Post by Kiwi Frontline on Feb 14, 2019 5:48:08 GMT 12
Otago Daily Times 14/2/19
CIVIS COLUMN
THE Passing Notes by Civis (ODT, 9.2.19) are a gross perversion of the truth as are the two documents which she/he quotes.
One is the second article of the fake treaty composed by Hobson’s snobbish secretary, Freeman, to send to overseas dignitaries as he considered that Hobson’s simple wording was inappropriate.
The other is Kawharu’s alleged translation of the Treaty in which he committed the cardinal blunder (deliberately?) of quoting the current meaning of ‘‘taonga’’, not its very different 1840 meaning.
The only document from which the true meaning of the Treaty can be established is Hobson’s final draft of February 4, in which the rights of possession of property are affirmed to ALL the people of New Zealand.
That may stick in Civis’ craw, but it is the truth.
BRUCE MOON, Nelson
Taranaki Daily News 14/2/19
ANTHEM APOLOGY NO-SHOW
So it’s front page news today, February 13, for a matter which had seemingly been settled some time ago. Mayor Neil Holdom is quoted as saying: ‘‘People have been hurt and damage has been done to the reputation of the district and the council.’’ Really? As I have previously said to this council – Get a spine. Councillor Murray Chong apologised at the time for saying he was ‘‘ashamed’’ to sing the te reo version of the national anthem. Now he is gracious enough to allow that the mayor had been ‘‘forced’’ into his current position by a few councillors.
If that is so, one must wonder whether those councillors have enough to occupy their minds. And why does his worship have to ‘‘recommend’’ that the Chief Executive prepare a motion for council to consider whether it is appropriate to remove Chong from his committee chairmanship? Mayor Holdom’s spin team is clearly setting the scene for this year’s elections. Best of luck to them, I say. Recent history tells us the people of New Plymouth are more than able to think for themselves.
PAUL A CATCHPOLE, New Plymouth
Northland Age 14/2/19
A MAGNIFICENT GIFT
The so-called ‘Treaty’ of Waitangi has sometimes been called the Maori Magna Carta, and that is indeed a correct assessment.
In one fell swoop it granted to all the ordinary people of New Zealand the full rights and privileges of the people of England. These rights had taken the English people no less than 625 years to secure, often associated with bitter struggles with kings and a bitterly-fought civil war. Yet with a few strokes of a quill pen, all Maori were released from the tyranny of their chiefs’ capricious whims, not least of which was the casual killing and eating of a slave girl as a ready source of protein.
Imagine that - a magnificent gift indeed! Yet, and here’s the rub, what was agreed gave them not one whit more rights than any other British subject - no fake “partnership” based solely on the silly opinion of a fundamentally silly man, Robin Cooke, no special rights to our foreshore and seabed, no special rights to natural water, all excluded by English common law from May 1840, when British sovereignty was formally declared over all of New Zealand.
Apart from that one enduring provision of their equal rights, this semi-formal agreement had by then fulfilled its purpose and became no more than one step in our constitutional progress.
All simply all, racist propaganda today which asserts a nonsensical “partnership” between the Queen and Maori tribes and fake “principles of the treaty” is nothing but a blatant power grab by the tribal elite for privileges and power which the rest of our sleepy and complaisant people permit successive governments to bestow upon them. The price of liberty is eternal vigilance. We forget that at our peril.
BRUCE MOON, Nelson
SCOTTISH HERITAGE
The article in the ‘Dominion Post’ January 29, ‘Gaps in heritage protection found.’ This seems to be about preserving Maori heritage only, not any other pre-Maori people.
Grey District Mayor Tony Kokshoorn says that Maori were here on the West Coast in 1300, and the Pakeha never arrived here until 1864, when gold was discovered. Which is wrong. Maori never arrived there until the 1500s. Even Waitaha were here working the greenstone before Maori.
But in 1120 two brothers, Taine Ruairidh Mhor and Taine Rory Mhor, were exiled from Scotland . King Alexander 1 of Scotland exiled them, having had them incarcerated for three years in a Scottish castle dungeon, then carried to the Far Land (old name for New Zealand).
A total of 90 family members sailed to settle on both islands, half dropped off in the North Island other half in the South Island, in the West Coast area. So if any heritage sites are found they could belong to Taine Ruairigh Mhor’s family, not to Maori.
When Wanganui Mayor Hamish McDouall said there were no clear rules in the Wanganui district plan governing the destruction of Maori heritage, this obviously needed to be addressed. But the council were prepared to change the spelling of Wanganui by inserting an ‘h’ in it as they wanted it to be a Maori name, which it isn’t. It’s a Waitaha name, as they were living here before the arrival of the Maori. So they changed the heritage name, which had been in place for over 100 years.
"We keep saying that the New Zealander today is unique, often without appreciating what that means. "
IAN BROUGHAM, Wanganui
A NON-EVENT
Why on Earth is Anahera Herbert-Graves harping on about He Whakaputanga/1835 Declaration of Independence (February 5)? This non-event was cobbled together by James Busby and fell apart within two years, the few involved chiefs never met in congress, never drafted any laws, and were at war with each other shortly after signing it.
Perhaps Herbert-Graves can supply evidence of any congress meetings and/or laws created by the chiefs in the years between 1835 and 1840? In a nutshell, no nationwide functioning government came into being as a result of the 1835 DOI.
I agree the Maori language Treaty was the only Treaty her tribe and most tribes signed, but in that signing rangitiratanga translated as ‘possession’ in Article 2. Were Hobson, Busby and Williams that inept to draft an agreement ceding sovereignty (kawanatanga) in Article 1, then to contradict it in Article 2 that Maori somehow retained sovereignty?
The only logical meaning for rangitiratanga in the context of the Treaty is ‘possession’; Article 2 relates to property rights, not sovereignty.
Herbert-Graves seems unaware of Tamati Waka Nene’s (Ngapuhi) headstone at Russell’s Christ Church that clearly says he was the first to welcome the Queen’s sovereignty in New Zealand.
GEOFF PARKER, Kamo
NO SURPRISE
That the Prime Minister did not know the articles of the Treaty is not surprising, as it appears neither does any other Cabinet minister or Member of Parliament, otherwise they would not have allowed its corruption over the past 50 years.
The Prime Minister, acknowledging that she could not quote the articles, said, “I know the principles well”. No principles are mentioned anywhere in the document. She is only perpetuating the erroneous inclusion of the fake principles and partnership in the document.
The Treaty is not our founding document. Its sole purpose was to enable the chiefs to grant sovereignty to the Queen, in perpetuity, and in doing so New Zealand came under the legal control of the Colony of New South Wales.
Our ‘founding document’ is Queen Victoria’s Royal Charters/Letters Patent, which made us a self-governing colony. This document has been hidden away in Archives and conveniently ignored by politicians and Maori Treaty revisionists.
BRYAN JOHNSON, Omokoroa
WHO NEEDS HISTORY?
We all need history, but it is highly unlikely that we will ever get it in a form that bears much relationship to fact.
History in itself is simple; what happened, where and when.
Unfortunately, vested interests over the past 40 years have very effectively twisted, embellished and altered so much of this country’s past that some events are no longer recognisable.
The best example is the Treaty of Waitangi.
Queen Victoria had no need to enter into a treaty, and certainly was only going to do it on her terms.
Constitutionally she was unable to form a partnership with her subjects, yet today that is what many think she did.
She offered equal British citizenship to all inhabitants, and land rights, in return for recognition of her right to govern. Those who signed fully understood those intentions. To say otherwise is a slur on their abilities.
Any analysis of the Treaty must be in the context of the previous 30 years. Those same vested interests have no intention of discussing Musket Wars, slavery or female infanticide. We also want to forget that the French, and possibly Americans, had strong interests in the country. We also overlook the fact that a few enlightened chiefs actually asked Victoria to bring law to the country. The Treaty did exactly that.
Another example very close to home is an event soon to be remembered at Rangiaowhia.
Using school children as pawns, vested interests have managed to paint this event as an atrocity with the oft repeated story that British soldiers rounded up women and children (some say 100 or more), locked them in a church and set fire to it. That simply didn’t happen, and any reputable historian could cite at least three references that indicate the church was still standing many years later.
Again, we aren’t interested in the earlier 25 years of effort, initiated by Governor Grey, that saw both the Anglican and Catholic missionaries establish schools and bring British agriculture methods to the area, with huge success.
In 1863, when General Cameron rode into the valley, his strategy was merely to prevent the supply of food to the warriors in a nearby pa, with as few casualties as possible.
He achieved that, and probably saved hundreds of lives in the process.
Today we are just too eager to think the worst of what in essence was a minor skirmish, made worse by one hothead who chose not to surrender.
The examples above are just two reasons why I don’t believe we will ever receive the history we need, and deserve.
MURRAY REID, Leamington
THE REAL EYE-OPENER
It is entirely appropriate that Kiwis should commemorate 'Te Tiriti o Waitangi (legitimate Maori version) on February 6, each year at the Treaty grounds (incidentally maintained and funded by Kiwi taxpayers), with free entry to everyone wanting to attend —mind you, why some groups were there this year God only knows. The Treaty may be a benign (historic relic) founding document, but was never a constitutional document, nor for that matter was it ever recognised as a treaty at international law.
Waitangi Day is not a time for political activism, bleating for entitlements or angst. It should just be a day of celebration. Decorum and due reverence are not the norm, and the event usually degenerates into a circus, which fortunately this year was not really evident.
The so-called Lower and Upper marae can at their own cost do whatever they like on their own patches. Interestingly the fawning Governor-General and Prime Minister were there five days early, kowtowing to Ngapuhi interests. In my view it was strange the waka was not launched, apparently because would cost $30,000— why can't Ngapuhi put their shoulders to the wheel and voluntarily make it happen without money-grubbing or with minimal financial assistance? Clearly there was no pride involved here, just another meal ticket.
Refreshingly, Simon Bridges effectively acknowledged that Don Brash's 2004 Orewa speech was neither hateful nor infamous. He could hardly say otherwise, because, after all, it was a factual, praiseworthy and a courageous assessment of the position which frankly is still supported by most Kiwis.
The Waitangi eye-opener was that Ardern, Little and Shaw, when questioned by TVNZ, couldn't recount what Article 1 in the Treaty stated, which reeks of ignorance/ incompetence/ obtuseness, or was it deliberately being sneaky and cagey in Ngapuhi territory because they just couldn't bring themselves to say the word 'sovereignty'?
ROB PATERSON Matapihi
sites.google.com/site/kiwifrontline/letters-submitted-to-newspapers
CIVIS COLUMN
THE Passing Notes by Civis (ODT, 9.2.19) are a gross perversion of the truth as are the two documents which she/he quotes.
One is the second article of the fake treaty composed by Hobson’s snobbish secretary, Freeman, to send to overseas dignitaries as he considered that Hobson’s simple wording was inappropriate.
The other is Kawharu’s alleged translation of the Treaty in which he committed the cardinal blunder (deliberately?) of quoting the current meaning of ‘‘taonga’’, not its very different 1840 meaning.
The only document from which the true meaning of the Treaty can be established is Hobson’s final draft of February 4, in which the rights of possession of property are affirmed to ALL the people of New Zealand.
That may stick in Civis’ craw, but it is the truth.
BRUCE MOON, Nelson
Taranaki Daily News 14/2/19
ANTHEM APOLOGY NO-SHOW
So it’s front page news today, February 13, for a matter which had seemingly been settled some time ago. Mayor Neil Holdom is quoted as saying: ‘‘People have been hurt and damage has been done to the reputation of the district and the council.’’ Really? As I have previously said to this council – Get a spine. Councillor Murray Chong apologised at the time for saying he was ‘‘ashamed’’ to sing the te reo version of the national anthem. Now he is gracious enough to allow that the mayor had been ‘‘forced’’ into his current position by a few councillors.
If that is so, one must wonder whether those councillors have enough to occupy their minds. And why does his worship have to ‘‘recommend’’ that the Chief Executive prepare a motion for council to consider whether it is appropriate to remove Chong from his committee chairmanship? Mayor Holdom’s spin team is clearly setting the scene for this year’s elections. Best of luck to them, I say. Recent history tells us the people of New Plymouth are more than able to think for themselves.
PAUL A CATCHPOLE, New Plymouth
Northland Age 14/2/19
A MAGNIFICENT GIFT
The so-called ‘Treaty’ of Waitangi has sometimes been called the Maori Magna Carta, and that is indeed a correct assessment.
In one fell swoop it granted to all the ordinary people of New Zealand the full rights and privileges of the people of England. These rights had taken the English people no less than 625 years to secure, often associated with bitter struggles with kings and a bitterly-fought civil war. Yet with a few strokes of a quill pen, all Maori were released from the tyranny of their chiefs’ capricious whims, not least of which was the casual killing and eating of a slave girl as a ready source of protein.
Imagine that - a magnificent gift indeed! Yet, and here’s the rub, what was agreed gave them not one whit more rights than any other British subject - no fake “partnership” based solely on the silly opinion of a fundamentally silly man, Robin Cooke, no special rights to our foreshore and seabed, no special rights to natural water, all excluded by English common law from May 1840, when British sovereignty was formally declared over all of New Zealand.
Apart from that one enduring provision of their equal rights, this semi-formal agreement had by then fulfilled its purpose and became no more than one step in our constitutional progress.
All simply all, racist propaganda today which asserts a nonsensical “partnership” between the Queen and Maori tribes and fake “principles of the treaty” is nothing but a blatant power grab by the tribal elite for privileges and power which the rest of our sleepy and complaisant people permit successive governments to bestow upon them. The price of liberty is eternal vigilance. We forget that at our peril.
BRUCE MOON, Nelson
SCOTTISH HERITAGE
The article in the ‘Dominion Post’ January 29, ‘Gaps in heritage protection found.’ This seems to be about preserving Maori heritage only, not any other pre-Maori people.
Grey District Mayor Tony Kokshoorn says that Maori were here on the West Coast in 1300, and the Pakeha never arrived here until 1864, when gold was discovered. Which is wrong. Maori never arrived there until the 1500s. Even Waitaha were here working the greenstone before Maori.
But in 1120 two brothers, Taine Ruairidh Mhor and Taine Rory Mhor, were exiled from Scotland . King Alexander 1 of Scotland exiled them, having had them incarcerated for three years in a Scottish castle dungeon, then carried to the Far Land (old name for New Zealand).
A total of 90 family members sailed to settle on both islands, half dropped off in the North Island other half in the South Island, in the West Coast area. So if any heritage sites are found they could belong to Taine Ruairigh Mhor’s family, not to Maori.
When Wanganui Mayor Hamish McDouall said there were no clear rules in the Wanganui district plan governing the destruction of Maori heritage, this obviously needed to be addressed. But the council were prepared to change the spelling of Wanganui by inserting an ‘h’ in it as they wanted it to be a Maori name, which it isn’t. It’s a Waitaha name, as they were living here before the arrival of the Maori. So they changed the heritage name, which had been in place for over 100 years.
"We keep saying that the New Zealander today is unique, often without appreciating what that means. "
IAN BROUGHAM, Wanganui
A NON-EVENT
Why on Earth is Anahera Herbert-Graves harping on about He Whakaputanga/1835 Declaration of Independence (February 5)? This non-event was cobbled together by James Busby and fell apart within two years, the few involved chiefs never met in congress, never drafted any laws, and were at war with each other shortly after signing it.
Perhaps Herbert-Graves can supply evidence of any congress meetings and/or laws created by the chiefs in the years between 1835 and 1840? In a nutshell, no nationwide functioning government came into being as a result of the 1835 DOI.
I agree the Maori language Treaty was the only Treaty her tribe and most tribes signed, but in that signing rangitiratanga translated as ‘possession’ in Article 2. Were Hobson, Busby and Williams that inept to draft an agreement ceding sovereignty (kawanatanga) in Article 1, then to contradict it in Article 2 that Maori somehow retained sovereignty?
The only logical meaning for rangitiratanga in the context of the Treaty is ‘possession’; Article 2 relates to property rights, not sovereignty.
Herbert-Graves seems unaware of Tamati Waka Nene’s (Ngapuhi) headstone at Russell’s Christ Church that clearly says he was the first to welcome the Queen’s sovereignty in New Zealand.
GEOFF PARKER, Kamo
NO SURPRISE
That the Prime Minister did not know the articles of the Treaty is not surprising, as it appears neither does any other Cabinet minister or Member of Parliament, otherwise they would not have allowed its corruption over the past 50 years.
The Prime Minister, acknowledging that she could not quote the articles, said, “I know the principles well”. No principles are mentioned anywhere in the document. She is only perpetuating the erroneous inclusion of the fake principles and partnership in the document.
The Treaty is not our founding document. Its sole purpose was to enable the chiefs to grant sovereignty to the Queen, in perpetuity, and in doing so New Zealand came under the legal control of the Colony of New South Wales.
Our ‘founding document’ is Queen Victoria’s Royal Charters/Letters Patent, which made us a self-governing colony. This document has been hidden away in Archives and conveniently ignored by politicians and Maori Treaty revisionists.
BRYAN JOHNSON, Omokoroa
WHO NEEDS HISTORY?
We all need history, but it is highly unlikely that we will ever get it in a form that bears much relationship to fact.
History in itself is simple; what happened, where and when.
Unfortunately, vested interests over the past 40 years have very effectively twisted, embellished and altered so much of this country’s past that some events are no longer recognisable.
The best example is the Treaty of Waitangi.
Queen Victoria had no need to enter into a treaty, and certainly was only going to do it on her terms.
Constitutionally she was unable to form a partnership with her subjects, yet today that is what many think she did.
She offered equal British citizenship to all inhabitants, and land rights, in return for recognition of her right to govern. Those who signed fully understood those intentions. To say otherwise is a slur on their abilities.
Any analysis of the Treaty must be in the context of the previous 30 years. Those same vested interests have no intention of discussing Musket Wars, slavery or female infanticide. We also want to forget that the French, and possibly Americans, had strong interests in the country. We also overlook the fact that a few enlightened chiefs actually asked Victoria to bring law to the country. The Treaty did exactly that.
Another example very close to home is an event soon to be remembered at Rangiaowhia.
Using school children as pawns, vested interests have managed to paint this event as an atrocity with the oft repeated story that British soldiers rounded up women and children (some say 100 or more), locked them in a church and set fire to it. That simply didn’t happen, and any reputable historian could cite at least three references that indicate the church was still standing many years later.
Again, we aren’t interested in the earlier 25 years of effort, initiated by Governor Grey, that saw both the Anglican and Catholic missionaries establish schools and bring British agriculture methods to the area, with huge success.
In 1863, when General Cameron rode into the valley, his strategy was merely to prevent the supply of food to the warriors in a nearby pa, with as few casualties as possible.
He achieved that, and probably saved hundreds of lives in the process.
Today we are just too eager to think the worst of what in essence was a minor skirmish, made worse by one hothead who chose not to surrender.
The examples above are just two reasons why I don’t believe we will ever receive the history we need, and deserve.
MURRAY REID, Leamington
THE REAL EYE-OPENER
It is entirely appropriate that Kiwis should commemorate 'Te Tiriti o Waitangi (legitimate Maori version) on February 6, each year at the Treaty grounds (incidentally maintained and funded by Kiwi taxpayers), with free entry to everyone wanting to attend —mind you, why some groups were there this year God only knows. The Treaty may be a benign (historic relic) founding document, but was never a constitutional document, nor for that matter was it ever recognised as a treaty at international law.
Waitangi Day is not a time for political activism, bleating for entitlements or angst. It should just be a day of celebration. Decorum and due reverence are not the norm, and the event usually degenerates into a circus, which fortunately this year was not really evident.
The so-called Lower and Upper marae can at their own cost do whatever they like on their own patches. Interestingly the fawning Governor-General and Prime Minister were there five days early, kowtowing to Ngapuhi interests. In my view it was strange the waka was not launched, apparently because would cost $30,000— why can't Ngapuhi put their shoulders to the wheel and voluntarily make it happen without money-grubbing or with minimal financial assistance? Clearly there was no pride involved here, just another meal ticket.
Refreshingly, Simon Bridges effectively acknowledged that Don Brash's 2004 Orewa speech was neither hateful nor infamous. He could hardly say otherwise, because, after all, it was a factual, praiseworthy and a courageous assessment of the position which frankly is still supported by most Kiwis.
The Waitangi eye-opener was that Ardern, Little and Shaw, when questioned by TVNZ, couldn't recount what Article 1 in the Treaty stated, which reeks of ignorance/ incompetence/ obtuseness, or was it deliberately being sneaky and cagey in Ngapuhi territory because they just couldn't bring themselves to say the word 'sovereignty'?
ROB PATERSON Matapihi
sites.google.com/site/kiwifrontline/letters-submitted-to-newspapers