As I have previously indicated, I find "Pundit" worth reading - sadlyPathetic sarcasm.
many of the authors no longer regularly publish, but I have posted
links to a number of articles by Brian Easton.
Here is another: >https://www.pundit.co.nz/content/the-principles-of-the-treaty
and a search for Ruth Ross gave this: >https://muse.jhu.edu/pub/426/article/867905/pdf
and then a later commentary, again by Brian Easton: >https://newsroom.co.nz/2023/05/08/book-of-the-week-the-first-tiriti-fraud/
and also a more recent article: >https://newsroom.co.nz/2024/08/31/anne-salmond-whats-the-matter-with-the-treaty-principles-bill/
Presumably the facts regarding the single version available at the
initial signing are now so well known that a "Distinguished Professor"
does not need to give references . . .
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
As I have previously indicated, I find "Pundit" worth reading - sadlyPathetic sarcasm.
many of the authors no longer regularly publish, but I have posted
links to a number of articles by Brian Easton.
Here is another: >>https://www.pundit.co.nz/content/the-principles-of-the-treaty
and a search for Ruth Ross gave this: >>https://muse.jhu.edu/pub/426/article/867905/pdf
and then a later commentary, again by Brian Easton: >>https://newsroom.co.nz/2023/05/08/book-of-the-week-the-first-tiriti-fraud/
and also a more recent article: >>https://newsroom.co.nz/2024/08/31/anne-salmond-whats-the-matter-with-the-treaty-principles-bill/
Presumably the facts regarding the single version available at the
initial signing are now so well known that a "Distinguished Professor"
does not need to give references . . .
There is only one version that has any credibility and that is the one signed >first. All others are a distraction, a distraction eagerly grabbed by people >like you with your political and racist agendas.
On Sat, 31 Aug 2024 22:33:11 -0000 (UTC), TonyAh no!
<[email protected]> wrote:
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
As I have previously indicated, I find "Pundit" worth reading - sadly >>>many of the authors no longer regularly publish, but I have postedPathetic sarcasm.
links to a number of articles by Brian Easton.
Here is another: >>>https://www.pundit.co.nz/content/the-principles-of-the-treaty
and a search for Ruth Ross gave this: >>>https://muse.jhu.edu/pub/426/article/867905/pdf
and then a later commentary, again by Brian Easton: >>>https://newsroom.co.nz/2023/05/08/book-of-the-week-the-first-tiriti-fraud/ >>>
and also a more recent article: >>>https://newsroom.co.nz/2024/08/31/anne-salmond-whats-the-matter-with-the-treaty-principles-bill/
Presumably the facts regarding the single version available at the >>>initial signing are now so well known that a "Distinguished Professor" >>>does not need to give references . . .
There is only one version that has any credibility and that is the one signed >>first. All others are a distraction, a distraction eagerly grabbed by people >>like you with your political and racist agendas.
Absolutely, Tony - I am glad you agree with me. The one that was
signed first is clearly established as the version in Maori - various >versions in English were made later.
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:That is a later translation, Tony - when Te Tiriti was signed at
On Sat, 31 Aug 2024 22:33:11 -0000 (UTC), TonyAh no!
<[email protected]> wrote:
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
As I have previously indicated, I find "Pundit" worth reading - sadly >>>>many of the authors no longer regularly publish, but I have posted >>>>links to a number of articles by Brian Easton.Pathetic sarcasm.
Here is another: >>>>https://www.pundit.co.nz/content/the-principles-of-the-treaty
and a search for Ruth Ross gave this: >>>>https://muse.jhu.edu/pub/426/article/867905/pdf
and then a later commentary, again by Brian Easton: >>>>https://newsroom.co.nz/2023/05/08/book-of-the-week-the-first-tiriti-fraud/ >>>>
and also a more recent article: >>>>https://newsroom.co.nz/2024/08/31/anne-salmond-whats-the-matter-with-the-treaty-principles-bill/
Presumably the facts regarding the single version available at the >>>>initial signing are now so well known that a "Distinguished Professor" >>>>does not need to give references . . .
There is only one version that has any credibility and that is the one signed
first. All others are a distraction, a distraction eagerly grabbed by people >>>like you with your political and racist agendas.
Absolutely, Tony - I am glad you agree with me. The one that was
signed first is clearly established as the version in Maori - various >>versions in English were made later.
You learned from me.
I remind you that the first article reads
�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��
So it seems that you finally agree that Chippy got it wrong and that Maori >ceded sovereignty.
Well done.
On Sat, 31 Aug 2024 23:28:42 -0000 (UTC), TonyYou are wrong and you are lying. What I posted is the real deal. Your delusions are self generated.
<[email protected]> wrote:
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:That is a later translation, Tony - when Te Tiriti was signed at
On Sat, 31 Aug 2024 22:33:11 -0000 (UTC), TonyAh no!
<[email protected]> wrote:
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
As I have previously indicated, I find "Pundit" worth reading - sadly >>>>>many of the authors no longer regularly publish, but I have posted >>>>>links to a number of articles by Brian Easton.Pathetic sarcasm.
Here is another: >>>>>https://www.pundit.co.nz/content/the-principles-of-the-treaty
and a search for Ruth Ross gave this: >>>>>https://muse.jhu.edu/pub/426/article/867905/pdf
and then a later commentary, again by Brian Easton: >>>>>https://newsroom.co.nz/2023/05/08/book-of-the-week-the-first-tiriti-fraud/ >>>>>
and also a more recent article: >>>>>https://newsroom.co.nz/2024/08/31/anne-salmond-whats-the-matter-with-the-treaty-principles-bill/
Presumably the facts regarding the single version available at the >>>>>initial signing are now so well known that a "Distinguished Professor" >>>>>does not need to give references . . .
There is only one version that has any credibility and that is the one >>>>signed
first. All others are a distraction, a distraction eagerly grabbed by >>>>people
like you with your political and racist agendas.
Absolutely, Tony - I am glad you agree with me. The one that was
signed first is clearly established as the version in Maori - various >>>versions in English were made later.
You learned from me.
I remind you that the first article reads
�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��
So it seems that you finally agree that Chippy got it wrong and that Maori >>ceded sovereignty.
Well done.
Waitangi there was no agreement in English to be signed:
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."
Clearly you have a problem reading, Tony - persevere and look at the
links I gave above . . .
On Sat, 31 Aug 2024 23:28:42 -0000 (UTC), TonySovereignty was ceded by Maori to the crown. That is the whole point, your twists and turns cannot undo the facts.
<[email protected]> wrote:
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:That is a later translation, Tony - when Te Tiriti was signed at
On Sat, 31 Aug 2024 22:33:11 -0000 (UTC), TonyAh no!
<[email protected]> wrote:
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
As I have previously indicated, I find "Pundit" worth reading - sadly >>>>>many of the authors no longer regularly publish, but I have posted >>>>>links to a number of articles by Brian Easton.Pathetic sarcasm.
Here is another: >>>>>https://www.pundit.co.nz/content/the-principles-of-the-treaty
and a search for Ruth Ross gave this: >>>>>https://muse.jhu.edu/pub/426/article/867905/pdf
and then a later commentary, again by Brian Easton: >>>>>https://newsroom.co.nz/2023/05/08/book-of-the-week-the-first-tiriti-fraud/ >>>>>
and also a more recent article: >>>>>https://newsroom.co.nz/2024/08/31/anne-salmond-whats-the-matter-with-the-treaty-principles-bill/
Presumably the facts regarding the single version available at the >>>>>initial signing are now so well known that a "Distinguished Professor" >>>>>does not need to give references . . .
There is only one version that has any credibility and that is the one >>>>signed
first. All others are a distraction, a distraction eagerly grabbed by >>>>people
like you with your political and racist agendas.
Absolutely, Tony - I am glad you agree with me. The one that was
signed first is clearly established as the version in Maori - various >>>versions in English were made later.
You learned from me.
I remind you that the first article reads
�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��
So it seems that you finally agree that Chippy got it wrong and that Maori >>ceded sovereignty.
Well done.
Waitangi there was no agreement in English to be signed:
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."
Clearly you have a problem reading, Tony - persevere and look at the
links I gave above . . .
As I have previously indicated, I find "Pundit" worth reading - sadly
many of the authors no longer regularly publish, but I have posted
links to a number of articles by Brian Easton.
Here is another: >https://www.pundit.co.nz/content/the-principles-of-the-treaty
and a search for Ruth Ross gave this: >https://muse.jhu.edu/pub/426/article/867905/pdf
and then a later commentary, again by Brian Easton: >https://newsroom.co.nz/2023/05/08/book-of-the-week-the-first-tiriti-fraud/
and also a more recent article: >https://newsroom.co.nz/2024/08/31/anne-salmond-whats-the-matter-with-the-treaty-principles-bill/
Presumably the facts regarding the single version available at the
initial signing are now so well known that a "Distinguished Professor"
does not need to give references . . .
On Sun, 01 Sep 2024 10:22:03 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]>
wrote:
As I have previously indicated, I find "Pundit" worth reading - sadly
many of the authors no longer regularly publish, but I have posted
links to a number of articles by Brian Easton.
Here is another: >>https://www.pundit.co.nz/content/the-principles-of-the-treaty
and a search for Ruth Ross gave this: >>https://muse.jhu.edu/pub/426/article/867905/pdf
and then a later commentary, again by Brian Easton: >>https://newsroom.co.nz/2023/05/08/book-of-the-week-the-first-tiriti-fraud/
and also a more recent article: >>https://newsroom.co.nz/2024/08/31/anne-salmond-whats-the-matter-with-the-treaty-principles-bill/
Presumably the facts regarding the single version available at the
initial signing are now so well known that a "Distinguished Professor"
does not need to give references . . .
There is more to it than that:
https://teara.govt.nz/en/te-tiriti-o-waitangi-the-treaty-of-waitangi/print#:~:text=Te%20Tiriti%20o%20Waitangi%20
From this it is clear that the Treaty was an initiative of the British
Crown so would have started out in English. This was then translated
as outlined b the article into Maori by Henry Williams and his son. On
6th of February at Waitangi, those Maori gathered signed the Maori
version that the Williams had produced.
At least that is what this Te Aro article rep[orts.
On Sun, 01 Sep 2024 20:12:29 +1200, Crash <[email protected]d>
wrote:
On Sun, 01 Sep 2024 10:22:03 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]> >>wrote:
As I have previously indicated, I find "Pundit" worth reading - sadly >>>many of the authors no longer regularly publish, but I have posted
links to a number of articles by Brian Easton.
Here is another: >>>https://www.pundit.co.nz/content/the-principles-of-the-treaty
and a search for Ruth Ross gave this: >>>https://muse.jhu.edu/pub/426/article/867905/pdf
and then a later commentary, again by Brian Easton: >>>https://newsroom.co.nz/2023/05/08/book-of-the-week-the-first-tiriti-fraud/ >>>
and also a more recent article: >>>https://newsroom.co.nz/2024/08/31/anne-salmond-whats-the-matter-with-the-treaty-principles-bill/
Presumably the facts regarding the single version available at the >>>initial signing are now so well known that a "Distinguished Professor" >>>does not need to give references . . .
There is more to it than that:
https://teara.govt.nz/en/te-tiriti-o-waitangi-the-treaty-of-waitangi/print#:~:text=Te%20Tiriti%20o%20Waitangi%20
From this it is clear that the Treaty was an initiative of the British >>Crown so would have started out in English. This was then translated
as outlined b the article into Maori by Henry Williams and his son. On
6th of February at Waitangi, those Maori gathered signed the Maori
version that the Williams had produced.
At least that is what this Te Aro article rep[orts.
Thank you for that reference, Crash - and I agree that part of it
conflicts with the narrative from the references that I gave above.
The excerpt of the paper by Ross includes:
________________
"The fact that the Treaty of Waitangi was an agreement in the Maori
language is consistently ignored, the prime example of this being the >schedule of the 1960 Waitangi Day Act. Headed 'The Treaty of
W&itangi', and, according to a former Attorney General, 'included as a >schedule to provide convenient access to its information',
3 this agreement in the English language is neither a translation of
the Treaty of Waitangi, nor is the Treaty of Waitangi a translation of
this English text. The Treaty of Waitangi did not in fact say anything
at all about fishing rights. The meaning of its land and citizenship >provisions' is a matter for interpretation. James Edward FitzGerald
remarked in a debate on the Treaty of Waitangi in the House of >Representatives in 1865: 'if this document was signed in the Maori
tongue, whatever the English trans lation might be had nothing to do
with the question.' He went on to point out: 'Governor Hobson might
have wished the Maoris to sign one thing, and they might have signed >something totally different . Were they bound by what they signed or
by what Captain * This is a study, in more detail and with some
corrections, of one of the topics discussed by the writer in a paper
given at a seminar on the Treaty of Waitangi held at Victoria
University at Wellington, 19-20 February 1972. 1 Auckland Star,
Auckland, 30 lune 1971. 2 ibid., 11 luly 1972. 3 ibid., 28 luly 1971.
PRESS 1 3 0 R. M . ROSS Hobson meant them to sign?'
4 To which one would now add the question: Was the Crown bound by what
Hobson signed, or by what he assumed its meaning to be? Any attempt to >interpret the provisions of the Treaty of Waitangi, or to understand
what the signatories, both Hobson and the New Zealanders, thought it
meant, must review the circumstances in which the agreement was drawn
up, taking into account all the relevant texts. Instructions from Lord >Normanby, Secretary of State for the Colonies, dated 14 August 1839, >authorized Hobson 'to treat with the Aborigines of New Zealand for the >recognition of Her Majesty's sovereign authority over the whole or any
parts of those islands which they may be willing to place under Her
Majesty's dominion'.
5 Some of the difficulties which might be encountered in gaining the >confidence of New Zealanders were pointed out, but no draft terms to
assist in the drawing up of such a treaty were supplied, either by the >Colonial Office or by the Governor of New South Wales, under whose
aegis Hobson was to act. Hobson arrived in the Bay of Islands on 29
January 1840. James Busby, the former British Resident whose
appointment ceased with Hobson's arrival, immediately went on board
6 and it was arranged that a meeting of chiefs would be called at the
former Residency at Waitangi for Wednesday, 5 February.
7 Circular letters of invitation in the Maori language were printed on
the mission press at Paihia early on the morning of 30 January.
8 It has been suggested that die Treaty of Waitangi 'was specifically
to retract recognition of the sovereignty of the united tribes',
9 that is, of the confederation supposedly set up by He w[h]akaputanga
o te Rangatiratanga o Nu Tireni, Busby's so-called declaration of >independence, first..."
_______________________
As Churchill said, History is written by the victors. I seems that
the academic work by Ross was not welcomed in 1952 when she first
presented it, as it did not entirely agree with then 'received wisdom'
- with her paper based on documents from over 100 years previously.
From the article by Easton:
"Ross concluded that there was, in fact, no Treaty of Waitangi. There
was certainly Te Tiriti o Waitangi, a document signed at Waitangi on
February 6, 1840. But on that day there was no English equivalent
which was a translation of Te Tiriti. I remember being astonished by
her conclusion when I first read her paper. I was chasing up the
meaning of �taonga� for a Waitangi claim. Until then, I had believed
the standard story that there were two documents on signing day of
roughly equivalent status. (International law gives precedence to the
one in the indigenous language.) But there wasn�t one in English. To
use the term �Treaty of Waitangi� as if it existed in 1840 is a dead
giveaway that the user is 50 years out of date.
Governor William Hobson forwarded five different English versions to
his superiors in Sydney and London, which surely suggests he did not
have an authoritative text. Shortly after the signing, the US consul,
James Clendon, hunted around for an official English text but no one
could provide it. Those translations of Te Tiriti, made for land
dealing purposes in Auckland a decade later, would have been quite >unnecessary if there were an official English language version of Te
Tiriti.
I went through a careful account of the drafting of the text. What is
called the �English version� is one of the later drafts; it may not
even be the last English draft (which has been lost if it existed). We
know that the last English draft was translated into Maori by
missionary Henry Williams and his son, and presented to rangatira at
Waitangi on January 5. They objected to it. That night the Maori text
was changed. We do not know what was revised. Ross thinks it may have
been to change the term �kingitanga�, the word used for �sovereignty�
in the 1835 Declaration of Independence, or possibly �mana�, to >�kawangatanga�. It would have been a minor change for the British but
it would be a massive change for Maori (and for us). They signed the
revised treaty on the following day."
and later: "Robin Cooke, while President of the Court of Appeal,
observed �[a]s is well known, the English and Maori texts in the First >Schedule to the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 are not translations the
one of the other and do not necessarily convey precisely the same
meaning.� "
The book by Bain Attwood would also be of interest.
What is clear however is that expectation of the Treaty may well have >differed amongst both Maori and settlers at the time, and the Waitangi >tribunal was established to seek agreement on its meaning and
application in relation to submissions made by either Maori or Pakeha
- and seeking such agreement is common for treaties between countries
or groups of people there application in a particular case may be
disputed - and following that logic is is abhorrent for our Parliament
to now seek to unilaterally decide on meanings or principles of the
Treaty to overide the words of the Treaty itself without wide
agreement between the descendents of both parties to the Te Tiriti.
I do hope that Te Ara amend their webpage in light of this new
evidence, but the current page does say:
"Article One
Te reo Maori: rangatira gave the queen �te Kawanatanga katoa� � the >governance or government over the land.
English: rangatira gave the queen �all the rights and powers of
sovereignty� over the land. "
Even that translation of the te reo Maori version may of course be
disputed . . .
On Mon, 02 Sep 2024 12:02:13 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Sun, 01 Sep 2024 20:12:29 +1200, Crash <[email protected]d> >>wrote:
On Sun, 01 Sep 2024 10:22:03 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]> >>>wrote:
As I have previously indicated, I find "Pundit" worth reading - sadly >>>>many of the authors no longer regularly publish, but I have posted >>>>links to a number of articles by Brian Easton.
Here is another: >>>>https://www.pundit.co.nz/content/the-principles-of-the-treaty
and a search for Ruth Ross gave this: >>>>https://muse.jhu.edu/pub/426/article/867905/pdf
and then a later commentary, again by Brian Easton: >>>>https://newsroom.co.nz/2023/05/08/book-of-the-week-the-first-tiriti-fraud/ >>>>
and also a more recent article: >>>>https://newsroom.co.nz/2024/08/31/anne-salmond-whats-the-matter-with-the-treaty-principles-bill/
Presumably the facts regarding the single version available at the >>>>initial signing are now so well known that a "Distinguished Professor" >>>>does not need to give references . . .
There is more to it than that:
https://teara.govt.nz/en/te-tiriti-o-waitangi-the-treaty-of-waitangi/print#:~:text=Te%20Tiriti%20o%20Waitangi%20
From this it is clear that the Treaty was an initiative of the British >>>Crown so would have started out in English. This was then translated
as outlined b the article into Maori by Henry Williams and his son. On >>>6th of February at Waitangi, those Maori gathered signed the Maori >>>version that the Williams had produced.
At least that is what this Te Aro article rep[orts.
Thank you for that reference, Crash - and I agree that part of it
conflicts with the narrative from the references that I gave above.
The excerpt of the paper by Ross includes:
________________
"The fact that the Treaty of Waitangi was an agreement in the Maori >>language is consistently ignored, the prime example of this being the >>schedule of the 1960 Waitangi Day Act. Headed 'The Treaty of
W&itangi', and, according to a former Attorney General, 'included as a >>schedule to provide convenient access to its information',
3 this agreement in the English language is neither a translation of
the Treaty of Waitangi, nor is the Treaty of Waitangi a translation of
this English text. The Treaty of Waitangi did not in fact say anything
at all about fishing rights. The meaning of its land and citizenship >>provisions' is a matter for interpretation. James Edward FitzGerald >>remarked in a debate on the Treaty of Waitangi in the House of >>Representatives in 1865: 'if this document was signed in the Maori
tongue, whatever the English trans lation might be had nothing to do
with the question.' He went on to point out: 'Governor Hobson might
have wished the Maoris to sign one thing, and they might have signed >>something totally different . Were they bound by what they signed or
by what Captain * This is a study, in more detail and with some >>corrections, of one of the topics discussed by the writer in a paper
given at a seminar on the Treaty of Waitangi held at Victoria
University at Wellington, 19-20 February 1972. 1 Auckland Star,
Auckland, 30 lune 1971. 2 ibid., 11 luly 1972. 3 ibid., 28 luly 1971.
PRESS 1 3 0 R. M . ROSS Hobson meant them to sign?'
4 To which one would now add the question: Was the Crown bound by what >>Hobson signed, or by what he assumed its meaning to be? Any attempt to >>interpret the provisions of the Treaty of Waitangi, or to understand
what the signatories, both Hobson and the New Zealanders, thought it
meant, must review the circumstances in which the agreement was drawn
up, taking into account all the relevant texts. Instructions from Lord >>Normanby, Secretary of State for the Colonies, dated 14 August 1839, >>authorized Hobson 'to treat with the Aborigines of New Zealand for the >>recognition of Her Majesty's sovereign authority over the whole or any >>parts of those islands which they may be willing to place under Her >>Majesty's dominion'.
5 Some of the difficulties which might be encountered in gaining the >>confidence of New Zealanders were pointed out, but no draft terms to
assist in the drawing up of such a treaty were supplied, either by the >>Colonial Office or by the Governor of New South Wales, under whose
aegis Hobson was to act. Hobson arrived in the Bay of Islands on 29
January 1840. James Busby, the former British Resident whose
appointment ceased with Hobson's arrival, immediately went on board
6 and it was arranged that a meeting of chiefs would be called at the >>former Residency at Waitangi for Wednesday, 5 February.
7 Circular letters of invitation in the Maori language were printed on
the mission press at Paihia early on the morning of 30 January.
8 It has been suggested that die Treaty of Waitangi 'was specifically
to retract recognition of the sovereignty of the united tribes',
9 that is, of the confederation supposedly set up by He w[h]akaputanga
o te Rangatiratanga o Nu Tireni, Busby's so-called declaration of >>independence, first..."
_______________________
As Churchill said, History is written by the victors. I seems that
the academic work by Ross was not welcomed in 1952 when she first
presented it, as it did not entirely agree with then 'received wisdom'
- with her paper based on documents from over 100 years previously.
From the article by Easton:
"Ross concluded that there was, in fact, no Treaty of Waitangi. There
was certainly Te Tiriti o Waitangi, a document signed at Waitangi on >>February 6, 1840. But on that day there was no English equivalent
which was a translation of Te Tiriti. I remember being astonished by
her conclusion when I first read her paper. I was chasing up the
meaning of �taonga� for a Waitangi claim. Until then, I had believed
the standard story that there were two documents on signing day of
roughly equivalent status. (International law gives precedence to the
one in the indigenous language.) But there wasn�t one in English. To
use the term �Treaty of Waitangi� as if it existed in 1840 is a dead >>giveaway that the user is 50 years out of date.
Governor William Hobson forwarded five different English versions to
his superiors in Sydney and London, which surely suggests he did not
have an authoritative text. Shortly after the signing, the US consul,
James Clendon, hunted around for an official English text but no one
could provide it. Those translations of Te Tiriti, made for land
dealing purposes in Auckland a decade later, would have been quite >>unnecessary if there were an official English language version of Te >>Tiriti.
I went through a careful account of the drafting of the text. What is >>called the �English version� is one of the later drafts; it may not
even be the last English draft (which has been lost if it existed). We
know that the last English draft was translated into Maori by
missionary Henry Williams and his son, and presented to rangatira at >>Waitangi on January 5. They objected to it. That night the Maori text
was changed. We do not know what was revised. Ross thinks it may have
been to change the term �kingitanga�, the word used for �sovereignty�
in the 1835 Declaration of Independence, or possibly �mana�, to >>�kawangatanga�. It would have been a minor change for the British but
it would be a massive change for Maori (and for us). They signed the >>revised treaty on the following day."
and later: "Robin Cooke, while President of the Court of Appeal,
observed �[a]s is well known, the English and Maori texts in the First >>Schedule to the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 are not translations the
one of the other and do not necessarily convey precisely the same
meaning.� "
The book by Bain Attwood would also be of interest.
What is clear however is that expectation of the Treaty may well have >>differed amongst both Maori and settlers at the time, and the Waitangi >>tribunal was established to seek agreement on its meaning and
application in relation to submissions made by either Maori or Pakeha
- and seeking such agreement is common for treaties between countries
or groups of people there application in a particular case may be
disputed - and following that logic is is abhorrent for our Parliament
to now seek to unilaterally decide on meanings or principles of the
Treaty to overide the words of the Treaty itself without wide
agreement between the descendents of both parties to the Te Tiriti.
I do hope that Te Ara amend their webpage in light of this new
evidence, but the current page does say:
"Article One
Te reo Maori: rangatira gave the queen �te Kawanatanga katoa� � the >>governance or government over the land.
English: rangatira gave the queen �all the rights and powers of >>sovereignty� over the land. "
Even that translation of the te reo Maori version may of course be
disputed . . .
So there is Treaty document, either in Maori or English, that was
signed by anyone on behalf of the British Crown? If that is the case
the ToW is merely an agreement between those Maori who signed it and
Governor Hobson. I cannot find any reference anywhere to any version
of the treaty being ratified by the British Crown.
Note that only part of the Ross article is available to
non-authenticated readers.
On Mon, 02 Sep 2024 12:02:13 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Sun, 01 Sep 2024 20:12:29 +1200, Crash <[email protected]d> >>wrote:
On Sun, 01 Sep 2024 10:22:03 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]> >>>wrote:
As I have previously indicated, I find "Pundit" worth reading - sadly >>>>many of the authors no longer regularly publish, but I have posted >>>>links to a number of articles by Brian Easton.
Here is another: >>>>https://www.pundit.co.nz/content/the-principles-of-the-treaty
and a search for Ruth Ross gave this: >>>>https://muse.jhu.edu/pub/426/article/867905/pdf
and then a later commentary, again by Brian Easton: >>>>https://newsroom.co.nz/2023/05/08/book-of-the-week-the-first-tiriti-fraud/ >>>>
and also a more recent article: >>>>https://newsroom.co.nz/2024/08/31/anne-salmond-whats-the-matter-with-the-treaty-principles-bill/
Presumably the facts regarding the single version available at the >>>>initial signing are now so well known that a "Distinguished Professor" >>>>does not need to give references . . .
There is more to it than that:
https://teara.govt.nz/en/te-tiriti-o-waitangi-the-treaty-of-waitangi/print#:~:text=Te%20Tiriti%20o%20Waitangi%20
From this it is clear that the Treaty was an initiative of the British >>>Crown so would have started out in English. This was then translated
as outlined b the article into Maori by Henry Williams and his son. On >>>6th of February at Waitangi, those Maori gathered signed the Maori >>>version that the Williams had produced.
At least that is what this Te Aro article rep[orts.
Thank you for that reference, Crash - and I agree that part of it
conflicts with the narrative from the references that I gave above.
The excerpt of the paper by Ross includes:
________________
"The fact that the Treaty of Waitangi was an agreement in the Maori >>language is consistently ignored, the prime example of this being the >>schedule of the 1960 Waitangi Day Act. Headed 'The Treaty of
W&itangi', and, according to a former Attorney General, 'included as a >>schedule to provide convenient access to its information',
3 this agreement in the English language is neither a translation of
the Treaty of Waitangi, nor is the Treaty of Waitangi a translation of
this English text. The Treaty of Waitangi did not in fact say anything
at all about fishing rights. The meaning of its land and citizenship >>provisions' is a matter for interpretation. James Edward FitzGerald >>remarked in a debate on the Treaty of Waitangi in the House of >>Representatives in 1865: 'if this document was signed in the Maori
tongue, whatever the English trans lation might be had nothing to do
with the question.' He went on to point out: 'Governor Hobson might
have wished the Maoris to sign one thing, and they might have signed >>something totally different . Were they bound by what they signed or
by what Captain * This is a study, in more detail and with some >>corrections, of one of the topics discussed by the writer in a paper
given at a seminar on the Treaty of Waitangi held at Victoria
University at Wellington, 19-20 February 1972. 1 Auckland Star,
Auckland, 30 lune 1971. 2 ibid., 11 luly 1972. 3 ibid., 28 luly 1971.
PRESS 1 3 0 R. M . ROSS Hobson meant them to sign?'
4 To which one would now add the question: Was the Crown bound by what >>Hobson signed, or by what he assumed its meaning to be? Any attempt to >>interpret the provisions of the Treaty of Waitangi, or to understand
what the signatories, both Hobson and the New Zealanders, thought it
meant, must review the circumstances in which the agreement was drawn
up, taking into account all the relevant texts. Instructions from Lord >>Normanby, Secretary of State for the Colonies, dated 14 August 1839, >>authorized Hobson 'to treat with the Aborigines of New Zealand for the >>recognition of Her Majesty's sovereign authority over the whole or any >>parts of those islands which they may be willing to place under Her >>Majesty's dominion'.
5 Some of the difficulties which might be encountered in gaining the >>confidence of New Zealanders were pointed out, but no draft terms to
assist in the drawing up of such a treaty were supplied, either by the >>Colonial Office or by the Governor of New South Wales, under whose
aegis Hobson was to act. Hobson arrived in the Bay of Islands on 29
January 1840. James Busby, the former British Resident whose
appointment ceased with Hobson's arrival, immediately went on board
6 and it was arranged that a meeting of chiefs would be called at the >>former Residency at Waitangi for Wednesday, 5 February.
7 Circular letters of invitation in the Maori language were printed on
the mission press at Paihia early on the morning of 30 January.
8 It has been suggested that die Treaty of Waitangi 'was specifically
to retract recognition of the sovereignty of the united tribes',
9 that is, of the confederation supposedly set up by He w[h]akaputanga
o te Rangatiratanga o Nu Tireni, Busby's so-called declaration of >>independence, first..."
_______________________
As Churchill said, History is written by the victors. I seems that
the academic work by Ross was not welcomed in 1952 when she first
presented it, as it did not entirely agree with then 'received wisdom'
- with her paper based on documents from over 100 years previously.
From the article by Easton:
"Ross concluded that there was, in fact, no Treaty of Waitangi. There
was certainly Te Tiriti o Waitangi, a document signed at Waitangi on >>February 6, 1840. But on that day there was no English equivalent
which was a translation of Te Tiriti. I remember being astonished by
her conclusion when I first read her paper. I was chasing up the
meaning of taonga for a Waitangi claim. Until then, I had believed
the standard story that there were two documents on signing day of
roughly equivalent status. (International law gives precedence to the
one in the indigenous language.) But there wasnt one in English. To
use the term Treaty of Waitangi as if it existed in 1840 is a dead >>giveaway that the user is 50 years out of date.
Governor William Hobson forwarded five different English versions to
his superiors in Sydney and London, which surely suggests he did not
have an authoritative text. Shortly after the signing, the US consul,
James Clendon, hunted around for an official English text but no one
could provide it. Those translations of Te Tiriti, made for land
dealing purposes in Auckland a decade later, would have been quite >>unnecessary if there were an official English language version of Te >>Tiriti.
I went through a careful account of the drafting of the text. What is >>called the English version is one of the later drafts; it may not
even be the last English draft (which has been lost if it existed). We
know that the last English draft was translated into Maori by
missionary Henry Williams and his son, and presented to rangatira at >>Waitangi on January 5. They objected to it. That night the Maori text
was changed. We do not know what was revised. Ross thinks it may have
been to change the term kingitanga, the word used for sovereignty >>in the 1835 Declaration of Independence, or possibly mana, to >>kawangatanga. It would have been a minor change for the British but
it would be a massive change for Maori (and for us). They signed the >>revised treaty on the following day."
and later: "Robin Cooke, while President of the Court of Appeal,
observed [a]s is well known, the English and Maori texts in the First >>Schedule to the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 are not translations the
one of the other and do not necessarily convey precisely the same >>meaning. "
The book by Bain Attwood would also be of interest.
What is clear however is that expectation of the Treaty may well have >>differed amongst both Maori and settlers at the time, and the Waitangi >>tribunal was established to seek agreement on its meaning and
application in relation to submissions made by either Maori or Pakeha
- and seeking such agreement is common for treaties between countries
or groups of people there application in a particular case may be
disputed - and following that logic is is abhorrent for our Parliament
to now seek to unilaterally decide on meanings or principles of the
Treaty to overide the words of the Treaty itself without wide
agreement between the descendents of both parties to the Te Tiriti.
I do hope that Te Ara amend their webpage in light of this new
evidence, but the current page does say:
"Article One
Te reo Maori: rangatira gave the queen te Kawanatanga katoa the >>governance or government over the land.
English: rangatira gave the queen all the rights and powers of >>sovereignty over the land. "
Even that translation of the te reo Maori version may of course be
disputed . . .
So there is Treaty document, either in Maori or English, that was
signed by anyone on behalf of the British Crown? If that is the case
the ToW is merely an agreement between those Maori who signed it and
Governor Hobson. I cannot find any reference anywhere to any version
of the treaty being ratified by the British Crown.
Note that only part of the Ross article is available to
non-authenticated readers.
As I have previously indicated, I find "Pundit" worth reading - sadly
many of the authors no longer regularly publish, but I have posted
links to a number of articles by Brian Easton.
Here is another: >https://www.pundit.co.nz/content/the-principles-of-the-treaty
and a search for Ruth Ross gave this: >https://muse.jhu.edu/pub/426/article/867905/pdf
and then a later commentary, again by Brian Easton: >https://newsroom.co.nz/2023/05/08/book-of-the-week-the-first-tiriti-fraud/
and also a more recent article: >https://newsroom.co.nz/2024/08/31/anne-salmond-whats-the-matter-with-the-treaty-principles-bill/
Presumably the facts regarding the single version available at the
initial signing are now so well known that a "Distinguished Professor"
does not need to give references . . .
On Sun, 01 Sep 2024 10:22:03 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]>Read the first link above, Bill. Yes each tribe has a mode of
wrote:
As I have previously indicated, I find "Pundit" worth reading - sadly
many of the authors no longer regularly publish, but I have posted
links to a number of articles by Brian Easton.
Here is another: >>https://www.pundit.co.nz/content/the-principles-of-the-treaty
and a search for Ruth Ross gave this: >>https://muse.jhu.edu/pub/426/article/867905/pdf
and then a later commentary, again by Brian Easton: >>https://newsroom.co.nz/2023/05/08/book-of-the-week-the-first-tiriti-fraud/
and also a more recent article: >>https://newsroom.co.nz/2024/08/31/anne-salmond-whats-the-matter-with-the-treaty-principles-bill/
Presumably the facts regarding the single version available at the
initial signing are now so well known that a "Distinguished Professor"
does not need to give references . . .
I would argue that Maori did not cede sovereignty because there was no >sovereignty to cede.
There was no country, no government and no universally agreed on
property rights. There was only land ocupation and tribal warfare.
How can anything resembling sovereignty possibly exist under those >circumstances?
Bill.
Yes each tribe has a mode of governance
and a structure, and fairly well established agreed customs regarding
land occupation. They were not like those of England, but that was to be expected.
On Mon, 02 Sep 2024 17:13:12 +1200, BR <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sun, 01 Sep 2024 10:22:03 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]> >>wrote:Read the first link above, Bill. Yes each tribe has a mode of
As I have previously indicated, I find "Pundit" worth reading - sadly >>>many of the authors no longer regularly publish, but I have posted
links to a number of articles by Brian Easton.
Here is another: >>>https://www.pundit.co.nz/content/the-principles-of-the-treaty
and a search for Ruth Ross gave this: >>>https://muse.jhu.edu/pub/426/article/867905/pdf
and then a later commentary, again by Brian Easton: >>>https://newsroom.co.nz/2023/05/08/book-of-the-week-the-first-tiriti-fraud/ >>>
and also a more recent article: >>>https://newsroom.co.nz/2024/08/31/anne-salmond-whats-the-matter-with-the-treaty-principles-bill/
Presumably the facts regarding the single version available at the >>>initial signing are now so well known that a "Distinguished Professor" >>>does not need to give references . . .
I would argue that Maori did not cede sovereignty because there was no >>sovereignty to cede.
There was no country, no government and no universally agreed on
property rights. There was only land ocupation and tribal warfare.
How can anything resembling sovereignty possibly exist under those >>circumstances?
Bill.
governance and a structure, and fairly well established agreed customs >regarding land occupation.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 148:06:31 |
| Calls: | 12,091 |
| Calls today: | 4 |
| Files: | 15,000 |
| Messages: | 6,517,550 |