Korero about Te Tiriti o Waitangi

From

Morena Aotearoa. Let’s have a korero about Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

First off, can everyone please stop calling it the Treaty of Waitangi.That refers to an unsigned English translation of Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

Te Tiriti o Waitangi is an agreement in Te Reo Māori which guarantees kawanatanga to the British and Tino Rangatiratanga to Māori.

Kawanatanga is a transliteration of governor taken from the reference to kawana in the Māori translation of the bible in reference to the Roman governors in place throughout the occupied territories of the Roman Empire. These roles were peace keeping more than anything.

At the time, the main thrust of the Māori request for intervention by the British was to provide policing over the lawless hordes of Pākehā who had settled in the North. Local Māori had become increasingly nervous about imposing Tikanga over the immigrants.

Tino Rangatiratanga refers to the absolute right of Māori to control their own affairs over their home territories, people, & resources.

Read together, Kawanatanga & Tino Rangatiratanga set up a dual governing arrangement with Māori & British responsible for their own people.

And this is how it operated for about a decade after the signing nationally, and for another 60-70 years in other parts of the country.

Te Rohe Pōtae, for instance, remained largely self governing until the late 19th, early 20th century.

This is useful, I’ve learnt something from it.

Self government and responsibility for one’s own people becomes tricky where and when extensive integration has occurred.

Under TToW, Māori never ceded sovereignty. This is not an opinion but a matter of law as determined by the Waitangi Tribunal.

But while Māori sovereignty remains intact, the practice of sovereignty has been usurped by the Crown primarily through occupation & force.

We are seeing Māori start to reclaim their sovereign practice through a range of activities that give expression to Tino Rangatiratanga.

And the more these progress, the more Pākehā NZ will have to become comfortable with models of dual sovereignty so common elsewhere.

And finally, the principles of the Treaty, as 1st laid down in the 1987 Lands Case, provide a good framework for the Māori-Crown relationship.

Principles such as partnership, consultation, active protection, the right to development, and so on form the basis of Crown engagement and provide a legal framework for assessing breaches of Te Tiriti by the Crown. Which is why the Waitangi Tribunal performs an important function in NZ society as the arbiter of that relationship and the adherence of both parties to Te Tiriti and its principles.

Hope you found some of that enlightening, and provides some ideas for reflection as we recognise today the signing of Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

Certainly some ideas for reflection there.

Leave a comment

60 Comments

  1. Alan Wilkinson

     /  6th February 2016

    The Treaty was drafted in English, reportedly here in Kororareka, and translated into Maori. Governance is by territory, not by race. Where Maori governance persisted obviously relates to those areas where they were the vast majority. This korero doesn’t survive much basic inspection.

    Reply
    • kiwi guy

       /  6th February 2016

      Yep, Cultural Marxist propaganda.

      Reply
    • kittycatkin

       /  6th February 2016

      The treaty/tiriti thing here seems like hair-splitting. I cannot believe that there was no Maori present who could read English, anyway.

      Reply
      • jamie

         /  6th February 2016

        It’s not hair splitting, they are different documents that say different things.

        Signing one does not mean you have signed the other.

        Reply
        • I didn’t sign either and neither did anyone else alive today, or for the past century. No-one knows who believed what about what or meant what by what back then. Other people signing stuff on our behalf is only valid if we agree it should be. That is the guts of it.

          Reply
          • jamie

             /  6th February 2016

            Ah, so you’re a “freeman on the land”, rejecting the concept of government, claiming your own personal sovereignty and eschewing the protections afforded you by the crown at birth.

            Perhaps you have more in common with those pesky natives than you realise.

            Reply
            • @ Alan – “That is the guts of it”.

              Weeeeell, nope!!! That is the actually the faeces which comes out of arsehole of the entrails of it.

              It’s the Don Brash “Orewa Speech” argument, “I wasn’t there”.

              No, you weren’t, but we Pakeha sure have enjoyed the benefits of the land grabs and the devious, miscreant behaviour of our ancestors. In a word, the “privilege” they stole from Maori.

              Also, there are both written and oral records of what people thought, believed and meant back then.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  6th February 2016

              Wrong. As usual. Parliament is sovereign and can make whatever law it wishes. It is bound neither by the past nor the future and it cannot bind the future. Neither can your ancestors or someone else’s ancestors bind you.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  6th February 2016

              As for your claptrap that we can know what those signing thought back then, just look at Nga Puhi right now. They can’t agree on anything. If you think those signing the Treaty were any different and had a knowable agreed position on anything you are even further divorced from reality than I thought.

  2. “Kawanatanga is a transliteration of governor taken from the reference to kawana in the Māori translation of the bible in reference to the Roman governors in place throughout the occupied territories of the Roman Empire. These roles were peace keeping more than anything.”
    That is a very strange interpretation of the bible – imperial power as described in the bible is absolute temporal power (which contrasts with the spiritual power of the Kingdom of God in the Christian faith). Any 19th century Christian would have clearly understood that “kawantanga” meant a great deal more than “peacekeeping”, and actually meant ultimate temporal power. The most obvious experience Maori had of a Governor was the Governor of New South Wales. Who very obviously had a much greater role than merely peacekeeping!

    “At the time, the main thrust of the Māori request for intervention by the British was to provide policing over the lawless hordes of Pākehā who had settled in the North. Local Māori had become increasingly nervous about imposing Tikanga over the immigrants.”
    British and US whalers coming in for provisioning and the odd trader and missionary were hardly “lawless hordes”. The main thrust of the Maori request for British intervention was the inter-tribal genocide we now call the Musket Wars which slaughtered tens of thousands, enslaved as many, upset traditional tribal lands, and the extermination and near wiping out of a number of tribes and the formation of large confederacies for war.

    Reply
    • Kevin

       /  6th February 2016

      “British and US whalers coming in for provisioning and the odd trader and missionary were hardly “lawless hordes”. The main thrust of the Maori request for British intervention was the inter-tribal genocide we now call the Musket Wars which slaughtered tens of thousands, enslaved as many, upset traditional tribal lands, and the extermination and near wiping out of a number of tribes and the formation of large confederacies for war.”

      Pretty much. I’d also like to add that the reason the chiefs signed the Treaty was to give their people the rights of British citizens, meaning that if someone from tribe A killed someone from tribe B, they could call upon British law to sort it out, such as have the person arrested and put in jail, rather than have another all out tribal war.

      Reply
    • jamie

       /  6th February 2016

      “British and US whalers coming in for provisioning and the odd trader and missionary were hardly “lawless hordes”.”

      The history books say otherwise, in fact Russell was known as the “Hell-hole of the Pacific.”

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell,_New_Zealand

      Reply
      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  6th February 2016

        They were also an unprecedented resource of knowledge and technology which enabled Nga Puhi to run rampant over their enemies – ie anyone unfortunate enough to be within reach. And chief Pomare made a fortune selling his women to the pakeha.

        Reply
        • Whatever me do, me Pakeha “GOOD”!
          Him Maori do same thing me, him “BAD”!

          Him Maori supply my demand woman, him “BAD”!
          Me demand Maori woman, me “NOT BAD”!

          Yeah, I saw the word “also” but I don’t think you meant it.

          Reply
          • Alan Wilkinson

             /  6th February 2016

            I don’t care what you think, PZ.

            And you missed the whole point which was that from the Maori Nga Puhi perspective pakeha were valuable and not a threat.

            Reply
            • jamie

               /  6th February 2016

              So are you saying that the description “Hell-hole of the Pacific” was undeserved because someone was making money turning women into whores for whalers?

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  6th February 2016

              Hell-hole of the Pacific was a crusading missionary’s campaign slogan. For the sailors it was a superb safe anchorage with plenty of supplies including water and timber. From the point of view of the sealers and whalers it was a wonderful place to dodge the cyclone season and R & R. I’ve given the Maori perspective and the local pakeha were able to trade and profit as well. It was the happening place and the control freaks had yet to take over.

            • jamie

               /  6th February 2016

              Until this moment I hadn’t realised you were a parody account.

              Very good. You got me.

            • Apologies. I didn’t realise I was talking to an idiot. I won’t do it again.

            • @ Alan – “It was the happening place and the control freaks had yet to take over”

              By signing that damned treaty eh?

              I see. I think I understand. It could have been New Lockean Rothbard Land if it wasn’t for that damned treaty, right?

              The market would have sorted it all out …?

              I reckon that would make a great story, a “what if”, an excellent Kiwi movie. Honest I do.

              How is it you get to give the Maori perspective though? From what source does this come?

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  6th February 2016

              From a lot of sources I’ve read over the years about the history of the places I’ve lived in. You want to challenge any of my facts?

            • jamie

               /  6th February 2016

              That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  6th February 2016

              @jamie, yes, a fool like you would just dismiss them. I have lived in Russell/Kororareka for 15+ years and in the area for the previous six. My wife was involved in a “Hell-hole” historical re-enactment here last week. I live at the top of Pomare Road. All my immediate neighbours are Maori. You know nothing and will never know anything with your present attitude.

            • jamie

               /  7th February 2016

              Oh, some of your best friends are maori?

              Well that changes everything.

      • kittycatkin

         /  6th February 2016

        That name surely was referring to the drunkenness and prostitution which tend to be where sailors come ashore after long voyages. I can’t believe that the whole area was like that or that the missionaries were making whoopee with the sailors.

        Reply
  3. kiwi guy

     /  6th February 2016

    The British were the superior force, why would they feel compelled to hand over 50% control when they clearly didn’t have to. Especially after making all the effort to get here and set up house?

    Reply
    • Blazer

       /  6th February 2016

      they could not defeat the Maori by force of arms.

      Reply
      • Kevin

         /  6th February 2016

        That’s because they weren’t trying to defeat them.

        Reply
        • Blazer

           /  6th February 2016

          tell that to guiless.kiwi.

          Reply
          • kiwi guy

             /  6th February 2016

            Why don’t you mince off back to that Marxist virtual utopia The Stranded, Comrade Blazer.

            Reply
            • Rob

               /  6th February 2016

              Why don’t you leave the country. Calling yourself kiwi guy is offensive to any real kiwi, and the country as a whole.

            • kiwi guy

               /  6th February 2016

              “real kiwi” – you mean you and your comrades? LOL.

              Real kiwis vote you Marxist down – repeatedly.

              Your race baiting Marxist politics are toxic to NZ and offensive to any real kiwi.

            • Blazer

               /  6th February 2016

              you are a funny guy..this whitey touch is hilarious-The Māori language word kiwi !

            • kiwi guy

               /  6th February 2016

              Just doing my bit to keep the Maori language alive, god only knows most Maori aren’t bothering too ;).

        • Rob

           /  6th February 2016

          Exactly. They actually weren’t very interested in conquering NZ.

          Reply
  4. @ KG – “The British were the superior force, why would they feel compelled to hand over 50% control when they clearly didn’t have to?”

    An answer can’t be done justice to here, or by me alone – this is the nature of the ongoing relationship and conversation – but to over-simplify my perspective the answer is: Because of the prevailing ethos of the times –

    “When the Treaty of Waitangi was signed in 1840 there was a worldwide movement to abolish slavery. People had seen the negative effect of colonisation on the indigenous people of countries like Australia. Colonists believed the treaty was fair because it offered Māori the rights of British citizens”

    Maori believed they had retained their sovereignty even in becoming British citizens?

    “The Constitution Act 1852, based partly on the treaty, gave all Māori males the right to vote on the same basis as European males.

    However, very soon after the signing of the Treaty there were indications that many of its promises were not kept. Only a small number of Māori men were actually able to exercise their right to vote since, like Pākehā voters, they also needed to be private landowners (Māori land was traditionally communally owned)”. – Te Ara

    This more or less set the course of things. The settlers wanted to “own” the land.

    Has anyone ever considered how prosperous we might be today had we had simply leased land off Maori rather than forced them to sell it?

    Reply
    • Kevin

       /  6th February 2016

      All good points. However they pale in comparison to whether or not under the Treaty Maori kept sovereignty. For example if this is the case and enforced, Maoridom would have been able to veto the signing of the TPPA and every new law would have to be approved by Maoridom. For the most part this would mean just rubber stamping, but for things like the TPPA … I think you get my point.

      Reply
      • Au contrere Kevin. If this was the case Maori would have had a hand in the negotiations either by direct involvement of by sufficient consultation throughout. Same with “every new law”. You seem to be assuming some kind of Maori Senate above the House of Reps with powers of veto or something?

        So no, I missed your point there.

        Reply
    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  6th February 2016

      The only slaves in NZ were Maori owned and often killed and sometimes eaten by Maori. So loss of sovereignty meant end of slavery. I note the lady isn’t arguing for a return of both.

      Reply
      • That’s a point Alan. One point. And the larger meaning of this one point of yours is … what? Because slavery had been abolished in England 7 years prior (and of course there was no residue of it or the racism it was based on) this makes everything else all right?

        No, rest assured I’m not arguing for the return of slavery. What’s more, I do not feel in the least bit “got at” by your “I note the lady” comment. I’m arguing for the abandonment of this patently ridiculous, utterly ludicrous “Stone Age Culture” justification argument, along with its even more absurd baby cousin “You can talk!”

        I’m not arguing that you go back to England and return to Pict-dom either, which is your argument’s European equivalent.

        Reply
        • Alan Wilkinson

           /  6th February 2016

          I’m just pointing out that “Tino Rangatiratanga refers to the absolute right of Māori to control their own affairs over their home territories, people, & resources” never applied from the moment the Treaty was signed.

          It is perfectly clear that the Maori signing the Treaty knew and accepted that they would have to obey British law from that time on.

          The Treaty retrospectively reinterpreted as above is utter b.s.

          Reply
  5. Zedd

     /  6th February 2016

    Ai.. Kia ora koutou.. Te Tangata o Aotearoa Katoa

    Tautoko tenei kaupapa au.. ‘Te Tiriti o Aotearoa’ & Korero Maori 🙂

    Reply
    • Zedd

       /  6th February 2016

      btw; I’m a pakeha of UK descent.. BUT I do recognise the rights of all ‘First Nations people’ to their traditional lands & tikanga.
      This is what makes this Aotearoa/NZ.. not a colony of ‘The British Empire’ 🙂 “Kia ora”

      Reply
      • Mike C

         /  6th February 2016

        @Zedd

        Based upon what you said above … you and your descendant family members shouldn’t be allowed to reside here in New Zealand according to the Maori people’s regulations and rules.

        They should have sovereignty 🙂

        Reply
        • kittycatkin

           /  6th February 2016

          Maoris were not the first people here, anyway.

          Reply
          • Possibly not KCK, but they just happened to be the people who signed the Treaty we are all talking about. They are acknowledged as being tangata whenua. I don’t recall hearing about any Moriori or Waitaha people at the signing. Its an agreement between Maori and Pakeha.

            Reply
          • mrMan

             /  7th February 2016

            “Maoris were not the first people here, anyway”
            Says you and a neo-nazi conspiracy nut. Good company.

            Reply
        • Zedd

           /  6th February 2016

          @MC

          Article 1 ‘cedes sovereignty to Kuini Wikitoria & her descendants’
          Article 2 ‘guarantees Maori their traditional lands & rights’
          Article 3 ‘gives Maori the rights of British subjects’
          …as far as I understand it, anyway

          Then there is all the stuff about the ‘seabed & foreshore’ which I’m not clear on??

          BUT I figure as long as Te Tiriti stands.. my citizenship paper guarantees I&I, the rights of a ‘citizen of Aotearoa/NZ’. whatever that truly means ?!

          ko Otepoti taku whenua
          ko Leith taku Awa
          ko Cargill taku Maunga
          ko Zedd taku Ingoa (in the matrix)

          “Kia Ora”

          btw; the main exception being; Tuhoe etc. who did not sign Te Tiriti & probably entitled to claim ‘Tino Rangatiratanga’ (self determination.. or even individual nationhood on their tribal lands).. but I’m not an expert.. so this is just my understanding of all these things & more :/ 🙂

          Reply
  6. Zedd

     /  6th February 2016

    I lived in Australia for 20 years & figure ALL the people on this whenua, have got it better than the Aboriginal people.. who were considered part of the ‘flora & fauna’ until 1967 & did not officially have any citizenship in their own land.
    The ‘invading white fellahs’ stated it was ‘Terra Nullius’ (land with no people) & this is still seen by many, as unresolved ! 😦

    Reply
    • jamie

       /  6th February 2016

      “considered part of the ‘flora & fauna’ until 1967”

      Certain people posting in this very forum have referred to maori in much the same terms.

      Reply
      • Got it in two Zedd and Jamie! And yours Zedd enunciates the very reason we have Te Tiriti o Waitangi instead of many more instances of “hunting parties” – although we did have those, check out “massacre at Handley’s Woolshed” and the illustrious John Bryce.

        Comparisons with Australia are only of limited value though. Our situation is ours.
        And lo and behold, “this is still seen by many as unresolved!” right here, right now.

        Reply
  7. Your NZ and Real Estate, now go and put the house on sold onto [Removed address, I have no idea what this is about but looks suspicious – PG]

    Reply
  8. Your NZ and Real Estate. Now go and put the house on sold onto [A repeat of an odd post that I don’t know the point of. Address removed in case it’s spam or an attempt at entrapment. PG]

    Reply
  9. Your NZ and Real Estate, now go and put the house on sold into Address: [A repeat of an odd post that I don’t know the point of. Address removed in case it’s spam or an attempt at entrapment. PG]

    Reply
  10. TMG

     /  10th February 2016

    We may never know exactly what rangatira might have thought about kawana and what the attributes of kawanatanga might have meant in practice, but since rangatiratanga and kawanatanga were carried over from He Whakaputanga (the Maori text of the Declaration of Independence) we have a very good idea as to how the terms relate to each other by examining how they are used in the first two articles of that document.

    I have enclosed the relevant key words in [brackets].

    Article First

    Ko matou, ko nga Tino Rangatira o nga iwi o Nu Tireni i raro mai o Hauraki kua oti nei te huihui i Waitangi i Tokerau i te ra 28 o Oketopa 1835, ka wakaputa i te [Rangatiratanga] o to matou wenua a ka meatia ka wakaputaia e matou he Wenua Rangatira, kia huaina, Ko te Wakaminenga o nga Hapu o Nu Tireni.

    We, the hereditary chiefs and heads of the tribes of the Northern parts of New Zealand, being assembled at Waitangi in the Bay of Islands on this 28th day of October, 1835, declare the [Independence] of our country, which is hereby constituted and declared to be an Independent State, under the designation of the United Tribes of New Zealand.

    Article Second

    Ko te [Kingitanga] ko te [mana] i te wenua o te wakaminenga o Nu Tireni ka meatia nei kei nga Tino Rangatira anake i to matou huihuinga, a ka mea hoki e kore e tukua e matou te wakarite ture ki te tahi hunga ke atu, me te tahi [Kawanatanga] hoki kia meatia i te wenua o te wakawakarite ana ki te ritenga o o matou ture e meatia nei matou i to matou huihuinga.

    All [sovereign power] and [authority] within the territories of the United Tribes of New Zealand is hereby declared to reside entirely and exclusively in the hereditary chiefs and heads of tribes in their collective capacity, who also declare that they will not permit any legislative authority separate from themselves in their collective capacity to exist, nor any [function of government] to be exercised within the said territories, unless by persons appointed by them, and acting under the authority of laws regularly enacted by them in Congress assembled.

    Conclusion: However “function of government” may have been understood, it is undeniably a delegated authority, and a delegated authority is by definition a lesser form of control. Article second is absolutely clear about where sovereign power and authority reside in relation to this delegated authority.

    In view of these relative meanings, the ‘confusion’ over the inherent contradiction between the first and second article of Te Tiriti which exists when it is read in relation to the corresponding English text treaty disappears when read in relation to He Whakaputanga. By the first article of Te Tiriti, the chiefs’ delegate some authority to the Crown, while retaining political independence and authority by the second article.

    Te Tiriti does not cede sovereignty to the Crown; it reaffirms the original declaration of independent sovereign status and authority held by the chiefs and is effectively an extension of the provision of article two of He Whakaputanga in the exercise of public power.

    Reply
  1. Page not found | Your NZ
  2. More on Te Tiriti o Waitangi | Your NZ

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s