An excellent summary of what has become an unchallenged view of recent times. Thank you Paul

Excellent. British colonisation was multi-faceted, it revealed itself in many ways and played out at different times and in different ways. It was not a monolithic or linear process.

Thanks for the history lesson Dr Moon. Good to know that the Discovery Doctrine was not used in New Zealand. Learned about James Cook’s secret instructions to recognise that indigenous people had a right of discovery.

@StGammon77

Ай бұрын

There is no indigenous people of NZ that anyone knows of

Why is everyone refusing to acknowledge the Littlewood Treaty version that was rediscovered in recent times?

@stevecooper9896

2 ай бұрын

Yes the Treaty's mother document, the true meaning of te Tiriti in english. Hi iwi tahi tatou.

@StGammon77

Ай бұрын

Because we don't have a funded network, a Tribunal, free Lawyers

@adriandocherty778

5 күн бұрын

The name little wood treaty that was written and found by liars 140 years later?? 😂🤣 Nice try though!!

Rather more is being made of the trearty, unjustifiably than ever was intended.

Ko wai ka noho ki te waenganui :) Another good kōrero!

There’s no partnership, zilch

I've been raising this for the last 3 years here online.

Channels that hide comments are not worth wasting time on.

Brilliant Paul, there seems to be no evidence that these very critical points have been included in syllabus which is now taught to our secondary school students. Therefore the history of NewZealand now taught in our schools is misleading.

@StGammon77

Ай бұрын

Total fake news that throws bad light on Colonials and a shining light on Maori, inverted, back to front bs

Thanks for proving my point.

Written in the doctrine are the papal bulls, which were the three ways to claim sovereignty the first was by discoery,the second was conquest and the last was by a pact or treaty effectively the consent of the people

In school, i was taught that Cook discovered New zealand. i was shown how the treaty was signed ,but what i didn't learn was the attack on Gate Pa or the Battle of rua peka peka yet i still managed to learn all of our history and not just the sanitised pakeha version ,,,,now I'm 68 and learning about papal bulls ,terra nullius ,and inter caetera,and the dispicable doctrine I'm so glad i tuned in

22:20. Hobson's declaration of sovereignty over the whole of NZ was a political necessity. Many chiefs *hadn't* signed in the North Island, and so where the cession by the chiefs of sovereignty to the Crown was only *nominal* in the signing of the Treaty, actual sovereignty was gained in the proclamation, which of course had to be extended to the South. If you say Hobson's declaration over the North was based on the Treaty, then you have the poblem of still warring tribes in 1943 - NNgai Terangi and Te Arawa in the Maketu area. Shortland, the legalist, was worried that certain chiefs were not subject to British power because not signed to the Treaty. Both Hobson and home office scoffed at this... due to the declaration. And so were able to enforce British rule and quell the violence.

While this focuses on the British attitudes and intentions, it goes nowhere near explaining the mess Colenso and others made trying to translate those legalisms into Maori. Anyone who has read Professor Orange's book knows this. The heart of the disputes about the Treaty is the difference between the "R" word and the "K" word. Maori know the difference, and so do educated Pakeha. Politicians and white supremacy bigots play with them for their own ends. Most serious scholars accept the Maori were merely allowing Pakeha the right to make laws and govern themselves - not Maori. In return for giving them that right, Maori got protection from the British crown against other European incursions. Say what you like, but the fact is, sovereignty was never conceded.

@Dark-Star63A

5 ай бұрын

Well said Richard... Well said mate.

@Rockhardretardd

5 ай бұрын

Sovereignty was sought and settled .

@richardcaves3601

5 ай бұрын

@@Rockhardretardd sovereignty over whom? Not Maori! All they did was give the British the okay to make laws and police the badly behaved Pakeha already here. In return Maori got perpetual ownership of their lands and treasures, and British citizenship.

@dobbynp

5 ай бұрын

that's the woke version. And white supremacy? Maori gangs are the bigger threat.

@chrismorris8847

2 ай бұрын

Sovereignty was ultimately decided by the land wars.

The quote by Mutu is from a fanatic. One does not argue with fanatics.^^

Where are the other 2 comments?

Maori will never talk about decoupling from other peoples Wallets.

@fu8713

Ай бұрын

Don’t need anything from your broke asss lol

@elliotlee2288

Ай бұрын

Did you watch the video

@puawaiherewini5993

Ай бұрын

Ah hello, it’s the opposite. Perpetual land leases of maori land for example.

Interesting interpretation. Perhaps more from the theoretical/ academic perspective? I see Fitzroy as the disaster, not p[ractical enough, too humanitarian and not responding appropriately to Wairua. Grey on the other hand, for all his imperfections, was a nation/ state builder.

A concise review. Maori hold fast to the Treaty of Waitangi for good reasons, which some find inconvenient. Some appear keen to argue for imperial conquest or antique notions based on discovery, which to my mind leaves a vacuum even were they soundly based. The Empress who disavowed the colony is long dead as is her empire. We can get along just fine by honouring the Treaty.

@philodonoghue3062

Жыл бұрын

All parties (not ‘partners’) to the treaty should honour the treaty’s articles (not ‘principles’).

@54Rocketeer

Жыл бұрын

What version LOL, the farcical partnership one?

@stephenlennon7369

9 ай бұрын

@@philodonoghue3062 The principals suite Pakeha not Maori read the text carefully especially the Maori version would of favoured maori undoubtedly

It is not an either/ or. First, signatures are put to the Treaty to show that Maori are willing to be ruled. Added to this, is the proclamation of sovereignty over the whole country. To say the first is of the only significance [when the second is of more practical importance for statecraft] is to take the *legalistic* approach. Nominal and real sovereignty is achieved by the Treaty and then the declaration.

The treaty was for many reasons sovereignty was a minor reason for both sides mostly it was for protection of all people Maori and Pakeha each from both. Pakeha from exploitation of other Pakeha and Maori and certainly we have family stories handed down of both types in my family. Also Maori from Maori eg invasion from other tribes (eg Musket wars) but also exploitative Pakaha (eg NZ Company)

O'Sullivan's quote is correct if you consider the Treaty nominal sovereignty, and the declaration real sovereignty.

@StGammon77

Ай бұрын

A non Christian could never understand the Declaration of Independence and its flag, it cannot be explained without a Christian perspective considering the Chiefs became Christians and declared the new Tikanga was Christianity

@davethewave7248

Ай бұрын

@@StGammon77 Governor Gibbs thought the whole thing, the brainchild of Busby, ridiculous. The diplomats back in the home office chose to recognize the nominal sovereignty it represented. It thereby became the preliminary by which the chiefs were said to cede sovereignty to the Crown. have to think it all a bit like school boys playing at politics though... all this nitpicking about nominal sovereignty etc. Soon was cleared up with the declaration of British sovereignty over all the islands a few months later.

The Treaty subject cannot be settled when the original final draft that was translated to Maori has been hidden away while an illegitimate sample draft and back translation is being used. Tragic, a waste of efforts debating fake scripts

Dolo malo pactum se non servibit

if it wasnt for European arrival maori still be eating each other.

@ray-rm4zz

2 ай бұрын

your name says alot

@stuartdouce

2 ай бұрын

@@ray-rm4zz lol scared of the facts are you! hide the history you dont like. typical racist.