XPost: nz.politics

Article One of the Treaty states:
�The Chiefs of the Confederation of the United Tribes of New Zealand and the separate and independent Chiefs who have not become members of the Confederation cede to Her Majesty the Queen of England absolutely and without reservation all the rights and powers of Sovereignty��
However Chippy says:
�It�s pretty clear that if you follow the various court rulings over time, the academic research, and the Treaty settlement process, the answer is no.� He further clarified, �That doesn�t mean the Crown doesn�t have sovereignty now, but Maori didn�t cede sovereignty in signing the Treaty.�

Not only is his statement illogical (it contains an obvious contradiction) but appears to be a deliberate untruth. It is also patently racist in intent.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: nz.politics

Tony <[email protected]> wrote:

Article One of the Treaty states:
�The Chiefs of the Confederation of the United Tribes of New Zealand and the >separate and independent Chiefs who have not become members of the >Confederation cede to Her Majesty the Queen of England absolutely and without >reservation all the rights and powers of Sovereignty��
However Chippy says:
�It�s pretty clear that if you follow the various court rulings over time, the >academic research, and the Treaty settlement process, the answer is no.� He >further clarified, �That doesn�t mean the Crown doesn�t have sovereignty now, >but Maori didn�t cede sovereignty in signing the Treaty.�

Not only is his statement illogical (it contains an obvious contradiction) but >appears to be a deliberate untruth. It is also patently racist in intent.

It's time chippy learned to read but reading is not a strong point in
Labor supporters.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wed, 28 Aug 2024 20:11:30 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<[email protected]> wrote:

Article One of the Treaty states:
�The Chiefs of the Confederation of the United Tribes of New Zealand and the >separate and independent Chiefs who have not become members of the >Confederation cede to Her Majesty the Queen of England absolutely and without >reservation all the rights and powers of Sovereignty��
However Chippy says:
�It�s pretty clear that if you follow the various court rulings over time, the >academic research, and the Treaty settlement process, the answer is no.� He >further clarified, �That doesn�t mean the Crown doesn�t have sovereignty now, >but Maori didn�t cede sovereignty in signing the Treaty.�

Not only is his statement illogical (it contains an obvious contradiction) but >appears to be a deliberate untruth. It is also patently racist in intent.

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Waitangi

Article One says:
"Ko nga Rangatira o te wakaminenga me nga Rangatira katoa hoki ki hai
i uru ki taua wakaminenga ka tuku rawa atu ki te Kuini o Ingarani ake
tonu atu � te Kawanatanga katoa o o ratou wenua."

The first article indicates that the Maori chiefs "give absolutely to
the Queen of England for ever the complete government over their land" (according to a modern translation by Hugh Kawharu).[104][105] With no
adequate word available to substitute for 'sovereignty', as it was not
a concept in Maori society at the time, the translators instead used kawanatanga (governorship or government).[citation needed] The second
article guarantees all Maori "chieftainship over their lands, villages
and all their treasures" (translated), with 'treasures' here
translating from taonga to mean more than just physical possessions
(as in the English text), but also other elements of cultural
heritage.

"The text of the treaty includes a preamble and three articles. It is bilingual, with the Maori text translated in the context of the time
from the English.

Article one of the Maori text grants governance rights to the Crown
while the English text cedes "all rights and powers of sovereignty" to
the Crown.
Article two of the Maori text establishes that Maori will retain full chieftainship over their lands, villages and all their treasures while
the English text establishes the continued ownership of the Maori over
their lands and establishes the exclusive right of pre-emption of the
Crown.

Article three gives Maori people full rights and protections as
British subjects.

As some words in the English treaty did not translate directly into
the written Maori language of the time, the Maori text is not an exact translation of the English text, particularly in relation to the
meaning of having and ceding sovereignty.[10][11] These differences
created disagreements in the decades following the signing, eventually contributing to the New Zealand Wars of 1845 to 1872 and continuing
through to the Treaty of Waitangi settlements starting in the early
1990s.

During the second half of the 19th century Maori generally lost
control of much of the land they had owned, sometimes through
legitimate sale, but often by way of unfair deals, settlers occupying
land that had not been sold, or through outright confiscations in the
aftermath of the New Zealand Wars. In the period following the New
Zealand Wars, the New Zealand government mostly ignored the treaty,
and a court judgement in 1877 declared it to be "a simple nullity".
Beginning in the 1950s, Maori increasingly sought to use the treaty as
a platform for claiming additional rights to sovereignty and to
reclaim lost land, and governments in the 1960s and 1970s responded to
these arguments, giving the treaty an increasingly central role in the interpretation of land rights and relations between Maori people and
the state."

and later:

"Assuming that a treaty in English could not be understood, debated or
agreed to by Maori, Hobson asked CMS head missioner Henry Williams,
and his son Edward Marsh Williams, who was a scholar in Maori language
and custom, to translate the document overnight on 4 February.[54]
Henry Williams was concerned with the actions of the New Zealand
Company in Wellington and felt he had to agree with Hobson's request
to ensure the treaty would be as favourable as possible to Maori.
Williams avoided using any English words that had no expression in
Maori "thereby preserving entire the spirit and tenor" of the treaty.
He added a note to the copy Hobson sent to Gibbs stating, "I certify
that the above is as literal a translation of the Treaty of Waitangi
as the idiom of the language will allow."[11] The gospel-based
literacy of Maori meant some of the concepts communicated in the
translation were from the Maori Bible, including kawanatanga
(governorship) and rangatiratanga (chiefly rule), and the idea of the
treaty as a "covenant" was biblical.[55]" ___________________________________________________

This has all been pointed out to you and others before - why do you
persist in your incorrect views, Tony?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:

On Wed, 28 Aug 2024 20:11:30 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<[email protected]> wrote:

Article One of the Treaty states:
�The Chiefs of the Confederation of the United Tribes of New Zealand and the >>separate and independent Chiefs who have not become members of the >>Confederation cede to Her Majesty the Queen of England absolutely and without >>reservation all the rights and powers of Sovereignty��
However Chippy says:
�It�s pretty clear that if you follow the various court rulings over time, >>the
academic research, and the Treaty settlement process, the answer is no.� He >>further clarified, �That doesn�t mean the Crown doesn�t have sovereignty now, >>but Maori didn�t cede sovereignty in signing the Treaty.�

Not only is his statement illogical (it contains an obvious contradiction) >>but
appears to be a deliberate untruth. It is also patently racist in intent.

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Waitangi

Article One says:
"Ko nga Rangatira o te wakaminenga me nga Rangatira katoa hoki ki hai
i uru ki taua wakaminenga ka tuku rawa atu ki te Kuini o Ingarani ake
tonu atu � te Kawanatanga katoa o o ratou wenua."

The first article indicates that the Maori chiefs "give absolutely to
the Queen of England for ever the complete government over their land" >(according to a modern translation by Hugh Kawharu).[104][105] With no >adequate word available to substitute for 'sovereignty', as it was not
a concept in Maori society at the time, the translators instead used >kawanatanga (governorship or government).[citation needed] The second
article guarantees all Maori "chieftainship over their lands, villages
and all their treasures" (translated), with 'treasures' here
translating from taonga to mean more than just physical possessions
(as in the English text), but also other elements of cultural
heritage.

"The text of the treaty includes a preamble and three articles. It is >bilingual, with the Maori text translated in the context of the time
from the English.

Article one of the Maori text grants governance rights to the Crown
while the English text cedes "all rights and powers of sovereignty" to
the Crown.
Article two of the Maori text establishes that Maori will retain full >chieftainship over their lands, villages and all their treasures while
the English text establishes the continued ownership of the Maori over
their lands and establishes the exclusive right of pre-emption of the
Crown.

Article three gives Maori people full rights and protections as
British subjects.

As some words in the English treaty did not translate directly into
the written Maori language of the time, the Maori text is not an exact >translation of the English text, particularly in relation to the
meaning of having and ceding sovereignty.[10][11] These differences
created disagreements in the decades following the signing, eventually >contributing to the New Zealand Wars of 1845 to 1872 and continuing
through to the Treaty of Waitangi settlements starting in the early
1990s.

During the second half of the 19th century Maori generally lost
control of much of the land they had owned, sometimes through
legitimate sale, but often by way of unfair deals, settlers occupying
land that had not been sold, or through outright confiscations in the >aftermath of the New Zealand Wars. In the period following the New
Zealand Wars, the New Zealand government mostly ignored the treaty,
and a court judgement in 1877 declared it to be "a simple nullity".
Beginning in the 1950s, Maori increasingly sought to use the treaty as
a platform for claiming additional rights to sovereignty and to
reclaim lost land, and governments in the 1960s and 1970s responded to
these arguments, giving the treaty an increasingly central role in the >interpretation of land rights and relations between Maori people and
the state."

and later:

"Assuming that a treaty in English could not be understood, debated or
agreed to by Maori, Hobson asked CMS head missioner Henry Williams,
and his son Edward Marsh Williams, who was a scholar in Maori language
and custom, to translate the document overnight on 4 February.[54]
Henry Williams was concerned with the actions of the New Zealand
Company in Wellington and felt he had to agree with Hobson's request
to ensure the treaty would be as favourable as possible to Maori.
Williams avoided using any English words that had no expression in
Maori "thereby preserving entire the spirit and tenor" of the treaty.
He added a note to the copy Hobson sent to Gibbs stating, "I certify
that the above is as literal a translation of the Treaty of Waitangi
as the idiom of the language will allow."[11] The gospel-based
literacy of Maori meant some of the concepts communicated in the
translation were from the Maori Bible, including kawanatanga
(governorship) and rangatiratanga (chiefly rule), and the idea of the
treaty as a "covenant" was biblical.[55]" >___________________________________________________

This has all been pointed out to you and others before - why do you
persist in your incorrect views, Tony?

My views are accurate and correct. Clearly you cannot read or understand English either.
Maori ceded sovereignty. Period.
Only you and other fools like Chippy make political and racist capital out of the lies you both tell.
Wikipedia has no authoritative value and is worthless in any debate.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wed, 28 Aug 2024 20:11:30 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<[email protected]> wrote:

Article One of the Treaty states:
�The Chiefs of the Confederation of the United Tribes of New Zealand and the >separate and independent Chiefs who have not become members of the >Confederation cede to Her Majesty the Queen of England absolutely and without >reservation all the rights and powers of Sovereignty��
However Chippy says:
�It�s pretty clear that if you follow the various court rulings over time, the >academic research, and the Treaty settlement process, the answer is no.� He >further clarified, �That doesn�t mean the Crown doesn�t have sovereignty now, >but Maori didn�t cede sovereignty in signing the Treaty.�

Not only is his statement illogical (it contains an obvious contradiction) but >appears to be a deliberate untruth. It is also patently racist in intent.

There is controversy over "Sovereignty". The Treaty was written in
English and translated into Maori. In 1840 not only did Maori have no equivalent word, they did not even understand what Sovereignty was.
Arising from this, Hipkins and others are saying they did not cede
Sovereignty because Maori had no equivalent concept and therefore
could never have understood the concept, let alone ceded it.

This is all a moot point because Maori Sovereignty was taken, whether
ceded or not. There is no point in debating this further - except to
use this as a modern-day bargaining point. Maori have hugely
benefited from the loss of Sovereignty - they have entirely abandoned
their cultural base from pre-European times in favour of living among
the Colonisers. Said Colonisers perpetrated gross injustice and
military suppression early on but this has long since ceased and after
50 years or so the Waitangi Tribunal has run its course dispensing
modern-day compensation for those historic injustices.


--
Crash McBash

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:

On Wed, 28 Aug 2024 21:27:37 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<[email protected]> wrote:

Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:

On Wed, 28 Aug 2024 20:11:30 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<[email protected]> wrote:

Article One of the Treaty states:
�The Chiefs of the Confederation of the United Tribes of New Zealand and >>>>the
separate and independent Chiefs who have not become members of the >>>>Confederation cede to Her Majesty the Queen of England absolutely and >>>>without
reservation all the rights and powers of Sovereignty��
However Chippy says:
�It�s pretty clear that if you follow the various court rulings over time, >>>>the
academic research, and the Treaty settlement process, the answer is no.� He >>>>further clarified, �That doesn�t mean the Crown doesn�t have sovereignty >>>>now,
but Maori didn�t cede sovereignty in signing the Treaty.�

Not only is his statement illogical (it contains an obvious contradiction) >>>>but
appears to be a deliberate untruth. It is also patently racist in intent. >>>

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Waitangi

Article One says:
"Ko nga Rangatira o te wakaminenga me nga Rangatira katoa hoki ki hai
i uru ki taua wakaminenga ka tuku rawa atu ki te Kuini o Ingarani ake >>>tonu atu � te Kawanatanga katoa o o ratou wenua."

The first article indicates that the Maori chiefs "give absolutely to
the Queen of England for ever the complete government over their land" >>>(according to a modern translation by Hugh Kawharu).[104][105] With no >>>adequate word available to substitute for 'sovereignty', as it was not
a concept in Maori society at the time, the translators instead used >>>kawanatanga (governorship or government).[citation needed] The second >>>article guarantees all Maori "chieftainship over their lands, villages >>>and all their treasures" (translated), with 'treasures' here
translating from taonga to mean more than just physical possessions
(as in the English text), but also other elements of cultural
heritage.

"The text of the treaty includes a preamble and three articles. It is >>>bilingual, with the Maori text translated in the context of the time
from the English.

Article one of the Maori text grants governance rights to the Crown
while the English text cedes "all rights and powers of sovereignty" to >>>the Crown.
Article two of the Maori text establishes that Maori will retain full >>>chieftainship over their lands, villages and all their treasures while >>>the English text establishes the continued ownership of the Maori over >>>their lands and establishes the exclusive right of pre-emption of the >>>Crown.

Article three gives Maori people full rights and protections as
British subjects.

As some words in the English treaty did not translate directly into
the written Maori language of the time, the Maori text is not an exact >>>translation of the English text, particularly in relation to the
meaning of having and ceding sovereignty.[10][11] These differences >>>created disagreements in the decades following the signing, eventually >>>contributing to the New Zealand Wars of 1845 to 1872 and continuing >>>through to the Treaty of Waitangi settlements starting in the early >>>1990s.

During the second half of the 19th century Maori generally lost
control of much of the land they had owned, sometimes through
legitimate sale, but often by way of unfair deals, settlers occupying >>>land that had not been sold, or through outright confiscations in the >>>aftermath of the New Zealand Wars. In the period following the New >>>Zealand Wars, the New Zealand government mostly ignored the treaty,
and a court judgement in 1877 declared it to be "a simple nullity". >>>Beginning in the 1950s, Maori increasingly sought to use the treaty as
a platform for claiming additional rights to sovereignty and to
reclaim lost land, and governments in the 1960s and 1970s responded to >>>these arguments, giving the treaty an increasingly central role in the >>>interpretation of land rights and relations between Maori people and
the state."

and later:

"Assuming that a treaty in English could not be understood, debated or >>>agreed to by Maori, Hobson asked CMS head missioner Henry Williams,
and his son Edward Marsh Williams, who was a scholar in Maori language >>>and custom, to translate the document overnight on 4 February.[54]
Henry Williams was concerned with the actions of the New Zealand
Company in Wellington and felt he had to agree with Hobson's request
to ensure the treaty would be as favourable as possible to Maori. >>>Williams avoided using any English words that had no expression in
Maori "thereby preserving entire the spirit and tenor" of the treaty.
He added a note to the copy Hobson sent to Gibbs stating, "I certify
that the above is as literal a translation of the Treaty of Waitangi
as the idiom of the language will allow."[11] The gospel-based
literacy of Maori meant some of the concepts communicated in the >>>translation were from the Maori Bible, including kawanatanga >>>(governorship) and rangatiratanga (chiefly rule), and the idea of the >>>treaty as a "covenant" was biblical.[55]" >>>___________________________________________________

This has all been pointed out to you and others before - why do you >>>persist in your incorrect views, Tony?

My views are accurate and correct. Clearly you cannot read or understand >>English either.
Maori ceded sovereignty. Period.
Only you and other fools like Chippy make political and racist capital out of >>the lies you both tell.
Wikipedia has no authoritative value and is worthless in any debate.

It is accurate in recording the wording of the 1st Clause . . . .

You are wrong yet again, Tony.

I posted the correct wording, you posted somebody's made up wording.
The correct wording was, is and always will be this.
�The Chiefs of the Confederation of the United Tribes of New Zealand and the separate and independent Chiefs who have not become members of the Confederation cede to Her Majesty the Queen of England absolutely and without reservation all the rights and powers of Sovereignty��
You have posted zero evidence that any other words were in the treaty. I am correct, you are lying.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thu, 29 Aug 2024 00:05:17 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<[email protected]> wrote:

Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:

On Wed, 28 Aug 2024 21:27:37 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<[email protected]> wrote:

Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:

On Wed, 28 Aug 2024 20:11:30 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>><[email protected]> wrote:

Article One of the Treaty states:
�The Chiefs of the Confederation of the United Tribes of New Zealand and >>>>>the
separate and independent Chiefs who have not become members of the >>>>>Confederation cede to Her Majesty the Queen of England absolutely and >>>>>without
reservation all the rights and powers of Sovereignty��
However Chippy says:
�It�s pretty clear that if you follow the various court rulings over time, >>>>>the
academic research, and the Treaty settlement process, the answer is no.� He
further clarified, �That doesn�t mean the Crown doesn�t have sovereignty >>>>>now,
but Maori didn�t cede sovereignty in signing the Treaty.�

Not only is his statement illogical (it contains an obvious contradiction) >>>>>but
appears to be a deliberate untruth. It is also patently racist in intent. >>>>

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Waitangi

Article One says:
"Ko nga Rangatira o te wakaminenga me nga Rangatira katoa hoki ki hai
i uru ki taua wakaminenga ka tuku rawa atu ki te Kuini o Ingarani ake >>>>tonu atu � te Kawanatanga katoa o o ratou wenua."

The first article indicates that the Maori chiefs "give absolutely to >>>>the Queen of England for ever the complete government over their land" >>>>(according to a modern translation by Hugh Kawharu).[104][105] With no >>>>adequate word available to substitute for 'sovereignty', as it was not >>>>a concept in Maori society at the time, the translators instead used >>>>kawanatanga (governorship or government).[citation needed] The second >>>>article guarantees all Maori "chieftainship over their lands, villages >>>>and all their treasures" (translated), with 'treasures' here >>>>translating from taonga to mean more than just physical possessions
(as in the English text), but also other elements of cultural
heritage.

"The text of the treaty includes a preamble and three articles. It is >>>>bilingual, with the Maori text translated in the context of the time >>>>from the English.

Article one of the Maori text grants governance rights to the Crown >>>>while the English text cedes "all rights and powers of sovereignty" to >>>>the Crown.
Article two of the Maori text establishes that Maori will retain full >>>>chieftainship over their lands, villages and all their treasures while >>>>the English text establishes the continued ownership of the Maori over >>>>their lands and establishes the exclusive right of pre-emption of the >>>>Crown.

Article three gives Maori people full rights and protections as
British subjects.

As some words in the English treaty did not translate directly into
the written Maori language of the time, the Maori text is not an exact >>>>translation of the English text, particularly in relation to the >>>>meaning of having and ceding sovereignty.[10][11] These differences >>>>created disagreements in the decades following the signing, eventually >>>>contributing to the New Zealand Wars of 1845 to 1872 and continuing >>>>through to the Treaty of Waitangi settlements starting in the early >>>>1990s.

During the second half of the 19th century Maori generally lost
control of much of the land they had owned, sometimes through >>>>legitimate sale, but often by way of unfair deals, settlers occupying >>>>land that had not been sold, or through outright confiscations in the >>>>aftermath of the New Zealand Wars. In the period following the New >>>>Zealand Wars, the New Zealand government mostly ignored the treaty,
and a court judgement in 1877 declared it to be "a simple nullity". >>>>Beginning in the 1950s, Maori increasingly sought to use the treaty as >>>>a platform for claiming additional rights to sovereignty and to
reclaim lost land, and governments in the 1960s and 1970s responded to >>>>these arguments, giving the treaty an increasingly central role in the >>>>interpretation of land rights and relations between Maori people and >>>>the state."

and later:

"Assuming that a treaty in English could not be understood, debated or >>>>agreed to by Maori, Hobson asked CMS head missioner Henry Williams,
and his son Edward Marsh Williams, who was a scholar in Maori language >>>>and custom, to translate the document overnight on 4 February.[54] >>>>Henry Williams was concerned with the actions of the New Zealand >>>>Company in Wellington and felt he had to agree with Hobson's request
to ensure the treaty would be as favourable as possible to Maori. >>>>Williams avoided using any English words that had no expression in >>>>Maori "thereby preserving entire the spirit and tenor" of the treaty. >>>>He added a note to the copy Hobson sent to Gibbs stating, "I certify >>>>that the above is as literal a translation of the Treaty of Waitangi
as the idiom of the language will allow."[11] The gospel-based
literacy of Maori meant some of the concepts communicated in the >>>>translation were from the Maori Bible, including kawanatanga >>>>(governorship) and rangatiratanga (chiefly rule), and the idea of the >>>>treaty as a "covenant" was biblical.[55]" >>>>___________________________________________________

This has all been pointed out to you and others before - why do you >>>>persist in your incorrect views, Tony?

My views are accurate and correct. Clearly you cannot read or understand >>>English either.
Maori ceded sovereignty. Period.
Only you and other fools like Chippy make political and racist capital out of
the lies you both tell.
Wikipedia has no authoritative value and is worthless in any debate.

It is accurate in recording the wording of the 1st Clause . . . .

You are wrong yet again, Tony.

I posted the correct wording, you posted somebody's made up wording.
The correct wording was, is and always will be this.
�The Chiefs of the Confederation of the United Tribes of New Zealand and the >separate and independent Chiefs who have not become members of the >Confederation cede to Her Majesty the Queen of England absolutely and without >reservation all the rights and powers of Sovereignty��
You have posted zero evidence that any other words were in the treaty. I am >correct, you are lying.

By all means post some evidence for your unsupported assertion, Tony.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wed, 28 Aug 2024 21:27:37 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<[email protected]> wrote:

Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:

On Wed, 28 Aug 2024 20:11:30 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<[email protected]> wrote:

Article One of the Treaty states:
�The Chiefs of the Confederation of the United Tribes of New Zealand and the >>>separate and independent Chiefs who have not become members of the >>>Confederation cede to Her Majesty the Queen of England absolutely and without
reservation all the rights and powers of Sovereignty��
However Chippy says:
�It�s pretty clear that if you follow the various court rulings over time, >>>the
academic research, and the Treaty settlement process, the answer is no.� He >>>further clarified, �That doesn�t mean the Crown doesn�t have sovereignty now,
but Maori didn�t cede sovereignty in signing the Treaty.�

Not only is his statement illogical (it contains an obvious contradiction) >>>but
appears to be a deliberate untruth. It is also patently racist in intent.

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Waitangi

Article One says:
"Ko nga Rangatira o te wakaminenga me nga Rangatira katoa hoki ki hai
i uru ki taua wakaminenga ka tuku rawa atu ki te Kuini o Ingarani ake
tonu atu � te Kawanatanga katoa o o ratou wenua."

The first article indicates that the Maori chiefs "give absolutely to
the Queen of England for ever the complete government over their land" >>(according to a modern translation by Hugh Kawharu).[104][105] With no >>adequate word available to substitute for 'sovereignty', as it was not
a concept in Maori society at the time, the translators instead used >>kawanatanga (governorship or government).[citation needed] The second >>article guarantees all Maori "chieftainship over their lands, villages
and all their treasures" (translated), with 'treasures' here
translating from taonga to mean more than just physical possessions
(as in the English text), but also other elements of cultural
heritage.

"The text of the treaty includes a preamble and three articles. It is >>bilingual, with the Maori text translated in the context of the time
from the English.

Article one of the Maori text grants governance rights to the Crown
while the English text cedes "all rights and powers of sovereignty" to
the Crown.
Article two of the Maori text establishes that Maori will retain full >>chieftainship over their lands, villages and all their treasures while
the English text establishes the continued ownership of the Maori over >>their lands and establishes the exclusive right of pre-emption of the >>Crown.

Article three gives Maori people full rights and protections as
British subjects.

As some words in the English treaty did not translate directly into
the written Maori language of the time, the Maori text is not an exact >>translation of the English text, particularly in relation to the
meaning of having and ceding sovereignty.[10][11] These differences
created disagreements in the decades following the signing, eventually >>contributing to the New Zealand Wars of 1845 to 1872 and continuing
through to the Treaty of Waitangi settlements starting in the early
1990s.

During the second half of the 19th century Maori generally lost
control of much of the land they had owned, sometimes through
legitimate sale, but often by way of unfair deals, settlers occupying
land that had not been sold, or through outright confiscations in the >>aftermath of the New Zealand Wars. In the period following the New
Zealand Wars, the New Zealand government mostly ignored the treaty,
and a court judgement in 1877 declared it to be "a simple nullity". >>Beginning in the 1950s, Maori increasingly sought to use the treaty as
a platform for claiming additional rights to sovereignty and to
reclaim lost land, and governments in the 1960s and 1970s responded to >>these arguments, giving the treaty an increasingly central role in the >>interpretation of land rights and relations between Maori people and
the state."

and later:

"Assuming that a treaty in English could not be understood, debated or >>agreed to by Maori, Hobson asked CMS head missioner Henry Williams,
and his son Edward Marsh Williams, who was a scholar in Maori language
and custom, to translate the document overnight on 4 February.[54]
Henry Williams was concerned with the actions of the New Zealand
Company in Wellington and felt he had to agree with Hobson's request
to ensure the treaty would be as favourable as possible to Maori.
Williams avoided using any English words that had no expression in
Maori "thereby preserving entire the spirit and tenor" of the treaty.
He added a note to the copy Hobson sent to Gibbs stating, "I certify
that the above is as literal a translation of the Treaty of Waitangi
as the idiom of the language will allow."[11] The gospel-based
literacy of Maori meant some of the concepts communicated in the >>translation were from the Maori Bible, including kawanatanga
(governorship) and rangatiratanga (chiefly rule), and the idea of the >>treaty as a "covenant" was biblical.[55]" >>___________________________________________________

This has all been pointed out to you and others before - why do you
persist in your incorrect views, Tony?

My views are accurate and correct. Clearly you cannot read or understand >English either.
Maori ceded sovereignty. Period.
Only you and other fools like Chippy make political and racist capital out of >the lies you both tell.
Wikipedia has no authoritative value and is worthless in any debate.

It is accurate in recording the wording of the 1st Clause . . . .

You are wrong yet again, Tony.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:

On Thu, 29 Aug 2024 00:05:17 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<[email protected]> wrote:

Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:

On Wed, 28 Aug 2024 21:27:37 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<[email protected]> wrote:

Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:

On Wed, 28 Aug 2024 20:11:30 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><[email protected]> wrote:

Article One of the Treaty states:
�The Chiefs of the Confederation of the United Tribes of New Zealand and >>>>>>the
separate and independent Chiefs who have not become members of the >>>>>>Confederation cede to Her Majesty the Queen of England absolutely and >>>>>>without
reservation all the rights and powers of Sovereignty��
However Chippy says:
�It�s pretty clear that if you follow the various court rulings over >>>>>>time,
the
academic research, and the Treaty settlement process, the answer is no.� >>>>>>He
further clarified, �That doesn�t mean the Crown doesn�t have sovereignty >>>>>>now,
but Maori didn�t cede sovereignty in signing the Treaty.�

Not only is his statement illogical (it contains an obvious >>>>>>contradiction)
but
appears to be a deliberate untruth. It is also patently racist in intent. >>>>>

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Waitangi

Article One says:
"Ko nga Rangatira o te wakaminenga me nga Rangatira katoa hoki ki hai >>>>>i uru ki taua wakaminenga ka tuku rawa atu ki te Kuini o Ingarani ake >>>>>tonu atu � te Kawanatanga katoa o o ratou wenua."

The first article indicates that the Maori chiefs "give absolutely to >>>>>the Queen of England for ever the complete government over their land" >>>>>(according to a modern translation by Hugh Kawharu).[104][105] With no >>>>>adequate word available to substitute for 'sovereignty', as it was not >>>>>a concept in Maori society at the time, the translators instead used >>>>>kawanatanga (governorship or government).[citation needed] The second >>>>>article guarantees all Maori "chieftainship over their lands, villages >>>>>and all their treasures" (translated), with 'treasures' here >>>>>translating from taonga to mean more than just physical possessions >>>>>(as in the English text), but also other elements of cultural >>>>>heritage.

"The text of the treaty includes a preamble and three articles. It is >>>>>bilingual, with the Maori text translated in the context of the time >>>>>from the English.

Article one of the Maori text grants governance rights to the Crown >>>>>while the English text cedes "all rights and powers of sovereignty" to >>>>>the Crown.
Article two of the Maori text establishes that Maori will retain full >>>>>chieftainship over their lands, villages and all their treasures while >>>>>the English text establishes the continued ownership of the Maori over >>>>>their lands and establishes the exclusive right of pre-emption of the >>>>>Crown.

Article three gives Maori people full rights and protections as >>>>>British subjects.

As some words in the English treaty did not translate directly into >>>>>the written Maori language of the time, the Maori text is not an exact >>>>>translation of the English text, particularly in relation to the >>>>>meaning of having and ceding sovereignty.[10][11] These differences >>>>>created disagreements in the decades following the signing, eventually >>>>>contributing to the New Zealand Wars of 1845 to 1872 and continuing >>>>>through to the Treaty of Waitangi settlements starting in the early >>>>>1990s.

During the second half of the 19th century Maori generally lost >>>>>control of much of the land they had owned, sometimes through >>>>>legitimate sale, but often by way of unfair deals, settlers occupying >>>>>land that had not been sold, or through outright confiscations in the >>>>>aftermath of the New Zealand Wars. In the period following the New >>>>>Zealand Wars, the New Zealand government mostly ignored the treaty, >>>>>and a court judgement in 1877 declared it to be "a simple nullity". >>>>>Beginning in the 1950s, Maori increasingly sought to use the treaty as >>>>>a platform for claiming additional rights to sovereignty and to >>>>>reclaim lost land, and governments in the 1960s and 1970s responded to >>>>>these arguments, giving the treaty an increasingly central role in the >>>>>interpretation of land rights and relations between Maori people and >>>>>the state."

and later:

"Assuming that a treaty in English could not be understood, debated or >>>>>agreed to by Maori, Hobson asked CMS head missioner Henry Williams, >>>>>and his son Edward Marsh Williams, who was a scholar in Maori language >>>>>and custom, to translate the document overnight on 4 February.[54] >>>>>Henry Williams was concerned with the actions of the New Zealand >>>>>Company in Wellington and felt he had to agree with Hobson's request >>>>>to ensure the treaty would be as favourable as possible to Maori. >>>>>Williams avoided using any English words that had no expression in >>>>>Maori "thereby preserving entire the spirit and tenor" of the treaty. >>>>>He added a note to the copy Hobson sent to Gibbs stating, "I certify >>>>>that the above is as literal a translation of the Treaty of Waitangi >>>>>as the idiom of the language will allow."[11] The gospel-based >>>>>literacy of Maori meant some of the concepts communicated in the >>>>>translation were from the Maori Bible, including kawanatanga >>>>>(governorship) and rangatiratanga (chiefly rule), and the idea of the >>>>>treaty as a "covenant" was biblical.[55]" >>>>>___________________________________________________

This has all been pointed out to you and others before - why do you >>>>>persist in your incorrect views, Tony?

My views are accurate and correct. Clearly you cannot read or understand >>>>English either.
Maori ceded sovereignty. Period.
Only you and other fools like Chippy make political and racist capital out >>>>of
the lies you both tell.
Wikipedia has no authoritative value and is worthless in any debate.

It is accurate in recording the wording of the 1st Clause . . . .

You are wrong yet again, Tony.

I posted the correct wording, you posted somebody's made up wording.
The correct wording was, is and always will be this.
�The Chiefs of the Confederation of the United Tribes of New Zealand and the >>separate and independent Chiefs who have not become members of the >>Confederation cede to Her Majesty the Queen of England absolutely and without >>reservation all the rights and powers of Sovereignty��
You have posted zero evidence that any other words were in the treaty. I am >>correct, you are lying.

By all means post some evidence for your unsupported assertion, Tony.

Already posted the first article twice, straight from the treaty itslef. That is all you need, all else is political and racist rhetoric.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thu, 29 Aug 2024 00:45:32 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<[email protected]> wrote:

Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:

On Thu, 29 Aug 2024 00:05:17 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<[email protected]> wrote:

Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:

On Wed, 28 Aug 2024 21:27:37 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>><[email protected]> wrote:

Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:

On Wed, 28 Aug 2024 20:11:30 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>><[email protected]> wrote:

Article One of the Treaty states:
�The Chiefs of the Confederation of the United Tribes of New Zealand and >>>>>>>the
separate and independent Chiefs who have not become members of the >>>>>>>Confederation cede to Her Majesty the Queen of England absolutely and >>>>>>>without
reservation all the rights and powers of Sovereignty��
However Chippy says:
�It�s pretty clear that if you follow the various court rulings over >>>>>>>time,
the
academic research, and the Treaty settlement process, the answer is no.� >>>>>>>He
further clarified, �That doesn�t mean the Crown doesn�t have sovereignty >>>>>>>now,
but Maori didn�t cede sovereignty in signing the Treaty.�

Not only is his statement illogical (it contains an obvious >>>>>>>contradiction)
but
appears to be a deliberate untruth. It is also patently racist in intent.

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Waitangi

Article One says:
"Ko nga Rangatira o te wakaminenga me nga Rangatira katoa hoki ki hai >>>>>>i uru ki taua wakaminenga ka tuku rawa atu ki te Kuini o Ingarani ake >>>>>>tonu atu � te Kawanatanga katoa o o ratou wenua."

The first article indicates that the Maori chiefs "give absolutely to >>>>>>the Queen of England for ever the complete government over their land" >>>>>>(according to a modern translation by Hugh Kawharu).[104][105] With no >>>>>>adequate word available to substitute for 'sovereignty', as it was not >>>>>>a concept in Maori society at the time, the translators instead used >>>>>>kawanatanga (governorship or government).[citation needed] The second >>>>>>article guarantees all Maori "chieftainship over their lands, villages >>>>>>and all their treasures" (translated), with 'treasures' here >>>>>>translating from taonga to mean more than just physical possessions >>>>>>(as in the English text), but also other elements of cultural >>>>>>heritage.

"The text of the treaty includes a preamble and three articles. It is >>>>>>bilingual, with the Maori text translated in the context of the time >>>>>>from the English.

Article one of the Maori text grants governance rights to the Crown >>>>>>while the English text cedes "all rights and powers of sovereignty" to >>>>>>the Crown.
Article two of the Maori text establishes that Maori will retain full >>>>>>chieftainship over their lands, villages and all their treasures while >>>>>>the English text establishes the continued ownership of the Maori over >>>>>>their lands and establishes the exclusive right of pre-emption of the >>>>>>Crown.

Article three gives Maori people full rights and protections as >>>>>>British subjects.

As some words in the English treaty did not translate directly into >>>>>>the written Maori language of the time, the Maori text is not an exact >>>>>>translation of the English text, particularly in relation to the >>>>>>meaning of having and ceding sovereignty.[10][11] These differences >>>>>>created disagreements in the decades following the signing, eventually >>>>>>contributing to the New Zealand Wars of 1845 to 1872 and continuing >>>>>>through to the Treaty of Waitangi settlements starting in the early >>>>>>1990s.

During the second half of the 19th century Maori generally lost >>>>>>control of much of the land they had owned, sometimes through >>>>>>legitimate sale, but often by way of unfair deals, settlers occupying >>>>>>land that had not been sold, or through outright confiscations in the >>>>>>aftermath of the New Zealand Wars. In the period following the New >>>>>>Zealand Wars, the New Zealand government mostly ignored the treaty, >>>>>>and a court judgement in 1877 declared it to be "a simple nullity". >>>>>>Beginning in the 1950s, Maori increasingly sought to use the treaty as >>>>>>a platform for claiming additional rights to sovereignty and to >>>>>>reclaim lost land, and governments in the 1960s and 1970s responded to >>>>>>these arguments, giving the treaty an increasingly central role in the >>>>>>interpretation of land rights and relations between Maori people and >>>>>>the state."

and later:

"Assuming that a treaty in English could not be understood, debated or >>>>>>agreed to by Maori, Hobson asked CMS head missioner Henry Williams, >>>>>>and his son Edward Marsh Williams, who was a scholar in Maori language >>>>>>and custom, to translate the document overnight on 4 February.[54] >>>>>>Henry Williams was concerned with the actions of the New Zealand >>>>>>Company in Wellington and felt he had to agree with Hobson's request >>>>>>to ensure the treaty would be as favourable as possible to Maori. >>>>>>Williams avoided using any English words that had no expression in >>>>>>Maori "thereby preserving entire the spirit and tenor" of the treaty. >>>>>>He added a note to the copy Hobson sent to Gibbs stating, "I certify >>>>>>that the above is as literal a translation of the Treaty of Waitangi >>>>>>as the idiom of the language will allow."[11] The gospel-based >>>>>>literacy of Maori meant some of the concepts communicated in the >>>>>>translation were from the Maori Bible, including kawanatanga >>>>>>(governorship) and rangatiratanga (chiefly rule), and the idea of the >>>>>>treaty as a "covenant" was biblical.[55]" >>>>>>___________________________________________________

This has all been pointed out to you and others before - why do you >>>>>>persist in your incorrect views, Tony?

My views are accurate and correct. Clearly you cannot read or understand >>>>>English either.
Maori ceded sovereignty. Period.
Only you and other fools like Chippy make political and racist capital out >>>>>of
the lies you both tell.
Wikipedia has no authoritative value and is worthless in any debate.

It is accurate in recording the wording of the 1st Clause . . . .

You are wrong yet again, Tony.

I posted the correct wording, you posted somebody's made up wording.
The correct wording was, is and always will be this.
�The Chiefs of the Confederation of the United Tribes of New Zealand and the >>>separate and independent Chiefs who have not become members of the >>>Confederation cede to Her Majesty the Queen of England absolutely and without
reservation all the rights and powers of Sovereignty��
You have posted zero evidence that any other words were in the treaty. I am >>>correct, you are lying.

By all means post some evidence for your unsupported assertion, Tony. >Already posted the first article twice, straight from the treaty itslef. That >is all you need, all else is political and racist rhetoric.

And I quoted the first article in Maori, which New Zealand and
International Law say is the effective clause for determination of
meaning. You have failed again with yet another "Luxon Proof"

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:

On Thu, 29 Aug 2024 00:45:32 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<[email protected]> wrote:

Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:

On Thu, 29 Aug 2024 00:05:17 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<[email protected]> wrote:

Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:

On Wed, 28 Aug 2024 21:27:37 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><[email protected]> wrote:

Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:

On Wed, 28 Aug 2024 20:11:30 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>><[email protected]> wrote:

Article One of the Treaty states:
�The Chiefs of the Confederation of the United Tribes of New Zealand >>>>>>>>and
the
separate and independent Chiefs who have not become members of the >>>>>>>>Confederation cede to Her Majesty the Queen of England absolutely and >>>>>>>>without
reservation all the rights and powers of Sovereignty��
However Chippy says:
�It�s pretty clear that if you follow the various court rulings over >>>>>>>>time,
the
academic research, and the Treaty settlement process, the answer is >>>>>>>>no.�
He
further clarified, �That doesn�t mean the Crown doesn�t have >>>>>>>>sovereignty
now,
but Maori didn�t cede sovereignty in signing the Treaty.�

Not only is his statement illogical (it contains an obvious >>>>>>>>contradiction)
but
appears to be a deliberate untruth. It is also patently racist in >>>>>>>>intent.

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Waitangi

Article One says:
"Ko nga Rangatira o te wakaminenga me nga Rangatira katoa hoki ki hai >>>>>>>i uru ki taua wakaminenga ka tuku rawa atu ki te Kuini o Ingarani ake >>>>>>>tonu atu � te Kawanatanga katoa o o ratou wenua."

The first article indicates that the Maori chiefs "give absolutely to >>>>>>>the Queen of England for ever the complete government over their land" >>>>>>>(according to a modern translation by Hugh Kawharu).[104][105] With no >>>>>>>adequate word available to substitute for 'sovereignty', as it was not >>>>>>>a concept in Maori society at the time, the translators instead used >>>>>>>kawanatanga (governorship or government).[citation needed] The second >>>>>>>article guarantees all Maori "chieftainship over their lands, villages >>>>>>>and all their treasures" (translated), with 'treasures' here >>>>>>>translating from taonga to mean more than just physical possessions >>>>>>>(as in the English text), but also other elements of cultural >>>>>>>heritage.

"The text of the treaty includes a preamble and three articles. It is >>>>>>>bilingual, with the Maori text translated in the context of the time >>>>>>>from the English.

Article one of the Maori text grants governance rights to the Crown >>>>>>>while the English text cedes "all rights and powers of sovereignty" to >>>>>>>the Crown.
Article two of the Maori text establishes that Maori will retain full >>>>>>>chieftainship over their lands, villages and all their treasures while >>>>>>>the English text establishes the continued ownership of the Maori over >>>>>>>their lands and establishes the exclusive right of pre-emption of the >>>>>>>Crown.

Article three gives Maori people full rights and protections as >>>>>>>British subjects.

As some words in the English treaty did not translate directly into >>>>>>>the written Maori language of the time, the Maori text is not an exact >>>>>>>translation of the English text, particularly in relation to the >>>>>>>meaning of having and ceding sovereignty.[10][11] These differences >>>>>>>created disagreements in the decades following the signing, eventually >>>>>>>contributing to the New Zealand Wars of 1845 to 1872 and continuing >>>>>>>through to the Treaty of Waitangi settlements starting in the early >>>>>>>1990s.

During the second half of the 19th century Maori generally lost >>>>>>>control of much of the land they had owned, sometimes through >>>>>>>legitimate sale, but often by way of unfair deals, settlers occupying >>>>>>>land that had not been sold, or through outright confiscations in the >>>>>>>aftermath of the New Zealand Wars. In the period following the New >>>>>>>Zealand Wars, the New Zealand government mostly ignored the treaty, >>>>>>>and a court judgement in 1877 declared it to be "a simple nullity". >>>>>>>Beginning in the 1950s, Maori increasingly sought to use the treaty as >>>>>>>a platform for claiming additional rights to sovereignty and to >>>>>>>reclaim lost land, and governments in the 1960s and 1970s responded to >>>>>>>these arguments, giving the treaty an increasingly central role in the >>>>>>>interpretation of land rights and relations between Maori people and >>>>>>>the state."

and later:

"Assuming that a treaty in English could not be understood, debated or >>>>>>>agreed to by Maori, Hobson asked CMS head missioner Henry Williams, >>>>>>>and his son Edward Marsh Williams, who was a scholar in Maori language >>>>>>>and custom, to translate the document overnight on 4 February.[54] >>>>>>>Henry Williams was concerned with the actions of the New Zealand >>>>>>>Company in Wellington and felt he had to agree with Hobson's request >>>>>>>to ensure the treaty would be as favourable as possible to Maori. >>>>>>>Williams avoided using any English words that had no expression in >>>>>>>Maori "thereby preserving entire the spirit and tenor" of the treaty. >>>>>>>He added a note to the copy Hobson sent to Gibbs stating, "I certify >>>>>>>that the above is as literal a translation of the Treaty of Waitangi >>>>>>>as the idiom of the language will allow."[11] The gospel-based >>>>>>>literacy of Maori meant some of the concepts communicated in the >>>>>>>translation were from the Maori Bible, including kawanatanga >>>>>>>(governorship) and rangatiratanga (chiefly rule), and the idea of the >>>>>>>treaty as a "covenant" was biblical.[55]" >>>>>>>___________________________________________________

This has all been pointed out to you and others before - why do you >>>>>>>persist in your incorrect views, Tony?

My views are accurate and correct. Clearly you cannot read or understand >>>>>>English either.
Maori ceded sovereignty. Period.
Only you and other fools like Chippy make political and racist capital >>>>>>out
of
the lies you both tell.
Wikipedia has no authoritative value and is worthless in any debate. >>>>>

It is accurate in recording the wording of the 1st Clause . . . .

You are wrong yet again, Tony.

I posted the correct wording, you posted somebody's made up wording. >>>>The correct wording was, is and always will be this.
�The Chiefs of the Confederation of the United Tribes of New Zealand and >>>>the
separate and independent Chiefs who have not become members of the >>>>Confederation cede to Her Majesty the Queen of England absolutely and >>>>without
reservation all the rights and powers of Sovereignty��
You have posted zero evidence that any other words were in the treaty. I am >>>>correct, you are lying.

By all means post some evidence for your unsupported assertion, Tony. >>Already posted the first article twice, straight from the treaty itslef. That >>is all you need, all else is political and racist rhetoric.

And I quoted the first article in Maori, which New Zealand and
International Law say is the effective clause for determination of
meaning.

Abuse removed.
No, you are wrong. I quoted the official, actual and original signed copy. You provided a 20th century fake , no surprise there of course.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Fri, 30 Aug 2024 00:07:12 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<[email protected]> wrote:

Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:

On Thu, 29 Aug 2024 00:45:32 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<[email protected]> wrote:

Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:

On Thu, 29 Aug 2024 00:05:17 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>><[email protected]> wrote:

Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:

On Wed, 28 Aug 2024 21:27:37 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>><[email protected]> wrote:

Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:

On Wed, 28 Aug 2024 20:11:30 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>><[email protected]> wrote:

Article One of the Treaty states:
�The Chiefs of the Confederation of the United Tribes of New Zealand >>>>>>>>>and
the
separate and independent Chiefs who have not become members of the >>>>>>>>>Confederation cede to Her Majesty the Queen of England absolutely and >>>>>>>>>without
reservation all the rights and powers of Sovereignty�� >>>>>>>>>However Chippy says:
�It�s pretty clear that if you follow the various court rulings over >>>>>>>>>time,
the
academic research, and the Treaty settlement process, the answer is >>>>>>>>>no.�
He
further clarified, �That doesn�t mean the Crown doesn�t have >>>>>>>>>sovereignty
now,
but Maori didn�t cede sovereignty in signing the Treaty.�

Not only is his statement illogical (it contains an obvious >>>>>>>>>contradiction)
but
appears to be a deliberate untruth. It is also patently racist in >>>>>>>>>intent.

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Waitangi

Article One says:
"Ko nga Rangatira o te wakaminenga me nga Rangatira katoa hoki ki hai >>>>>>>>i uru ki taua wakaminenga ka tuku rawa atu ki te Kuini o Ingarani ake >>>>>>>>tonu atu � te Kawanatanga katoa o o ratou wenua."

The first article indicates that the Maori chiefs "give absolutely to >>>>>>>>the Queen of England for ever the complete government over their land" >>>>>>>>(according to a modern translation by Hugh Kawharu).[104][105] With no >>>>>>>>adequate word available to substitute for 'sovereignty', as it was not >>>>>>>>a concept in Maori society at the time, the translators instead used >>>>>>>>kawanatanga (governorship or government).[citation needed] The second >>>>>>>>article guarantees all Maori "chieftainship over their lands, villages >>>>>>>>and all their treasures" (translated), with 'treasures' here >>>>>>>>translating from taonga to mean more than just physical possessions >>>>>>>>(as in the English text), but also other elements of cultural >>>>>>>>heritage.

"The text of the treaty includes a preamble and three articles. It is >>>>>>>>bilingual, with the Maori text translated in the context of the time >>>>>>>>from the English.

Article one of the Maori text grants governance rights to the Crown >>>>>>>>while the English text cedes "all rights and powers of sovereignty" to >>>>>>>>the Crown.
Article two of the Maori text establishes that Maori will retain full >>>>>>>>chieftainship over their lands, villages and all their treasures while >>>>>>>>the English text establishes the continued ownership of the Maori over >>>>>>>>their lands and establishes the exclusive right of pre-emption of the >>>>>>>>Crown.

Article three gives Maori people full rights and protections as >>>>>>>>British subjects.

As some words in the English treaty did not translate directly into >>>>>>>>the written Maori language of the time, the Maori text is not an exact >>>>>>>>translation of the English text, particularly in relation to the >>>>>>>>meaning of having and ceding sovereignty.[10][11] These differences >>>>>>>>created disagreements in the decades following the signing, eventually >>>>>>>>contributing to the New Zealand Wars of 1845 to 1872 and continuing >>>>>>>>through to the Treaty of Waitangi settlements starting in the early >>>>>>>>1990s.

During the second half of the 19th century Maori generally lost >>>>>>>>control of much of the land they had owned, sometimes through >>>>>>>>legitimate sale, but often by way of unfair deals, settlers occupying >>>>>>>>land that had not been sold, or through outright confiscations in the >>>>>>>>aftermath of the New Zealand Wars. In the period following the New >>>>>>>>Zealand Wars, the New Zealand government mostly ignored the treaty, >>>>>>>>and a court judgement in 1877 declared it to be "a simple nullity". >>>>>>>>Beginning in the 1950s, Maori increasingly sought to use the treaty as >>>>>>>>a platform for claiming additional rights to sovereignty and to >>>>>>>>reclaim lost land, and governments in the 1960s and 1970s responded to >>>>>>>>these arguments, giving the treaty an increasingly central role in the >>>>>>>>interpretation of land rights and relations between Maori people and >>>>>>>>the state."

and later:

"Assuming that a treaty in English could not be understood, debated or >>>>>>>>agreed to by Maori, Hobson asked CMS head missioner Henry Williams, >>>>>>>>and his son Edward Marsh Williams, who was a scholar in Maori language >>>>>>>>and custom, to translate the document overnight on 4 February.[54] >>>>>>>>Henry Williams was concerned with the actions of the New Zealand >>>>>>>>Company in Wellington and felt he had to agree with Hobson's request >>>>>>>>to ensure the treaty would be as favourable as possible to Maori. >>>>>>>>Williams avoided using any English words that had no expression in >>>>>>>>Maori "thereby preserving entire the spirit and tenor" of the treaty. >>>>>>>>He added a note to the copy Hobson sent to Gibbs stating, "I certify >>>>>>>>that the above is as literal a translation of the Treaty of Waitangi >>>>>>>>as the idiom of the language will allow."[11] The gospel-based >>>>>>>>literacy of Maori meant some of the concepts communicated in the >>>>>>>>translation were from the Maori Bible, including kawanatanga >>>>>>>>(governorship) and rangatiratanga (chiefly rule), and the idea of the >>>>>>>>treaty as a "covenant" was biblical.[55]" >>>>>>>>___________________________________________________

This has all been pointed out to you and others before - why do you >>>>>>>>persist in your incorrect views, Tony?

My views are accurate and correct. Clearly you cannot read or understand >>>>>>>English either.
Maori ceded sovereignty. Period.
Only you and other fools like Chippy make political and racist capital >>>>>>>out
of
the lies you both tell.
Wikipedia has no authoritative value and is worthless in any debate. >>>>>>

It is accurate in recording the wording of the 1st Clause . . . .

You are wrong yet again, Tony.

I posted the correct wording, you posted somebody's made up wording. >>>>>The correct wording was, is and always will be this.
�The Chiefs of the Confederation of the United Tribes of New Zealand and >>>>>the
separate and independent Chiefs who have not become members of the >>>>>Confederation cede to Her Majesty the Queen of England absolutely and >>>>>without
reservation all the rights and powers of Sovereignty��
You have posted zero evidence that any other words were in the treaty. I am
correct, you are lying.

By all means post some evidence for your unsupported assertion, Tony. >>>Already posted the first article twice, straight from the treaty itslef. That

is all you need, all else is political and racist rhetoric.

And I quoted the first article in Maori, which New Zealand and >>International Law say is the effective clause for determination of
meaning.

Abuse removed.
No, you are wrong. I quoted the official, actual and original signed copy. You >provided a 20th century fake , no surprise there of course.

The majority of Maori signatures were to the version written in Maori.
Again you have made assertions without any proof. I can only conclude
that you are deliberately lying.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:

On Fri, 30 Aug 2024 00:07:12 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<[email protected]> wrote:

Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:

On Thu, 29 Aug 2024 00:45:32 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<[email protected]> wrote:

Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:

On Thu, 29 Aug 2024 00:05:17 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><[email protected]> wrote:

Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:

On Wed, 28 Aug 2024 21:27:37 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>><[email protected]> wrote:

Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:

On Wed, 28 Aug 2024 20:11:30 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>><[email protected]> wrote:

Article One of the Treaty states:
�The Chiefs of the Confederation of the United Tribes of New Zealand >>>>>>>>>>and
the
separate and independent Chiefs who have not become members of the >>>>>>>>>>Confederation cede to Her Majesty the Queen of England absolutely and >>>>>>>>>>without
reservation all the rights and powers of Sovereignty�� >>>>>>>>>>However Chippy says:
�It�s pretty clear that if you follow the various court rulings over >>>>>>>>>>time,
the
academic research, and the Treaty settlement process, the answer is >>>>>>>>>>no.�
He
further clarified, �That doesn�t mean the Crown doesn�t have >>>>>>>>>>sovereignty
now,
but Maori didn�t cede sovereignty in signing the Treaty.�

Not only is his statement illogical (it contains an obvious >>>>>>>>>>contradiction)
but
appears to be a deliberate untruth. It is also patently racist in >>>>>>>>>>intent.

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Waitangi

Article One says:
"Ko nga Rangatira o te wakaminenga me nga Rangatira katoa hoki ki hai >>>>>>>>>i uru ki taua wakaminenga ka tuku rawa atu ki te Kuini o Ingarani ake >>>>>>>>>tonu atu � te Kawanatanga katoa o o ratou wenua."

The first article indicates that the Maori chiefs "give absolutely to >>>>>>>>>the Queen of England for ever the complete government over their land" >>>>>>>>>(according to a modern translation by Hugh Kawharu).[104][105] With no >>>>>>>>>adequate word available to substitute for 'sovereignty', as it was not >>>>>>>>>a concept in Maori society at the time, the translators instead used >>>>>>>>>kawanatanga (governorship or government).[citation needed] The second >>>>>>>>>article guarantees all Maori "chieftainship over their lands, villages >>>>>>>>>and all their treasures" (translated), with 'treasures' here >>>>>>>>>translating from taonga to mean more than just physical possessions >>>>>>>>>(as in the English text), but also other elements of cultural >>>>>>>>>heritage.

"The text of the treaty includes a preamble and three articles. It is >>>>>>>>>bilingual, with the Maori text translated in the context of the time >>>>>>>>>from the English.

Article one of the Maori text grants governance rights to the Crown >>>>>>>>>while the English text cedes "all rights and powers of sovereignty" to >>>>>>>>>the Crown.
Article two of the Maori text establishes that Maori will retain full >>>>>>>>>chieftainship over their lands, villages and all their treasures while >>>>>>>>>the English text establishes the continued ownership of the Maori over >>>>>>>>>their lands and establishes the exclusive right of pre-emption of the >>>>>>>>>Crown.

Article three gives Maori people full rights and protections as >>>>>>>>>British subjects.

As some words in the English treaty did not translate directly into >>>>>>>>>the written Maori language of the time, the Maori text is not an exact >>>>>>>>>translation of the English text, particularly in relation to the >>>>>>>>>meaning of having and ceding sovereignty.[10][11] These differences >>>>>>>>>created disagreements in the decades following the signing, eventually >>>>>>>>>contributing to the New Zealand Wars of 1845 to 1872 and continuing >>>>>>>>>through to the Treaty of Waitangi settlements starting in the early >>>>>>>>>1990s.

During the second half of the 19th century Maori generally lost >>>>>>>>>control of much of the land they had owned, sometimes through >>>>>>>>>legitimate sale, but often by way of unfair deals, settlers occupying >>>>>>>>>land that had not been sold, or through outright confiscations in the >>>>>>>>>aftermath of the New Zealand Wars. In the period following the New >>>>>>>>>Zealand Wars, the New Zealand government mostly ignored the treaty, >>>>>>>>>and a court judgement in 1877 declared it to be "a simple nullity". >>>>>>>>>Beginning in the 1950s, Maori increasingly sought to use the treaty as >>>>>>>>>a platform for claiming additional rights to sovereignty and to >>>>>>>>>reclaim lost land, and governments in the 1960s and 1970s responded to >>>>>>>>>these arguments, giving the treaty an increasingly central role in the >>>>>>>>>interpretation of land rights and relations between Maori people and >>>>>>>>>the state."

and later:

"Assuming that a treaty in English could not be understood, debated or >>>>>>>>>agreed to by Maori, Hobson asked CMS head missioner Henry Williams, >>>>>>>>>and his son Edward Marsh Williams, who was a scholar in Maori language >>>>>>>>>and custom, to translate the document overnight on 4 February.[54] >>>>>>>>>Henry Williams was concerned with the actions of the New Zealand >>>>>>>>>Company in Wellington and felt he had to agree with Hobson's request >>>>>>>>>to ensure the treaty would be as favourable as possible to Maori. >>>>>>>>>Williams avoided using any English words that had no expression in >>>>>>>>>Maori "thereby preserving entire the spirit and tenor" of the treaty. >>>>>>>>>He added a note to the copy Hobson sent to Gibbs stating, "I certify >>>>>>>>>that the above is as literal a translation of the Treaty of Waitangi >>>>>>>>>as the idiom of the language will allow."[11] The gospel-based >>>>>>>>>literacy of Maori meant some of the concepts communicated in the >>>>>>>>>translation were from the Maori Bible, including kawanatanga >>>>>>>>>(governorship) and rangatiratanga (chiefly rule), and the idea of the >>>>>>>>>treaty as a "covenant" was biblical.[55]" >>>>>>>>>___________________________________________________

This has all been pointed out to you and others before - why do you >>>>>>>>>persist in your incorrect views, Tony?

My views are accurate and correct. Clearly you cannot read or >>>>>>>>understand
English either.
Maori ceded sovereignty. Period.
Only you and other fools like Chippy make political and racist capital >>>>>>>>out
of
the lies you both tell.
Wikipedia has no authoritative value and is worthless in any debate. >>>>>>>

It is accurate in recording the wording of the 1st Clause . . . . >>>>>>>
You are wrong yet again, Tony.

I posted the correct wording, you posted somebody's made up wording. >>>>>>The correct wording was, is and always will be this.
�The Chiefs of the Confederation of the United Tribes of New Zealand and >>>>>>the
separate and independent Chiefs who have not become members of the >>>>>>Confederation cede to Her Majesty the Queen of England absolutely and >>>>>>without
reservation all the rights and powers of Sovereignty��
You have posted zero evidence that any other words were in the treaty. I >>>>>>am
correct, you are lying.

By all means post some evidence for your unsupported assertion, Tony. >>>>Already posted the first article twice, straight from the treaty itslef. >>>>That

is all you need, all else is political and racist rhetoric.

And I quoted the first article in Maori, which New Zealand and >>>International Law say is the effective clause for determination of >>>meaning.

Abuse removed.
No, you are wrong. I quoted the official, actual and original signed copy. >>You
provided a 20th century fake , no surprise there of course.

The majority of Maori signatures were to the version written in Maori.
Again you have made assertions without any proof. I can only conclude
that you are deliberately lying.

You can conclude whatever your fantasies require. But you are wrong, the one I posted is the first and original. Period! nothing else matters. All else is your duplicit lying and deliberate racist intolerance.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)