A superb discussion. Am horrified at the ideological emphasis and sloppiness described in the establishment of a new curriculum. This emphasis on ideology will only make NZ isolated in the international sphere not to mention the damage done to a new generation of students. Thank you for this illuminating talk. I was especially interested in the early discussion of sovereignty and the evolution of ‘principles’ derived from the intentions of the Treaty.

@Cleisthenes2

Жыл бұрын

Thanks Moira

Why didn't he mention tribal wars which prompted the Maoris to ask for protection?

@saxdearing3395

Жыл бұрын

To inconvenient to explain in his opinionated narrative, as is the letter to the King.

@matakitaki1

11 ай бұрын

Ask for protection?

@markreynolds6220

10 ай бұрын

from one another @@matakitaki1

@stephenlennon7369

9 ай бұрын

This is what pakeha do when discussing Maori they come with their assumptions without context

@markreynolds6220

9 ай бұрын

this comment is totally guilty of exactly tht ....typical@@stephenlennon7369

awesome presentation , but it behooves me the arrogance of woke people who want to rearrange history to suit their narratives, Maori arrived in new zealand in the mid 13th century , Europeans started visiting here in the mid 16th century, right up to 1831 when the 13 chiefs penned a letter top king william , the maori where having inter tribal wars , the europeans here during that time estimated the maori population to be around 200,000 during the tribal wars it was reduced by have approximately, which started the treaty process bring us to the declaration of indepenence of new zealand in 1835, then to the treaty then in 1840 the signing of the treaty , giving maori what they asked for in the letter to the king, in which they asked for him to come and treat with them to sort law and order amongst the tribes, and the settlers that where coming here, the letter goes on , but you get the gest , If your going to report or make documentaries on history , you have to include the whole story , not just tidbits that suit your narrative, we cant and never should try to change history,

@markreynolds6220

10 ай бұрын

yes im not sure y this wasnt discussed in this interview ....as its a good reason y tribes gave away sovereignty

@stephenlennon7369

9 ай бұрын

​@@markreynolds6220rubbish Most of the Chiefs signed the Maori version only a handful signed the pakeha version. Maori never ceded sovereignty 😮

@markreynolds6220

9 ай бұрын

pretty sure seeding sovereignty was in the maori version too.....but now iwi are claiming tht word is actually sovereignty @@stephenlennon7369

@jasonshaw7590

9 ай бұрын

stephenlennon7369 Moari never had a written language, verbal only. Dialects were different between tribes. They were tough times. Moari need to accept these realities, stop playing victim. Shit happened.

@evanpenny348

6 ай бұрын

@stephenlennon7369 Maybe, but I suspect that the concept of sovereignty was unknown to Maori at that time. My suspicion is that rangatiratanga was the concept familiar to Maori. Hence the invention of the term kawangatanga (spelling?), something smacking of management rather than the taking of total sovereignty. This post facto view supports the idea that chiefs signed up to the British Crown governing the settlers, and leaving the chiefs to the continued and undisturbed rangatiratanga over their fiefdoms. But this is, in my guess, rather a simplistic view, given the near constant and highly incursive intertribal warfare and outright exterminations, the near total extermination of Ngati Hei for instance. I rather incline to the view that the chiefs wanted continued profitable contact with the outside World without and need to govern unruly whalers etc, and someone to put an end to the cannibalism and intertribal warfare. @@stephenlennon7369

The Treaty can't have been between two sovereign nations because Maori tribes were continually at war with each other and were not one harmonious community as evidenced by the fact that the treaty was signed by many different Maori chiefs and not by one national Maori leader .

@gregg7617

Жыл бұрын

Yet they came together , under the Council of Chief's , To enter into negotiations ! Remember for a decade or to in the beginning of this country , the crown relied on the Maori produce machine For its GDP as to the treaty agreement 🕊️ Yet that all changed with the land grabs , The crown stole the productive lands , by policies and deception !🤔 Before the treaty there was no such thing as IWI !🤨

@DW_Kiwi

Жыл бұрын

Read the documentation around the Treaty. Hobsons instructions for instance. The Crown "said" and acknowledged the Maori lived in a sovereign state!. Its "in" the text. Think about it. It has to be between two sovereign states or countries otherwise it isn't a Treaty!!

@stevenstuart1442

Жыл бұрын

and the south island was claimed 'by right of discovery'.....

@stephenlennon7369

9 ай бұрын

​@@stevenstuart1442BS ever heard of the Wairau affray? There were people already there so was populated.

@stevenstuart1442

9 ай бұрын

@@DW_Kiwi the definition of a Sovereign State....'a state with a defined territory that administers its own government and is not subject to or dependent on another power'......a TREATY can be signed only between Sovereign States, and Maori did NOT have a Sovereign State, the South and Stewart Island were declared Sovereign by right of discovery, the North island by Treaty.....

This is one of the best discussions I’ve heard in the NZ arena.

@Cleisthenes2

Жыл бұрын

Thanks Gerry

An interesting discussion. It touches upon the broader acknowledgement that the principles of decolonisation, critical race theory and gender ideology are now central to any narrative coming out of the academic discipline. The centrality of Enlightenment principles, empirical evidence and objectivity have been refuted by an adherence to Foucault's dictum that truth is power-based. Hence 'our truth', 'my truth' and 'post truth' are prevalent. A very subjective series of moral imperatives now underpins acceptable scholarship.

Really enjoyed your discussion guys. As a kiwi that's been away for 25yrs and wants to go home soon I'm dismayed by the woke 'rightthink' pervading NZ society. Universities have become ideologically driven and you'd think they'd have learnt from history by being more interested in imperical evidence based thinking. I guess their careers have become more important to them. We also live in an age of intellectual cowardice from the silent majority and I wonder how long it will continue. Please make it stop! Keep up the good work and thank you.

@Cleisthenes2

Жыл бұрын

Cheers Kent

@davidthomson692

Жыл бұрын

I’ve been here 26 years and we’re leaving Wouldn’t bother coming back anytime soon

@nowhereman6540

Жыл бұрын

@@sollyharr I've been away for only 2-years and I do miss the green, and the smell of the bush. I do however have significant misgivings and am looking at Far North Queensland

@williamearnshaw410

Жыл бұрын

Kent Stanley....returning to NZ is a bad mistake. Most expats I know, like myself, will never return....Ardern has always been a puppet of the WEF....she was trained to do the number on NZ....and nearly accomplished it by gifting control to Maori through co governance and assets....

I think what is being confused here is that Maori being allowed to carry on with their own laws within a Rununga system is identified with 'sovereignty'. Of course, a fledging state could not extend law and order everywhere all at once, and so this was a necessary and pragmatic measure. Even within the rununga system, which made use of the tribal elders and chiefs etc, there was still a hierachical system at work, where the new colonial state was sovereign. It's just that the practical extension of that sovereignty in the machinary of state involved a transitional period. To say this transitional period equated to Maori sovereignty is quite a stretch in my opinion, and likely the result of the contemporary interpretation of 'rangatiratanga'. Thus the 'theory' is getting in the way of the actual history here. A historian should be primarily historical not theoretical imo, where the theory more often than not just becomes a projection onto the past of our present values.

Assuming their were two sovereign states that participated in the Treaty, then the fact of the Maori Wars where the Māori tribes decided to go to war with the Crown and were ultimately subdued lends itself to the notion that the Treaty was voided by the fact of one party breaking the Treaty. In that case the Treaty has no place in the Governance of New Zealand. I find it interesting that the Māori Wars and their effect on the Governance of New Zealand are not in anyway investigated by anyone.

@markreynolds6220

10 ай бұрын

did the crown not go to war with the tribes?

@PapaBaush

5 ай бұрын

There is actually quite a lot of literature even documentaries on this matter. You might find that most of it differs to what you’re eluding to

Anyone who wants to learn more about the history and social significance of Maori cannibalism might be interested, besides Moon's superb "This Horrid Practice", in my book "Edible People: The Historical Consumption of Slaves and Foreigners and the Cannibalistic Trade in Human Flesh", recently published by Berghahn Books. In one chapter I explore the situation in New Zealand, where women and children captured in war campaigns were usually exploited as slaves. Evidence shows that many of them were killed and eaten as a purported punishment for even minor misbehaviors. Tracing the origins of this custom reveals that cannibalism was initially likely connected to warfare. The prestige associated with victories (which allowed feasting on human flesh) and the absence of larger edible animals helped to spread the practice beyond these origins. Much of the rest of the book is dedicated to the consumption of slaves in other parts of the world, particularly in the Congo Basin, where this practice was quite widespread until the late nineteenth century. Paul Moon, who was kind enough to read my book, says about it: "Christian Siefkes' work on cannibalism explores areas of the phenomenon that are still little understood, and makes an important and significant addition to the existing literature on the topic. His research is broad-ranging, and his perspectives are particularly insightful."

@halbellows8578

11 ай бұрын

Well done on your book. I have read some books by F E Maning who was one of the first settlers here and a great writer in my opinion and he talks a lot about the slavery and cannibalism. It was even part of their religion. I think it's best if we can all learn and accept that true history and we can move forward together being happy that we don't need to do that kinda thing again.

@markreynolds6220

10 ай бұрын

kzread.info/dash/bejne/YniLtNpsqryvlKQ.html@@halbellows8578

Absolutely fantastic discussion.one that needed to be done a long time ago.

@Cleisthenes2

Жыл бұрын

Thanks Gerald

Jacinda Ardern has isolated Kiwis in many ways.....one of the worst ones has been to ensure all comments sections on news items coming from New Zealand are censored and turned off.....

@Cleisthenes2

Жыл бұрын

Thanks William. I have noticed a trend in websites closing their comments (esp. for pieces on controversial topics), but that's probably something they've decided to do, isn't it, rather than something Ardern had control of?

@Cleisthenes2

Жыл бұрын

You might enjoy this old piece: www.spectator.com.au/2018/07/why-comments-should-be-free-again/

@drinkingup2157

Жыл бұрын

Didn't realise that she had control of the worlds media.

@halbellows8578

11 ай бұрын

@@drinkingup2157 Just NZs, she did pay them over $50M to conform.

I was one of a group that worked very closely with a ministry team whose task was to formulate a meaningful Chinese New Zealand history curriculum. All the others on the non-ministry side were Chinese New Zealanders with decades of expertise in the history of the Chinese in New Zealand. This took many months and we were very happy with the results. So, Mr. Moon is either misinformed or lying.

@StGammon77

Ай бұрын

Us Pakeha want a truthful account as well but we're not getting it!

Sad to see such blatant revisionism. The Treaty made Maori British subjects.

@Cleisthenes2

Жыл бұрын

That's what Article 3 seems to suggest. I can't speak to the recent research Paul refers to in the podcast, but presumably the view is that Article 2 ceded quite full powers to the chiefs with respects to their lands, villages, and treasures, and that the Kawanatanga established for the Crown in Article 1 stops somewhere short of what we would call full sovereignty.

@trevorhughes6254

Жыл бұрын

@@Cleisthenes2 There was no intention on the part of the British to depose the chiefs. Like the Romans the British realized the value of having local leaders onside and the Treaty was part of their effort to incorporate New Zealand into the Empire with the agreement of as many as possible. But the idea that the British motivation was limited to extending the rule of law only to the settler population is nuts and not borne out by the facts. Practices such as cannibalism and slavery were outlawed and inter-tribal warfare largely ceased. Maori who committed serious crimes like murder were tried and punished just as Europeans were. The British were also motivated by geopolitical considerations, not least competition in the South Pacific with the French. And Northern Maori were very apprehensive of the French returning to exact retribution for the murder of Marion du Fresne and many of his crew, and they were eager for British protection as well as the trading opportunities British rule and settlement offered. I enjoy your podcasts James, my main interest is Greek in which I graduated from VUW with an MA in 1975. Since retiring I have returned to this interest.

@Cleisthenes2

Жыл бұрын

@@trevorhughes6254 Thanks Trevor

@nowhereman6540

Жыл бұрын

@@Cleisthenes2 I think that Taonga was not 'treasures', rather, it meant 'land'

@naniok4271

Жыл бұрын

@@nowhereman6540 Everywhere in Māori literature and oral stories refer to taonga as something desired, literally treasure.

Brilliant discussion

@Cleisthenes2

Жыл бұрын

Thanks Paul

Interesting chat on academic freedom. 'Universities will now not tolerate certain views...'. Of course, the question has to be raised as to how far this affects Paul Moon's own take on the Treaty. I think their is huge pressure on academics in this field to tow the line. Perhaps, history will belong to the amateurs going forward^^

If British had no intentions of governing natives of nz why does the treaty even exist?

@DW_Kiwi

Жыл бұрын

It was the settlers that made the British Crown make their move. Lawlessness

@StGammon77

Ай бұрын

​@DW_Kiwi no, the 1st settlers were Missionaries and most others were Christian also, Maoris were lawless

A good discussion based on knowledge of history. You see in recent debates around parts of 3waters bill did not seem get to this level discussion.

@jasonshaw7590

9 ай бұрын

RobertDewstow Good point. And that's why land was confisgated.

'The Treaty is an agreement between sovereign states'. Can warring Maori tribes be considered a 'sovereign state'? In theory yes, given British diplomats recognized the earlier Confederation of Chiefs... in order to use that as the basis for the Waitangi Treaty. But in practice, no. A collection of warring tribes, without a potlitical history, can not be thought to actually be a sovereign state. This talk of a 'sovereign state' is just that, nominal, in *name only*. After the *nominal* treaty was signed, the British practically declared sovereignty over the whole of NZ a few months later. When you take a historical and common sense apporach, all the endless handwringing about the treaty is a red herring.

New Zealand was not two sovereign states dealing with each other. If you want to look at sovereign states then NZ was a collection of tiny sovereign states, each with their own chief and some form of leadership. The ideology that has developed later into making NZ a sovereign state, is as silly as claiming a partnership, existed, between queen victoria and Maori. Queen victoria never had a partnership with anyone except her husband. The treaty of Waitangi has become more than a historical anomaly?

Which version? Well, does the international legal principle of contra preferentum really apply? I know, I know, bloody lawyers.

Thanks, Great!

You have to discern between sovereignty and autonomy. Sovereignty is the last word, the ultimate say, the power to make and enforce paramount law. This is what was ceded to the Crown- the right to intervene between hapu, to overrule murder and cannibalism, and intervene between Maori and Pakeha. What Maori retained under this arch authority of Crown sovereingty was tribal autonomy- the right to manage their own affairs within their own territories in everyday matters. In Normanbys instructions this was clearly meant to be an interim arrangement, with coalescence of the Pakeha and Maori systems as the two assimilated. This initial duality is expressed in the governance structure of 1840-1845, with the Governor managing Pakeha affairs under British law, and Maori managing their own affairs according to tikanga, under the oversight and administration of the Protector of Aborigines, who was responsible to the Governor. Thus this initial duality came under the single sovereign oversight of the Governor representing the Crown. The complexities and conflicts of two law systems in parallel are evident in the first five years of Crown colony government, with settler law and tikanga in constant conflict, until Grey abolished the Protectorate in 1845-46 and insisted thereafter on the nominal supremacy of british law. So when the Waitangi Tribunal states that Maori did not cede sovereingty they are confusing autonomy with sovereignty. Maori autonomy was subject to Crown sovereingty right from the start; the Treaty is a document of subjection in return for protection and not a document of parity partnership. As to which text applies, Hobson himself declared that the Maori text as signed at the end of 6 February 1840 was in his view, "de facto, the Treaty" and all subsequent signatures after that date simply attestations of adherence thereto. Interestingly also only the Maori text has Hobson as "consul and Lt Gov". All of the English texts bear the assgnation of Lt Gov alone, indicating that they were issued after the redundancy of consulship- that is, after the Treaty was completed. Thus it can be argued that the English language texts are simply formal texts issued in legalese after 6 February to satisfy British interests, and do not in legal terms comprise any part of the signed agreement. There is only one legitimate text- the te reo text of 6/2/1840 For more see "Change and Context- another look at the Treaty of Waitangi" 2022 revision, available from Nationwide Books (NZ)

@davethewave7248

9 ай бұрын

Hi Roger, I wonder if what is going on here is a dumbing down of our history. I think you're quite right in the above, and yet it involves a kind of complexity that is not so amenable [or marketable] to the contemporary mind. I think the only way people can actually come to grips with the past is to read it for themselves... and yet not many have the leisure for that. Instead we want to 'outsource' our intelligence to the experts and the academics... and yet they are also no doubt under pressure to tow the official line - with collegial and politcal pressure, their jobs are on the line. I think it also doesn't help much with the huge and over-riding emphasis that has gone onto the Treaty since the 70s. I mean it's significant, but not definitive to our history. You're now seeing a split between those obsessed with the Treaty [the legalists] and the reationary that wants to reject it. History is a... 'narrow gate'.

@rogerevans7119

7 ай бұрын

looking forward to the coalition's Royal Commission, hopefully there will be a broader representation than just Waitangi Tribunal juridical definitions, and an objective and real look at the Treaty meaning in terms of what it originally meant, and how it stands now in moving forward. @@davethewave7248

@richardcaves3601

7 ай бұрын

I think you're applying 21st century sophisticated definitions to a basic 19yh century concept. 2+2 doesn't equal 5. You need to incorporate the translations from the AMS, and the differences.

@rogerevans7119

7 ай бұрын

AMS? @@richardcaves3601

@StGammon77

Ай бұрын

By the time the Treaty was signed, Maori and Pakeha were living together quite well under the banner of the Gospel around mission stations, the Maori flocked to their arms. If the teaching is always going to centre around Pakeha were in spots and Maori were in other spots separately then how do they explain the vacancy or unoccupation of 90% that was thereafter SOLD by Maori? They became rich and prosperous very quickly learning all they could from Europeans, most were Christians and came attached to another Tikanga, a Gospel culture where race wasn't so glamorize, it brought about a miraculous unity. With a Christian perspective on the Treaty we find a Baptism took place with individuals and with the old spiritual ways. Bringing that witchcraft back and admitting theft instead of sales or confiscations is why NZ suffers.

The crucial issue is whether the modern 'principle' of the *Treaty as a partnership* is true or not. Why can't the historian remain doubtful about this contemporary interpretation? Sure, there is a mountain of scholarship since the seventies to contend with... but the question should be whether that scholarship is *disinterested*. And arguably not. Shouldn't the historian remain distinterested toward history... and let is speak authentically, even if strangely, for itself?

A Treaty [supposedly between two states] is not a legal limitation on sovereignty as a state's self-written constitution would be. If it doesn't have legal force, it does have moral, political and historical force [i.e.; it should be homoured]. But of course it should be honoured by both parties. Arguably, the Maori King movement was a rejection of the Treaty, and arguably again, a radical re-interpretation of the Treaty today is actuallya dishonouring of its orginal meaning and intent. If so, honouring the treaty must mean to first look to understand it historically and in context.

As per cannabilism, read R.D. Crosby's 'The Musket Wars'.... based mostly on Maori/ tribal sources.

'The Queen guaranteed them the right to exercize their chieftainship, which amounts to a certain sovereignty as well'. The issue is getting fudged here. The first article deals with sovereignty. This passge quoted applies to the second article that deals with property rights and freedoms.... a clear logical distinct demarcation between the topics [the third article deals with our all being subjects... this again reinforces the Queen's sovereignty]. Is this really all so difficult? lol

Thank God these people are not in charge of New Zealand history!

The Treaty was not to protect Maori primarily from the wayward Europeans [as seems to have become the dominant narrative] but was primarily to protect the Maori from each-other... the previous two decades had seen certain tribes wiping out others, where those dominant tribes then become wary of the coming reprisals. Compared to the causalities of the pre-1840 musket wars, the NZ wars in the 1860s plae into insignificance. Any yet that history [and context] is being either lost or deliberately ignored.

@StGammon77

Ай бұрын

And bring in Real Estate laws

British colonial policy had reached the stage whereby claims of British sovereignty by the Crown could only be with the consent of the natives. The concept of sovereignty was clearly a literally foreign concept to the natives. A treaty may be between sovereign states but effectively the Crown was dealing with a disparate number of tribal leaders AS IF ie a legal fiction that the other party was a sovereign state. The chiefs insistence on recognition of their chiefly authority over lands and resources vis-a-vis OTHER chiefs. The Musket Wars had resulted in the slaughter of up to one third of the total native population 33:50 as traditional concepts of utu, muru, were augmented and exacerbated by the use of modern European weapons ie the musket. Some probably many if not most chiefs were seeking protection by the British Crown against competing chiefs. Treaties are not necessary between equal PARTIES - not partners - and does not automatically make signatories partners who share power in co-governMENT. Cannibalism was certainly not common until only 250 years ago. Cannibalism had for many centuries been regarded as the most evil form of barbarism - the direct antithesis of western civilisation.

We need to be upfront and candid about our past. Kant, Spinoza, and many others are European intellectuals. We have our own here. Not all attached to universities. I am a half a caste Welsh. I am partial to native peoples- anywhere, in fact.

I don't quite understand how the treaty could provide equal rights of citizenship to Maori (as was already bestowed on British citizens because they were citizens of Britain) living in what was to become an independent colony New Zealand. Prior 1840, law and regulations were administered by New South Wales prior to becoming constitutional representative monarchy. Also Maori were not Soverign as 543 individual Iwi existed and now 35.

Paul won't mention why the maoris wanted a treaty in the first place. For years they asked for intervention by the British to stop genecide. Read any book before the treaty it was completely clear why.

Agree with the last part- cancel culture is alive and well

Except not all the chiefs did decide to so easily give up their sovereignty [absolute mana/ authority]. First, it needed a great deal of persuasion on the part of Europeans to gain the agreement of those that did sign, and then others couldn't be persuaded... such as Te Heu Heu of Taupo. No way was he going to give his mana to a woman [Queen Victoria]. This makes quite clear that the chiefs understood what was involved, just as the Europeans did at the time.

What dialect of Māori was the version that the chief signed because there was seven different dialects at the time and I would presume that the Chiefs were illiterate could not read alright not only in English but in Māori as well

THE historian for this period. Whose work should be the basis of the school history curriculum not various Māori Studies departments and the Waitangi Tribunal.

Bi Culturalism versus multi culturalism???? The Treaty is locking us into an 1840 time warp! Sure we need to move forward hopefully together! With Multi Cultures!

I think there is a serious need to get some of these history academics to come out into the provinces to educate the general population. One can read a book. That's fine, but the professor in the community would be a great enlightening experience. With facts and not ideologies. The Government has done a very poor job on educating the average Kiwi in this area. Especially with Co-Governance and Three Waters being forced on us? Maybe we need to get groups established locally in provincial towns to bring the Professor to speak. History "is" important. Otherwise we are in for a rough ride when New Zealanders finally wake up

@StGammon77

Ай бұрын

There is no one view that is absolute tho, it is a relic that gave lawful Governance of NZ lasted 12 years until that was cemented. Maori can have absolutely no say in trying to change it or make it mean other things there's 5 million of us all under the one Rangitira and that's a fact, at the moment its Chris Luxton Paramount Chief.

Look into the origin of the name Remuera in Auckland...

Maori work excluded from voting until they were landowners, that was the prerequisite. Also before Maori could be eligible to vote. A voter needed to understand what voting was for and why in relation to citizenship and governing representatives. Hence voting is restricted to an adult deemed to be 18 and minors who are not seen be mature to have adequate capacity to exercise an informed privileged rite to vote ( also why would Maori want to vote if they were in control of their own sovereignty and people) it's just the same principle as Moon expouses tht a dual system applied with only British under the Monarch laws, for what benefit would a vote in the British system system apply to 500 plus Iwi maintaining their own jurisdictions. ( basically this a load of imaginative interpretation) also New Zealand is not a federal Democratic Republic is the United States was set up to be to be distinctly different to the Westminster system of constitutional monarchy (from which they broke away to form a corporate United States of Amercia with no Soverign overarching Monarch.

By the way, a great discussion , this discussion should be had by every class of school kids in NZ as opposed to an over simplified ideological driven propaganda. The reality is the Crown acquired governance through various and nefarious ways and the Westminster system though not perfect is perhaps the best system of governance . What are the alternatives and how would that work out for the people ? , kids should be encouraged to debate the realities and consequences- example - Israel or North Korea - are they preferred systems of govt?, how about US , often referred To as a “flawed democracy “ as its governance is controlled by lobbyists consequently it is not run I. The best interests of its people but in the interests of wealthy lobbyists - is that a better system?, I guess it’s if you are APAC, Or Lockheed Martin or big oil. There is no Perfect Form of governance , how about teaching this to our kids so that they can see what we have as opposed to what alternative systems Might Give rise to …. Where would a racially Based non democratic system as proposed by Co governance take us as a country ? , would the majority of people put up with that ?- our kids are not stupid, they can work it out but not if the curriculum is based on an ideology and they are fed highly selective information ( or Mis - information as this Labour govt wanted )

This guy must work for Ardern,I agree with one writer you just can’t take bits of history and try to rewrite it,sorry pal.

'If you don't have a Treaty, on what basis did Britain have authority...' On the basis of its declaration of sovereignty over the whole country in May 1840. In the light of the declaration, the Treaty is just nominal [actual sovereignty being established with the declaration]. We know this to be true because where the legalists were worried about the ability of Brit forces to subdue unsigned chiefs, in continuing musket wars, the actual statesmen ridiculed those worries having understood sovereignty to apply to all of NZ, signed and unsigned alike, and thereby allowing shows of force [that soon bought Te Arawa in Maketu into line for example]. This is not rocket science people.

Maori became British subjects on signing the Treaty and it meant they would be governed and they knew it . Paul Moon is a treatyist

@matakitaki1

11 ай бұрын

You wish! and ironcially in time you will be glad other Sovereign idealogies exist to clean up the failed one you want everyone to follow

@vincentcarmine8731

6 ай бұрын

The Westminster system is not perfect but it is the best in terms Of a functioning society , look at any country run on. Tribal basis and think about how that is working out for the general population- not very well I suggest, unless you are directly related to the tribal elite. You need to look at the options with an open mind. NZ governance originates from a number of sources which include war ( as Maori dealt with each other for hundreds of years), treaty, acquiescence, theft and conniving - exactly how great Brittan was formed but over 2000 plus years - Romans, Norman’s, Vikings , murder of kings murder Of people who would not comply , a slow development of the rule of law and universal Franchise ( democracy) - would you prefer a decent into civil war , how would that work out ?, you only need To Look back at history to find out . NZ has gone through 2000 yrs of political development in under 200 years. It’s not perfect but generally ( and provided we don’t vote in a totally incompetent government as per Jacinda and Hipkins) the govt will I. General try and improve things for all NZ’ers. Being bitter and twisted about history vs reality will take you nowhere , the great Maori chiefs worked this out, they were smart to chose to work With the UK Crown , an alternative might be Belgian Congo , Idi Amin’s Uganda, the genocide of the American indigenous people ( Maori are by their own history not indigenous to NZ , they are earlier settlors, Aboriginals are indigenous to Australia - Maori are Much better off compared to what happened and Happens to Aboriginals. Better to deal with reality and progress as opposed to wallow in the bitterness of what might have been - Maori living in a perfect Stone Age world only happened in the Avatar movie In reality they were I constant fear of been murdered and eaten by their own.

@StGammon77

Ай бұрын

​​@@matakitaki1the Treaty Chiefs already decided and the new Tikanga was Christianity with the mana of the Monarchy they restated it 1860 Kohimarama Conference records read and weep brother

@matakitaki1

Ай бұрын

@@StGammon77 In your dreams, in time you will wake up to your own nightmare

Maori chiefs were collectively Sovereign? how so?, remember tribes were still warring each other, had no Sovereign head of state.....Maori have also argued that they had no idea of the premise os of Sovereignty, and if they had they would not have signed the Te Tiriti.. if Britain thought NZ was a Sovereign state then how did William Hobson proclaim sovereignty over all of New Zealand: over the North Island on the basis of cession through the Treaty of Waitangi 'and over the southern islands by right of discovery'.........who's kidding who here

@matakitaki1

11 ай бұрын

Why did Hobson proclaim Sovereignty? Come on now its not that hard to figure out. Did you ever steal your cousins toy and when your mother asked where you got it from you said, he gave it to me!!!!!

Brilliant !⚔️🕊️😛

The evidence? What evidence? All evidence is tainted and can be interpreted in multiple ways depending on what your agenda is. This is history 101. For these people to assert that you can produce evidence that will end the argument is completely ridiculous. How is this man a professor of history?

Hes saying Maori signed on behalf of all Pakeha to be Governed without their input? Ridiculous

how about asking Maori about their history ...since they represent their ancestors and their stories

@DW_Kiwi

Жыл бұрын

Cant. Nothing written down and they make it up anyway

@halbellows8578

11 ай бұрын

Maori cant know any more truth about the past than anyone else at this time and want to deny too much so they can make the 'Europeans' the enemy, and like DW_kiwi said they wrote nothing down the Europeans are the ones that wrote stuff down. Word of mouth is not a reliable source.

@myrabateman1790

5 ай бұрын

@DW_Kiwi there are stories on the net of Māori and their ancestors. You're just to arrogant to even listen. You listen to yourself.

@StGammon77

Ай бұрын

No, the Treaty Chiefs represent themselves with their speeches documented in Kohimarama Conferences records if you haven't read those then you cannot judge or guess.

Yes cannibalism was rife via a feudal period sparked by the many ships visting NZ. These people were pre christian.

The treaty is obviously about rights to buy property. That’s what it is about. How does he overlook such a basic fact? It’s about giving individual Maori the right of other British subjects to own and sell land. Maori didn’t have the right to own land. Iwi elite owned land and most people were slaves or common people. The treaty freed everyday Maori from the tyranny of their Iwi. All Maori men got the vote subsequently. See? It’s about property. Obviously Simone that owns land is the chief of the resources and treasure on that land. It doesn’t mean the owner of done land is a seperate state. If so the crown wound have no authority.

This should be on tv but it won't be because feelings

@Cleisthenes2

Жыл бұрын

and because wee've gotten into the maybe bad habit of just doing audio on these...but thanks for the compliment!

@StGammon77

Ай бұрын

There should never be one man's voice on a matter, let everyone be self determined with their own perspective by seeking the Counsel of MANY that is fact and God's Word. I don't have to apply anyone else version of life!

Read Crozets journals! He recorded first hand how maori killed and ate Marion du Fresne and 29 crew! Hence the fear of the "tribe of marion" and the invitation of the Queens protection. The massacre of the Boyd, and the Harriet. Maori ate all the moa within 100 yrs of arrival . Found protein in their neighbours then white man - long pork!!!

When Māori activists and their naive liberal ‘white’ allies assume that ‘colonisation’s and is automatically bad in its impacts, I ask them, “Which colonisation?” This flummoxes them. So I elaborate, “The first colonisation by eastern Polynesian migrants, or the second colonisation by Europeans?”. This floors them. As for my credentials; I am a history postgraduate specialising in New Zealand history, and have been learning and speaking Māori since 1971 - including being one of only two Europeans in the Te Reo Māori Society at Victoria University of Wellington in 1973 ehich had been formed a couple of years before. I also speak the local regional dialect having been (again one of only two European students) in the first Maori language - and therefore in the local regional dialect - at the regional polytechnic ie tertiary level in 1992. Although unsuccessful in applying for the first Māori artefacts staff member at the local regional museum, the letter from the governance body included the comment that the highly respected elder had stated that my Māori language was “closer to his than other candidates.” (It was a bilingual interview.)

Based upon the absolute moral categories of the Bible, but not in practice. A treaty between two boat peoples'. They ignored those that watched them arrive. These people occupied the Central Plateau. They go from the mountains on Okahukura to the sea 360 degrees. Boat peoples' came from the sea to our mountains. Their treaty was destined to divide.

@StGammon77

Ай бұрын

Sorry but the Treaty is what we make it, depends on the perspective. When you see a ship sailing into the horizon and disappearing you could conclude 2 things, either the ship is sailing over a curve or has simply gone too far from your view. Who gets to decide which is true and what if their view was wrong and laws/teachings were developed from it? To me truth is important.

Gifting Maori co governance of New Zealand is a very bad mistake......

@matakitaki1

11 ай бұрын

Selling out to Foreign Corporates is another

@williamearnshaw410

11 ай бұрын

@@matakitaki1 hope someone like Winston Peters gets in and ends all this Maori nonsense once and for all...

@matakitaki1

11 ай бұрын

@@williamearnshaw410 So you live on hope? you ask for so much and hope someone else does it for you!

@williamearnshaw410

11 ай бұрын

@@matakitaki1 🤣in the meantime...enjoying my life bullshit free ovetseas....just watching NZ go down the toilet pipe....

He whakaputanga 1835

@StGammon77

Ай бұрын

Now there's another mis understood document, flag and story. Maori have taken it upon themselves to be the ultimate definers of our past, what this and that means and where they fit. Unfortunately more and more NZs are being led down a dark path to backwardsland simply because they didn't get their facts right. I blame the education system for the errors and breakdown of race relations, NZ has lost not Maori, we have been charged and fined through taxes for twisted versions of the past the oppressor and oppressed has switched places.

I don't care about the Treaty because all citizens of New Zealand are to have equal rights. Once the taxpayer has paid for the current land claims, this separatism needs to stop.

@RobertDewstow

Жыл бұрын

Agree with you but if the Treaty doesn't exist then the land claims are invalid and shouldn't be paid for by the NZ taxpayer. This has always been about money and power and I'm fascinated that it was a Labour Government which started it; the same as here in Australia. I left NZ back in the 90's when the Lange Government began to hand out cash like it was confetti. Ironically the major recipients in the Waikato and Northland found interesting ways to spend that money and the government has continued to hand it out.

@matakitaki1

11 ай бұрын

So Maori tax payers shouldn't pay for the land taken? I laugh everytime I read statements like these that clearly show this certain mindset has Delusions of Grandure. Is Capatilsm better? Is Democracy really Democracy, Is the West the complete answer to all the questions. Don't limit yourself to one school of thought, heck become bilingual, you may surprise yourself.

After listening to these two gentlemen discuss specific topics about Aotearoa ( The Treaty of Waitangi, Cannabilism, National Curriculum in schools on History ) I notice they conveniently steer clear of certain aspects of the topics discussed that are reasons behind why these topics are still front and Center and very relevant today and still haven’t been settled in a universally agreed process. Clearly academics also avoid controversial subjects like racism, and decades if not centuries of institutional biased and bigoted philosophies to explain why now communities are demanding a change to how we view the world. No they no just want to critique how currently these topics appear to be evolving and how this is going to lead to something uncertain. But we just want to deal with the evidence. Disrespectful to the people and the past.

@StGammon77

Ай бұрын

Every article has unclear out of context pieces, it depends on the personal perspective that's the confusion there's no one ultimate definition of anything not even the Bible. Most people don't read or study history

Lore/Law of the land Section 2 Te Ture Whenua Law of the. Land

@user-pg3ll3sb5b

Ай бұрын

Prepare for TRIBAL RULE

@StGammon77

Ай бұрын

​@@user-pg3ll3sb5bwe already won😅

Absolute nonsense. Just read the treaty. There is no mention of partnership. It is absolutely clear that Maori became British citizens in exchange for agreeing to only sell their land to the crown.

Until historians become philosophers.... and vice-versa. : (

Amazing how these white academics . Suddenly know everything about everything . Telling us of our history.

@StGammon77

Ай бұрын

The Treaty is what you make it, that's why it can't be law

Yreaty is and never was relevant. There are several conflicting versions and they were, i believe, called a nullity till lord cook called it the founding document. The treaty is between some maori and the crown. The crown has shown it does not represent non maori, we who have had no represent! The so called treaty is a sham and not fit to purpose. Dump it!

@brendonmadden-smith

Ай бұрын

The consequence of "dumping it" is even greater clarity around sovereignty. There would be little basis for arguing Maori ceded sovereignty to the Queen of Britain

Woke: He's white so he is a racist and should not be allowed to write about Maori ...

@nigelhay9634

Жыл бұрын

Its easy to listen to this and not understand what he is saying and then put forward an emotional biased view. My great great grandmother was full Maori from Taranaki. So i can talk and write about Maori. Yes there was cannibalism in Taranaki ..the evidence Moon talks about....What he is saying is that we should be objective with History and find out the facts through evidence.... I personally dont want to be Maori because Maori are stuck in a feudal system..... we should stop blaming Colonialism and start taking more responsibility for where we are as people ... being better parents would be a good start.... Nz continually dwells on the past and its holding the whole country back...regardless of the treaty its about time we moved forward as one people with a view to the future

@rogerevans7119

Жыл бұрын

pulling the race card is not rational discussion . Dont forget that the Maori text of both the Declaration of Independence and the treaty of Waitangi were written by a Pakeha, Henry Williams, if a white man wrote the te reo original of both then surely a white man should be able to write about them.

@matakitaki1

11 ай бұрын

@@nigelhay9634 And what future would that be? Why do we always look at Maori as if to be stuck in the past? Are Maori not allowed to evolve? Did Feudalism not exist in Europe? and what of that with Canabilsm? Clearly Maori Intelligent enough to Treat with, but then just a bunch of savages when they resist land grabs.

@StGammon77

Ай бұрын

What a joke, it's already been written, we are meticulously like that

The woke version of the treaty put forward by these so called "educated" professors. Complete tripe!!!!

what rubbish, no critical analysis from indigenous view only western bios. waste of space.

@StGammon77

Ай бұрын

View? It's not open to interpretation it did the purpose of united under one Rangitira who right now is Chris Luxon not King Tutu

Is there two interviewers?

Maori became British subjects after the signing of the treaty. End of story.

@matakitaki1

11 ай бұрын

Then the British ruled and sold to the Corporates leaving subjects with nothing. End of story Colonisers have a culture too!

Tainui supreme Aaaah, Aaaah, pauaism. Only Nga Puhi possess the mana of the tribes including Tainui only Nga Puhi! They all know that Nga Puhi possess the mana of the tribes. That is thee finality of tribal MANA possession therefore the total control of the North island. Hongi Hika offered the south island too King George. But not the fertile Wairau. Only Nga Puhi possess the mana of the tribes including Tainui only Nga Puhi of the entire ....Aotearoa. NGA PUHI! HONGI HIKA!!! THE KEHA ' LAW ' WITHERS AWAY BEFORE MILITARY ACTION TAKEN BY NGA PUHI, TOO THIS DAY AND AGE ....MUSKETS . MILITARY TECH MIGHT HAVE BEEN GAINED BY OTHERS. THEREFORE......MASSACCRE AND CANNIBAL FEASTS IN THE SOUTH EAST COAST RATHER THAN WHANGAUMU.

@Cleisthenes2

Жыл бұрын

Sorry mate not sure what you're saying there - can you try to put it a bit more clearly?

@vincentcarmine8731

6 ай бұрын

And what about Te Rauparaha ? He conquered the top half of the South Island and the lower third of the North Island pre treaty , definitely not Ngapuhi and not Waikato tribes. The musket wars were just a continuation of inter tribal conflicts that had been going on for hundreds of years deeds of years with traditional weapons , there was a season for fighting - Men had To plant Kūmara and harvest it it was women that tended it , the period between planting and harvest was the season for war mostly based on Utu , muskets put that warfare On steroids, as did the Potato which wasn’t subject To the rules Apples To Kūmara , Maori “largely” wanted an end To these wars and this was in part and by some the reason why Many Maori were for the treaty - To get the protection of the. British crown, the alternative was untenable , the last Recorded case of cannibalism was in the 1860’s , remember one of Te Kooti’s war leaders eat Rev Volkners eyes and drank his blood out of the Rev’s chalice in order to take his mana Te Kooti and followers killed aprox 35 white settlors and 150 Maori ( both Ngahati Poru and Arawa) when ate Kooti and his followers arrived From the Chatham’s after escaping their exile there

@user-pg3ll3sb5b

2 ай бұрын

Is there a Constitution NZ GOVT???

@StGammon77

Ай бұрын

No, the Chiefs declared the new Tikanga was Christianity with the Mana of the Monarchy, if you can read, their speeches are documented in the Kohimarama Conference records

@user-pg3ll3sb5b

Ай бұрын

@@StGammon77 Hongi Hika is my Tupuna,along with many. He Never converted to no Christianity. CHRISTIANITY is a religion fit for slaves. Take that tainted, hijacked kaupapa back to were it came from.