Sunday, July 12, 2009

Te Karere Ipurangi - history lesson in the comments

There are many challenges facing maori. One of the more interesting is the disinformation campaign that certain quarters put up to show the frailty of maori claims and redress. A particular amusing strain is the "celts were here first" crew. G.Graham is a proponent of that line and he posts voraciously on maori sites outlining his beliefs - which just happen to be very insulting and disgusting.

Anyway a few approaches have been made to reduce his trolling, but Justin has stepped up and finally hit the home run. I am sure that G.Graham will continue to peddle his wares, even after being soundly beaten.

I know this post is long but hopefully as you read through it you will see why it needed the full treatment.

So for a bit of fun read these comments and enjoy.

First thread talking about Foreshore compo

G. Graham July 5th, 2009 at 9:38 pm
Maoris asked the British over many years to care for and protect them from the Maori Musket War [60,000 died] and the French. They could have chosen many other countries.
To dodge the issue, Britain persuaded them to declare their own sovereignty, in 1835, after which the signatories never met nor passed any laws, rendering it a nullity.

When Britain finally agreed, it was made clear sovereignty would need to be ceded to enable it to pass and enforce law.

When Maoris ceded sovereignty, in Article 1, they ceded everything, including customary rights.

Article 2 gave them the right to own their land and property [according to ahi ka] for the first time in their lives.

Article 3 gave them the “same” rights as the British.
British tribes do not own the foreshore and seabed.

New Zealand’s foreshore and seabed belong to “all the people of New Zealand”
Should any Maori disagree, blame your chief who signed on your behalf and be thankful your ancestors survived the Maori Musket War to enable you to complain.

Justin July 6th, 2009 at 10:14 am
Interesting revision of history G.Graham unfortunately what you are promoting is a biassed interpretation of events based on yours or someone elses personal agenda, which is why few people will take you seriously.

G. Graham July 9th, 2009 at 11:25 pm
All you need to do to prove me wrong is to quote from te Tiriti text that which gives a privilege to Maoris that is not available to anyone who gained citizenship yesterday.
Readers await your reply.

If you wern’t taught the history I quoted above, blame your politically correct schooling not yourself.

July 9th, 2009 at 11:35 pm
I don’t need to quote from the treaty to point out Maori privilege since the belief that Maori are getting privilege is something you falsely hold to. What is the wording in the Maori text of the treaty that cedes sovereignty G?

Heres the text: please point it out for me.

“Ko nga Rangatira o te wakaminenga me nga Rangatira katoa hoki ki hai i uru ki taua wakaminenga ka tuku rawa atu ki te Kuini o Ingarani ake tonu atu – te Kawanatanga katoa o o ratou wenua.”

Its in Ngapuhi dialect, so if you have problems translating it, let me know, I can help you, but going by your passion for such things, I assume you are an expert in te reo Maori?

G. Graham July 11th, 2009 at 10:49 pm
Kawangatanga was translated from the word Sovereignty.
Many are now saying “the chiefs and tribes and all the people of New Zealand te tino rangatiratanga” gives sovereignty to only Maoris, but read the whole quote.
This has been thrashed out with Government on . If Government never made it to the finishing post, what chance would you. I invite you to try, as it is not me you need to convince but this website.

The simple method is to refer to the document the Maori Tiriti was translated from.
Kawanatanga was translated from the word “sovereignty.” The above website gives many solid instances why.

History lesson one.

Justin July 11th, 2009 at 11:37 pm
G.Graham, Kawanatanga was not translated from the word Sovereignty, kawanatanga most certainly was a word expanded upon from the word kawana which was made up by bible translators for the word governor. Adding tanga added the ’ship’ to the end, kawanatanga, governorship or government. Using kawangatanga instead of a word that better ressembled sovereignty was just dishonest of those that wrote the Maori version of the treaty.

They knew that Maori would have read kawanatanga as government or governorship, not sovereignty which would have better been translated as mana whenua, mana tangata, mana moana.

If you want clarification of this check with the many recorded debates Maori chiefs had before signing the treaty, they all saw kawanatanga as governorship not Sovereignty. Tino-Rangatiratanga itself is a term also derrived from the bible and is the closest reference to sovereignty other than the ones I mentioned earlier. Those that wrote the wording for the Maori version, also knew this, and that is why it was inputted into the second article of the treaty, again as a dishonest way of coercing chiefs to sign the treaty.

This is how they were able to gazzette the annexing of Aotearoa in such a short time, merely by dishonest wording in the treaty. Over the next decade or so, many of those chiefs that signed the treaty realised that they had been duped and later took part in the armed defence of their lands against the Crown, who also realised that due to this realisation, many chiefs no longer accepted the process of the treaty as a valid process so therefore the colonial armies were formed to take sovereignty the old way, by way of the gun, which they did, in most cases, attacking the main armed strongholds such as Taranaki, Tauranga and Waikato Maniapoto.

So by the end of the 1860s there was no doubts who was the sovereign body in this country, the one with the largest army. So in the end sovereignty was taken by force of conquest not by trickery as the Hobson/Williams ilk had planned.

Second thread this time the topic is Treelords deal

G. Graham July 5th, 2009 at 8:40 pm
Amazing, considering there are no forest rights in Te to view the history and content of our true Tiriti which will be found to be quite different from Governments.

Are the British really responsible for the attrocities of the Land War, which commenced with the crossing of the Maungatawhiri stream on 17-July-1863. The truth is, this war was initiated 3 years[not a misprint]earlier by the Maori king Tawhiao who declared war on Government and vowed to drive it and all the white settlers into the sea. He initiated his genocidal war in 1860, in Taranaki, and also attacked the British at Kohera,17-06-1863, north of Maungatawhiri, prior to the British exercising their Treaty obligation of saving New Zealand from Tawhiao’s war. The 3 years 1860 to 1863 have been ignored by Government. There were no settlers in the Waikato when Tawhiao’s warriors fought at Kohera, so no excuse. From “The Realms of King Tawhiao, by Dick Craig.

Justin July 6th, 2009 at 10:12 am
G.Graham are you saying that English Common law does not apply to Maori.

G. Graham July 6th, 2009 at 11:33 pm
Article 3 of te Tiriti says “Maori are to be given the same rights as the people of England.”

July 6th, 2009 at 11:43 pm
So then, since people of England come under English Common law, I’ll ask you the question again. Are you saying that English Common law does not apply to Maori?

July 8th, 2009 at 12:07 pm
He won’t be able to answer that one Justin because that will fuck his argument up.

G. Graham July 9th, 2009 at 11:15 pm
Justin and Mandiko,
Please reread the first sentence of my July 6th letter.

Go To and you will find we have only one Tiriti and it contains no special privileges for Maoris that is unavailable to others. It is also the reason Maoris live in the first world, by preference, instead of their right to a third world existence in the bush.
The words “forests and fish” are found in the Governments official English Treaty. This was written by one who had no authority to write or draft our Treaty, James Freeman, and only the Maori Tiriti was authorised by Governor Hobson. Therefore, all Tiriti settlements to forests and fish cannot be substantiated by Te Tiriti.

July 9th, 2009 at 11:29 pm
That is not an answer to my question G.Graham. What I want to hear is a yes or a no from you to this question. Does English Common Law apply to Maori?

G. Graham July 10th, 2009 at 11:36 pm
Please read Article 3 in my second to last letter.
The word “same” means “Yes” to your question.

Please let me know if you are still unclear, as it is vital you understand the most important Article in te Tiriti.

Article 2 promises ownership to tribes of their land for the first time in their history, Article 3 promises you may live on the territory of any tribe, including that of former dreaded enemies, in peace. Note, in peace. What a wonderful gift.

Should you consider the horrors of the Maori Musket War [60,000 Maoris lay dead on the ground and many in slavery], you must be thankful your chief asked for British protection.
Thank you, this is the first time I’ve had a sensible question. Most gun me as a racist for supporting our Treaty and all I do is quote this wonderful document, which supports “all the people of New Zealand” not just a few.

July 11th, 2009 at 12:26 am
Rather patronising and selective of you G Graham to speak of the horrors of those wars while making no mention of the last 200 years of British wars dating from Crimea, to today resulting in the deaths of over 100 million people.

But aside from that argument, I am more interested in your perception that the Treaty gives no special rights to Maori.

If you say yes to Common Law applying to Maori, then you must at least acknowledge then the rights that are inherent in English Common Law concerning customary law of land ownership and rights that are afforded to those subjects of the crown that can prove occupation of lands prior to a shifting of sovereignties?

This mirrors the events that took place in England with the overthrowing of the sovereignty of the King and the ceding of sovereignty to Parliament and the special customary and freehold title rights to forests, rivers and resources that ensued in the following few hundred years that became the basis of English Common Law associated with land and access rights.
Within that interpretation alone, Maori have special rights to the seabed and foreshores, rivers, forests and lakes if you afford Maori the same rights that were afforded to those long term occupants who received those titles in Britain.

This is the mistake you make in trying to translate the treaty to fit your view. The deal was signed between the Crown and Maori to set up a process that allowed for the transfer of land from native title into British sovereign control.

It seems you will not see the obvious reasoning behind this move perhaps because you want Pakeha to be included in the Treaty for which they did not sign nor were consulted with nor were included in or needed to be included in such a treaty of the type that has been used in many countries that were colonised by the British.

So as I have read through your writings on this news site, I have been able to pick up the points you are promoting, and if I may I will list them so that we can all agree that I do understand where you are coming from.

1/ The treaty has been mistranslated in a number of issues, firstly, that it was a treaty that guaranteed rights to both Pakeha and Maori of their lands that they possessed at the time of the signing.

2/ That the word taonga has been remade to translate as inherited or cultural treasures when in fact it just means possessions

3/ That the only reliable translation of the treaty is by the Pakeha T. E. Young in 1869 and in the littewood draft.

4/ That the Maori language is so removed from its original form that it is no longer the Maori language but in fact a pakeha version made up by bible translators and missionaries.

5/ That other than the treaty, Maori have no international indigenous rights because when they arrived here a mere 700 years ago they wiped out the original Pakeha inhabitants who are the true indigenous people of Aotearoa. Therefore the attempts by the Government to settle the treaty breaches with Maori are discrimination against the real Celtic Pakeha heritage that formed this country.

6/ Maori art, music and dance were stolen from the original celts of Aotearoa.

7/ That this country was first peopled by the kind and loving Celts from Scotland who were then overthrown by the human feasting Polynesians who then went on to brutalise themselves for the following 600 years until the British arrived here with an ample supply of muskets to save them from totally wiping themselves out and those devilish Maori went and used them on themselves.

8/ That in fact the Phoenicians, Chinese, and half a dozen other European countries popped in here before the late arriving johnny come lately Maori.

Just to name a few points.

I will leave off with this quote about the Hongi from the pro-celticnz people.
“if you are not careful you may subjected to some one elses closely expired air as they invade your personal space and assault you with a repugnant hongi.”

G. Graham July 11th, 2009 at 10:24 pm
Re. your 3rd paragraph: When one cedes sovereignty one cedes everything, including the right to be here, Article 1. This was necessary for Britain to make and uphold laws aimed at bringing peace Maoris asked for.
Article 2 gave permanent ownership of land and property to “all the people of New Zealand.” To Maoris this meant according to their law of ahi ka [the land is theirs until the fire goes out]. Vacant land became the property of the Crown.

Article 3 gave Maoris the same rights as the British, allowing Maoris the right to travel, or purchase a home, anywhere in New Zealand, in peace.

Nowhere in Britain do forests, rivers, lakes, resources, seabed or foreshore belong to any tribe, if they did you would rich due to your British ancestry.

I agree with you. Your quote, “The deal was signed between Crown and Maori to set up a process to allow for the transfer of land from native title to British sovereign control.” End your quote.

You lead me to believe you think British were excluded from te Tiriti. Please read Article 1, where New Zealand became British soil and reread your quote above.

Re your numbered questions:1: Yes.2: Correct, possessions.3: Yes to Young. The Littlewood Treaty is neither a treaty nor a translation, it is Hobsons official English draft. Should confusion arrise as to the meaning of the Maori translation, it may be used to interpret.4: The present Maori language bears no resemblance to the original, by reason of the missionaries and politicians who change it to suit their ideals. Moreore and “treasures” were given as examples. A sad part of our history.5: Be honest. If the original Celts were recognised they would be as thick on the ground as Maoris, for the same reasons. Cook and Tasman wouldn’t be rcognised though.6: Wasn’t stolen, it was freely given. If you were a freed slave, would you follow the culture of your masters or your benefactors?7: No idea who the first Celts were, at more than 3,000 years it’s too difficult to trace. All that is known is the culture and the fact there is no evidence of unrest prior to Maoris.It was Hone Heki [or a name close to this] who traded his British gifts for muskets, in Australia, that were used to trigger the Maori Musket War.8: Yes. And the hongi is Ancient Celtic, used as a defense against TB.

May I quote to you from the Hon. Apirana Ngata. “Let me issue a word of warning to those who are in the habit of bandying the name of the Treaty around to be very careful least it be made the means of incurring certain liabilities under the law which we do not know and which are being born only by the Pakeha.” End quote.

History lesson number two.

Justin July 11th, 2009 at 11:16 pm
“This was necessary for Britain to make and uphold laws aimed at bringing peace Maoris asked for.”

I have to ask this, do you understand the implications of English Common Law on Maori rights to forests, rivers, lakes, etc?

“Nowhere in Britain do forests, rivers, lakes, resources, seabed or foreshore belong to any tribe, if they did you would rich due to your British ancestry.”

I think you force this debate to contest the validity of tribal ownership, but aside from that debate English Common Law did give titles and rights of access out, so other than your tribe ownership debate, it is applicable and both the NZ Appeals Court and the Privy Council have agreed on this issue, and as you will have to agree, they know a thing or two more about English Common Law than you or I will ever know, right?

“You lead me to believe you think British were excluded from te Tiriti. Please read Article 1, where New Zealand became British soil and reread your quote above.”

The deal was between the British Crown and Maori hapu, which was later updated to the NZ Crown and hapu, and now its the NZ Crown and Iwi. British residents of this country eventually came under colonial rule with a pseudo British subjectship, and later again they became NZ citizens and lost their British subjects privaleges. But up until the signing of the Treaty at least, they were still seen by the British Crown as being under their control, British Subjects, so therefore their rights were covered not under the Maori side of the treaty, but as subjects of the British Crown therefore under the British Crown side of the treaty.

I think its been said a few times before to you and I will reiterate, the British Crown has never written their own subjects into treaty agreements with any other nation and they did not do so here either because there was no need. British subjects living in Aotearoa did not hold sovereignty nor legal British land titles to their lands and you will see this with the many pre treaty land sales that were reversed.

Neither did the treaty call upon the Pakeha of Aotearoa at the time to cede sovereignty since they had none.

Neither did the treaty request that Pakeha of Aotearoa cede the rights of Governorship to the Crown since the Crown already considered itself the sovereign body over all British subjects living abroad.

Neither did the treaty either set up special processes for the transfer of land Pakeha had aquired whether through trading or through squatting, back to the Crown, nor did it give them full chieftainship over their lands, settlements or properties which was made quite clear to the Pakeha when the Colonial office reaquired their land from them and in many cases they did not get back what they had.

So apart from your translation where you input Pakeha British subjects into the line where it says, “and all the people of New Zealand”, the rest of the treaty is most certainly not applicable to Pakeha as it was meant for Maori, just as treaties are used in this manner all around the world.

What do you think Apirana Ngata meant by that statement you quoted G. Graham?

July 11th, 2009 at 11:20 pm

Oh and I might add, neither were Pakeha required to sign the treaty as Maori chiefs were, since it wasn’t intended to include them in it.

The thread does continue...

No comments: