After about a year of battles between various Maori factions that fought each other or the British or alongside the British, the flagstaff war ended. The British did not erect another one but another fascinating chapter unfolded in 1858 when hundreds of Ngapuhi warriors dragged a new flagpole to the site and erected it in a show of conciliation and peace. The flagstaff now flies a British flag that is replaced by a United Tribes flag on days of Maori ceremonial importance. Even that is somewhat incredible, that a nation state would fly the flag of potentially hostile usurpers.
However, fascinating as it might be, that story is not the main focus of this report. Across the car park from the path to the flagstaff there is another short path to the top of the second peak of Te Maiki/Flagstaff Hill. There a mosaic sundial stands since 1988 and includes a circle of panels describing history. Imagine my surprise when I read the following on those panels:
'On 6 February 1840 Maori rangatira (chiefs) and British representatives signed a treaty, Te Tiriti o Waitangi. In doing so, they agreed that a British government would look after its own people in this country. The rangatira did not cede sovereignty.'
Wow! That was jarring. Nothing in the three articles of Te Tiriti mentions anything about the British government or the Crown looking after its own people in NZ. The preamble in the original English version stated:
'Her Majesty therefore being desirous to establish a settled form of Civil Government with a view to avert the evil consequences which must result from the absence of the necessary Laws and Institutions alike to the native population and to Her subjects has been graciously pleased to empower and to authorize me William Hobson a Captain in Her Majesty's Royal Navy Consul and Lieutenant Governor of such parts of New Zealand as may be or hereafter shall be ceded to Her Majesty to invite the confederated and independent Chiefs of New Zealand to concur in the following Articles and Conditions.'
This makes it very clear that Te Tiriti was intended to authorise the Crown to make laws for both 'the native population' and 'her subjects'. It also makes it clear that signing Te Tiriti was intended to involve ceding parts of NZ to the Crown.
The Maori translation of the preamble was not so clear on these matters. Sir Apirana Ngata's 1922 back translation into English states the following (abridged insignificantly):
'Victoria, the Queen of England, in Her feeling of affection towards the Chiefs of the Tribes of New Zealand and in Her desire to retain for them their Chieftainships and also that peace may reign and they live happily, has thought it wise to send...Her representative to negotiate with...the Maori Chiefs, to agree to the Government of the Queen having access to all parts of the land including the islands. This is by reason of the fact, that so many members of Her race were living in this land, and many more were coming. Now, the Queen has thought it good to send me, William Hobson...to be Governor for all parts of New Zealand, to be ceded now and for ever to the Queen and she invites the Chiefs of the assembled tribes of New Zealand and other Chiefs to accept the following provisions'
That version does state that the reason for Te Tiriti was the number of British people in NZ and those destined to come. However, it says nothing about the British government simply looking after its own people. It refers to a wish to achieve peace and happy living for the chiefs. It also makes it clear that the intention was that the chiefs who accepted the provisions in the three Articles of Te Tiriti would cede all parts of NZ to be governed by the Crown's representative.
'Article the First' made it clear that those signing were ceding to the Crown the government of all of NZ.
'Article the Third' gave Maori all the rights and privileges of British subjects. That could only be provided if the Crown governed, made and applied laws that could protect those rights and privileges. Further, the third Article essentially made Maori into British subjects, so any notion that Te Tiriti authorised the Crown to look after its own people would necessarily include Maori who had also become the Crown's 'own people' because of Te Tiriti.
The panels around the sundial at Flagstaff Hill further stated:
'More and more Europeans arrived and some caused trouble. Northern rangatira (chiefs) came together to write to the British King, William IV. They asked him to regulate his own subjects here, as well as help protect this country from the French.'
Well, this is kind of true but is also a misrepresentation. Firstly, it implies that the primary concern in this letter was the chiefs' wish for the Crown to control the bad behaviour of British subjects, with protection from the French being a secondary matter or afterthought. In fact, the letter primarily and first focuses on the threat represented by the French who were expected to come and to take Maori land. The request for the Crown to bring 'troublesome or vicious' Brits into obedience was a secondary request. The letter stated '...lest the anger of the people of this land fall upon them', indicating that the rangatira were concerned to avoid conflict with the Crown should they react to bad behaviour by the Brits. That was showing respect for the British Crown and for the relationship Maori had developed with the Crown. That's a very different picture than one suggesting the rangatira simply wanted to Crown to keep its own lot under control.
The letter earlier stated 'It is only thy land which is liberal towards us', a vote of appreciation to the British. It went on to anticipate the coming of the French and asked '...therefore we pray thee to become our friend and the guardian of these Islands...' So here we have a group of proud, intelligent, powerful rangatira asking the Crown to be the guardian of the NZ archipelago. That indicated the respect those rangatira had for the military power of the British Crown, realistic awareness that Maori were unlikely to be much of a match for French military technology, and it was an invitation for British military to establish themselves here. Suggesting that Maori simply wanted the Crown, as a secondary matter, 'to help protect this country from the French' seriously minimised the real situation.
A further phrase was interesting in that letter: '...therefore we pray thee to become our friend and the guardian of these Islands, lest through the teazing of other tribes should come war to us, and lest strangers should come and take away our land.' The reference to 'teazing' (definition includes 'provoking') by other tribes leading to war may have referred to the inter-tribal musket wars of the era that the correspondents did not want. If so, the letter was also asking the Crown to bring order to the tribes. That was undoubtedly a major reason that many chiefs signed Te Tiriti, hoping British control would enable them to maintain ownership (in a government-protected, European sense) of the lands they happened to be in control of at that time. The panels on Flagstaff Hill avoided any recognition of that matter.
We see how much false propaganda can be provided by the selection, omission and placement of a few words. Hone Heke showed his displeasure in a dramatic way. How shall we show ours?
A.E. Thompson is a working, tax-paying New Zealander who speaks up about threats to our hard-fought rights, liberties, egalitarian values, rational thinking and fair treatment by the state.
3 comments:
The old story- If you tell a lie often enough-it becomes a truth! Māori have been having a field day ever since.
If the Crown is only going to "look after its own people", then every time a Maori votes, receives welfare, uses the health system and education system they are admitting that they are the people of the Crown and not separate.
No wonder tourists get a wrong interpretation of our history. Also, many new arrivals here are immediately brainwashed as well. I sometimes wonder if Maori and British had been given their own separate areas of land to establish, each with their own resources, how things would have turned out. Bearing in mind, Europeans had access to vast resources from civilised nations across the seas, whereas Maori, before the arrival of Europeans, had nothing. Even their food supply was becoming limited.
Post a Comment