AWESOME LECTURER!! There will always be issues with Te Tiriti and The treaty, as both "declarations" contrast in many ways. I think you have approached the treaty in a very respectful and sensitive manner, as a Maori woman I appreciate it. You clearly have a strong understanding of New Zealand's History and great respect for Maori people! AMAAAZING!!!
@@mohsenalattar1 Totally agree with Gayleen, AWESOME. There is a person known as John Wanoa who declares himself a surrogate king and is protesting furiously about the treaty. In my opinion this guy appears to be a little crazy in what he preaches, for example, he wants to overthrow the Queen of England stating she stole the land. This is the guy czcams.com/video/auaX1D7r-TU/video.html Is this guy delusional or on the right track so to speak?
@@ianthompson1846 The british queen did steal our land why did they come here if not for that reason,we have suffered enough, think outside the box, no Mr Wanoa is not crazy he knows the truth and is displaying his displeasure in the case which you do not support ???
@@tonymorgan9240No, the Settler government stole the land at the direction of their settler voters. The Settler government undermined the Te Tiriti agreed to by the Crown (representatives) and Rangatira.
He does not he is adding to the racial strife, YOU should already understand the Treaty without interference or taking on another Gospel. Tikanga Christianity is what Chiefs chose
I would like to make a suggestion as to how or which version should stand as the main document to go by - I would suggest it be the document that holds the signatures of the Maori Chiefs because it is with their signature that they made the agreement with. If their signature is on the Maori version, then that should be deemed the genuine and authentic out of the two versions. 3 December 2021.
I agree but only if Maori agree the Chiefs acknowledged it was an exact translation of the English writ from which it came. Now that everyone understands English then the English document is the focus.
No because inlyv5% speak English and the Maori back translated the maori one to make it say what they wanted. The original English Treaty is held in Te Papa miraculously found in 1989 ! Learn the facts! Stop believing bs
It is not surprising there is debate about the Treaty, the facts have been left out or altered.1) Pre 1840 Maori were destroying themselves through inter-tribal warfare 2) The French and others had designs on NZ, Maori were powerless to stop them 3) The British wanted to help Maori and prevent both, but do it fairly via Treaty. 4) Maori swapped sovereignty for protection and in return were given the rights of the most powerful empire. Read the facts in Ian Wishart's "The Great Divide"
Your words are typical worthless whitey dribble lol the writing on my toilet paper has more meaning than the infant dribble coming from your filthy mouth lol
NZ History On Line: Thousands of Maori died in the intertribal Musket Wars of the 1810s, 1820s and 1830s. Many more were enslaved or became refugees. Northern rivals Ngāpuhi and Ngāti Whātua led the way, but all the tribes were soon trading for muskets.
Chrissy you are right but what your suggesting is that the house was built on sand and not with a solid foundation, I am liking this to the treaty of Waitangi, which was written to suit the british crown not the people of New Zealand, the treaty was written with so many holes in it it would leak water, the british came here on their own judgement, we didnt need them,we had our own governing system, may have been a little archaic, but it worked for us what we had was ours now they ask us to give up our rights, and they say they are here to protect us !!!!!!!
No the maori accepted, plus the true English Treaty is hidden in Te Papa, how would you like it if there was another maori translation that didn't match the 1st translation? Well that's what's happened to the English Treaty! Learn the facts
Hohepa Mapiria Royal Regent 25 page interview and was involved with The Tire Whenua Maori, Maori Land Act will tell you the more accurate explanation about our beginning of Aoteroa, New Zealand and under International Law the Native version is sovereign just like all treaties of the world. The CROWN owns no land, so have no jurisdiction. The Queen is trustee and has to police the Crown for breach of the treaty, Her grandmother did not declare war on the New Zealand. Hobson acting on behalf of the CROWN or the city of London came and deceived the Northern tribes into signing it Taranaki did not not sign the treaty to be classed as a defeated Tangata Whenua. The Queen is not the CROWN, history has being taught wrong for deceptive reasons.
Amen I stand with you now they want to bring in the Magna Carta, another british document get rid of it and vote against it it is the end of all for pakeha rule not Maori rule, once it gets in Maori will have no room to move on any matters concerning out rights to the land, and anything about our country
The Queen died 1901 and by that time it would be expected Maori would have towns and cities but they integrated instead, selling 90% of their land you just can't renegg on that it's a fantasy.
A significant intervention was made by Bishop Pompallier shortly before the signing began. He asked that religious freedom would be guaranteed. The Governor acceded to this and William Colenso, a CMS missionary, worded the following clause: “The Governor says that the several faiths (beliefs) of England, of the Wesleyans, of Rome and also of Māori custom shall alike be protected by him”. This clause is referred to as the fourth article of the Treaty.
What an amazing lecturer!! I have watched a number of your lectures and have understood you so much clearer. Your amazing, glad I came across your lectures.
The Treaty was manipulated. It was explained to Maori that they would be ceding kawanatanga , govt. Not sovereignty which would have been translated as MANA, which no chief would sign away It was the Maori version which stated Kawanatanga would be ceded to the Queen. On March 10 the English version was drafted and the word sovereignty not kawanatanga was written. And it was only then that Hobson declared Sovereignty over NZ. He couldn't declare Sovereignty on the 6th February because that's not what was stated in the Lawful Maori version. Were my tupuna dumb? No. They were straight out duped.
I feel for you, now the pot is coming to the boil as the truth rears its ugly head in more ways than one, thats the whitr mans way and still is to this very day ????
I don't follow how 500 independent tribes could cede sovereignty as it rests in the individual whanau member not the Iwi nor the Hapu; given that collective groups are not an 'individual being ' capable and certain of of being the unequivocal Sole Supreme Authority as does have the individual authority of power of election by free will that an individual sovereign born citizen exercises in the form of representative parliament. To do so, would necessitate the formation of a registered limited incorporated trading company to comply with the doctrine of absolute sovereignty. Is a Charitable status of Iwi corporates able to satisfy for certainty the legal fiction given it's a special tax category rendering it not equal to the Sovereign being??!?
Actually the Chiefs ratified the Treaty 1860 at Kohimarama Conference and said the new Tikanga was Christianity with the Mana of the Queen, read their speeches there's a whole book about it.
There is only two sides if you read two Treaty's, there is only one Treaty though, the Maori text. It is addressed to ALL the people of New Zealand: ki nga tangata katoa o Nu Tirani = "all the people of New Zealand". The Maori text does not contain words anyone could translate for “Forests and Fisheries” and deals only with property rights for ALL not just Maori, there is no mention of partnership either. This lecturer does not use the Maori text (only) and when he does he translates it wrong.
Thank you so much! I learnt more in this video in that small timeframe than I did sitting at the one hour lecture and my lecturer was kind of confusing.
Take a *historical* approach, and there is no difficulty in accepting that both Maori and English at the time has the same understanding as to the meaning and intent of the Treaty. There were plenty of missionaries to explain it, and there were plenty of chiefs that didn't like what had explained to them. This is why many did not sign.... they understood it onlt too perfectly.
Hugh kawheru changed the meaning of 3 key phrases, sovereignty, possession, property. The official English translation is the littlewood, which has two differences, the date and the word maori inserted instead of people . The current understanding of the treaty is corrupted.
There needs to be constitutional reform here in NZ, and that constitutional reformation needs to incorporate He Whakaputanga, and Te tiriti O Waitangi to frame the decision making processes of parliament and to make those partnership agreements an equal one, independence by interdependence that is of mutual benefit to those party to them. Sovereignty for me in the most part is the right to self determination, the independence to effect those rights and the constitutional freedoms to deliberate on the decision making frameworks to implement them. For the treaty and the declaration to work there needs to be change in how New Zealand/Aotearoa history is conveyed in the NZ school curriculum, one that will open up serious debate on the political, economic and legal hegemony of parliament and its potential effects for change, its purpose and how to address historical hiccups, resulting grievances, redress and how to incorporate these, and other, historical documents and agreements into NZ domestic law to create for ourselves a fair and equal partnership for everyone. Just my thoughts. Peace.
This is an excellent explanation but falls short, I got excited when you started to tallk contracts but you fell short - maybe he was afraid he would be run out of his job. " Close but missed it by that much" What about CONTRA PREFERENDUM? BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 2ND ED. Also known as Verba Fortius Accipiuntur Contra Proferentem which is Latin for a contract is to be interpreted against the drafter. This typically refers to vague terms of questionable interpretation which should be interpreted against the drafter of the words and terms since the drafter was in the best position to make them clear. The MAORI VERSION SHALL PREVAIL Te Ture Whenua Maori 1993 Section 2 subsection (3)
You are rewriting the history books here Tino, "Ngati Toa and Mutunga are fictitious"" no Chatham Island atrocities"? If they do not exist who got the $14.9 million the Crown gave them, not a bad payout considering the murders they carried out. What I find hard to understand is: how is it ok for tribes to steal, kill, eat and enslave each other but if a tribe who arrived slightly later acts a bit naughty you call it a holocaust. Is the money the whole country is giving you a waste of time?
Annie I won't hold any of this against you cause you just have to remember to take your meds every 2 hours. Don't forget or someone will be coming around with a jacket that has been designed to fit you very tightly.
The key question most miss in this whole debate is "over whom?" I find it impossible that over 120,000 Maori conceded "sovereignty" to the 2500 Pakeha who were behaving badly. It's just not logical or reasonable. To me, it patently obvious. The Crown had promised to reign in the bad behaviour of the Pakeha settlers, by governing them properly, and in return the Maori were guaranteed sole ownership of their lands, forests and treasures, as well as being guaranteed British citizenship. That the well meaning missionary translators made mistakes, doesn't alter the intent of the Treaty. Thus, co-governance: cooperative governance, coordinated governance, conjunctive governance, call it what you will, was ALWAYS the intent of the Treaty. International Law, which is legally binding on every NZer, under the Convention aspect of Law, specifies the Maori version as the ONLY legally acceptable version. Peters, Seymour and Luxon are dead wrong, along with ever other person who denies co-governance. Co-governance is the founding principle of NZ, like it or not. It's just taken 180 years for Pakeha to get that fact. No amount of denying it will change it. My advice to those who don't want to accept that fact is: find another country to live in, cos we, the overwhelming majority of Kiwis, don't want you or your attitudes, here. 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
There is no ambiguity when you read the Littlewood Teaty document. It mirrors the Maori version word for word. It is the English draft of the Maori version compiled on Feb 4th by James Busby and translated into Maori. Ambiguity only reigns because in the absence of this document an earlier draft (Feb 3rd) has incorrectly been elevated to be the official version. The Waitangi Tribunal and its associated industry would collapse tomorrow if we just recognized the facts.
The actual Treaty was only just considered the nominal cession of sovereignty [in order to legitimate/ justify in the humanitarian climate of the day]. Actual sovereignty was *declared* over NZ a few months later in May. This is why the Brits could have a show of force to the still belligerent tribes that hadn't signed. Both the statesmen of the day, and the authorities back in London, scoffed at legal opinions at that very time that queried whether the British had authority over the unsigned tribes. The Maori/ NZ wars was the final enforcement of sovereignty against unsigned tribes. this is to historicize the traety... strange that it has become unhistoricized today... thanks to legalism.
1 English version 8 maori versions were sent around to be signed. All slightly varied. Only 30 maori signed at waitangi, over 500 signed afterwards, it didn't even come to the south island Busby said we were to rabid and would be easily controlled.
The littlewood cheaty is just another scam such as the English version of the cheaty. The Maori version was signed by over 500 representatives while English versions were signed by 30 or so representatives who were either paid or didn't understand what they were signing. With this in mind International Law (contrapreferentum) takes precedence.
+fezza090 Fair point. It is important to distinguish between the sovereign (the so-called royal family) and the crown (which is code for the executive branch). Even though terms seem interchangeable, they are not.
so there are 9 versions of the pakeha treaty,an they more or less picked one that they thought fitted the time an suited them.so because the version of the pakeha an maori are not the same in meaning an understanding the treaty becomes a breach of contract an the british should be sued an held accountable for there actions.now if the pakeha showed us how to read an write an to fully understanding the nature of treaty that they had presented to us,we would be living in Aotearoa
kiaora, :) all but one of the many signed copies of the tiriti were written in maori. there was only one copy that was signed in english, almost one year after the first signing, and it also contained spelling errors... 33 people signed it. at least 4 tribes never signed a tiriti at all. the so called english translation is nothing more than a mis-translation and never signed or agreed to by maori...
Yep, those that [reluctantly] signed understood it. Those that didn't sign, did not want to give up their mana/ authority. Apparantly, the Littlewood draft is the final draft of Busby's from which the maori version came. they match each other line for line~~
@@davethewave7248 the Littlewood draft is a back translation of the Maori text done by the consul to the United States Clendon who sent it to the States for their archives. The only difference between the Littlewood version and Clendon's is the date.
@@AdamRangiaho Interesting perspective. What about the claim that it is in the handwriting of Busby's? Probably a side issue anyway when it's the Maori version that should be consider THE Treaty. What do you think about the Treaty being a 'nominal' cession of sovereignty [an expedient to legitimize the process for the humanitarians], and that actual sovereignty gained by *declaring* sovereignty over the whole territory in May 1840?
@@davethewave7248Quote :"However, on examining the Littlewood document myself, in 2000, I immediately recognised the handwriting as Busby's. The document is, as shown above, a back-translation from Māori into English, from the printed text in Māori. It is of historical interest but is of no constitutional significance. It is not a draft of the Treaty nor is it a 'copy' of it. It is simply a translation of the Treaty, and, as Loveridge might well have observed, not a very good translation, although to call it "singularly inept" is perhaps too strong. ""PRESERVED IN THE ARCHIVES OF THE COLONY": Dr Phil Parkinson Pg 62
It is thought a massive tsunami in the mid 1400's wiped out almost all Maori settlements close to the coast. Thus the natives who new how to build and sail these craft were gone. There is written, oral and physical evidence of this tsunami right around the pacific including Australian Aborigines. This event occurred very early after Maori arrived (and were greeted by earlier inhabitants) in the 1300's. Maori legend supports the fact there were earlier inhabitants.
Complete with the ensign of the Royal yacht club of Wellington as its "National" flag, New Zealand is not a nation, which is a group of people, or society that share a common ancestry, language and tradition, it is a country administered by a "Corporate" government complete with an executive branch with CEO's at their heads that is under the authority of the treasury as a debtor to it (Alieni Juris) that manages its economic resource, and only source of income, its citizens and has political, legal and geographical boundaries and borders.
There isn't any difference with the right English Treaty the problem is the final doc was misplaced but found in 1989, this document is called the Littlewood Treaty and was the one translated into Maori. There's other sample drafts too about 7 altogether that were altered until a final Treaty, bring it out I say from the back stalls of Te Papa museum!
Ummm...so: not that we're ALL clear on the differences, mis-translations and mis-transliterations... we're a modern multi ethnic society now in a modern world... so create a NEW Treaty that everyone DOES agree on and co-create. That'd end all this confusion and debate. Done.. See if I'm working upon something that's now VERY old and no longer fit for purpose in my daily life... I chuck it out and get a new one that IS...
+Phaidra Johannis Fair point Phaidra. Tuhoe have been making the claim for decades (though their claim is stronger as they did not sign the treaty). Unfortunately, anti-colonial legal arguments usually fall on deaf ears when the ears belong to colonisers.
E ta, kotahitonu ahuatanga tika! Na rototonu i tena o a Te Karauna ana ture ra Contra Preferentum, ara, ta tatau me matau na te takoto atu o Te Tiriti me te DOI - ae - mana ana tonu te mana o tatau me matau kei roto o taua takotoranga atu o aua pukapuka ne? Na reiraka, kotahitonu tika o roto o enei tuahua! Ana, i kore ai e i riro te mana ki Te Karauna. A ki a au na - ae...koiahoki tena!
Check this...Missionary Henry Williams and his son Edward, both of European descent were given the task of drafting the treaty, because they knew the Māori language. But my question? Did they understand Maori?? Did they understand the infinitive dimension of Maori language, Example: the word MAURI is dimensional , does not have a single definition. Therefore, Why should there have been two NON-MAORI, be given the right to translate for Maori! e.g. "It's like a Hindu trying to teach the HAKA to Maori"
Tino Rangatiratanga meaning - Absolute Sovereignty Kīngitanga meaning - Maori King Movement He Wakaputanga o te Rangatiratanga o Nu Tireni meaning - Declaration of the Independence of New Zealand
We have within our Political system representation of Maori, it's the Maori Electoral role. Maori don't want balanced representation they want ownership. Ownership by 16% of the population over all the other Ethnicities. We as New Zealanders get to decide our fate every 3 years in democratic elections.
That's' what early British colonizers sought out to do was to go out find land and set up new colonies. Because Maori outnumbered Pakeha settlers at the time of the country. All tribes were armed. It was still dangerous for settlers. They Treaty was more of a protectorate for Pakeha than it was for Maori.
Thats why the treaty was signed up north it was a long way for tribes to travel that far and who knows, they werent notified of the meeting worse was the missionaries who did the translation I bet it was in the favour of the british crown was a big mistake
@@tonymorgan9240 The Te Tiriti was signed in Taitokerau because the rangatira were asking the Queen to be responsible for her rebellious people in Kororareka, as the Rangatira mana and jurisdiction was only over their people and whenua. It was Hobson et al, new settlers and missionaries with their own agenda who saw the opportunity to use the Te Tiriti and it's many copies to take sovereignty from the rest of Iwi.
see: Littlewood Treaty There is no Article 4 in the Treaty of Waitangi, there is a preamble and 3 Articles only! check the national archives online! this man sounds like one of Tariana Turia's 'Blackpanthers' Angela Davis commo people!
The 1835 Declaration of Independence was signed by a few chiefs in the far North and was described as a "paper pallet", by the Governor of NSW. Although acknowledged for what it was, a few chiefs trying to avoid the clutches of the French, it was superseded by the TOW in 1840 where all the chiefs agreed to swap sovereignty for the protection of and the rights of British citizens. Thus immediately ending slavery and establishing law and order, everyone was a winner.
Sea going waka capable of 1500 miles?, none were seen in NZ from the late 1700's. Many Maori were sailors, the Chatham atrocities are not an argument they are a fact.Your most important point: All tribes were a mixture of ancestry, all leading back to our beginnings in East Africa. Whether a person or tribe has some Pakeha or Maori or Samoan ancestry is of no consequence, we are here, now, we are ALL equal, the (Maori text) Treaty says that in Article II ki nga tangata katoa o Nu Tirani.
Equal is that correct but some are more equal than others don't give us that gibberish we've listened to that constantly over the years that its like a broken record.
No Tino you don't get it. There were no native sea going craft here in the late 1700's, look around there are none even today. I am saying there obviously there were sea going craft because various tribes from various places got here. Where did they go? Why do Maori have no skills or knowledge to build them? A very good theory is the crater formed south of Stewart Island is dated to mid 1400's.The tsunami caused by this impact put sand on hills 200m high. Now Tino are you getting it?
Annie your an arrogant patronising git. I bet you've always talked down to indigenous peoples around the world. Cause you believe that white is write. Mate with what's coming out of you mouth it's leads me to believe you have a masters in shit stirring.
What would an American know about NZ the independence was with Christianity as opposed to warring tribes ok, the flag is Christain not Maori the man clearly side steps this fact. The Maori version is a mirror of the final English writ if this is questioned it destabilises everything quite ridiculous. In fact the original final English Treaty misplaced in 1841 but miraculously found in 1989 authenticated and stored in Te Papa Museum but the Maoris reject it due to the fact that the Waitangi Tribunal back-translated the Maori version and skewed it to forward their agenda for a coup detat its treason! Bring the correct English Mother document out to public scrutiny. Maori understood, they confirmed it in 1860 and other Maori leaders also confirmed it. The Treaty is a simple nulity since Govt formed 1852! Theres too many cooks that spoil the broth and everyone speaks English so the English original is the only reference.
Interesting, when reality is put in front of you, you don't want to discuss it. You are correct there was about 2000 Pakeha in 1840. You are wildly inaccurate with the native count, try 70,000 and shrinking due to tribal wars. However and here is a very important point, the offspring of the liaisons of Maori and Sailors from 1769 on are counted as Maori, you are one of these, all Maori are. Where did your Pakeha ancestry go? Until you recognize we are all mixed it is you that is delusional.
Ailsa you act like you have some special right to choose who lives here and what they are allowed to think or say. You have no more right than anyone else to live here. You are descended from settlers who arrived here by boat, so am I and so probably is Stephen. The only insecure people who need to be "booted out' are ones who somehow think they are superior or are owed something.
Annie Oakley pack up your guns and take a hike to where ever. Better get a jab otherwise you ain't going anywhere hee hee hee. Your rellies overseas be wanting to see you aye?
There were people in NZ before Maori, a new Video called "Poukawa Revisited" shows human occupation at 7170yrs radiocarbon dated and under the Taupo ashbands and deeper .. some of the dating goes back 10,000 years .. anyway it has only just been released to the public
What?...a must watch… a man of knowledge… are you joking? 1) The Treaty of Waitangi has no independent legal status. So your foreign tutor has that wrong, the Treaty is not a contract. 2) This guy seems to think the contract is missing and states we need to look at other documents. The Treaty of Waitangi is not missing and neither is the draft. Both documents are held in Archives New Zealand. Why is this buffoon directing us to the Declaration of Independence (DOI)? This is a trick; he wants to confuse you by directing your attention away from the Treaty to some other document. We don’t need foreign tricksters coming here and trying to divert our attention away from the Treaty. 3) The DOI was an unauthorized contract drawn up by a Pakeha, James Busby, signed by 34 Nga Puhi Chiefs, none of whom we have any evidence understood a word of it. There were approximately 600 groups in New Zealand at that time, so 90 % of New Zealanders had no idea of the DOI or agreed to it. Why is the tutor placing so much weight on something that 90% of New Zealanders had no idea about? Why does he keep stating Maori are declaring their sovereignty when the DOI was a Pakeha document, drawn up by James Busby? 4) The tutor keeps on referring to “Maori” people when discussing pre Treaty (1840). The term ‘Maori’ was not used to refer to the 600 hundred different groups in New Zealand as one people until 1850. This tutor really has no grasp on New Zealand history or language. 5) The tutor states “the British sought a Treaty with Maori”. However, the draft in English and the Treaty state the Treaty is with “All the People of New Zealand” or “ki nga tangata Katoa o Nu Tirani” I could go on and on….. this guy has no idea about our history and is misleading the students with a completely revised history. When he and others do this our history becomes distorted and people become distorted. This crap needs to stop and we need to understand that we are all New Zealanders . There are no different people who need our money and sympathy.
Andy your racist bias can be seen when you referred to this tutor as being foreign lol as for 1835 DOI the reason why it was important is because busby and the Crown drafted it......maori chiefs signed and the term tino rangatiratanga was used in the declaration to guarantee maori sovereignty.....so go away nand get schooled boy
😂 you oviously need to research more mate. This guys on point with a lot of what he said. And i know because i am maori and have heard a lot. Just saying. Go and learn more before going on a rant just like you did 😂
As for the DOI, the Brits in the end accepted it for diplomatic reasons - it became the basis of chiefs *ceding* their sovereignty in the W treaty that completely superceded it. All a bit comical really. The Treaty wa just nominal... real sovereignty was established by a *declaration* made over the whole of NZ in May 1840.... being the basis on which unsigned tribes were also to submit to British power/ sovereignty.
I agree with you on religion 100%. I agree British colonized a lot of the western world 100%. I agree a lot of history books are full of crap 100%. I disagree with your a racist views. You are ignorant of your own and Australian Aboriginal history, you are displaying it in your posts. Do some reading of our history and not all by the same author, form some reasonable and debatable opinions and defend your people with knowledge and not the racist ignorance you display here. Kia kaha bro
This is revisionism at its worst. The English version of the treaty is the original and 'kawanatanga' is a corruption of governor. The Maori version was hastily drafted overnight by a missionary and his son when it was realised that few of the Maori chiefs understood English. Sovereignty was clearly ceded and there is no mention of water, co-governance or any other of the modern myths. Treaty principles are what today's leftist judicial activists believe the treaty should have contained and doesn't. This idiot at one stage quoted the Declaration of Independence, an unrelated document except that it was made clear in the treaty that the terms of the DOI were to be made null and void by the signing of the treaty.
Hush your black asss honky lol you have no say in this little boy we don’t need your permission you little freak lol who the fk are you to speak on this boy? Go back to pommy land and get off ours 😂👍 that’ll be great 🥴
I don't get why you still get some Maori that complain about this. before the British arrived the Maori where are we living in the Stone Age and constantly killing and eating each other. The British made New Zealand a prosperous western country and all Maori people are more than welcome to be apart of it.
It would be worthwhile to read something on Maori history before making such sweeping - and inaccurate - comments. Let me know if you'd like any book recommendations; there are some fantastic texts out there all of which disprove the old canard about cannibalism (this is the first I hear about the stone age though well done to the Maori if they managed to survive for 2.5 million years!).
mohsenalattar1 yes sure mate I would appreciate it if you could point me in the direction of some of these books and let's me honest the Maori hadn't even utilised metal when the British first arrived and as for cannibalism there dose seem to be a decent amount of evidence that some Maori tribes engaged in the act. Also the Maori do seem to have integrated the most out of all the native populations that where apart of the British Empire.
I'm glad you're open to a bit of reading buddy as there are some great texts out there! Three of my favourites are Struggle Without End (Ranginui Walker), Te Whiti o Rongomai and the Resistance of Parihaka (Danny Keenan), and A Simple Nullity? The Wi Parata Case in New Zealand Law and History (David Williams). On the matter of cannibalism, you are right: there are a few instances of recorded cannibalism among Maori. What is inaccurate is the suggestion that Maori would breakfast on each other on the regular; this was never the case. More to the point, cannibalism is often a consequence of war and instances of it were recorded during WWI, WWII and even when the Americans invaded Vietnam (and, shhh, don't tell anyone but the Europeans were the ones doing it!). It's better to engage with the history books than to quickly tarnish all Maori for what was an atypical act.
People like you make my blood boil. Tend to always flip to the story of oh why cant maori just be happy they are so lucky to have the british arive. Now they can drive cars etc. Just be happy. 😂 if you were maori you would understand the feeling of having your peoples freedom stolen so yea maori people will always get upset to hear someone speak the way you do. Its a Racist thing i reckon. Your a muppet thats all i have to say to you
AWESOME LECTURER!! There will always be issues with Te Tiriti and The treaty, as both "declarations" contrast in many ways. I think you have approached the treaty in a very respectful and sensitive manner, as a Maori woman I appreciate it. You clearly have a strong understanding of New Zealand's History and great respect for Maori people! AMAAAZING!!!
Many thanks for the positive review Gayleen! I did my best and am glad to know that I hit a respectful tone.
@@mohsenalattar1 Totally agree with Gayleen, AWESOME. There is a person known as John Wanoa who declares himself a surrogate king and is protesting furiously about the treaty. In my opinion this guy appears to be a little crazy in what he preaches, for example, he wants to overthrow the Queen of England stating she stole the land. This is the guy czcams.com/video/auaX1D7r-TU/video.html Is this guy delusional or on the right track so to speak?
@@ianthompson1846 The british queen did steal our land why did they come here if not for that reason,we have suffered enough, think outside the box, no Mr Wanoa is not crazy he knows the truth and is displaying his displeasure in the case which you do not support ???
@@tonymorgan9240No, the Settler government stole the land at the direction of their settler voters.
The Settler government undermined the Te Tiriti agreed to by the Crown (representatives) and Rangatira.
He does not he is adding to the racial strife, YOU should already understand the Treaty without interference or taking on another Gospel. Tikanga Christianity is what Chiefs chose
I would like to make a suggestion as to how or which version should stand as the main document to go by - I would suggest it be the document that holds the signatures of the Maori Chiefs because it is with their signature that they made the agreement with. If their signature is on the Maori version, then that should be deemed the genuine and authentic out of the two versions. 3 December 2021.
I agree but only if Maori agree the Chiefs acknowledged it was an exact translation of the English writ from which it came. Now that everyone understands English then the English document is the focus.
No because inlyv5% speak English and the Maori back translated the maori one to make it say what they wanted. The original English Treaty is held in Te Papa miraculously found in 1989 ! Learn the facts! Stop believing bs
It is not surprising there is debate about the Treaty, the facts have been left out or altered.1) Pre 1840 Maori were destroying themselves through inter-tribal warfare 2) The French and others had designs on NZ, Maori were powerless to stop them 3) The British wanted to help Maori and prevent both, but do it fairly via Treaty. 4) Maori swapped sovereignty for protection and in return were given the rights of the most powerful empire. Read the facts in Ian Wishart's "The Great Divide"
Your words are typical worthless whitey dribble lol the writing on my toilet paper has more meaning than the infant dribble coming from your filthy mouth lol
NZ History On Line:
Thousands of Maori died in the intertribal Musket Wars of the 1810s, 1820s and 1830s. Many more were enslaved or became refugees. Northern rivals Ngāpuhi and Ngāti Whātua led the way, but all the tribes were soon trading for muskets.
Chrissy you are right but what your suggesting is that the house was built on sand and not with a solid foundation, I am liking this to the treaty of Waitangi, which was written to suit the british crown not the people of New Zealand, the treaty was written with so many holes in it it would leak water, the british came here on their own judgement, we didnt need them,we had our own governing system, may have been a little archaic, but it worked for us what we had was ours now they ask us to give up our rights, and they say they are here to protect us !!!!!!!
No the maori accepted, plus the true English Treaty is hidden in Te Papa, how would you like it if there was another maori translation that didn't match the 1st translation? Well that's what's happened to the English Treaty! Learn the facts
Hohepa Mapiria Royal Regent 25 page interview and was involved with The Tire Whenua Maori, Maori Land Act will tell you the more accurate explanation about our beginning of Aoteroa, New Zealand and under International Law the Native version is sovereign just like all treaties of the world. The CROWN owns no land, so have no jurisdiction. The Queen is trustee and has to police the Crown for breach of the treaty, Her grandmother did not declare war on the New Zealand. Hobson acting on behalf of the CROWN or the city of London came and deceived the Northern tribes into signing it Taranaki did not not sign the treaty to be classed as a defeated Tangata Whenua. The Queen is not the CROWN, history has being taught wrong for deceptive reasons.
Amen I stand with you now they want to bring in the Magna Carta, another british document get rid of it and vote against it it is the end of all for pakeha rule not Maori rule, once it gets in Maori will have no room to move on any matters concerning out rights to the land, and anything about our country
The Queen died 1901 and by that time it would be expected Maori would have towns and cities but they integrated instead, selling 90% of their land you just can't renegg on that it's a fantasy.
A significant intervention was made by Bishop Pompallier shortly before the signing began. He asked that religious freedom would be guaranteed. The Governor acceded to this and William Colenso, a CMS missionary, worded the following clause: “The Governor says that the several faiths (beliefs) of England, of the Wesleyans, of Rome and also of Māori custom shall alike be protected by him”. This clause is referred to as the fourth article of the Treaty.
That goes without saying under British Law and Bill of Rights 1688
What an amazing lecturer!! I have watched a number of your lectures and have understood you so much clearer. Your amazing, glad I came across your lectures.
The Treaty was manipulated. It was explained to Maori that they would be ceding kawanatanga , govt. Not sovereignty which would have been translated as MANA, which no chief would sign away
It was the Maori version which stated Kawanatanga would be ceded to the Queen. On March 10 the English version was drafted and the word sovereignty not kawanatanga was written. And it was only then that Hobson declared Sovereignty over NZ. He couldn't declare Sovereignty on the 6th February because that's not what was stated in the Lawful Maori version. Were my tupuna dumb? No. They were straight out duped.
What ever clown!! You idiot
I feel for you, now the pot is coming to the boil as the truth rears its ugly head in more ways than one, thats the whitr mans way and still is to this very day ????
I don't follow how 500 independent tribes could cede sovereignty as it rests in the individual whanau member not the Iwi nor the Hapu;
given that collective groups are not an 'individual being ' capable and certain of of being the unequivocal Sole Supreme Authority as does have the individual authority of power of election by free will that an individual sovereign born citizen exercises in the form of representative parliament.
To do so, would necessitate the formation of a registered limited incorporated trading company to comply with the doctrine of absolute sovereignty.
Is a Charitable status of Iwi corporates able to satisfy for certainty the legal fiction given it's a special tax category rendering it not equal to the Sovereign being??!?
Actually the Chiefs ratified the Treaty 1860 at Kohimarama Conference and said the new Tikanga was Christianity with the Mana of the Queen, read their speeches there's a whole book about it.
The new Tikanga was Christianity with Mana of the Monarchy Chuefs declared it
There is only two sides if you read two Treaty's, there is only one Treaty though, the Maori text. It is addressed to ALL the people of New Zealand: ki nga tangata katoa o Nu Tirani = "all the people of New Zealand". The Maori text does not contain words anyone could translate for “Forests and Fisheries” and deals only with property rights for ALL not just Maori, there is no mention of partnership either. This lecturer does not use the Maori text (only) and when he does he translates it wrong.
Bs again
Oh Annie your are so knowledgeable you deserve a gold medal. Now you take it and go sit in the corner and when we need you knowledge we will call you.
Shuddup wanker you have no say in anything 😂😂 take a seat and close your little bung hole lol
Thank you so much! I learnt more in this video in that small timeframe than I did sitting at the one hour lecture and my lecturer was kind of confusing.
What did you learn ???
You're learning bs
Take a *historical* approach, and there is no difficulty in accepting that both Maori and English at the time has the same understanding as to the meaning and intent of the Treaty. There were plenty of missionaries to explain it, and there were plenty of chiefs that didn't like what had explained to them. This is why many did not sign.... they understood it onlt too perfectly.
Hugh kawheru changed the meaning of 3 key phrases, sovereignty, possession, property. The official English translation is the littlewood, which has two differences, the date and the word maori inserted instead of people . The current understanding of the treaty is corrupted.
There needs to be constitutional reform here in NZ, and that constitutional reformation needs to incorporate He Whakaputanga, and Te tiriti O Waitangi to frame the decision making processes of parliament and to make those partnership agreements an equal one, independence by interdependence that is of mutual benefit to those party to them.
Sovereignty for me in the most part is the right to self determination, the independence to effect those rights and the constitutional freedoms to deliberate on the decision making frameworks to implement them.
For the treaty and the declaration to work there needs to be change in how New Zealand/Aotearoa history is conveyed in the NZ school curriculum, one that will open up serious debate on the political, economic and legal hegemony of parliament and its potential effects for change, its purpose and how to address historical hiccups, resulting grievances, redress and how to incorporate these, and other, historical documents and agreements into NZ domestic law to create for ourselves a fair and equal partnership for everyone.
Just my thoughts.
Peace.
He has done a very good job his speech was nice and clear and I understood everything he said.
Better than most pakeha and even maori.
Pakeha???? No thanks.
This is an excellent explanation but falls short, I got excited when you started to tallk contracts but you fell short - maybe he was afraid he would be run out of his job. " Close but missed it by that much" What about CONTRA PREFERENDUM?
BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 2ND ED. Also known as Verba Fortius Accipiuntur Contra Proferentem which is Latin for a contract is to be interpreted against the drafter. This typically refers to vague terms of questionable interpretation which should be interpreted against the drafter of the words and terms since the drafter was in the best position to make them clear. The MAORI VERSION SHALL PREVAIL Te Ture Whenua Maori 1993 Section 2 subsection (3)
Noone understands it except 5% lol
You are rewriting the history books here Tino, "Ngati Toa and Mutunga are fictitious"" no Chatham Island atrocities"? If they do not exist who got the $14.9 million the Crown gave them, not a bad payout considering the murders they carried out. What I find hard to understand is: how is it ok for tribes to steal, kill, eat and enslave each other but if a tribe who arrived slightly later acts a bit naughty you call it a holocaust.
Is the money the whole country is giving you a waste of time?
Annie I won't hold any of this against you cause you just have to remember to take your meds every 2 hours. Don't forget or someone will be coming around with a jacket that has been designed to fit you very tightly.
he didnt mention anything about article 3...
The key question most miss in this whole debate is "over whom?"
I find it impossible that over 120,000 Maori conceded "sovereignty" to the 2500 Pakeha who were behaving badly. It's just not logical or reasonable.
To me, it patently obvious. The Crown had promised to reign in the bad behaviour of the Pakeha settlers, by governing them properly, and in return the Maori were guaranteed sole ownership of their lands, forests and treasures, as well as being guaranteed British citizenship.
That the well meaning missionary translators made mistakes, doesn't alter the intent of the Treaty.
Thus, co-governance: cooperative governance, coordinated governance, conjunctive governance, call it what you will, was ALWAYS the intent of the Treaty.
International Law, which is legally binding on every NZer, under the Convention aspect of Law, specifies the Maori version as the ONLY legally acceptable version.
Peters, Seymour and Luxon are dead wrong, along with ever other person who denies co-governance.
Co-governance is the founding principle of NZ, like it or not. It's just taken 180 years for Pakeha to get that fact. No amount of denying it will change it. My advice to those who don't want to accept that fact is: find another country to live in, cos we, the overwhelming majority of Kiwis, don't want you or your attitudes, here. 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
There is no ambiguity when you read the Littlewood Teaty document. It mirrors the Maori version word for word. It is the English draft of the Maori version compiled on Feb 4th by James Busby and translated into Maori. Ambiguity only reigns because in the absence of this document an earlier draft (Feb 3rd) has incorrectly been elevated to be the official version. The Waitangi Tribunal and its associated industry would collapse tomorrow if we just recognized the facts.
Shuut the fukk up lol y’all ain’t sheeiit lol
The actual Treaty was only just considered the nominal cession of sovereignty [in order to legitimate/ justify in the humanitarian climate of the day]. Actual sovereignty was *declared* over NZ a few months later in May. This is why the Brits could have a show of force to the still belligerent tribes that hadn't signed. Both the statesmen of the day, and the authorities back in London, scoffed at legal opinions at that very time that queried whether the British had authority over the unsigned tribes. The Maori/ NZ wars was the final enforcement of sovereignty against unsigned tribes. this is to historicize the traety... strange that it has become unhistoricized today... thanks to legalism.
analyze the doctrine of discovery first then lets compare what documents the government is really acknowledging?
"First in Time, Is First in Law."
I will start my college next year and studying criminal justice major. Iam trying to learn more about Criminal justice of this video.
1 English version 8 maori versions were sent around to be signed. All slightly varied. Only 30 maori signed at waitangi, over 500 signed afterwards, it didn't even come to the south island Busby said we were to rabid and would be easily controlled.
The littlewood cheaty is just another scam such as the English version of the cheaty. The Maori version was signed by over 500 representatives while English versions were signed by 30 or so representatives who were either paid or didn't understand what they were signing. With this in mind International Law (contrapreferentum) takes precedence.
Why didn't the Chiefs ask for a translation of the English version from one of their own before signing it ?
Yeah they should of told those honkys to pisss offf all together
The Crown is not the Queen or the royal family. The Crown is a separate entity
+fezza090 Fair point. It is important to distinguish between the sovereign (the so-called royal family) and the crown (which is code for the executive branch). Even though terms seem interchangeable, they are not.
so there are 9 versions of the pakeha treaty,an they more or less picked one that they thought fitted the time an suited them.so because the version of the pakeha an maori are not the same in meaning an understanding the treaty becomes a breach of contract an the british should be sued an held accountable for there actions.now if the pakeha showed us how to read an write an to fully understanding the nature of treaty that they had presented to us,we would be living in Aotearoa
kiaora, :)
all but one of the many signed copies of the tiriti were written in maori. there was only one copy that was signed in english, almost one year after the first signing, and it also contained spelling errors... 33 people signed it. at least 4 tribes never signed a tiriti at all. the so called english translation is nothing more than a mis-translation and never signed or agreed to by maori...
Yep, those that [reluctantly] signed understood it. Those that didn't sign, did not want to give up their mana/ authority. Apparantly, the Littlewood draft is the final draft of Busby's from which the maori version came. they match each other line for line~~
@@davethewave7248 the Littlewood draft is a back translation of the Maori text done by the consul to the United States Clendon who sent it to the States for their archives. The only difference between the Littlewood version and Clendon's is the date.
@@AdamRangiaho Interesting perspective. What about the claim that it is in the handwriting of Busby's? Probably a side issue anyway when it's the Maori version that should be consider THE Treaty. What do you think about the Treaty being a 'nominal' cession of sovereignty [an expedient to legitimize the process for the humanitarians], and that actual sovereignty gained by *declaring* sovereignty over the whole territory in May 1840?
@@davethewave7248Quote :"However, on examining the Littlewood document myself, in 2000, I immediately recognised the handwriting as Busby's. The document is, as shown above, a back-translation from Māori into English, from the printed text in Māori. It is of historical interest but is of no constitutional significance. It is not a draft of the Treaty nor is it a 'copy' of it. It is simply a translation of the Treaty, and, as Loveridge might well have observed, not a very good translation, although to call it "singularly inept" is perhaps too strong. ""PRESERVED IN THE ARCHIVES OF THE COLONY": Dr Phil Parkinson Pg 62
It is thought a massive tsunami in the mid 1400's wiped out almost all Maori settlements close to the coast. Thus the natives who new how to build and sail these craft were gone. There is written, oral and physical evidence of this tsunami right around the pacific including Australian Aborigines. This event occurred very early after Maori arrived (and were greeted by earlier inhabitants) in the 1300's. Maori legend supports the fact there were earlier inhabitants.
Oh is that right Annie Oakley well you just get your gun/s and go back to the USA.
NZ GOVT. A Maritime Admiralty illusion
Complete with the ensign of the Royal yacht club of Wellington as its "National" flag, New Zealand is not a nation, which is a group of people, or society that share a common ancestry, language and tradition, it is a country administered by a "Corporate" government complete with an executive branch with CEO's at their heads that is under the authority of the treasury as a debtor to it (Alieni Juris) that manages its economic resource, and only source of income, its citizens and has political, legal and geographical boundaries and borders.
"For Maori..." or only for the radicalized Maori? Not all maori think the same, just as not all Europeans think the same. A bit of a major slip here^^
that's a good speech coming from a foreign mental outlook on the treaty of Waitangi ..Bravo Zulu
Shut yo bung hole pal 😂😴
So there is 2 Treatys?..one white and one maori because of translation differences?
There isn't any difference with the right English Treaty the problem is the final doc was misplaced but found in 1989, this document is called the Littlewood Treaty and was the one translated into Maori. There's other sample drafts too about 7 altogether that were altered until a final Treaty, bring it out I say from the back stalls of Te Papa museum!
Great explanation, who is the lecturer? and at which university?
Ummm...so: not that we're ALL clear on the differences, mis-translations and mis-transliterations... we're a modern multi ethnic society now in a modern world... so create a NEW Treaty that everyone DOES agree on and co-create.
That'd end all this confusion and debate.
Done..
See if I'm working upon something that's now VERY old and no longer fit for purpose in my daily life... I chuck it out and get a new one that IS...
Without a proper translation of a treaty for both sides, can we really speak of a ratified treaty, one that has full support of all its signatories?
+Phaidra Johannis Fair point Phaidra. Tuhoe have been making the claim for decades (though their claim is stronger as they did not sign the treaty). Unfortunately, anti-colonial legal arguments usually fall on deaf ears when the ears belong to colonisers.
E ta, kotahitonu ahuatanga tika! Na rototonu i tena o a Te Karauna ana ture ra Contra Preferentum, ara, ta tatau me matau na te takoto atu o Te Tiriti me te DOI - ae - mana ana tonu te mana o tatau me matau kei roto o taua takotoranga atu o aua pukapuka ne? Na reiraka, kotahitonu tika o roto o enei tuahua! Ana, i kore ai e i riro te mana ki Te Karauna. A ki a au na - ae...koiahoki tena!
Check this...Missionary Henry Williams and his son Edward, both of European descent were given the task of drafting the treaty, because they knew the Māori language. But my question? Did they understand Maori?? Did they understand the infinitive dimension of Maori language, Example: the word MAURI is dimensional , does not have a single definition. Therefore, Why should there have been two NON-MAORI, be given the right to translate for Maori! e.g. "It's like a Hindu trying to teach the HAKA to Maori"
Lol cos that’s how diirty sneaky ball heads roll and ain’t nothing changed even today you probably don’t even notice 🙈
Can anyone help I'm in second year and I don't understand this chapter
Tino Rangatiratanga meaning - Absolute Sovereignty
Kīngitanga meaning - Maori King Movement
He Wakaputanga o te Rangatiratanga o Nu Tireni meaning - Declaration of the Independence of New Zealand
Kia ora how can i cite this video please?
We have within our Political system representation of Maori, it's the Maori Electoral role. Maori don't want balanced representation they want ownership. Ownership by 16% of the population over all the other Ethnicities. We as New Zealanders get to decide our fate every 3 years in democratic elections.
Shuddup we don’t need your permission lol who are you?? lol
This was pretty helpful and the lecturer's cute too. Lol
In what way was it helpful to you ???? other than your preference of the lecturer looking cute, Fraudulent document I say get rid of it ????
LOL ...nice one
Your moms fraudulent I would say 🫥
That's' what early British colonizers sought out to do was to go out find land and set up new colonies. Because Maori outnumbered Pakeha settlers at the time of the country. All tribes were armed. It was still dangerous for settlers. They Treaty was more of a protectorate for Pakeha than it was for Maori.
Tuhoe never signed the treaty!!
Thats why the treaty was signed up north it was a long way for tribes to travel that far and who knows, they werent notified of the meeting worse was the missionaries who did the translation I bet it was in the favour of the british crown was a big mistake
Kiaora Tuhoe My tribe and many others are with you
@@tonymorgan9240 The Te Tiriti was signed in Taitokerau because the rangatira were asking the Queen to be responsible for her rebellious people in Kororareka, as the Rangatira mana and jurisdiction was only over their people and whenua.
It was Hobson et al, new settlers and missionaries with their own agenda who saw the opportunity to use the Te Tiriti and it's many copies to take sovereignty from the rest of Iwi.
see: Littlewood Treaty
There is no Article 4 in the Treaty of Waitangi, there is a preamble and 3 Articles only! check the national archives online!
this man sounds like one of Tariana Turia's 'Blackpanthers' Angela Davis commo people!
Only a Trumpstirrer would come up with that feeble comment aye KKK.
The 1835 Declaration of Independence was signed by a few chiefs in the far North and was described as a "paper pallet", by the Governor of NSW. Although acknowledged for what it was, a few chiefs trying to avoid the clutches of the French, it was superseded by the TOW in 1840 where all the chiefs agreed to swap sovereignty for the protection of and the rights of British citizens. Thus immediately ending slavery and establishing law and order, everyone was a winner.
Bs
I cant take him seriously he is not Maori. Is he American ?And also he can't pronounce Maori Properly
NZ History On Line- NCEA 3 History:
In 1840 the Maori population of 70,000 comfortably outnumbered the 2000 or so permanent European settlers.
Sea going waka capable of 1500 miles?, none were seen in NZ from the late 1700's. Many Maori were sailors, the Chatham atrocities are not an argument they are a fact.Your most important point: All tribes were a mixture of ancestry, all leading back to our beginnings in East Africa. Whether a person or tribe has some Pakeha or Maori or Samoan ancestry is of no consequence, we are here, now, we are ALL equal, the (Maori text) Treaty says that in Article II ki nga tangata katoa o Nu Tirani.
Awesome views Andy.its what us kiwis are about 🇳🇿🇳🇿🇳🇿
Equal is that correct but some are more equal than others don't give us that gibberish we've listened to that constantly over the years that its like a broken record.
No Tino you don't get it. There were no native sea going craft here in the late 1700's, look around there are none even today. I am saying there obviously there were sea going craft because various tribes from various places got here. Where did they go? Why do Maori have no skills or knowledge to build them? A very good theory is the crater formed south of Stewart Island is dated to mid 1400's.The tsunami caused by this impact put sand on hills 200m high. Now Tino are you getting it?
Annie your an arrogant patronising git. I bet you've always talked down to indigenous peoples around the world. Cause you believe that white is write. Mate with what's coming out of you mouth it's leads me to believe you have a masters in shit stirring.
What would an American know about NZ the independence was with Christianity as opposed to warring tribes ok, the flag is Christain not Maori the man clearly side steps this fact. The Maori version is a mirror of the final English writ if this is questioned it destabilises everything quite ridiculous. In fact the original final English Treaty misplaced in 1841 but miraculously found in 1989 authenticated and stored in Te Papa Museum but the Maoris reject it due to the fact that the Waitangi Tribunal back-translated the Maori version and skewed it to forward their agenda for a coup detat its treason! Bring the correct English Mother document out to public scrutiny. Maori understood, they confirmed it in 1860 and other Maori leaders also confirmed it. The Treaty is a simple nulity since Govt formed 1852! Theres too many cooks that spoil the broth and everyone speaks English so the English original is the only reference.
Foreshore and seabed belong to all NZers
The 'two treaty' idea is an invention of the '80s. this poor academic has been caught hook, line, and sinker. lol
The Treaty can never be taken seriously!! Considering there is 110 embargos on Archelogical sites in New Zealand!!
Booo bad argument
Māori never ceded sovereignty
Interesting, when reality is put in front of you, you don't want to discuss it. You are correct there was about 2000 Pakeha in 1840. You are wildly inaccurate with the native count, try 70,000 and shrinking due to tribal wars. However and here is a very important point, the offspring of the liaisons of Maori and Sailors from 1769 on are counted as Maori, you are one of these, all Maori are. Where did your Pakeha ancestry go? Until you recognize we are all mixed it is you that is delusional.
LOL "Ruh-nga-tee-rah-tah--nguh"
Ailsa you act like you have some special right to choose who lives here and what they are allowed to think or say. You have no more right than anyone else to live here. You are descended from settlers who arrived here by boat, so am I and so probably is Stephen. The only insecure people who need to be "booted out' are ones who somehow think they are superior or are owed something.
Annie Oakley pack up your guns and take a hike to where ever. Better get a jab otherwise you ain't going anywhere hee hee hee. Your rellies overseas be wanting to see you aye?
There were people in NZ before Maori, a new Video called "Poukawa Revisited" shows human occupation at 7170yrs radiocarbon dated and under the Taupo ashbands and deeper .. some of the dating goes back 10,000 years .. anyway it has only just been released to the public
What?...a must watch… a man of knowledge… are you joking?
1) The Treaty of Waitangi has no independent legal status.
So your foreign tutor has that wrong, the Treaty is not a contract.
2) This guy seems to think the contract is missing and states we need to look at other documents.
The Treaty of Waitangi is not missing and neither is the draft. Both documents are held in Archives New Zealand. Why is this buffoon directing us to the Declaration of Independence (DOI)?
This is a trick; he wants to confuse you by directing your attention away from the Treaty to some other document. We don’t need foreign tricksters coming here and trying to divert our attention away from the Treaty.
3) The DOI was an unauthorized contract drawn up by a Pakeha, James Busby, signed by 34 Nga Puhi Chiefs, none of whom we have any evidence understood a word of it. There were approximately 600 groups in New Zealand at that time, so 90 % of New Zealanders had no idea of the DOI or agreed to it.
Why is the tutor placing so much weight on something that 90% of New Zealanders had no idea about?
Why does he keep stating Maori are declaring their sovereignty when the DOI was a Pakeha document, drawn up by James Busby?
4) The tutor keeps on referring to “Maori” people when discussing pre Treaty (1840). The term ‘Maori’ was not used to refer to the 600 hundred different groups in New Zealand as one people until 1850.
This tutor really has no grasp on New Zealand history or language.
5) The tutor states “the British sought a Treaty with Maori”. However, the draft in English and the Treaty state the Treaty is with “All the People of New Zealand” or “ki nga tangata Katoa o Nu Tirani”
I could go on and on….. this guy has no idea about our history and is misleading the students with a completely revised history.
When he and others do this our history becomes distorted and people become distorted.
This crap needs to stop and we need to understand that we are all New Zealanders .
There are no different people who need our money and sympathy.
Andy your racist bias can be seen when you referred to this tutor as being foreign lol as for 1835 DOI the reason why it was important is because busby and the Crown drafted it......maori chiefs signed and the term tino rangatiratanga was used in the declaration to guarantee maori sovereignty.....so go away nand get schooled boy
Andy Oakly said nothing about his race it was his nationality he slated. Do you understand what racism is?
😂 you oviously need to research more mate. This guys on point with a lot of what he said. And i know because i am maori and have heard a lot. Just saying. Go and learn more before going on a rant just like you did 😂
As for the DOI, the Brits in the end accepted it for diplomatic reasons - it became the basis of chiefs *ceding* their sovereignty in the W treaty that completely superceded it. All a bit comical really. The Treaty wa just nominal... real sovereignty was established by a *declaration* made over the whole of NZ in May 1840.... being the basis on which unsigned tribes were also to submit to British power/ sovereignty.
I agree with you on religion 100%. I agree British colonized a lot of the western world 100%. I agree a lot of history books are full of crap 100%. I disagree with your a racist views. You are ignorant of your own and Australian Aboriginal history, you are displaying it in your posts. Do some reading of our history and not all by the same author, form some reasonable and debatable opinions and defend your people with knowledge and not the racist ignorance you display here. Kia kaha bro
They should have just carried on with war lol
This is revisionism at its worst. The English version of the treaty is the original and 'kawanatanga' is a corruption of governor. The Maori version was hastily drafted overnight by a missionary and his son when it was realised that few of the Maori chiefs understood English. Sovereignty was clearly ceded and there is no mention of water, co-governance or any other of the modern myths. Treaty principles are what today's leftist judicial activists believe the treaty should have contained and doesn't. This idiot at one stage quoted the Declaration of Independence, an unrelated document except that it was made clear in the treaty that the terms of the DOI were to be made null and void by the signing of the treaty.
Hush your black asss honky lol you have no say in this little boy we don’t need your permission you little freak lol who the fk are you to speak on this boy? Go back to pommy land and get off ours
😂👍 that’ll be great 🥴
Ask real Maori people.
Don't teach if you can't say it right > Kawanatanga, Kingitanga, Maoritanga, Rangatiratanga
I hope your English is impeccable
Tino go eat some kfc
I don't get why you still get some Maori that complain about this. before the British arrived the Maori where are we living in the Stone Age and constantly killing and eating each other. The British made New Zealand a prosperous western country and all Maori people are more than welcome to be apart of it.
It would be worthwhile to read something on Maori history before making such sweeping - and inaccurate - comments. Let me know if you'd like any book recommendations; there are some fantastic texts out there all of which disprove the old canard about cannibalism (this is the first I hear about the stone age though well done to the Maori if they managed to survive for 2.5 million years!).
mohsenalattar1 yes sure mate I would appreciate it if you could point me in the direction of some of these books and let's me honest the Maori hadn't even utilised metal when the British first arrived and as for cannibalism there dose seem to be a decent amount of evidence that some Maori tribes engaged in the act. Also the Maori do seem to have integrated the most out of all the native populations that where apart of the British Empire.
I'm glad you're open to a bit of reading buddy as there are some great texts out there! Three of my favourites are Struggle Without End (Ranginui Walker), Te Whiti o Rongomai and the Resistance of Parihaka (Danny Keenan), and A Simple Nullity? The Wi Parata Case in New Zealand Law and History (David Williams).
On the matter of cannibalism, you are right: there are a few instances of recorded cannibalism among Maori. What is inaccurate is the suggestion that Maori would breakfast on each other on the regular; this was never the case. More to the point, cannibalism is often a consequence of war and instances of it were recorded during WWI, WWII and even when the Americans invaded Vietnam (and, shhh, don't tell anyone but the Europeans were the ones doing it!). It's better to engage with the history books than to quickly tarnish all Maori for what was an atypical act.
People like you make my blood boil. Tend to always flip to the story of oh why cant maori just be happy they are so lucky to have the british arive. Now they can drive cars etc. Just be happy. 😂 if you were maori you would understand the feeling of having your peoples freedom stolen so yea maori people will always get upset to hear someone speak the way you do. Its a Racist thing i reckon. Your a muppet thats all i have to say to you
Little Wood treaty the true English version.
Huh? The only little wood here is in your pants lol 😂