That spluttering choking sound of a thousand rednecks being informed Maori still have sovereignty is a hilarious cacophony of stupid…
Crown still in charge: Minister Chris Finlayson on Waitangi Treaty ruling
The Waitangi Tribunal’s finding that Maori chiefs who signed the Treaty of Waitangi did not cede sovereignty does not change the fact the Crown has sovereignty in New Zealand, Treaty Negotations Minister Chris Finlayson says.
…for progressives and those with an education, the ruling proves what we already believed, that Maori when signing the Treaty thought that it was going to be a partnership and in no way undermined their sovereignty. What is stunning is that it has taken 174 years to finally admit this.
Maori have waited for a just Treaty for almost 2 centuries, it is time for Pakeha NZ to show some genuine commitment to righting that wrong.
…it is time for Pakeha NZ to show some genuine commitment to righting that wrong.
That’s a tall order. According to this judgement, you, me and several million other people are illegally occupying this country. “Showing some genuine commitment” to accepting the judgement would involve doing one of two things:
1. Emigrating.
2. Reporting to the head of your local tribe, declaring yourself subject to his authority and enquiring as to his instructions for you.
I’m picking a distinct shortage of volunteers for either one…
But what if it’s true, Milt?
After all, many folk are pissed of at what the Russians are doing in the East of the Ukraine.
Anyway, I don’t know if that’s what the Report actually states. We’d need to read the thing first, before passing comment/judgement.
Yeah…I dunno…then theres talk of the Littlewood Treaty ,…and that needs far more perusal rather than being locked away in the National Archives because it is all too ‘inconvenient’.
Its also a fact that many smaller tribes accepted British ‘protection’ at that time from larger more aggressive tribes. Particuarly in light of the recent intercene Maori wars.The British legal system had some appeal.
Then there was trade ,…not just for war making advantage ie :muskets,…but other benefits. Many tribes saw the way of the future was to adapt to the increasing foreign immigration….it was a pragmatic thing ,not just a compulsion. And it was pragmatic.
Many tribes were extremely industrious and entreprenerial…exporting goods around the globe. The problems really took on a new life when Cameron invaded the Waikato…backed by greedy punters in Auckland who wanted the Waikato’s land for farming.The Waikatos of course didnt sign the treaty , and were…at that time,…sending warriors to the Taranaki war campaigns and setting up their own King movement. As we know…the war was increased to include many of the East Coast Maori.
Much of this driven by British entrepenuer’s greed, illegality , and – other tribes who desired Utu against former enemy tribes.
I dont think the Treaty was ever meant to be a ‘partnership’…I think that the idea was that the chiefs retained certain chiefly rights, lands etc but there was a mutual understanding that in exchange for British protection from the French , Americans etc..that they became British subjects.
It appears they were quite amiable with that arrangement, in fact endorsed it. I think they well understood the concepts of soveriegnty and that it never was supposed to be used as an excuse to strip away, rip off or debase the cultural heirachy and possessions of the tribes. I do beleive most who signed the treaty were quite happy with the new arrangements….but….with all good intentions,..
Human greed just got in the way and it all went downhill from there.
The British Crown did an exclusive deal with Maori to stop The New Zealand Company from buying land from Maori. The New Zealand Company wanted to buy land on the cheap so they could sell it at a profit to rich settlers. Hence the “you can only sell it to us” provision in the treaty.
The Poms were actually trying to be good guys and stop the natives from being ripped off.
Why does that statement remind me of the US involvement in Vietnam; “It became necessary to destroy the village in order to save it”…
At whatever level this ‘partnership’ was unilaterally broken by the British, its most destructive effect was the massive loss of land and the value produced off that land. To restore this partnership there has to be a transfer of value off the land back to Maori.
As part of the Treaty Process which is yet no more than a token response to this loss of land, a simple measure to tax the unearned value of land, and pay part of this to Iwi organisations, would go a long way to recover some of that lost value.
It would also ensure that foreign ownership of private land and urban housing is not for the purpose of speculation in unearned value. The point of a land tax is to return to society that part of the value produced on the land that derives from social inputs, rather from that of the private land owner.
I don’t think any capitalist government will ever do this because capitalism today only survives by speculating in land, assets and commodities way above their real value and is headed for a big bust.
But a land tax would at least set in motion a debate that could contribute to a social movement to nationalise the land and all economic assets so that we can collectively survive the big bust and the climate collapse.
I’ve thought for a long time that Maori would not have willingly just signed away their sovereignty. And if we accept that this was most probably the case, then what do we do from here? We can’t turn the clock completely back. Most are here as citizens by birth, and this is our home and our country as well.
We will all have to sit down and figure how this will work from here. I hope we start from the point of view that access to beaches and the right to catch a feed from the sea should forever be free and open to all of us, we have little space in this country that is not privately owned and easily accessible, we do not even have the same “freedom to roam” rights that the British have.
Whatever we figure out from here must be good for all of us
At the time Maori had been decimated by disease and inter-tribal fighting. The chiefs figured that becoming British citizens and gaining the protection of British law was a damn good thing. It meant at least in theory that if someone from a tribe killed someone from another another tribe they could get it sorted out under British law instead of it escalating to a blood bath.
I suspect that “disease” you refer to was introduced by British settlers and whalers…
As for “inter-tribal fighting” – c’mon! Any inter-tribal fighting was worsened by the introduction and sale of European technology (muskets, steel, etc) to favoured Maori tribes.
Imagine aliens arriving on Earth and selling vastly-advanced weaponry to either the former-Soviet Union, or China, or USA, and the resulting wars that might follow. What the British did in Aoteroa upset the power-balance and resulted in more bloody wars between the tribes.
So trying to paint the British and various arms-merchants as “the good guys” is risable.
Sure, the inter-tribal fighting became a whole lot more deadly, with Nga Puhi carving their way down the North Island with Muskets scored from sealers and whalers.
And so yes, the introduction of new weaponry absolutely upset the balance of power. However it wasn’t anything deliberate or planned. No one said “Let’s give Muskets to some of these tribes and watch them kill themselves”.
I don’t think he is saying they were necessarily “Good guys”, just that the Maori Chiefs thought they were better off under British rule and law at the time.
Better than who/what?
And isn’t that perspective from a modern viewpoint of the dominant culture that has tried to assimilate Maori?
Better than if they weren’t under British rule I guess? As Kevin said, they weren’t exactly doing great at the time.
Pre-European life expectancy amongst Maori was little different than amongst European nations, and although there was disease, Maori seemed to be free from the most serious infectious diseases. As to the pre -European population of Maori, we simply don’t have accurate data. There is no hard evidence to support the notion that maori were killing each other off at a faster rate than their birth rate.
Hard to suggest that “Pre-European life expectancy amongst Maori was little different than amongst European nations” when, in the next breath you maintain, ” As to the pre -European population of Maori, we simply don’t have accurate data. There is no hard evidence to support the notion that maori were killing each other off at a faster rate than their birth rate”.
Many pakeha (as do most conquorers) try to justify their occupation/colonisation by insisting that they “improved the lot of the indigenes”. Justifications range from “better medicines” (when the diseases were introduced into the country by settlers) or “bring peace between tribes” (when the whole point of colonisation was done by colonial powers that were at near-perpetual war between themselves on the Continent).
You can try that justification as much as you like, Nehemia, but history is not on your side. And Maori certainly might view your assertions with grim irony and outright disdain.
Actually Frank, it is entirely possible to make estimates of life expectancy without having much of a clue about overall population. I suspect you have misinterpreted what Nehemiah said.
The tribunal stated that it was making no finding on the legitimacy or sovereignty of the crown in 2014. They very carefully said that tino rangatiratanga was not signed away in the Bay of Islands and the Hokianga in 1840.
Part 2 of their report might address sovereignty in 2014, or it might not. I wish people would read things properly before writing rubbish.
By the way, I fully support Maori sovereignty, but I can still read words in front of me and understand them.
Only thing that becomes problematic is the capacity to interpret issues as they stand in 2014 – not what was the true intent when the original people of the Waitangi Treaty was signed.
Its problematic simply because opportunistic individuals can reinterpret and legislate things that have no bearing at all with the original historical document.
The ‘ principles’ of the Treaty of Waitangi had NOTHING to do with the original intent – that was simply a way of augmenting and bastardizing the original simplicity of meaning of the original document.
Who the hell did Geoffrey Palmer think he was?…greater than Hobson?…was Palmer there at the signing?…did he know personally key players of both Maori and British representatives of the day? He knew Tamati Waka Nene as a good mate ,did he? He shared the best of French Port at dinner with the Reverend from Russel, I take it?
NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
He thought he could simply ‘help’ those poor naive and ignorant earlier peoples to do a better job. Arrogance at its best.
And thats the problem with revisionist history politics, …it is SOOOOO easy to twist things to suit a modern agenda.
But what exactly does Maori sovereignty look like?
I think you mean to ask “What will it look like?” At the moment, it doesn’t exist. I’m not going to do any crystal gazing, but I do think there are great possibilities as long as we have goodwill from both partners.
Comments are closed.