*Warning* Maori sovereignty thread *Warning*

[Ixion]

The Maoris were not at war with the British , because officially there were no British there to be at war with. Until 1840 as far as Gt Britain was concerned , NZ was in the same status as Antarctica . If you were a British subject and you went there, you were on your own.

Various of the Maori tribes actively sought the protection of the Crown, because other tribes were obtaining firearms (inter alia, from my ancestors), and so armed were wiping the others out left right and centre. The Crown actively tried to avoid getting involved in NZ (they were fearful of trouble with the USA, and didn't see any benefit).

I will not venture to comment on how the Maori may have viewed proceedings. But it is quite certain that the British regarded the treaty as establishing British suzereinty over the Islands and extending the rights AND DUTIES of British subjects ot the natives (so that Brits could no longer kill the Maori without being answerable to the law - as they could before the treaty) .Hobson was immediately appointed Governor of New Zealand - a position that would have been impossible if Whitehall did not regard New Zealand as British territory. And Hobson governed as the sole source of executive power. If he had conceived that his role was one of partnership with the Maori, he would have proceeded thus, as the British did (for instance) in China and Hong Kong. he did not, he proceeded as Governor of a British trerritory, populated by British subjects. And he was the man on the spot, dealing with a real world reality in his own life time.


I doubt that men as shrewd as the Maori chiefs really believed that the British would be such muggins as to agree to do all the dirty work with no quid pro quo. It always astonishes me that Maori protagonists portray the Maori (whose position they are advocating) as total simpletons,with no understanding at all of the realities of life. I suppose it is all part of that "Noble Savage" nonsense. The pre-treaty Maori chiefs were anything but the doddering idiots that their champions would paint them as. I would be very very certain that they would make quite sure that they knew exactly what they were entering into.They were shrewd intelligent men of the world - and we see in the arguments put forward by some of them against signing the treaty , that they did indeed understand exactly what was involved. If , as you argue, the Maori believed that they were giving up nothing whatsoever by signing the treaty , why were so many of them (including my ancestors) so very opposed to signing?

[candor]

Because they were the paranoid ones. They did not believe that what was written on the paper is what the pakehas truly meant - why? Because the odd missionary allies advised them it could be trickery.

The treaty or the bible - which to chose. The bible said Tainui.

Others however clearly thought they'd thrashed out a good deal. Why would they think they were not acting in a good faith trade off. You guys can come here - we'll offer food and land to the level of hospitality we can handle, in return you control your rabble and bring some (more) of the good skills we can learn from your culture.

C'mon - not every one was smart or worldliwise, not everyone was dumb or the naive noble savage as you put it. I'm sure there were all types around just as today.

When we as Westeners well used to written culture sign stuff - well I can say I have not ALWAYS read it thoroughly or considered it thoroughly. But if I noticed the main pont that worried me 'tino rangatiratanga' (sovereignty) was guaranteed to be retained I would prolly sig and not sweat the rest.

[candor]

They certainly would not have understood how land changes status under the Crowns suzerainty ='s not informed consent. I can not believe one Maori would have signed the treaty, even given they had heard the english version (sovereignty transferring) had they understood what this meant re land handling

1. Lands typically go into freehold titles under British system
2. The ultimate owner of all freehold titles is the Crown

As if this was understood it struck at the heart of Maori conceptions about the nature of reality, their place in it and right and wrong.

Whakapapa. You did not and could not give it up. Ancestral lands and lands that were ancestors would not be permanently sold - loaned yes, shared yes but your status and life force came from keeping the fires burning there, only if they had not been lit for (I think) 7 generations was it considered land had been abandoned and was free for the plucking.

[Ixion]

No. Because they DID believe it. Both my Maori and British ancestors opposed the treaty. The British ones because it totally ignored the rights of those (eg, them) who were already there, and had been in some cases for 20 or 30 years. Aggreements which they had reached with the Maoris (based on the premise that the Maori WERE a soverign entity) were rendered null and void. The Maori ancestors (ie the in laws of the Brits), opposed the treaty on the basis that those signing it were a bunch of traitors and Quislings (which they were) . They understood perfectly well what the signatories were signing away . And they heartily disagreed.

[candor]

"They understood perfectly well what the signatories were signing away . And they heartily disagreed".

So they read the English version? Can you substantiate that they understood and also scorned the kupapa? Oral tradition or some british standard evidence. I do hope this is not from the mouth of some brit historian. And isn't it bedtime?

Oh - were the euro ancestors married to the maori ones so offering good consultancy?

[Ixion]

They certainly would not have understood how land changes status under the Crowns suzerainty ='s not informed consent. I can not believe one Maori would have signed the treaty, even given they had heard the english version (sovereignty transferring) had they understood what this meant re land handling

1. Lands typically go into freehold titles under British system
2. The ultimate owner of all freehold titles is the Crown

As if this was understood it struck at the heart of Maori conceptions about the nature of reality, their place in it and right and wrong.

Whakapapa. You did not and could not give it up. Ancestral lands and lands that were ancestors would not be permanently sold - loaned yes, shared yes but your status and life force came from keeping the fires burning there, only if they had not been lit for (I think) 7 generations was it considered land had been abandoned and was free for the plucking.

None of that was relevant at the time the treaty was signed. English law perfectly understood the concept of non freehold land. Land held in common (cf, the English word "commons" for land held jointly by a community), copyhold and many other forms of non freehold tenure had formed a part of English law since the Middle Ages.

The treaty did not convert Maori land into freehold. That required a separate law passed much later (around the 1860s from memory, but I may be wrong).

Whether that later conversion was fair or not is an arguable point, but it has nothing to do with the treaty. And neither suzereinity nor sovereignty have anything whatsoever to do with any particular form of land tenure. Both are compatible with free hold, copyhold, tenure in sergeantry, tenure in joint, tenure in common, tenure in chivalry, tenure in free socage, trenure at grace, etc etc etc ,and those are just the English ones. English law also recognised a large number of others extant in Roman law.

If your argument is that Maoris were unfairly dispossed of their lands (though you will need to define "their") then you need to point your shafts several generations later. And consider carefully who betrayed who. The ONLY people deprived on any right in land by the treaty were the British who had acquired land prior to the treaty, who were dispossed at the stroke of the treaty pen, (once agin, my ancestors amongst then).

[Ixion]

"They understood perfectly well what the signatories were signing away . And they heartily disagreed".

So they read the English version? Can you substantiate that they understood and also scorned the kupapa? Oral tradition or some british standard evidence. I do hope this is not from the mouth of some brit historian. And isn't it bedtime?

Oh - were the euro ancestors married to the maori ones so offering good consultancy?

Who is "they"? The British side or the Maori side. Of course the British ancestors were married to the Maori ones (common law marriage , anyway) otherwise how could they both be ancestors?

I imagine they read the English version, and the Maori one. They were fairly shrewd buggers by all accounts. Why is oral tradition to be regarded as gospel when it accords with your views but dismissed when it diagrees? It is primarily from the mouth of my great-great-grandmother and my great-granduncles , who told it to me as a boy. And they in turn had it from their great grandparents , and so back.

[candor]

"The ONLY people deprived on any right in land by the treaty were the British who had acquired land prior to the treaty, who were dispossed at the stroke of the treaty pen, (once agin, my ancestors amongst then)."

Interesting. I did mot know freehold came later - what are you a lawyer!! Nighty.

[Clockwork]

It can be as subtle as what I saw yesterday. Indiabn daiy owner watching maori teen like a hawk and telling him not to handle items unless buying. I myself often pick up then change mind and put down again. People can also be racoist or discriminate against themself.

Why do you believe that it was his race that caused the shopkeeper to become defensive, could it not have been his gender, age or demeanour? Do you know if the shopkeeper and customer had a history? Maybe you have become conditioned to see racial slights where none exist. As, apparently I have.

[MisterD]

One thing that is an indisputable fact, despite what Helenvision NZ may have to say is that the flag in question is not "The Maori Flag" it is a Maori Flag.

I think it was John Tamihere that said the other night that "Flags aren't even a Maori thing".

Oh, and Dover I think they do fly the saltire on St Andy's day.

[The_Dover]

Ok, cool if they do.

I never had an issue with a frickin flag being flown, it's the seperatist, divisive train of thought of a bunch of watered down "natives" that fucks me off.

All citizens should have equal rights. That's all I'm saying. No one should be entitled to any more public money than anyone else. No one should receive reparation for historical "perceived" wrongs. Things were different in those days, some of us have evolved and expect democracy to follow the wishes of the majority.

[MisterD]

I agree wholeheartedly with you Dover...

[Dilligaf]

Actually Dover, just to really piss you off, I read this weekend that some Scottish fellow tried to get the Scottish flag flown on St Andrew's day but was told by transit that only "sovereign" nations would be able to have their flag flown..... then flew the Welsh flag on St (whatever's - :slap: ) day.....
Tried to find it to link it, searched online in the Herald.

[Ixion]

,,
The treaty did not convert Maori land into freehold. That required a separate law passed much later (around the 1860s from memory, but I may be wrong).

,,

Native Land Act 1862, replaced by Native Land Act 1865 was the villain. This Act allowed for the conversion of land held under customary Maori title into freehold. Long after the Treaty, and admitted by the government to be in breach of it, so that authority had to be obtained from the Imperial government in London. Much land was seized forcibly under the New Zealand Settlements Act 1863, intended to deal with the lands of Maori in rebellion, but in practice used as a general pretext for land seizure. The treaty cannot be blamed for any of this. Note that there is still not inconsiderable amounts of land held under customary title .

[Ixion]

Actually Dover, just to really piss you off, I read this weekend that some Scottish fellow tried to get the Scottish flag flown on St Andrew's day but was told by transit that only "sovereign" nations would be able to have their flag flown..... then flew the Welsh flag on St (whatever's - :slap: ) day.....
Tried to find it to link it, searched online in the Herald.

St David. And Scotland IS a sovereign state. God Save King Francis, King of Scotland.