Post by Kiwi Frontline on Feb 25, 2019 3:39:40 GMT 12
Dear Editor, (Sent to the Sunday Star Times 17/2/19)
Peter Dey (Letters February10) seems to suffer tunnel vision when distinguishing between ‘stolen’ and ‘legally confiscated’ lands, the latter being the consequence of rebelling tribes breaching the Treaty.
We can debate the translations of the Tiriti o Waitangi (only the Maori treaty and Littlewood final English draft ) ad nauseum but the facts are the Queen of England, ruler of greatest empire on the planet at that time did not do partnerships, why would she? Especially with a collection of disparate warring tribes/chiefs who had previously begged for protection from primarily the French, secondly from fellow marauding tribes, google Yates letter to King William IV.
As Article 3 granted Maori the rights of British subjects it was constitutionally impossible for the Crown to enter into a partnership with it’s subjects.
Position is clear sovereignty was ceded, no partnership and no principles.
GEOFF PARKER, Whangarei
Dear Editor, (Sent to the Northland Age and various papers, date unknown)
Re Dominion Post February 2nd Petition ‘Should we be Aotearoa’ Why do we need two names for our country. Who is wanting to change the name of New Zealand and include Aotearoa. In the treaty New Zealand was called Nu-Tirani in 1840.
It was Turi as navigator of the Aotea who brought the Moriori to New Zealand over 300 years before the Maori.
It was the Moriori who used the name Aotea after their craft landed meaning ‘The Dawn’ or ‘Where we have landed’.
About 1890 a couple of Europeans writers use it as a fanciful name for New Zealand. Aotea is not a Maori name, The reason behind adding Aotearoa to it is that further down the track the word New Zealand will be removed.
IAN BROUGHAM, Wanganui
sites.google.com/site/kiwifrontline/letters-submitted-to-newspapers/unpublished-letters
Peter Dey (Letters February10) seems to suffer tunnel vision when distinguishing between ‘stolen’ and ‘legally confiscated’ lands, the latter being the consequence of rebelling tribes breaching the Treaty.
We can debate the translations of the Tiriti o Waitangi (only the Maori treaty and Littlewood final English draft ) ad nauseum but the facts are the Queen of England, ruler of greatest empire on the planet at that time did not do partnerships, why would she? Especially with a collection of disparate warring tribes/chiefs who had previously begged for protection from primarily the French, secondly from fellow marauding tribes, google Yates letter to King William IV.
As Article 3 granted Maori the rights of British subjects it was constitutionally impossible for the Crown to enter into a partnership with it’s subjects.
Position is clear sovereignty was ceded, no partnership and no principles.
GEOFF PARKER, Whangarei
Dear Editor, (Sent to the Northland Age and various papers, date unknown)
Re Dominion Post February 2nd Petition ‘Should we be Aotearoa’ Why do we need two names for our country. Who is wanting to change the name of New Zealand and include Aotearoa. In the treaty New Zealand was called Nu-Tirani in 1840.
It was Turi as navigator of the Aotea who brought the Moriori to New Zealand over 300 years before the Maori.
It was the Moriori who used the name Aotea after their craft landed meaning ‘The Dawn’ or ‘Where we have landed’.
About 1890 a couple of Europeans writers use it as a fanciful name for New Zealand. Aotea is not a Maori name, The reason behind adding Aotearoa to it is that further down the track the word New Zealand will be removed.
IAN BROUGHAM, Wanganui
sites.google.com/site/kiwifrontline/letters-submitted-to-newspapers/unpublished-letters