Post by Kiwi Frontline on Nov 7, 2016 5:40:29 GMT 12
Dominion Post 7/11/16
REBELLIOUS ACTIONS
Your November 3 editorial is more than a little fanciful. Perhaps a few facts might help.
When Waikato Maori belonging to the king movement were fighting against the government in 1860-1863, against the wishes of their first leader, Te Wherowhero, Governor Grey sent a warning that "those who wage war against Her Majesty, or remain in arms, threatening the lives of Her peaceable subjects, must take the consequences of their acts, and they must understand that they will forfeit the right to the possession of their lands guaranteed to them by the Treaty of Waitangi."
Rebellious actions continued, and after they were defeated land was indeed confiscated.
This was neither "indefensible" nor "abandonment of the Treaty of Waitangi", but commonly accepted under international law, indeed in keeping with the Treaty and Maori lore.
A parliamentary investigation soon resulted in the return of close to one-half the land, and more was to follow. [abridged]
JOHN ROBINSON
Island Bay
The Northern Advocate 7/11/16
LAND WARS TRUTH
On October 28, 2017, we will celebrate another event, which will become an annual event in New Zealand’s history, thanks to the efforts of two pupils from Otorohanga College.
Is our history being twisted still further from the truth? It will be called, I believe, National Commemoration Day, and will mark the land wars. It will mark the Maori people who lost their lives fighting, plus British soldiers as well as the Maori sympathisers. Let’s call them Maori, because they were not known as Maori in those days, but by the names of their various tribes, of which there were some 100, though many were divided off in to family groups.
The Government, bless them, will stump up $4 million for these celebrations over the next four years.
Almost 3000 people lost their lives, 2154 Maori and 745 British soldiers. “Me Maumahara Tatou — We Must Remember”. Sounds almost like Anzac Day, doesn’t it?
Perhaps we should remember the 43,000 Maori who were slaughtered by, would you believe, Maori, as well, and many more were taken as slaves, not to mention the people who were in residence before they came and had their lands taken from them, the Patupaiarehe, Waitaha, and Turehu, and whose populations were decimated and who have not received a brass razoo for their losses (yet)! If we are to mark the land wars, at least we should keep everything in perspective.
KEVAN G MARKS
Kaipara
Bay of Plenty Times 7/11/16
RACE-BASED RIGHTS A NONSENSE
Peter Dey's letter (Letters, November 4) wrongly claims that Robin Bishop's opposition to race-based politics lacks rational sense, but his claims then throw rationality out the window.
Presumably relying on Article 2 of the Treaty he construes this as giving special “race-based” property rights to Maori. If he read the Treaty he would find that what Article 2 actually guarantees is the property rights of “tangata katoa o Nu Tirani” which means “all the people of New Zealand” and “all” means “all”. Again a statement of equality.
Taonga in 1840 as Peter Dey states was defined as “valued possessions”, chattels, certainly not things of spiritual or mystical nature, or pertaining to the commons.
For Peter Dey to suggest that opposing race-based politics is opposing Maori culture and is a desire for a mono-cultural society makes no sense, in my view. We already have a multicultural society. What those who demand equality oppose is the attempt to elevate Maori culture and cultural practices above all other cultures and Maori be given special rights and privileges. They also question if the amount taxpayers spend on Maori culture, such as the $600m pa on promoting Te Reo, could be better spent on say, housing the homeless.
R P
Welcome Bay
TREATY FOR ALL
The Treaty of Waitangi is not a race-based document as Peter Dey (Letters, November 4) asserts as it is directed at “all the people of New Zealand”, it says so in Te Tiriti “ki nga tangata katoa o Nu Tirani”.
The true treaty is Te Tiriti o Waitangi written in Te Reo, no other document is the treaty, this document contained the words that were written and that were spoken to the people of New Zealand in February of 1840 and the proceeding months. It is this document that contains the marks or signatures of those who became a party to it.
Yes we all know that Maunsell used an English version at Waikato, penned by James Freeman, to receive some signatures that wouldn’t fit on the official Te Reo document.
But we also know the vast majority of signatories to the actual treaty “Te Tiriti o Waitangi” did not speak or understand English in 1840. So any English “version” written by Freeman is irrelevant as it was not the document that was read to the people.
Dey appears to uphold the “Freeman” document?
M L
Te Puke
REBELLIOUS ACTIONS
Your November 3 editorial is more than a little fanciful. Perhaps a few facts might help.
When Waikato Maori belonging to the king movement were fighting against the government in 1860-1863, against the wishes of their first leader, Te Wherowhero, Governor Grey sent a warning that "those who wage war against Her Majesty, or remain in arms, threatening the lives of Her peaceable subjects, must take the consequences of their acts, and they must understand that they will forfeit the right to the possession of their lands guaranteed to them by the Treaty of Waitangi."
Rebellious actions continued, and after they were defeated land was indeed confiscated.
This was neither "indefensible" nor "abandonment of the Treaty of Waitangi", but commonly accepted under international law, indeed in keeping with the Treaty and Maori lore.
A parliamentary investigation soon resulted in the return of close to one-half the land, and more was to follow. [abridged]
JOHN ROBINSON
Island Bay
The Northern Advocate 7/11/16
LAND WARS TRUTH
On October 28, 2017, we will celebrate another event, which will become an annual event in New Zealand’s history, thanks to the efforts of two pupils from Otorohanga College.
Is our history being twisted still further from the truth? It will be called, I believe, National Commemoration Day, and will mark the land wars. It will mark the Maori people who lost their lives fighting, plus British soldiers as well as the Maori sympathisers. Let’s call them Maori, because they were not known as Maori in those days, but by the names of their various tribes, of which there were some 100, though many were divided off in to family groups.
The Government, bless them, will stump up $4 million for these celebrations over the next four years.
Almost 3000 people lost their lives, 2154 Maori and 745 British soldiers. “Me Maumahara Tatou — We Must Remember”. Sounds almost like Anzac Day, doesn’t it?
Perhaps we should remember the 43,000 Maori who were slaughtered by, would you believe, Maori, as well, and many more were taken as slaves, not to mention the people who were in residence before they came and had their lands taken from them, the Patupaiarehe, Waitaha, and Turehu, and whose populations were decimated and who have not received a brass razoo for their losses (yet)! If we are to mark the land wars, at least we should keep everything in perspective.
KEVAN G MARKS
Kaipara
Bay of Plenty Times 7/11/16
RACE-BASED RIGHTS A NONSENSE
Peter Dey's letter (Letters, November 4) wrongly claims that Robin Bishop's opposition to race-based politics lacks rational sense, but his claims then throw rationality out the window.
Presumably relying on Article 2 of the Treaty he construes this as giving special “race-based” property rights to Maori. If he read the Treaty he would find that what Article 2 actually guarantees is the property rights of “tangata katoa o Nu Tirani” which means “all the people of New Zealand” and “all” means “all”. Again a statement of equality.
Taonga in 1840 as Peter Dey states was defined as “valued possessions”, chattels, certainly not things of spiritual or mystical nature, or pertaining to the commons.
For Peter Dey to suggest that opposing race-based politics is opposing Maori culture and is a desire for a mono-cultural society makes no sense, in my view. We already have a multicultural society. What those who demand equality oppose is the attempt to elevate Maori culture and cultural practices above all other cultures and Maori be given special rights and privileges. They also question if the amount taxpayers spend on Maori culture, such as the $600m pa on promoting Te Reo, could be better spent on say, housing the homeless.
R P
Welcome Bay
TREATY FOR ALL
The Treaty of Waitangi is not a race-based document as Peter Dey (Letters, November 4) asserts as it is directed at “all the people of New Zealand”, it says so in Te Tiriti “ki nga tangata katoa o Nu Tirani”.
The true treaty is Te Tiriti o Waitangi written in Te Reo, no other document is the treaty, this document contained the words that were written and that were spoken to the people of New Zealand in February of 1840 and the proceeding months. It is this document that contains the marks or signatures of those who became a party to it.
Yes we all know that Maunsell used an English version at Waikato, penned by James Freeman, to receive some signatures that wouldn’t fit on the official Te Reo document.
But we also know the vast majority of signatories to the actual treaty “Te Tiriti o Waitangi” did not speak or understand English in 1840. So any English “version” written by Freeman is irrelevant as it was not the document that was read to the people.
Dey appears to uphold the “Freeman” document?
M L
Te Puke