What appeared most obvious to even casual observers was the number of critics with nothing more to offer than outdated emotional rhetoric slamming the perceived quashing of indigenous rights that had been obtained simply by nature of their ancestry - ie: being amongst the first immigrants to settle in this land.
In contrast those in favour of the Bill chose to examine the motivation of those who signed the treaty and by doing so extended those rights to later settlers with other origins.
I suppose the argument is based on the stage at which citizenship equality becomes inherited and what historical factors determined that right to full citizenship because if it begins and ends with the correct interpretation of the treaty then no current legal resident has anymore right of access to our natural resources than any other.
This is where the opposition to an examination of the Treaty Principles - either spelt out in the document or interpreted by historical scholars - is found wanting.
It is well documented by this country’s most respected historians, including Sir Apirana Ngata that the intention of the chiefs who signed was primarily to bring an end to the Maori genocide that was decimating large numbers of those with Tangata Whenua ancestry during the musket wars. Historical records show that the number of people with Maori blood decreased by as much as 40% during those years when tribal warfare raged across the country. And most of the casualties, as with any war, were innocent women and children either slaughtered or driven into slavery.
You can’t make this up yet those opposing an examination of the historical truth want us to believe those dark days in our history never occurred or didn’t have any impact on the decision to cede sovereignty to the King or Queen of England.
And that unfortunate truth is the one reason why a full examination of the political environment at the time is necessary to find out why its influence on decisions made by Maori leaders in 1840 was in the best interests of their own surviving people.
Had they not agreed to the terms offered by Hobson on behalf of the English Crown which would stop the bloodshed, they would have betrayed their own leadership responsibilities. Unfortunately, they had little choice but to accept the terms although the deal struck was, in the circumstances, much more favourable than those imposed on other indigenous tribes in countries colonised by other European nations - the list is endless. Countries settled as a result of forceful invasion like those in South America, Africa and Southern Asia by French, Dutch, Spanish or Portuguese troops are in direct contrast to the invitation to settle accepted by the English Crown in exchange for the establishment of law and order amongst the waring tribes.
In retrospect, the Treaty of Waitangi, as a founding document, must be acknowledged as the most effective basis upon which to establish a multicultural society in the modern era. It was light years ahead of its time and the democracy that evolved as a result is testimony as to how peaceful coexistence amongst people of different colour, faith or cultural ancestry is possible.
That is why David Seymour’s Bill must be allowed to proceed to a conscience vote before becoming law.
Anything short of that process would be a failure of leadership that we would all regret.
I suppose the argument is based on the stage at which citizenship equality becomes inherited and what historical factors determined that right to full citizenship because if it begins and ends with the correct interpretation of the treaty then no current legal resident has anymore right of access to our natural resources than any other.
This is where the opposition to an examination of the Treaty Principles - either spelt out in the document or interpreted by historical scholars - is found wanting.
It is well documented by this country’s most respected historians, including Sir Apirana Ngata that the intention of the chiefs who signed was primarily to bring an end to the Maori genocide that was decimating large numbers of those with Tangata Whenua ancestry during the musket wars. Historical records show that the number of people with Maori blood decreased by as much as 40% during those years when tribal warfare raged across the country. And most of the casualties, as with any war, were innocent women and children either slaughtered or driven into slavery.
You can’t make this up yet those opposing an examination of the historical truth want us to believe those dark days in our history never occurred or didn’t have any impact on the decision to cede sovereignty to the King or Queen of England.
And that unfortunate truth is the one reason why a full examination of the political environment at the time is necessary to find out why its influence on decisions made by Maori leaders in 1840 was in the best interests of their own surviving people.
Had they not agreed to the terms offered by Hobson on behalf of the English Crown which would stop the bloodshed, they would have betrayed their own leadership responsibilities. Unfortunately, they had little choice but to accept the terms although the deal struck was, in the circumstances, much more favourable than those imposed on other indigenous tribes in countries colonised by other European nations - the list is endless. Countries settled as a result of forceful invasion like those in South America, Africa and Southern Asia by French, Dutch, Spanish or Portuguese troops are in direct contrast to the invitation to settle accepted by the English Crown in exchange for the establishment of law and order amongst the waring tribes.
In retrospect, the Treaty of Waitangi, as a founding document, must be acknowledged as the most effective basis upon which to establish a multicultural society in the modern era. It was light years ahead of its time and the democracy that evolved as a result is testimony as to how peaceful coexistence amongst people of different colour, faith or cultural ancestry is possible.
That is why David Seymour’s Bill must be allowed to proceed to a conscience vote before becoming law.
Anything short of that process would be a failure of leadership that we would all regret.
Clive Bibby is a commentator, consultant, farmer and community leader, who lives in Tolaga Bay.
3 comments:
The more I read views as expressed, I question the suitability of our PM, who seems to be blinkered.
Let us not forget the Belgium Congo......let your imagination run wild should the Belgiums come to NZ and colonised it......hands and feet down it would have been worse....
This whole debate is just an embarrassing travesty . Seymour has reason - the others just a determination to shoot him down, regardless of the lack of fact or rationality in their case. I am ashamed for them.
Post a Comment