Post by Kiwi Frontline on Nov 23, 2023 8:14:05 GMT 12
Mike Butler: SOVEREIGNTY NOT CEDED – REALLY?
The false view that chiefs did not cede sovereignty in 1840 is being popularised by Auckland University of Technology Professor Paul Moon in a five-minute You Tube clip.....
......However, there are three realities that undermine Dr Moon's argument.
1.The treaty he bases his argument on is not the Maori Te Tiriti text signed by 512 chiefs in 1840. He refers to a “translated version” that includes the word “chieftainship” in Article 2.
That text was re-written by a Waitangi Tribunal member named Sir Hugh Kawharu and that was done some time before 1987 when it was used in the New Zealand Maori Council v Attorney General Appeal Court (lands) hearing to create the so-called treaty principles.
That “translation” is a “what the chiefs might have thought” re-interpretation of Te Tiriti into English.
Sir Hugh added 11 footnotes to his “translation” which changed the meaning of key words (most notably “rangatiratanga” which translated “possession” in the original English draft, and “taonga” for “property”), and asserted that chiefs would not understand “sovereignty” despite eyewitness accounts showing that they did.
Clause 6 of the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 gave the tribunal the “exclusive authority to determine the meaning and effect of the Treaty as embodied in the two texts [appended to the act] and to decide issues raised by the differences between them”. (2)
Whether that extended to changing the actual meaning of the treaty is questionable.
In any debate about the treaty, it should be clear that there is the original meaning as drafted, debated, and signed in 1840, and the new meaning since 1987. Dr Moon acknowledges that treaty understanding changed in the 1980s but ignores the 1840 meaning.
2. Dr Moon ignores the discovery, in March 1989, of the Littlewood treaty, which is a document dated February 4, 1840, handwritten in English by the then British Resident, James Busby, on paper with an 1833 water mark on it. (3)
That document looks very much like the final draft in English of the Treaty of Waitangi.
This is because the only differences from Te Tiriti are the date and the absence of the word “Maori” in Article 3, which clarifies that it would be the Maori people of New Zealand who will become British subjects and be protected.
Even though the document has been verified as an authentic document from the time written by Busby, it has been downplayed as a translation and ignored.
For instance, it took three years for the first newspaper report of the find and 17 years for a government report on it.
Discrepancies between the English and Maori treaty texts disappear if the Busby February 4 draft is used.
Dr Moon has energetically tried to discredit the Busby document, mostly by saying it can’t be a treaty because it doesn’t have any signatures on it. (4)
3. If Britain “only wanted to govern the settlers living here”, as Dr Moon says, why is there no evidence of this view from 1839 to 1922? For instance:
- 1. On August 14, 1839, Lord Normanby directed Hobson to “treat with the Aborigines of New Zealand for the recognition of Her Majesty's Sovereign authority over the whole or any parts of those Islands which they may be willing to place under Her Majesty's Dominion”. Why did he not specify that exercise of sovereignty was over settlers only?
- 2. On February 4, 1840, Hobson’s team drafted a treaty in which Hobson for Queen Victoria and chiefs would agree that chiefs would cede sovereignty, that chiefs owned what they owned but could sell to an agent of the Queen if they so wished, and that the Maori people of New Zealand would be granted the rights of British subjects and be protected. There is nothing in that treaty says that only settlers would be under the new Governor.
- 3. The treaty was debated at Waitangi on February 5. Missionary William Colenso’s eyewitness account records 11 chiefs not wanting a governor but five who did. The principal objection was that numerous chiefs did not want to have a chief over them. This is pretty clear proof that the authority discussed then was to include both settlers and Maori. There was no statement that the proposed deal was to involve settlers only, and that chiefs could carry on being chiefs.
- 4. That treaty was signed on February 6 at Waitangi and subsequently at 34 locations all around New Zealand. In all, 512 chiefs signed. At none of those signings was there any statement that chiefs could carry on being chiefs and that the governor would only control settlers.
- 5. Then there were the sovereignty proclamations. On May 21, 1840, Hobson issued two proclamations of sovereignty over the North South and Stewart Islands and Major Bunbury issued two further such proclamations over Stewart Island and Cloudy Bay. These covered all of New Zealand. Nowhere was the statement that only British settlers in these areas would henceforth be under the Governor’s control.
- 6. When some members of some tribes rebelled during the 1860s, at a meeting in Kohimarama in Auckland, on July 10, 1860, a total of 112 chiefs including a number who signed in 1840 committed their support to the treaty as signed in 1840, and to the governor. There was no mention that the governor should limit his governing to settlers.
- 7. In 1922, Maori Affairs Minister Sir Apirana Ngata addressed grumblings in a spirited defence of the treaty in an imagined dialogue with an old woman in his book The Treaty of Waitangi – an explanation. The treaty he discussed was not the “for settlers only” treaty that Dr Moon promotes.
Dr Moon observed that the treaty is an agreement that is “fairly malleable, that can be shaped and re-shaped to fit the circumstances of the time” looks like he is saying that because it has been twisted it can keep on being twisted “to fit the circumstances of the time”.
It looks like the time has come to restore the treaty to what it meant in 1840.
Here are the four treaty texts so that you can compare the differences for yourself. Remember, the treaty was drated in English and translated into Maori. The intent of the treaty and the original meaning of all words are clear in the original English draft, which is most likely the Busby February 4 document which is placed first:.....
breakingviewsnz.blogspot.com/2023/11/mike-butler-sovereignty-not-ceded-really.html
The false view that chiefs did not cede sovereignty in 1840 is being popularised by Auckland University of Technology Professor Paul Moon in a five-minute You Tube clip.....
......However, there are three realities that undermine Dr Moon's argument.
1.The treaty he bases his argument on is not the Maori Te Tiriti text signed by 512 chiefs in 1840. He refers to a “translated version” that includes the word “chieftainship” in Article 2.
That text was re-written by a Waitangi Tribunal member named Sir Hugh Kawharu and that was done some time before 1987 when it was used in the New Zealand Maori Council v Attorney General Appeal Court (lands) hearing to create the so-called treaty principles.
That “translation” is a “what the chiefs might have thought” re-interpretation of Te Tiriti into English.
Sir Hugh added 11 footnotes to his “translation” which changed the meaning of key words (most notably “rangatiratanga” which translated “possession” in the original English draft, and “taonga” for “property”), and asserted that chiefs would not understand “sovereignty” despite eyewitness accounts showing that they did.
Clause 6 of the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 gave the tribunal the “exclusive authority to determine the meaning and effect of the Treaty as embodied in the two texts [appended to the act] and to decide issues raised by the differences between them”. (2)
Whether that extended to changing the actual meaning of the treaty is questionable.
In any debate about the treaty, it should be clear that there is the original meaning as drafted, debated, and signed in 1840, and the new meaning since 1987. Dr Moon acknowledges that treaty understanding changed in the 1980s but ignores the 1840 meaning.
2. Dr Moon ignores the discovery, in March 1989, of the Littlewood treaty, which is a document dated February 4, 1840, handwritten in English by the then British Resident, James Busby, on paper with an 1833 water mark on it. (3)
That document looks very much like the final draft in English of the Treaty of Waitangi.
This is because the only differences from Te Tiriti are the date and the absence of the word “Maori” in Article 3, which clarifies that it would be the Maori people of New Zealand who will become British subjects and be protected.
Even though the document has been verified as an authentic document from the time written by Busby, it has been downplayed as a translation and ignored.
For instance, it took three years for the first newspaper report of the find and 17 years for a government report on it.
Discrepancies between the English and Maori treaty texts disappear if the Busby February 4 draft is used.
Dr Moon has energetically tried to discredit the Busby document, mostly by saying it can’t be a treaty because it doesn’t have any signatures on it. (4)
3. If Britain “only wanted to govern the settlers living here”, as Dr Moon says, why is there no evidence of this view from 1839 to 1922? For instance:
- 1. On August 14, 1839, Lord Normanby directed Hobson to “treat with the Aborigines of New Zealand for the recognition of Her Majesty's Sovereign authority over the whole or any parts of those Islands which they may be willing to place under Her Majesty's Dominion”. Why did he not specify that exercise of sovereignty was over settlers only?
- 2. On February 4, 1840, Hobson’s team drafted a treaty in which Hobson for Queen Victoria and chiefs would agree that chiefs would cede sovereignty, that chiefs owned what they owned but could sell to an agent of the Queen if they so wished, and that the Maori people of New Zealand would be granted the rights of British subjects and be protected. There is nothing in that treaty says that only settlers would be under the new Governor.
- 3. The treaty was debated at Waitangi on February 5. Missionary William Colenso’s eyewitness account records 11 chiefs not wanting a governor but five who did. The principal objection was that numerous chiefs did not want to have a chief over them. This is pretty clear proof that the authority discussed then was to include both settlers and Maori. There was no statement that the proposed deal was to involve settlers only, and that chiefs could carry on being chiefs.
- 4. That treaty was signed on February 6 at Waitangi and subsequently at 34 locations all around New Zealand. In all, 512 chiefs signed. At none of those signings was there any statement that chiefs could carry on being chiefs and that the governor would only control settlers.
- 5. Then there were the sovereignty proclamations. On May 21, 1840, Hobson issued two proclamations of sovereignty over the North South and Stewart Islands and Major Bunbury issued two further such proclamations over Stewart Island and Cloudy Bay. These covered all of New Zealand. Nowhere was the statement that only British settlers in these areas would henceforth be under the Governor’s control.
- 6. When some members of some tribes rebelled during the 1860s, at a meeting in Kohimarama in Auckland, on July 10, 1860, a total of 112 chiefs including a number who signed in 1840 committed their support to the treaty as signed in 1840, and to the governor. There was no mention that the governor should limit his governing to settlers.
- 7. In 1922, Maori Affairs Minister Sir Apirana Ngata addressed grumblings in a spirited defence of the treaty in an imagined dialogue with an old woman in his book The Treaty of Waitangi – an explanation. The treaty he discussed was not the “for settlers only” treaty that Dr Moon promotes.
Dr Moon observed that the treaty is an agreement that is “fairly malleable, that can be shaped and re-shaped to fit the circumstances of the time” looks like he is saying that because it has been twisted it can keep on being twisted “to fit the circumstances of the time”.
It looks like the time has come to restore the treaty to what it meant in 1840.
Here are the four treaty texts so that you can compare the differences for yourself. Remember, the treaty was drated in English and translated into Maori. The intent of the treaty and the original meaning of all words are clear in the original English draft, which is most likely the Busby February 4 document which is placed first:.....
breakingviewsnz.blogspot.com/2023/11/mike-butler-sovereignty-not-ceded-really.html