Post by Kiwi Frontline on Oct 22, 2016 6:45:27 GMT 12
Hawkes Bay Today 22/10/16
TREATY INTERPRETATION
Mr Lindsay Paku's recent letter, written in reply to one from Mr Alan Rhodes, was an inaccurate distortion of fact and the truth There was no Pan Maori nation in 1835 when British resident James Busby initiated the Declaration of Independence signed by 34 only northern chiefs.
The move was an attempt to control the lawlessness of settlers and pre-empt the establishment of a French colony as " Baron" de Thierry had purchased 40,000 acres of land at Hokianga.
In 1835, King William, not Queen Victoria, was the monarch.
The Treaty in 1840 nullified any previous agreement and was signed by 512 chiefs. It was further ratified at the 1860 Kohimarama Conference. The minutes of this meeting verify this as does Sir Apirana Ngata's 1922 book The Treaty of Waitangi: An Explanation.
As Associate Professor Elizabeth Rata said "(New Zealand) history is demoted from an academic discipline with its justifying procedures and methods to self-interested narratives that mix truth, with half-truths, and opinion foregoing the scrutiny of criticism to which real historical inquiry must he subjected."
Alan Rhodes was pointing out the Treaty gave all New Zealanders equal rights as British citizens under the law. It was forward thinking for its time, as slavery still existed in the United States for a further 20 odd years.
Mr Paku seems obsessed with grievances, real or imagined that are divisive in a country that should be looking to the future, not the past, in the interests of all citizens regardless of their ethnicity. Fifty-two grievances taken to Britain in 1852 morphed into 2034 in 2013.
A fanciful contemporary interpretation of the Treaty and a drive for separatism are a recipe for disaster for New Zealand if these moves are successful. I support Alan Rhodes interpretation of the Treaty as an accurate one.
TOM JOHNSON
Napier
Gisborne Herald 22/10/16
SORT OTHER PROBLEMS FIRST
Meng, you and I have been friends for a long time, and you know that I have a Maori family and a Pakeha family, so I believe I have a balanced view. I was a little disappointed to see that your first concern as our newly elected Mayor was to solicit more views on changing the name of Poverty Bay — which, by the way, I don’t particularly like.
Meng, I think there are far more important things for you and your councillors to concentrate on than worrying about changing a name that has been here since 1769. You can always re-visit this when you have sorted out all the other problems we have.
L N
TREATY INTERPRETATION
Mr Lindsay Paku's recent letter, written in reply to one from Mr Alan Rhodes, was an inaccurate distortion of fact and the truth There was no Pan Maori nation in 1835 when British resident James Busby initiated the Declaration of Independence signed by 34 only northern chiefs.
The move was an attempt to control the lawlessness of settlers and pre-empt the establishment of a French colony as " Baron" de Thierry had purchased 40,000 acres of land at Hokianga.
In 1835, King William, not Queen Victoria, was the monarch.
The Treaty in 1840 nullified any previous agreement and was signed by 512 chiefs. It was further ratified at the 1860 Kohimarama Conference. The minutes of this meeting verify this as does Sir Apirana Ngata's 1922 book The Treaty of Waitangi: An Explanation.
As Associate Professor Elizabeth Rata said "(New Zealand) history is demoted from an academic discipline with its justifying procedures and methods to self-interested narratives that mix truth, with half-truths, and opinion foregoing the scrutiny of criticism to which real historical inquiry must he subjected."
Alan Rhodes was pointing out the Treaty gave all New Zealanders equal rights as British citizens under the law. It was forward thinking for its time, as slavery still existed in the United States for a further 20 odd years.
Mr Paku seems obsessed with grievances, real or imagined that are divisive in a country that should be looking to the future, not the past, in the interests of all citizens regardless of their ethnicity. Fifty-two grievances taken to Britain in 1852 morphed into 2034 in 2013.
A fanciful contemporary interpretation of the Treaty and a drive for separatism are a recipe for disaster for New Zealand if these moves are successful. I support Alan Rhodes interpretation of the Treaty as an accurate one.
TOM JOHNSON
Napier
Gisborne Herald 22/10/16
SORT OTHER PROBLEMS FIRST
Meng, you and I have been friends for a long time, and you know that I have a Maori family and a Pakeha family, so I believe I have a balanced view. I was a little disappointed to see that your first concern as our newly elected Mayor was to solicit more views on changing the name of Poverty Bay — which, by the way, I don’t particularly like.
Meng, I think there are far more important things for you and your councillors to concentrate on than worrying about changing a name that has been here since 1769. You can always re-visit this when you have sorted out all the other problems we have.
L N