when we regurgitate the pakeha lies as to what transpired around the treaty Joe is that we did not sign nothing The Treaty was not signed it was forged, it came already forged by the british Sovereign to establish this illegal government. The Treaty can only be discussed or and decided on by the Two Sovereigns. The colonisers Monarch and the direct descendent of the 1857 Arikinui Waikato Tairea, no one else. The Administration or Government cannot have this discussion it is reserved for Charles Philip Arthur George and Maori Sovereign by whakapapa Geoffrey Karena Puhi.

Sir Joe Williams is our key 🗝

Love his korero on our history and how he explains the importance of our culture and the rawness of it all..with the power of control with certain documents and with parliamentary governance the national and labor party were and still have been the only parties that have governed Aōtearoa, the maori party was established in 2004 and still to this day have not won an electoral vote for governance of Aōtearoa which was interesting to why it has not happebed, some information that i have read on a voting brochure it came to my attention that if you are not of maori decent you can not go on the maori role you can only go on the general role and vote for parties that is given, maori's however can go on the general role and the maori role. We need to acknowledge what is going on here when the government talks about equality they need to look at their actions on how they perceive equality with their very own movements and governance.

The war with Mexico and the United States in 1846 has a book about that event literally called “The Taking of Naboths Vineyard, or the history of the Texas conspiracy” by David child or another called “King Ahab and Naboth, or The United States and Mexico” which describes how that event was parallel to the biblical story of king ahabs robbery of Naboths vineyard, as predicted, the book states the people of the United States while not guilty of the crime itself, are guilty by accepting the spoils. It was even said, as a reference to the Māori and New Zealand’s topic the speaker discussed, that this war between Mexico and the United states and the causes, facts, recordings of that war would make “even the New Zealand colonists disgraced”. In other words, that war was more violent and unjust than the New Zealand wars with the Māori

Its all over the internet if you know where to look, I have even seen screencaps from this video. FENZ probably dont like it, as they reported it as starting on the seaside first, and not the garage (protecting the EV is safe scam).

Utter disgrace how the Māori were treated. Aotearoa is Māori land.

i was there that day

Mosquito, the World first Multi Role Combat Aircraft.

Hey mate how did you get this video as I filmed it

What a great man, when he had his garage by Auckland hosp I was at ace towing, he was one of my favourite customers

What are those idiots laughing at???

WTF all these online academics and Historians keep your comments to yourself lol if you had any real credibility we be the ones watching you

This is where ideology and history merge into a hodgepodge of half truths or revisionism. It was colonization that saved Reo, that recorded it and systematized it and here you are saying the colonization stoped reo. Nonsense. No one stopped Naori speaking reo at home. And obviously to tech english to Maori. Maori choosing to focus on english was wise. But to stop using it entirely is no one’s fault but those that chose to stop speaking it.Northern Maori had great pride in reading and writing and boasted about it. That was colonization. If the French had colonized, things would be very different. What’s modsinvhere is respect. Respect for the gift of colonization that rapidly modernized Maori. That brought the ease of the wheel. Steel axe and hoe, Wool, the horse. Priceless revolutionary tools. Not to mention emancipation from slavery and tribal war. The musket wars killed 20,000 and 30,000 wounded. The land wars in contrast led to around 2000 Maori. No comparison. Yes war happened all over the world. Though 50% of Maori were killed or wounded. That’s the back drop fir the signing of the treaty yet it’s seldom mentioned. So good it’s mentioned here. The virtue and revisionism of the grievance industry outdated do with a reality check.

Quite a history about the Maori - put the Inca's or the Aztecs to shame in degeneration. Outcast from the Cook Islands during the 13th century as weaker primitive Neolithic people by later waves of Polynesians (Maori were from the original wave of primitive Polynesians pushed right out across the Eastern Pacific by successive stronger more advanced groups arriving from the west). They were outcast on rafts and some floated to the North East Coast of NZ driven by the South Equatorial Current and were stranded for 500 years. The weaker were pushed down to the South Island or Chathams etc. So the South Island Maori (had their own language) were the weakest of the weak. They were captured and eaten as 'Slave flesh' by the northern Maori doing raids. (Well they all ate each other - 80% of Maori pre European were dark skinned easily fattened slaves farmed and eaten by a lighter skinned 'Ariki' thin wiry elite royal caste). So it was with some righteousness as well as British cunning that they armed the southern Maori who then with muskets launched a genocidal war on the north.. That plus measles & flu halved the Maori population and removed most of the elite. The British then liberated the slaves and outlawed cannibalism. The northern Maori fought with the British against the south bad west Maori 'rebels'. The Maori sued for peace and a treaty was signed that removed all sovereignty and made them subjects to the English crown where the English would protect them from each other. Land could only be sold to or via the Crown. Maori could live on their reservations with native custom but none did. The treaty of Waitangi is strikingly clear in that the Maori cede sovereignty completely and become citizens of Great Britain - all 3 clauses lock that in. Nothing in today's 'Maori' culture is authentic. The music - all European (Maoris did not have tonal music, the songs are missionary tunes or introduced - Poi dance is from Islands and Stick dance from old Malaya. The carvings and art - all European - Arabesques that was the fashion at the time. Original Maori had limited dash carving and no painting of objects. No written language - all the syntax & grammar plus vowel inflection is European. No technology - some lagoon canoes and wood or stone Neolithic tools. No food sources - like pigs or crops - they left that all behind, all they had was a weak inbred fox (now extinct), some rats and a weak dismal pacific yam. They ate out all the bird-life including 10 species of Moa and 46 other bird species, didn't know how to farm the sea as were island people and so they turned to societal cannibalism. Today - no full blood or half blood left. No genuine tradition and almost all are offspring of Maori slave females sold to white settlers for muskets or food. -So more fake than the 'Sioux' or 'Cherokee' or 'Crow' who had at least retained some genuineness about who they were and their history. -Everything you 'saw or experienced' is fake. A totally convected disneyfied tokenistic set of inventions fueled by a grievance culture of mixed-race imposters fetishing a false past bad history because it pays benefits. 'This Horrid Practice' - Professor Paul Moon, "A Savage Country" Professor Paul Moon 'Behind The Tattooed Face' - Heretaunga Pat Baker, 'Anthropology In The South Seas' - H D Skinner

Very insightful and informative...Joe Williams now a Supreme Court Justice

Aee my Great grand father Sam Kohu and our whanau did a petitions back in the ra

That's a MIGHTY WHITE title SIR JOE. You crack me up.

My family still has our Great great grandfathers medals from the battle of gate pa

I'm bawling my eye's out listening to Simon's story because that's excitley what happened to me and my siblings because my mother chose to be white because mum thought she could get further afield if she spoke English by her doing that she Robbed us of our heritage 😢

Te Tiriti o Waitangi is the Treaty of death by water baptised in Christ the Chiefs journey with God is the greatest story never told. The maori translation is a mirror of the Littlewood draft the final English writ, lost but found in 1989 concealed by maori and Te Papa a crime against NZdrs so bring that Mother document out we all understand English!

Land, sea and foreshore belongs to the creator not Māori not Pakeha or any other ethnicities, we're all tenant's under one landlord and expected to keep the place tidy and get along with our neighbours. Māori and Pakeha caused the deaths of hundreds of others so they both have no moral ground to stand on.

Great interview!

What an elegant aircraft

The people just do #FingerRespect so why make this kind of thing make any sense... just deny!

This is what happened while I was studying in Tauranga in 2013 kzbin.info/www/bejne/Znq6eomuetOGY6s

The word treaty derives from the old testament word or Hebrew meaning covenant(kawenata). A covenant that was established between God and Abraham the promised land for his sons Isaac, Jacob and the children of Israel which stands to this day.bSame thing applies to the treaty established between the British & Maori which still stands today.

Love the Pilot (Kawanatanga) and Kingdom (Rangatiratanga) example of the value difference and context of these words from the Maori version. Just brilliant matauranga backed by te Paipera. That is exactly what Jesus does through His gift of salvation for all of humanity. His value of everlasting love demonstrated on the cross sets a new value where no man can boast and where He resists the prideful and where the oppressed and humble are lifted up. He speaks in te reo just as He speaks in every language of humanity because He is God. In His book Matthew chapter 1 all He speaks about is whakapapa and the entire old testament book are all the stories of His whanaunga and their lives. He is amazing and is all about whanau restoration. He gave His life up on the cross so that all of humanity could be restored to Te Papa Atua. God is all about whanau, whakapapa, generations and honoring covenants. Kia kaha nga Maori ki te whakapono ki a Ihu Karaiti me tona aroha orangatanga ki a tatou katoa. Ahakoa ko wai, ahakoa he aha. Nou tona aroha mena ka whakapono koe. Amine x

What could be better?Another beautiful day in the Bay made even better by the presence of a DH98.

Shalom shalom Yerushalayim - peace be to you. Not the peace the world brings but the peace which only comes through Messiah. May Yah's Will be done on earth as in the Heavens. Amein

Yes, the speaker's generation were *radicalized* as he says.^^

Prendergast said the Treaty was a *legal* nullity [not just a nullity]. This qualification is important. Law is only something that arises once a sovereign power is established. The Treat is arguably the establishment of that power, and therefore transcends the law... and in turn provides a basis for law [and order]. Does that mean the Treaty could be dismissed? No, but its basis is moral, cultural, historical... and should be [truly] honoured on those principles.

Mana is not the greatest thing. Because Mana was not... 'softened', you had the continual escalation of violence in the Musket Wars. Once the mana [authority/ absolute freedom/ pride] of the chiefs submitted to the new sovereign power [which infuriated proud chiefs such as Te Wahaorao and te Heu Heu] the musket wars quickly came to an end. This is also the practicality of conversion to Christianity, which involved a humbling of all involved... civility.

'If the Treaty died. you had to walk away'. Arguably, this is what happened at a later date with the advent of the NZ/ Maori wars. Here the Europeans were compelled to enforce sovereignty through force of arms. Interestingly, at the practical level, a show of arms enforced sovereignty at the Maketu area during the late musket wars [1843] over tribes that had not signed the Treaty. The legal experts at the time argued that Britain had no authority over unsigned chiefs. But this was considered irrelevant by both NZ statesmen and the colonial office back in London for NZ sovereignty had been *declared* over the whole of NZ in May 1840. This is the practicality of a sovereign power as opposed to the theory [law].

The language of the Traety is diplomatic not legalistic. Diplomacy IS relational [which was the point being made about Maori culture at that time]. And yes, I agrre that the Treaty should be understood by asking what it meant to them... as opposed to what it means to us [with our own modern preconceptions]. Historicism not legalism should be at work here.

Of course, this interpretation becomes absurd [that kawanatanga is way below rangatiratanga] because the whole point of the Treaty was to establish sovereignty over NZ and all of its inhabitants in order to institute law and order. Of course, then the argument could be that the Maori version was to pull the wool over the eyes of Maori, but that would entail that the English statesmen and the missionaries were being completely dishonest and malevolent. This is equally absurd. As for the [so-called] English version], why would they have been so specific as to everything that Maori continued to own? There are just too many contractions and absurdities for this reading of the Treat to make sense.

'Rangatiratanga' is chieftainship. Enjoyment of chieftain rights are property rights.... not sovereignty. Chiefs such as Te Heu Heu of Taupo refused to sign because he knwo all too well that he'd be submitting his authority/ mana to the Queen... something he castigated other chiefs for. This is the fatal flaw for this 'two treaty' approach that has developed since the '80s

The crucial text was the Maori text as this is what Maori understood and signed. Yet today it seems the crucial text has become the English text. The problem here is that the final draft was lost. The issue becomes one therefore of which English text is being used - a literary one penned by Freemean for a royal audience, or the actual one, which was rediscovered in 1992 and known as the Littlewood draft. Compare the Littlewood draft to the Maori version, and you've a line by line translation... with no superflous language.

So the European paternal ancestor was a 'warmonger', and the maternal ancestor was a 'Maori princess'. Wow, what a 'history'. lol

More identity politics. All too easy for gullible minds.

Woah.... is this the same genteel Simon Dallow I see on the news everynight? A little alarming to see an almost seething anger bubbling to the surface..... What is happening to this country. : (

Think the terminology for slave back in the day was taurekareka and at the time it was actually the only swear word in te rep maori

The day the greatest empire in the world at that time faced gate pa have heavly under estimated the skill an the heart of the people a payed the cost

I thank its a great video no music great filming thanks 👍👍👍👍

The interviewer irritated me. He kept on interrupting and stopping the flow of the story being told. The funny questions he was interrupting and asking were consequentially not funny. Know when to not speak and just listen.

Sir Joe is deluded. Half truths. Nothing worst. I just wonder how many Maoris have bent their knee to Baal!

This is a load of Rubbish

It was genocide committed tell the truth all them hapu were all whanau wot a joke

Pity my comments of yesterday have been deleted. Does it not fit your narrative.. The point is you are using the wrong "copy" of the Treaty. Try the genuine original Te Reo Maori one. The only Treaty!! "is" the Maori one. Do the hard yards and try and find it. Its there online. I accessed the Te Reo Maori document (the text based one produced by Colenso, the Missionary printer of 1840) and used two separate GPT-4 Artificial Intelligence Bots to translate. The two translations came out very close to each other. Both do not mention Forests , Rivers or Treasured possessions in any way. It mentions land. This could be offered for sale "if the Maori wanted to" only through the Crowns agent. The Crown would protect possession of this land before and after the sale. Oh. By the way, the Treaty is Not a partnership!! Who invented this idea??

This is absolutely brilliant, I am so happy I found it to broaden my awareness and knowledge and understanding better our historic times. He taonga tou kōrero, he Rangatira koe

Big enough shop proper wood tools and spec grade materials we can make a squad.