Post by Kiwi Frontline on Feb 23, 2016 9:23:44 GMT 12
Northland Age 23/2/16
MOSTLY BUNKUM
A very folksy tale from Mr Brandt (Re-writing history, letter February 16). The early Maori quickly recognised that European boats were much more seaworthy than Maori canoes, but their attempts to copy them failed. As a result, both in the Far North and the far south, Maori commissioned British boat-builders to build ships for them. Yes, British subjects set up the Deptford shipyard at Horeke, and the Sir George Murray was apparently designed by a retired Royal Navy lieutenant. Mr Brandt's story about the seizure of this ship in Sydney in 1830 is more or less correct, though those who did the seizing would have been very surprised to have been called Australians at that time.
Mr Brandt's flag story is mostly bunkum, and readers should refer to eyewitness Hugel's account in 'King's Penguin history' page 153. Again, Mr Brandt's account of the Treaty signing is offbeam and readers need to refer to Colenso's account for the best record by one who was there — easily obtainable online.
Yes, Hobson flew the Union Jack and would not permit any other flags to be flown, but that was quite reasonable and understandable in the circumstances. What Hone Heke thought when he signed the Treaty is anyone's guess but it is clear that all the assembled chiefs were left in no doubt about what the Treaty said Mr Brandt is merely speculating.
You can certainly bet that our New Zealand history has been rewritten for today's school children much of it a monstrous perversion of the truth. It is worth recalling George Orwell's observation on history, propaganda and re-writing history: "The most effective way to destroy a people is to deny and obliterate their own understanding of their history". Artistic licence and imagery may be fine for poetry, but not history.
R P
Matapihi
ALL ABOUT MONEY
Hone Heke's 1845 rebellion against Crown governance had nothing to do with breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi, as Derek Brandt wrote (letters February 16).
When the Governor relocated New Zealand's capital from Kororareka to Auckland, most of the ships that had formerly made landfall at the Bay of Islands now tied up at Auckland.
Heke was angered by the loss of most of his formerly lucrative customs and berthage revenues, and also the loss of money from supplying ship girls to sex-starved sailors.
Even more infuriating perhaps was the mana of hosting the Governor had now gone to Ngapuhi's traditional enemies, Ngati Whatua.
However, I absolutely agree with Mr Brandt that New Zealand's true history is not being taught in schools today, but instead a divisive pro-Maori anti-coloniser version. Misinformation is never a foundation for harmony and unity.
GEOFF PARKER
Kamo
CLEAR AS A BELL
April this year (2016) will mark the 400th anniversary of the death of William Shakespeare.
Just five years earlier, the King James Bible was published in England. Millions of people around the world today continue to enjoy the works of Shakespeare and take comfort and advice from that Bible's words. They can do this because those works were written in English 400 years ago, and understood today.
Less than half that time in the past, Royal Navy Captain William Hobson was charged to obtain cession of New Zealand to the British Queen, given the "free intelligent consent of the natives, expressed according to their established usages," to whom he was to "frankly and unreservedly explain ... the reasons which should urge them to acquiesce." Those words are clear to us today. As an experienced naval officer, Hobson was accustomed to giving orders to men of little education —often lives depended on it. He will therefore have understood exactly how he was to proceed.
After several days spent in producing preliminary drafts, Hobson succeeded, on February 4,1840, in producing a final draft in English of a document of cession which stated clearly and precisely the conditions to be agreed.
Missionaries everywhere knew full well that to convey their message to native peoples it was necessary to explain it in the language of those people. It was essential for them to learn that language. Seventeen years resident in New Zealand, Henry Williams was very competent in the Ngapuhi dialect of the Maori language, and his son, Edward, was considered a scholar "without peer.
They were therefore an ideal pair to translate Hobson's draft to a document in Maori to present to the chiefs for their acceptance. This they did on the night of February 4-5. Just one word, a minor change, was altered the following morning when it was reviewed by Busby and others.
Later that day both documents were presented to a memorable meeting of chiefs and European settlers. Nobody expressed doubts about their saying the same thing. When shown both in 2000, Ngapuhi elder Gorham Rankin declared that the meaning of both was the same.
The recorded words of chiefs at Waitangi and elsewhere later show beyond reasonable doubt that they understood that by signing they would cede sovereignty to the Queen. They signed.In return, all Maori became fully-entitled British subj ects, a magnificent gift, and the possession of their property of all the people of New Zealand was guaranteed.
That is all— clear and unequivocal, as when it was written 176 years ago. Yet many people today claim the contrary, amongst them Geoffrey Palmer, who went on about "Delphic utterances" and stated that the Treaty "is so vague that that is its primary problem". That is utter nonsense, and in my view, given his prominence, culpably wrong. It gives an excuse to those people who have twisted the Treaty beyond recognition for material gain; millions in taxpayer assets being given to them for bogus reasons which fly in the face of what the Treaty truly said. Something is rotten in the state of New Zealand.
BRUCE MOON
Nelson
MOSTLY BUNKUM
A very folksy tale from Mr Brandt (Re-writing history, letter February 16). The early Maori quickly recognised that European boats were much more seaworthy than Maori canoes, but their attempts to copy them failed. As a result, both in the Far North and the far south, Maori commissioned British boat-builders to build ships for them. Yes, British subjects set up the Deptford shipyard at Horeke, and the Sir George Murray was apparently designed by a retired Royal Navy lieutenant. Mr Brandt's story about the seizure of this ship in Sydney in 1830 is more or less correct, though those who did the seizing would have been very surprised to have been called Australians at that time.
Mr Brandt's flag story is mostly bunkum, and readers should refer to eyewitness Hugel's account in 'King's Penguin history' page 153. Again, Mr Brandt's account of the Treaty signing is offbeam and readers need to refer to Colenso's account for the best record by one who was there — easily obtainable online.
Yes, Hobson flew the Union Jack and would not permit any other flags to be flown, but that was quite reasonable and understandable in the circumstances. What Hone Heke thought when he signed the Treaty is anyone's guess but it is clear that all the assembled chiefs were left in no doubt about what the Treaty said Mr Brandt is merely speculating.
You can certainly bet that our New Zealand history has been rewritten for today's school children much of it a monstrous perversion of the truth. It is worth recalling George Orwell's observation on history, propaganda and re-writing history: "The most effective way to destroy a people is to deny and obliterate their own understanding of their history". Artistic licence and imagery may be fine for poetry, but not history.
R P
Matapihi
ALL ABOUT MONEY
Hone Heke's 1845 rebellion against Crown governance had nothing to do with breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi, as Derek Brandt wrote (letters February 16).
When the Governor relocated New Zealand's capital from Kororareka to Auckland, most of the ships that had formerly made landfall at the Bay of Islands now tied up at Auckland.
Heke was angered by the loss of most of his formerly lucrative customs and berthage revenues, and also the loss of money from supplying ship girls to sex-starved sailors.
Even more infuriating perhaps was the mana of hosting the Governor had now gone to Ngapuhi's traditional enemies, Ngati Whatua.
However, I absolutely agree with Mr Brandt that New Zealand's true history is not being taught in schools today, but instead a divisive pro-Maori anti-coloniser version. Misinformation is never a foundation for harmony and unity.
GEOFF PARKER
Kamo
CLEAR AS A BELL
April this year (2016) will mark the 400th anniversary of the death of William Shakespeare.
Just five years earlier, the King James Bible was published in England. Millions of people around the world today continue to enjoy the works of Shakespeare and take comfort and advice from that Bible's words. They can do this because those works were written in English 400 years ago, and understood today.
Less than half that time in the past, Royal Navy Captain William Hobson was charged to obtain cession of New Zealand to the British Queen, given the "free intelligent consent of the natives, expressed according to their established usages," to whom he was to "frankly and unreservedly explain ... the reasons which should urge them to acquiesce." Those words are clear to us today. As an experienced naval officer, Hobson was accustomed to giving orders to men of little education —often lives depended on it. He will therefore have understood exactly how he was to proceed.
After several days spent in producing preliminary drafts, Hobson succeeded, on February 4,1840, in producing a final draft in English of a document of cession which stated clearly and precisely the conditions to be agreed.
Missionaries everywhere knew full well that to convey their message to native peoples it was necessary to explain it in the language of those people. It was essential for them to learn that language. Seventeen years resident in New Zealand, Henry Williams was very competent in the Ngapuhi dialect of the Maori language, and his son, Edward, was considered a scholar "without peer.
They were therefore an ideal pair to translate Hobson's draft to a document in Maori to present to the chiefs for their acceptance. This they did on the night of February 4-5. Just one word, a minor change, was altered the following morning when it was reviewed by Busby and others.
Later that day both documents were presented to a memorable meeting of chiefs and European settlers. Nobody expressed doubts about their saying the same thing. When shown both in 2000, Ngapuhi elder Gorham Rankin declared that the meaning of both was the same.
The recorded words of chiefs at Waitangi and elsewhere later show beyond reasonable doubt that they understood that by signing they would cede sovereignty to the Queen. They signed.In return, all Maori became fully-entitled British subj ects, a magnificent gift, and the possession of their property of all the people of New Zealand was guaranteed.
That is all— clear and unequivocal, as when it was written 176 years ago. Yet many people today claim the contrary, amongst them Geoffrey Palmer, who went on about "Delphic utterances" and stated that the Treaty "is so vague that that is its primary problem". That is utter nonsense, and in my view, given his prominence, culpably wrong. It gives an excuse to those people who have twisted the Treaty beyond recognition for material gain; millions in taxpayer assets being given to them for bogus reasons which fly in the face of what the Treaty truly said. Something is rotten in the state of New Zealand.
BRUCE MOON
Nelson