Post by Kiwi Frontline on Jul 12, 2021 14:23:46 GMT 12
UNPUBLISHED LETTER TO THE EDITOR (Sent to the Wanganui Chronicle)
Dear Editor,
It was 28 October 1835 when Busby’s unauthorised Declaration of Independence was signed, by just 35 tribally related chiefs, all but one based North of Thames, and not 1834 as John Archer wrote – letters 3/7/21.
I don’t know what happened in Archer’s mythical ‘Aotearoa’ but the fact is that it is not mentioned once on the Treaty of Waitangi nor in the Maori sovereigntists’ much-vaunted “Declaration of independence” nor anywhere else in those times. Since 1840, all of New Zealand was and is sovereign territory of the Queen so any move by the authorities to suppress tribal rebellions, incipient or otherwise, was not an invasion.
Further, Turton’s Deeds (100s) are recorded evidence that Maori landowners willingly sold most of New Zealand, very little land was legally confiscated from rebelling tribes and less if any was ‘stolen’ as Archer asserts.
The Archers of this world seem blind to the fact that New Zealand could not stay isolated from the rest of the world so introduced diseases were inevitable. They conveniently forget about the medicines, hospitals, housing, clothing, blankets, medical/surgical knowledge that the 'wicked white coloniser' also brought to New Zealand. Thus Maori life expectancy has tripled since 1840.
Partnership? There is no mention or even inference of a ‘partnership’ in the treaty in the Maori language which was signed by more than 500 chiefs. In fact it is constitutionally impossible for the Crown to enter into a partnership with any of it's subjects - Article 3 of the treaty gave to Maori the rights of British subjects, and put signatories under political control of the Queen, hence no partnership.
Lastly, is Mr Archer aware that in 1831 a group of chiefs wrote to King William IV begging for protection primarily from the French?
GEOFF PARKER, Whangarei
Click image to enlarge
Dear Editor,
It was 28 October 1835 when Busby’s unauthorised Declaration of Independence was signed, by just 35 tribally related chiefs, all but one based North of Thames, and not 1834 as John Archer wrote – letters 3/7/21.
I don’t know what happened in Archer’s mythical ‘Aotearoa’ but the fact is that it is not mentioned once on the Treaty of Waitangi nor in the Maori sovereigntists’ much-vaunted “Declaration of independence” nor anywhere else in those times. Since 1840, all of New Zealand was and is sovereign territory of the Queen so any move by the authorities to suppress tribal rebellions, incipient or otherwise, was not an invasion.
Further, Turton’s Deeds (100s) are recorded evidence that Maori landowners willingly sold most of New Zealand, very little land was legally confiscated from rebelling tribes and less if any was ‘stolen’ as Archer asserts.
The Archers of this world seem blind to the fact that New Zealand could not stay isolated from the rest of the world so introduced diseases were inevitable. They conveniently forget about the medicines, hospitals, housing, clothing, blankets, medical/surgical knowledge that the 'wicked white coloniser' also brought to New Zealand. Thus Maori life expectancy has tripled since 1840.
Partnership? There is no mention or even inference of a ‘partnership’ in the treaty in the Maori language which was signed by more than 500 chiefs. In fact it is constitutionally impossible for the Crown to enter into a partnership with any of it's subjects - Article 3 of the treaty gave to Maori the rights of British subjects, and put signatories under political control of the Queen, hence no partnership.
Lastly, is Mr Archer aware that in 1831 a group of chiefs wrote to King William IV begging for protection primarily from the French?
GEOFF PARKER, Whangarei
Click image to enlarge
