More on Te Tiriti o Waitangi

A comment on Korero about Te Tiriti o Waitangi is worth a separate post, from TMG:

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.



  1. kiwi guy

     /  10th February 2016

    Even that Dr Scott character, a Cultural Marxist academic, a few days ago on here admitted the Treaty can mean whatever “we” want it to.

    In other words the Treaty is meaningless.

    We need to do what Australia has done, declare NZ Day, celebrate British colonialism and the Western knowledge and culture it brought making NZ the capitalist, democratic country that it is today.

    We need to shut off the Progressive propaganda about Evil Whitey – “Capitalist colonial white supremacist racist misogynistic heteronormative OPPRESSION” and their Marxist hatred for NZ culture because it successfully defeated Leftist attempts at a Marxist revolution like in China and Russia.

  2. Blazer

     /  10th February 2016

    start the day with a little ray of sunshine…..

  3. I had a brief and at times heated discussion yesterday with dave1924 about Japanese Imperialism. I found it valuable and learned things. I hope he found it useful too?

    One of the questions that arose was: When in history do you start talking about Japanese Imperialism? With their 1937 invasion of Manchuria? The first Sino-Japanese war? The Russo-Japanese war which immediately preceded it? America’s opening of Japan to modern trade by force in 1854?

    TMG’s comment reminds me there is history preceding Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

    Human interaction, politics and power, Maori and Pakeha, which resulted in early attempts to define the relationship; and which constitute a prequel to Te Tiriti with massive relevance to it.

    @ KG – As I understand it, the fact is Te Tiriti o Waitangi is not officially regarded as law but, since 1975, Principles of Te Tiriti are taken into account in legal decisions, some new law making, Waitangi Tribunal findings and a 1989 Government statement.

    This position is not a vacuum. It is the basis from which “we” have an opportunity to define what Te Tiriti means today, and to have it embedded in a written Constitution, which is what I perceive Maori are increasingly asking for. This makes the Treaty ANYTHING BUT meaningless.

    I want a written Constitution too. It will somehow have to incorporate Te Tiriti.
    That is up to us, unless we “pass” and leave it to our children.

    Indeed, I assert this situation makes Te Tiriti immensely, primarily important and unavoidable for both Maori – who don’t want to avoid it – and especially Pakeha – some of whom do.

    Anahera Herbert-Graves ‘A balanced relationship’ in Northland Age yesterday –

    “When will this happen? When we have a constitution that allows kawanatanga and rangatiratanga to operate independently on matters that don’t require our mutual agreement, while also providing us with a relational sphere to deal with matters that do”

    • kiwi guy

       /  10th February 2016

      You are another Cultural Marxist.

      NZ is a successful capitalist democracy thanks to being a white majority population.

      (If you disagree feel free to depart to the Vibrant 3rd world hell hole of your choice:


      We need to uphold and celebrate NZs capitalist democracy and defend against race baiting Leftist/Progressives who rant on about OPPRESSION(TM) and trash talk NZ culture.

      NZ Day would be perfect for this.

      • @ KG – Okay. I confess. I was removed from my family at birth for training as a Cultural Marxist-Feminist ‘sleeper agent’, indoctrinated for the purpose of infiltrating the Ministry of Culture and Heritage to coordinate its “conversion” to post-colonial racial-apologist theology.

        My training was so thorough and hypnotic I can’t even remember it. So at Varsity I mistakenly took a Drama course, against covert orders, and was afterwards left to my own devices. CM Femi Supreme Leader “Great Gaia” decided I would remain sufficiently “leftie” and socialist regardless of what I did.

        A crooked career pathway followed which has led me here with the express mission of annoying you KG.

        • PS – that’s my little half-sister in the photo. Where do you get these personal pictures of my life from?

        • kiwi guy

           /  10th February 2016

          You don’t need any kind of enforced program, just take impressionable young minds at uni, pump them fill of propaganda about how they are victims of fat shaming etc, blitz Porgressive mainstream media with same propaganda and here you go:

          • Do you know how difficult it is being recognised in public after you post up these pictures of me!?

            It’s very wicked of you … except for I met my new Transgender “Girlfriend” that way … ‘She’ arrived miraculously to protect me from a bunch of macho guys pretending to be gays who were taunting me … So painful … I have to have more counselling as a result but I still forgive you KG …

            Underneath all your own self-hate issues I know you are a loving caring person of one gender or another …?

  4. Goldie

     /  10th February 2016

    There are two problems with TMG’s analysis.

    First, Maori chiefs in 1840 were probably not stupid. In 1840 there was this bunch of British navy and army officers asking them to accept the kawanatanga of the British Queen. Maori chiefs had observed the powers exercised by the Governor of NSW for the past 40 years. And for 40 years missionaries had been teaching Maori 19th century Christian concept of the kawanatanga of God. It is stretching things to claim that Maori chiefs thought that kawanatanga meant just some kind of limited function of government.

    Second, let us assume that TMG is correct, and that Maori chiefs in 1840 did not cede sovereignty. The reality is, however, that the current New Zealand Government does have sovereignty, and has exercised it since 1840. The NZ Government has the monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force in its territory. It is an internationally recognised sovereign State under international law. And the New Zealand Government has democratic legitimacy. So if the Treaty did not cede sovereignty, and the NZ government is unmistakeably sovereign, then, logically, the Treaty loses a great deal of its meaning.

    • TMG

       /  10th February 2016

      I think the Bible reference you might be looking for is that of Pontius Pilate.

      By 1840 there are three precedents for ‘kawana’. The first is taken from the Maori version of the new testament where it is used to describe the Roman prefect Pontius Pilate. The second is by way of interaction by some northern rangatira with the kawana of NSW. The third is its use in article two of He Whakaputanga in 1835.

      In the first two cases, the roles of the prefect and that of the Governor were generally understood by rangatira to be a subordinated power delegated from a higher authority. This understanding was also encouraged by missionaries in their dealings with rangatira.

      In the case of He Whakaputanga where the term ‘kawanatanga’ is used to translate ‘function of government’, this is clearly and unambiguously designated as a delegated power which could only be exercised under the authority of the rangatira.

      In terms of who has what power, He Whakaputanga, Te Tiriti and the English text of the Declaration of Independence are consistent in their meaning. It is the Treaty that is the odd one out.

  5. scooter74

     /  10th February 2016

    ‘Even that Dr Scott character, a Cultural Marxist academic, a few days ago on here admitted the Treaty can mean whatever “we” want it to. In other words the Treaty is meaningless.’

    What I tried to say was that it is up to us, as a society, to decide what we do with the Treaty and how we interpret it. We can choose to disregard it; we can choose to interpret it in one way; we can choose to interpret it in another. In much the same way, the American people have to decide whether their constitution is still worth keeping, and how to interpret it. The Supreme Court continually argues about the proper interpretation of the constitution.

    To say this isn’t to say that either the Treaty or the American constitution are meaningless. There are better and worse interpretations of both documents. Anyone who argued, say, that the American constitution was a charter for absolute dictatorship would obviously be making a bad interpretation of the document. But like all historic texts, the Treaty and the constitution underdetermine their interpretation. To interpret them we always add something of our own perspective and our own era.

    What I’ve been concerned to argue about on this site is not how the Treaty should be interpreted today, but what it meant to Maori, the British, and settlers from the 1840s to the 1860s. That’s a very different question, and one that can in principle receive a more definite answer.

    I see you still seem to think that there’s some sort of Marxist conspiracy to impose a certain view of the Treaty on New Zealanders. What did you make of the numerous critiques of the Treaty and the Treaty process from a series of Marxist and Marxist-influenced scholars that I posted the other day? There’s no consensus amongst Marxist scholars, let alone scholars at large, about the Treaty or NZ history.

    • kiwi guy

       /  10th February 2016

      “I see you still seem to think that there’s some sort of Marxist conspiracy to impose a certain view of the Treaty on New Zealanders.”

      There is nothing conspiratorial about it – well no more conspiratorial than Marxists like Kelsey claims that TPP spells the end of NZ democracy.

      Oh yeah and in that sea of brown faces at the TPP protest in Auckland a big banner about the Rothschild family – its all a nefarious plot by usurious Jews apparently.

      I use the term Marxist but as I sometimes point out am referring to the DERIVATIONS of Marxism also or the hybrids – the term Cultural Marxism is convenient to refer to these.

      Noam Chomsky even talks about how Leftist were all Maoist, Stalinists in the 60s and literally overnight dumped it and picked up on the Deconstructionist sophistry coming out of Paris in the 1970s.

      So now Uni campuses/Liberal Arts departments in the West are dominated by Cultural Marxism. Sociology has been especially susceptible to Cultural Marxism, being a “soft science”.

      You only have to see the crazy stuff the brainwashed students are up to on those US and Brit campuses – rape hoaxes and “Rape Culture” hysteria and propaganda whipping up witch hunts against innocent men, is one example.

      So you can see how I don’t have much time for what academics from the Liberal Arts fields have to say on anything much at all, they are on the whole heavily politicised with an ideological agenda which renders their research way to biased.

      • scooter74

         /  10th February 2016

        Well, at least you’ve made a sort of argument there, Kiwi Guy. But there are some disorientating leaps between your various points.

        Is Cultural Marxism, as you understand it, another word for deconstructionism or postmodernism? If it is, then it’s a somewhat confusing term, because most Marxists can’t stand postmodernism. Some of the best-known criticisms of postmodernism are written by Marxists – there’s Alex Callinicos’ book on postmodernism, for example. Postmodernism is sometimes hard to define, but it leans on the idea that, in the words of Derrida, grand narratives of history are no long viable. Marxism, of course, is a grand narrative of history par excellence, with its claims about the historical development of class antagonisms and their resolution through social revolution. Derrida is probably the most famous postmodernist and is the inventor of the term deconstructionism, and he wrote a whole book, Spectres of Marx, against Marx’s vision of history.

        I don’t know the Chomsky quote you offer, but he seems to be referring to the abandonment of Marxism by many French intellectuals in the 1970s and ’80s. As Chomsky said, many French Marxists were linked in one way or another with either the pro-Soviet communist party or else to Maoists groups in the ’60s and early ’70s. Famous examples are Louis Althusser, who was a member of the communist party, and Jean-Paul Sartre, who was close for a while to the Maoists. There was a reaction against this in the ’70s, with intellectuals gravitating toward postmodernism, and then in the ’80s there was a further reaction, with Solzhenitsyn’s The Gulag Archipelago becoming very popular in France and intellectuals critiquing the whole notion of socialism. I would have thought you’d be in favour of this?

        I think what Chomsky – who incidentally is an anarchist and a long-time critic of Marx – is getting at is that, in his opinion, French intellectuals swapped one type of gobbledygook – the Stalinist Marxism of the ’60s – with another type of gobbledygook – the deconstructionism and postmodernism of the ’70s. He’s most certainly not trying to say that postmodernism is a continuation of Marxism: no sensible person would.

        I can’t work out whether you’re saying sociology is a stronghold of postmodernism, or Marxism, or both. My impression, which is probably about six years out of date, since I graduated in sociology six years ago and haven’t been back to a sociology department, is that postmodernism was very fashionable in the ’90s and early 2000s in NZ, but has fallen away over the last decade.

        One of the things you have to realise about Marx is that he is inescapable. He was in many ways the first guy to analyse global society in a systematic way, and even in his lifetime he was being interpreted in myriad ways. His writings are as dense and contradictory as the Bible, and thus open the way for endlessly different interpretations. Today there are people of all ideological stripes using Marx. To take an extreme example: if you supported the invasion of Iraq in 2003, then you probably relied upon the arguments invented by an influential group of neoconservative Marxists like Christopher Hitchens. One member of Blair’s cabinet, John Reid, even defended the war by invoking Marx and socialism.

        If someone on the anti-TPPA rally had an anti-semitic banner then that is deplorable. They should have been kicked off the march. I’ve written in the past about the attempts to anti-semites to attach themselves to various protest rallies in NZ.

    • Pickled Possum

       /  10th February 2016

      Great korero scooter

      To enter into debate or argue about Te Tiriti o Waitangi with people who have closed minds of all things Maori,
      well I liken it to playing scrabble with Patupaiarehe (fairy people), just never going to be worth the energy given.

      In this day of the internet with it’s wide and far reaching audience people tend to be swayed to words they hear or read as near enough to the truth for them, if they are in agreement of some of the words, with their cultural perceptions also playing a huge part..

      If we had the same social media voice in the beginning of Te Tiriti o Waitangi interaction then
      we would have all heard the story from Hobson Williams et al personally not what some one thinks they meant or wrote 150+ years later.
      But we didn’t, don’t and unless you believe in “Back to the Future” being one people is never going to happen, though we can live side by side in a harmony that we deserve, all of us.

      In my world tikanga is the foundation stone of being Maori and if we live tikanga then we will be more accepted in this money driven world, more so than one of Maori descent who does not practice tikanga.

      What happened in the 1840’s -1860’s has been documented in waiata and whakapapa and in the coloniser’s written words, but there is always another book to be written about a ‘new’ concept found to enlighten the ones who are asleep or with scales on their eyes and hearts and to anger and frustrate the unbelievers, making for more angst among NZ’ers.

      Today in NZ the dilution of Maori people with new immigrants just makes things Maori harder for some to grasp, to recognise just one blood line of your mixed blood line, just denies the other side’s of you and imo makes for more fragile mental’s which brings more confusion and in the end a world class institutionalized race.

      So for me in my Te Ao Maori I live tikanga and do what Eva Lavi was told to do by her mother to survive “you have to hide, don’t be visable”
      Eva was saved by Oskar Schindler.
      My taha Maori ( my Maori perspective) is lived,
      not spoken to antagonise others,
      Only as a commenter named Pickled Possum (possum done in brine) can I really have my say which is sometimes fraught with English mistakes and wait for some one to give their different view, which I mull over with my non Maori parts of me.8-)

    • Mike C

       /  10th February 2016


      After more than a hundred and fifty years … and the past 30 years or so of Treaty Settlements between The Crown and the Maori Tribes … I would be happy to never hear another word about the Treaty of Waitangi ever again in my life 🙂

      If only us New Zealanders could celebrate our National Day with as much joy and gusto as our Aussie neighbour’s and the USA do.

      I am just sick and tired of Maori and Socialist Radicals spoiling the Waitangi Day celebrations every single solitary year.

      • Timoti

         /  10th February 2016

        Well, Mike, I’m over debating the Treaty in a historical context. Been there,done that. But I bring bad tidings. Young Maori radicals want historic treaty claims settled so they can lodge modern era claims, including settlement for Urban Maori. Treaty issues are never going away.

        • Mike C

           /  10th February 2016


          Thank you for the incentive to encourage every single person I know to vote for National … so that the young Maori radicals don’t get the opportunity to continue to try and suck New Zealand Tax Payers dry forever and ever 🙂

      • The “gusto” of Australian and American celebrations is largely because they more-or-less rid themselves of their indigenous peoples and appear to have no conscience about that or the present state of the remaining descendants of those peoples.

        You want to celebrate something like that here? Go right ahead.
        Bring it along to Waitangi maybe? Have your own anti-protest protest?
        That’s what happens overseas. Right-wing protesters on about something and left-wing protesters opposing them. You could throw sex toys across the barricades or police lines inbetween!? 🙂

        I gather celebrations on the actual day, Waitangi Day, Sat 6 Feb 2016 went off very well despite the weather. The “spoiling” as you call it occurred the day before and very much more in the media than in the real world. The sex-toy thing is one brief moment in Josie Butler’s and Stephen Joyce’s lives, a nano-second of time, recorded, blown up and displayed for all time on MSM, SM and across the internet.

        • Mike C

           /  10th February 2016


          Well … if you are going to focus on the ridding of Indigenous Species of New Zealand … I would love to see the current descendents of the Maori people who hunted the Moa into extinction … being made to pay reparation to the millions of New Zealanders who never ever got to see a real life Moa 🙂

          • @ Mike C – The difference is there was no other race to hold Maori to account back then. They and the birds had the place to themselves. 🙂

            Maori are not making pre-European Treaty claims, are they? :-/

      • Pickled Possum

         /  10th February 2016

        @ mike c
        understand where you are coming from because
        I am sick and tired of talking heads looking like cows who don’t know they are really steers… spoiling Waitangi day celebrations for every body with their fax outrage and self interested views.

        National Day is that after your parti of preference,
        ‘shine on harvest moon’ girl

        Did you know white Australians hunted and shot Aboriginals for Sport.
        Still my guitar gently weeps.

        I would be happy to never hear another word from know alls that really know sweet fuck all ever again in my life. 🙂

        • Mike C

           /  10th February 2016


          “Did you know white Australians hunted and shot Aboriginals for sport?”

          Did you know that Maori Tribes hunted and beat to death other Maori Tribes … and then cooked and ate them? 🙂

          • Pickled Possum

             /  10th February 2016

            ate them for food
            not sport
            there is a huge difference 🙂

            • Mike C

               /  10th February 2016


              I don’t see any difference.

              Murdering another human being is sick and twisted whatever way you look at it 🙂

          • This is the old comparative thing we many of us do.
            I do it. What can one say about it?

            a) Pre-European Maori society was not a utopia.

            b) Pre-Colonial European culture was not a utopia.

            Discussions about Te Tiriti o Waitangi are about the “relationship” between Maori and European cultures. Separate comparisons are perhaps a little pointless?

            Nau mai koutou ahi Possum.

            • Mike C

               /  10th February 2016


              There is no such thing as “Utopia”.

              It has never existed in the past … in any culture … and will never ever exist in any future cultures or kingdoms.

            • @ Mike C – let’s call that what it is – SO PATHETIC!!! 🙂 You drove that one into a no-exit by-way.

              There is nothing, NOT ONE WORD, in any of Possum’s posts even implying the idea of a Maori utopia.

              I used the word “utopia” twice and in both cases qualified it with the word “not”.

            • Mike C

               /  10th February 2016


              I mistook Possums comment for yours.

              You both have quite rude attacking personal styles of writing … so it was a very easy honest mistake for me to make 🙂

            • Mike C

               /  10th February 2016


              Could you please stop being so insulting and writing so many words in your comments in CAPITAL LETTERS.

              Capital Letters are the online equivalent of “SHOUTING” at someone 😦

            • See Kiwi Guy’s explanation about EMPHASIS.

              But don’t under any circumstances critique him/her’s comments will you?

  6. @ Goldie – I’m Pakeha and I’m affronted by your comments. I’m prepared to venture opinions I’m not absolutely certain (so-called) ‘facts’ will support.

    1) “[The] New Zealand Government does have sovereignty, and has exercised it since 1840”. (I think its actually 1854?)

    Yes, it has assumed sovereignty, mostly by force, and exercised it in contravention of the Treaty it signed with Maori. Many Maori do not accept this sovereignty, or accept it reluctantly and some protest against it.

    2) “The NZ Government has the monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force in its territory”.

    Same as above, achieved by force in contravention of the Treaty, which makes its “legitimacy” questionable. Considering the legality and ethics of many methods the Crown used to acquire territory, your “its territory” is also debatable.

    3) “It is an internationally recognised sovereign State under international law”

    So is Canada, who’s Constitution, such as it is, recognises a bilingual and bicultural nation. There’s no reason why a Constitutionally bicultural Aotearoa-New Zealand could not be a sovereign State under international law.

    4) “And the New Zealand Government has democratic legitimacy”

    Same as above. So? Doesn’t mean a differently constituted Aotearoa-New Zealand government wouldn’t have legitimacy.

    5) “So if the Treaty did not cede sovereignty, and the NZ government is unmistakeably sovereign, then, logically, the Treaty loses a great deal of its meaning”

    No. These three things, all contestable and not inextricably related, do not necessarily follow logically at all. One might say with equal uncertainty –

    Te Tiriti o Waitangi did not cede sovereignty. The NZ government broke the Treaty, took sovereignty by force and deception; therefore, the Treaty has more meaning than ever before.

    • kiwi guy

       /  10th February 2016

      “3) “It is an internationally recognised sovereign State under international law”

      So is Canada, who’s Constitution, such as it is, recognises a bilingual and bicultural nation. There’s no reason why a Constitutionally bicultural Aotearoa-New Zealand could not be a sovereign State under international law.”

      Yeah made up of two Western European cultures with very similar values and histories.

      We all know what would happen if we tried that in NZ, the Maori “nation” would need to be constantly bailed out and intervened in like every other other Third World nation.

      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  10th February 2016

        Grey was appointed Governor in 1846 and that was when the first constitution Act was enacted in England. Moreover Hobson had already claimed possession by Treaty and discovery.

        • Alan Wilkinson

           /  10th February 2016

          Correction, Grey was reappointed in 1846 but took up his position in 1845.

        • I stand corrected. The First Constitution Act never really happened though, did it?

          “Governor of New Zealand George Grey argued that the Constitution Act would place the Māori majority under the political control of the settlers, and so undermine his efforts to protect Māori interests. In 1848 (just before Grey created two provinces, New Ulster and New Munster) the British Parliament passed the Government of New Zealand Act 1848 under which parts of the 1846 Act dealing with establishment of provincial assemblies and the General Assembly were not to come into force for another five years”. – Wiki

          And the 1846 Act’s existence doesn’t change the possibility it was in contravention of the Treaty, which Grey seems to imply?

          • Alan Wilk

             /  10th February 2016

            Yes, it happened and one of the legislatures it created actually met.

            • Quite how this proves Maori ceded sovereignty, understood they were ceding it or indeed understood sovereignty in the same way as Pakeha still eludes me?

              A quick look at the Wikipedia page about the 1846 Act shows it appears to completely disregard Maori? As if they don’t exist? Its a system of British government, possibly (only) for British subjects?

              This can’t have gone down well with everyone just 6 years after Waitangi and evidently it didn’t. Was it a “usurper” Constitution?

              Anyhow, with regard to the “historical sovereignty issue” it will eventually come down to either a consensus agreement – unlikely given your position – or a majority decision and I believe you will find yourself on the losing end of that; partly because the “contemporary sovereignty issue” is more relevant and important.

      • @ KG – Regards your Canada, “Yeah made up of two Western European cultures”

        1) IMHO the fact Canada’s Constitutional discussion of the 1980s (appears to have) somewhat set aside First Nation peoples makes us better than them, not worse. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms “also recognizes and affirms Aboriginal and treaty rights”. To my knowledge, Canada has a good record of keeping faith with Treaties. First Nation Constitutional demands may have been fewer and less controversial?

        2) Using Canada as an example, which you appear to like doing, we do not refer to French Canada and English Canada in our international relations with Canada, do we?

        There’s no reason to think a biculturally constituted Aotearoa-New Zealand would be any different. It would be a single bicultural, bilingual, possibly bijural nation. We don’t know quite how far or to what extent this will go. That’s up to us to decide.

        • kiwi guy

           /  10th February 2016

          “Using Canada as an example, which you appear to like doing”

          Sigh, it was you who first raised Canada as an example, I was pointing out why it was not a good one.

          You don’t even address the issue I raise – two Western cultures that share very similar characteristics and histories maybe able to make it work, but even that one has come close to being voted down.

          As for in NZ, like I pointed out, the Maori “nation” would need to be constantly bailed out and rescued.

          You only have to look at the constant corruption scandals with tax payer money being doled out to various programs for Maori – and that is just the ones that get exposed, how much more is going on but remains hidden because people are fearful of being accused of racism if they speak out.

          • @ KG – Two ‘Western’ cultures are more likely to make it succeed, yes. However, given that A-NZ is NOT in that position, just because a course of action is easier doesn’t make it right or even desireable. And because A-NZ is not in that position, don’t you think the argument is rather pointless?

            Even if the funding for Maori you call “bail out and rescue” is somehow misguided – and I am not saying it is – have you considered the possibility this is BECAUSE of the inferior position in which Maori have been placed? (What a f*cken pointless question!)

            I’m not even going to bother starting a list of the ‘Pakeha’ corruption scandals which have required bailing out! Some of them were the very pillars of Rogernomics and ‘deregulation’.

  7. scooter74

     /  10th February 2016

    ‘Leftist/Progressives who rant on’

    From what I’ve seen looking at this blog over the past few days, there’s only one person here inclined to ‘rant on’, and that’s you. Everyone else seems to comment without using the caps lock or too many ad hominems. It’s curious that you are apparently interested enough in the topics being discussed here to comment on them, but don’t, for one reason or another, feel able to engage the other commenters and made substantive points. The ranting is a way of being here without being here.

    There was a legendary commenter at David Farrar’s Kiwiblog who had the same modus operandi. I blogged about him once because he was so perversely fascinating, and tried – to no avail, alas – to get him to come to the launch of one of my books:

    • kiwi guy

       /  10th February 2016

      “Everyone else seems to comment without using the caps lock or too many ad hominems. ”

      I use the capslock on a specific word or two for EMPHASIS. I don’t have any other option except to use code for bold, italic or underline, and that is too much of a hassle.

      I always present an argument, it is the Cultural Marxists on here like Blazer, Rob, PartisaNZ who are reduced to character assassination attempts when they have their narratives demolished by some facts. Much like in Mao’s Cultural Revolution where anyone who dissented was labelled a “Capitalist in-roader” or “Counter Revolutionary”, anyone who stands up to Leftist propaganda is labelled a “fashist!”, “rayciss oppressor!” or “misogynist oppressor!”.

      You yourself as a Leftist seem to be at a loss for an answer to my point that the only half decent countries to live in are nearly all white majority ( especially the English speaking ones ), where Capitalism and democracy have been most successfully developed.

      Everywhere else basically sucks unless you are filthy rich, and even then those rich end up buying expensive bolt holes in Western countries.

      • Rob

         /  10th February 2016

        “…character assassination..” There’s a laugh. You shoot yourself in the head every time you open your mouth. Self assassination. Carry on though you racist prat, you’re always good for a laugh. I wish I could watch you cry as our quota of refugees arrives. Delicious tears.

        • kiwi guy

           /  10th February 2016

          Your Cultural Marxist tears at the last election were WAY sweeter, in fact I got enough of them to last until the next election when I’m sure you will be crying like a little girl with a grazed knee, AGAIN.

        • kiwi guy

           /  10th February 2016

          As for the refugee quota, it is minuscule and John Key has out maneuvered the race baiters like you, haha.

          • Rob

             /  10th February 2016

            Never said it wasn’t. It’s enough as far as I’m concerned. Race baiter ? Mirror mirror. Crying like a little girl, you’d know all about that. My tears? Hahahahahaha.

            • kiwi guy

               /  10th February 2016

              Hmmm, I’m fairly certain I didn’t see any Lefties laughing after the last election – except maybe the ones having a melt down.

  8. Alan Wilkinson

     /  10th February 2016

    As I’ve said elsewhere, the Maori at least in the Bay of Islands had multiple sources of opinions and information, many directly hostile to the Treaty both Maori and pakeha. Nor were they stupid or naive. I think we can safely assume that a single word in Williams’ translation was a very minor factor in their decisions.

    I also reiterate that there was never any expectation that governance and law would be racially based rather than by territory. Hobson reinforced this by saying as each signed, “Now we are one people” in Maori. That is the only basis in which the Treaty can be incorporated constitutionally and in law.

    • kiwi guy

       /  10th February 2016

      ” That is the only basis in which the Treaty can be incorporated constitutionally and in law.”

      And we aren’t even obligated to do that.

      In fact why should we? NZ is a very successful country, despite Leftist claims we are some kind of white supremacist capitalist hellhole. Look at all the Vibrants desperately trying to get into our country – I’m pretty sure they aren’t doing that because they are dying to learn the Maori language.

      • @ KG – “In fact why should we? NZ is a very successful country”

        While it’s not a hellhole by any means, it’s a great place to live, yes, it is “some kind of white supremacist capitalist” society. Is that so terribly hard for you to swallow?

        Perhaps, having recognised Principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi as lawful, we should go the whole hog and incorporate it Constitutionally into Law simply because we are a very successful country? Because we, most of us, are ABOVE and BETTER THAN what you are promoting here.

        • Alan Wilkinson

           /  10th February 2016

          Your last sentence is a claim, not a support. You need to make a case for why we should have a constitution based on race if that is what you believe. I don’t.

          • Yeah, right! Like all the soundly supported arguments Kiwi Guy puts forward.

            I don’t actually “need to make a case” and may not be able to, or one able to satisfy you, but ultimately a sound case will emerge, based I think on adequate agreement (and I hope consensus agreement) about –

            a) Sufficient compelling historical evidence that Maori did not cede sovereignty and understood a ‘dual’ system of some sort would operate in Aotearoa-NZ. They may have simultaneously understood there was to be a single ‘nation’ entity?

            b) Sufficient contemporary momentum to create a written Constitution either incorporating Te Tiriti o Waitangi principles, its Articles, or indeed actually based upon Te Tiriti o Waitangi. To quote Prof Margaret Mutu upon the release of the Matike Mai Aotearoa report, “a proper Tiriti-based Constitution that is inclusive of all people”.

            What we have now, if you will, is a race-based or ‘racial’ Treaty underpinned in theory and in exercise by ‘racism’ (the assumption of White superiority). Nothing can change the racial part – Te Tiriti o Waitangi was and is an agreement between two races – but the racism part can certainly be removed.

            I believe it is best for everyone if this happens as part of a highly consultative renewed understanding and definition of Constitutional Law in bicultural Aotearoa-New Zealand.

            “You can take the war out of a soldier,
            But you can’t raise that soldier from the dead”
            – Shona Laing “Banned”

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  11th February 2016

              A lot of words that ended up nowhere. Either your constitution is race-based or it isn’t. My strong view is that it must not be. That alternative would be unfairness, division and conflict perpetuated.

              Had the Waitangi Tribunal been enacted simply to correct grievances based on equality under the law without reference to all the Treaty ambiguities and self-serving interpretations we would have avoided a huge amount of negativity and destructive consequences.

            • There are essentially two races involved. It’s been race-based and racist, in favour of Pakeha. I guess balancing it will be race-based. I guess its race-based. Like I said above, so very clearly, “Racial with the racism removed”.

              Other countries may have chosen to call race by other names, “minority” and so forth. I don’t mind if we call it race. That’s a good Kiwi thing to me, “call a spade a spade”.

              Anahera – “When we have a Constitution that allows kawanatanga and rangatiratanga to operate independently on all matters that don’t require our mutual agreement, while also providing us with a relational sphere to deal with matters that do”

              There’s no reason something like that necessarily be “unfairness, division and conflict”.

              The colonial-post-colonial pendulum is swinging back the other way Alan, as was utterly inevitable. It is a built in property of injustice to attempt to find justice.

  9. scooter74

     /  10th February 2016

    ‘You yourself as a Leftist seem to be at a loss for an answer to my point that the only half decent countries to live in are nearly all white majority’

    Well I had a more than half-decent time living in the Kingdom of Tonga, and I don’t think a majority of folks there were white! I think you’ll find that not everyone shares your opinion about the most desirable places to live.

    But why don’t you develop your argument by explaining what you think the link is between skin colour and the creation of a desirable society? Do you think whites enjoy a biological superiority over people with different coloured skins, and if they do what is the source of this superiority, given that we all have a relatively recent common ancestor and share a great deal genetically?

    • kiwi guy

       /  10th February 2016

      “Well I had a more than half-decent time living in the Kingdom of Tonga”

      Were you living on a 5 star resort all that time?

      Tonga is a corrupt Third World dump, good for a 5 star resort frolic for a week, “experience the vibrant culture, snorkel with the whales” and then back to civilisation.

      ” I think you’ll find that not everyone shares your opinion about the most desirable places to live.”

      But they do as the mass movement of Vibrants trying to get into Western countries proves.

      “But why don’t you develop your argument by explaining…”

      Yet another Leftie evading the question why the only half decent countries in the world that have a successful mix of capitalism and democracy are all white majority.

      After all Leftist/Progressives rant on about evil capitalism, evil whites oppressing all the Vibrants, so how is it that they have achieved so much?

      • @ KG – “Why the only half decent countries in the world that have a successful mix of capitalism and democracy are all white majority”?

        I read it as scooter74 asking you to develop an argument to convince him of this? I’ll have a go though – Simple answer (in your language) is: They’ve achieved so much BY oppressing all the Vibrants!

        1) Industrial European colonising countries launched ‘democratic’ industrial capitalism and “got away with it” ahead of any others. They made the other nations both actually and effectively ‘slaves’ to their ‘mastery’. Slave populations and enslaved resources.

        So sure, the “half decent countries” who have a “successful mix of capitalism and (so-called) democracy” are white majority, and they also have a legacy of racism, murder, some near genocide or attempted genocide, environmental pillage and exploitation of colonised peoples which created and maintains this “superiority” to some extent even today.

        Even ostensibly non-colonising European countries benefitted immensely from their neighbours’ colonisation.

        And having made indigenous peoples a significant minority in their countries you can’t argue that (partial) ‘democracy’ really works for them. It doesn’t.

        To exaggerate, its like this: Sure, white folks had a comfortable life in Apartheid South Africa. But what of the cost to Black Africans? The cost of the denial of Human Rights? What of the ongoing cost in policing this denial and “comfort”? What of the moral, ethical and future ‘resentment’ costs? Et al …

        You just can’t build real comfort on a pile of philosophical excrement. It eventually seeps through. It stinks. It comes back to taint, smear and haunt you.

        2) …. as above … or later …

  10. Pantsdownbrown

     /  10th February 2016

    A key to the ‘sovereignty’ issue is in the Chiefs at Waitangi who spoke out against the treaty, for instance;

    Te Kemara of Ngapuhi was the first to speak. He said, ‘No! No! No! I shall never say “yes” to your staying. Were all to be equal then perhaps Te Kemara would say “yes”. But for the Governor to be up and Te Kemara to be down … No! No! No! O Governor, my land is gone, gone, all gone.’

    Te Ruki Kawiti, also of Ngapuhi said, ‘No. No. Go back, what do you want here? We native men do not wish you to stay. We do not want to be tied up and trodden down. We are free!’

    You have to ask yourself why would they be against the treaty on the grounds of losing their sovereignty if they believed at the time they weren’t signing away their sovereignty? Te Kemara clearly states the treaty is not equal at all “Were all to be equal then perhaps Te Kemara would say “yes”. But for the Governor to be up and Te Kemara to be down … No! No! No!”

    • TMG

       /  10th February 2016

      Surely it stands to reason that the free and intelligent consent of British sovereignty over the chiefs would demand that the chiefs have a clear understanding of it. Here, Colenso’s journals record that no such explanation of what this would mean in practice was ever given to the chiefs by any British agent of the Crown. In fact, Hobson advised Maori through Williams that Crown authority was necessary in order to control British subjects, not Maori.

      If the question of sovereignty was understood, then why did so many chiefs get it wrong? For example, why did Nopera Panakareao claim that only the “shadow” of the land goes to the Queen while the “substance” remains with him? Why did Tamati Waka Nene and even ‘loyalist’ chief Renata Kawepo challenge the governors right to exercise authority over them?

      Why would Eruera Patuone gesture to Hobson at Waitangi by bringing his index and middle fingers together which was understood to mean ‘equal’ if he knew this was not the case?

      Why did Colenso himself record that in his opinion, Maori did not fully grasp the meaning and intention of the treaty. He is not alone. Felton Mathew acting Surveyor-General who was also present at Waitangi said the same thing. So too, Charles Wilkes, commander of the US Exploring Expedition, who was in the Bay of Islands within two months of the first signing of the treaty at Waitangi.

      • Pantsdownbrown

         /  10th February 2016

        All good questions………I think you are right to question it.

        When the Treaty issue was getting raised more in the 1970’s the main line taken by Maori was that they didn’t understand what they were signing. This position changed and you will see most academics now agree that the crown didn’t intentionally set out to diddle the natives. The reason for this change? It is because the position they changed to was that Maori knew what they were signing and it wasn’t signing their sovereignty away. Therefore the treaty was binding and their sovereignty was retained.

        I posted on an earlier thread a few days back the 1860 conference of Chiefs in Auckland where over 100 chiefs (well over twice the number that signed at Waitangi) signed a piece of paper reconfirming they had signed their sovereignty away at Waitangi. The signees also gave speeches confirming that fact. The conference was a large event, well covered by Maori & English language newspapers up and down the country. Why did the chiefs do that (only 20 years after the treaty signing) if they thought they hadn’t originally signed their sovereignty away at Waitangi? Were they also duped?

      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  10th February 2016

        How reliable is Colenso? He seems to have been an opinionated person.

        And I’m curious about the one-sided nature of any misunderstanding the Left are attempting to exploit. How many pakeha if any understood that the Maori version was significantly different in meaning (if indeed it was)? Why should the Maori version be preferred to the English version if the latter was what the British understood they were signing?

        When one side signs one version and another signs the other why should just one be treated as gospel? Clearly a defective process is a nullity and carries no meaning into the future. Injustices in the treatment of Maori should be remedied, but irrespective of the Treaty and relative to the rights of every citizen and the law as it stands and stood. The Waitangi Tribunal was misnamed from the start and has created a rod for everyone’s back. Waitangi Day should be renamed Buggered-up Day on the basis of honest advertising.

  11. scooter74

     /  10th February 2016

    ‘Tonga is a corrupt Third World dump, good for a 5 star resort frolic’

    I can tell from this sentence that you haven’t been to Tonga, KG. There are no five star resorts in the kingdom. In fact there aren’t even any four star resorts. And long may that situation continue.

    I have the suspicion you’ve never been to or studied most of the countries you generalise so confidently about here. A friend of mine was saying the other day that it’s remarkable how the people who don’t have kids know the most about childrearing, and are keenest to give advice. I think the same logic applies when opinion is offered about various societies. The loudest mouth is usually connected to the least informed mind.

    ‘So sure, the “half decent countries” who have a “successful mix of capitalism and (so-called) democracy” are white majority’

    You’d have to include Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea on a list of First World capitalist democracies, though, wouldn’t you? And there are many white majority countries that don’t have First World status: Russia, Argentina, Chile, Armenia, Moldavia, Georgia, Cyprus, Belarus, Ukraine, Uruguay, Macedonia, Kosovo, Bosnia, Albania, Bulgaria, Romania, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania…

    Alasdair Bonnett of Newcastle University has done some very interesting research on the instability of the term ‘white’. It only really emerged as a term associated with identity in the twentieth century, and definitions of whiteness have been very different at different times. Bonnett quotes a World War One general who visited the front lines and found a bunch of troops from the north of England washing in a trench. ‘I never knew the working class was so white!’ he said in amazement. Not only working class English but Celts were considered non-white and non-European at various times in the past. Thousands of Irish were enslaved in the Caribbean before Britain began to use Africans on the plantations there. Cornwall used to be known as ‘West Barbary’, and was considered to have more in common with North Africa than Europe.

  12. scooter74

     /  10th February 2016

    Here’s one of Bonnett’s articles on the history of whiteness:

    There were many nineteenth century scholars who thought that Polynesians were either European or Semitic. Edward Treager, a very prominent member of the Polynesian Society, wrote a book called The Aryan Maori. Some of the early German visitors to Samoa insisted that the locals were white. This was all nonsense, of course, but it shows how subjective racial terms can be.

    ‘Industrial European colonising countries launched ‘democratic’ industrial capitalism’

    This whole idea of Britain giving NZ democracy, which Kiwi Guy seems to be putting forward here and which many Kiwis hold to, needs to be examined. The first mass working class movement in world history, Chartism, was raging just as New Zealand was being settled by Pakeha. The Chartists’ main demand, of course, was universal male suffrage. As Bert Roth shows in his book Toil and Trouble: the struggle for a better life in NZ, Chartism and the many-stranded socialist movements that developed from it were brought across the seas to New Zealand throughout the second half of the nineteenth century. There were campaigns here for democracy and for freedom of speech which were only slowly successful. And of course a vital part of the Maori reason for opposing British and settler governments in the late 1850s and 1860s was their exclusion from the democratic process. It could easily be argued that the parliaments Maori set up at Ngaruawahia and Peria were as representative than the general and provincial assemblies, which were elected only by wealthy white men.

    I think we should be wary of seeing democracy as something that arrived readymade in NZ, and wary of connecting it too closely with the Enlightenment. I blogged about this at: