The latest example in a letter to the Editor of the Waikato Times 22/8/26 is the claim that Māori had already established a sovereign nation before the Treaty of Waitangi and that British involvement simply destroyed an existing system of independent government.
The historical record is considerably more complicated.
THE CHIEFS ASKED THE BRITISH KING FOR PROTECTION
In 1831, thirteen northern chiefs wrote to King William IV.
Their concerns included foreign threats, conflict with other tribes and the behaviour of British subjects living in New Zealand. They sought the King's friendship and protection.
This was years before the Treaty of Waitangi.
The letter does not prove that Māori lacked authority within their own tribal territories. Of course they possessed authority. Different chiefs and hapū exercised control over their own people and lands.
But that is precisely the point.
There was no single Māori government exercising authority over the whole of New Zealand. There was no national parliament, no national executive, no unified legal system and no national authority capable of enforcing laws from Northland to Stewart Island.
New Zealand was a collection of independent tribal societies.
The problems arising from increasing European settlement, international trade, foreign interest and continuing tribal conflict were among the reasons British intervention eventually became a serious matter.
THE MYTH OF THE 1834 “NATION”
We are now increasingly told that Māori established a sovereign nation in 1834.
That is an enormous exaggeration.
The immediate reason for selecting the United Tribes flag was remarkably practical. A New Zealand-built trading vessel had encountered difficulties because it could not sail under a recognised national flag or registration. Without recognised nationality, New Zealand-built ships and their cargoes were vulnerable to seizure.
British Resident James Busby took up the problem. Three designs were produced, and in March 1834 a gathering of some 25 northern chiefs selected one.
The flag was subsequently recognised for maritime purposes.
Busby also hoped that the exercise might encourage northern chiefs to develop some form of collective organisation.
That was the context.
The following year's Declaration of Independence was, in practical terms, largely a non-event. It did not create a sovereign nation, establish a national government or produce a central authority exercising control over New Zealand.
The United Tribes did not become a New Zealand-wide state. There was no parliament, executive, judiciary or unified system of law, and no central authority capable of enforcing decisions beyond the independent tribes and hapū that retained control over their own territories.
Indeed, the very existence of numerous independent tribes and hapū, each exercising authority within its own territory, demonstrates the problem with the modern attempt to retrospectively describe pre-Treaty New Zealand as a unified Māori nation.
WHAT DID ARTICLE 1 OF THE TREATY SAY?
The Treaty debate is often conducted as though the English text did not exist - It does.
Article 1 states that the chiefs ceded to Queen Victoria “absolutely and without reservation all the rights and powers of Sovereignty” which they exercised, possessed, or were supposed to exercise.
That is not ambiguous English.
There remains legitimate debate about the Māori translation, particularly the meaning and implications of kawanatanga, and about precisely what individual chiefs understood when they signed.
Those questions should be openly debated.
But it is simply wrong to suggest that the transfer of sovereign authority was invented later by historians or colonial officials. The British Government sent Hobson to New Zealand to establish civil government and obtain sovereign authority.
That was the purpose of the Treaty from the British perspective.
Article 1 addressed governmental authority. Article 2 guaranteed the possession of property. Article 3 extended the rights and privileges of British subjects.
That was the constitutional structure of the English text.
KORORĀREKA AND THE HISTORY WE ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO DISCUSS
The story of Kororāreka is another example of selective history.
European sailors, whalers and traders certainly contributed to the development of prostitution in the Bay of Islands. Their behaviour was often appalling.
But it is historically inaccurate to portray Māori women simply as passive victims of Europeans while ignoring the role played by Māori men who sometimes negotiated sexual arrangements in exchange for muskets, clothing and other goods.
That is an uncomfortable fact - It is also history.
If history is to be taught honestly, uncomfortable facts cannot be deleted merely because they reflect badly on one group rather than another.
THE ROAD TO WAIKATO
The same applies to the New Zealand Wars.
Land confiscations, Crown military action and subsequent Māori loss of land are all legitimate and important subjects.
But they are not the entire story.
The Kīngitanga emerged as a powerful political movement and increasingly represented an alternative centre of authority within New Zealand. Some of its supporters became involved in fighting in Taranaki, while militant factions and reported threats of attacks on Auckland heightened Government concerns about the security of settlers.
Governor Grey responded to this challenge to Crown authority by issuing ultimatums and, when these failed to resolve the situation, sending British forces across the Mangatāwhiri to restore government authority and secure Auckland and its surrounding settlements.
The Waikato campaign cannot honestly be portrayed as a simple, unprovoked attack on peaceful Māori. Nor, following the cession of sovereignty under the Treaty, was it an “invasion” of a foreign country. It was a military campaign within territory over which the Crown exercised and claimed sovereign authority.
Equally, it should not be used to excuse everything that followed.
History is rarely that simple.
TEACH THE WHOLE STORY
The real danger is not that children will learn inconvenient facts about colonisation - They should.
They should learn about land confiscations, Crown actions and promises made in difficult circumstances, military campaigns and the suffering caused by war.
But they should also learn about intertribal warfare before 1840, the 1831 request by northern chiefs for British protection, the fragmented nature of pre-Treaty political authority, the practical commercial reason for the 1834 flag, the actual wording of Article 1, and the actions of Kīngitanga supporters before the Waikato campaign.
Teaching only those facts which support a modern political narrative is not history education; it is the indoctrination of a cherry-picked version of history.
Geoff Parker is a passionate advocate for equal rights and a colour blind society.
They should learn about land confiscations, Crown actions and promises made in difficult circumstances, military campaigns and the suffering caused by war.
But they should also learn about intertribal warfare before 1840, the 1831 request by northern chiefs for British protection, the fragmented nature of pre-Treaty political authority, the practical commercial reason for the 1834 flag, the actual wording of Article 1, and the actions of Kīngitanga supporters before the Waikato campaign.
Teaching only those facts which support a modern political narrative is not history education; it is the indoctrination of a cherry-picked version of history.
Geoff Parker is a passionate advocate for equal rights and a colour blind society.
32 comments:
It's simply called presentism, and increasingly rife in academia and, obviously, with activists. People are simply too lazy to really study the historical context because that takes work. Obviously there was no Maori nation. Same for any tribal societies throughout the world at that time. But then Maori invented everything! Including nationalism and individual freedoms and environmentalism! (But not the wheel).
Alternative truths are what keep both the Waitangi Tribunal and the grievance gravy train running.
>"Obviously there was no Maori nation. Same for any tribal societies throughout the world at that time."
Allow me to play Devil's Advocate for a moment. In the late 19thC, Canada began concluding treaties with its 'First Nations' - tribal Amerindian nations. Canada was already a sovereign nation so these treaties did not come under international treaty law. However, they were given teeth by being written into Canadian federal law.
Now the 'BUT'.........
The North American (US and Canada) 'First Nations' satisfied the requirements for nationhood as subsequently outlined by the Montevideo Convention. Pre-colonisation NZ did not, as there was no overarching authority that would have made Maori NZ a federal entity. At best, we have a confederation of northern tribes. Not good enough to declare pre-colonisation NZ a 'First Nation'.
Britain concluded literally hundreds of 'treaties' with tribal entities in Africa in the 19thC but the International Court of Justice held in 2002 that these did not satisfy the requirements of international law then or now.
The northern tribes asked for protection because the other tribes were starting to obtain muskets. After years of wandering around the North Island killing, enslaving and eating those they came across, the Northland tribes were about to get payback. So they felt the best answer was to hide behind British skirts.
Barend, could you please elaborate on your comments? I always supposed the natives in North America existed in tribes, just as in NZ, so how could the appellation of ''nation' be applied?
This article needs to be reconciled with the following from Normanby's instructions to Hobson (14 August 1839): "a numerous and inoffensive people, whose title to the soil and to the SOVEREIGNTY of New Zealand is indisputable, and has been solemnly recognised by the British Government."
Re: Allen above: Europeans have been concluding treaties with indigenous peoples in North America since the 17thC. It became widely understood that a tribal people with a defined territory under their control, a system of governance, and the capacity to enter into formal relations with other nations did indeed constitute a 'nation'. This understanding was formalised by the Montevideo Convention of 1933.
Canada started concluding treaties with their indigenous 'First Nations' in 1871. The First Nations construct has been used by some people to demand a treaty for the Australian Aboriginals and the NZ Maori, but these do not fulfil the criteria for nationhood. You might like to see my discussion on this issue in the Australian context on this site ("A treaty for the Australian Aboriginal?", Breaking Views 2 October 2017).
Barrie @8:57am, Normanby's instructions need to be read in their entirety, NOT SELECTIVELY.
You quote his statement that Māori title to the sovereignty of New Zealand was “indisputable”. BUT NORMANBY HIMSELF IMMEDIATELY QUALIFIED WHAT HE MEANT:
“I have already stated that we acknowledge New Zealand as a sovereign and independent state, so far at least as it is possible to make that acknowledgment in favour of a people composed of numerous, dispersed, and petty tribes, who possess few political relations to each other, and are incompetent to act, or even to deliberate, in concert.”
THAT PASSAGE IS ENTIRELY CONSISTENT WITH MY ARTICLE.
I did NOT claim that Māori chiefs and tribes possessed no sovereignty or authority before 1840. I specifically stated that different chiefs and hapū exercised authority over their own people and territories.
My point was that there was NO SINGLE MĀORI GOVERNMENT EXERCISING SOVEREIGNTY OVER THE WHOLE OF NEW ZEALAND — no national parliament, executive, judiciary or unified system of law, and no central authority capable of acting for, or enforcing decisions upon, all tribes.
NORMANBY'S OWN WORDS CONFIRM PRECISELY THAT. He acknowledged the sovereignty of New Zealand only “so far as it is possible” to do so in respect of a people consisting of “numerous, dispersed, and petty tribes” which possessed few political relations with one another and were “incompetent to act, or even to deliberate, in concert”.
So, rather than UNDERMINING MY ARTICLE, the full passage supports the distinction I made BETWEEN TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY AND AUTHORITY and the EXISTENCE of a UNIFIED SOVEREIGN NATION-STATE.
That distinction is the very point YOUR SELECTIVE QUOTATION OVERLOOKS.
Geoff, A nation is "a large body of people united by common descent, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular state or territory" (Oxford Concise). So, Normanby says the Maoris were a sovereign nation of tribes. You deny "the claim that Māori had already established a sovereign nation before the Treaty of Waitangi".
That is a direct contradiction.
Barrie @11:11am, you are now CHANGING the meaning of the word “nation”.
I did not deny that Māori could be described as a nation in the cultural or ethnic sense of a people sharing ancestry, culture and language. That is not the issue.
The claim I challenged was that Māori had ESTABLISHED A SOVEREIGN NATION BEFORE THE TREATY OF WAITANGI — that is, a unified political entity exercising sovereign governmental authority over New Zealand.
Those are two very different propositions.
Normanby's instructions themselves MAKE THE DISTINCTION CLEAR. While recognising New Zealand as “a sovereign and independent state”, he immediately qualified that recognition by describing its inhabitants as “numerous, dispersed, and petty tribes” possessing “few political relations to each other” and being “incompetent to act, or even to deliberate, in concert”.
In other words, there was NO SINGLE POLITICAL AUTHORITY capable of acting collectively for all Māori or exercising government over the whole country.
You may call Māori a NATION OF TRIBES in a cultural or descriptive sense if you wish. But that does NOT mean those tribes had established a UNIFIED SOVEREIGN NATION-STATE.
THAT IS THE DISTINCTION MY ARTICLE MAKES, and NORMANBY'S WORDS REINFORCE RATHER THAN CONTRADICT IT.
Definitions of nations, states etc will keep exercising political scientists, sociologists and other academics forever. 50 years ago nations seen as imagined communities. Of course treaty makers might impose concept of nations on those they want to mark their X on. Some tribal groups may see their extended families as cohesive groups, though of course everybody wants to be a chief (more wives!) so extended families have frequent battles and coups, led usually by restless males.
Barend @10,30; understood, thank you
Parihaka the peaceful protest against 1600 troops vs Parihaka a documented example of Maori men using women and children as a human shield against 1600 troops....and the only injury to any of those women and children (on the day) was a boy who's hand was trodden on by a horse.
I'm not excusing any actions after that day - but there is no way highly battle experienced Maori men were not using the women and children as a human shield.
History on this day is grossly uncomfortable on both sides - but the lie of the peaceful Maori protest lives on.
No Geoff, I used the dictionary meaning of the word “nation”, which your readers are also likely to use. YOU changed the meaning.
Barrie @4:15pm, no — I have not changed the meaning of “nation”. You have simply chosen the BROADEST POSSIBLE DICTIONARY DEFINITION and then TREATED THAT AS THOUGH IT RESOLVES THE ENTIRELY DIFFERENT QUESTION AT ISSUE.
I am perfectly happy to accept that Māori could be described as a nation in the cultural sense: a people sharing common descent, culture and language.
But that was not the claim I was addressing. Your claim was that Māori had ALREADY ESTABLISHED A SOVEREIGN NATION BEFORE THE TREATY OF WAITANGI, implying an organised political entity exercising sovereign authority over New Zealand.
Normanby's own words demonstrate the difficulty with that proposition. He described the inhabitants as “numerous, dispersed, and petty tribes” who possessed “few political relations to each other” and were “incompetent to act, or even to deliberate, in concert”.
That is not my description. IT IS NORMANBY'S.
David Round (former law lecturer Canterbury Uni) makes the SAME ESSENTIAL DISTINCTION in Twisting the Treaty, writing that Māori were “not formed into an organised state” but consisted of separate and much smaller societies.
And that is the point. Māori possessed tribal authority and chiefs exercised authority over their respective iwi and hapū, but there was NO SINGLE MĀORI GOVERNMENT, PARLIAMENT, EXECUTIVE, JUDICIARY OR CENTRAL AUTHORITY capable of exercising POLITICAL AUTHORITY over the whole of New Zealand.
Indeed, the Treaty itself required the signatures of more than 500 individual rangatira PRECISELY BECAUSE THERE WAS NO ONE CENTRAL MĀORI AUTHORITY capable of speaking for, or binding, all the others.
So yes, Māori may be described as a nation in the cultural sense. But that is not the same thing as saying they had established a unified sovereign political nation governing New Zealand.
THAT IS THE DISTINCTION YOU CONTINUE TO AVOID.
Sorry Barrie and Geoff , my Maori language Dictionary, HW Williams M.A. seventh edition does not assist you both . Maori as a capital letter noun was not a known word until 1850. Previously the NZ people were called natives .
Maori were called 'New Zealanders' from the late 18thC to the mid-19thC. It was only during the second half of the 19thC that the offspring of European immigrants started calling themselves 'New Zealanders'.
Anonymous @6:32pm and Barend, I think you are both probably correct about the terminology used at different times. The people now generally referred to as Māori were variously described by Europeans as natives, New Zealanders, aborigines, and later Māori.
However, THAT IS REALLY A SEPARATE ISSUE FROM THE POINT BARRIE AND I HAVE BEEN DEBATING.
Whether they were called Māori, natives, New Zealanders or aborigines DOES NOT ALTER THE QUESTION of whether, before 1840, the numerous independent tribes and hapū had established a unified sovereign nation exercising political authority over the whole of New Zealand.
That was the claim I challenged.
My argument is not that the indigenous inhabitants lacked authority over their own people and territories. Clearly, individual chiefs, tribes and hapū exercised such authority. The question is whether those separate tribal societies had combined to form a single sovereign political entity or nation-state.
Normanby's own description of “numerous, dispersed, and petty tribes” possessing “few political relations to each other” and being unable “to act, or even to deliberate, in concert” goes directly to that question.
So, interesting though the evolution of the name may be, I think WE ARE DRIFTING ONTO A DIFFERENT TANGENT. The issue is not what the people were called, BUT WHETHER THEY HAD ESTABLISHED A UNIFIED SOVEREIGN NATION BEFORE 1840.
Well chaps, we are told to "honour the Treaty" and that calls those that signed it (other than, of course, Hobson), "tangata maori". Notably not, "tangata wenua" or, more latterly, "tangata whenua." And whatever you think the situation may have been, I'll defer to Chief Justice, Sir James Prendergast, who in 1877 likely had a rather better 'handle' on the legal minutiae that led up to and immediately proceeded the signing of same than most. As you'll appreciate, he declared it "a simple nullity" by virtue of the sovereignty issues traversed. End of - well, it should have been, that is until subsequent ill-advised political interference came to bear.
The Montevideo Convention is used to define States, not nations. As others highlight, a nation is not necessarily a state. Although the concept of a nation-state has been highly relevant.
Britain entered into treaties with pre-colonised Indians in North America in the same way as with Maori. Neither represented states, some possibly nations, but none had executive power and sovereignty as an independent state. The treaties reflected a distinctly Englightenment idea of authority through reason, not violence.
Indians in North America held authority in a disjointed and contested manner. Sitting down for a pow-wow is not a federal syatem and historical revisionism from Third-World lovers like Barends doesn't alter that fact. It doesn't mean Indians or Maori had no society by any means.
From an international law perspective the treaties are largely irrelevant (as identified by the ICJ). Such treaties are an expression of political consent of a community (maybe even a nation), rather than transfer of sovereignty. In NZ, the South Island's ultimate legal basis of possession was discovery.
The new state's legitimacy came from exercising executive power across a whole, clearly defined territory and people, i.e. a state (as NZ could then be called). It's constitutional authority is now self-autocthonous, ultimately resulting from its democratic basis and not the Treaty of Waitangi.
This is correct, and orthodox position, before subversion of legal institutions and theory.
Alright, let's split hairs. From Google AI:
"State: A political and legal entity with a permanent population, a defined territory, a functioning government, and the capacity to enter into relations with other states. It is an objective, institutional structure.
Nation: A sociocultural grouping of people who share a common identity, language, history, culture, or ethnicity. It is a psychological or subjective sense of belonging."
Naughty me for having 'nation-states' in mind (which, note, Anon describes as a 'highly relevant' construct). Not that it changes the substance of my argument above. As a debating point, I maintain that the North American 'First Nations' were 'nation-states' in that they satisfied the criteria later formalised by the Montevideo Convention. They had the capacity to enter into treaties and the Maori did not.
Anon appears to insinuate that the treaties Canada concluded with its First Nations from 1871 on were not legally kosher. It certainly set a precedent in that it created a new kind of 'treaty' which is NOT subject to international treaty law. Different ballgame, different rules.
Anon seems to enjoy hair-splitting so s/he should inform us which definition of 'Third World' s/he is thinking of here. Whichever it is, the 'Third World' is not a homogeneous entity. I love some of it but not all of it!
So, "the claim that Māori had already established a sovereign nation before the Treaty of Waitangi " is correct.
No, it isn't. A sovereign nation would be a state as the term is defined above. But there was no Maori 'First Nation'. There was a hotch-potch of tribes each with its own jurisdiction so perhaps one could speak of 'First Nations' in the plural but then comes the very tricky business of delineating the territory of each to the point where there are clear boundaries. For the 'First Nation' in the singular to apply, there would have to have been an overarching federal-type authority. Which there wasn't.
There wasn't in the case of North American Indians either, but each tribal nation met the conditions of nationhood (and statehood) in its own right. Hence the Canadian govt concluding a separate treaty with each one.
I didn't say there was a 'First Nation'. I said that Normanby's instructions to Hobson (14 August 1839) referred to Maoris as: "a numerous and inoffensive people, whose title to the soil and to the sovereignty of New Zealand is indisputable, and has been solemnly recognised by the British Government." And that a nation is "a large body of people united by common descent, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular state or territory" (Oxford Concise).
It is therefore reasonable "in a letter to the Editor of the Waikato Times 22/8/26 [to] claim that Māori had already established a sovereign nation before the Treaty of Waitangi." The British would have agreed with that in 1840.
The British certainly agreed with that in relation to the United Tribes of the North Island. In modern terms they appeared to be treating this entity as a confederation. But the whole of NZ?
Barrie Davis @10:15am, I think YOU ARE CONFLATING TWO QUITE DIFFERENT PROPOSITIONS.
Normanby said that Māori had a “TITLE TO THE SOIL AND TO THE SOVEREIGNTY of New Zealand”. He DID NOT SAY THAT MĀORI HAD ALREADY ESTABLISHED A SOVEREIGN NATION COVERING NEW ZEALAND.
Your Oxford definition may support describing Māori as a “nation” in the broad sociocultural sense of a people sharing ancestry, culture or language. It does not establish the existence of a SINGLE SOVEREIGN POLITICAL ENTITY exercising authority over the whole of New Zealand.
That is the point Barend V has now raised: WHO OR WHAT WAS THE SOVEREIGN AUTHORITY OVER NEW ZEALAND AS A WHOLE? The United Tribes represented a number of northern chiefs; it DID NOT CONSTITUTE AN OVERARCHING GOVERNMENT OF ALL MĀORI OR ALL NEW ZEALAND.
And saying that the British recognised A TITLE TO SOVEREIGNTY is not the same as saying THEY RECOGNISED AN ALREADY-ESTABLISHED MĀORI SOVEREIGN STATE. Indeed, Normanby's instructions were directing Hobson to obtain Māori agreement to the extension of British sovereignty — which is precisely what the Treaty process was about.
So I think the original claim needs to be stated much more carefully. MĀORI POSSESSED CUSTOMARY AUTHORITY AND A BRITISH-RECOGNISED CLAIM TO SOVEREIGNTY BEFORE 1840. THAT DOES NOT ESTABLISH THAT MĀORI HAD ALREADY CREATED A SINGLE SOVEREIGN NATION-STATE CALLED NEW ZEALAND.
The distinction isn't “splitting hairs”. It is the distinction between A PEOPLE'S CUSTOMARY AUTHORITY AND A UNIFIED SOVEREIGN STATE.
Well, Normanby did say 'New Zealand' without qualification.
But Geoff was saying that the British brought a higher form of government. Certainly, our Government did a marvelous job for the first century in building New Zealand.
But it has gone steadily downhill since then until now the Maoris are doing a better job of unifying at least their people than our useless Parliament is.
The Europeans have lost their mojo, but that is not helped with Maori-bashing. We need to be assertive, but not aggressive.
We do need better education in this area, but not the propaganda they are dispensing at schools. Our present situation is ridiculous.
But that will not be helped by saying things without regard for what is true.
Barrie Davis @11:10am, I agree entirely that we should not say things without regard for what is true. That is why I have questioned the claim that “MĀORI HAD ALREADY ESTABLISHED A SOVEREIGN NATION BEFORE THE TREATY OF WAITANGI.”
Yes, Normanby referred to the “SOVEREIGNTY OF NEW ZEALAND” and said that Britain recognised New Zealand as a sovereign and independent state. But you cannot quote only the part THAT SUPPORTS YOUR ARGUMENT AND IGNORE HIS IMMEDIATE QUALIFICATION. Normanby described the INHABITANTS AS “NUMEROUS, DISPERSED, AND PETTY TRIBES”, POSSESSING FEW POLITICAL RELATIONS WITH ONE ANOTHER AND UNABLE TO ACT OR EVEN DELIBERATE IN CONCERT.
That hardly describes a UNIFIED MĀORI NATION EXERCISING SOVEREIGNTY THROUGH A SINGLE OVERARCHING POLITICAL AUTHORITY.
The Treaty itself makes the same distinction. It refers separately to the CONFEDERATION OF THE UNITED TRIBES and to the “SEPARATE AND INDEPENDENT CHIEFS”, and speaks of the sovereignty they exercised or possessed over THEIR RESPECTIVE TERRITORIES.
So my point has never been that Māori lacked authority or sovereignty before 1840. Clearly, the British Government recognised that Māori possessed sovereignty sufficient to require their consent before Britain could establish its authority. The question is whether that amounts to saying that ALL MĀORI HAD ALREADY ESTABLISHED ONE UNIFIED SOVEREIGN NATION COVERING THE WHOLE OF NEW ZEALAND.
That is a rather different proposition — and one for which I have yet to see convincing evidence.
So yes, Barrie: LET'S STICK TO WHAT THE HISTORICAL RECORD ACTUALLY SAYS, INCLUDING THE PARTS THAT QUALIFY THE PASSAGES WE CHOOSE TO QUOTE.
And for those following all of the above, it might be pertinent to note that Normanby's instructions were from a man who had never set foot on NZ or, for that matter, anywhere in the Pacific. He therefore had no first-hand experience of the people and life here - only from what had been relayed.
Peter at 2.15pm. Generally speaking due to the distances and times involved this was quite common.
"It is therefore reasonable "in a letter to the Editor of the Waikato Times 22/8/26 [to] claim that Māori had already established a sovereign nation before the Treaty of Waitangi.""
This claim is revisionism, as I'm sure you know full well. Had there been a sovereign nation, there'd have been no need for a multiplicity of chiefs to sign a treaty. I have read the transcripts of discussions preceding the treaty's signing. I've also read the minutes of the conference at Kohimarama, 20 or so years later. For contemporary Maori to claim a pre-treaty sovereign nation is presentism, pure and simple.
What is it that you want, by also asserting this claim? In this household, we're puzzled by it. What do you see as being the constitutional outcome, were such a claim to be accepted as fact?
D'Esterre, I pointed out that Normanby stated that the Maoris' "title to the soil and to the sovereignty of New Zealand is indisputable, and has been solemnly recognised by the British Government."
Sovereignty means 'supreme power or authority', so until 6 February 1860 when they accepted British law, the Maoris made the rules in New Zealand.
And if the Maoris understood New Zealand as "a large body of people united by common descent, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular (state or) territory," as I expect they did, then that is what it was.
That is also what we today call a 'nation' and it is not for Europeans today to give it a technical European meaning such as that of a 'First Nation'.
So, it is therefore reasonable "in a letter to the Editor of the Waikato Times 22/8/26 [to] claim that Māori had already established a sovereign nation before the Treaty of Waitangi."
The constitutional outcome is irrelevant to establishing that point.
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.