I haven’t followed Candace Owens closely, but Simon O’Connor has recently posted a piece on Breaking Views (here). There he says, “Implicitly, the decision suggests that New Zealanders are so fragile of mind and temperament that merely hearing from someone like Candace Owens is just too dangerous. Put another way, unnamed bureaucrats have unilaterally decided what ideas you can – and cannot – hear. This is simply wrong, and doubly so in a democracy.”
On the other hand, Roimata Smail has published a 31-page booklet, Understanding Te Tiriti: A handbook of basic facts about Te Tiriti o Waitangi. The Herald reports (here): “An anonymous donor will provide free copies of Understanding Te Tiriti – A Handbook of Basic Facts to every high school. Roimata Smail, the author, aims to strengthen students’ Treaty knowledge with the donations.
Smail does not give a copy of the Treaty in her booklet but instead interprets the three Articles, claiming that this is “what was written in Maori in Ti Tiriti” (p. 7). In the following table I put Smail’s interpretations against the literal back-translation of the Treaty in Maori by Professor Sir I. H. Kawharu (in Waitangi, 1989). Kawharu had chaired the Waitangi Tribunal and his translation has been used by the Tribunal. You can then judge for yourself the veracity of Smail’s claim.
| Kawharu translation | Smail interpretation |
Article 1 | The Chiefs of the Confederation and all the Chiefs who have not joined that Confederation give absolutely to the Queen of England for ever the complete government over their land. | The Queen will govern her British citizens in Aotearoa |
Article 2 | The Queen of England agrees to protect the chiefs, the subtribes and all the people of New Zealand in the unqualified exercise of their chieftainship over their lands, villages and all their treasures. But on the other hand the Chiefs of the Confederation and all the Chiefs will sell land to the Queen at a price agreed to by the person owning it and by the person buying it (the latter being) appointed by the Queen as her purchase agent. | Maori will keep total authority over their land, resources, and way of life. but If they want to sell any land, they will only sell to the Queen (right of preemption) |
Article 3 | For this agreed arrangement therefore concerning the Government of the Queen, the Queen of England will protect all the ordinary people of New Zealand and will give them the same rights and duties of citizenship as the people of England. | The Queen will give Maori the same protection as British citizens |
You can make a comparison for yourself, but I will allow myself a comment on each Article:
1. For Kawharu, the Chiefs “give absolutely to the Queen of England for ever the complete government over their land,” but for Smail, the Queen will only “govern her British citizens in Aotearoa”. Note that as they were her subjects, the Queen could govern British citizens without the need for a Treaty.
2. The Crown’s right of preemption was waived by the Supreme Court, 4 May 1847 (here), so there is a precedent for successfully challenging provisions of the Treaty. In her booklet (p. 12), Smail quotes the Waitangi Tribunal as “some may see our conclusions as radical,” and indeed they are. This would be a good topic for a formal school debate or perhaps Candace Owens would offer us her view, if she were allowed to.
3. For Kawharu, “the Queen of England will protect all the ordinary people of New Zealand [i.e., Maoris] and will give them the same rights and duties of citizenship as the people of England,” but for Smail, “The Queen will give Maori the same protection as British citizens”. Smail omits that the Chiefs agreed to the same “duties of citizenship as the people of England” and so omits the interpretation that the Maoris were subsequently subject to British law. In his Explanation of the Treaty, Sir Apirana Ngata writes “British Law has been the greatest benefit bestowed by the Queen on the Maori people.” Perhaps the anonymous donor could also finance a copy of Ngata’s Explanation to each school to provide balance.
Like I say, make up your own mind on these points. But irrespective of your conclusion, I expect you will agree that there is room for debate. Yet these issues are being presented to school children as “basic facts about Te Tiriti o Waitangi”. Will Sir Hugh’s translation and Sir Apirana’s Explanation also be brought to their attention?
Smail goes on to make several other unsubstantiated assertions; I will briefly mention two to show that they are at best dubious if not false.
1. “The Tohunga Suppression Act made Maori healthcare and science illegal. Important Maori knowledge was lost.” Graham Adams in a Breaking Views article “The tohunga suppression myth that won’t die,” 7 March 2024 says (here), “Few will acknowledge the 1907 law was a Māori initiative.” He then goes on to substantiate that relevant claim, yet it is ignored by Smail.
2. “Education laws made Crown controlled education compulsory. Maori children were beaten in schools for speaking their first language te Reo Maori, so many did not pass it on to their children.” Again, few will acknowledge that was a Maori initiative. Wiremu Parker says in a chapter essay “The Substance that Remains” (in Wards, Thirteen Facets, 1978, p. 187):
Maori Language
Those who say that the suppression of Maori culture in schools was a deliberate pakeha device to do away with Maori culture would be well advised to do a little research. The truth is that well-intentioned, but as we now know misguided, Maoris and pakehas were convinced that they were acting in the best interests of the Maori people. Mr Takamoana, one of the first newly elected Maori members of Parliament said in Parliament in 1871 ‘that the whole of the Maoris in this Island request that the Government should give instruction that the Maoris should be taught in English only.’ Another petition by Renata Kawepo and 790 others, and also one from Piri Ropata and 200 others asked for every endeavour to have schools established throughout the country so that Maori children could learn the English language.
As early as 1876 a petition to Parliament from We Te Hakiro and 316 others, asked that all children of two years of age, when just able to speak, should be taught the English language, so that their first language should be English. The petition also asked that not a word of Maori be allowed to be spoken in the school, and that the schoolmaster, his wife, and children be altogether ignorant of the Maori language.
For years the leaders of the Young Maori Party preached up and down the country what both A. T. Ngata and Dr Maui Pomare believed that ‘the first subject in order of priority in the school curriculum was English, the second most important subject was English, the third most important subject was English and then arithmetic and other subjects.’
As for being strapped at school for talking in Maori – pfft. I too was severally strapped for talking in class, in English. Get a helmet.
There is plenty of room for useful debate on Maori issues at school. But if the kids are reading how Maori children had their language strapped out of them but not that it was Maori leaders who insisted on them being taught only English, are they also being taught about “the massacre of Māori at Parihaka” and not the genocide of Moriori on the Chathams, or how Maori life expectancy is significantly less than Europeans but not that it is more than twice what it was in 1840?
By the way, do you know how many Maoris were killed at Parihaka? Have a guess. It’s a nice round figure.
Roimata Smail is a lawyer. The legal process in court comprises a prosecution and a defence. The lawyer for each side presents an argument for their client, leaving it to the other side to present a contrary case. Each side is, therefore, lying by omission. A judge then chooses which set of lies best supports his ideology. That is what Smail has been trained for and that is how she has presented her case. At best, she and her profession are lying by omission.
And that is what is being presented to school children, without explanation.
I do not necessarily disagree with Roimata Smail just as I do not necessarily agree with Candace Owens. I expect both are articulate, intelligent and well-informed of the topics they address.
But there is inconsistency in freely providing the writings of Roimata Smail to children at school and stopping Candace Owens from coming to New Zealand to speak to adults. There is a disconnect in the thinking and it has not been properly thought through.
Factions within our government are behaving childishly and they need it strapped out of them.
And the disgusting indoctrination of children at school must stop.
References
Simon O'Connor: Candace canned, Breaking Views, 29 November 2024
https://breakingviewsnz.blogspot.com/2024/11/simon-oconnor-candace-canned.html
“Anonymous donor gifts Understanding Te Tiriti book to all New Zealand high schools,” NZ Herald, 29 November 2024
Graham Adams: The tohunga suppression myth that won’t die, 7 March 2024
https://breakingviewsnz.blogspot.com/2024/03/graham-adams-tohunga-suppression-myth.html
Barrie Davis is a retired telecommunications engineer, holds a PhD in the psychology of Christian beliefs, and can often be found gnashing his teeth reading The Post outside Floyd’s cafe at Island Bay.
4 comments:
When Lt Governor Hobson drafted the Treaty of Waitangi, he made a point of being able to fully explain to the chiefs, in their own language, what the Treaty meant when they signed it.
After each of the 49 chiefs had signed the Treaty of Waitangi at Waitangi on 6 February 1840, Lt Governor Hobson shook their hand and repeated, “He iwi tahi tatou – We are now one people”.
Since this time, many people have tried to twist the Treaty to say many things, but as Lt Governor Hobson stated at the time, it only said one thing, “He iwi tahi tatou – We are now one people”. No mention was made of a Partnership or that Maori would have special rights over their fellow British Subjects, just “He iwi tahi tatou – We are now one people”.
This shows the Treaty of Waitangi only played a very small role in New Zealand becoming a British Colony as it only made Maori British Subjects with the same rights as the people of England. No more, no less. Once signed, the Treaty of Waitangi had achieved its purpose and was filed away.
There is plenty of room for useful debate on Maori issues but Smail's book is not about debate. It is not nuanced nor truthful and therefor can only be concluded to be propaganda designed to indoctrinate children.
It is disgraceful that the education system allows for only one side of discussion let alone use this books as a 'teaching' resource.
This book to learning, is like using your fingers to learn quantum physics.
The one-sided deluge of propaganda by msm, TV and ''print'' and online seems to be working judging from the latest public poll published on Stuff (Te Pati Stuff) . It always sways people by its sheer volume, after all is so many groups and people say it must be true. The Parihaka massacre: John Campbell called it that many years ago and quickly had to correct the claim. Stuff called it that a couple of years back and it was corrected only after plenty of complaints. I was told by one white believer in the radical causes that it was a massacre ''in a sense''.
The Smail interpretation makes no sense.
The Queen will protect Māori and give them the same rights as British citizens. Why would the crown do that? What’s in it for the Queen?
So let’s get this straight.
The Queens navy and armed forces will sail half way around the World to protect Māori from the goodness of her heart.
In return Māori could sell their land to the Crown.
Shit deal if you ask me.
Post a Comment