The Faculty of Arts is the home of the humanities, social sciences, languages, and indigenous studies at the University of Auckland. We are New Zealand's leading arts faculty, ranked in the world's top 40 for humanities and social sciences (2014/15 QS World University Rankings). We are dedicated to excellence in teaching and research across a diverse range of areas.
Пікірлер
This is 6 years plus old.
So who sold us out...? Why is blackrock have affiliates & base here in NZ. What about the money that miraculously took credit in Taupo mountains. Why are we dictated by politicians who sold us out. Jacinda not been brought to justice. Strewth. Media who's dictated what next.
The treaty of Waitangi act is as corrupt as kahwerus changes to the meanings, sovereignty, possession and property , it has to go.
Maori prejudice themselves by default answering to documents drawn up the British
That was awesome ❤
What of the first Tiriti
The losers must conceed to the conquer, look at it this way world history does not treat native peoples kindly is an understatement
So annoying the sound of pakeha mispronouncing Te reo
Recon, more insulting even after all these years....yet laziness still prevalent.
Please say something that will impact the kaupapa
Cool!
The very first people of the world all spoke the same language until the Holy Spirit took charge and sent the WORD.
Omg wtf
The battle to be fought [against the forces of radicalism] is in the 'major' argument of Ross - refute that the two texts are radically different. They need to be brought back together while also emphasizing the role that meaning, discussion, explanation and oral delivery of the 'text' had.
What's the dramatic change? Once Ross says its ambiguous and chaotic, and means what people want it to mean, she opens the door. It's just a matter of course for radicals to focus on the maori version, and interpret it on their on wishful meaning... of not having ceded sovereignty.
Ross focused too much on the literal comparisons of the texts. What was more important was the oral communication of the treaty to Maori, its explanation of the meaning to maori, the debates and discussions by Maori, and then the recording of all those activites by the eye witnesses at the time. Plenty of sources. It's the meaning, the content, that is crucial not the form/ text. 'It could not be regarded as a moral compact' Ross says... but it was and that is all that matters for history. Ross was projecting her own presuppositions/ obsessions back onto the past. The beginning of 'the treason of the clerks'. Previously, NZ had honoured the treaty as something vague and belonging in the past, as something to be honoured insofar as Maori had gained their legal rights [if not political]. After Ross, the treaty was dragged out into the cold glare of rationalist and sceptical eyes, and became the focus of our politics.... where indeed everyone now reads want they want into the treaty ala Ross. Where we're now so treaty-centric, this has the potential to rip this country apart. The treaty belonged to the past, and should have stayed in the past, with some historical value, for history showed that it was soon superseded. Before the ink on the treaty had even dried, Hobson declared sovereignty over the whole country... and not on the basis of some signatures, but on the backing of the full might of the British Empire. That in turn was superseded by our sovereign Parliament.
Arguably, true history can only be private - where individual comprehension sees the limitations, the proportions, and the colourings, and gets a fair idea, always based on uncertainty, of what happened, and how people actually thought about what happened. In this sense, history is literary. Academic/ cloistered history devolves into discourse that students subscribe to or not. Public history is popular history, the academic variety simplified for a mass political movement if it can wake the people out of their economic slumber.... which is what we're seeing now in NZ.
Wow, no comments on this. Attwood is crucial for an understanding of 'historicizing' the treaty. Shame about the poor audio.
'They [the Maori] didn't know how much interests they owned in the land, and they didn't know where there interests were' [when the Crown agents were buying land in central NI]. Anyone see how absurd this all is? What kind of ownership is it where the owner is ignorant of what they own. Looks like the agents were only looking to extinguish later claims that *could* at a later date be made by Maori in the area. The country was undeveloped, the state/ govt had not much money, the land was waste land... need I go on. This speaker is projecting current values onto the past.
Maori land was sold largely at a nominal price. This land was then on-sold to settlers. The revenue raised enabled the building of the state and the infrastructure, which was meant to better the life of all. Historical imagination is required here... not a 'correct' reading of the past [on present terms].
The whole point of the Treaty was for Maori to wilfully sell surplus lands in order to settle immigrants. The intention of the Crown was for Maori to enjoy the privileges of civil society while that society grew around them.
Underhanded corrupt annexation of Maoriland
Pakeha are the major owners of Maori coastal land originally annexed by government institutions
@@rihipaeahughes9831 Most land was bought by the Crown or settlers.
'In many cases land purchases weren't robust and fair'. OK, so the better educated among the Europeans advocated some kind of protectionsim. Many Maori themselves resented such... they wanted complete equality before the law. Once many chiefs got their name on the title, they were only too keen to sell the and [often surplus undeveloped wasteland to them] for short term gains.
Where do you get your info from? I want sources so that I can read and be educated because every comment section you appear in you say things that no historian is saying. You’re either dead wrong, making up your own version of history, or know something these historians don’t.
@@Thewandereringanzac You need to take into account the notion of a 'paradigm shift' [read Thomas Kuhn on this]. A paradigm is a set of concepts by which most make the mass of information that surrounds us intelligible. All those 'historians' your refer to are most likely subscribers to the new paradigm [remember, there has been an intellectual revolution of late]. Given this, you need to read with an open mind the original source material. Go back to the letters, diaries, journals, testimonies... and the further back the better. There you get your history straight from the horses mouth - warts and all~~
@@Thewandereringanzac R. D . Crosby, Colenso, Cowan, Polack, Reeves, Grey, Gorst, Sinclair, King, Ward, Buick to name just a few~
@@davethewave7248 cool thanks for that ✌️
Landless in a multiply owned land system created by a pakeha lead governance, natives don't stand a chance after that Treaty signing fiasco that was drawn up on the ship that carried it here
Can i do ba in criminology as a arts student
Just another labour racist separatist incursion into the New Zealand justice system. You get more common sense coming out of Moscow FFS.
At 52:12 "Sovereignty is about the ability to exercise power" Rubbish. Sovereignty was the ability to legitimately exercise Common Law. to control the Lawlessness of New Zealand. Thereby offering protection to both parties.
True that but became a corporate investment for past n present politricksters under democrappy
Yeah I agree😁
No! It not the Magna Carta. It a "Treaty" a signed agreement between the Crown and the confederation of Tribes of New Zealand. As the Treaty states in Maori and English in the Three Articles. The Maori confederation ceded, gave up their sovereignty to the Crown...forever. These are Articles - Statements. The Treaty, therefore cannot be considered a Relationship in any form. By definition!! There is also Archeological proof. Carbon dated relics found under the volcanic cones in Auckland. Proving that Maori were not the first to these shores. They are therefore not indigenous.
Rubbish the aboriginal native tittle has not been exstinguised your been vetod bitch you wait bull shit
kzread.info/dash/bejne/mamuscmHoL3UYc4.html
I admire her attitude. The acknowledgement of interdependence with research participants and students is amazing!
The name Maori was created by General Assembly of New Zealand in the Maori Real Estate Management Act 1867. In this act the word "Maori" shall mean aboriginal native of New Zealand and shall include haft-caste. Under Allodial title to Te Ika-a-Maui or Aotearoa is through whakapapa, occupation and discovery. Aboriginal natives did not discover New Zealand. Te Ika-a-Maui was discovered Firstly by Maui and his brothers and named all the parts of the islands. Secondly Kupe arrived and called it Aotearoa. On the 14th Jan 1839 Hobson while in Australia prepared the documentation for the Treaty of Waitangi and on this date annexed New Zealand by discovery by Abel Tasman through Australia before our ariki and rangatira signed the Treaty of Waitangi on Thurs 6th Feb 1840 and lost their rangatiratanga (sovereignty not governance) to be a mea signatory to a document that they had no involvement in and became a mea trustee and shareholder of their Allodial land title under the crown agents MLC run by colonial governance Pakeha Magna Carta not Maori Magna Carta.
All I got from this was your statement "on Thurs 6th Feb 1840 and lost their rangatiratanga (sovereignty not governance)" The Maori lost their sovereignty. So agree!!
I believe we should ALL rule ourselves, part of rangatiratanga? It's part of direct democracy. What the world has now is representative democracy, is not only open to abuse but encourages it. Our government has reached a stage where it's a club, and we can only vote for the people we dislike least. Anybody we like has no chance of getting near government, and they are too wise to try.
Congratulations to the bloke who recorded this incomprehensible monologue
Wrong pakeha! 540 chiefs who signed the Maori version of the treaty did not cede sovereignty!
38:00
stupid Maoris settling withthe rip off Pākehā shame on u . Te Atiawa 🖕
Govt created institutions like lands and survey, gave small shareholders a way to sell their shares without consulting other landowners imagine what happened next, lands and survey leased the land and dissolved the major shareholders
Ĥongi hika was a missionary who wiped out many tangata in the outer BOIslands down to ngatiwhatua, he was indoctrined into British warmongering against his own people, I patu haere koe
Always so exciting to listen to you. Your classes lit up my landscape. I miss you. Where are you Stephen? I've lost contact. ET call home!
This is undescribable about the taking off land from the Maori. The Maori concept is you cannot not sell your mother the land ,but to share mother Earth with other ethnic people under Tikanga and customary rights. What the Colonialist did they approached minors and separated the land from the Maori ,this is absolutely wrong. Now Maori are standing on the outside of their land, separated from creating a wealth to their well-being. A remedy is in need and has not been rectified yet. Statutory cloaking does not give the Government the excuse that they may think that is satisfactory to themselves. Maori land court deliberately invented to benefit Colonialists and used as a deliberate tool to attempt to take land of Maori , A lot of land has never bought, The Maori were not selling land it was the vision of the Colonialist, not Maori.
The "Treaty " says based your comments that you are racist
Truth n nothing but the truth will set NZ free, , , n remove the profiteers
@@DW_Kiwiwho f arkin caree 😂😂😂
Any sell it? Maori didn’t have money. They would massacre the whole iwi and take the land though.
@@kingfillins4117 aiiing stop the cap
Under article 3, Maori are entitled to all the rights and freedoms of British subjects. The Magna Carta is a subset of rights within article 3, where the rulers and the ruled were subject to the same law. This precept, that everyone is subject to the same rules of law is a fundamental notion of democracy. This raises a number of questions regarding the failure of the Treaty, where a tyrannical Crown enacted draconian legislation, and systematically undermined Maori rights. Starting with treaty principles of good faith, fair dealing and proper process. Why can't these principles be expanded to include the Magna Carta, to give the TOW some teeth. What about BORA, where the TOW Act must be interpreted in a manner that is consistent with the rights and freedoms in BORA. BORA is a subset of rights within article 3, and article 3 under the TOW Act must be interpreted in a manner that is consistent with the rights in BORA. That seems reasonable, because the whole concept of the rule of law is present in both documents. Power must be exercise on a principle of law: rather than on a whim.
Rule of law is in the Magna Cater chapter 29, included in section 3 of the ILAA 1988.
You will find that the word "Maori" did not pertain to any specific ethnic group or groups with an honest interpretation of Ti Tiriti. Tangata Maori is translated as ordinary people or natural people. The meaning and the principle that was being conveyed was "natural persons" a long standing legal definition of a breathing living or "alive" human being. Therefore the meaning was that all new Zealanders were to have equal rights and privileges as a citizen of England. It was the bedrock for the constitution of governance, an exact replication but only unique in that it is an entirely different country. The only country in the world where this happened, the condescending racists want to make out like the tribesman didn't know what was going on. They knew, in fact they had discussed it in great detail and I am sure that such a profound and unique occurrence would of had much input from them.
@@operationgoodoil8131 Maori and Pakeha are in the preamble, and the use of the term is consistent with the goal of establishing a government. Agree with the rest of your oplnlon., and include some Northern Iwi now claim their tupuna didn't cede sovereignty as well. Can't call them racist; delusional perhaps, but not racist.
I wish I saw this at the time this was done. My questions would have been, why did the Government remove Suveran from the dictionary?. Sovereign is who Governs the country, Suveran are the citizens, and why do the Governments misinform people by hiding the truth on where the laws actually come from?, which are from the law of the lands, the natural laws, the Bible. The government has twisted it to suit them greedy selves.
How are you there l am Rve Clarance barasa OF Jesus Christ church l am regulating you my brother to support my church may God bless you kenya amen .
Not Pakeha I am a maori of full blood I can trace my whakapapa back to the 7 tribes, Son of Joseph Eiphraim Try and dispute if you can I feel you know nothing about anything suck it up and get a life ???
The Israelite tribes were white, you know, the ones who were enslaved for 400 yars by the black Pharoahs, prove it wrong suck it up you had 800 yrs to build an empire and you were still in survival mode when Europeans came to settle.
Buhahaha 😂
And the cow flew ova the moon 😂🎉
How did you come by the name Tony Morgan?
Stop it... you're discredited you're whakapapa. With European names. No full blooded MAORI is in existence.
Why are we listening to these muppets they have one thing in mind take there agenda of suppress the Maori
That treaty is not worth the paper it is written on It shows how the pakeha came and ripped us off of our land rights and tried with our culture open the gate and let the sheep out
hello sir i need ur help related to my research
After waiting for 7 hours of refreshing, closing and reopening and just sitting here waiting for this to load, I have decided that taking the test without the knowledge of this 3 minute video is an acceptable risk.
I have been waiting for this video to load for about 3 and a half hours.
Could the Dlugach Gang please stand up
Tena koutou katoa......☠️
The only remedy is to kick the crown out of the drivers seat, they will never ever give up the sovereignty they stole from Maori. Go back to the signing ( which is legitimate ) to King William IV, the original partnership 1834. The words ' Maori, Iwi, waitangi tribunal ' etc .... belong to the crown, i.e the crown own maori ( invented by pakeha 1945 ) and Iwi also owned by the crown. The pakeha have been underhanded and will always work for their own interests under this system while maori go round and round in circles under them.
makes sense for Brand Aotearoa ?? their little playground in the Pacific.
So wrong. Stole!!! You do not know or have been taught wrongly about actual history.
Your ancestors "signed" it away!!
No they didnt. Your ancestors cheated and frauded the treaty. You thieving liers.
Joanne, you are simply great!
i am proud of my friend,,keep it up.