-
@Snowy
The Maori and English versions are quite different.For nearly 200 years NZhas been governed based on a (at times very loose) interpretation of the English version which effectively asks the Queen to look after Māori in return for ceding sovereignty
The Maori version does not mention ceding Rangatira tanga - sovereignty. In fact just the opposite.
The English version assumes that Māori have ceded sovereignty to the crown. The Māori version makes no mention of sovereignty but implies kawangatanga which is governance. This is where it gets all fucked up - or even more fucked up. Māori seem to give up passing laws but still control what goes on in their lands
It was FUBAR from the very beginning. Hobson signed on behalf of the Crown but knew no Māori. Most Māori signatories had no idea what the English version detailed
Apologies to anyone who actually understands this I if I’ve got it completely wrong. Its very complex and has been since Feb 6 1840
-
@dogmeat said in NZ Politics:
Apologies to anyone who actually understands this I if I’ve got it completely wrong
It would help if you linked to an actual translation of the Māori version to back up your claims.
And who wrote the Maori version?
edit. Ive found this
The Treaty of Waitangi has two versions, an English version and a Māori version, with some significant differences between the two1234. Most rangatira signed the Māori version, while only 39 signed the English version1. The Māori version is not an exact translation of the English version24. There has been much debate over the differences between the two versions and what they mean2. Some people argue that there are two treaties: te Tiriti, the Māori version, and the Treaty, the English version2.
Legally, I guess only the Rangatira (how many and what % ) who didn't sign the English version could have a claim regarding co-governance. If in fact it is in the Māori version.
The English version states the British intentions were to protect Māori interests from the encroaching British settlement, provide for British settlement and establish a government to maintain peace and order.
The Māori text suggests that the Queen's main promises to Māori were to provide a government while securing tribal rangatiratanga (chiefly autonomy or authority over their own area) and Māori land ownership for as long as they wished to retain it.
Isn't this similar to a state having certain rights? Rather than co-governance.
-
@dogmeat said in NZ Politics:
@Snowy
The Maori and English versions are quite different.Are they? Or is the Littlewood (Busby) treaty actually correct? It's certainly the closest to Te tiriti but seems to have been pushed aside as conspiracy theory by activists, and some historians (but certainly not all). It may well be grassy knoll stuff but who to believe?
https://www.hobsonspledge.nz/littlewood_treaty_to_disappear
"The treaty was drafted in English and translated into Maori. If the Busby February 4 document was displayed next to Te Tiriti, the tens of thousands of schoolchildren who will see the He Tohu exhibition may compare the English and Maori texts and see for themselves how exact the translation is.
- This comparison may prompt questions about the modern interpretations of the words “kawanatanga” and “rangatiratanga” when they could see that “kawanatanga” translated “sovereignty” and “rangatiratanga” translated “possession”. "*
"In 2000, Dr Phil Parkinson, a treaty researcher at National Archives, confirmed that Busby was the author of the Littlewood treaty.
The Treaty of Waitangi Information Unit commissioned Loveridge to do a full appraisal in 2006. Loveridge re-stated his view the Busby February 4 document was a back translation of the Maori text of the treaty, especially because Clendon said it was.
But Loveridge also noted that "if Clendon’s description was not correct, however – for whatever reason – the possibility would remain that the date was used intentionally, and that the Littlewood document is in fact a copy of the missing draft”.
The absence of the Busby February 4 document allows tribal interests to push the fiction that chiefs did not cede sovereignty and all they agreed to was to allow the British Governor contain unruly British settlers."
Where did those extra 88 words come from in what is now considered the english version and account for some of the variances that are mentioned?
". The substantial differences between the official English text and the Maori text created scope for mischief. At 568 words, the English text is much wordier than Te Tiriti's 480 words, and many words in the English, such as “right of pre-emption” are not in the Maori. "
There is some contrary opinion out there as well of course.
So it isn't even cut and dried say that "The Maori and English versions are quite different" because they actually may not be.
-
https://www.hobsonspledge.nz/littlewood_treaty_to_disappear
Appendix 1: The Littlewood Document
[Source: Based on the colour reproduction of the original in Martin Doutré, The Littlewood Treaty: The True
English Text of the Treaty of Waitangi Found (Auckland: De Danaan Publishers, 2005), pp. 49-50. Transcript
by D.M. Loveridge, 2006]
Her Majesty Victoria Queen of England in her gracious consideration for the
chiefs and People of New Zealand, and her desire to preserve to them their Land
and to maintain peace and order amongst them, has been pleased to appoint an
officer to treat with them for the cession of the sovreignty80 of their country and
of the islands adjacent to the Queen, seeing that many of her Majesty's subjects
have already settled in the country and are constantly arriving: And that it is
desirable for their protection as well as for the protection of the natives to
establish a government amongst them.
Her majesty has accordingly been pleased to appoint me William Hobson a
captain in the Royal Navy to be governor of such parts of New Zealand as may
now or hereafter be ceded81 to her Majesty And proposes to the chiefs of the
Confederation of the United Tribes of New Zealand and the other chiefs to agree
to the following articles –
Article first
The chiefs of the Confederation of the United Tribes and the other chiefs who
have not joined the confederation cede to the Queen of England for ever
[page break]
the entire sovreignty of their country.
Article Second
The Queen of England confirms and guarantees to the chiefs & tribes and to all
the people of New Zealand the possession of their lands, dwellings and all their
property. But the chiefs of the Confederation and the other chiefs grant to the
[‘chiefs’ struck out] Queen the exclusive right of purchasing such land as the
proprietors thereof may be disposed to sell at such prices as shall be agreed upon
between them and the person appointed by the Queen to purchase from them.
Article Third
In return for the cession of the sovreignty to the Queen, the People of New
Zealand shall be protected by the Queen of England, and the rights and
privileges of British subjects will be granted to them. –
Signed, William Hobson
Consul & Lieut. Governo -
@Pepe said in NZ Politics:
So how many people actually signed this Littlewood document?
Just asking for a friend.Tell your friend that bloody obviously nobody signed it, it is in English. The chiefs didn't sign any English version, they signed the Te Reo version.
That seems fine:
"Who signed the Treaty of Waitangi, where and when?
More than 40 chiefs signed the Māori copy of the Treaty at Waitangi on 6 February 1840. Copies were then taken all around the country, and chiefs from many places signed. There were about 50 signing meetings between February and September 1840 and about 540 chiefs gave their agreement. All but 39 chiefs signed a Māori-language copy of the Treaty."until this:
"How many copies are there of the Treaty, and which one is used?
There are nine copies of the Treaty at Archives New Zealand, including the Treaty in Māori signed on 6 February 1840. All but one of these copies is written in longhand, and only one is in English. The structure of each follows a similar pattern, but the wording differs. The Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 includes a text of the Treaty in English. The Waitangi Tribunal has exclusive authority to determine the meaning of the Treaty as embodied in the English and Māori texts."Bolded is the important part because the 1975 English version may be incorrect, and the Littlewood version may be. There is dispute over what happened in 1975 and the "text of the treaty in English". The Littlewood version wasn't found until late 1980s so you could say that further evidence has come to light.
I have no personal feeling either way regarding the history, but there is certainly enough doubt over it all that major decisions shouldn't be made until at least some of it is cleared up, or some middle ground found. Having some sort of apartheid co-governance with one set of rules for some NZers, and another for others, isn't where most people would like this to end.
-
@Snowy said in NZ Politics:
Tell your friend that bloody obviously nobody signed it, it is in English. The chiefs didn't sign any English version, they signed the Te Reo version.
Is this correct? Did 39 not sign. Or sign the English version?
Around 530 to 540 Māori, at least 13 of them women, signed the Māori language version of the Treaty of Waitangi, despite some Māori leaders cautioning against it. Only 39 signed the English version.
-
@winger Looks like a small minority maybe in English (rather than not at all as could be implied from above (probably led to even more confusion). It certainly wasn't the Littlewood that was drawn up by Busby with Hobson. Even more uncertainty regarding the dates with that...
As @canefan says it is a complete ballsup.
-
@ploughboy said in NZ Politics:
and i have read some where(so might not be true) there was no written Maori language till 20 yrs before the signing.
I could believe that. Seems like a lot of Maori lore is an oral tradition
-
@canefan said in NZ Politics:
@ploughboy said in NZ Politics:
and i have read some where(so might not be true) there was no written Maori language till 20 yrs before the signing.
I could believe that. Seems like a lot of Maori lore is an oral tradition
Thomas Kendall is credited with producing the first book written in Māori in 1815.
-
@canefan I went on a guided school trip at Ruapekapeka a couple of years back, and the Maori guide was fantastic!
His knowledge of the wars, the area, the history was amazing, coupled with his oratory skills, most of the class of 13 year olds were paying attention!
But one thing he did stress, he said this is my Whanau's history and story, you go on this same tour with any of the other guides, and you will get thier Whanau's story, so much so, that some of the stories come from Maori that fought on both sides of that war, so that doesnt make my version more true than thiers or right or wrong, its just our story.
-
@taniwharugby I know my truth
-
Gotta love left wing parties. Spokesperson for justice gets caught allegedly shoplifting in a store her supporters could never afford to visit.
-
@Billy-Tell said in NZ Politics:
Gotta love left wing parties. Spokesperson for justice gets caught allegedly shoplifting in a store her supporters could never afford to visit.
First bold ... please. (Have fixed your post.)
Second bold ... Not sure about that. Suggest most
commiesGreens supporters are rich idealistic kids of privilege who wouldn't know a worker if they fell over one.
NZ Politics