Post by Kiwi Frontline on May 12, 2024 13:42:20 GMT 12
Bruce Moon: THE SO-CALLED ”LITTLEWOOD TREATY” IS VITALLY IMPORTANT!
Thus equipped and with Busby as scribe, Hobson proceeded to produce the final version in English of his prospective treaty. By mid-afternoon on 4th February this had been achieved, Busby finishing off the document with “Done at Waitangi on the 4th Feb 1840.” What could have been more accurate and normal than that?
Hobson then took this document “across the water” to the Paihia mission station where he requested Henry Williams to produce an appropriate translation by morning. This the Williams succeeded in doing, with one sole addition: the inclusion of the word “maori”[iv] in Article third, since it was not intended to convey the privileges of British citizenship to foreigners and existing British subjects had them already.
That the Williams added “maori” subsequent to the composition of Hobson’s text is yet another proof, if further proof be needed, that Hobson’s English text, the so-called “Littlewood treaty”, was written prior to the drafting of the Maori language text![v] It was correctly dated 4th February, Busby fully aware that he had invited chiefs to a major meeting the next day.[vi] No other date is possible.
That the Williams’ text was a first class translation is a not a matter for doubt, Edward Williams who had arrived in New Zealand at the age of four being in the words of his future brother-in-law Hugh Carlton, a scholar of the Ngapuhi dialect “facile princeps” ‒ “easily best”. Of course in some instances the Williams had to choose existing Maori words which were at best approximations to the English concepts expressed in Hobson’s English version of 4th February. Thus in Article second for “possession”, an ill-defined concept to traditional Maori thinking[vii]with no obvious word for it in their language, the Williams chose “tino rangatiratanga”. Moreover, and this is a point conspicuously overlooked or ignored by most latter-day commentators, it was assured to “tangata katoa o Nu Tirani” This unequivocally means “all the people of New Zealand” and “all” means “all’’ Any claim that Article second guaranteed sovereignty to any Maori is nothing but pork-barrel politicking.
Since both the Williams’ text in Maori and Hobson’s final English text of 4th February[viii] were read out[ix] to the 5th February meeting and no objections raised, we may take it that this translation was fully acceptable at the time.
breakingviewsnz.blogspot.com/2024/05/bruce-moon-so-called-littlewood-treaty.html
Thus equipped and with Busby as scribe, Hobson proceeded to produce the final version in English of his prospective treaty. By mid-afternoon on 4th February this had been achieved, Busby finishing off the document with “Done at Waitangi on the 4th Feb 1840.” What could have been more accurate and normal than that?
Hobson then took this document “across the water” to the Paihia mission station where he requested Henry Williams to produce an appropriate translation by morning. This the Williams succeeded in doing, with one sole addition: the inclusion of the word “maori”[iv] in Article third, since it was not intended to convey the privileges of British citizenship to foreigners and existing British subjects had them already.
That the Williams added “maori” subsequent to the composition of Hobson’s text is yet another proof, if further proof be needed, that Hobson’s English text, the so-called “Littlewood treaty”, was written prior to the drafting of the Maori language text![v] It was correctly dated 4th February, Busby fully aware that he had invited chiefs to a major meeting the next day.[vi] No other date is possible.
That the Williams’ text was a first class translation is a not a matter for doubt, Edward Williams who had arrived in New Zealand at the age of four being in the words of his future brother-in-law Hugh Carlton, a scholar of the Ngapuhi dialect “facile princeps” ‒ “easily best”. Of course in some instances the Williams had to choose existing Maori words which were at best approximations to the English concepts expressed in Hobson’s English version of 4th February. Thus in Article second for “possession”, an ill-defined concept to traditional Maori thinking[vii]with no obvious word for it in their language, the Williams chose “tino rangatiratanga”. Moreover, and this is a point conspicuously overlooked or ignored by most latter-day commentators, it was assured to “tangata katoa o Nu Tirani” This unequivocally means “all the people of New Zealand” and “all” means “all’’ Any claim that Article second guaranteed sovereignty to any Maori is nothing but pork-barrel politicking.
Since both the Williams’ text in Maori and Hobson’s final English text of 4th February[viii] were read out[ix] to the 5th February meeting and no objections raised, we may take it that this translation was fully acceptable at the time.
breakingviewsnz.blogspot.com/2024/05/bruce-moon-so-called-littlewood-treaty.html