Post by Kiwi Frontline on Nov 10, 2023 14:01:54 GMT 12
THE TREATY OF WAITANGI
P H writes > National’s Treaty spokesman, Joseph Mooney, correctly states that Article II of Te Tiriti grants “tino rangatiratanga” not just to brown supremacist part-Maori, but to ALL New Zealanders..
ARTICLE I of James Busby’s final English language draft dated 4 February 1840 and translated into Maori by the missionary Henry Williams and his son (both fluent Maori speakers who’d lived in NZ for almost 20 years) for presentation to the Chiefs on 5 February reads:
“The chiefs of the Confederation of the United Tribes and the other chiefs who have not joined the confederation, cede to the Queen of England for ever the entire Sovreignty [sic] of their country.”
That wipes out the ridiculous Declaration of Independence of the Confederation of the United Tribe [He Whakaputanga] and the assertion that Maori had a sovereign nation state prior to 6 February 1840.
ARTICLE II reads:
“The Queen of England confirms and guarantees to the chiefs and the tribes [the natives] and to all the people of New Zealand [the white pre-Treaty settlers who held land according to tikanga, meaning for as long as 'their' tribe could defend the locality against outsiders], the possession of their lands, dwellings and all their property.”
Everybody needed the same assurance from the incoming sovereign: that existing private property rights would be upheld and protected.
If ‘Tino Rangatiratanga’ means in its broadest sense “the unqualified exercise of their chieftainship’ as claimed today by Treatyists, it was certainly not being used that way in Te Tiriti in 1840.
In the context of Te Tiriti, the words narrow in their meaning to be a guarantee of property rights in land and other property [the correct translation of ‘taonga’ in 1840] to both the natives and pre-Treaty settlers alike.
It is thus impossible to construe Article I as having been drafted to provide for the Crown to govern the settlers and for the chiefs to continue to govern their tribes according to Article II.
If Te Tiriti was intended to be a Constitutional document providing for spheres of co-governance as asserted today by the deluded, there would have been no mention of the white pre-Treaty settlers in Article II.
As well, an open-ended co-governance arrangement would surely have been worded at Article II; “the Queen of England HER HEIRS AND SUCCESSORS [emphasis added to additional wording] and “the chiefs THEIR HEIRS AND SUCCESSORS [emphasis added to additional wording].
The recorded words of the chiefs on the lawn at Waitangi and elsewhere when Te Tiriti was debated make it clear they were well-aware that their acceptance of Hobson would place him in authority over them, and that behind Hobson was Queen Victoria.
ARTICLE III reads:
“In return for the cession of their Sovreignty [sic] to the Queen, the people of New Zealand shall be protected by the Queen of England and the rights and privileges of British subjects will be granted to them.”
In signing Te Tiriti, all Maori – including the chiefs – became not ‘partners’ but EQUAL SUBJECTS of the Crown in a nation state the white settlers would henceforth create where none had existed before.
EQUAL SUBJECTS means INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS OF CITIZENSHIP – nothing more and nothing less.
Te Tirit cannot possibly be construed as a guarantee of perpetual group rights to brown supremacist part-Maori (with an ever-declining Maori blood quantum).
It is ludicrous and intellectually incoherent to propose that the cession of sovereignty in Article I, restated in Article III, would be countermanded by a reservation of chiefly authority in Article II.
“Sovereignty” means “the supreme power or authority.”
It is thus Constitutionally impossible for a sovereign to be in ‘partnership’ with a subject or group of subjects.
On 6 February 1840, one party [the Crown] absorbed and digested the parties of the other side [the chiefs and those whom they represented].
This rendered Te Tiriti from the moment it was signed analogous to a used table napkin after a meal, and other than as a historical artefact, about as relevant.
sites.google.com/site/treaty4dummies/home/the-littlewood-treaty
Click image to enlarge
P H writes > National’s Treaty spokesman, Joseph Mooney, correctly states that Article II of Te Tiriti grants “tino rangatiratanga” not just to brown supremacist part-Maori, but to ALL New Zealanders..
ARTICLE I of James Busby’s final English language draft dated 4 February 1840 and translated into Maori by the missionary Henry Williams and his son (both fluent Maori speakers who’d lived in NZ for almost 20 years) for presentation to the Chiefs on 5 February reads:
“The chiefs of the Confederation of the United Tribes and the other chiefs who have not joined the confederation, cede to the Queen of England for ever the entire Sovreignty [sic] of their country.”
That wipes out the ridiculous Declaration of Independence of the Confederation of the United Tribe [He Whakaputanga] and the assertion that Maori had a sovereign nation state prior to 6 February 1840.
ARTICLE II reads:
“The Queen of England confirms and guarantees to the chiefs and the tribes [the natives] and to all the people of New Zealand [the white pre-Treaty settlers who held land according to tikanga, meaning for as long as 'their' tribe could defend the locality against outsiders], the possession of their lands, dwellings and all their property.”
Everybody needed the same assurance from the incoming sovereign: that existing private property rights would be upheld and protected.
If ‘Tino Rangatiratanga’ means in its broadest sense “the unqualified exercise of their chieftainship’ as claimed today by Treatyists, it was certainly not being used that way in Te Tiriti in 1840.
In the context of Te Tiriti, the words narrow in their meaning to be a guarantee of property rights in land and other property [the correct translation of ‘taonga’ in 1840] to both the natives and pre-Treaty settlers alike.
It is thus impossible to construe Article I as having been drafted to provide for the Crown to govern the settlers and for the chiefs to continue to govern their tribes according to Article II.
If Te Tiriti was intended to be a Constitutional document providing for spheres of co-governance as asserted today by the deluded, there would have been no mention of the white pre-Treaty settlers in Article II.
As well, an open-ended co-governance arrangement would surely have been worded at Article II; “the Queen of England HER HEIRS AND SUCCESSORS [emphasis added to additional wording] and “the chiefs THEIR HEIRS AND SUCCESSORS [emphasis added to additional wording].
The recorded words of the chiefs on the lawn at Waitangi and elsewhere when Te Tiriti was debated make it clear they were well-aware that their acceptance of Hobson would place him in authority over them, and that behind Hobson was Queen Victoria.
ARTICLE III reads:
“In return for the cession of their Sovreignty [sic] to the Queen, the people of New Zealand shall be protected by the Queen of England and the rights and privileges of British subjects will be granted to them.”
In signing Te Tiriti, all Maori – including the chiefs – became not ‘partners’ but EQUAL SUBJECTS of the Crown in a nation state the white settlers would henceforth create where none had existed before.
EQUAL SUBJECTS means INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS OF CITIZENSHIP – nothing more and nothing less.
Te Tirit cannot possibly be construed as a guarantee of perpetual group rights to brown supremacist part-Maori (with an ever-declining Maori blood quantum).
It is ludicrous and intellectually incoherent to propose that the cession of sovereignty in Article I, restated in Article III, would be countermanded by a reservation of chiefly authority in Article II.
“Sovereignty” means “the supreme power or authority.”
It is thus Constitutionally impossible for a sovereign to be in ‘partnership’ with a subject or group of subjects.
On 6 February 1840, one party [the Crown] absorbed and digested the parties of the other side [the chiefs and those whom they represented].
This rendered Te Tiriti from the moment it was signed analogous to a used table napkin after a meal, and other than as a historical artefact, about as relevant.
sites.google.com/site/treaty4dummies/home/the-littlewood-treaty
Click image to enlarge