In my view there are four primary perspectives on how the Treaty of Waitangi could be viewed with respect to issues of sovereignty.
1. That sovereignty was never ceded ... full-stop. The justification for this argument is a "Why would they?" argument. Maori had dominance in almost every respect, and settlers were numerically irrelevant, and of no great threat. Why would chiefs forfeit anything of note? They wanted to trade with the Europeans, to benefit from the technologies they brought, that was about it.
2. That sovereignty was ceded ... full-stop. Chiefs by and large recognised that a superordinate authority (whatever this might look like) was critical to end the intertribal conflicts that had been brutal and devastating and which showed no signs of abating. It would also bring trade. Chiefs were willing to take the risk on what accession of sovereignty might bring.
3. That sovereignty was not ceded (in the fuller sense), in fact, in 1840, but circumstances on the ground rapidly changed, tensions were emerging, opportunities were presenting, and increasingly the scope of colonial administrators widened. Maori saw that it was very much in their interest to allow the expansion of British sovereignty, at least in practice. So sovereignty was ceded incrementally.
4. The fourth perspective is the one I think most reflects the situation. I believe that motivations will have been very much mixed, because that is the way that human beings work. I will take a moment to explain this fourth perspective.
I believe it is probable that smaller tribes supported accession of sovereignty because they had the most to gain and the least to lose. Many of these tribes had been subjected to unimaginable loss during the musket wars, and saw annihilation and enslavement as inevitable. Such would have been, by and large, fully supportive of the accession of sovereignty.
I believe it is probable that the larger tribes were somewhat opposed, or at least suspicious, of the accession of sovereignty. They were powerful, had benefited materially from their upper hand during the musket wars, and had the most to lose, and the least to gain, at least in the immediate.
Some tribes would have been somewhere in between, and some would have been influenced by historic and/or situationally convenient alliances.
I think most chiefs would have entered this process smart to the likely implications of cession of sovereignty in the present, and moving forward. I think it is also highly likely that many would have signed, in the moment, with every intention of breaking the treaty at some future point if it did not work in their interests, as many did. Signing by such was, at least in their minds, conditional.
I think most chiefs were well aware of what accession of sovereignty might mean, most with the luxury of doing so would have had a plan B.
Human nature is constant across time and place, documented history and psychology both confirm this.
My support of the fourth option is based on the following, each of which is verified by universal historical facts, and by a moment's reflection on (locked and loaded) human nature.
1. People always act in their self-interest in the first instance.
2. They never make a decision for a single reason, lots of things are always playing out.
3. People can be extremely brutal in advancing their own interests, or the interests of their group.
4. Those in power never cede this willingly, they have too much to lose.
5. People will lie when they need to, and change their minds when it suits.
Historical documents are simply that. They are time-bound. They address problems presenting at that time, reflect the beliefs of that time, make the most of the opportunities of that time, and reflect the trade-offs (and practicalities) necessary to get the job done.
This is how the Treaty should be seen. Understood this way it makes sense.
There is no doubt that modern interpretations of the Treaty, the events, and theatre, surrounding its signing, and subsequent prognostications on its significance and intent, including the selective revision of our history, are riven with agenda. Not least a radical redistribution of power and wealth.
The treaty has become what it was not, nor could ever possibly be, a basis for any settled constitutional arrangement.
As it is being presented by its most radical proponents, it would be nothing less than a reincarnation of the very evils from which true democracy alone safeguards against.
The Treaty needs to be understood in context, not only of its moment in time, but in terms of the things people do, the ways they think, and the lengths they will go to.
The Treaty is not a way forward, it cannot be, and was never designed to be. It is not the lens through which all things should be viewed and it is not an open cheque book.
Caleb Anderson, a graduate history, economics, psychotherapy and theology, has been an educator for over thirty years, twenty as a school principal.
2 comments:
So the Treaty needs to be consigned to history.
In order to produce an argument, our parliamentarians need to present information and evidence. Therefore, because the debate regarding co-governance is to important to the lives and well-being of all New Zealanders, I propose only those politicians who are well read on the subject of the Treaty of Waitangi and who present well- researched and documented arguments are listened to. My own view is that Queen Victoria would not have entered into a partnership with Maori. The British empire needs to be seen in the context at that time and not that of our present day. Subsequent to the signing of the Treaty, the British settlers would have proceeded to build the country. They had the knowledge and the means which Maori did not have. We all benefit from this.
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.