One country - two sovereignties - this is not going to end well. Pick your sovereignty and let the fun begin.

'Revisionism'! It is clear what Britain intended in 1840. One people under the governance and protection of the crown. The chiefs who signed the Treaty understood that. What it meant then is what it means now.

No where in the world did Britain sign a treaty that created co Governance. The treaty made Maori British subjects with all the rights that go with that. If co Governance is pushed there will be trouble in New Zealand you can not have a rule for one and not the other. Also 17% of the population can not have 50% of the voting rights this will lead to huge problems as has been shown time and time again throughout the world. We are a Democracy and this is undemocratic.

What he is saying is nonsense. He’s out on a limb. I can’t think of any reputable scholar who thinks like he does. My only conclusion is that he was paid out to say what he’s saying. It was about two years ago that he went to Parliament to receive an honour. I noticed the video was made two years ago as well. Not only this but Paul Moon’s view contradicts completely Sir Apirana Ngata’s analysis of the treaty. It’s shameful of moon to sell out in order to receive an accolade from the Queen.

It's very interesting to me to hear a professional historian and authority on the Treaty of Waitangi say that the British Crown did not want sovereignty over Maori, but only over British settlers. Throughout school I was taught that the British wanted sovereignty over Maori too, and now that I'm in my first year of university studying law, this is also the position of my lecturers. And yet, here is one of the most qualified people to speak on the subject saying that this is not the case. Makes me wonder what the truth of the matter is. Also confusing is this notion of a "fourth article" of the Treaty. In university we are taught that it exists, but according to Dr Moon, it's just a myth. I would very much like to see a debate between Dr Moon and other academics with expertise in these areas on these issues so I can figure out who is correct.

I see the range of comments here are emotionally driven. You have to analyse the actual wording of the original documents for if you read the Maori text you will see Maori never ceded sovereignty. Any other interpretation would be incorrect. Missing from your comments enforcing the English text is the Letters Patent written by Queen Victoria herself. "Let the indigenous peoples govern themselves!" But the settler government refused to yield. They went on a smear campaign to remove the rights of the indigenous peoples something which most of your comments today echo. Colonisation is still alive and well in 2024. I can report though that the government's claim to sovereignty is NOT absolute. You see the constitutional lawyers have changed their stance on when sovereignty was actually ceded. Wait..what? They say it was on Feb 6 at Waitangi. Nope. Check the Maori text and you will see that it wasn't. Then you could say Hobson was the first crook. He proclaimed ceding of sovereignty despite the text differing in this opinion. But he had a vested interest in declaring it. He was asked to get a treaty signed with the natives. But like most capitalists, he was a profit driven man. So his was the first lie. You see the House of Lords did not want to rule the natives. It's why Queen Victoria declared to let them govern themselves. Check your facts ppl.

Rangatiratanga being equated with the idea of western sovereignty is a modern invention. Context: the chiefs knew perfectly that they were ceded sovereignty/ the highest power and authority to the British Crown for a few reasons. 1] Northern tribes feared the French. 2] Northern tribes feared reprisals from southern tribes recently armed with muskets. 3] They were all sick and tired of the continual cycle of violence involved with two decades of musket wars. 4] They desired law and order, and trade. 5] Southern Maori refused to sign because they understood it meant giving up their sovereignty. This was clearly stated by the great Te Heu Heu of Ngati Wharetoa of Taupo when his large war party was met by the recently converted Whanganui tribes... who he was contemptuous of for giving up their mana to Queen Victoria, a mere woman. Te Whero Whero, who also did not sign, also rejected British sovereignty leading to the NZ wars, where the Brits were compelled to establish actual sovereignty [that was

'These treaties could only be signed by sovereign states'. Due to the humanitarian instincts of the statesmen involved, they allowed that the [warring] tribes could be considered sovereign. But this was only in order for the trines to

The people that watched both the Waka people and the European arrive weren't included in the Treaty of Waitangi. One reason it fails. Furthermore it is rooted in the absolute moral categories of the Bible. It was never practiced consistent with the biblical position. The reason that the Bible once lived in the court's is because it represents the Method of Antithesis in human reason process whereby intellectual certainty is guaranteed. Early Maori who studied the Bible text understood this. But they were the minority view. The hero in Ka Mate, Te Wharerangi who saves the life of his enemy Te Rauparaha is one of these old people. God defend New Zealand 💪. Finite man can only own his thoughts.

Why will ppl not recognize the 1835 declaration of Independence that Rangatira signed with King William IV? Te Tiriti 1840 came after.

So there a 2 sovereign state in NZ. I immigrated in 2005, which state did I immigrate into? what about Pacifica, which are they in? Does anyone immigrate into Maori state? Do I have to pay for past grievances in my taxes?

well presented. Agree with Zachary, the Treaty was clearly a transfer of arch authority over all hapu to the Queen. THis is implicit in the Maori text, which as Hobson himself declared is the only authoritative text.

When identity becomes tied to grievance, the grievance will never end. What was that they once said about appeasement....?

The final version of the English draft was lost. At the time what was most important was the Maori version for the chiefs to sign. In 1869, a commission then decided on an appropriate English version of the Treaty. An actual draft of the English version was re-discovered in 1989 in a deceased estate and is known as the Littlewood draft. Mr Littlewood nacestor was a solicitor that worked for the American consul in NZ in 1840, and wanted a copy of the Treaty for the USA government. This draft when lined up against the Maori version gives a line by line translation. The English version that was pushed into law in the 70s was not actually the authentic document, but a flowery piece of literature, in the most meticulous handwriting, with much superfluous language, to be read by a royal audeince back in England.

When does getting rid of a sense of grievance become as counter-productive as appeasement? The more radical the interpretation of the Treaty is, the more grievances will be felt. In this sense, they become potical/ ideological... which can in the end get very messy. Better for the govt to have a backbone - settle genuine grievances while sticking to the true principle of the Treaty [one people].

Will the Māori be paying reparations to the Moriori???

Does not the issue revolve around whether or not chieftainship/ rangaitiratanga equates to sovereignty? This can not simply be assumed. Arguably, sovereignty was a general abstract [shadowy] idea that Maori were not all all acquainted with. The Treaty was at pains to show chiefs that they were to have customary and property rights under the Crown, the security of life and property under British law. Previous to the 80s, this is what 'rangatiratanga' was thought to refer to - the Maori chief has the freedom and rights equivalent to British gentry... but in no way remained sovereign. The whole point of the Treaty was to have sovereignty ceded to the Brits in order for law and order to be established. Of course, many Maori did not sign the Treaty. Actual sovereignty was established when Hobson declared sovereignty over the whole of NZ in May 1940. It was then enforced with some chiefs, which bought the musket wars to and end.

If the Crown didn't want to govern Māori, then why did the the Crown end up governing Māori?

It's quite simple. Maori allowed the Brits to govern. The Brits in turn recognized customary ownership [or possession of the land]. The Brits then expected the Maori to sell much of the land, which to them was essentially wasteland [and worthless/ undeveloped] in order to build colonies... which Maori, at first, were only too keen to do. Basic economics were at play.

Sovereignty is guaranteed by the Treaty ,