Post by Kiwi Frontline on Nov 1, 2019 3:54:01 GMT 12
Northern Advocate 1/11/19
TREATY DEFINITIONS
Yet again, G M Tinker (Advocate, 19/10/19) trots out the current false orthodoxy about the meaning of words in the Treaty of Waitangi. It would be extremely serious if these were incorporated in any school curriculum since it would give our children an utterly false idea of seminal events on our history.
“Sovereignty” was translated by the Williams to “kawanatanga” on the night of 4/5th February 1840, no word in classic Maori having a precise word/ for it. That “kawanatanga’ is derived from a maorification of “governor” with suffix meaning “-ship” is of academic interest only since translation is not, repeat not the same as derivation.
Moreover, another critical point, those chiefs who spoke on the day made it totally clear that they knew that by signing they would become subordinate to the governor and hence to the Queen.
Another important point: both Hobson’s final draft of 4th February in English and the Maori translation were read out at the meeting. Many present of both races knew both languages and nobody said they meant different things. This was all recorded by Colenso at the time and checked by Busby. “Kawanatanga” meant “sovereignty” in 1840. Any other supposed meaning is a fake. All this, the chiefs confirmed at Kohimarama in 1860.
The story is much the same with “rangatiratanga”, the Williams’ translation of “possession”. While treaty-twisters will keep claiming until they are blue in the face that it meant something more, they conceal by omission that it was assured to ALL the people of New Zealand, thereby faking the meaning of article two.
GEOFF PARKER, Kamo
sites.google.com/site/kiwifrontline/letters-submitted-to-newspapers
TREATY DEFINITIONS
Yet again, G M Tinker (Advocate, 19/10/19) trots out the current false orthodoxy about the meaning of words in the Treaty of Waitangi. It would be extremely serious if these were incorporated in any school curriculum since it would give our children an utterly false idea of seminal events on our history.
“Sovereignty” was translated by the Williams to “kawanatanga” on the night of 4/5th February 1840, no word in classic Maori having a precise word/ for it. That “kawanatanga’ is derived from a maorification of “governor” with suffix meaning “-ship” is of academic interest only since translation is not, repeat not the same as derivation.
Moreover, another critical point, those chiefs who spoke on the day made it totally clear that they knew that by signing they would become subordinate to the governor and hence to the Queen.
Another important point: both Hobson’s final draft of 4th February in English and the Maori translation were read out at the meeting. Many present of both races knew both languages and nobody said they meant different things. This was all recorded by Colenso at the time and checked by Busby. “Kawanatanga” meant “sovereignty” in 1840. Any other supposed meaning is a fake. All this, the chiefs confirmed at Kohimarama in 1860.
The story is much the same with “rangatiratanga”, the Williams’ translation of “possession”. While treaty-twisters will keep claiming until they are blue in the face that it meant something more, they conceal by omission that it was assured to ALL the people of New Zealand, thereby faking the meaning of article two.
GEOFF PARKER, Kamo
sites.google.com/site/kiwifrontline/letters-submitted-to-newspapers