Why would anyone have to interpret the Treaty it’s written on one page for fuck sake! Name one other treaty or contract that a court feels the need to ‘interpret’. Are the New Zealand courts going to allow me to re-write my mortgage or any other contract - of course not.
First you need to know which document by law and legitimacy takes precedence, and by international law, the indigenous language text takes precedence when there is ambiguity. So Te Tiriti o Waitangi is the version recognised by international law as legitimate, and is the document in which the conversation anyone should have to interpret.
@@DCG-dg5sd That's completely different because the principles of the Magna Carta protect people's freedoms and was the foundation for universal human rights.
The treaty is 136 pages, and nine sheets have you read it both English and Maori versions , if you got two weeks free , It is a shambles. Remember, few maori could read or write two cultures mile apart in social needs and aims
Wow... I had limited expectations when "the algorithm" suggested this, but ended up listening to it all. What a wonderfully nuanced discussion. Well done.
I like Paul Moon 😮 based on the few things I've seen and read of him, but I also had reservations that this was going to be the type of discussion that only the left and the mainstream media want us to have. (eg. "Burn the govt, they are racist") Instead, I was pleasantly surprised. Its so great to actually listen to a balanced discussion for once!! Thank you Dr Moon! You are a lifesaver. And thank you to the doc who runs this podcast, I'm subscribing. 🙏Ps, I'm Māori
Has it . Your pathetic mind has yet to register ,we are being recolonised right now. Wait till the Asian and Middle Eastern voting block starts getting in
Moon is an awesome lecturer on this kaupapa rather than a popular view he stays connected to the facts. Which usually and most appropriately pisses off both sides of the argument.
Interesting discussion by two people who clearly have some understanding and sympathy for the plight and life of Māori, as well as their journey so far. However, I feel this conversation would have carried much more mana and been more honourably straightforward if Māori voices had been directly included. There are so many Māori who would have gladly participated in this kōrero to bring deeper insight and authenticity to the discussion.
Ffs, stop worrying what happened almost 200 years ago. We live in a modern society. Everyone is equal. There is not a country, tribe, ethnic group, etc in history who hasnt suffered some sort of invasion or colonization. Everyone in history got a raw deal at some point. Its 2024, get over it and look to the future. Respect yourself, your country and your fellow humans, life will be ok.
49:50 , what actually helps medical patients do better? Hyper focus on race, ethno, waitangi grievance? At the expense of discussing life's choices, diet, smoking, housing, etc? Continuous casting blame doesn't usually encourage self responsibility. 2/Colonialism can also be rephrased "civilization" etc. Think of the work of "Acclimatisation societies in New Zealand" who tasked themselves with introducing hundreds of European birds animals rabbits etc to nz, with the best of intentions at the time and detrimental effects that will long outlive humans, we can't change the past just live and learn from it. I'm pleased to note Prof Moon a uni lecturer as avoiding the left leaning tilt so pervasive in unis now. If we took modern ideology back in time, NZ Hydro electricity both North and South Is would be hamstrung into oblivion, with consultating of iwi etc . Could a single dam be built on the Waikato?
My tipuna signed He Whakaputanga (Declaration of Independence) 28.10.1835 and Te Tiriti 17.2.1840. Pōmare believed he had not given up any sovereignty and stated that he was not able to in any case, as it belonged to all of his iwi.
@@michaelgrey7854if it wasn’t true , Section 71 of the 1852 Constitution Act would not exist…… this was 12 years after 1840 and after The Flagstaff wars. , that made the Governing Body and it’s settlers and settlement migrate from Kororareka to Auckland via Refuge from War with Nga Puhi.
@@susanbirch5705 Rangatira led the people. The land was shared with the entire iwi not held in title by the Rangatira. Ownership of land is a colonial construct.
Te tiriti is an exceptional document defining a position of the paticipants. One was the race " Maori" that were the owners by their colonisation of a country that to all intents was vacant. They had existed here long enough to spread throughout this land. The treaty "allowed" other races to come and live here and to govern their own race. As a pakeha this still " allows" me to be Aeotearoan. It is a tolerant document. Like democracy it is a living thing. Toitu te tiriti. Live in gratitude, protect this country and all our people.
I agree with the sentiment, but I think using the term "race" plays into Seymour's hands as he will say "see that's why it is racist" The treaty is more an agreement between say Group A (the people who lived in Aotearoa) and another GroupB who came along several hundred years later and said we want to live in the country too. GroupA generously said you can as long as we can keep living as we have and we have as equal rights as yours. Unfortunately groupB did not live up to thier part off the bargin and this has only been recognized in recent times. asome Treaty settlements have been made as a way to recognize this and the other things have been done to try to make good on the original spirt of the treaty. Now it seems the government wants to turnback the clock and unwind all this good work.
The problem is the 19th century wasn't democratic. It was aristocratic and heirarchical. Your nicely expressed sentiments are just that - sentimental.^^
Paul Moon contradicts the indisputable evidence recorded at the Waitangi debates and later at the 1860 Kohimarama conference in Auckland where Maori chiefs stated that they had ceded sovereignty and who were also fighting beside the British Constabulary to stop other tribes from breaking the Treaty. His conclusions seem to be slanted toward modern marxist academic opinions rather than actual evidence. These are the real reasons and proof why 500+ Maori Chiefs signed Te Tiriti o Waitangi and why we should be proud of it: th-cam.com/video/_YVvnfv7_6s/w-d-xo.html
What you had was two decades of the stronger tribes with muskets slaughtering the weaker ones to the south. The chiefs wanted law and order [even Nga Puhi kept falling into 'civil wars']. History not wishful thinking.
@@davethewave7248 There were many hapū and iwi that never signed Te Tiriti o Waitangi - because some didn't want to have anything to do with the settlers. Others didn't sign in 1840 because they had already signed He Whakaputanga o Te Rangatiratanga (Declaration of Independence) on 28 October, 1835. Accepted by England's Colonial Office and therefore the court of King William IV, this (not Te Tiriti) is this nation's founding document. As you say, the chiefs wanted law and order - as sailors from the thousands of ships who dropped anchor at Kororāreka (now called Russell) were causing havoc in the Far North. That's why they invited Queen Victoria to come here to have kawanatanga (governorship) over HER own - that is, British people - not them. Te Tiriti can be considered as the first immigration document.
No hoki heke got upset he wasn't collecting 5£ each boat when the ships moved to Auckland. Thats shen yhe "deal" went dirty. Basically greedy then greedy now. @marielaufiso2611
Hi Nina.. interesting discussion but there are three fundamental questions that are not answered; and these need answering before you can answer the primary question; which is fundamentally a question of law - Did Maori cede sovereignty? Q1 - What is mean't by "Maori" Q2 - What is the "sovereignty" in question - Q3 - Did "Maori" (Q1) have the particular "sovereingty" (Q2) to cede? Q1 Keep in mind that there has never been an etho-state in New Zealand; there were independent tribes. Polynesians came to NZ in migration waves over hunderds of years and we don't know if they all came from the same place. Looking at it through that lens; how are europoean settlers or even the Crown any different in terms of legal status? Q2: There is a difference between sovereignty over the entire NZ territory and sovereignty over part of it. No-one was the supreme ruler of New Zealand (having the final say to impose laws) on all New Zealand territory prior to 1840. Compare the Heptarchy. It cannot be assumed that the Islands had no internal borders. To cement the point, you have to account for the Moriori on the Chatham Islands. A land mass is not neccesarily a single country just because its an island. This raises the issue of whether the question should be 'Did Maori...' or is it better to ask 'Did [tribe x]...' and that aligns better with the Treaty signators. Q3: Sovereignty is a eurocentric concept. There is no exact Maori equivalent. In order to apply the British meaning of sovereingty on the ground, to the facts in 1840; at least as closely as you can, you have to account for Treaty duality and the proper definition of sovereignty "the right and recognition to rule over a defined territory." You can see that the definition is the elements identified by Q1 and Q2; which inform Q3. Cheers Rick LLB
This bloke will pick bits of the past to support what he wants to see take place in the future. The future has not taken place yet. It is determined by what people want and are prepared to implement to achieve their desires. Every entrepreneur understands this and sees the future as clean slate. What is important is the immediate circumstances and what enhancements are required to produce the desired goal. Therefore anyone with half a pea for a brain can see what the desired goal is by examining the proposed practices. Now listen to what this History Researcher has to say.
The fact is - Maori can be New Zealanders. New Zealanders can't be Maori. When Maori go to their marae, they are Maori. When they go to the Koroneihana, they are Maori. When Maori go to a Poukai, they are Maori. When Maori go to tangi, they are Maori. When Maori go to learn Maori things, they are Maori. There is no argument that Maori are here. They are not going away. If Maori choose to be a New Zealander, they do it by choice, not by laws and threats of jail and being called racist. New Zealanders do European things. Maori do them too but it doesn't take away the fact that they are Maori doing European things
I don't believe Maori are New Zealanders. New Zealander means a white person with exceptions where it is convenient to include Maori or to lay this label upon them in a sense of ownership. Ergo if a Maori does something like win gold medals they are called a New Zealander. If the narrative is negative they are no longer described as New Zealanders, they are described by race, as other.
@fullcircle4723 Sorry, if you look at the first pictures or read the first descriptions of "New Zealanders" you will see New Zealanders are Maori. "New Zealander" was a European descriptor for the people now called Maori. If Europeans call themselves New Zealanders they have appropriated that word for themselves.
Regarding Prof. Moon's reference to ACT's bill (from 43:26) - and what's to stop any future govt. from simply changing it, if it passed into legislation? Attaching a NATIONAL REFERENDUM to it would stop that. If 70% of the country supports ACT's bill, that's a very powerful reason for the legislation to stay unchanged in the future.
It won't go through. Te Ao Maori will take this to international court and declare Sovereignty over itself. This means all land stolen and not settled under Te Tiriti will be given back with UN backing and all resources will be given back.
@@jwatstom Maori aren’t indigenous. There in lies the whole issue. The UN UNDRIP policy does not hold law in New Zealand as Maori are simply colonisers, no different from the European people.
@@chrisfort5775 Yep Maori are indigenous, first people here = indigenous and is proven through archaeology, bioanthropology, geoarchaeology, and archaeobotanical methods. There is zero evidence of people being here before the eastern Polynesian Maori. Get educated!
Yep, Seymour is trying to get any Treaty discussions into parliament, so a referendum WILL happen, which would of course make the Treaty null and void. His Bill is a Trojan Horse to make this change. Its dodgy. It would be like buying a house from someone, and then they came back 10 years later and try and say the house is now worth more, so you owe us more money LOL. It's a done deal so GET USED TO IT!
@ they are not indigenous 😵💫😖!!! They sailed here you fool. They are colonisers like all other citizens of New Zealand. There were many prior nationalities of humans that have resisided in NZ , long before Maori arrived. There is physical evidence, but Helen Clark’s government put it under an embargo until 2067. By that time, the agenda of tribal rule will have been passed, it will be to difficult to reverse any political decision, even with proof that Maori were not the first people here, nor are they indigenous! You do your homework!😡😡😡
Paul has a lot of wisdom and he articulates this well in his answers. I liked that he offered a better perspective on many of the interviewers questions/thoughts. I found Moon to be rather consistent in his thinking approach across a range of topics and it was interesting to see Nina’s views shift throughout the discussion on different points. Enjoyed the conversation, subscribed! 👏
Back again - zoomed forward. Good to see Paul put the boot in on the curriculum. The 'history' being taught in schools sounds like it's just the new politics - here are the ideas that you should believe. And yes, history can not be separted into race... that would be rascism. Histories - post-modernism. To inflict this kind of thing onto our young people is unforgivable. Yes, history is only linear with hindsight. In real practical life, there are a multitude of paths that open out before us. Choice not determinism. The discussion on moral judgements about history is about bi-gotry. With the bi-got, all the evil is on one side, and all the good on the other. Sadly you see this bigotry going mainstream, when impressionable minds see the past in terms of evil colonizers, and the poor innocent Maori that once lived in paradise. In the 1860s, the Crown viewed Kingitanga/ the King movement as a rebellion. Of course, the Brits had then to further enforce sovereignty over the country. Part and parcel of this process [eco-system in Paul's terms] was the confiscation of some land to provide a buffer zone between settlers and hostile tribes... to be populated by retired soldiers/ the fencibles. Once the King movement became a land league, war was inevitable. The flaw was in the original terms of the treaty, too missionary, too idealistic, and doomed to failure. The statesmen should have been more practical and statesmenlike, but they too were heavily influenced by the Church Missionary Society back in London.
The Kingitanga was a group of iwi trying to adopt a similar structure to the British Crown, and to unite Maori against the increased colonisation of NZ by pakeha, because they felt alienated and threatened. It wasn't ALL Maori like you proclaim, and hostilities between Maori and Pakeha predate the movement. But YES, your discussion about bigotry and moral judgements is correct; and you've very cleverly offered your own words as a prime example. Congratulations *fireworks
Lol, you are aware that history requires primary and secondary sources before it's considered "history", right? Like you can lie about history, but then someone will show up with a journal, official crown report or something else that'll show you're being dishonest.
@@Criticont and hostilities between maori and maori as well. The kingi movement was hostile and abusive to maori. those that sided with the British wanted the kingi movement ended.
@@user-tc-s7r Yes, you are correct too. There were iwi that converted en-masse to Christianity with the realisation that it was the religion of peace. It needs to be understood, that a lot of iwi saw some of the aspects of British society as being superior to Maori beliefs, and they embraced this.
we married each other, shared wealth together, the ancient Moana way it’s in our language. Sure there were wars but we have lived in peace for longer that Europeans have ever. You came here to be a Child of the Moana and not Bristol. Forget those places this is the new and the truest
Colonisation uplifted a stone age canabalistic society to a modern society bypassing major milestones such as inventing the wheel, written language, metal ages, industrial revolution Given so many monumental jumps in knowledge without self determination are the reason we have todays unrest I am Tangata whenua Ngati Pakeha
You do realize ngati pakeha that every ethnic group practiced cannibalism. Māori were already bringing modern technology pre-treaty through the Declaration of Independence and prior. This country would've progressed without the Crown 😏. Māori didn't need the crown, it's the other way around 😎. Nice try though 😉
@@fteeagle9446 I see your point but I raise the question, what time difference is there between the rest of the civilised world abandoning cannibalism as regearding Maori? It is not a question of history but a question of timely relevence. When the explorers arrived canibalism rarely existed in the civilised world yet was practiced along side slavery routinely by Maori in the same timeline
@@citizenkane0014 the thing is, cannabilism hasn't stopped, especially in predominantly within Europe, it went underground. Cannabilism didn't stop because of colonization. Again, māori would have progressed from this.
@@fteeagle9446 I agree with the progression comment to a degree, the timeline would be the telling thing, when was Reverend Volkner killed by Te Whanau Apanui and consumed? Less than 200 years ago, as to the other I plead no information so no opinion,
Not that I agree with the practice, but you're looking at it through European eyes. Maori cannibalism relates in my understanding to the concepts of tapu and noa. Chiefs were sacred (tapu) food is noa (not sacred). It was almost the ultimate insult, because what do you do with food? Therefore, it was done for reason, not as practice.
The discussion around the Treaty is all very interesting, but the document is 184 years old. In its most literal sense it cant work, because NZ and the world is completely different. I think it would be more productive for Māori to say this is what isn’t working for our people right now. What can the crown do to help us make long term progress in these areas? The dilemma is that the answer is probably better education to succeed in the new international world, but this will inevitably also reduce their connection to their historical culture. Life is full of trade offs for everyone. I think some Māori want the best of both worlds but I think that is very difficult to achieve, if not impossible.
The US constitution is considerably older at 233 years. Almost all of the original text and the bill of rights amendments is still in force as written and subsequently interpreted by the judiciary.
The land has never changed 😂😂😂😂 you moved to Aotearoa there home . Family's today are the blood and owners of these blocks today nothings changed just the date.
Iam half pacific island, Maori and islanders are responsible for there own health, if you don't want to be healthy then don't be healthy and don't complain about it when you have bad health, I have plenty of family members who drink coke like water and then wonder why they have diabetes, own your own shit and stop expecting the govt to solve your problems.
100% , you are absolutely correct own your own problems, Maori’s biggest problem is socialism, hand out after handout , not embracing education or health and it’s our problem, I don’t think so OWN IT AND DEAL WITH IT
Tēnā koe, I'm glad you enjoyed the conversation. We have many other conversations just like this one about Education, Health and Justice. We plan to upload them all soon, but for now they are available as a podcast on Spotify/Apple podcasts etc. Have a listen and share with your friends and whānau if you enjoyed them. Nina
This is the best discussion I have ever heard on the subjects, it's helpful, healing and non- confrontational. I am born in New Zealand of Irish and English /Romani Gypsy family heritage. I think having oppression and racism in the culture of my family heritage has made me as neutral as much as I can, anti racism and I good understanding of the differences in culture around me, I think you are similar in that respect. Almost on the outside looking in, not taking one side or the other. However I do believe the pendulum has swung and things are out of balance in NZ in my opinion. I hope through the executive branch of the government not politicians, common sense will prevail for the good of all NZers. I fear a percentage of Maori have created their idealogical and narrative through rhetoric and unproven and untrue history. Doctor Su you must be able to study a new subject, it is not too late I think. You are showing a neutral, unbias approach to a very delicate subject, good luck with your future..
The biggest problem in New Zealand is the country is short 1 million homes due to successive governments not doing their duty. Not having an affordable place to live makes life very difficult, particularly if your trying to bring up kids. Huge numbers in NZ are suffering from malnutrition because of the housing shortage. The Treaty will never solve these problems, because its caused by the problem of capital and labour and those who have and those who do not.
our government been following the wefs orders for 50 years you will own nothing and be happy is not a joke we will be taxed out of our property no private land owner ship with any native group of peoples any where on the planet
A pragmatic view would be this.Given the obvious technological superiority of the British.Given that Maori had allready travelled to the Australian colonies and to the heart of the empire and witnessed its power.Given that Maori tribes had only recently came out of the musket wars and decimation invoked between tribes.Given all this would a Chief of some few thousands expect to be an equal to the crown,In no way whats so ever,they understood power.Did those chiefs however expect to be able to govern their own Tribe,Yes ,but above that was the crown .The crown shouldve been there as an enveloping protection ,an organisation of state and trade throughout the islandsand beyond.The crown didn't meet its obligations and hence where we are now.
Every other interview I've seen with Paul Moon has seemed abit wishy washy, but this interview felt different! Maybe I'll need to go back & rewatch those other ones again
1 Person 1 Vote……Democracy…..sure Māori can have their own place. And yes as a 4th Generation Kiwi whose Children are now in their late 20’s and early 30’s. So my Children are 5th Generation Pakeha…….I’m am proud of my Children, I’m Proud of my Pakeha whakaapa. And yes Māori are cool etc.
Start from a base reality. There is no, nor has there ever been a Polynesian nation that has wholly ceeded it's sovereignty to an outside power. Tahiti, Hawaii, Samoa, Cook Islands. Far from it any arrangements with occupiers or potential invaders has constantly been rebuffed and protested against. It is inconceivable that Maori rangatira or ariki would have been the unique exception. Far from it as we see in the constant assertion of that principal of tinorangatiratanga by Maori from 1840. One wholly different to that of western Pakeha. They are people of the land tangata whenua, pakeha are not, nor can they ever be. That's the fundamental Polynesian perspective. No hyperbolic gymnastics will ever change that, nor should it.
@ as I said it doesn’t negate a pan-Polynesian reality. Although I respect greatly Sir Apirana Ngata his sole interpretation doesn’t speak for a much larger issue, any more than Hugh Kawharu’s opinion might have.
Issue with other Polynesian nations aside from Hawaii is that they are ~90% Polynesian. Nz by comparison is comprised of 20% people of maori decent and 80% other. We can't operate in the same way as other Polynesian nations because of this fact, it's not practical.
In the old days - a deal was a deal. These days a deal is not a deal. Plenty of other countries out there if you don't like this one but I think we've only just begun as Karen once said, as many people never really honoured the treaty. It was almost a ruse. Give it a go. It's working quite well in many communities.
KAWHARU’S RE-WRITTEN TREATY Complaints that ACT Party leader, David Seymour wants to “re-write the Treaty of Waitangi” don’t stack up, considering that Te Tiriti was quietly re-written under a Labour Government almost 40 years ago. In 1986, the Lange Labour Government commissioned Professor Sir Hugh Kawharu, Professor of Maori Studies at the University of Auckland, to produce a contemporary translation of Te Tiriti’s Maori text. At the same time, Kawharu had just been appointed to serve on the Waitangi Tribunal, a highly influential appointment he would hold for 10 years from 1986. At the time of his Tribunal appointment, Kawharu was also a claimant on behalf of Ngati Whatua, working on his tribe’s various Treaty claims, and representing it in the Bastion Point land claim negotiations. Hardly someone without an axe to grind. Many might also recognise several conflicts of interest. We might also ask why a further back-translation was needed, when James Busby’s final English language draft, and TE Young’s 1869 back-translation compiled for the Native Department, were already available. Kawharu’s deliberately mischief-making back-translation of Te Tiriti was accepted as definitive by the government of the day. His radical reinterpretation of Te Tiriti soon morphed into the manifesto of the Maori Sovereignty movement. Kawharu’s New Zealand Dictionary of Biography page describes “a man of quiet persuasion” noted for “persistent advocacy for the Maori right to exercise rangatiratanga (self-determination).” “Rangatiratanga” or Māori self-determination lay at the core of Kawharu’s reinterpreted Treaty, complete with 11 footnotes radically redefining key words away from what was understood by all in 1840. At footnote 7, he asserted that “rangatiratanga” in Article II of Te Tiriti meant “the unqualified exercise of their chieftainship.” Ignoring the historical record of what the chiefs actually said on the lawn at Waitangi, Kawharu declared that this “would emphasise to a chief the Queen's intention to give them complete control according to their customs.” In arriving at this conclusion, Kawharu completely overlooked the fact that “rangatiratanga” as used in Te Tiriti at Article II narrows any broader meaning it might have to being a right to ownership and control of land and personal property. He also ignored the fact that Te Tiriti’s guarantee of property rights applied to everyone here on 6 February 1840, both white and brown. By redefining “rangatiratanga” as self-determination, Kawharu set up Te Tiriti to be used to justify Maori sovereignty aspirations. His commentary around the word “kawanatanga” in Article 1 was a further re-write. Kawharu asserted: “there could be no possibility of the Maori signatories having any understanding of government in the sense of ‘sovereignty’.” Eyewitness accounts of the treaty debate on February 5, 1840 at Waitangi, say otherwise. The primary source account in CMS printer, William Colenso’s “Authentic and Genuine History of the Signing of the Treaty of Waitangi” shows that the chiefs were well-aware their acceptance of Hobson would place him in authority over them, and that behind Hobson was Queen Victoria. Kawharu’s assertion at footnote 6, that the chiefs could not comprehend “sovereignty”, opened the way for the false claim that the chiefs never ceded it. His third substantial re-write applied to the word “taonga” in Article II. At footnote 8, Kawharu asserted that “taonga” included “all dimensions of a tribal group's estate, material and non-material - heirlooms and wahi tapu (sacred places), ancestral lore and whakapapa (genealogies). “ This opened up the public purse to Maori claims to anything and everything, including assets not even in contemplation in 1840, such as radio and television frequencies. Kawharu’s Te Tiriti reinterpretation has allowed radical activists to glove-puppet politicians and jurists into adopting his political manifesto dressed up as a Treaty translation as the basis for judgments and policies. Kawharu’s reinterpreted Treaty text was the one applied by Cooke CJ in the NZ Māori Council Court of Appeal case of 1987. Kawharu was one of 20 radical activists submitting affidavits for that case along with New Zealand Maori Council chair Sir Graham Latimer, historian [sic] Claudia Orange, land march activist Whina Cooper, history lecturer and Ngai Tahu claimant Harry Evison, medical practitioner Mason Durie, and accountancy professor and later Maori Party chairman Whatarangi Winiata. Legal Positivists apply the law according to law and precedent. Their commitment is to upholding the Rule of Law. Judicial activists are woke social justice warriors. They apply the law acco in rding to their own social and political opinions. Here, the rule of law is trumped by personal opinion filtered through the lens of social justice concerns. The rise of judicial activism in New Zealand traces back to Lord Cooke of Thorndon (Robin Cooke), a liberal bleeding heart who should never have been allowed near a judicial appointment, let alone to preside over New Zealand’s highest Court of his time. Lord Cooke had, during the course of his legal education, been heavily influenced by another judicial activist, Lord Denning, of the British Privy Council. Here’s David Baragwanath, Counsel for the Appellants in the 1987 NZ Māori Council case from which the Treaty ‘partnership’ fiction derives, skiting about the outcome at a commemorative symposium held some 20 years later : “I began to read [Dame Whina Cooper’s] affidavit [asserting land somehow had a special meaning to her as a part-Maori]. By the end of the first paragraph , the President’s familiar handkerchief was out. As it continued, his emotion was evident. By the end of the affidavit, Dame Whina had taken the case from his head to his heart, and we had captured him.” Say goodbye to the rule of law. Kawharu’s redefinition of “rangatiratanga” as “the unqualified exercise of their chieftainship” underpinned the Court of Appeal’s finding in the Māori Council case that Te Tiriti was “akin to a partnership.” This bogus reinterpretation soon made its way over to the Waitangi Tribunal, on which its author was already a key player. The Kawharu rewrite later formed the basis of Sir Geoffrey Palmer’s five Principles for Crown Action on the Treaty of Waitangi. These five principles, kawanatanga, or government; rangatiratanga, or self-management; equality; cooperation; and redress, were published on 4 July 1989. Leftist academics, the Waitangi Tribunal, and ‘woke’ senior public servants, then amplified the partnership’ fiction over succeeding decades, culminating in the Arden Labour Government setting up a Treaty Partnership Ministry in 2017. This in turn blossomed into the He Puapua blueprint for two governments by 2040, one by Maori for Maori; the other a fully bicultural version of what we already have, subject to a tribal monitoring committee. Behind these developments are wealthy tribal entities flush with ill-gotten pee from Treaty Settlements, greedy for political power over their non-Māori fellow-citizens. In summary, the ‘Treaty Partnership’ ideology behind these developments traces back almost 40 years to Kawharu’s rewrite of Te Tiriti and the government’s adoption of Geoffrey Palmer’s Principles For Crown Action . Bypassing Kawharu’s reinterpretation, ACT leader David Seymour has based his three brief principles on Te Tiriti’s actual black letter wording and the recorded contemporary understanding of its meaning and intent in 1840. ACT’s proposed Treaty Principles Bill would provide that: 1. The government has the right to govern and there is one government for all New Zealanders. 2. We all have rights within the law to “tino rangatiratanga”, or self-determination, and to ownership and control of our lawfully acquired property. 3. We all have “nga tikanga katoa rite tahi” or the same rights and duties. This poses a major problem for brown supremacist part-Māori riding a Treaty commonly misrepresented today as justifying Maori self-government. For brown supremacists to argue against Seymour’s Bill is to deny and dishonour the selfsame Te Tiriti that their tupuna signed up to in 1840. In 1922, Sir Apirana Ngata summarised the effect of the Treaty of Waitangi with considerable clarity, finality, and certainty: “Article I of the Treaty transfers all chiefly authority to the Queen forever, and the embodiment of that authority is now the New Zealand Parliament. For that reason, all demands for absolute Maori authorities are nothing more than wishful thinking.” “The Treaty … made the one law for the Maori and the Pakeha. If you think these things are wrong and bad then blame our ancestors who gave away their rights in the days when they were powerful.” New Zealanders are becoming increasingly aware that there are two Treaties, the 1840 treaty and a 1986 re-write. So let’s have and be accepting no more of this nonsense that David Seymour is “rewriting the Treaty.” Outrage over ACT’s proposed Treaty Principles Bill boils down to this: the fear that brown supremacist part-Māori who have turned their white ancestors into a toilet bowl to identify monoculturally as ‘Māori, might lose their unearned ethnocentric privilege. As Thomas Sowell reminds us: “When people become used to special treatment, equal treatment seems like discrimination.” ENDS
Take a look at maori history........... wars with each other, what that didnt happen????, The chiefs WANTED a treaty because of the need for their very survival
While there was tribal raru...the chiefs ultimately established their own council **(TeWhakaminenga) to sort both internal and external issues. This showed an attempt at tribal unity for the greater good of Māori who were up against rogue officials/settlers. The narrative that Māori desperately needed a whiteSaviour...enough to give up their entire livelihood (food,shelter, resources etc) is a lie!
"The chiefs WANTED a treaty because of the need for their very survival" has absolutely nothing to do with why the treaty exists - where did you get this 'fact' from? It seems to be easy for people to make completely untrue statements - tell us where the evidence is for this. Show it to us. Prove Professor Moon wrong. Dare you to.
@@_.Marz._ This fell apart soon after with Nga Puhi in civil wars. Both chiefs and missionaries then petitioned for the British to take the reigns. The He Whakaputunga is mentioned in the treay as the basis on which the chiefs could be *said* to cede their sovereignty to the Crown [while retaining their dignity as chiefs within their respective tribes].
No Jemma the Crown is the Sovereignty whose Parliament the British Parliament is. The Crown makes legitimate the Parliament. Even Bill Gates pays some tax in N.Z is he sovereign here? Don't think so.
As someone that is ethnically Chinese id like to know how you feel about China breaking the shackles of colonial rule over their mainland and some islands?
37:51 funny thing to say about new immigrants coming to NZ and having to learn about the Treaty of Waitangi..I imagine chinese people coming to the Americas, let's say Peru for instance, and having to learn about the fall of the Inca Empire. Of course, the chinese who migrated to Peru from the 19th century onwards didn't because they were busy adapting to their new surroundings and more importantly, surviving! What a ludicrous idea, really.
Colonisation is happening in Ukraine and Palestine today. It is brutal and it is ruthless, which is what history has shown. It continues because people accept it, make excuses for it and down play the harm colonisation causes. Only a foolish person would think that the colonisation of Maori was not planned, deliberate and brutal.
Yeah, The treaty could be a model for how other such conflicts could be resolved, alas it seems forces are wanting to lead NZ down the path to conflict.
Well what did Sir Apirana Ngata say? I mean he lived closer to events than any of us did and wrote an essay about it. Clearly someone to be taken seriously if he ends up on our $50 note. He was pretty clear. Im not saying that colonialism didnt have an obvious impact on maori which their ancestors cant have fully anticipated. I get that life for maori since then has been complex and why they might have felt somewhat aggrieved, betrayed, maybe there was sense of regret but that going quietly into the night was not an option for them. But for the chiefs, ceding sovereignty was the right decision for them at the time.
Apirana Ngata’s views reflected his eras pressures. As does Paul Moon’s. Think, if Moon was to hold a dissident view on the treaty (even if he did believe it) he would most definitely be sacked from AUT and be ostracised by the media, etc
Apirana Ngata was a politician not a historian he also lied to Maori saying that the price of citizens to fight in 2 world wars when history proves otherwise
Although the (English language) Treaty of Waitangi says they did, Māori never ceded sovereignty. People who have not studied Te Tiriti AND The Treaty (which do NOT say the same things) have little to no appreciation that 1840 Aotearoa or Niu Tireni was overwhelmingly a Māori world. If you did not speak Te Reo Māori, you were at a disadvantage. On February 6, 1840, Lieutenant Gov Hobson was probably one of the few present who had no Te Reo. There were only 2000 settlers from Britain compared with 200,000 - 500,000. Why would the rangatira of hapū (many related hapū make up an iwi named after one common ancestor) who were in control of ALL their affairs cede sovereignty to a small group of British subjects, many of whom would have starved if not for the manaakitanga of Māori?
Where can I read that essay? Does the essay suggest the chief's ceded sovereignty? The literature I have read, suggests they very well may have ceded sovereignty, wholly understanding the ramifications of such a move, but to ultimately save Maori from self-destruction. I could be wrong, I need more information.
@@Criticont Someone is using a child's account to post. The videos that account was posting looks like a girl that's about 10, three years ago. My bet is either it's a parent pretending judging on the language used. I doubt you'll get a real response.
Statements like: 'Using the Treaty into as a strong arm tactic', and, 'If everything is a treaty issue, then nothing is a Treaty issue' lets us know how weak the thesis of this historian is. It isn't 'the Treaty' per se ... this document is a particular means of asserting Mana Motuhake but it is not the source of it - Mana Motuhake existed prior to Te Tiriti and it has never been up for negotiation or ceded. Te Tiriti evidences Tangata Whenua values, qualities, aspirations, it did not give rise to them. 'Health needs' don't happen in isolation from context Paul Moon. Direct whose resources to whom? Who is identifying the 'need' and the 'targets'? Who stands to gain from that algorithm? Tangata Whenua were here, are here, and will always be here! And it is on their terms Tangata Tiriti are here. Whilst Maori say their rights are an issue, they are an issue! So, you know, I hope Paul's ONZM keeps him warm at night ....
The organisation I work for acknowledges Māori as Tangata Whenua, which is great, but do not tell me how to be Māori. The company talks about Tikanga (How things are done) but is not instructed by the Maori adviser but not Kaupapa and Kawa. I’m not sure what’s going on there; I’ll annoy that person next year and continue to inform those immediately around me of Kaupapa, Tikanga and Kawa and how these three values are so dynamic and fluid.
of course theirs no interest in Te Tiriti because it's been suppressed for too long by the colonisers. The veil of forgetfulness has been lifted and the government can be accountable for the oppression Maaori has had to endure through their decisions not to honour Te Tiriti!
Getting sick of this controversial subject. Unless someone can come up with a taped recording of what was said and not said back in 1840, this crap will never end! And lady, it's New Zealand, for the record!
Ignoring the fact that the settlers had no superiority complex that gave them the authority to ignore indigenous peoples right to autonomy let alone adopt indigenous practices into law when forming governments in settled colonies. The fact that there is more than one ingredient to colonization ignores the superiority complex that was the liquid that these other factors operated under were soaked in that core belief.
I would think if the treaty was not signed, the recipient would be removed. Simply, by having made the treaty into effect the benefactor is the party being coerced. (Maori) In effect, any annulment would result in return of all agreements back to the original standing. Conquer or be conquered. Settlements would be done by force.
quick answer to the Title NO "Te Triti" came before "The Treaty" ....Maxim of Law: First in time best in Law......also international law "where there is conflict between English version & Indigenous version the Indigenous version shall prevail. But more to the point 28th October 1835 He Whakaputanga The Declaration of Independence is the real Document that has the Most Mana and has a flag to back it up.
We've been addressing 'the needs', Paul for 30 years at least - with no change in outcomes. The only outcome seems to be Maori wanting more money, more rights, more freebies. As for older Maori dying out and Marae and customs falling out of use... so be it. I think it's indicative of the Maori culture being unsustainable, and its survival is not the responsibility of other cultures.
As of today the Government is appealing the Courts decision regarding Nelson Tenths in favour of Iwi in the Tauihu. If the government was really about equality before the law they would give ALL of what the iwi legally have a right to, rather than a tiny 1%
Alot of people like yourself still think the same way in nz in regards to maori as they did a long time ago. Which means statistically nothing would change
FREEBIES??? The Treaty payments for breaches is only 3% of what Maori lost than you have to add in the factor that Maori lost of productivity of the land that was stolen from then to now is in the trillions
i feel like everyone needs to watch Alice Sneddens "Bad News" on Health inequality... this would alleviate a lot of angst. responding to communities needs reduces costs!
"It's pretty plain from the documentation from the British government that they didn't actually want the chiefs to cede sovereignty. They said "We want jurisdiction over this problematic, roughly 2000 settlers living in the country"... I think it's a big stretch to claim that the chiefs, 542 of them suddenly said "We're giving up our sovereignty as well, and certainly, subsequent to the Treaty all the signs were they didn't believe they had..." (i) 'all the signs' were certainly not that the chiefs didn't believe they had granted the Crown sovereignty. In the chiefs' deliberations as they were deciding whether to sign Te Tiriti, the possibility of the Crown only governing settlers was specifically suggested. Hobson was clear in rejecting that notion by asserting that English laws could only be exercised on English soil. The chiefs understood that and there was no further discussion of that dual-sovereignty model. In 1843 eighteen Hokianga chiefs signed a letter they had asked Hobbs to write in English to Governor Fitzroy. That letter recognised Fitzroy as their governor, not just the settlers' governor, asked the governor to advise them on how to deal with a rebel chief waging war against them and against British law, and moreover it specifically stated regarding Te Tiriti "...we signed our names ceding the sovereignty to her" (i.e. the Queen). There are many more statements from chiefs over the years subsequent to the signing that make it clear they saw the governor as their governor, the Crown as ruling the whole country, having been promised that their rights of land ownership and chiefly decisions would be protected under overriding Crown sovereignty. Without such sovereignty the Crown had no jurisdiction over chiefs' rights to protect them. It's a blatant falsehood to claim that 'all the signs' were that the chiefs didn't believe that in signing Te Tiriti they would give or had given sovereignty over everyone in NZ. (ii) No reference is provided to support the claim that the British government didn't want sovereignty to include Maori. No reference is provided regarding the quote about what the British government said. (iii) Aside from all that, the chiefs did not have anything that met a definition of 'sovereignty' to cede. In signing Te Tiriti they understood that they were granting the Crown the right to govern the country and that government would be over them as well as everyone else. Article 3 of Te Tiriti made Maori subjects of the Queen; there is no rational way to see that as anything other than confirming Crown sovereignty.
If you are legally trained can you please say so in your comments. As a layman I’m interested in the legal realities as opposed to the “opinion” that the rest of us can offer. Cheers
The arguments they're using regarding colonization were all used by pakeha apologists in the whole nineteenth century in New Zealand. I've read so many of these 19thc arguments and they were actually much better than the ones discussed here, even the ones that argued that the death of the Māori people because of the arrival of the pakeha was just the natural process of the world. The weak gives way to the strong. They argued that one way or the other the Māori were fated to go.
Moral temperature, moral values, moral complexion! It wasn't until 1975 (135 years after the signing of the Treaty) that Maori claimed the text of the Treaty in the English language differs from the text of the Treaty in the Maori language and therefore a tribunal was needed to be established to make recommendations on claims relating to the practical application of the principles of the Treaty and, for that purpose, to determine its meaning and effect and whether certain matters are inconsistent with those principles. In 1985 the act was amended to give the Waitangi Tribunal the authority to consider claims dating back to 1840, when the Treaty of Waitangi was signed. It also enlarged the tribunal's membership to enable it to handle the increased number of claims. It also required the tribunal to have a Māori majority. In 1988 tribunal membership and hearings expanded the tribunal's membership and abolished the requirement for a Māori majority. It also enabled different groups of tribunal members to investigate different claims simultaneously. In this time many treaty settlements have been made but it has become clear that the practical application of principles sought in 1975 have never been aired or explained in writing for all New Zealanders (Maori and non-Maori) to understand once and for all. I believe there are number of reasons why the so called "moral temperature" of the Treaty changed in the 1970's and why "moral complexion" took over! Much happened in the 1970's, including the US$ coming off the gold standard allowing exponential fiat money creation globally (by decree) leading to highly inflationary times. The "moral complexion" from this time conveyed politically stories from the past deliberately by politicians to unbalance the social contract. Today 2024 the social contract and sustainability has no moral contract. It is all spin and projection. Will this be talked about in 150 years!
The one no Maori Chief signed....good luck with that one ....ohh yeahhhh we're just going to use a contract only 1 party signed....contract law 101 dummy.....
@jwatstom well since kawheru got his grubby mitts on it and changed the meanings of sovereignty,possession and property, it makes it very simple to know by the littlewood draft, what the treaty said and the crown meant without interference. You have no treaty without the draft that was translated into Maori, and it does not say what the treaty fraudsters have been spouting.
It took one paper signed sealed and delivered. To her majesty queenie victoria herself . She agreed We agreed thats it. Honor queen victoria wish pakeha people. Its your queen and still is. Honor. The treaty.
Some more context here th-cam.com/video/2vUbpZ4yF3o/w-d-xo.html . A short talk by Prof. Moon explaining the doctrine of Discovery used to annex the Sth Island.
As someone of chinese descent what is your opinion of han chinese colonizing the island of fomosa now called Taiwan and oppressing the indigenous population who were the descendants of the polynesians? Should all han chinese apologize and return to the mainland
The Greek word of "colonisation" or "colonise" essentially means "to migrate", it's about immigration and settle in a land and to eventually form an autonomy from the depended state, used to depict the numerous Greek colonies formed along the Eastern Mediterranean away from their homeland, as opposed to the Persian way of centralised way of "conquer and rule". De-colonise, put to the extreme, essentially means anti-immigration, and even racial or ethnic segregation, suggesting that one particular skin colour / ethnicity should never have made their way to mingle with another skin colour / ethnicity. Colonisation can be bad and so is native / ingenious civilisations. Chinese emperors persecute their subjects no better than any foreign invaders; conversely, a foreign ruler or institution that happens to improve people's wellbeing, is no less than any indigenous ruler or institution. What really matters is how people are generally treated and if the institution improves people's livelihood as a whole; people should be judged by their characters, not by their origin or skin colour, very much what Dr. Martin Luther King said decades ago.
I agree. There are higher values than race, culture and ethnicity. A person can really only and should only be judged on their character, words, actions and the way they treat others. The world is not perfect and will never be. What happened in the past happened and cannot be changed. Redress can only go so far. If you are filled with bitterness, resentment, anger and hate about the past no amount of money, land, education or anything else will help. Maori who are understandably sad about past wrongs committed but have forgiven and moved on as best they can are free. Those who remain aggrieved are enslaved to the past and will remain in bondage to it.
@ Exactly very well put. Didn’t expect to see such thought provoking and rational responses on TH-cam these days. My thinking is also that if privileges shouldn’t be inherited then neither should victimhood be; as you said redness can only go so far.
I mean also, the word "kawanatanga" is not actually a kupu Māori. Its a transliteration of the word "governance". So did any of those reo-speaking chiefs actually have any idea of what this kupu meant? I doubt it... Someone with a deep understanding of English would have had to explain it to them, and the big question is WHAT were they TOLD it meant?? Probably no-one living today knows. My problem with this is, why wasn't a kupu Māori tūturu used instead of a made up pretend kupu Māori? That was a huge flaw in the treaty and it's causing so much drama almost 200 years later 🤦♀️😫🤔
The formation of the democratic New Zealand government overrides the treaty, Maori are citizens of the county/democracy. They have rights and obligations as citizens. They are now part of the crown. So how do you partner with something you are part of? Unless they revoke their citizenship?
No it doesn't override the Treaty. Maori have a different connection to their ancestors and the land than Pakeha; their whole ontological ideology is different. For example, when Maori formally introduce themselves (called pepeha), the introduction includes their name, iwi (tribe), hapu (sub-tribe), maunga (mountain), awa (river); all of which the individual is connected to. Pakeha don't have anything like a sacred connection to the land like Maori do. So no, you are very wrong.
@@Criticont Maori do have their unique culture and heritage but their historical systems of organising societies doesn't scale up well to a large population with diverse cultures.
@linksvexier9272 Don't be silly, The Treaty enables the formation of a Westminster Democracy by agreement between 2 Sovereignty's. The Chiefs holding Sovereignty in Aotearoa and The Crown having Sovereignty over the British parliament. Something as fragile, temporary, subject to mass marketing, propaganda and misinformation as a 3 year democratic electoral system lacks the Authority and Mana to hold the Sovereignty of a nation.
Great content, as always! I have a quick question: My OKX wallet holds some USDT, and I have the seed phrase. (alarm fetch churn bridge exercise tape speak race clerk couch crater letter). How can I transfer them to Binance?
The sovereignty of Māori was recognised by the British in 1835. Lord Normanby affirmed that position in his instructions to Hobson who was dispatched to New Zealand to make a Treaty.
He Whakaputanga was signed in 1835. The declaration was forwarded to King William IV and Britain recognised the declaration of independence in 1836. France acknowledged that the British had formally recognised the independent state of New Zealand under its native chiefs.
No, it was an agglomeration of tribal areas over which the Chiefs held sovereignty. It should be noted too, the word sovereignty does not exist in Maori language, and is a point of contention in the interpretation of the treaty. The closest word 'mana', can not be ceded; its incomprehensible like suggesting you cede prestige, influence, spiritual power etc The difference lies in how Maori and Pakeha viewed ownership. Jonathon West covers this in his book "Face of Nature".
@@Criticont Nice to read some one who is thoughtful at least, thanks man. I think the issue is not so much ownership but Authority. Neither Mana or Rangatiratanga can be ceded these come down from above and are HELD by the Rangatira. Rangatira preserve, protect and seek to increase these properties. Which accrue and descend to the people from a chain whose first link is In The Highest Heavens. This is a ancient pattern anciently common all over the planet with local variations.
The arguments about good and bad are not the historian's job. The historian simply sets out what happened, when, why, and how. Since when has history been to tell us what is right and wrong? What a stupid idea. And I very much doubt the NZ history curriculum is doing this either. I've done history my entire life and not once has any history of any worth tried to tell me what to think or judge the events and people from the past in any way. THAT is bad history. There's a strong sniff of ideological lying going on.
Yet most of modern history is written by 18thcentury scientists and eugenicists (racists) hellbent on intergrating indigenous populations and changing history. The notion of re-writing history is actually written in "their" (the powers that be) decree under infiltration 🤷 So yea...historians aren't necessarily reliable when much of their information was garnered from the writings and perspectives of early europeans who often exaggerated truths or falsified scenarios to fit their own euro-centric narratives.
Only Tiriti that matters is the Māori version and no, Māori did NOT cede sovereignty to the British, that's another colonial myth that has been debunked for many years. Colonisers just came here signed Tiriti then proceeded to murder Māori in war and steal their land now they've left a big mess that they'll have to clean up
@@MartyBourne-k7lThe Crown did and rewarded 97% of the Chathams to Ngāti Mutunga in 1868 after all Māori Ngāti Mutunga and Ngāti Tama left back to Taranaki but when the crown stole Ngāti Mutunga land and put them back on Chathams after they left a few years before and yes Ngāti Mutunga and Ngāti Tama did do the 1835 genocide but Pākehā from the crown and were just as involved and Moriori were fighting to get the land and also idk why you misspell ‘Māori’ when its spelt correctly in the original comment
@@MartyBourne-k7land the English killed more Maoris, aboriginals, Africans and indians in the world than any other culture ever. And you blame us for claiming that we wiped moriori off the face of the earth? So what did the English do to the tasmanians in Australia?
Had the "colonizers" not already arrived hands up who believes that in 2024 Maori would still be running the show 120 years after the plane was invented you may not like colonisation, but it's just a natural part of evolution There is some good and some bad to it, all humans belong to one race and time ensures cultures mix. Only a racist person could have a problem with it
conceited and egotistical comes to mind ,I love how you tell only the part of history that keeps you from being controversial, Su is so wrapped up in her own superiority , looks down her nose at European colonisation but seems to forget her own history and the brutality of Chinese colonisation, how about the pros of British colonisation of nz,
New Zealand is already for all kiwis. The point that is being re-framed, is how can Tiriti O Waitangi be redesigned for fewer New Zealanders to profit from it going forward (the richest)? That may seem cynical but I do not personally think so. These are dangerous times: framing; interpretation; context - can and are being distorted, in the name of greed. Division is being sown through the citizenry. As this division grows (unchecked) more refactoring (neoliberal in form and function) is being attempted, under the guise of what seems like reasonable logic. But as a people, we are allowing ourselves to be duped into a new framework that is likely to deprive the majority of people; we will lose our rights to live as we wish to. The majority, are less affluent and more at risk, and yes many of those people are Maori - but the majority are Pakeha New Zealanders who lack the economic understanding, of these times to see what will fall out from this re-factoring process. It is a long plan. One in which a slow boil will get done what a more honest and straight forward greedy grab of resources (that would not be tolerated), could do. A kind of choking off of oxygen to the brain, if that helps (or perhaps the slow boil of the frog). This is fueled at a high level by the continual drive towards privatisation, which of course is an economic process that is designed to fleece as much profit as possible. More money for the already wealthy and a continued decline in money for the poor, as trickle down continues to NOT work (as advertised). To shuffle the framing here, let us consider the word 'sovereignty', since it is used here. ALL people seek this whether knowingly or unknowingly. When people talk about Freedom they most often mean sovereignty. Nobody in the world today is 'free' we are all pressed into whatever function we perform for a living by a global economic system that is owned by the wealthy. The Lobbying seen in America, is happening here, it happens everywhere. I have always seen that process as bribery. And no amount of re-framing can hide the fact that over several generations, we have dropped aspects of our lives for the profit of others. This has to stop. It is very unlikely that it will be stopped without complete economic/social collapse. In past generations we Kiwis prided ourselves on a strong moral upbringing, where we insisted that everyone should get a fair go. We lost that at around the same time things got tough (and the tough got going), as our betters wanted to take more and more. The experiment of Milton Freidman, which has become known as Neoliberalism, has morphed into inverted totalitarianism. Corporations run the world now; governments are charged with the task of implementing compliance of the citizenry, and maintaining profit. The foreign influence here has never been greater. Our leaders walk a fine line between what they can get away with (on both sides of the coin) and organisations like the International Monetary Fund and The World Bank which are owned by the same people who own both sides of the ideological debate of other crises .eg climate change. Look guys, it's all about greed and power. Don't buy into it. Be the old style 'individual' kiwi and don't mess with Te Tiriti. Maori are right people to look after NZ, some less than others (fair to say), but certainly more than say global financial elite. I am a Pakeha (I think), proud to be a Kiwi who loves the beauty of Aotearoa. Be careful what you hold in your heart and place in your mind. Maori are not the cause of your problems, that's BS. The global economic system drives every problem we are all experiencing here - the real ones, that is, that make the life of the average kiwi, very hard at times. We are stoic, and often choose not to complain - and that is pretty awesome - but we are like possums in the headlights, on this issue. Do yourself a favour and read/listen to this book by Naomi Klein - "The Shock Doctrine". You will never regret doing so. Trolls who comeback at this post: have at it, if you are not a fully conscious individual 'sovereign' human being, there is still time to begin that process. Ask yourself, truly: what actual harm have Maori done to you, and where you have suffered harm from Maori - is that any different from the harm you have suffered any other group of people? I have suffered more harm over my long life from wealthy folks not paying their way; or being honest and well intentioned. So in summary: we are being sold a context that describes our collective pain and Maori are being hung out to dry as the villain here. Fair go, people get back onboard and push these rich pr*cks out. If you are one of them - you will hit a wall at some point in your life; and your wealth will be meaningless - so think about it. Money isn't everything.
Hey Mark, just want to say big respect for your love and commitment man. I get the feel where your at, I sympathise, agree with your main direction but I believe we do have the authority if realised to limit globalist take over in this land, to assert our freedoms and establish a significant enough sovereign autonomy to limit the power of for instance a global governance and financial system to have complete domination over this land and people. But we must be brave, visionary and be ready to ditch certain conventional orthodoxies.
@@marksharman8029 I didnt read your entire book only the summary. Capitalism was and has always been at the pinnacle of European activities in New Zealand. It started with the exploitation of wood, flax, seals and whales, then went into land and minerals like gold/silver. After that, the land was cleared and exploited for farming; Now they are trying their hardest to get rid of the Treaty so they can start mining and fracking. I agree, its rich sponsors pushing this behind the scenes. Seymour is on someone's payroll, trying to push the conversation into parliament so it can be voted out through referendum. The Bill is just a Trojan Horse to achieve this.
@@marksharman8029 Lets see, here is some conventional orthodoxies. Economic activity is the most important human activity, Economic indicators are a measure of national health. That the individual is the highest human category, that spirituality is wholly subjective and has no social/national significance. That Race is an objective category. That we who are alive now know more than previous generations. That our present situation is the result of "progress". These are some of the assumptions that muddy and muddle our perception and understanding.
If you are angry in any way about what was said in this podcast, Weather or not, you are Maori or Pakeha. You should consider a more diplomatic approach to your way of thinking rather than a one-sided 'judge based by your standards' way of thinking. Learn to acknowledge our history and come to a mutual understanding
Why would anyone have to interpret the Treaty it’s written on one page for fuck sake! Name one other treaty or contract that a court feels the need to ‘interpret’. Are the New Zealand courts going to allow me to re-write my mortgage or any other contract - of course not.
Hmmm so should we use the contact that the majority signed, which is the Maori text? What do you think?
Magna Carta treaty of 1215 ... has been interpreted and reinterpreted over 60 times in the past 800 years of it's existence 🤔🙂
First you need to know which document by law and legitimacy takes precedence, and by international law, the indigenous language text takes precedence when there is ambiguity. So Te Tiriti o Waitangi is the version recognised by international law as legitimate, and is the document in which the conversation anyone should have to interpret.
@@DCG-dg5sd That's completely different because the principles of the Magna Carta protect people's freedoms and was the foundation for universal human rights.
The treaty is 136 pages, and nine sheets have you read it both English and Maori versions , if you got two weeks free ,
It is a shambles. Remember, few maori could read or write two cultures mile apart in social needs and aims
Wow... I had limited expectations when "the algorithm" suggested this, but ended up listening to it all. What a wonderfully nuanced discussion. Well done.
I like Paul Moon 😮 based on the few things I've seen and read of him, but I also had reservations that this was going to be the type of discussion that only the left and the mainstream media want us to have. (eg. "Burn the govt, they are racist")
Instead, I was pleasantly surprised. Its so great to actually listen to a balanced discussion for once!!
Thank you Dr Moon! You are a lifesaver. And thank you to the doc who runs this podcast, I'm subscribing. 🙏Ps, I'm Māori
“So anything can become a treaty issue, and therefore nothing is a treaty issue” - this is the wisest comment I have heard on this topic.
Lot of respect for Paul Moon . Especially his views on sovereignty. Colonisation has reached its expiry date in NZ.
Has it . Your pathetic mind has yet to register ,we are being recolonised right now. Wait till the Asian and Middle Eastern voting block starts getting in
He didn't actually say it HAS reached its expiry date, he said eventually it WILL. Quite a difference.
@@mystik.mermayde.aotearoa I said it has
Moon is an awesome lecturer on this kaupapa rather than a popular view he stays connected to the facts. Which usually and most appropriately pisses off both sides of the argument.
Facts a he understands them are biased by his world view.
Love that an Asian is leading the podcast - ie NZ is for all New Zealanders.
We're is New Zealand is it around Aotearoa 😂
No one's listening a foreigner....stay in your lane girl!!!!
This is Aotearoa, Maori whenua ❤❤
Is this worth a watch ? Is it left or right leaning ? I don’t have two hours free to watch another anti left leaning propaganda piece 😂
@@Garh1972 best stay in your echo chamber
Interesting discussion by two people who clearly have some understanding and sympathy for the plight and life of Māori, as well as their journey so far. However, I feel this conversation would have carried much more mana and been more honourably straightforward if Māori voices had been directly included. There are so many Māori who would have gladly participated in this kōrero to bring deeper insight and authenticity to the discussion.
Ffs, stop worrying what happened almost 200 years ago. We live in a modern society. Everyone is equal. There is not a country, tribe, ethnic group, etc in history who hasnt suffered some sort of invasion or colonization. Everyone in history got a raw deal at some point. Its 2024, get over it and look to the future. Respect yourself, your country and your fellow humans, life will be ok.
Victim Support- Sean O'Dwyer - number 136- 140 Hobson Street.- Auckland City. 1010.- new Zealand./ maha aotearoa.''
49:50 , what actually helps medical patients do better? Hyper focus on race, ethno, waitangi grievance? At the expense of discussing life's choices, diet, smoking, housing, etc? Continuous casting blame doesn't usually encourage self responsibility. 2/Colonialism can also be rephrased "civilization" etc. Think of the work of
"Acclimatisation societies in New Zealand" who tasked themselves with introducing hundreds of European birds animals rabbits etc to nz, with the best of intentions at the time and detrimental effects that will long outlive humans, we can't change the past just live and learn from it.
I'm pleased to note Prof Moon a uni lecturer as avoiding the left leaning tilt so pervasive in unis now.
If we took modern ideology back in time, NZ Hydro electricity both North and South Is would be hamstrung into oblivion, with consultating of iwi etc . Could a single dam be built on the Waikato?
Saying colonization can be rephrase as civilization is one of the most retarded things I've ever read
Nah bring cheap immigrant doctors who are indian who dont give shit about tikanga
Yes let's not forget, the other things that were introduced such as rats, diseases, debauchery. Guns.
Thankyou for the excellent interview.
Thank you Professor Paul Moon! I gathered an abundance of humble seeds that have been interwoven into wise gems.
My tipuna signed He Whakaputanga (Declaration of Independence) 28.10.1835 and Te Tiriti 17.2.1840. Pōmare believed he had not given up any sovereignty and stated that he was not able to in any case, as it belonged to all of his iwi.
Is that in a recorded quote verified by more than one source?
Chiefs were sovereign over their Iwi/hapu. What they said was law. Its not possible for every member of a tribe to be sovereign.
@@michaelgrey7854if it wasn’t true , Section 71 of the 1852 Constitution Act would not exist…… this was 12 years after 1840 and after The Flagstaff wars. , that made the Governing Body and it’s settlers and settlement migrate from Kororareka to Auckland via Refuge from War with Nga Puhi.
@@susanbirch5705 yes it is
@@susanbirch5705 Rangatira led the people. The land was shared with the entire iwi not held in title by the Rangatira. Ownership of land is a colonial construct.
Te tiriti is an exceptional document defining a position of the paticipants. One was the race " Maori" that were the owners by their colonisation of a country that to all intents was vacant. They had existed here long enough to spread throughout this land. The treaty "allowed" other races to come and live here and to govern their own race. As a pakeha this still " allows" me to be Aeotearoan. It is a tolerant document. Like democracy it is a living thing. Toitu te tiriti. Live in gratitude, protect this country and all our people.
@@Grandudeable thank you 😊
I really like your whakaaro
Tee hee hee funny!! Bro this 2024 more indians than maori now and soon more Chinese!! They didn't sign no treaty
I agree with the sentiment, but I think using the term "race" plays into Seymour's hands as he will say "see that's why it is racist" The treaty is more an agreement between say Group A (the people who lived in Aotearoa) and another GroupB who came along several hundred years later and said we want to live in the country too. GroupA generously said you can as long as we can keep living as we have and we have as equal rights as yours. Unfortunately groupB did not live up to thier part off the bargin and this has only been recognized in recent times. asome Treaty settlements have been made as a way to recognize this and the other things have been done to try to make good on the original spirt of the treaty. Now it seems the government wants to turnback the clock and unwind all this good work.
The problem is the 19th century wasn't democratic. It was aristocratic and heirarchical. Your nicely expressed sentiments are just that - sentimental.^^
Paul Moon contradicts the indisputable evidence recorded at the Waitangi debates and later at the 1860 Kohimarama conference in Auckland where Maori chiefs stated that they had ceded sovereignty and who were also fighting beside the British Constabulary to stop other tribes from breaking the Treaty. His conclusions seem to be slanted toward modern marxist academic opinions rather than actual evidence. These are the real reasons and proof why 500+ Maori Chiefs signed Te Tiriti o Waitangi and why we should be proud of it: th-cam.com/video/_YVvnfv7_6s/w-d-xo.html
Yea there is a lot of ignoring inconvenient evidence going on.
thanks to you both we have try to understand its not easy
Exactly, Te tiriti is for settlers not māori. We already had tino Rangatiratanga.
no settlers signed the treaty...just saying
What you had was two decades of the stronger tribes with muskets slaughtering the weaker ones to the south. The chiefs wanted law and order [even Nga Puhi kept falling into 'civil wars']. History not wishful thinking.
@@davethewave7248guess you haven't been listening to the podcast and what the historian who more educated in our country history said 🙄
@@davethewave7248 There were many hapū and iwi that never signed Te Tiriti o Waitangi - because some didn't want to have anything to do with the settlers. Others didn't sign in 1840 because they had already signed He Whakaputanga o Te Rangatiratanga (Declaration of Independence) on 28 October, 1835. Accepted by England's Colonial Office and therefore the court of King William IV, this (not Te Tiriti) is this nation's founding document. As you say, the chiefs wanted law and order - as sailors from the thousands of ships who dropped anchor at Kororāreka (now called Russell) were causing havoc in the Far North. That's why they invited Queen Victoria to come here to have kawanatanga (governorship) over HER own - that is, British people - not them. Te Tiriti can be considered as the first immigration document.
No hoki heke got upset he wasn't collecting 5£ each boat when the ships moved to Auckland.
Thats shen yhe "deal" went dirty. Basically greedy then greedy now. @marielaufiso2611
Hi Nina.. interesting discussion but there are three fundamental questions that are not answered; and these need answering before you can answer the primary question; which is fundamentally a question of law - Did Maori cede sovereignty?
Q1 - What is mean't by "Maori" Q2 - What is the "sovereignty" in question - Q3 - Did "Maori" (Q1) have the particular "sovereingty" (Q2) to cede?
Q1 Keep in mind that there has never been an etho-state in New Zealand; there were independent tribes. Polynesians came to NZ in migration waves over hunderds of years and we don't know if they all came from the same place. Looking at it through that lens; how are europoean settlers or even the Crown any different in terms of legal status?
Q2: There is a difference between sovereignty over the entire NZ territory and sovereignty over part of it. No-one was the supreme ruler of New Zealand (having the final say to impose laws) on all New Zealand territory prior to 1840. Compare the Heptarchy. It cannot be assumed that the Islands had no internal borders. To cement the point, you have to account for the Moriori on the Chatham Islands. A land mass is not neccesarily a single country just because its an island. This raises the issue of whether the question should be 'Did Maori...' or is it better to ask 'Did [tribe x]...' and that aligns better with the Treaty signators.
Q3: Sovereignty is a eurocentric concept. There is no exact Maori equivalent. In order to apply the British meaning of sovereingty on the ground, to the facts in 1840; at least as closely as you can, you have to account for Treaty duality and the proper definition of sovereignty "the right and recognition to rule over a defined territory." You can see that the definition is the elements identified by Q1 and Q2; which inform Q3.
Cheers
Rick LLB
Rick the cesspurt spurts AGAIN
@@007shlomo Still not answering the question. Winz, Maori or New Zealander?
And estoppel?
This bloke will pick bits of the past to support what he wants to see take place in the future.
The future has not taken place yet. It is determined by what people want and are prepared to implement to achieve their desires.
Every entrepreneur understands this and sees the future as clean slate.
What is important is the immediate circumstances and what enhancements are required to produce the desired goal.
Therefore anyone with half a pea for a brain can see what the desired goal is by examining the proposed practices.
Now listen to what this History Researcher has to say.
The fact is - Maori can be New Zealanders. New Zealanders can't be Maori. When Maori go to their marae, they are Maori. When they go to the Koroneihana, they are Maori. When Maori go to a Poukai, they are Maori. When Maori go to tangi, they are Maori. When Maori go to learn Maori things, they are Maori. There is no argument that Maori are here. They are not going away. If Maori choose to be a New Zealander, they do it by choice, not by laws and threats of jail and being called racist. New Zealanders do European things. Maori do them too but it doesn't take away the fact that they are Maori doing European things
I don't believe Maori are New Zealanders. New Zealander means a white person with exceptions where it is convenient to include Maori or to lay this label upon them in a sense of ownership.
Ergo if a Maori does something like win gold medals they are called a New Zealander.
If the narrative is negative they are no longer described as New Zealanders, they are described by race, as other.
Whark up Immigrantion
Nah not nzders but kiwi get over it
@fullcircle4723 Sorry, if you look at the first pictures or read the first descriptions of "New Zealanders" you will see New Zealanders are Maori. "New Zealander" was a European descriptor for the people now called Maori. If Europeans call themselves New Zealanders they have appropriated that word for themselves.
@@boxerturner7472Kiwi is a Māori word 😩😩 But we'll reluctantly share it with everyone
Regarding Prof. Moon's reference to ACT's bill (from 43:26) - and what's to stop any future govt. from simply changing it, if it passed into legislation? Attaching a NATIONAL REFERENDUM to it would stop that. If 70% of the country supports ACT's bill, that's a very powerful reason for the legislation to stay unchanged in the future.
It won't go through.
Te Ao Maori will take this to international court and declare Sovereignty over itself.
This means all land stolen and not settled under Te Tiriti will be given back with UN backing and all resources will be given back.
@@jwatstom Maori aren’t indigenous. There in lies the whole issue. The UN UNDRIP policy does not hold law in New Zealand as Maori are simply colonisers, no different from the European people.
@@chrisfort5775 Yep Maori are indigenous, first people here = indigenous and is proven through archaeology, bioanthropology, geoarchaeology, and archaeobotanical methods. There is zero evidence of people being here before the eastern Polynesian Maori. Get educated!
Yep, Seymour is trying to get any Treaty discussions into parliament, so a referendum WILL happen, which would of course make the Treaty null and void. His Bill is a Trojan Horse to make this change. Its dodgy. It would be like buying a house from someone, and then they came back 10 years later and try and say the house is now worth more, so you owe us more money LOL. It's a done deal so GET USED TO IT!
@ they are not indigenous 😵💫😖!!! They sailed here you fool.
They are colonisers like all other citizens of New Zealand. There were many prior nationalities of humans that have resisided in NZ , long before Maori arrived. There is physical evidence, but Helen Clark’s government put it under an embargo until 2067. By that time, the agenda of tribal rule will have been passed, it will be to difficult to reverse any political decision, even with proof that Maori were not the first people here, nor are they indigenous! You do your homework!😡😡😡
Paul has a lot of wisdom and he articulates this well in his answers. I liked that he offered a better perspective on many of the interviewers questions/thoughts.
I found Moon to be rather consistent in his thinking approach across a range of topics and it was interesting to see Nina’s views shift throughout the discussion on different points.
Enjoyed the conversation, subscribed! 👏
Dear Doctor,
The point of a competent podcast host is to ask a concise question followed by a secondary question; then listen.
Is it? Or can it be whatever she wants it to be? Its her podcast after all. I really enjoyed this discussion, on both sides.
verry awesome interesting and articulate conversation,,,verry good to listen to and learn from,,,THANK YOU SO MUCH
Back again - zoomed forward. Good to see Paul put the boot in on the curriculum. The 'history' being taught in schools sounds like it's just the new politics - here are the ideas that you should believe. And yes, history can not be separted into race... that would be rascism. Histories - post-modernism. To inflict this kind of thing onto our young people is unforgivable. Yes, history is only linear with hindsight. In real practical life, there are a multitude of paths that open out before us. Choice not determinism.
The discussion on moral judgements about history is about bi-gotry. With the bi-got, all the evil is on one side, and all the good on the other. Sadly you see this bigotry going mainstream, when impressionable minds see the past in terms of evil colonizers, and the poor innocent Maori that once lived in paradise.
In the 1860s, the Crown viewed Kingitanga/ the King movement as a rebellion. Of course, the Brits had then to further enforce sovereignty over the country. Part and parcel of this process [eco-system in Paul's terms] was the confiscation of some land to provide a buffer zone between settlers and hostile tribes... to be populated by retired soldiers/ the fencibles. Once the King movement became a land league, war was inevitable. The flaw was in the original terms of the treaty, too missionary, too idealistic, and doomed to failure. The statesmen should have been more practical and statesmenlike, but they too were heavily influenced by the Church Missionary Society back in London.
Reading your revisionism just confirms that you are talking kaka 😅
The Kingitanga was a group of iwi trying to adopt a similar structure to the British Crown, and to unite Maori against the increased colonisation of NZ by pakeha, because they felt alienated and threatened. It wasn't ALL Maori like you proclaim, and hostilities between Maori and Pakeha predate the movement. But YES, your discussion about bigotry and moral judgements is correct; and you've very cleverly offered your own words as a prime example. Congratulations *fireworks
Lol, you are aware that history requires primary and secondary sources before it's considered "history", right? Like you can lie about history, but then someone will show up with a journal, official crown report or something else that'll show you're being dishonest.
@@Criticont and hostilities between maori and maori as well. The kingi movement was hostile and abusive to maori. those that sided with the British wanted the kingi movement ended.
@@user-tc-s7r Yes, you are correct too. There were iwi that converted en-masse to Christianity with the realisation that it was the religion of peace. It needs to be understood, that a lot of iwi saw some of the aspects of British society as being superior to Maori beliefs, and they embraced this.
we married each other, shared wealth together, the ancient Moana way it’s in our language. Sure there were wars but we have lived in peace for longer that Europeans have ever. You came here to be a Child of the Moana and not Bristol. Forget those places this is the new and the truest
Colonisation uplifted a stone age canabalistic society to a modern society bypassing major milestones such as inventing the wheel, written language, metal ages, industrial revolution
Given so many monumental jumps in knowledge without self determination are the reason we have todays unrest
I am Tangata whenua
Ngati Pakeha
You do realize ngati pakeha that every ethnic group practiced cannibalism. Māori were already bringing modern technology pre-treaty through the Declaration of Independence and prior. This country would've progressed without the Crown 😏. Māori didn't need the crown, it's the other way around 😎. Nice try though 😉
@@fteeagle9446 I see your point but I raise the question, what time difference is there between the rest of the civilised world abandoning cannibalism as regearding Maori? It is not a question of history but a question of timely relevence. When the explorers arrived canibalism rarely existed in the civilised world yet was practiced along side slavery routinely by Maori in the same timeline
@@citizenkane0014 the thing is, cannabilism hasn't stopped, especially in predominantly within Europe, it went underground. Cannabilism didn't stop because of colonization. Again, māori would have progressed from this.
@@fteeagle9446 I agree with the progression comment to a degree, the timeline would be the telling thing, when was Reverend Volkner killed by Te Whanau Apanui and consumed? Less than 200 years ago, as to the other I plead no information so no opinion,
Not that I agree with the practice, but you're looking at it through European eyes.
Maori cannibalism relates in my understanding to the concepts of tapu and noa.
Chiefs were sacred (tapu) food is noa (not sacred).
It was almost the ultimate insult, because what do you do with food?
Therefore, it was done for reason, not as practice.
Great convo thanks Doc
Nicely balanced thoughts on the subject everything else I've watched seems to have predisposition
The discussion around the Treaty is all very interesting, but the document is 184 years old. In its most literal sense it cant work, because NZ and the world is completely different. I think it would be more productive for Māori to say this is what isn’t working for our people right now. What can the crown do to help us make long term progress in these areas? The dilemma is that the answer is probably better education to succeed in the new international world, but this will inevitably also reduce their connection to their historical culture. Life is full of trade offs for everyone. I think some Māori want the best of both worlds but I think that is very difficult to achieve, if not impossible.
Why do you say it couldn't work now, of course it could.
The US constitution is considerably older at 233 years. Almost all of the original text and the bill of rights amendments is still in force as written and subsequently interpreted by the judiciary.
The land has never changed 😂😂😂😂 you moved to Aotearoa there home . Family's today are the blood and owners of these blocks today nothings changed just the date.
Iam half pacific island, Maori and islanders are responsible for there own health, if you don't want to be healthy then don't be healthy and don't complain about it when you have bad health, I have plenty of family members who drink coke like water and then wonder why they have diabetes, own your own shit and stop expecting the govt to solve your problems.
Yes, Pacific Islanders definitely have huge obesity problems
100% , you are absolutely correct own your own problems, Maori’s biggest problem is socialism, hand out after handout , not embracing education or health and it’s our problem, I don’t think so OWN IT AND DEAL WITH IT
Amazing korero from Mātua Moon & Whaea Su.
Tēnā koe, I'm glad you enjoyed the conversation. We have many other conversations just like this one about Education, Health and Justice. We plan to upload them all soon, but for now they are available as a podcast on Spotify/Apple podcasts etc. Have a listen and share with your friends and whānau if you enjoyed them. Nina
Whaea Su generally speaking has a general view of history, generally speaking.
Really enjoyed this
Interesting kórero kia ora Paul, kotiro. One ooint to note is that our marae will never seek government support to operate our marae
This is the best discussion I have ever heard on the subjects, it's helpful, healing and non- confrontational. I am born in New Zealand of Irish and English /Romani Gypsy family heritage. I think having oppression and racism in the culture of my family heritage has made me as neutral as much as I can, anti racism and I good understanding of the differences in culture around me, I think you are similar in that respect. Almost on the outside looking in, not taking one side or the other.
However I do believe the pendulum has swung and things are out of balance in NZ in my opinion. I hope through the executive branch of the government not politicians, common sense will prevail for the good of all NZers.
I fear a percentage of Maori have created their idealogical and narrative through rhetoric and unproven and untrue history.
Doctor Su you must be able to study a new subject, it is not too late I think. You are showing a neutral, unbias approach to a very delicate subject, good luck with your future..
The biggest problem in New Zealand is the country is short 1 million homes due to successive governments not doing their duty. Not having an affordable place to live makes life very difficult, particularly if your trying to bring up kids. Huge numbers in NZ are suffering from malnutrition because of the housing shortage. The Treaty will never solve these problems, because its caused by the problem of capital and labour and those who have and those who do not.
our government been following the wefs orders for 50 years you will own nothing and be happy is not a joke we will be taxed out of our property
no private land owner ship with any native group of peoples any where on the planet
A pragmatic view would be this.Given the obvious technological superiority of the British.Given that Maori had allready travelled to the Australian colonies and to the heart of the empire and witnessed its power.Given that Maori tribes had only recently came out of the musket wars and decimation invoked between tribes.Given all this would a Chief of some few thousands expect to be an equal to the crown,In no way whats so ever,they understood power.Did those chiefs however expect to be able to govern their own Tribe,Yes ,but above that was the crown .The crown shouldve been there as an enveloping protection ,an organisation of state and trade throughout the islandsand beyond.The crown didn't meet its obligations and hence where we are now.
We are being Mooned here.
Every other interview I've seen with Paul Moon has seemed abit wishy washy, but this interview felt different! Maybe I'll need to go back & rewatch those other ones again
1 Person 1 Vote……Democracy…..sure Māori can have their own place. And yes as a 4th Generation Kiwi whose Children are now in their late 20’s and early 30’s. So my Children are 5th Generation Pakeha…….I’m am proud of my Children, I’m Proud of my Pakeha whakaapa. And yes Māori are cool etc.
Good convo thanks guys
Start from a base reality. There is no, nor has there ever been a Polynesian nation that has wholly ceeded it's sovereignty to an outside power. Tahiti, Hawaii, Samoa, Cook Islands. Far from it any arrangements with occupiers or potential invaders has constantly been rebuffed and protested against. It is inconceivable that Maori rangatira or ariki would have been the unique exception. Far from it as we see in the constant assertion of that principal of tinorangatiratanga by Maori from 1840. One wholly different to that of western Pakeha. They are people of the land tangata whenua, pakeha are not, nor can they ever be. That's the fundamental Polynesian perspective. No hyperbolic gymnastics will ever change that, nor should it.
Go Read Ngata's The Treaty of Waitangi essay
@ as I said it doesn’t negate a pan-Polynesian reality. Although I respect greatly Sir Apirana Ngata his sole interpretation doesn’t speak for a much larger issue, any more than Hugh Kawharu’s opinion might have.
Issue with other Polynesian nations aside from Hawaii is that they are ~90% Polynesian. Nz by comparison is comprised of 20% people of maori decent and 80% other. We can't operate in the same way as other Polynesian nations because of this fact, it's not practical.
Hawaii sadly ceeded to America... Aloha oe is the Hawaiian Queens emotions over that mistake.
In the old days - a deal was a deal. These days a deal is not a deal. Plenty of other countries out there if you don't like this one but I think we've only just begun as Karen once said, as many people never really honoured the treaty. It was almost a ruse. Give it a go. It's working quite well in many communities.
KAWHARU’S RE-WRITTEN TREATY
Complaints that ACT Party leader, David Seymour wants to “re-write the Treaty of Waitangi” don’t stack up, considering that Te Tiriti was quietly re-written under a Labour Government almost 40 years ago.
In 1986, the Lange Labour Government commissioned Professor Sir Hugh Kawharu, Professor of Maori Studies at the University of Auckland, to produce a contemporary translation of Te Tiriti’s Maori text.
At the same time, Kawharu had just been appointed to serve on the Waitangi Tribunal, a highly influential appointment he would hold for 10 years from 1986.
At the time of his Tribunal appointment, Kawharu was also a claimant on behalf of Ngati Whatua, working on his tribe’s various Treaty claims, and representing it in the Bastion Point land claim negotiations.
Hardly someone without an axe to grind.
Many might also recognise several conflicts of interest.
We might also ask why a further back-translation was needed, when James Busby’s final English language draft, and TE Young’s 1869 back-translation compiled for the Native Department, were already available.
Kawharu’s deliberately mischief-making back-translation of Te Tiriti was accepted as definitive by the government of the day.
His radical reinterpretation of Te Tiriti soon morphed into the manifesto of the Maori Sovereignty movement.
Kawharu’s New Zealand Dictionary of Biography page describes “a man of quiet persuasion” noted for “persistent advocacy for the Maori right to exercise rangatiratanga (self-determination).”
“Rangatiratanga” or Māori self-determination lay at the core of Kawharu’s reinterpreted Treaty, complete with 11 footnotes radically redefining key words away from what was understood by all in 1840.
At footnote 7, he asserted that “rangatiratanga” in Article II of Te Tiriti meant “the unqualified exercise of their chieftainship.”
Ignoring the historical record of what the chiefs actually said on the lawn at Waitangi, Kawharu declared that this “would emphasise to a chief the Queen's intention to give them complete control according to their customs.”
In arriving at this conclusion, Kawharu completely overlooked the fact that “rangatiratanga” as used in Te Tiriti at Article II narrows any broader meaning it might have to being a right to ownership and control of land and personal property.
He also ignored the fact that Te Tiriti’s guarantee of property rights applied to everyone here on 6 February 1840, both white and brown.
By redefining “rangatiratanga” as self-determination, Kawharu set up Te Tiriti to be used to justify Maori sovereignty aspirations.
His commentary around the word “kawanatanga” in Article 1 was a further re-write.
Kawharu asserted: “there could be no possibility of the Maori signatories having any understanding of government in the sense of ‘sovereignty’.”
Eyewitness accounts of the treaty debate on February 5, 1840 at Waitangi, say otherwise.
The primary source account in CMS printer, William Colenso’s “Authentic and Genuine History of the Signing of the Treaty of Waitangi” shows that the chiefs were well-aware their acceptance of Hobson would place him in authority over them, and that behind Hobson was Queen Victoria.
Kawharu’s assertion at footnote 6, that the chiefs could not comprehend “sovereignty”, opened the way for the false claim that the chiefs never ceded it.
His third substantial re-write applied to the word “taonga” in Article II.
At footnote 8, Kawharu asserted that “taonga” included “all dimensions of a tribal group's estate, material and non-material - heirlooms and wahi tapu (sacred places), ancestral lore and whakapapa (genealogies). “
This opened up the public purse to Maori claims to anything and everything, including assets not even in contemplation in 1840, such as radio and television frequencies.
Kawharu’s Te Tiriti reinterpretation has allowed radical activists to glove-puppet politicians and jurists into adopting his political manifesto dressed up as a Treaty translation as the basis for judgments and policies.
Kawharu’s reinterpreted Treaty text was the one applied by Cooke CJ in the NZ Māori Council Court of Appeal case of 1987.
Kawharu was one of 20 radical activists submitting affidavits for that case along with New Zealand Maori Council chair Sir Graham Latimer, historian [sic] Claudia Orange, land march activist Whina Cooper, history lecturer and Ngai Tahu claimant Harry Evison, medical practitioner Mason Durie, and accountancy professor and later Maori Party chairman Whatarangi Winiata.
Legal Positivists apply the law according to law and precedent. Their commitment is to upholding the Rule of Law.
Judicial activists are woke social justice warriors. They apply the law acco in rding to their own social and political opinions.
Here, the rule of law is trumped by personal opinion filtered through the lens of social justice concerns.
The rise of judicial activism in New Zealand traces back to Lord Cooke of Thorndon (Robin Cooke), a liberal bleeding heart who should never have been allowed near a judicial appointment, let alone to preside over New Zealand’s highest Court of his time.
Lord Cooke had, during the course of his legal education, been heavily influenced by another judicial activist, Lord Denning, of the British Privy Council.
Here’s David Baragwanath, Counsel for the Appellants in the 1987 NZ Māori Council case from which the Treaty ‘partnership’ fiction derives, skiting about the outcome at a commemorative symposium held some 20 years later :
“I began to read [Dame Whina Cooper’s] affidavit [asserting land somehow had a special meaning to her as a part-Maori]. By the end of the first paragraph , the President’s familiar handkerchief was out. As it continued, his emotion was evident. By the end of the affidavit, Dame Whina had taken the case from his head to his heart, and we had captured him.”
Say goodbye to the rule of law.
Kawharu’s redefinition of “rangatiratanga” as “the unqualified exercise of their chieftainship” underpinned the Court of Appeal’s finding in the Māori Council case that Te Tiriti was “akin to a partnership.”
This bogus reinterpretation soon made its way over to the Waitangi Tribunal, on which its author was already a key player.
The Kawharu rewrite later formed the basis of Sir Geoffrey Palmer’s five Principles for Crown Action on the Treaty of Waitangi.
These five principles, kawanatanga, or government; rangatiratanga, or self-management; equality; cooperation; and redress, were published on 4 July 1989.
Leftist academics, the Waitangi Tribunal, and ‘woke’ senior public servants, then amplified the partnership’ fiction over succeeding decades, culminating in the Arden Labour Government setting up a Treaty Partnership Ministry in 2017.
This in turn blossomed into the He Puapua blueprint for two governments by 2040, one by Maori for Maori; the other a fully bicultural version of what we already have, subject to a tribal monitoring committee.
Behind these developments are wealthy tribal entities flush with ill-gotten pee from Treaty Settlements, greedy for political power over their non-Māori fellow-citizens.
In summary, the ‘Treaty Partnership’ ideology behind these developments traces back almost 40 years to Kawharu’s rewrite of Te Tiriti and the government’s adoption of Geoffrey Palmer’s Principles For Crown Action .
Bypassing Kawharu’s reinterpretation, ACT leader David Seymour has based his three brief principles on Te Tiriti’s actual black letter wording and the recorded contemporary understanding of its meaning and intent in 1840.
ACT’s proposed Treaty Principles Bill would provide that:
1. The government has the right to govern and there is one government for all New Zealanders.
2. We all have rights within the law to “tino rangatiratanga”, or self-determination, and to ownership and control of our lawfully acquired property.
3. We all have “nga tikanga katoa rite tahi” or the same rights and duties.
This poses a major problem for brown supremacist part-Māori riding a Treaty commonly misrepresented today as justifying Maori self-government.
For brown supremacists to argue against Seymour’s Bill is to deny and dishonour the selfsame Te Tiriti that their tupuna signed up to in 1840.
In 1922, Sir Apirana Ngata summarised the effect of the Treaty of Waitangi with considerable clarity, finality, and certainty: “Article I of the Treaty transfers all chiefly authority to the Queen forever, and the embodiment of that authority is now the New Zealand Parliament. For that reason, all demands for absolute Maori authorities are nothing more than wishful thinking.”
“The Treaty … made the one law for the Maori and the Pakeha. If you think these things are wrong and bad then blame our ancestors who gave away their rights in the days when they were powerful.”
New Zealanders are becoming increasingly aware that there are two Treaties, the 1840 treaty and a 1986 re-write.
So let’s have and be accepting no more of this nonsense that David Seymour is “rewriting the Treaty.”
Outrage over ACT’s proposed Treaty Principles Bill boils down to this: the fear that brown supremacist part-Māori who have turned their white ancestors into a toilet bowl to identify monoculturally as ‘Māori, might lose their unearned ethnocentric privilege.
As Thomas Sowell reminds us: “When people become used to special treatment, equal treatment seems like discrimination.”
ENDS
Take a look at maori history........... wars with each other, what that didnt happen????, The chiefs WANTED a treaty because of the need for their very survival
While there was tribal raru...the chiefs ultimately established their own council **(TeWhakaminenga) to sort both internal and external issues. This showed an attempt at tribal unity for the greater good of Māori who were up against rogue officials/settlers.
The narrative that Māori desperately needed a whiteSaviour...enough to give up their entire livelihood (food,shelter, resources etc) is a lie!
"The chiefs WANTED a treaty because of the need for their very survival" has absolutely nothing to do with why the treaty exists - where did you get this 'fact' from? It seems to be easy for people to make completely untrue statements - tell us where the evidence is for this. Show it to us. Prove Professor Moon wrong. Dare you to.
@@_.Marz._ This fell apart soon after with Nga Puhi in civil wars. Both chiefs and missionaries then petitioned for the British to take the reigns. The He Whakaputunga is mentioned in the treay as the basis on which the chiefs could be *said* to cede their sovereignty to the Crown [while retaining their dignity as chiefs within their respective tribes].
@@davethewave7248 BS! They didn't cede! Do you expect me to believe a bunch of f r ë e_m ä s o n s? Foh.
Stop the lies!!
@@davethewave7248 no
Thank you for this discussion, I certainly don't agree with everything, but a great discussion nonetheless!
Always remember the " crown " in treaty settlements is the New Zealand taxpayer!! NOT the british monarchy
No Jemma the Crown is the Sovereignty whose Parliament the British Parliament is. The Crown makes legitimate the Parliament. Even Bill Gates pays some tax in N.Z is he sovereign here? Don't think so.
As someone that is ethnically Chinese id like to know how you feel about China breaking the shackles of colonial rule over their mainland and some islands?
well what I noticed was the flood of Hong Kong citizens trying to get British Passports before the handover
Is she New Zealander? Then sweet as, its her Treaty as well.
18:00 is a good start 39:00 also
37:51 funny thing to say about new immigrants coming to NZ and having to learn about the Treaty of Waitangi..I imagine chinese people coming to the Americas, let's say Peru for instance, and having to learn about the fall of the Inca Empire. Of course, the chinese who migrated to Peru from the 19th century onwards didn't because they were busy adapting to their new surroundings and more importantly, surviving! What a ludicrous idea, really.
Colonisation is happening in Ukraine and Palestine today. It is brutal and it is ruthless, which is what history has shown. It continues because people accept it, make excuses for it and down play the harm colonisation causes. Only a foolish person would think that the colonisation of Maori was not planned, deliberate and brutal.
Yeah, The treaty could be a model for how other such conflicts could be resolved, alas it seems forces are wanting to lead NZ down the path to conflict.
Colonization can also equate to civilization. Life in NZ was pretty nasty, brutish and short before the treaty. Just ask the southern tribes.
Only a foolish person would post as you have.
Well what did Sir Apirana Ngata say? I mean he lived closer to events than any of us did and wrote an essay about it. Clearly someone to be taken seriously if he ends up on our $50 note. He was pretty clear. Im not saying that colonialism didnt have an obvious impact on maori which their ancestors cant have fully anticipated. I get that life for maori since then has been complex and why they might have felt somewhat aggrieved, betrayed, maybe there was sense of regret but that going quietly into the night was not an option for them. But for the chiefs, ceding sovereignty was the right decision for them at the time.
Apirana Ngata’s views reflected his eras pressures. As does Paul Moon’s. Think, if Moon was to hold a dissident view on the treaty (even if he did believe it) he would most definitely be sacked from AUT and be ostracised by the media, etc
Apirana Ngata was a politician not a historian he also lied to Maori saying that the price of citizens to fight in 2 world wars when history proves otherwise
Although the (English language) Treaty of Waitangi says they did, Māori never ceded sovereignty. People who have not studied Te Tiriti AND The Treaty (which do NOT say the same things) have little to no appreciation that 1840 Aotearoa or Niu Tireni was overwhelmingly a Māori world. If you did not speak Te Reo Māori, you were at a disadvantage. On February 6, 1840, Lieutenant Gov Hobson was probably one of the few present who had no Te Reo. There were only 2000 settlers from Britain compared with 200,000 - 500,000. Why would the rangatira of hapū (many related hapū make up an iwi named after one common ancestor) who were in control of ALL their affairs cede sovereignty to a small group of British subjects, many of whom would have starved if not for the manaakitanga of Māori?
Where can I read that essay? Does the essay suggest the chief's ceded sovereignty? The literature I have read, suggests they very well may have ceded sovereignty, wholly understanding the ramifications of such a move, but to ultimately save Maori from self-destruction. I could be wrong, I need more information.
@@Criticont Someone is using a child's account to post. The videos that account was posting looks like a girl that's about 10, three years ago. My bet is either it's a parent pretending judging on the language used. I doubt you'll get a real response.
Statements like: 'Using the Treaty into as a strong arm tactic', and, 'If everything is a treaty issue, then nothing is a Treaty issue' lets us know how weak the thesis of this historian is. It isn't 'the Treaty' per se ... this document is a particular means of asserting Mana Motuhake but it is not the source of it - Mana Motuhake existed prior to Te Tiriti and it has never been up for negotiation or ceded. Te Tiriti evidences Tangata Whenua values, qualities, aspirations, it did not give rise to them. 'Health needs' don't happen in isolation from context Paul Moon. Direct whose resources to whom? Who is identifying the 'need' and the 'targets'? Who stands to gain from that algorithm? Tangata Whenua were here, are here, and will always be here! And it is on their terms Tangata Tiriti are here. Whilst Maori say their rights are an issue, they are an issue! So, you know, I hope Paul's ONZM keeps him warm at night ....
Its nice to have tikanga, but don't forget kaupapa and kawa accompany tikanga (where do you think how something is done come from?)
The organisation I work for acknowledges Māori as Tangata Whenua, which is great, but do not tell me how to be Māori. The company talks about Tikanga (How things are done) but is not instructed by the Maori adviser but not Kaupapa and Kawa. I’m not sure what’s going on there; I’ll annoy that person next year and continue to inform those immediately around me of Kaupapa, Tikanga and Kawa and how these three values are so dynamic and fluid.
English?
@@nathanahern3278 Move to England?
I love your podcast.
of course theirs no interest in Te Tiriti because it's been suppressed for too long by the colonisers. The veil of forgetfulness has been lifted and the government can be accountable for the oppression Maaori has had to endure through their decisions not to honour Te Tiriti!
Getting sick of this controversial subject. Unless someone can come up with a taped recording of what was said and not said back in 1840, this crap will never end!
And lady, it's New Zealand, for the record!
Both names can be used interchangeably. What a Karen
Ignoring the fact that the settlers had no superiority complex that gave them the authority to ignore indigenous peoples right to autonomy let alone adopt indigenous practices into law when forming governments in settled colonies. The fact that there is more than one ingredient to colonization ignores the superiority complex that was the liquid that these other factors operated under were soaked in that core belief.
I would think if the treaty was not signed, the recipient would be removed.
Simply, by having made the treaty into effect the benefactor is the party being coerced. (Maori)
In effect, any annulment would result in return of all agreements back to the original standing. Conquer or be conquered. Settlements would be done by force.
quick answer to the Title NO "Te Triti" came before "The Treaty" ....Maxim of Law: First in time best in Law......also international law "where there is conflict between English version & Indigenous version the Indigenous version shall prevail. But more to the point 28th October 1835 He Whakaputanga The Declaration of Independence is the real Document that has the Most Mana and has a flag to back it up.
This is not an interview. She talks all the time. Why invite an expert. She won’t stop talking.
We've been addressing 'the needs', Paul for 30 years at least - with no change in outcomes. The only outcome seems to be Maori wanting more money, more rights, more freebies. As for older Maori dying out and Marae and customs falling out of use... so be it. I think it's indicative of the Maori culture being unsustainable, and its survival is not the responsibility of other cultures.
As of today the Government is appealing the Courts decision regarding Nelson Tenths in favour of Iwi in the Tauihu. If the government was really about equality before the law they would give ALL of what the iwi legally have a right to, rather than a tiny 1%
Alot of people like yourself still think the same way in nz in regards to maori as they did a long time ago. Which means statistically nothing would change
FREEBIES??? The Treaty payments for breaches is only 3% of what Maori lost than you have to add in the factor that Maori lost of productivity of the land that was stolen from then to now is in the trillions
@@stephenlennon7369 Of just the land alone, absolutely nothing given for the resources like the gold taken in the south island.
You certainly do not speak for me in your bubble of forgetful amnesia. I will. My kids will be my hapu will never forget. You're wrong.
i feel like everyone needs to watch Alice Sneddens "Bad News" on Health inequality... this would alleviate a lot of angst. responding to communities needs reduces costs!
NZ has hit it’s expiry date, we need to move on.
what ever white people still exploit there workers
Good bye then
@Ramdingle007 where you going ?
@@user-wr4jw6ec7p nowhere, those who have an issue with our special constitutional arrangement are free to leave though
We need a Constitution and Bill of Rights similar to the USA and a voting system like the Swiss have, that would be a real democractic republic.
"It's pretty plain from the documentation from the British government that they didn't actually want the chiefs to cede sovereignty. They said "We want jurisdiction over this problematic, roughly 2000 settlers living in the country"... I think it's a big stretch to claim that the chiefs, 542 of them suddenly said "We're giving up our sovereignty as well, and certainly, subsequent to the Treaty all the signs were they didn't believe they had..."
(i) 'all the signs' were certainly not that the chiefs didn't believe they had granted the Crown sovereignty. In the chiefs' deliberations as they were deciding whether to sign Te Tiriti, the possibility of the Crown only governing settlers was specifically suggested. Hobson was clear in rejecting that notion by asserting that English laws could only be exercised on English soil. The chiefs understood that and there was no further discussion of that dual-sovereignty model. In 1843 eighteen Hokianga chiefs signed a letter they had asked Hobbs to write in English to Governor Fitzroy. That letter recognised Fitzroy as their governor, not just the settlers' governor, asked the governor to advise them on how to deal with a rebel chief waging war against them and against British law, and moreover it specifically stated regarding Te Tiriti "...we signed our names ceding the sovereignty to her" (i.e. the Queen). There are many more statements from chiefs over the years subsequent to the signing that make it clear they saw the governor as their governor, the Crown as ruling the whole country, having been promised that their rights of land ownership and chiefly decisions would be protected under overriding Crown sovereignty. Without such sovereignty the Crown had no jurisdiction over chiefs' rights to protect them. It's a blatant falsehood to claim that 'all the signs' were that the chiefs didn't believe that in signing Te Tiriti they would give or had given sovereignty over everyone in NZ.
(ii) No reference is provided to support the claim that the British government didn't want sovereignty to include Maori. No reference is provided regarding the quote about what the British government said.
(iii) Aside from all that, the chiefs did not have anything that met a definition of 'sovereignty' to cede. In signing Te Tiriti they understood that they were granting the Crown the right to govern the country and that government would be over them as well as everyone else. Article 3 of Te Tiriti made Maori subjects of the Queen; there is no rational way to see that as anything other than confirming Crown sovereignty.
Toitū He whakapūtanga Toitū Te Tiritī ō Waitangi
Toitū Tangata whenua Kia whawahi Tonu Mātou Mō Ake Ake Ake. Māori Mana Motuhake Kōtahitanga. Tīno Rangātiratanga 🌿❤️🤍🖤🌿
If you are legally trained can you please say so in your comments. As a layman I’m interested in the legal realities as opposed to the “opinion” that the rest of us can offer. Cheers
The arguments they're using regarding colonization were all used by pakeha apologists in the whole nineteenth century in New Zealand. I've read so many of these 19thc arguments and they were actually much better than the ones discussed here, even the ones that argued that the death of the Māori people because of the arrival of the pakeha was just the natural process of the world. The weak gives way to the strong. They argued that one way or the other the Māori were fated to go.
kohimarama hui 1860 - they knew exactly what was going on.
55.18 Our up coming Kohanga tamariki will take over our marae, and most kaumatua/Kuia knowledge has been recorded❣️
Moral temperature, moral values, moral complexion! It wasn't until 1975 (135 years after the signing of the Treaty) that Maori claimed the text of the Treaty in the English language differs from the text of the Treaty in the Maori language and therefore a tribunal was needed to be established to make recommendations on claims relating to the practical application of the principles of the Treaty and, for that purpose, to determine its meaning and effect and whether certain matters are inconsistent with those principles. In 1985 the act was amended to give the Waitangi Tribunal the authority to consider claims dating back to 1840, when the Treaty of Waitangi was signed. It also enlarged the tribunal's membership to enable it to handle the increased number of claims. It also required the tribunal to have a Māori majority. In 1988 tribunal membership and hearings expanded the tribunal's membership and abolished the requirement for a Māori majority. It also enabled different groups of tribunal members to investigate different claims simultaneously. In this time many treaty settlements have been made but it has become clear that the practical application of principles sought in 1975 have never been aired or explained in writing for all New Zealanders (Maori and non-Maori) to understand once and for all. I believe there are number of reasons why the so called "moral temperature" of the Treaty changed in the 1970's and why "moral complexion" took over! Much happened in the 1970's, including the US$ coming off the gold standard allowing exponential fiat money creation globally (by decree) leading to highly inflationary times. The "moral complexion" from this time conveyed politically stories from the past deliberately by politicians to unbalance the social contract. Today 2024 the social contract and sustainability has no moral contract. It is all spin and projection. Will this be talked about in 150 years!
Yes, they did. Zero doubt.
Nope, you fork n egg 😜
There is a simple way to understand what the treaty says and meant. The Littlewood draft. End of story and the graft.
The one no Maori Chief signed....good luck with that one ....ohh yeahhhh we're just going to use a contract only 1 party signed....contract law 101 dummy.....
@jwatstom more pretzel logic.
@jwatstom well since kawheru got his grubby mitts on it and changed the meanings of sovereignty,possession and property, it makes it very simple to know by the littlewood draft, what the treaty said and the crown meant without interference. You have no treaty without the draft that was translated into Maori, and it does not say what the treaty fraudsters have been spouting.
excellent.
Answer is 'No', end of.
It took one paper signed sealed and delivered. To her majesty queenie victoria herself . She agreed We agreed thats it. Honor queen victoria wish pakeha people. Its your queen and still is. Honor. The treaty.
Some more context here th-cam.com/video/2vUbpZ4yF3o/w-d-xo.html . A short talk by Prof. Moon explaining the doctrine of Discovery used to annex the Sth Island.
Read the Littlewood agreement!
As someone of chinese descent what is your opinion of han chinese colonizing the island of fomosa now called Taiwan and oppressing the indigenous population who were the descendants of the polynesians? Should all han chinese apologize and return to the mainland
Seymour is right. On past: the first of the land wars was started by Hone Heke in 1845 for no reason
Hang on, when did everyone else cede their sovereignty??
I still have mine! 😎
The Greek word of "colonisation" or "colonise" essentially means "to migrate", it's about immigration and settle in a land and to eventually form an autonomy from the depended state, used to depict the numerous Greek colonies formed along the Eastern Mediterranean away from their homeland, as opposed to the Persian way of centralised way of "conquer and rule". De-colonise, put to the extreme, essentially means anti-immigration, and even racial or ethnic segregation, suggesting that one particular skin colour / ethnicity should never have made their way to mingle with another skin colour / ethnicity. Colonisation can be bad and so is native / ingenious civilisations. Chinese emperors persecute their subjects no better than any foreign invaders; conversely, a foreign ruler or institution that happens to improve people's wellbeing, is no less than any indigenous ruler or institution. What really matters is how people are generally treated and if the institution improves people's livelihood as a whole; people should be judged by their characters, not by their origin or skin colour, very much what Dr. Martin Luther King said decades ago.
I agree. There are higher values than race, culture and ethnicity. A person can really only and should only be judged on their character, words, actions and the way they treat others. The world is not perfect and will never be. What happened in the past happened and cannot be changed. Redress can only go so far. If you are filled with bitterness, resentment, anger and hate about the past no amount of money, land, education or anything else will help. Maori who are understandably sad about past wrongs committed but have forgiven and moved on as best they can are free. Those who remain aggrieved are enslaved to the past and will remain in bondage to it.
@ Exactly very well put. Didn’t expect to see such thought provoking and rational responses on TH-cam these days. My thinking is also that if privileges shouldn’t be inherited then neither should victimhood be; as you said redness can only go so far.
kawanatanga in Māori means governorship which was translated in Pakeha wrongly as ownership. why isnt this mentioned ?.
I mean also, the word "kawanatanga" is not actually a kupu Māori. Its a transliteration of the word "governance".
So did any of those reo-speaking chiefs actually have any idea of what this kupu meant? I doubt it... Someone with a deep understanding of English would have had to explain it to them, and the big question is WHAT were they TOLD it meant?? Probably no-one living today knows.
My problem with this is, why wasn't a kupu Māori tūturu used instead of a made up pretend kupu Māori? That was a huge flaw in the treaty and it's causing so much drama almost 200 years later 🤦♀️😫🤔
Maori, is who I am English is what I have been doing for my whole life
Su. Mob rule rules when it comes to the application of honouring the Treaty.
The formation of the democratic New Zealand government overrides the treaty, Maori are citizens of the county/democracy. They have rights and obligations as citizens. They are now part of the crown. So how do you partner with something you are part of? Unless they revoke their citizenship?
No it doesn't override the Treaty. Maori have a different connection to their ancestors and the land than Pakeha; their whole ontological ideology is different. For example, when Maori formally introduce themselves (called pepeha), the introduction includes their name, iwi (tribe), hapu (sub-tribe), maunga (mountain), awa (river); all of which the individual is connected to. Pakeha don't have anything like a sacred connection to the land like Maori do. So no, you are very wrong.
That's not how the law works, or the government would be allowed to murder all of us with no impunity.
@@Criticont Maori do have their unique culture and heritage but their historical systems of organising societies doesn't scale up well to a large population with diverse cultures.
@linksvexier9272 Don't be silly, The Treaty enables the formation of a Westminster Democracy by agreement between 2 Sovereignty's. The Chiefs holding Sovereignty in Aotearoa and The Crown having Sovereignty over the British parliament. Something as fragile, temporary, subject to mass marketing, propaganda and misinformation as a 3 year democratic electoral system lacks the Authority and Mana to hold the Sovereignty of a nation.
Matua Paul has Solomonic wisdom. Thank you Whaea Su
Solomon is part of the mass judeo colonial fraud that murdered and abused countless native people around the world, and still does
UK was more colonized than any other country, and violently. Britian is a result on colonization, it's what made it "great" Britian.
Great content, as always! I have a quick question: My OKX wallet holds some USDT, and I have the seed phrase. (alarm fetch churn bridge exercise tape speak race clerk couch crater letter). How can I transfer them to Binance?
It's just New Zealand and it's 2024.
Was NZ a sovereign nation before the settlers arrived.
The sovereignty of Māori was recognised by the British in 1835. Lord Normanby affirmed that position in his instructions to Hobson who was dispatched to New Zealand to make a Treaty.
He Whakaputanga was signed in 1835. The declaration was forwarded to King William IV and Britain recognised the declaration of independence in 1836. France acknowledged that the British had formally recognised the independent state of New Zealand under its native chiefs.
Kingitanga Maori monarch began 1858
No, it was an agglomeration of tribal areas over which the Chiefs held sovereignty. It should be noted too, the word sovereignty does not exist in Maori language, and is a point of contention in the interpretation of the treaty. The closest word 'mana', can not be ceded; its incomprehensible like suggesting you cede prestige, influence, spiritual power etc The difference lies in how Maori and Pakeha viewed ownership. Jonathon West covers this in his book "Face of Nature".
@@Criticont Nice to read some one who is thoughtful at least, thanks man.
I think the issue is not so much ownership but Authority.
Neither Mana or Rangatiratanga can be ceded these come down from above and are HELD by the Rangatira.
Rangatira preserve, protect and seek to increase these properties. Which accrue and descend to the people from a chain whose first link is In The Highest Heavens. This is a ancient pattern anciently common all over the planet with local variations.
The arguments about good and bad are not the historian's job. The historian simply sets out what happened, when, why, and how. Since when has history been to tell us what is right and wrong? What a stupid idea. And I very much doubt the NZ history curriculum is doing this either. I've done history my entire life and not once has any history of any worth tried to tell me what to think or judge the events and people from the past in any way. THAT is bad history. There's a strong sniff of ideological lying going on.
Moon as a historian is perfectly entitled to have an opinion on the new history curriculum and to voice his concerns.
Strong sniff?
Bit of a pong really.
Political narrative a-la last Labour government
These comments are priceless .
Liten to a historian then preach your own uneducated views 😂😂
🤣
Yet most of modern history is written by 18thcentury scientists and eugenicists (racists) hellbent on intergrating indigenous populations and changing history.
The notion of re-writing history is actually written in "their" (the powers that be) decree under infiltration 🤷
So yea...historians aren't necessarily reliable when much of their information was garnered from the writings and perspectives of early europeans who often exaggerated truths or falsified scenarios to fit their own euro-centric narratives.
Whack, I need to watch this
Moari is and were a warrior race
Moon would be about 1 millionth Maori looking at him
???????????????? Ken Not Noble 00
He's not Maori and doesn't claim to be one
Only Tiriti that matters is the Māori version and no, Māori did NOT cede sovereignty to the British, that's another colonial myth that has been debunked for many years. Colonisers just came here signed Tiriti then proceeded to murder Māori in war and steal their land now they've left a big mess that they'll have to clean up
Who is the 'they' that needs to 'clean it up'?
Moari ate the moriori and stole their land but you never go on about that!
@@MartyBourne-k7lThe Crown did and rewarded 97% of the Chathams to Ngāti Mutunga in 1868 after all Māori Ngāti Mutunga and Ngāti Tama left back to Taranaki but when the crown stole Ngāti Mutunga land and put them back on Chathams after they left a few years before and yes Ngāti Mutunga and Ngāti Tama did do the 1835 genocide but Pākehā from the crown and were just as involved and Moriori were fighting to get the land and also idk why you misspell ‘Māori’ when its spelt correctly in the original comment
@@MartyBourne-k7lalso Moriori are still here they arent extinct
@@MartyBourne-k7land the English killed more Maoris, aboriginals, Africans and indians in the world than any other culture ever. And you blame us for claiming that we wiped moriori off the face of the earth? So what did the English do to the tasmanians in Australia?
Had the "colonizers" not already arrived hands up who believes that in 2024 Maori would still be running the show 120 years after the plane was invented you may not like colonisation, but it's just a natural part of evolution
There is some good and some bad to it, all humans belong to one race and time ensures cultures mix. Only a racist person could have a problem with it
conceited and egotistical comes to mind ,I love how you tell only the part of history that keeps you from being controversial, Su is so wrapped up in her own superiority , looks down her nose at European colonisation but seems to forget her own history and the brutality of Chinese colonisation, how about the pros of British colonisation of nz,
New Zealand is already for all kiwis. The point that is being re-framed, is how can Tiriti O Waitangi be redesigned for fewer New Zealanders to profit from it going forward (the richest)? That may seem cynical but I do not personally think so. These are dangerous times: framing; interpretation; context - can and are being distorted, in the name of greed. Division is being sown through the citizenry. As this division grows (unchecked) more refactoring (neoliberal in form and function) is being attempted, under the guise of what seems like reasonable logic.
But as a people, we are allowing ourselves to be duped into a new framework that is likely to deprive the majority of people; we will lose our rights to live as we wish to. The majority, are less affluent and more at risk, and yes many of those people are Maori - but the majority are Pakeha New Zealanders who lack the economic understanding, of these times to see what will fall out from this re-factoring process.
It is a long plan. One in which a slow boil will get done what a more honest and straight forward greedy grab of resources (that would not be tolerated), could do. A kind of choking off of oxygen to the brain, if that helps (or perhaps the slow boil of the frog). This is fueled at a high level by the continual drive towards privatisation, which of course is an economic process that is designed to fleece as much profit as possible. More money for the already wealthy and a continued decline in money for the poor, as trickle down continues to NOT work (as advertised).
To shuffle the framing here, let us consider the word 'sovereignty', since it is used here. ALL people seek this whether knowingly or unknowingly. When people talk about Freedom they most often mean sovereignty. Nobody in the world today is 'free' we are all pressed into whatever function we perform for a living by a global economic system that is owned by the wealthy. The Lobbying seen in America, is happening here, it happens everywhere. I have always seen that process as bribery. And no amount of re-framing can hide the fact that over several generations, we have dropped aspects of our lives for the profit of others. This has to stop. It is very unlikely that it will be stopped without complete economic/social collapse.
In past generations we Kiwis prided ourselves on a strong moral upbringing, where we insisted that everyone should get a fair go. We lost that at around the same time things got tough (and the tough got going), as our betters wanted to take more and more. The experiment of Milton Freidman, which has become known as Neoliberalism, has morphed into inverted totalitarianism. Corporations run the world now; governments are charged with the task of implementing compliance of the citizenry, and maintaining profit. The foreign influence here has never been greater. Our leaders walk a fine line between what they can get away with (on both sides of the coin) and organisations like the International Monetary Fund and The World Bank which are owned by the same people who own both sides of the ideological debate of other crises .eg climate change.
Look guys, it's all about greed and power. Don't buy into it. Be the old style 'individual' kiwi and don't mess with Te Tiriti. Maori are right people to look after NZ, some less than others (fair to say), but certainly more than say global financial elite. I am a Pakeha (I think), proud to be a Kiwi who loves the beauty of Aotearoa. Be careful what you hold in your heart and place in your mind. Maori are not the cause of your problems, that's BS. The global economic system drives every problem we are all experiencing here - the real ones, that is, that make the life of the average kiwi, very hard at times. We are stoic, and often choose not to complain - and that is pretty awesome - but we are like possums in the headlights, on this issue.
Do yourself a favour and read/listen to this book by Naomi Klein - "The Shock Doctrine". You will never regret doing so. Trolls who comeback at this post: have at it, if you are not a fully conscious individual 'sovereign' human being, there is still time to begin that process. Ask yourself, truly: what actual harm have Maori done to you, and where you have suffered harm from Maori - is that any different from the harm you have suffered any other group of people? I have suffered more harm over my long life from wealthy folks not paying their way; or being honest and well intentioned.
So in summary: we are being sold a context that describes our collective pain and Maori are being hung out to dry as the villain here. Fair go, people get back onboard and push these rich pr*cks out. If you are one of them - you will hit a wall at some point in your life; and your wealth will be meaningless - so think about it. Money isn't everything.
Hey Mark, just want to say big respect for your love and commitment man. I get the feel where your at, I sympathise, agree with your main direction but I believe we do have the authority if realised to limit globalist take over in this land, to assert our freedoms and establish a significant enough sovereign autonomy to limit the power of for instance a global governance and financial system to have complete domination over this land and people. But we must be brave, visionary and be ready to ditch certain conventional orthodoxies.
@@007shlomo What "conventional orthodoxies", please advise.
@@marksharman8029 I didnt read your entire book only the summary. Capitalism was and has always been at the pinnacle of European activities in New Zealand. It started with the exploitation of wood, flax, seals and whales, then went into land and minerals like gold/silver. After that, the land was cleared and exploited for farming; Now they are trying their hardest to get rid of the Treaty so they can start mining and fracking. I agree, its rich sponsors pushing this behind the scenes. Seymour is on someone's payroll, trying to push the conversation into parliament so it can be voted out through referendum. The Bill is just a Trojan Horse to achieve this.
@@marksharman8029 Lets see, here is some conventional orthodoxies. Economic activity is the most important human activity, Economic indicators are a measure of national health. That the individual is the highest human category, that spirituality is wholly subjective and has no social/national significance. That Race is an objective category. That we who are alive now know more than previous generations. That our present situation is the result of "progress". These are some of the assumptions that muddy and muddle our perception and understanding.
@@Criticont I can see how that might be the case, given the way he is. Absolute weasel.
If you are angry in any way about what was said in this podcast, Weather or not, you are Maori or Pakeha. You should consider a more diplomatic approach to your way of thinking rather than a one-sided 'judge based by your standards' way of thinking. Learn to acknowledge our history and come to a mutual understanding