Dr. Ned Fletcher, "The Treaty of Waitangi in Imperial Context"

Wānanga-Symposium, Waitangi, 17 November 2023
ABSTRACT
Contrary to Ruth Ross’s influential verdict in 1972, the English text of the Treaty of Waitangi is not ‘ambiguous and contradictory in content’. It does not say ‘whatever we want it to say’. It was not a blank canvas with a meaning to be arrived at through later negotiation. The meaning of the English text requires consideration not only of the text itself but also of the context in which it was drawn up. That context includes the backgrounds and motivations of the framers, the wider experience of Empire and beyond (including the dealings of the United States with its Indian nations), and the currents of thought of the time. This paper is concerned with the implications of British sovereignty for native societies in different parts of Empire, and models for plurality in government and law that were known to the framers of the Treaty. This context supports the conclusion that, rather than being at odds, the English and Māori texts of the Treaty reconcile. British intervention in New Zealand in 1840 was to establish government over British settlers, for the protection of Māori. British settlement was to be promoted only to the extent that Māori protection was not compromised. Assimilation of Māori into settler society was not the goal. Māori tribal government and custom were to be maintained under British sovereignty. Māori were recognised as full owners of all their lands according to custom.
BIO
Ned Fletcher is a director of the law firm Kayes Fletcher Walker, which is the Office of the Manukau Crown Solicitor. He is the author of The English Text of the Treaty of Waitangi (Bridget Williams Books, 2022), which won the general non-fiction prize at the 2023 Ockham New Zealand Book Awards.

[@richardbruce8111]

Why are the comments BLOCKED!

[@tonygee3284]

The treaty will be dissolved

[@jamescrydeman540]

When I read the treaty i saw no more assurance than that of equality under the law. The document has to be read in its entirety, not clause by clause else the document becomes meaningless. Māori had no sovereignty, they had occupation at the cultural development level that Galbraith in “the Anatomy of Power” refers to as condine or the most elemental simple form, barely above simple physical strength. I doubt the powers that were at the time would have been able to offer anything more than equality under the law else the latter day colonisers would not have come .

[@davethewave7248]

Equality under the law, and yet a hierarchical politcial system as pertained to both Maori and English at the time. This was why the protection of rangatiratanga/ chieftainship [a heirarchy over the tribe] could be offered, while that chieftainship itself came under the Crown in the heirarchical system. I think most fail to get their head around the treaty as they fail to recognize the heirarchical elements that came with the age of empire.

[@jamescrydeman540]

@@davethewave7248 ThebBritish system doesn’t do hierarchical legal system nor does NZ go to the courts they will tell you we have a single tier justice system . To manipulate that introduces class and class destroys any concept of democracy. Promote a less democratic system for all you are worth have burn have the personal integrity and honesty to point out that your intention is to pervert ndemocracy.

[@brendonmadden-smith]

So recognition of Maori as sovereign by the Queen of Britain as a necessary precursor to the Treaty simply didn't happen in your revisionist view?

[@davethewave7248]

@@brendonmadden-smith The British King and his diplomats chose to recognize a nominal sovereignty as was framed in Busby's 1835 'Confederation of Chiefs/ Te Whakaputunga' given the new humanitarian climate. This then became the very basis by which the chiefs could be said to cede sovereignty to the British Crown in the 1840 Treaty of Waitiangi.... which is directly referenced in the first article dealing with sovereignty.

[@brendonmadden-smith]

@@davethewave7248 and the difference between a "nominal" sovereignty and sovereignty is what exactly?

[@davethewave7248]

"Assimilation of Māori into settler society was not the goal. Māori tribal government and custom were to be maintained under British sovereignty. Māori were recognised as full owners of all their lands according to custom." So why did Hobson shake the hand of each chief saying 'we are one people now'. Tribal government a pargmatic and transitional approach before the state could be strengthened and grown. Recognized customary ownership of land in order to sell surplus land to the Crown. All early colonial thought was about amalgamation [the logic of empire, which amalgamates peoples/ pre-nationalism].... despite what we like to think today.

[@shauntempley9757]

Hobson was saying their agreement had been made, and the Chief's understood that action. As for what happened later, you can blame Gibbs in Sydney, and The New Zealand Trading Company for breaking the law, no different than what Seymour and ACT are trying today. You can also blame Governor Grey for failing to enforce the Te Tiriti when he arrived after the first deaths caused by the New Zealand Trading Company's actions against Te Raupraha at the Wairua massacre, which lead to the New Zealand Wars. The government of ACT, National, NZF is following the lead of The New Zealand Trading Company in it's dealings with Maori and committing crimes once again, and if this continues, will easily lead to the New Zealand Wars once again if this is not stopped. It turns out all Ardern's Labour was trying to do, was follow what Hobson intended with the Te Tiriti, only you drank the cool aid, and followed their enemies to repeat their crimes.

[@davethewave7248]

@@shauntempley9757 lol. Interesting interpretation. I think you may have fallen into the 'binary trap' there. When we do history, we shouldn't be looking to take one side or the other imo [I am not an ACT supporter/ and find his treaty principles quite odd]. In this respect, history should always play a 'mediating' role between the various narratives that tend to polarize people into either radicals or reactionaries.

[@davethewave7248]

@@shauntempley9757 "Hobson was saying their agreement had been made, and the Chief's understood that action." He did not say we are of one mind now. He said we are now one people / iwi tahi.

[@shauntempley9757]

@@davethewave7248 It does not matter if today that has changed. The Chiefs last time I checked still has plenty of descendants, and they also handed leadership back to the ones that we have today which are descendants of those holders of power. You have cheek to claim that, when Tama Iti is a Chief that had his Iwi attacked by Parliament in the last 20 years. Te Tiriti clearly says that even his Iwi's and people's rights are protected.

[@shauntempley9757]

@@davethewave7248 No, he was saying each Chief's rights were secured. He did not mean one people. Even after hearing his outright opposition to the points you state in this talk, you still try to say he is wrong, and you are right on this?

[@fu8713]

WTF Slavery got do with the treaty?

[@operator6786]

boring boring GEEK..