Post by Kiwi Frontline on Mar 6, 2019 14:04:23 GMT 12
COUNTERING THE TREATY-TWISTERS By Bruce Moon, 26/2/19
The treaty-twisters general line of argument is:
1. To claim that the derivations of the words ‘rangatiratanga” and “kawanatanga” are the same as their meanings. This is false because translation is not the same as derivation. I give examples below. Of course, if one needs a new word, it has to be derived from something! This was a problem that the Williams faced in introducing words for concepts little understood by Maoris.
2. To switch next to Freeman’s fake “treaty in English”, thereby ignoring the inconvenient facts that
(a) Article Two of the treaty included “tangata katoa o Nu Tirani”, “all the people of New Zealand”
which Freeman omits,
(b) what Freeman says is guaranteed to Maoris includes “forests and fisheries” which the real treaty does not mention
3. To use the modern meaning of “taonga” instead of the 1840 meaning which was simple “property” i,e, ordinary chattels. This is fundamentally dishonest. Kawharu provides an example.
4. To ignore the recorded words of almost all chiefs who spoke at Waitangi on 5th February 1840 and subsequently, which establish beyond doubt that they knew that by signing they would become subordinate to the Governor and thus to the Queen.
5. To claim that the treaty establishes a “partnership” between “The Crown” and Maoris” which is
(a) fundamentally ridiculous and
(b) not in any way or form implied by a rational reading of what the treaty actually says. Note that the present governor-general is guilty of this twisting of the truth and has thereby compromised her position as the representative of our Queen.
The following example by matthew@lizardnews.net on 25th February 2019 illustrates most of these points. I have put his most flagrantly false statements in bold type.......
Read on here > sites.google.com/site/kiwifrontline/blogs/bruce-moon
The treaty-twisters general line of argument is:
1. To claim that the derivations of the words ‘rangatiratanga” and “kawanatanga” are the same as their meanings. This is false because translation is not the same as derivation. I give examples below. Of course, if one needs a new word, it has to be derived from something! This was a problem that the Williams faced in introducing words for concepts little understood by Maoris.
2. To switch next to Freeman’s fake “treaty in English”, thereby ignoring the inconvenient facts that
(a) Article Two of the treaty included “tangata katoa o Nu Tirani”, “all the people of New Zealand”
which Freeman omits,
(b) what Freeman says is guaranteed to Maoris includes “forests and fisheries” which the real treaty does not mention
3. To use the modern meaning of “taonga” instead of the 1840 meaning which was simple “property” i,e, ordinary chattels. This is fundamentally dishonest. Kawharu provides an example.
4. To ignore the recorded words of almost all chiefs who spoke at Waitangi on 5th February 1840 and subsequently, which establish beyond doubt that they knew that by signing they would become subordinate to the Governor and thus to the Queen.
5. To claim that the treaty establishes a “partnership” between “The Crown” and Maoris” which is
(a) fundamentally ridiculous and
(b) not in any way or form implied by a rational reading of what the treaty actually says. Note that the present governor-general is guilty of this twisting of the truth and has thereby compromised her position as the representative of our Queen.
The following example by matthew@lizardnews.net on 25th February 2019 illustrates most of these points. I have put his most flagrantly false statements in bold type.......
Read on here > sites.google.com/site/kiwifrontline/blogs/bruce-moon