Although we have to rely almost exclusively on the testimony of those who were involved in the most poignant moments in history, it is important that we establish the truth of what actually happened on the day.
We can only do that if we are open minded about the facts that emerge from the record.
Unfortunately, today’s version of “truth seeking” is to either ignore facts that are considered unreliable because of the political persuasion of the author - or that don’t fit with the current “woke” attitude towards past events that should be influential in how our modern society should be governed.
You only have to read the conflicting views expressed in modern society about the impact the Treaty of Waitangi should have on the laws that dictate how we live our lives to see that unfortunately, the historical facts are almost always distorted in the pursuit of a particular ideologically based political agenda.
Consequently, the modern argument about the “Principals of the Treaty” should have as its main focus, a document that actually includes only clauses agreed by a majority of those who actually signed on our behalf. If the modern interpretation of this historical writing suggests we can “second guess” what the authors actually meant to say, we quickly become distracted from our pursuit of racial harmony for future generations.
Instead of using the Treaty as a guideline for advancing the notion of peaceful coexistence, it becomes a debilitating exercise trying to establish compatibility between two widely divergent interpretations from the likes of respected Maori historians, Sir Apirana Ngata and Sir Hugh Kawharu. In fact the status of future race relations should depend on establishing which interpretation is factually correct.
Accordingly, as a nation beset with social problems that need our immediate attention, we can’t continue to waste time and energy aimlessly debating a document that was written to service the needs of the people living in a totally different environment some 185 years ago. Rather than bring us closer together, that sort of negative debate becomes the agent of division.
That shouldn’t mean that the Treaty should be parked up as a museum piece that is exhumed and honoured only on one particular anniversary day each year.
It has a special place in the history of this country and as such, just like Magna Carta in Britain and the US Constitution, should remain as the founding document upon which most of our laws are based.
Having said that, it is the responsibility of us all to ensure a correct interpretation of the Treaty is the one that survives this current attempt to usurp its authority.
That is why the introduction of David Seymour’s Treaty Principles Bill to our nation’s statutes needs to become the subject of a referendum at the next General Election. In doing so, we must be vigilant in our commitment to the interpretation of a legacy that is recorded as only a snapshot in time but is actually critical to our survival as a multi cultural nation living in peaceful coexistence with one another. In spite of our differences, a future based on the equal sharing of resources is definitely the way to go.
Let’s do it.
Clive Bibby is a commentator, consultant, farmer and community leader, who lives in Tolaga Bay.
9 comments:
Agreed, but try telling that to Luxon who has clearly demonstrated “there was nothing about the Bill”” he liked!
Any NZ history written after 1980 needs to be read with extreme caution. Then, anything written by Anne Salmond, Vincent O'Malley and James Belich shouldn't be read at all.
An easy, cost effective way to finalise the country's name as "New Zealand" or "Aotearoa" would be to have a box to tick on the voting papers. I'm not sure whether Davids Treaty Principle Bill could be incorporated in this as the wording would need to be precise. I am all for it though.
There has been an interesting discussion for many years now in academe about how treaties and constitutions should be interpreted as time goes on. There are those who hold that a treaty or constitution must always be interpreted in the light of what those who authored those documents meant at the time of writing. This can become a problem when significant periods of time have elapsed, such as centuries, and the intentions of the original authors no longer resonate with today's environment. Amendments are often used to solve this problem. Then there are those who take an 'evolutionary' approach to a treaty or constitution and hold that only the spirit of that document is binding in the future and that it can be reinterpreted at any time by a competent authority (Lord Sankey dubbed this the 'living tree' approach). This may sound efficient compared with adding formal amendments but creates the problem of a political elite making such documents supposedly say anything they want, even if it contradicts the original. This explains why this approach is very popular with activists. Ring any bells?
So Mr/Ms/Mrs Anonymous has warned us off reading the writings of certain named people. However, being unidentified, what his/her credentials are for such an instruction we’ll never know, but I, for one, can make up my own mind as to what I read, thank you. Any sense of enquiry demands it.
Put a time limit on claims like next week. Close off any future negotiations. The Treaty is done and we need to move on. Colonization got us here. It ain't too bad, yet...
The Treaty can add nothing to the current day that would benefit all Nzers. Lock it up in Te Papa with all the embargoed evidence of pre-Maori history that we are not allowed to see. We are over the Treaty which served it's purpose in 1840 and is now a historical but dead document.
MC
Fair comment Barend
However your considered opinion is in sharp contrast to Ewan McGregor’s hypocritical offering.
It’s a bit rich castigating anonymous writers for suggesting we don’t read the writings of certain well known political activists when he repeatedly recommends articles penned by their US counterparts to me.almost on a daily basis.
In that context, it isn’t hard to see why this relatively small bunch of radical thinkers lack credibility.
It is also why this blog is read by a large and growing number of intelligent thinkers who have had enough of the “Woke” mentality with its failed attempt to usurp the authority of modern democratic rule.
My "opening salvo" is which Pub between Elsthorpe & Gisborne should "I locate myself" (it will depend whether its is DB and/or a NZ Brewery Pub) to watch the Farmer's "fireworks"?????
My second "offering" - is to all New Zealander's to look at who was the Govt of the day between 7 Feb 1840 up to today.
Then 'ask yourself', if the TOW was an issue, why did not Govt's of the day do something.
Yes there has been "tinkering" since - and that "tinkering" is now coming back to bite posteriors.
When you look at the current issues behind the TOW, also look at
- who in the Academic World (NZ) & their credentials both past & current, who have had (not may have) have had - ' a hand in the paperwork' that has made changes to the TOW and attendant Legal issues - I can think of one.
- which Law Firms/ Lawyers are also providing assistance with Legal advice - me thinks this is important, to ensure that all activities are " within Law ".
- who or which of Maoridom who "were elected to be MP's" and have current roles in TOW ' activism" - I think of 2 - one ran back to Parliament as a list MP when Jacinda was made Leader of The Labour Party - a person who 'flitted' from Labour to ACT - then to radio.
- how overseas issues (example Black Live Matter BLM) - influence Maori and such activities as used by BLM HAVE been used in NZ.
I concur that our current Govt 'appears to be' tone deaf, blind or would rather ignore current issues - and for those who would 'ask Mr Luxon' to move on - who would you replace him with?
Defining the Treaty by referendum would have attracted endless criticism of mob rule etc. Unfortunately many recent historians with an eye to cosy employment have sided with the Tribunal and with a myriad other interested reinterpreters. A clear presentation of the real original generally understood situation as Kohimarama, Ngata etc, and of the consequence of present race based trends, should comfortably win over the intelligent public. But sadly intelligence is not a requirement for enrolment. And the msm including RNZ are still steadfastly promoting racial separatism and race based favouritism.
Post a Comment