Māori sovereignty and the Treaty of Waitangi

Historian and academic, Paul Moon gives an insight of Te Tiriti o Waitangi - The Treaty of Waitangi. He explores the initial signing of the treaty in 1840, controversial interpretations of it, an emerging school of thought, and the treaty’s future in Aotearoa.
Learn history at AUT: www.aut.ac.nz/research/academ...

[@davethewave7248]

Rangatiratanga being equated with the idea of western sovereignty is a modern invention. Context: the chiefs knew perfectly that they were ceded sovereignty/ the highest power and authority to the British Crown for a few reasons. 1] Northern tribes feared the French. 2] Northern tribes feared reprisals from southern tribes recently armed with muskets. 3] They were all sick and tired of the continual cycle of violence involved with two decades of musket wars. 4] They desired law and order, and trade. 5] Southern Maori refused to sign because they understood it meant giving up their sovereignty. This was clearly stated by the great Te Heu Heu of Ngati Wharetoa of Taupo when his large war party was met by the recently converted Whanganui tribes... who he was contemptuous of for giving up their mana to Queen Victoria, a mere woman. Te Whero Whero, who also did not sign, also rejected British sovereignty leading to the NZ wars, where the Brits were compelled to establish actual sovereignty [that was *declared* over the whole country in 1840] through force of arms. Read Ron Crosby's 'The Musket Wars' for the history.

[@rogerevans7119]

In the treaty in te reo, Kawantanga o te Kuini was the delegated power of the queen, singular, absolute, and applied over all hapu territories, (te kawanatanga katoa o o ratou whenua)- THE complete government (unitary, singular) of their tribal lands (o ratou, plural) Tino Rangatiratanga on the other hand is indivisibly linked to land ownership and management (te tino rangatiratanga o o ratou whenua)- "the full ownership/chiefship of their individual tribal territories". It is a right in land and the right to manage your land, not an abstract political power. Tino rangatiratanga would be protected and assured (ka wakarite ka wakaae) by the Queen- the act of a higher power over lesser.

[@davethewave7248]

@robintamihere4550 A lot there. Interesting that Te Whero Whero signed at a later date after the Maori/ NZ wars. I wonder if this was a condition of opening up the King country, or whether just a sign of good faith, and a final recognition that British sovereignty, law and order, economic developmnet etc was required. As for Hapuka, I have him signing in Ahuriri/ Napier in mid 1840, when Major Bunbury was traveling around the islands for the chiefs to sign [he first refused to sign at Waitangi]. Perhaps there is another Hapuku you are referring to? Bunbury describes a first hand account of how Hapuku understood the treaty - From the journal of Major Bunbury, who travelled throughout the country collecting signatures - "He endeavoured then to explain the meaning by a sort of diagram on a piece of board [to chief Te Hapuku], placing the Queen by herself over the chiefs as these were over the tribes. I told him it was literally as he described it, but not for an evil purpose as they supposed, but to enable her to enforce the execution of justice and good government equally amongst her subjects….. Captain Nias ordered a gun to be fired, at their request, and having signed the treaty and received some blankets and tobacco as a present, they were put on shore in a native village in the Bay." From my reading so far my favorite chiefs are Wiremu Tamihana [a peacemaker, and also kingmaker], and the fine Te Heu Heu. Te Heu Heu also well understood the treaty in refusing to sign up, not wanting to give up his mana/ power/ authority to a woman, Queen Victoria. this was expressed a few times to various parties. Perhaps your 'why' questions refer to points of ritual/ ceremony? Maori sovereignty was certainly recognized previous to the treaty by British statesmen/ diplomats. But this was a nominal sovereignty, that the chiefs did not really have - as you say, they each exercized their own mana/ sovereignty [I think the word 'mana' was not used in the treaty as it would be nonsense for chiefs to give up their mana... what thet gave up was an absolute mana that they enjoyed previously. After the treaty, they had a limited mana over their own lands and tribes]. the nominal sovereignty that chiefs had in the 1835 declaration become the basis of which the British drew up their waitangi treaty - it was that which was ceded to the Brits... so that all of us could be one people living under law and order. Peace^^ Edit: I agree that te tiriti is the right version to use as this was what was explained to the chiefs by the missionaries/ translators. I think they also did a pretty good job in explaining that meaning. Once the mantra by those ill-disposed toward the treaty was 'the treaty is a fraud'. This changed to 'honour the treaty' over the course of the seventies due to the idea that there was actually two disparate treaties - the Maori versus the English. But, historically, there is only one version imo~~

[@davethewave7248]

@@jwatstom That's right. Powerful central North Island chiefs did not sign the Treaty of Waitangi. You then have a 'state of nature' where might is right. The British then enforced the sovereignty that they had earlier declared over the whole country. Here you can not say the Brits breached the treaty [for it was not signed between them]. You can argue that the Brits had no 'natural right' to enforce their sovereignty... but all the chiefs knew was 'might is right'. 'Natural rights/ law' is itself a European invention that comes out of French/ revolutionary/ radical thought.

[@StGammon77]

​@@jwatstomdumb judges

[@waxhead6332]

Oh boy you're deluded. Hobson's Pledge goobledegook. State your claim we don't have to listen to it but if it serves your narrative go right ahead dreamer.

[@rogerevans7119]

well presented. Agree with Zachary, the Treaty was clearly a transfer of arch authority over all hapu to the Queen. THis is implicit in the Maori text, which as Hobson himself declared is the only authoritative text. The problem was that Britain had formally recognised the Declaration of Independence declaring northern NZ to be a federal union of multiple hapu working in concert, this federal body represented the sovereignty of the country (rangatiratanga), and had the power to make laws (kawanatanga). Busby's plan was that he federal body would work by majority decision, the rangatiratanga of each individual hapu being subject to the federal authority and its laws. However as Maori promptly pointed out, their society did not work like that; it worked by unanimous consensus, and any hapu disagreeing with the majority decision could only be brought into line by an act of war. In other words, the european style federation model proposed by Busby did not and could not work. However the British Crown had recognised the Sovereignty of the Confederated Tribes, and so when it had to intervene it had a diplomatic issue on its plate. The reason a Treaty was needed, was that it was necessary to formally supplant the Confederation (the arch rangatiratanga with its powers of kawanatanga) with the Crown, as the governing body over all hapu. Busby, who drafted the Declaration, and Henry Williams, who had translated it into te reo (nobody today disputes their use of rangatiratanga and kawanatanga, surprizingly!) now drafted and translated the Treaty of Waitangi, using those same terms to convey in the most accurate way possible the nature of the transfer of power. Henry Williams used rangatiratanga to define the practical, traditional self governance of hapu over their individual territories and estates (akin to the feudal rule of a lord over his estates under the Queen of England in Britain) He used kawanatanga to define the power of government over the tribes and their lands- specifically, the kawanatanga of the Queen (te kawanatanga o te kuini, Treaty introduction). Implicit in this as maori well understood is that a kawana represents and draws his power from a rangatira. Just as Gipps in NSW exercised the power of the Queen over white and aboriginal persons there, and just as Pilate in the Bible wielded the laws and authority of Caesar over the Jewish leaders (rangatira) so the rangatiratanga of Victoria exercised through Kawana Hobson would supplant the federal rangatiratanga of the Confederation, and bring law and order over all hapu and all pakeha. This is entirely missed by the Ruth Ross crowd who insist that kawanatanga is always subject to rangatiratanga without looking honestly at contemporary contexts. It is a fundamental principle of sovereignty, as Hobson said, that the laws of England can only be exercised on English soil. This is why Busby had no authority- British laws could not be enforced outside British territory. It is also the fundamental principle underpinning the Treaty- that unless all hapu territories were British soil, British law and kawanatanga could not proceed. The idea of factories was abandoned because miscreants could take refuge among hapu, crafty pakeha would start inter hapu wars (as they did over the Whananaki purchase) and the chaos would continue. What was needed was universal law over all lands, and the only way to do this was to enable the Queen's authority over all hapu territories. This is why the idea of Hobson being co-authority alongside independent hapu is an absolute lemon. Anything less than cession of territorial authority in clause 1would have rendered the protection of law under clause 2 utterly impotent. The modern view of the Treaty as creating some sort of co-governance partnership between hapu and the Crown is a fallacy. The Treaty brought Maori into partnership with Pakeha under the British Crown, as subjects in equal- the third Clause of the Treaty, which the partnership model entirely breaches. You cannot solve alleged breaches of the Treaty in the first and second clauses by breaching the third clause, that is not tika. Also the situation has completely changed, the Crown is not now an independent body but is a body representative of and elected by the sum total of its enfranchised citizens irrespective of ethnicity. The Crown is Maori and Pakeha and whoever else,, all in one. So the idea that one subset of the citizenry can somehow also be an independent body in partnership with the collective body is, frankly, nonsense. Yet nonsense seems to be permeating the fabric of modern society, to the point that any contrary view is suppressed. As soon as one tries to point out that we are all equal, one is slapped with the epithet "racist" Yet ironically it is the modern partnership view, that elevates one ethnic group in our society to special status, that is racist. Go figure. Hobson concluded the signing with the statement "He iwi tahi tatou"- we are all one iwi (many hapu, many tangata, many people, all one nation) Today we are anything but- divided by racism. Bring back real history. Honest, researched history, rooted in its contemporary contexts. Any attempt to found a constitution upon the modern perversions is folly- unfortunately we seem to be locked ont to that road with political tunnel vision. God defend New Zealand.

[@rogerevans7119]

@EDITH BARRETT I have researched them. Thoroughly and from original sources.

[@martinsmallwood9605]

The First Article Māori version translated to English. Waitangi Tribunal The following translation of the te reo Māori version of the Treaty was done by former Tribunal member Professor Sir Hugh Kawharu. The translation sets out to show how Māori would have understood the meaning of the text they signed. It was published in the book Waitangi Revisited: Perspectives on the Treaty of Waitangi, edited by Michael Belgrave, Merata Kawharu and David Williams (Oxford University Press, 1989). The first The Chiefs of the Confederation and all the Chiefs who have not joined that Confederation give absolutely to the Queen of England for ever the complete government over their land. This is Sovereignty the right to govern. Not as a partnership with Maori the treaty in its first clause gives the crown sole right to govern over this country.

[@shauntempley9757]

@@martinsmallwood9605 The second article states that the Queen in turn returns control of resources and culture, language, basically everything Maori were doing to survive, back to Maori themselves. The third article states that Maori have the rights of her subjects in turn. The thing is, over 200 years, only the first article was respected.

[@DW_Kiwi]

@@martinsmallwood9605 I think maybe Hugh Kawharu was biased

[@stevenstuart1442]

@@edithbarrett4552 the preamble alone will tell you Britain will gain Sovereignty...

[@alethein359]

It's very interesting to me to hear a professional historian and authority on the Treaty of Waitangi say that the British Crown did not want sovereignty over Maori, but only over British settlers. Throughout school I was taught that the British wanted sovereignty over Maori too, and now that I'm in my first year of university studying law, this is also the position of my lecturers. And yet, here is one of the most qualified people to speak on the subject saying that this is not the case. Makes me wonder what the truth of the matter is. Also confusing is this notion of a "fourth article" of the Treaty. In university we are taught that it exists, but according to Dr Moon, it's just a myth. I would very much like to see a debate between Dr Moon and other academics with expertise in these areas on these issues so I can figure out who is correct.

[@margaloosboy257]

be nice if they could Include the maori for a change!!!

[@abrahamwharepapa1604]

I've never learnt or heard Moon speak of or acknowledge the Declaration of Independence signed 28th October 1835 by Northern Tribal Chiefs witnessed at Waitangi by James Busby of British descent..Surely these Chiefs would have participanted in Te Tiriti o Waitangi 5yrs after "Whakaputunga" & if any of them were to do so It would be interesting to search the 9(Nine) Documents that seeked signature's throughout the North & South Islands upon Te Tiriti o Waitangi Proposal Will this also confirm if there was 8(Eight)composed in English written & 1(One) being the possible 9 (Nineth) composed written in Te Reo Maori..Sometimes it may have a mutual individual understandings when confusing Enactments can be Broken down Simplicity is an Ultimate passageway Just a thought forward Zach Good openings of gestures...

[@DW_Kiwi]

Maori had a hard time of it during the mid 19th/20th century's. Now they are on the rise back. NZ has to be careful. We do not civil war!! We need to reconcile this to all parties.

[@DW_Kiwi]

@@abrahamwharepapa1604 Yes.

[@stevenstuart1442]

se above...

[@willgeorge5644]

So there a 2 sovereign state in NZ. I immigrated in 2005, which state did I immigrate into? what about Pacifica, which are they in? Does anyone immigrate into Maori state? Do I have to pay for past grievances in my taxes?

[@davethewave7248]

'These treaties could only be signed by sovereign states'. Due to the humanitarian instincts of the statesmen involved, they allowed that the [warring] tribes could be considered sovereign. But this was only in order for the trines to *cede* their sovereignty to Britian. This was necessary for law and order to be established across the whole territory. No other sense can be made of these Treaty events than these practical political considerations. What has happened to day is that the theorists/ academics have well and truly muddied the waters of Waitangi.

[@rogerevans7119]

as per my other comment the Treaty was specifically drafted to obtain a diplomatic transfer of allegiance from the inoperative Confederation of united Tribes to the British Crown, thus transferring sovereingty from the one to the other. The relationship between these two documents is paramount in understanding the process.

[@StGammon77]

Thankyou ​@@rogerevans7119

[@davethewave7248]

When identity becomes tied to grievance, the grievance will never end. What was that they once said about appeasement....?

[@davethewave7248]

The final version of the English draft was lost. At the time what was most important was the Maori version for the chiefs to sign. In 1869, a commission then decided on an appropriate English version of the Treaty. An actual draft of the English version was re-discovered in 1989 in a deceased estate and is known as the Littlewood draft. Mr Littlewood nacestor was a solicitor that worked for the American consul in NZ in 1840, and wanted a copy of the Treaty for the USA government. This draft when lined up against the Maori version gives a line by line translation. The English version that was pushed into law in the 70s was not actually the authentic document, but a flowery piece of literature, in the most meticulous handwriting, with much superfluous language, to be read by a royal audeince back in England.

[@rogerevans7119]

Littlewood has been shown nnot to be a draft, but a back translation- see Phil Parkinson, "Preserved in the Archives of the Colony", it is almost word for word identical to the back translation made for the American Consul, Clendon. The English text documents are in English legalese, and were required to satisfy English legal political and diplomatic jargon. Interestingly only one carries maori signatures (as an overflow sheet for signatures to a Maori text), and all have Hobson signing off as "Lt Governor" alone, not as Consul and Lt Governor which were his titles in the process of cession, suggesting they were all issued after the fact. Hobson himself declared that the Treaty parchment signed at the close of 6 Feb 1840 was, in paraphrase "de facto , the treaty, and all subsequent signatures merely an acknowledgment of adherence to that document" . If we take Hobson at his word, the whole issue of multiple texts and translations vanishes, the document signed and dated on the day is the official, singular, legally valid Treaty.

[@Digmen1]

The document made for Clendon came from Busby's draft (The Littlewood Treaty)

[@frze5645]

One country - two sovereignties - this is not going to end well. Pick your sovereignty and let the fun begin.

[@DaishDaishDaish]

i believe its called a civil war

[@zealantis]

what? No how about we just not fight each other and instead we all just fight the government for lying to us about everything

[@jonathantepairi2664]

For 600 years, maori, before European came to aotearoa had lived ,warred ,loved ,played ,and even though there was the taking of land within that framework, it was localised not nation wide, for this maori I do not subscribe to co governance although our history tells us it did function as our way of rulership ,,and we are the kaitiaki for that old history ,,,my functioning governance ,,,,,, depends on an equitable partnership between the two parties ie maori and pakeha ,how ever the fact they we have had so many ethnic communities in new zealand the settlers here need a voice I advocate for that voice to be heard,, just as much as I advocate on behalf of my mixed whakapapa and identify as maori.,,for equitable governance is when we can sit at the negotiating table and discuss matters of policy ,matters of state and laws but most of all ,,,,the importance of redressing the disconnect between the interpretation of meaning ,transliteration context,and syntax can not be ignored within the treaty ,, it is the one thing that has stayed in the mindset of our people ,,,,and don't just look briefly at it and have it notarised it in three days like the original one ,but discuss it vigorously, debate merit of changes and agree that resolutions would be met by both parties

[@lockk132]

Ive allready come up with a set of guidelines by which self determination for Maori can sit alongside Pakeha and others.Law and justice was obviously( to me) the biggest obstacle, this too I have come up with a functioning solution.​@jonathantepairi2664

[@karlharrison2449]

No where in the world did Britain sign a treaty that created co Governance. The treaty made Maori British subjects with all the rights that go with that. If co Governance is pushed there will be trouble in New Zealand you can not have a rule for one and not the other. Also 17% of the population can not have 50% of the voting rights this will lead to huge problems as has been shown time and time again throughout the world. We are a Democracy and this is undemocratic.

[@Billythekiddnz]

They deserve that much in their own country. Greedy selfish men make up sob stories to justify injustices. Just because a group of men have their way with your wife does'nt change your claim to her. U need to grow some and be a man of integrity

[@karlharrison2449]

@@Billythekiddnz So why don’t you.

[@karlharrison2449]

@@jwatstomMaori had no concept of sovereignty, it was hapu and tribe. who by the way were committing genocide by trying to exterminate each other.

[@user-mc6js8or3r]

Democracy is a shackle for the global indigenous soverign nations colonized and incriminated by western politricks

[@djhemirukahemisphere8893]

This is a terribly inaccurate comment. The agreement was designed for the 5 delagates of the crown to manage the 2000 British immigrants and it contained specific contingency respecting Maori rights to govern themselves. It is ridiculous to suggest 540 chiefs would cede - who would rule them in the country ? 😂 The British indeed had many such agreements around the world to support the migration management of thier people's and to ensure other countries could not claim such partnerships with the local peoples. That is what the intent was of both people's. The Conseqent evolution of the NZ govt is illegal under international law.

[@davethewave7248]

When does getting rid of a sense of grievance become as counter-productive as appeasement? The more radical the interpretation of the Treaty is, the more grievances will be felt. In this sense, they become potical/ ideological... which can in the end get very messy. Better for the govt to have a backbone - settle genuine grievances while sticking to the true principle of the Treaty [one people].

[@rogerevans7119]

the treaty review policy of ACT in the new government- if they can manage to get National to work with it- will be very interesting in this regard.

[@davethewave7248]

@@rogerevans7119 A review would be great. Unfortunately, much has been made of a *referendum*, which would be disastrous imo. A good example here of where a *democracy* is always limited in practice/ reality.

[@stopcogovernance]

What he is saying is nonsense. He’s out on a limb. I can’t think of any reputable scholar who thinks like he does. My only conclusion is that he was paid out to say what he’s saying. It was about two years ago that he went to Parliament to receive an honour. I noticed the video was made two years ago as well. Not only this but Paul Moon’s view contradicts completely Sir Apirana Ngata’s analysis of the treaty. It’s shameful of moon to sell out in order to receive an accolade from the Queen.

[@michaelhowell8412]

And that's your opinion that you're entitled too

[@tedda6171]

Will the Māori be paying reparations to the Moriori???

[@StGammon77]

And to Pakeha

[@peterhind9401]

'Revisionism'! It is clear what Britain intended in 1840. One people under the governance and protection of the crown. The chiefs who signed the Treaty understood that. What it meant then is what it means now.

[@roihopk9236]

Why will ppl not recognize the 1835 declaration of Independence that Rangatira signed with King William IV? Te Tiriti 1840 came after.

[@rogerevans7119]

and Te Tiriti replaced the confederation by the chiefs' voluntary transfer of allegiance from the Confederation to the Crown.

[@stevenstuart1442]

because not one meeting took place to assign any laws and they went back to warring with each other...it became just a piece of paper...those chiefs that signed were to first to sign the Te tiriti.. at the 1860 Kohimarama Conference 200 chiefs again ratified the Queens Sovereignty ...

[@roihopk9236]

@@rogerevans7119 so what do you suggest would unite tangata whenua to work toward a remedy given the worst is yet to come ... another lockdown, new currency, one world order etc???

[@rogerevans7119]

@@roihopk9236 we all have to work together regardless of past differences. We are all in one waka now and if we start paddling to different kaituki we will simply go round in circles. In the past the traders used to set hapu against hapu to create division and achieve their goals, for example the dispute between Waikato and Noa and their hapu over the sale of forests at Whananaki. By setting subgroups of New Zealanders against each other in this argument over heritage, our nation is being internally divided. We need to paddle together.

[@roihopk9236]

@@rogerevans7119 the difference is that tangata whenua specifically Ngāpuhi still have sovereignty, it was never ceded. One must stand in that power as an individual in order to use that mana. Remember knowledge is Power only when one chooses to activate it.

[@davethewave7248]

Does not the issue revolve around whether or not chieftainship/ rangaitiratanga equates to sovereignty? This can not simply be assumed. Arguably, sovereignty was a general abstract [shadowy] idea that Maori were not all all acquainted with. The Treaty was at pains to show chiefs that they were to have customary and property rights under the Crown, the security of life and property under British law. Previous to the 80s, this is what 'rangatiratanga' was thought to refer to - the Maori chief has the freedom and rights equivalent to British gentry... but in no way remained sovereign. The whole point of the Treaty was to have sovereignty ceded to the Brits in order for law and order to be established. Of course, many Maori did not sign the Treaty. Actual sovereignty was established when Hobson declared sovereignty over the whole of NZ in May 1940. It was then enforced with some chiefs, which bought the musket wars to and end.

[@frankfletcher8038]

If the Crown didn't want to govern Māori, then why did the the Crown end up governing Māori?

[@rogerevans7119]

How else do you resolve a situation where Pakeha are intermixing with Maori and conflict occurs? You have to have one law for all, or else there is perpetual chaos. Britain had to intervene in New Zealand to control her own people, and manage conflict with Maori. The only way you can have universal peace is through universal rule. So there had to be an initial and nominal government over Maori, and management of the interface with Pakeha; this was done through the Protector of Aborigines, George Clarke.

[@shauntempley9757]

Settlers made a Parliament, and all future Parliaments ignored the Treaty. This is the key reason why Parliament is so brutal in NZ today. It learned to treat Maori with hostility, and now it treats everyone, even MP's with hostility if the public clashes with it. When before, it only rejected the Treaty, now it rejects all laws it makes in its decisions.

[@stevenstuart1442]

read the preamble to the Te tiriti it's very clear Britain was to gain Sovereignty..

[@shauntempley9757]

@@stevenstuart1442 It did not gain sovereignty. The English translation is wrong on that front. If it had gained it, the second and third articles would not exist, since both would contradict the first. The Maori version stating governance only, and over those settling, is in line with the other two articles. I mean, it is basic reading.

[@stevenstuart1442]

@@shauntempley9757 it's quite clear in the preamble which sets the rule that Sovereignty will be ceded. forget the English version it wasn't even on the table, read or signed by Maori on the 6th feb 1840... “The treaty which forms the base of all my proceedings was signed at Waitangi on the 6th February 1840, by 52 chiefs - 26 of whom were of the federation, and formed a majority of those who signed the Declaration of Independence. This instrument I consider to be de facto the treaty, and all signatures that are subsequently obtained are merely testimonials of adherence to the terms of that original document”. Lt. Governor Hobson........2nd article stated.. The Queen of England arranges and agrees to give to the chiefs, the Hapus and 'all the people of New Zealand', .....irrespective of race.... the full chieftainship of their lands, their settlements and their property. you also have to remember that there was no direct translation for the word Sovereignty in Maori, the word Kawanatanga was used.another point is Britain gained cession over the north island by treaty, but, the south island was gain by the right of conquest.....it was also gazetted i the London Gazette 1840 the Britain had gained Sovereignty over NZ...with that being correct there is also no 'Partnership' and also....In fact, a British Subject cannot be in Partnership or Co-governance with the Crown under English Law.

[@davethewave7248]

It's quite simple. Maori allowed the Brits to govern. The Brits in turn recognized customary ownership [or possession of the land]. The Brits then expected the Maori to sell much of the land, which to them was essentially wasteland [and worthless/ undeveloped] in order to build colonies... which Maori, at first, were only too keen to do. Basic economics were at play. What gets lost in the abstraction is Brits recognized Maori owned the land. Now Maori own hardly any land... therefore Pakehas stole all Maori land from them. It's all a bit cartoonish.

[@StGammon77]

Yeh lol

[@gregg7617]

Sovereignty is guaranteed by the Treaty , Even in the English version !! BY COMMON LAW and THE MAGNA CARTA , GOT IT !! NO LOSS OF MANA of THE CHIEFS 😛😛😛

[@Billythekiddnz]

Funny how no mention of when two version conflict it always goes to the version of the the country of origin. No conflict just a lot of ignorance and arrogance. Denile eats at your soul and waste alot of time for progress towards honesty and truthfulness in a already corrupt reality

[@chrismitchell7801]

Yeah, get over it say I.

[@lockk132]

Even though the solution isnt actually that hard I will say...Eyes point forwards not back,least you trip over yourself

[@DW_Kiwi]

Modern day aspirations of Maori sovereignty is an aberration. Separatism in another word. Read and understand the simplicity of meaning of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. No "Partnerships", No" Principles", just Articles and no idea of a "Living document". It doesn't take a University Degree to understand this. Maori were warring and eating with each other and immigrant colonialists were flooding the country Both groups were lawless. Read the directions document given to Capt Hobson from Lord Normandy. Britain did NOT want governorship and therefore protection of all of New Zealand people unless the Crown also got total and complete sovereignty.

[@StGammon77]

Both groups were not lawless, Missionaries worked for God!

[@waxhead6332]

I see the range of comments here are emotionally driven. You have to analyse the actual wording of the original documents for if you read the Maori text you will see Maori never ceded sovereignty. Any other interpretation would be incorrect. Missing from your comments enforcing the English text is the Letters Patent written by Queen Victoria herself. "Let the indigenous peoples govern themselves!" But the settler government refused to yield. They went on a smear campaign to remove the rights of the indigenous peoples something which most of your comments today echo. Colonisation is still alive and well in 2024. I can report though that the government's claim to sovereignty is NOT absolute. You see the constitutional lawyers have changed their stance on when sovereignty was actually ceded. Wait..what? They say it was on Feb 6 at Waitangi. Nope. Check the Maori text and you will see that it wasn't. Then you could say Hobson was the first crook. He proclaimed ceding of sovereignty despite the text differing in this opinion. But he had a vested interest in declaring it. He was asked to get a treaty signed with the natives. But like most capitalists, he was a profit driven man. So his was the first lie. You see the House of Lords did not want to rule the natives. It's why Queen Victoria declared to let them govern themselves. Check your facts ppl.

[@honahwikeepa2115]

The people that watched both the Waka people and the European arrive weren't included in the Treaty of Waitangi. One reason it fails. Furthermore it is rooted in the absolute moral categories of the Bible. It was never practiced consistent with the biblical position. The reason that the Bible once lived in the court's is because it represents the Method of Antithesis in human reason process whereby intellectual certainty is guaranteed. Early Maori who studied the Bible text understood this. But they were the minority view. The hero in Ka Mate, Te Wharerangi who saves the life of his enemy Te Rauparaha is one of these old people. God defend New Zealand 💪. Finite man can only own his thoughts.

[@standstill0641]

Get over it .. and learn to live together in this day in age.. we cannot change the past. We can only live here and now. No one owns the land except God who created it for all mankind no matter our race or creed and HE lives eternally. Ps i thought maori were the most forgiving people... not apparently so.

[@hiramatangi1736]

If settlements can occur with the transfer of huge amounts of taxpayer money, but Maori claim a failure of resolution, this invariably will give rise to politically weaponisation of said events and this will support numerous careers for decades to come, not to mention drive a larger wedge between race relations.

[@justtowatch111]

What you have said has been going on for decades and will keep on going on until the marxists have finished. Then the Maori radicals will be wiped out, as have all useful idiots been through history.

[@DrippyWaffler]

@@justtowatch111 you know nothing about politics if you call people marxists. Marxism is a lens through which you evaluate events, not something you can be.

[@justtowatch111]

@@DrippyWaffler I see your lips moving but you are not saying anything.

[@adow555]

Of course there will always be division because that's the main focus to be able to maintain to conquer and divide but the larger minority groups of Indo-European ethnicity

[@stephenlennon7369]

Treaty of Waitangi settlements don't even scratch the surface for historic wrongdoings. It's a Joke and the Crown knows it as they make the rules.

[@frze5645]

It would be well for people to understand that governance is not a compulsion on any individual and the idea that a treaty written and agreed long before anyone living today was alive, is a rather strange concept. It seems to me that those people who think that there should be two systems of governance based on race... are pretty damed stupid. Convince me otherwise.

[@allgood6760]

Good vid.. now Maori want to reverse everything we are heading for an apartheid state bro.👍🇳🇿

[@frankfletcher8038]

calling it an apartheid state severely minimises the atrocity of an actual apartheid. NZ ain't a one size fits all, Māori aren't heading for segregation, they've simply been placed in a system where they, unlike us, are not catered for. It's just a gross breach of Treaty rights on their behalf, one we should be more sympathetic towards.

[@allgood6760]

@@frankfletcher8038 Maori are NOT the indigenous people of New Zealand! /"Aotearoa" they are MIGRANTS like everyone else... Waitaha, Moriori were here before Patupaiarehe were white people 👍🇳🇿

[@frankfletcher8038]

​@@allgood6760 I didn't say anything about Māori being indigenous, that isn't my place to speak. I was simply stating fact that Māori were disadvantaged by the colonial forces, that is undoubtable. Fact remains, there was a promise between Crown and Māori, and that promise was broken by the Crown

[@karlharrison2449]

@@frankfletcher8038 What promise in the treaty was broken?

[@StGammon77]

The apartheid is being built by Maori while living amongst us happily for 150 years but they still won't go and develop their land?

[@brianjohnston6716]

Another academic giving a marxified version of history. If one comes from somewhere else the are not indigenous here. The 1350 Polynesian boasts of arriving in a fleet and of a Hawaiki from elsewhere, they are not indigenous. The Natives asked for help and Queen Victoria provided that help. The Treaty is unique to the World. Paul Moon is quite simply wrong and using his position to peddle a false version of NZ history.

[@markturner2971]

That's rubbish. Maori ceded sovereignty and couldn't get it quick enough. This is propaganda.

[@sixthsenseamelia4695]

Misleading within 20 seconds. Poor effort. 👎

[@silly9127]

Whats so misleading

[@DrippyWaffler]

Literally watched the first 20 seconds, it's all just history

[@adriandabarber3996]

Where is the patupaiarehe representation? I have made my home a sanctuary for patupaiarehe and they tell me the spirits are furious with the Maori for killing off all the large birds, the one and true indigenous babies of this land and the forest mourn their loss with incredible pain. Maori are far from welcome here. None of us are. We argue over money now, and the spirits are sickened by all of us greedy monsters.