Post by Kiwi Frontline on Dec 26, 2023 17:39:42 GMT 12
Bruce Moon: ANNE SALMOND AT IT AGAIN!
My first interaction with the redoubtable Dame Anne was in August 2010 when, in response to an assertion by her that the chiefs did not cede sovereignty at Waitangi, I quoted the motion passed unanimously on 10th August 1860, at the conclusion of the Kohimarama Conference, the greatest assembly of Maori Chiefs ever held in New Zealand:
“That this conference takes cognizance of the fact that the several Chiefs, members thereof, are pledged to each other to do nothing inconsistent with their declared recognition of the Queen’s sovereignty, and of the union of the two races, also to discountenance all proceedings tending to a breach of the covenant here solemnly entered into.”
She responded, believe it or not: “No professional historian would take that as definitive evidence of Maori understandings in 1840.” What?? Would details of an event so significant as the signing of the Treaty a mere twenty years earlier be forgotten by senior chiefs, Waka Nene being one who had taken such a prominent part?? Is she actively discrediting these senior chiefs both in 1860 and 1840?
The Waitangi Tribunal, she says, “has done its best to remedy past breaches of trust”. As veteran journalist, Brian Priestley observed: “it would be hard to imagine any public body less well organised to get at the truth.” We have noted other events indicating the extent to which the Waitangi Tribunal corrupts the truth.[ii] This is the body which, may I remind readers, accepts uncorroborated verbal accounts from elderly Maori of alleged events up to more than a hundred and fifty years ago. By the same token, as one born 90 years and one day after Hobson’s arrival, my accounts are rated with scorn by some![iii][iv]
We can skip any more of what Anne says – about “relational logic” and “Cartesian dualism” and look at what she says about the Treaty of Waitangi.
In her words: “In the first Ture (article) of Te Tiriti, the rangatira give (tuku) to the Queen of England absolutely and forever all the governance (Kawanatanga) of their lands”. Rather than this muddled confection of words from both languages, we quote directly from Hobson’s final draft in English and the actual treaty in the Ngapuhi dialect:
“The chiefs ... cede to the Queen of England for ever the entire Sovreignty (sic) of their country.”
“Ko nga Rangatira ... ka tuku rewa atu ki te Kuini o Ingarani ake tonu atu-te Kawanatanga katoa o ratou wenua”
Leave aside the well-known error in spelling “sovereignty” by Hobson’s scribe, Busby, note importantly that in default of a word in classic Maori speech for “sovereignty”, the Williams chose “kawanatanga”. This is very obviously derived from a maorification of “governor” plus an ending denoting “-ship” but its meaning is “sovereignty”. We have pointed out elsewhere[v] that derivation is not the same as translation. This is a critical point which the treaty-twisters fail to grasp. Dear Anne, notwithstanding her learned discourse, is fundamentally wrong, like many another, in referring to “governance (Kawanatanga)”. She has disagreed elsewhere with the Williams, stating that “kawanatanga ... was not a plausible stand-in for sovereignty”. Well, the Williams were there participating in the intense debate and discussion at Waitangi – she wasn’t!..........
breakingviewsnz.blogspot.com/2023/12/bruce-moon-anne-salmond-at-it-again.html
My first interaction with the redoubtable Dame Anne was in August 2010 when, in response to an assertion by her that the chiefs did not cede sovereignty at Waitangi, I quoted the motion passed unanimously on 10th August 1860, at the conclusion of the Kohimarama Conference, the greatest assembly of Maori Chiefs ever held in New Zealand:
“That this conference takes cognizance of the fact that the several Chiefs, members thereof, are pledged to each other to do nothing inconsistent with their declared recognition of the Queen’s sovereignty, and of the union of the two races, also to discountenance all proceedings tending to a breach of the covenant here solemnly entered into.”
She responded, believe it or not: “No professional historian would take that as definitive evidence of Maori understandings in 1840.” What?? Would details of an event so significant as the signing of the Treaty a mere twenty years earlier be forgotten by senior chiefs, Waka Nene being one who had taken such a prominent part?? Is she actively discrediting these senior chiefs both in 1860 and 1840?
The Waitangi Tribunal, she says, “has done its best to remedy past breaches of trust”. As veteran journalist, Brian Priestley observed: “it would be hard to imagine any public body less well organised to get at the truth.” We have noted other events indicating the extent to which the Waitangi Tribunal corrupts the truth.[ii] This is the body which, may I remind readers, accepts uncorroborated verbal accounts from elderly Maori of alleged events up to more than a hundred and fifty years ago. By the same token, as one born 90 years and one day after Hobson’s arrival, my accounts are rated with scorn by some![iii][iv]
We can skip any more of what Anne says – about “relational logic” and “Cartesian dualism” and look at what she says about the Treaty of Waitangi.
In her words: “In the first Ture (article) of Te Tiriti, the rangatira give (tuku) to the Queen of England absolutely and forever all the governance (Kawanatanga) of their lands”. Rather than this muddled confection of words from both languages, we quote directly from Hobson’s final draft in English and the actual treaty in the Ngapuhi dialect:
“The chiefs ... cede to the Queen of England for ever the entire Sovreignty (sic) of their country.”
“Ko nga Rangatira ... ka tuku rewa atu ki te Kuini o Ingarani ake tonu atu-te Kawanatanga katoa o ratou wenua”
Leave aside the well-known error in spelling “sovereignty” by Hobson’s scribe, Busby, note importantly that in default of a word in classic Maori speech for “sovereignty”, the Williams chose “kawanatanga”. This is very obviously derived from a maorification of “governor” plus an ending denoting “-ship” but its meaning is “sovereignty”. We have pointed out elsewhere[v] that derivation is not the same as translation. This is a critical point which the treaty-twisters fail to grasp. Dear Anne, notwithstanding her learned discourse, is fundamentally wrong, like many another, in referring to “governance (Kawanatanga)”. She has disagreed elsewhere with the Williams, stating that “kawanatanga ... was not a plausible stand-in for sovereignty”. Well, the Williams were there participating in the intense debate and discussion at Waitangi – she wasn’t!..........
breakingviewsnz.blogspot.com/2023/12/bruce-moon-anne-salmond-at-it-again.html