is what I found.
5 comments:
Back translated in 1869 to "full chieftainship" to ALL the people of New Zealand, and not "chiefly authority" to Maori chiefs only, as fraudulently translated 100+ years later by liars and deceivers.
It is obvious to all that the Waitangi Tribunal’s clear aim is to divide New Zealand into two separate nations, one for people with Maori ancestors and another for all the rest. In actual fact, the Waitangi Tribunal is now operating primarily as a lobby group for the Maori Party.
Of the myriad communications emplyees, Is there anyone on the govt staff who is deatiled to, is capable ,of and hunts out these sly word manipulations? Or is it left entirely to BV contributors and the likes of?
Well spotted, Mike.
Like the reputed "partnership" of the Treaty and the words "tangata whenua" in relation to Maori, repeat these lies often enough and they become accepted as the truth by the ignorant and/or easily lead. But, nevertheless, lies they remain.
And isn't it interesting when you consider Ngata's words - there's no possible way you can reasonably suggest that such 'possessions' included the sea and its bed out to 12 nautical miles. Another monumental fallacy, all concocted to benefit an undeserving few to the exclusion of everyone else.
It's long overdue that this nonsense, to the detriment of the vast majority of New Zealanders, ceased. Bring on Seymour's Treaty Principles Bill.
And Messrs Luxon and Peters, do note that this is the one time the public will be awake and watching and you would be wise to to appreciate that the majority will not be fooled (again), when the stakes have become so high, by the likes of political double-speak.
it now seems to me that, because both NZ First and National have unequivocally said they will not support Acts bill, they intend instead to introduce their own bill, removing all references to Principles in Govt legislation. Or they could pass legislation saying there are no 'principles of the Treaty , only the Treaty itself.' Interesting that the Maori King has stated the very same thing.
Post a Comment