Post by Kiwi Frontline on Nov 21, 2016 6:44:35 GMT 12
Dear Editor (Sent to the Bay of Plenty Times 13/11/16)
The so-called “English version” in the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 is basically the discarded draft penned by Busby 3rd Feb 1840. On the 8th this discarded draft was rejuvenated by James Freeman in what he saw as suitably elegant language and despatched to Governor Gipps in Sydney. Freeman made several similar but not identical copies which he sent overseas. One with Hobson’s feeble post-stroke signature was rejected and somehow found it’s way to Port Waikato where it was used as an overflow for 39 Chiefs' signatures and appended to a printed copy of the Treaty in Maori with the signatures of the first five chiefs.
This miserable piece of paper is now officially on an equal footing with the only true Treaty which Hobson himself made clear – that actually signed at Waitangi on 6th February 1840.
Claudia Orange, regarded by many as an authority, had simply no idea about all this, speculating wildly about the signed printed sheet. A couple of examples from her highly controversial book “The Treaty of Waitangi” disqualify it as a “valid reference”.
Page 7 reads that Maoris were "a complex people who had lived in New Zealand for more than a thousand years" , when modern scholarship puts the first arrival of the "fleet Maoris" at 1350 – maybe 660 years ago, not much more than half of Orange's wild claim. Page 9 refers to the "1772 massacre of 250 northern Maori when the French retaliated for the slaying of Marion du Fresne". A couple of hundred Frenchmen defending themselves and their hospital against 1500 warriors bent on their slaughter is evidently a "massacre" in Orange's eyes. The killing and eating of du Fresne and his unarmed boat's crew would be more like a massacre to most people.
M L
Te Puke
Dear Editor (Sent to the Bay of Plenty Times 13/11/16)
Chiefs sold what they owned
If Peter Dey wants to argue treaty issues he should be accurate, and in his letter on Saturday he only quotes the first half of article 2, the part that confirms that chiefs and tribes own what they own.
He does not quote the second part of that sentence which says “but the Chiefs of the United Tribes and the individual Chiefs yield to Her Majesty the exclusive right of pre-emption over such lands as the proprietors thereof may be disposed to alienate at such prices as may be agreed upon between the respective Proprietors and persons appointed by Her Majesty to treat with them in that behalf”.
In fact, chiefs and tribes were happy to sell most of what they owned, as agreed in Article 2.
New Zealand has 26.8-million hectares of land. Around 1.2-million hectares were confiscated during the 1860s wars, much of which was returned at the time.
Currently, approximately 1.47 million hectares remain as Maori land, which includes customary land. Therefore, successive governments bought 24.13-million hectares.
Peter Dey should know that once property is sold, the property right is transferred to the new owner.
The “race-based property right” which “still applies”, as Peter Dey writes, was actually transferred to the new owners at the time of sale.
MIKE BUTLER
Hastings
Dear Editor, (Sent to the Bay of Plenty Times 12/11/16)
Peter Dey is wrong to claim that "Governor Hobson authorised both the English and Maori versions of the Treaty as official documents."
He ignores the facts of the final English draft now known as The Littlewood Treaty, missing since 1840, but discovered in 1989 in the home of solicitor Henry Littlewood.
Claudia Orange referred to this as "this could be the one that was never located".
NZ's leading handwriting expert Dr. Parkinson of the National Archives proved the handwriting was that of James Busby and the paper was proven to be from Police Magistrate James Clendon's private stock of paper.
Ngapuhi elder, Graham Rankin said "the official English text on the treaty being used today is radically different from the Maori version in both wording and meaning, but the Littlewood treaty wording is exactly the same as the Maori version.
Hobson's secretary James Freeman sent one of his bogus versions, with no chief's signatures to Sydney, by the ship Samuel Winter a few days later, which informed the Governor of the general terms of the content of the Treaty of Waitangi - but it had no official status whatever!
R B
Tauranga
Dear Editor, (Sent to the Nelson Mail 9/11/16)
I am aware that many of our waterways are polluted, but there must be something really toxic in the Richmond water because correspondent Gary Clover seems demented (8/11/16).
Firstly, taxation (read rates) does give people like him representation.... as New Zealand citizens, not as some breakaway ethnic group.
Secondly, there is nothing in the wording of the Maori language treaty, that was signed by Hobson and approx 500 chiefs, that guarantees tribes any special representation in either local or central governance, neither is there even a hint of a Crown – Maori partnership in the same treaty.
Special race-based representation (appointments or Maori wards) not only undermines our tested democratic system, it is also racial separatism, which Gary obviously supports.
GEOFFREY T PARKER
Kamo
Whangarei
The so-called “English version” in the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 is basically the discarded draft penned by Busby 3rd Feb 1840. On the 8th this discarded draft was rejuvenated by James Freeman in what he saw as suitably elegant language and despatched to Governor Gipps in Sydney. Freeman made several similar but not identical copies which he sent overseas. One with Hobson’s feeble post-stroke signature was rejected and somehow found it’s way to Port Waikato where it was used as an overflow for 39 Chiefs' signatures and appended to a printed copy of the Treaty in Maori with the signatures of the first five chiefs.
This miserable piece of paper is now officially on an equal footing with the only true Treaty which Hobson himself made clear – that actually signed at Waitangi on 6th February 1840.
Claudia Orange, regarded by many as an authority, had simply no idea about all this, speculating wildly about the signed printed sheet. A couple of examples from her highly controversial book “The Treaty of Waitangi” disqualify it as a “valid reference”.
Page 7 reads that Maoris were "a complex people who had lived in New Zealand for more than a thousand years" , when modern scholarship puts the first arrival of the "fleet Maoris" at 1350 – maybe 660 years ago, not much more than half of Orange's wild claim. Page 9 refers to the "1772 massacre of 250 northern Maori when the French retaliated for the slaying of Marion du Fresne". A couple of hundred Frenchmen defending themselves and their hospital against 1500 warriors bent on their slaughter is evidently a "massacre" in Orange's eyes. The killing and eating of du Fresne and his unarmed boat's crew would be more like a massacre to most people.
M L
Te Puke
Dear Editor (Sent to the Bay of Plenty Times 13/11/16)
Chiefs sold what they owned
If Peter Dey wants to argue treaty issues he should be accurate, and in his letter on Saturday he only quotes the first half of article 2, the part that confirms that chiefs and tribes own what they own.
He does not quote the second part of that sentence which says “but the Chiefs of the United Tribes and the individual Chiefs yield to Her Majesty the exclusive right of pre-emption over such lands as the proprietors thereof may be disposed to alienate at such prices as may be agreed upon between the respective Proprietors and persons appointed by Her Majesty to treat with them in that behalf”.
In fact, chiefs and tribes were happy to sell most of what they owned, as agreed in Article 2.
New Zealand has 26.8-million hectares of land. Around 1.2-million hectares were confiscated during the 1860s wars, much of which was returned at the time.
Currently, approximately 1.47 million hectares remain as Maori land, which includes customary land. Therefore, successive governments bought 24.13-million hectares.
Peter Dey should know that once property is sold, the property right is transferred to the new owner.
The “race-based property right” which “still applies”, as Peter Dey writes, was actually transferred to the new owners at the time of sale.
MIKE BUTLER
Hastings
Dear Editor, (Sent to the Bay of Plenty Times 12/11/16)
Peter Dey is wrong to claim that "Governor Hobson authorised both the English and Maori versions of the Treaty as official documents."
He ignores the facts of the final English draft now known as The Littlewood Treaty, missing since 1840, but discovered in 1989 in the home of solicitor Henry Littlewood.
Claudia Orange referred to this as "this could be the one that was never located".
NZ's leading handwriting expert Dr. Parkinson of the National Archives proved the handwriting was that of James Busby and the paper was proven to be from Police Magistrate James Clendon's private stock of paper.
Ngapuhi elder, Graham Rankin said "the official English text on the treaty being used today is radically different from the Maori version in both wording and meaning, but the Littlewood treaty wording is exactly the same as the Maori version.
Hobson's secretary James Freeman sent one of his bogus versions, with no chief's signatures to Sydney, by the ship Samuel Winter a few days later, which informed the Governor of the general terms of the content of the Treaty of Waitangi - but it had no official status whatever!
R B
Tauranga
Dear Editor, (Sent to the Nelson Mail 9/11/16)
I am aware that many of our waterways are polluted, but there must be something really toxic in the Richmond water because correspondent Gary Clover seems demented (8/11/16).
Firstly, taxation (read rates) does give people like him representation.... as New Zealand citizens, not as some breakaway ethnic group.
Secondly, there is nothing in the wording of the Maori language treaty, that was signed by Hobson and approx 500 chiefs, that guarantees tribes any special representation in either local or central governance, neither is there even a hint of a Crown – Maori partnership in the same treaty.
Special race-based representation (appointments or Maori wards) not only undermines our tested democratic system, it is also racial separatism, which Gary obviously supports.
GEOFFREY T PARKER
Kamo
Whangarei