Andy Oakley
Andy's specialties are Sales Management, Marketing, Contract Managment, Engineering Management, Factory Management. He currently has a treaty claim for equality before the Waitangi Tribunal and has written an excellent book about it - 'Cannons Creek to Waitangi'. ('See Great books' on this site)
TEACHING COLONIAL HISTORY, THE INDOCTRINATION CONTINUES
‘Colonisation’ means the action or process of settling among and establishing control over the indigenous people of an area.
‘Indigenous’ means originating, occurring naturally or native.
‘Native’ means associated with a place by birth.
Considering the popular belief is that people began arriving in New Zealand about 650 years before present, and that the people who arrived here arrived at different times, and that they lived separately one could not possibly say that they were one people or that they were collectively indigenous.
What has been hidden from us is that the explorers who arrived here in the 1700’s noted in their journals that there were 3 different kinds of people living here, ranging from Melanesian to fair skin people and that these people were in an almost perpetual state of war. Which is a clear indication that New Zealand’s colonisation didn’t begin when Europeans arrived, it began when the second group colonised the first group in New Zealand a few hundred years earlier.
Despite that fact, through the school system we have an insidious belief system that has been injected into New Zealand culture through a process of indoctrination and racism. The belief is that the people who lived in New Zealand before Europeans arrived were one group known as Maori (brown skin), and that the Europeans (white skin) who arrived colonised these (brown skin) people. The belief system states that the resulting colonisation has been terrible for New Zealand and in particular for Maori people.
Whereas anyone who has done basic researched would know that before the 1970s, New Zealanders were world leaders in our social statistics and productivity. It took us just 60 years after the treaty was signed for New Zealand, operating as one nation, to overtake both the US and Australia in productivity, measured by GDP per capita.
How is it possible for this so-called separate group ‘Maori’ to only feel the apparent terrible effects of colonisation from the mid-1970s?
The terrible negative social statistics are constantly shown in the media as the proof of how bad colonisation was, and still, is. But surely it is the opposite, the evidence is that whatever we have been doing to Maori people since the mid 70’s is very bad indeed and we should stop it immediately if we want to return to high productivity and world leading social statistics.
The illogical toxic story of our history is promulgated by every political party that has held any seat in governance of New Zealand since the 1970’s and I will include most local body councils and many Maori leaders in that group too.
The ever-worsening toxic story of our history is in my estimation perfectly correlated to the rising suicide rates, particularly of our youth. Young Maori men kill themselves in numbers unheard of by any other group in the developed world.
To see how this process of indoctrination works there is a perfect example of it in the link below.
This is a group of people, who include Government Minister’s acting like children, have misinterpreted the Treaty of Waitangi and want to make the teaching of brown oppression and white guilt (Marxism) to our children compulsory.
You will hopefully reel back in horror as you hear them state that the biggest barrier to them forcing this hatred into our children’s heads is anyone who is white and doesn’t feel comfortable doing it, and that those people are the racists (not them).
https://www.facebook.com/Maori.Affairs/videos/244860516185138/
LABOUR OFFER MAORI SELF GOVERNMENT
Earlier in 2019 Labour’s Minister of State Services Chris Hipkins announced that the State Sector Act 1988 was repealed and replaced with the Public Service Act. One of the reasons was so that the new Act would recognise the responsibility of the Public Service including Crown Agents to support the Crown to fulfil its responsibilities under Te Tirito o Waitangi.
“This is another clear signal that we are serious about our commitment to our treaty partners,” Chris Hipkins said.
In December 2019, now with his Minister of Education hat on Chris Hipkins announced his rewriting of the Education and Training Bill.
One of the changes is to specifically put the Treaty of Waitangi at the center of education. So, along with educational achievements we have these three objectives:
• the school gives effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi by: working to ensure that its plans, policies, and local curriculum reflect local Tikanga Māori, mātauranga Māori and te ao Māori
• taking all reasonable steps to make instruction available in te reo Māori and Tikanga Māori; and
• achieving equitable outcomes for Māori students.
The new objective relating to Te Tiriti will emphasise the importance of local history and practices and challenge boards to improve the teaching of te reo Māori and Tikanga Māori;
They will also be required to contribute to meeting the Crown’s duty to protect Tino Rangatiratanga rights actively; and make a significant contribution to achieving the Crown’s Strategy for Māori Language Revitalisation.
The Te Tiriti objectives will not come into force until 2021.
It is clear then, like successive governments before them the Labour government are doubling down on identity politics and further entrenching racial separatism into New Zealand. And in the most heinous of ways, by indoctrinating our children while they are in the classroom.
For the purpose of clarity I will leave the most obvious flaw in this plan i.e. people who prefer to define as Maori by rejecting other ancestry are part of the general population, not exclusive of it. There is no scientific way that you can rule people in or out of the group identity known as Maori and even if you could there is no reason to enter a partnership with these people.
What I would like to concentrate on instead is this idea that any New Zealand government has a duty to protect Tino Rangitiratanga rights of Maori.
Where do these separate rights come from and once we established where they come from, what does tino rangatiratanga actually mean?
The separate rights are said to come from the Treaty of Waitangi (ToW) as the ToW Act states that an agreement was entered into on Feb 6th 1840 between the Queen of England and the Maori people of New Zealand.
However, this cannot possibly be true as nowhere in the English draft of the treaty are Maori evened mentioned, the treaty is clearly addressed to the chiefs and the people of New Zealand. Besides that, there was no-one known as a Maori in New Zealand in 1840, the word ‘Maori’ meaning a native of New Zealand was not in use in 1840 and no one would have recognised it as meaning that in te tiriti.
That successive National and Labour governments and also our education system continue to push this falsity is testament to either how corrupt they are or how ignorant they are, or both.
With regards to the meaning of tino rangatiratanga, today we are told it means something along the lines of “self-determination, sovereignty, autonomy, self-government, domination, rule, control, power. “
So, in essence, the government are telling us that by meeting the Crown’s duty to protect Tino Rangatiratanga rights, it has a duty to hand back sovereignty to Maori.
If this were to happen, it would go against every one of the wishes of the chiefs who signed the treaty and so would possibly be the biggest breech of the treaty since the government took away our single standard of citizenship promised in article three in the 1975 ToW legislation. Not to mention it most likely being a catalyst to a civil war, the type incidentally, that we had here before the treaty was signed.
Possibly the first time the word rangatiratanga was used in New Zealand was when Henry and Edward Williams used it when translating the English Preamble of the Treaty into the native Ngapuhi/missionary language.
Because the English text Treaty used by the Government in our legislation does not have the same meanings as Te Tiriti, that document is irrelevant, and so to gain some understanding of what rangatiratanga means or rather meant in 1840, which is the crucial meaning, we need to look at the English draft of the treaty, written by James Busby. This document resides in Archives New Zealand hidden, with scorn poured on it, as the government realise it could bring down the whole treaty industry.
In that English draft Preamble, which is addressed to the people of New Zealand, not Maori, it states;
“…and her desire to preserve to them their land…”
In Te Tiriti those words were translated by the Williams’s to;
“…i tana hiahia hoki kia tohungia ki a ratou o ratou rangatiratanga me to ratou wenua…”
One can immediately see that the meaning of rangatiratanga is to do with ‘ownership’ which is connected to chiefs, as they were the only people who owned anything. The next time it was used in te tiriti was in article two, where James Busby had written in the English draft;
“…to the chiefs & tribes and to all the people of New Zealand the possession of their lands, dwellings and all their property.”
The Williams translated those words to mean;
“…ki nga Rangatira ki nga hapu-ki nga tangata katoa o Nu Tirani te tino rangatiratanga o ratou wenua o ratou kainga me o ratou taonga katoa.”
Specifically the words “ …the possessions of their lands…” were translated to “… “te tino rangatiratanga o ratou wenua…”
So, we can clearly see that in the 1840 Tiriti o Waitangi and the English draft of it “Te Tino Rangatiratanga” has nothing to do with self-determination, sovereignty, autonomy, self-government, domination, rule, control. It merely is a word to describe ownership or possessions
This revelation means that our government are going to indoctrinate our children with racial lies in the class rooms i.e., that in 1840 there were not 600 or so separate nations but rather one homogeneous group known as Maori, that the treaty between the Crown and that homogeneous racial group Maori was a partnership, and that homogeneous racial group can do exactly as they please in New Zealand as they have a separate set of rights that they determine themselves.
This disastrous racial appeasing is likely to bring back all the deadly problems associated with tribalism that we spent a millennium escaping from. And like most things the government has done to appease Maori, it is likely to harm Maori most.
The scary thing is National, the Greens, New Zealand First and most other smaller parties are likely to support this Bill.
INDOCTRINATION OF THE TREATY OF WAITANGI
Education is defined as the act or process of imparting or acquiring general knowledge, developing the powers of reasoning and judgment, and generally of preparing oneself or others intellectually for mature life.
In respect to the Treaty of Waitangi the New Zealand government have removed any powers of reasoning and judgement and are not interested in intellectual maturity, instead they are focused on the indoctrination of all its students. They have removed charter schools and stacked the state curriculum with biculturalism and a commitment to an entirely fabricated view of Te Tiriti o Waitangi.
The students have no ability to reason or to make judgements as they have funded a mass attack on every young person who attends school in New Zealand with workshops and events such as the ‘Implementing the Treaty of Waitangi’ workshops.
Schools are banned from presenting any alternative view of the Treaty of Waitangi because it is argued that the students do not have the reasoning powers to hear an alternative opinion or a separate set of facts.
I know this because I was asked to give a 1 hour presentation to Kapiti College students on the fore shore and sea bed controversy. Once senior staff found out who I was, the presentation was immediately banned, despite weeks of preparation on my behalf. Apparently some students and staff may have been... god forbid... 'offended' and for that reason alone it was called off.
We have the extremely toxic situation in New Zealand where we as parents, voters, rate payers and responsible people are complicit with the government funding a racially biased pack of utter lies and correspondingly the banning of anyone willing to tell the truth.
Filling the heads of our children with racially motivated lies will lead to violence, just has it has in every other country that have tried it.
We need to stand up against this indoctrination before things get nasty.
An example of blatant indoctrination > https://gazette.education.govt.nz/notices/1H9j1Q-implementing-the-treaty-of-waitangi/
ANDY OAKLEY ON WHY MAORI FILL OUR PRISONS
Firstly, I do not agree that just because Statistics New Zealand and our education system has decided to remove any desire to define oneself as a European or New Zealander, that the resulting person is a Maori by default.
For example, many of my family are Maori, but I am not. Although their dominant ancestry is European, they became Maori by default. Today, it is not uncommon for children to be forced into it at school. In the last census we gained about 35,601 new Maori people, how is that possible, the more ancestry is diluted and people mix the more Maori people there are, what’s going on?
The statistics are presented as follows; Māori made up 51 percent (4,391) of the total prison population. European prisoners made up 33 percent (2,835), and Pacific peoples accounted for 12 percent (1,006) of the total.
However, every one of the Maori prisoners has European ancestry to some extent and many of the Pacific people also have European ancestry, so possibly up to 85% of all prisoners have European or mostly European ancestry.
Crime then, is NOT a Maori problem, it is merely a statistical illusion created by the government and Maori leaders continuously use it so that Maori can appear as oppressed.
Why would they want Maori to appear oppressed?
It is because they have created the Waitangi Tribunal monster who have accepted the made up stories that Maori were and still are oppressed. The courts and our government are paying out on that oppression. Every week we hear about many more millions of dollars and extra rights being transferred to the oppressed. They use the false statistics endlessly to excuse behaviour and the failure of these people that they have created.
Consequently, many Maori are stuck in a downward spiral created by the government and egged on by their greedy leaders. Maori are told that the system does not help them and so obviously young men particularly, who see no viable way forward, turn to aggression and or crime.
Instead of using an illogical and undefined ‘race’ definition for the prison statistics they could truthfully state that more than 80% of the prisoners came from poor or dysfunctional homes.
I was born and grew up in New Zealand’s poorest suburb, which was only ‘relatively’ poor compared to every other suburb. I understand why I got into trouble there and why the vast majority of prisoners in New Zealand come from towns like it.
It has nothing to do with being Maori and Jordan Peterson explains it beautifully; here > https://youtu.be/M3XYHPAwBzE
TREATY TOP UP FRAUD
Recently we have heard from the government that Treaty top ups totaling more than $370m for two of the wealthiest tribes (corporations) Ngai Tahu and Tainui, were to honour contractual agreements that were entered into in the 1990s.
Using the word “contractual” implies that the top ups are as a result of ‘legal clauses’ entered into in the 1990s, and it seems that they were. However, the Treaty settlements that these clauses were inserted into could have only come about as a result of an Act in Legislation, the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975.
To investigate Treaty fraud it might be best if we use some contractual terms that should be familiar to most.
First and foremost, we must clearly identify the two parties that signed the agreement or contract, at the time it was signed. This must be done so that if there is a breach of the contract it is clear which party is in breach and which one is due compensation.
In the case of the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 the parties are clearly identified as A) Her late Queen of Victoria, and B) The Maori people of New Zealand.
We know who the Queen was and that her responsibilities have been transferred to the New Zealand Parliament, but who were “the Maori people of New Zealand”. Well, in the Act Maori are identified as being a separate race of people. From the Act: “Maori means a person of the Maori race of New Zealand; and includes any descendant of such a person.”
FRAUD NO 1
The agreement (Te Tiriti o Waitangi) does not mention the Maori people of New Zealand. Not only that, the English draft it does not even mention the native people of New Zealand. In the Preamble of the contract it is clearly addressed to “the chiefs and people of New Zealand”.
If one investigates the drawing up of the contract i.e. the draft notes held in Archives New Zealand one finds that the word “native” used in earlier drafts was replaced with the words “the people of New Zealand”.
FRAUD NO 2
An entity such as “Maori” did not exist in New Zealand during 1840. The company ‘Maori Inc”, as it were, defined as they are in today’s legislation were formed as a result of the Act in 1975. They could not possibly be a party to the Treaty of Waitangi that was signed in 1840. Investigating the language and documents of 1840 one finds that the word “Maori” was not used to define a collective of people.
CONCLUSION
A) The party receiving compensation for the breach of contract is not the party named in the contract.
B) The party receiving compensation for the breach of contract did not exist when the contract was signed.
C) The party receiving compensation for the breach of contract are defined in legislation as a separate race. The legislation also makes all descendants of that person a member of a separate race too. Because it does not define “Maori” or “Race”, it is impossible to either legally or scientifically rule people in or out of this group.
While these two fraudulent findings are only the tip of the iceberg, they are enough to bring the Treaty industry down. Every single Act or policy in New Zealand that derives from the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 is also fraudulent. The only sensible thing to do is to repeal the Act, instigate a Royal Commission of inquiry as to who is responsible, return settlement money to the people of all races in the tribal regions and get back to being the best and fairest country in the world.
ENDS
WAIKATO TIMES GALLAGHER BIAS EXPOSED
Sir William Gallagher made the national news when he was reported as having said the “Treaty papers on display at Te Papa are fraudulent documents and the concept of the Treaty itself is a rort.”
He was relaying well researched and referenced information from a book that I recently published on the subject.
When Sir William was questioned by the media on the historical information he directed the media to the author, Andy Oakley (me). Since that time, even though my publisher has given out my contact details not one member if the NZ media has contacted me to ask me about the content of my book.
A biased Maori Affairs Reporter Yvonne Tahana on TV One News held my book up on air and said it argues that iwi are getting rich from the Treaty. The thesis in the book is, no one was known as a Maori in 1840, Maori are not mentioned in the Treaty and the English version of the Treaty is a fraud, which is what Sir William relayed. I doubt they have read a word of it.
Fairfax Media, who own the ‘Waikato Times’ and ‘Stuff’ have confirmed to me that the purpose of the media is not to present the facts but to solicit the unwary into a web of sensationalism at whatever cost.
They confirmed this in a series of emails to me when I tried to get them to publish an article by me to balance the one-sided attack they had made on Sir William and the Gallagher family.
What these uncaring people have done to a Knight of the Realm, who is famous for his contribution to Waikato and it’s community, is nothing short of abominable and stinks of racial undertones.
In an email response from them regarding my request for to print my article Wayne Timmo the Chief News Director at Waikato Times and Stuff he said;
“You are essentially looking to enter the debate started by Sir William to make a second round of points.“
And; “It's also worth noting that we have not run supplied op-ed pieces arguing any of these factual points from any other party in this debate. It would be giving you special treatment to run your supplied piece and we'd likely have to offer the same to those wishing to counter your points.”
I responded to Wayne Timmo;
“What has transpired here is that Sir William made some comments regarding the Treaty which he believed to be factual at a business function. He obtained that information from my book and so subsequently directed any media questions about the information to me.
The Waikato Times, nor any other Fairfax media organisation has asked me anything about this information. But they have published a plethora of opinion pieces by numerous people all discrediting Sir William and the information he relayed which is covered in my book.”
Fairfaix Media through the Waikato Times and Stuff published the following opinion pieces to back their agenda:
Dame Ann Salmond, Associate Professor Sandy Morrison, Waikato-Tainui chairwoman Parekawhia, Alice Sneddon McLean, Alice Sneddon and the crazy rants of a Maori sovereigntist Taitimu Maipi.
And to back the information by Sir William Gallagher, none…zero… 0.
When I pointed this out to Wayne Timmo he said; “It's a fair cop there and you are right to point it out.”
And he finished with “Someone having a difference of interpretation of facts to those cited in a news story does not automatically bind media outlet to running a response from them.”
In other words, he is saying it is ok for the Waikato Times and Stuff to attack comments made by a Knight of the Realm and for them to publish numerous articles and opinion pieces to back their attack. But they are not bound to balance the argument.
He freely admits they are a biased bunch of SH*T stirrers who have no regard for the truth.
My final email to Wayne Timmo read:
“I understand Wayne,
The Waikato Times is quite prepared to dump on a pillar of the Waikato community, a Knight of the Realm no less, and then publish a wall of false and inaccurate information that appears to confirm your vilification and then refuse any attempt to balance the issue.
You have confirmed to me that the purpose of the media is not to present the facts but to solicit the unwary into a web of sensationalism at whatever cost.
That cost includes your own admission of guilt that will not go unpublished.
I trust that you sleep well knowing that the Waikato Times has infected and altered the lives of those who they have pointed the finger at and those who you have refused any chance of balancing the issue.
Via Cannon's Creek to Waitangi > https://www.facebook.com/cannonscreektowaitangi/photos/a.774590029227299.1073741833.716293735056929/1720121101340849/?type=3
SOMETHING IS VERY WRONG HERE (Dame Anne Salmond)
Attendees looked on apprehensively as Sir William Gallagher quoted from my (Andy Oakley) book that he had recently read.
"The Treaty papers on display at Te Papa were fraudulent documents and the concept of the Treaty itself was a rort" he said.
Immediately we see the notable experts paraded before the masses to tell us how much of a racist he is and how ignorant he is about the Treaty. But said notable experts and academics have careers invested in their lazy research, of course they would keep up the charade.
IMAGINE, AN APPARENT SHEAR NOVICE KNOWING A LOT MORE THAN THEM AFTER DOING HIS OWN RESEARCH.
IT APPEARS I, A MERE NOVICE, DO KNOW MUCH MORE THAN DAME ANNE SALMOND, who apparently is one of the countries most distinguished historians. However, it appears that either SHE IS A LIAR OR SHE TRULY JUST DOESN’T KNOW ABOUT NEW ZEALAND HISTORY.
She states in 2017 that Maori didn’t cede sovereignty in 1840. However, Tamati Waka Nene is recorded as saying “Therefore, I say, I know no Sovereign but the Queen” on July 10th 1860 at a national conference that over 200 chiefs attended.
IS SHE MAD?
She states Maori and Aotearoa are legitimate terms. She states the word “Maori”, capital M meant native New Zealanders and was used that way in the Treaty
However, in 1840 “maori” was the word used for “ordinary” it has stated that in every edition of “A Dictionary of the Maori Language” since 1844 right up to the seventh edition first printed in 1971 and still available today.
In every original 1840 copy of Te Tiriti o Waitangi the word “maori” has a small ‘m’ including the Printed Sheet. It is used to distinguish between rangatira and ordinary people, or rangitira and tangata maori, the dictionary of the day leads us to no other conclusion. She is an amateur!!
BUT WAIT THERE IS MORE!
The word “Aotearoa” does not even appear in “A Dictionary of the Maori Language” … at all.
She said the views on the Treaty of Waitangi expressed by Sir William Gallagher from my book are unbalanced and worrying.
THE ONLY THING UNBALANCED AND WRONG IS HOW SHE COULD BE KNOWN AS ONE OF THE COUNTRIES MOST DISTINGUISHED HISTORIAN, BUT AN AMATEUR CAN SHOW HER UP.
Something is very wrong here.
ENDS.
WHEN VILLAINS BECOME HEROES
Rua Kenana had denounced the Maori warrior ways of old, he cast aside all traditional Māori tapu practices and replaced them with new forms specifically associated with the faith in himself as the Promised Messiah. He built a curious European type round temple of worship and set up a religious cult in the small village of Maungapohatu. He claimed to be the Maori brother of Christ.
At least fifty people died there during one harsh at winter, most of them children, from the inadequacy of the houses, an outbreak of typhoid which came from the valley camps, and a measles epidemic which devastated the community. Sometimes there was nothing to eat but huhu, and the coarse toi leaves, normally used only for clothing.
As a result of a number of charges of obtaining alcohol in 1910, Rua was fined for sly grogging and, in 1915, served a short gaol sentence for a similar offence. On his release he resumed his sly grogging.
He ignored most of the laws of New Zealand and also prevented his men from enlisting to help efforts in World War One. Rua said, "I have 1400 men here and I am not going to let any of them enlist or go to war. You have no king now. The King of England he is no good. He is beat. The Germans will win. Any money I have I will give to the Germans. The English are no good. They have two laws. One for the Māori and one for the Pākehā. When the Germans win I am going to be king here. I will be king of the Māori and of the Pākehā."
Rua had seven wives, a privilege for which he took Biblical sanction and he wore his hair long in imitation of the Israelites. He obtained great influence not only over the Urewera, but over other tribes in the neighbourhood and as far away as Rotorua and Gisborne.
As a result of his continual flouting of the law and acts of treason against the sovereignty of New Zealand an attempt was made to arrest him by an armed police expedition in 1916. Commissioner John Cullen and a force of between fifty and sixty men, both Maori and non Maori, twenty of whom were armed with rifles and the rest with revolvers. They went in from Rotorua via Te Whaiti and Ruatahuna, and marched into the Maunga-pohatu settlement on Sunday, 2nd April.
Rua attempted to evade arrest, and when he was seized some of his people opened fire on the police with rifles and shot-guns. A lively skirmish followed, lasting for about half an hour. One of Rua's sons and another Maori were shot dead, and four constables were wounded.. They took to their arms on impulse when they saw their prophet and “Messiah” felled and handcuffed.
Rua was tried in Auckland on the charge of resistance to the police and was sentenced to imprisonment. On his release he behaved admirably by assisting the Government to raise recruits for the Maori Pioneer Battalion in the Great War.
True to its history altering agenda, it was reported in 2012 that the Waitangi Tribunal ‘ruled’ that in making the arrest the government had carried out an “unjustified invasion”. In doing so the Waitangi Tribunal have ignored the laws of the day, overturned the courts findings and replaced them with the opinions of a racist kangaroo court. The precedent is: If you were a Maori, committing treason and breaking the law were not offences and a pardon to the descendants should be forthcoming from the government.
I fear we have many more of these pardons to come, along with the removal of the statues of our pioneering heroes.
HEROES BECOME VILLAINS AND VILLAINS BECOME HEROES.
NZ Herald article re Kenana here > http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11919391
SCIENTIFIC PROOF WAITANGI TRIBUNAL MUST CLOSE
Science has for some time held the evidence to show that the Waitangi Tribunal was fraudulently set up by a bunch of racist politicians looking to marginalize people and then appease them, all in an effort to either stay in or get in the power seat.
The tribunal operates within the Ministry of Justice and was set up by the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975. The Waitangi Tribunal is a permanent commission of inquiry that makes recommendations on claims brought by Māori relating to Crown actions which breach the promises made in the Treaty of Waitangi.
It takes just a quick analysis to realise that this system enabling the exchange of taxpayer money and publicly owned land, rivers and huge chunks of our sovereignty is a fraudulent sham and so must be abolished.
Legislation must be shown to be just, and laws are supposed to be the back bone of a democratic civilization. However, this act is neither just or democratic, it is purely there as a means of appeasement and I can find little in it that resembles the truth.
The quick analysis;
1. “The Waitangi Tribunal is a permanent commission of INQUIRY”
The word ‘inquiry’ should involve seeking the truth, however all claims are only looked at from the point of view of the claimant and the tribunal will not cross examine evidence bought to it by claimants, nor will it hear evidence from claimants who are not Maori. This sham is carried out within a government ministry which purports to represent justice! We should not allow this travesty of justice to continue.
2. “Makes recommendations on claims brought by Māori”
A Maori, under the Act is defined as follows;
“Maori means a person of the Maori RACE of New Zealand; and includes any descendant of such a person.”
Recently Native Affairs newsreader Oriini Kaipara, was told she was 100% Maori. Professor Lisa Matisoo-Smith from the University of Otago is an expert in biological anthropology, specialising in the origins of Pacific peoples, she pointed out that race does not exists when she said;
"There is no such thing as a pure population - there has been a mixture throughout our entire human existence. When people define what is Maori or Polynesian or whatever - there is no such thing as a 'pure' anything - we're human. We carry DNA from Neanderthal, Denisovan and other ancient hominins."
Therefore, being a Maori can only be by self-determination which means anyone can bring a claim to the Waitangi Tribunal who self identifies as a Maori. I have tried this, I have submitted a claim to the tribunal and in that claim I have self-defined as a Maori, but the tribunal have asked me to prove my race. Obviously, as Lisa Matisoo-Smith states this is scientifically impossible, the tribunal know it and so are acting fraudulently.
3. “Relating to Crown actions which breach the promises made in the Treaty of Waitangi.”
A quick scan of Te Tiriti o Waitangi shows there were no promises made in it, and because there are no promises it is impossible to be in breach. What the government have done to fix that little anomaly is to commit more fraud, they simply made up some principles and inserted the following lies into the Act;
“An Act to provide for the observance, and confirmation, of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi by establishing a Tribunal to make recommendations on claims relating to the practical application of the Treaty and to determine whether certain matters are inconsistent with the principles of the Treaty.”
What all this means is; the Waitangi Tribunal are not a commission of enquiry, there are no ‘separate’ people who are Maori, no one made these separate people any promises, there was however a guarantee of property rights made to all New Zealanders, which relates to the establishment of law.
Because we have a system of law and so property rights, there is no reason to have the Act.
If, government is ever queried on any of these facts they will simply commit more fraud by stating words are not what they mean, they will refuse to acknowledge the existence of an English treaty draft, they will point to documents that are not the treaty and say they are, such as the James Freeman English version, all to stave off the inevitable.
However, the inevitable will be a long way off if we do not vote for a party who will abolish the act and so put a halt to the fraud.
Oriini Kaipara article here > http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11837408
Martin Williams: EXTRAORDINARILY IGNORANT ABOUT THE TREATY.
Should I ever need a barrister remind me never to use Martin Williams his facts are extraordinarily short of the truth.
WILLIAMS FACT 1: The instructions of the British Government in 1839 to Governor Hobson were to disclaim any right to either seize or govern these islands except through the "free and intelligent consent" of Maori.
TRUTH: There were no people known as being Maori in 1840 and the treaty does not mention Maori. As acknowledged in Te Ara the online government Encyclopedia of New Zealand. When reading Te Tiriti o Waitangi all the ‘m’s in the word maori are small ’m’s. This word “Maori” (capital M) meaning "people", was not in the vocabulary in 1840.
WILLIAMS FACT 2: The Treaty of Waitangi represents that consent, but on specific terms. Governor Hobson's statement "Now we are one" is not part of the Treaty document.
TRUTH: The words “He iwi tahi tatou” were not written in the treaty. However, in article three all the ordinary (maori) people were given the same rights as the people of England. Essentially making all the people of New Zealand one people.
WILLIAMS FACT 3: The Treaty itself guaranteed to Maori (English version, Article 2) the "full exclusive and undisturbed possession" of their lands for so long as they wished to retain them, but in the event they did wish to sell, the Crown would have the exclusive right to purchase at an agreed price.
TRUTH: There is no English version of the treaty, there is only Te Tiriti o Waitangi, Williams is wrong.
WILLIAMS FACT 4: When faced with enormous pressure with settlers pouring into the country from the 1850s, and with Maori not wishing to sell, the Crown embarked on systematic alienation of Maori from their land. The guarantee in Article 2 was breached in the extreme. Through the passage of some 360 pieces of legislation dedicated to the cause, and confiscation by military force, Maori were deprived of over 25 million hectares of land, at a total price of some £4,000. The profits on sales of that land to the settlers essentially paid for the infrastructure of our country - Maori quite literally subsidised the creation of New Zealand as we now know it.
TRUTH: The treaty was breached with the setting up of a rival sovereignty to Queen Victoria by the Kingitanga movement. They were warned if they did not cease their murderous ways, they would have land confiscated, they didn’t so the Crown and kaupapa, the vast majority of New Zealanders fought them and won. Land was confiscated as a result. But the truth is, 602 inter tribal battles had taken place between 1810 and 1840, ownership of land was almost impossible to establish.
WILLIAMS FACT 5: Total Treaty settlements (in the region of $1.2 billion as at 2012) are a very small fraction of the value of the land taken from Maori in breach of the Treaty guarantee, in present day terms, but have at the same time underpinned a renaissance in the Maori economy with an asset base (now) of over $37 billion.
TRUTH: The value of land confiscated through treaty breaches by disloyal tribes has nothing to do with treaty settlements. Treaty settlements are merely a factor of how many people live in the rohe calculated against the land mass. In the vast majority of treaty settlements, no land was confiscated at all, it is just money for jam.
Williams article can be read here > http://www.nzherald.co.nz/hawkes-bay-today/news/article.cfm?c_id=1503462&objectid=11815772
A VOTE FOR THE GREENS IS A VOTE FOR WAR
On February 3, 2017 Catherine Delahunty who represents the Green Party, posted on the Green Party’s “Official Blog’ the following lies to the people of New Zealand. The lies were in a statement headed “Waitangi Day – A Fresh Look” and show clearly that as far as Delahunty and the Greens are concerned the sovereignty of New Zealand rests with Te Ao Maori and not the New Zealand Parliament.
This is nothing less than an incitement of war and a violation of allegiance to our sovereignty, which accounts for treason.
TREASON: NOUN
1. the offense of acting to overthrow one's government or to harm or kill its sovereign.
2. a violation of allegiance to one's sovereign or to one's state.
Crimes Act 1961, Part 5 Crimes against public order: Treason and other cries against the Sovereign and the State. 73 Treason, (d) incites or assists any person with ‘force’ to invade New Zealand.
FORCE: NOUN
6. persuasive power; power to convince: They felt the force of his arguments.
7. mental or moral strength: force of character.
As in the 1860’s our government have an obligation to protect its citizens and must act on these very serious acts by radicals against our sovereignty, treason carries a maximum of 14 years imprisonment.
GREENS LIES: (numbered)
1) “In 1840 the hapū of Aotearoa are thought to have totaled about 200,000 people”
TRUTH: nzhistory.govtnz “In 1840 the Maori population of 70,000 comfortably outnumbered the 2000 or so permanent European settlers.”
2) “The assumption that the 200,000 ceded their sovereignty to a few representatives of the British Crown is not plausible.”
TRUTH: By their signing of the Treaty, by their actions, by their recorded speeches at Waitangi, by defeat of the Kingitanga uprising, by discovery, by the recorded speeches and resounding resolution at the 1860 Kohimarama Conference, sovereignty was ceded to Queen Victoria.
3) “They had functional tikanga and kawa which sustained their social life and use rights to natural resources.”
TRUTH: The depopulation Muskets Wars, the documented savagery and complete disregard for human life, the extinction of Moa and many other species, the pleading for law and order that could be provided by cessation of sovereignty are all examples that in all of recorded history that statement is false.
4) “They made an agreement with the Queens representative so that the 2,000 unruly migrants would have a governor.”
TRUTH: There is no truthful historical basis for that statement in fact for anyone to believe that all 2000 white people were unruly and no brown person was, could only come from someone who is mentally unstable and probably a racist.
5) “No iwi or hapū has ever announced that their rangatiratanga has been ceded since 1840”
TRUTH: Practically all 200 chiefs who attended the 1860 Kohimarama Conference pledged their allegiance to the Sovereignty of Queen Victoria:
From that Conference: Hori Kerei Te Kotuku : “When you arrived we were dwelling in ignorance, we were blind. First came Christianity, after that the Law. I saw that there was salvation for me. You appointed magistrates. We received them. It was during the time of Governor Grey that we first recognized the Queen's authority. He said there is no other Sovereign for us but the Queen. I did not receive the Law without consideration. I sought it carefully in the pages of Scripture. I did not search in ignorance. I saw its benefits, and then I embraced it. Now the Queen is my Sovereign.”
6) "Their (Waitangi Tribunal) conclusion was that the evidence was unequivocal – the rangatira who signed Te Tiriti never ceded their sovereignty to the British Crown."
TRUTH: From the Wai 1040 Report: “This inquiry encompasses all territories north of Auckland that have not been the subject of previous Waitangi Tribunal historical reports.” The Greens have extended this corrupt report to ALL Maori and in doing so are misleading all New Zealand citizens.
7) “the Government likes to act like they have a right to govern Te Ao Māori its not true.”
TRUTH: The Government and so the administer of the law, have every right to govern as they have been democratically elected by all the people of New Zealand.
8) We do have a founding agreement which commits the parties to an ongoing relationship, between tangata whenua and the Crown.
TRUTH: In the Preamble, Article 2 and Article 3 of the Treaty of Waitangi it is clear the Treaty is addressed to all the people of New Zealand. Maori people are not mentioned in the Treaty as that group, word or identity did not exist in New Zealand culture or language until the late 1840s.
Surely this racist incitement of war should stir Susan Devoy and the police into action. The only logical conclusion of such statements is violence.
ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!
Catherine Delahunty blog here > https://blog.greens.org.nz/2017/02/03/waitangi-day-fresh-look/
Waitangi Tribunals Selective Memory
Recently in the Waitangi Tribunals “The Declaration and the Treaty” report they looked into whether Nga Puhi ceded sovereignty and concluded they didn’t.
How could this be?
I am currently reading this report and I can see how they came about their unbelievable decision, by cherry picking information from sources that were reporting on the event years or even decades after the event rather than what was actually said and recorded at the time.
Nga Puhi were one of the first to sign Te Tiriti which was a document that clearly was about ceding sovereignty and have for 175 years acted as though the Crown has sovereignty. The Waitangi Tribunal has ignored all this and have agreed with some Johnny come lately's that they had no intention of ceding sovereignty and have put a report together to explain how they reached their decision.
In this report they quote from an unknown source who recounts what Tamati Waaka Nene, a famous Nga Puhi Chief, said at the 1860 Kohimarama Conference. A two-week conference held in 1860 that Governor Brown held with 200 or so chiefs including seven from Nga Puhi. Held largely to combat the Kingitanga movement and reiterate the meaning of the treaty i.e that sovereignty was held by the Queen because the chiefs agreed as much by signing the Te Tiriti 20 years earlier.
The following text is used in the Waitangi Tribunal’s report seemingly to try and show that at the conference Nene inferred that he only signed Te Tiriti because he wanted protection, the inference is also that it was to prevent Pakeha buying all the land.
While I will use quotation marks in the following to show what I am quoting from the report, there are no quotation marks in the actual report, anyone could have said it.
Nene From the Waitangi Tribunal Report:
“My reason for accepting Governor Hobson was to have a protector for this Island. I thought of other nations – of the French …
If the Governor had not been drawn ashore (the Queens protection solicited) then our lands would have become the Pakeha’s by purchase. Each man would have said, Here’s my lan. He would have had a knife as payment, and the land would have become the Pakeha’. But when the Governor came, the land was placed under protection of the law, as it was enacted that he alone should purchase…
My object in accepting the Governor was that I had a protector”
If the Tribunal had chosen to read what was actually recorded on the day they would have seen it is entirely obvious Tamati Waaka Nene, a Nga Puhi chief, new precisely what he was doing when ceding sovereignty to the Queen twenty years earlier by signing Te Tiriti.
Now compare the language used by Nene in an actual quote from the conference recorded in 1860.
Tamati Waaka Nene:
“Listen, O assembly, to my words, even as I also have listened to yours. Let the pacific character of your speeches appear to the Queen and Governor, that they may be right and proper when looked upon by the eyes of the Queen. Hear ye, O people, this is the first time I have stood up in a Council Chamber. What has brought us here to this Assembly? What? what? It is my opinion that it is the King Movement which has brought us hither.
The system of this King is that which is pursued by Te Rangitake. First it was the King; the line of conduct adopted by Te Rangitake followed it. Now, hearken!. Yesterday it was stormy and rainy; to-day it is fine: so also as regards the conduct of Te Rangitake, it may be good and it may be evil. Who shall make good the system of Te Rangitake? Shall the Governor? No! If the Queen does, then it will be well. If the Governor attempts it he will not succeed; neither will this Council succeed: by the Queen only can it be done.
As for me I always adhere to the Queen. The system of Te Rangitake, even though he be able to hold out for a long time, will result in evil. When the gale has subsided, it is followed by a calm. Who shall produce this calm? It will not become calm. Never, never. This is why I say let what we say in the presence of the Governor be good. You (addressing the Chiefs from the South) are from the head of this fish, I am from the tail. Where are the Chiefs of this land? Where are they? The Chiefs of this house, where are they? Where?
Therefore I desired to say to you, be kind to the Europeans. Men of Whanganui, be kind to the Europeans. Men of Wairarapa, be kind to the Europeans. Men of Wellington and of Ahuriri, be kind to the Europeans, that you may see good things. If ye do what is evil, let me remind you that my wife does not know how to weave garments. Wherefore I say, Let the Europeans weave garments for me; and I in consequence will be kind to the Europeans. Thus I charge you, O Chiefs of Whanganui, Wellington, Wairarapa and Ahuriri, to be kind to your Europeans. These things, and these houses are not of our manufacture, no, they are of European origin. Chiefs of Whangarei, be kind to the Europeans, that we may eat pleasant food. Shall we again feed upon the roots of the wild convolvulus, fern root, and the pollen of the bulrush? Chiefs of Whanganui, be kind to the Europeans, even as I also am kind to them.
Where are the Chiefs of this Country, where are they? Where? You are from the head of the fish, I am from the tail. I will say no more on that subject. Where is (the proof of) our kindness. I am of opinion that the Governor is still swimming in the open sea. Waikato is the source and spring of this evil. Now hear ye, I also have a desire:
"Let my desires within me lie hid,
"The wish of my heart I'll strive to restrain."
Hear what I say, Let Te Rangitake remain in possession of his desire; let Waikato retain theirs. This people, the European, is mine, I brought them up. Why does, any one say to me—Do not let Te Waaka go? Have I only just began to travel to other lands? I went to Te Rangihaeata's (disturbance): he look no heed. I have been to Whanganui and Taranaki; they would not hear. I have fed the Europeans that they might be a people for myself, for ever! ever! ever! Ye say the Governor has done wrong. What evil has he done? I ask you, who sold Taranaki to the Europeans? They did themselves. I consider that Taranaki has been in a state of slavery: it has only now become elevated. I will say no more”.
How could it be possible for a group of so called experts to ignore what Nene actually said and cherry pick accounts of what he supposedly said from sources recounting years or sometimes decades after he said it?
There is no doubt Nene and the other chiefs were upset with the Kingitanga movement and were extremely happy that sovereignty lay with the Queen.
Support Hobson's Pledge to end attempts to divide New Zealanders.
The report Andy is referring to > http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/259356/tribunal-upholds-sovereignty-claim
Racial and Statistical Distortion by the Herald
Herald reporter Olivia Carville’s name can go on the list of racial stirrers in New Zealand. Along with Kathrine Clarke, national manager of Whakawhetu, a Maori programme dedicated to reducing SUDI and also Dr Tipene Leach.
Rather than approach a very sad problem we have objectively, they have all chosen to make it a racial problem by publishing statistical distortions and labelling people Maori or brown. They then throw accusations of institutional racism around as this seems to be the quick fix to every problem facing a brown person in New Zealand.
To clear things a little, as the article loses shape and meaning because of all the racial taunts and name calling, we need to look at the problem objectively and without a racial bias.
To do this we must look at the behavior and the result of the behavior.
Behavior: Parents sleeping with babies in the same bed.
Result: Babies can die by suffocation if they sleep with the parents. The chances of it happening are increased when things like smoking, drinking alcohol and excessive weight are introduced.
It does not matter what colour the baby is, it does not matter what colour the parents are, the result is the same.
I agree with the government’s stance on this, I do not want my tax contribution going towards something which reinforces the notion that it is alright to sleep with baby in bed. It’s sort of like allowing people to drink drive once they and everyone else on the road has an airbag fitted to their car.
As we have done with drink driving we need to collectively change the behavior and not be swayed by the racial point scoring of halfwits.
In my book institutional racism begins the minute an institution changes it’s behavior or policies to favour one race or another. I know of no institution in New Zealand that has any open policy or behavior that favours any race, except Maori.
The halfwits, one of which is the national manager of an organization to reduce SUDI, are merely making excuses for people who are living in social clusters where bad lifestyle decisions are being made, such as Kaitaia.
You know you are dealing with a misguided person when they start throwing statements around like:
"If those were pakeha babies dying the Ministry would be going to extraordinary lengths to find an innovative way of saving them," said Hastings GP Dr David Tipene-Leach.
Leach and the Herald are using labels and racism to put the focus on Maori babies.
Suddenly its as if suffocation is not a problem for Pakeha babies, when it is.
It is this attitude, particularly from Maori leaders which is a major contribution to the continuing social problems being faced by their people.
Here are further examples of it from the article;
“Historically, SUDI has been a controversial issue among Maori as many believe Government efforts to reduce the death rates have been too Pakeha-focused.”
What the hell is Pakeha focused?
And
“They are also more likely to be co-sleeping with their parents and anti bed-sharing messages touted by the Ministry of Health (and produced only in English) do not fall in line with this Maori custom”.
If bed sharing is a Maori custom why are the Maori leaders looking to blame our government for the problem?
It is obviously the custom which is the problem and they as Maori leaders are in a unique position to do something about it.
However, again we see Maori leaders are just making excuses for their own failures.
The fact of the matter is bed sharing is a worldwide problem and babies of all ethnicities and colours die. If a person is bed sharing this is a bad decision and they will likely be living in a cluster of other families all making bad decisions.
It is the bad decisions that must be addressed and no amount of flax baskets will help do that.
Whats the bet we see the flax baskets being distributed though, another ambulance at the bottom of the cliff.
The Herald article Andy was referring to: 'Institutional racism' behind funding decision > http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11671632
Why do New Zealanders put up with Apartheid?
The treaty settlement process and special funding and rights for people who declare they are culturally and racially different occurs because the government have managed to alter reality.
People believe the things that are put in front of them, this is human nature. Religion is largely based around this premise and marketing companies also use this fundamental flaw of human nature too.
If schools are teaching children that there is a group of people called Maori in New Zealand and that they have a different culture and that other New Zealanders need to foster a partnership with them because they were abused then that is what will happen.
This is clear, no one could argue that given the circumstances we have in New Zealand most will agree that Maori are special and were taken advantage of. They deserve our money and respect.
However, if we use science, biology and actual events in our history, as I have done in my book, we find out that there is a completely different reality and in fact there were no people known as Maori people in New Zealand at all before about the mid to late 1840s.
By grouping all the different groups who had colonized New Zealand at different times and from different places into one group called “Maori” we have effectively wiped the true history of New Zealand leaving a void to create a false one.
One would think doing this should be a criminal offence, however you will hear both John Key and Andrew Little stating that the Treaty of Waitangi was an agreement between the British Crown and Maori, when quite clearly it wasn’t. Historians are given grants to write false history, the Waitangi Tribunal is openly funded by us to participate in this indoctrination process.
While people like me trying to find the truth are ridiculed, silenced and most organization, including this blog, will not let me even mention the name of my book.
Our government use this technique in other areas too, the economy for instance. The world is in the midst of a global financial crises, New Zealand is too. The paper money system is about to collapse, we have an overseas debt of $242 billion with current revenue of about $17 billion. We can’t even trust politicians to spend less than we earn.
However, economists are either paid by the government to present a different reality or are to indoctrinated to know any different.
This is a disaster but what do you know of it?
The same could be said for our social welfare system, it is a massive hole that sucks money and destroys people. But there are no plans to stop people needing it in the first place.
But what do you know of it?
We need a new party that deals in reality and addresses causes rather than the current crop who are skilled at creating smoke screens while the ship is sinking.
Does the Crown have a fiduciary relationship with Maori?
In 1991 the Waitangi Tribunal (W T) stated, ‘The cession by Maori of sovereignty to the Crown was in exchange for the protection by the Crown of Maori rangatiratanga’.
It is this statement that they have then extrapolated out into a partnership and further, on and on until they finish with a legal term “fiduciary relationship” i.e. the Crown as the dominant partner has a legal duty of care to Maori.
So, it is this statement based on the W T interpretation of the words in the Treaty of Waitangi which is the basis of the endless claims and has set in stone a prevailing view in every sector of New Zealand society including, some say, the law.
For the statement to have any validity there must be a separate entity in New Zealand and this distinct group is called “Maori”. To be a member of this distinct group you must be related to a person who was in New Zealand before any white people arrived. Through the interpretation of the W T the Treaty of Waitangi guarantees this group separate rights to maintain its chieftainship based on whatever tribal lore prevailed before the Treaty, as long as they are within the laws of New Zealand.
But what if the Tribunal are wrong?
The following is my evidence they are very wrong indeed.
The statement made by the W T is factually incorrect at a very basic level as there are no words in Te Tiriti o Waitangi that state that the Crown offer protection to Maori rangitiratanga.
In fact the statement itself does not makes sense in context of the Maori language in the 1840 Treaty. The word “maori” in 1840 according to the unsurpassed record of the Polynesian language Herbert Williams and noted in the sixth edition of his dictionary meant “ordinary” or “usual”. He categorically states the word was not used to describe people until later that decade.
If you then read any of the 8 copies of the Te Tiriti o Waitangi in the Maori language housed in New Zealand Archives http://archives.govt.nz/exhibitions/permanentexhibitions/treaty/?sheet=5 you will note that every time the word “maori” is used in the Treaty it has a small “m” while Nu Tirani has capitals. This indicates the word "maori" is used as the adjective "ordinary", while Nu Tirani is a noun i.e New Zealand.
After that you could pick up or read on line any New Zealand book which was written pre 1840 and you will find that the word Maori was not used to describe the people of New Zealand.
As there were no people referred to as being Maori in 1840 it follows there is no mention of Maori people in the Treaty. In 1840 there was only New Zealanders and the Treaty refers to them, “tangata katoa o Nu Tirani” or “All the people of New Zealand”. And if we use the language of the day where the Treaty says “tangata maori katoa o Nu Tirani” that means “all the ordinary people of New Zealand (as opposed to chiefs).
The word “rangitiratanga” was used to describe land, property or possessions in the Treaty. Check my book “Cannons Creek to Waitangi” in the library or even buy a copy, on page 117 in the preamble of Te Tiriti o Waitangi the word “rangitiratanga” appears as the first word on line 6. On the opposite side of the page in the English Draft (Littlewood), the word “land” is in precisely the same spot on line six. This is also the case in Article two where the word “possessions” is in precisely the same spot as “rangitiratanga”.
The statement made by the Waitangi Tribunal “Maori rangitiratanga” in 1840 would have meant “ordinary land”, not “Maori (as a people) chieftainship”.
Considering there was no group of people called Maori in 1840 and 3% of the population of 72,000 people was from Europe, America or other Polynesian Islands and 100% of the population of New Zealand was any mixture of all of these people, one can see there could be no rational argument that puts the Crown in a fiduciary relationship with Maori, they didn’t exist as a collective group.
It is clear then the fiduciary relationship the Crown has via the Treaty is with all the people of New Zealand as that’s what the words of the Treaty say. Article 3 of the 1840 Treaty also states that from that everyone in New Zealand was attributed equal rights.
What then are we to make of the past 40 years of state sanctioned racial favoritism meted out to people who are gobbling vast amounts of tax payers money based solely on that incorrect statement by the Waitangi Tribunal?
Andy Oakley 2015 - Cannons Creek to Waitangi: > https://www.facebook.com/cannonscreektowaitangi?fref=ts
GARETH MORGAN: The one eyed cherry picker
Recently Gareth Morgan posed the following rather mixed up racial question to the people of New Zealand.
Quote: “The All Blacks are in the UK, they’ll be doing the haka. All New Zealanders will cheer and beam with pride as they do it.
That is the Maori within us, that is what being a New Zealander is.
Why then do some of us struggle so much with this reality when we’re at home? What makes us want to cherry pick those aspects of Maori identity and culture for our own use when it suits, but reject the concept of the bicultural society when we fear it might cost us? Are we free loaders or just too blind to see that what sets New Zealanders apart from other cultures is, at least in part, is the “Maoriness” in us all”. Unquote.
I (Andy Oakley) cannot comment on Gareth’s page as he has banned me along many others who do not agree with him, so here is my response to his latest go at being a separatist.
Gareth seems to be suggesting that there are two cultures in New Zealand, that we are bicultural, and that when members of one culture like aspects of the other culture or even behave in a similar, or the same way, as the other culture overseas, they should NOT be allowed to come back to New Zealand and state, the haka in this instance, is part of their culture as this is just cherry picking.
He then seems to say that cherry picking is what sets us apart as New Zealanders. Actually he refers to people who do this (New Zealanders) as free loaders. In other words he wishes to keep the two cultures separate and any borrowing from the other culture should be scorned.
I am guessing the free loaders he is referring to are the people who do not believe there are two cultures in New Zealand and want New Zealand society to be based on equality i.e. every New Zealander has equal rights NOT non-Maori people and Maori people should be equal and separate.
These people (free loaders) generally do not go around thinking that they are culturally cherry picking when they use Maori words to describe things or when they associate, or even perform a dance, with New Zealand. These people do not give it a second thought, as this is just New Zealand culture. Actually this is my culture, I do it all the time and I am not ashamed of it.
Using Gareth’s twisted analogy of two cultures, how is it that a non-Maori New Zealander overseas should not feel the haka represents all New Zealanders, because it is cherry picking, but people who identify as Maori can wallow about in all the riches and comforts other cultures have contributed to make them who they are today. Is that not culturally cherry picking too?
Apparently, according to Gareth, it is the Treaty of Waitangi that not only allows all of this separatist behavior, it makes it compulsory, it is the law!
According to him and the sovereignty movement this is because the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles are referred to in many acts in our legislation.
I quote him again:
“The treaty is increasingly part of law and it protects Maori society so it's not accurate to describe those laws as "archaic" - they are very real”. Unquote
However:
1) The actual Te Tiriti o Waitangi makes no such mention of racial, cultural or ethnic separation at all. It says exactly the opposite, it groups us all under one name, THE PEOPLE OF NEW ZEALAND. It does not protect Maori (only) society and I have challenged Gareth many times to find me the words in Te Tiriti o Waitangi that state Maori get anything separately over any other New Zealanders. His response was to ban me.
2) In 1840 the word “maori” simply meant “ordinary” and did so for most of the next decade. Which means the words of the treaty are directed at “ALL” New Zealanders. The people of New Zealand in 1840 we called “New Zealanders”, they were made up of 600 or so separate groups, tribes, clans or want ever you want to call them, INCLUDING 2000 or so people from Britain, America, France and other Polynesian Islands, approximately 3% of New Zealand’s population. The words in the Treaty “ki nga tangata katoa o Nu Tirani” are directed at all 600 groups.
3) These separate groups did not all behave the same way in 1840. They had similar but different languages and they did not even look the same. There was as much cultural diversity in New Zealand then as there is today.
It is not illegal for Gareth Morgan to be a separatist.
It is not illegal for Gareth to set himself up as an apologist for “so called” wrongs he feels his separate group did to some other separate group.
It is not illegal for him to ban people who do not agree with his separatism from his Facebook page.
However, it should be illegal for a man with his money to go around New Zealand inciting racial disharmony by telling lies about the words written in the Treaty of Waitangi.
As I am banned, I encourage you to go to his Facebook site and tell him your thoughts on his racial separatism. > https://www.facebook.com/garethmorgannz
Cannons Creek to Waitangi: https://www.facebook.com/cannonscreektowaitangi?fref=ts
Is Good Racism Good?
While it is correct to say racism is preferring one race over another, it is more accurate to say racism is the belief that all members of each race possess certain characteristic’s, traits or qualities.
In other words if you believe in race, you are racist.
Even if you then go on and state that all races are equal or that you like members of this race or that, it is the belief that race exists is enough to be labelled one.
A very serious issue in New Zealand is that it is widely accepted that good racism should be encouraged.
What is good racism?
The Child Youth and Family Department of our government are told that there seems to be a high number of brown people making bad life choices. They are in prison, on the dole and sick.
So, the government divert money from our taxes into Statistics New Zealand to count Maori’s or more accurately people who state they are a Maori. Even though there is no definition of what this race is except to say, you are one if you are related to one.
They then count how many of these people are in prison, on the dole or sick. They find the statistics clearly show that socially a number of these people do not know how to behave, eat or work properly. They publish these finding to the New Zealand public stating that this a tragedy caused by a colonialist stealing their great great great great great great great grandfathers land.
What to do?
Geoffrey Palmer decided to set up a race based tribunal to make up stories about how bad the Crown treated the great great great great great great great grandfathers of these people. They state that the main reason for the bad behaviour, poor eating etc of these people is because the Crown is not upholding its obligations in the Treaty of Waitangi. Never mind the Treaty is a document that contains the signatures of 540 New Zealanders who ceded sovereignty and not much else.
Because the Treaty doesn’t actually state anything other than the Crown will protect all the people of New Zealand and whatever things the people owned before the Treaty they still own after it, the Crown have introduced a plethora of other documents that are NOT the ACTUAL Treaty such as principles, versions, back translations etc. This action has bewildered nearly every person in New Zealand including themselves and of course Gareth Morgan.
The government decided the best way forward to address this poor behaviour from the people who state they are a Maori is to divert our taxes, NOT to the people who actually need it, but to the corporations who represent the Iwi (or the club) who the great great great great great great great grandfather of the prisoner used to be in. Never mind that the prisoner isn’t in the club.
The corporation who represent the Iwi (club) invest our taxpayer’s money without paying a slither of the tax they should because apparently they are a charity. However, the earnings of these investments are not paid back to the taxpayers who handed out the money, but are used to buy a rugby league team or fund fishing venture which does not employ Maori but slaves from the Philippines. Occasionally, the money is lost or it is stolen by the very people who do not know how to behave and pumped into motels, casinos and Kentucky Fried Chicken.
One thing is for sure though, while all this is going on the number of brown people in trouble grows.
I think good racism is immeasurably worse than bad racism.
***************************
What The Treaty Said (Part Two)
The 1840 Meaning of Te Tiriti o Waitangi: Part Two
In the first article we learnt that, according to the Herbert Williams Dictionary of the Maori Language, there were no people known as Maori in New Zealand in February 1840. This was because the word “maori” was not used to describe people until 1850, a decade later.
In comparing the Treaty’s English draft to Te Tiriti o Waitangi and by using the Dictionary of the Maori Language, I will analyse what the three articles that were agreed to really meant in 1840.
ARTICLE ONE
Lt.Gov Hobson’s final draft.
The chiefs of the Confederation of the United Tribes and the other chiefs, who have not joined the confederation, cede to the Queen of England forever the entire SOVEREIGNTY of their country. (All chiefs of the Confederation and any other leaders in New Zealand cede whatever sovereignty exists, some or none)
Tiriti O Waitangi
Ko nga Rangatira o te wakaminenga me nga Rangatira katoa hoki ki hai i uru ki taua wakaminenga ka tuku rawa atu ki te Kuini o Ingarani ake tonu atu-te KAWANATANGA katoa o ratou wenua.
ARTICLE TWO
Lt.Gov Hobson’s final draft.
The Queen of England confirms and guarantees to the chiefs and tribes and to all the people of New Zealand the possession of their lands, dwellings and all their property. But the chiefs of the Confederation and the other chiefs (leaders), grant to the chiefs Queen, the exclusive right of purchasing such land as the proprietors thereof may (Every New Zealander is guaranteed property rights)
Tiriti O Waitangi
Ko te Kuini o Ingarani ka akaryote ka weakie ki nga Rangatira ki nga hapu-ki nga tangata katoa o Nu Tirani (All the people of New Zealand) te tino rangatiratanga (ownership) o ratou wenua o ratou kainga me o ratou Taonga katoa (of all their lands and property). Otiia ko nga Rangatira o te wakaminenga me nga Rangatira katoa atu ka tuku ki te Kuini te hokonga o era wahi wenua e pai ai te tangata nona te Wenua-ki te ritenga o te utu e wakaritea ai e ratou ko te kai hoko e meatia nei e te Kuini hei kai hoko mona. (Every New Zealander is guaranteed property rights)
ARTICLE THREE
Lt.Gov Hobson
In return for the cession of the Sovereignty to the Queen, the people of New Zealand (every one) shall be protected by the Queen of England and the rights and privileges of British subjects will be granted to them. (Every New Zealander has equal rights, the same as British subjects)
Signed, William Hobson Consul & Lieut. Governor
Tiriti O Waitangi
Hei wakaritenga mai hoki tenei mo te wakaaetanga ki te Kawanatanga o te Kuini-Ka tiakina e te Kuini o Ingarani nga tangata MAORI; katoa o Nu Tirani (All the “ORDINARY” people of New Zealand, everyone) ka tukua ki a ratou nga tikanga katoa rite tahi ki ana mea ki nga tangata o Ingarani. (Every New Zealander will be attributed equal rights, the same as British subjects)
Signed William Hobson Consul & Lieutenant Governor
WHY DID THEY ADD THE WORD “ORDINARY” IN ARTICLE THREE?
Because it was the chiefs who ceded sovereignty in New Zealand by Article 1, but the rewards for doing so went to ALL the ordinary people of New Zealand. This was a very new concept in New Zealand, which effectively ended slavery overnight, one which required highlighting and emphasising in subsequent discussions.
The English draft that is used here was read by Henry Williams after the Maori version was read to the crowd gathered at the Waitangi signing. It can be seen that there were no discrepancies in the meanings between the Maori language and English documents. What’s more if there were, there would have been uproar amongst the attendees at the signing.
MISINTERPRETATION HAS ENCOURAGED SEPARATISM
This two part article has attempted to show that the Crown (NZ Government) and the Waitangi Tribunal are complicit in misinterpreting Te Tiriti o Waitangi in favour of a separatist view of events in our history.
There was never an attempt to form a partnership with Maori, because they did not exist as a separate group at the time.
The 1840 Treaty bought some 600 different groups from all corners of the globe together as one nation. He Iwi Tahi Tatou (We are all one people).
http://kapitiindependentnews.net.nz/waitangi-reflections-5-what-the-treaty-said/
What the Treaty said (Part one)
The 1840 Meaning of Te Tiriti o Waitangi: Part One
Today in New Zealand the Treaty of Waitangi has as many meanings as there are versions of the treaty.
Matters are not made any clearer by the Crown which has adopted a document in English that is not the Treaty of Waitangi.
This was penned by William Hobson’s secretary James Freeman from notes gathered together from February the 3rd.
They have adopted this document as the “Official English version” of the Treaty, which has caused all manner of confusion for many decades.
Most of the confusion and misinterpretations have occurred because the final English draft of the Treaty was missing and so people had to rely on either back translations or the James Freeman version. In 1989, after 149 years out of the public eye the original draft was found and now resides in Archives New Zealand on public display.
Uncovering the actual wording and meaning
While studying these documents and the notes, I realised that during the lead up to the final draft the treaty was aimed at “chiefs and tribes” and still in the first final draft on the morning of Feb 4th 1840 it was “chiefs and tribes”. Not till the meeting later in the day at Colenso’s house did they complete the final draft and in that document (see below) they have added the words “and people of New Zealand”.
The presence of this document along with the fact that we can now search “The Dictionary of the Maori Language” on line here http://nzetc.victoria.ac.nz/tm/scholarly/tei-WillDict.html , has allowed me to put together what I believe to be the true meaning of the Treaty using the words that were written in the English Draft and place them alongside the actual Te Tiriti o Waitangi.
I have also been able to check the meaning of the Maori words as they were used in 1840, many of which had markedly different meanings to the same words today......
Continue reading Andy's well researched blog - click > HERE
The Real Treaty of Waitangi
The Treaty of Waitangi has long been the source of debate, largely due to the fact that it is accepted that there are two versions, an English version and a Maori version. In fact, it is more than an acceptance, it is official Government policy.
The differences in the two texts are the source of many claims and counter claims by various groups, usually to do with what was promised to the Maori people of New Zealand. I would also add that various interpretations of the Maori language Treaty have further confused things by attributing modern meanings to words written and translated in 1840.
However, since 1989 and the discovery of the English Draft of the Treaty all this nonsense should have been put to bed. The trouble is though that the grievance industry and the thought processes around it are so entrenched in our culture it would require a major upheaval in our society to change it, but one that is required none the less.
Before we look at the real Treaty we need to get some uncomfortable facts clear first;
1. In 1839 there were no people in New Zealand referred to as Maori people. There were approximately 600 different groups, a number of which had arrived at different times and had set off from different locations. Captain Cook and Captain Crozat had described three separate types of people in New Zealand during their voyages in 1769, Papuan, Malay and a red haired people. The word “Polynesian” means “many islands” and so aptly covers the numerous and mixed society that were here.
2. The term “Maori” simply meant “ordinary, normal or usual” in 1840. It was not common to call a collective group of people Maori until about 1850, a decade after the Treaty.
3. By 1839 there were 2000 Europeans who had settled in New Zealand and many thousands more offspring of the mixture of all of these groups. Some were in the second or third generation. All of these people were part of the 72,000 mixing and mingling population of New Zealand and each group had the same rights to be in New Zealand as any other.
4. Many of these groups had been in an almost constant flux of war. In the previous 40 years before the 1840, up to 30,000 were slaughtered with a further 20,000 enslaved by the victors. New Zealand society was suffering from major depopulation and there had been many attempts to get the British to help. New Zealand was in a state of shock with some groups having being wiped out completely.
5. Despite what was called by the Governor of New South Wales “a paper pellet” attempt to establish sovereignty by James Busby in 1835, there was no central rule or common governing system and so consequently there could be no sovereignty in New Zealand.
While initially not wanting to get involved, after a number of approaches, the British decided they would make just one attempt to establish a colony in New Zealand. Only this time Britain knew from earlier attempts at colonisation in other countries, without proper regards for human rights, strong international pressure was likely to bear down on them. By the mid-1800s Britain was perhaps at the height of their Empire with social issues being high on the agenda. It was of vital importance that politically they made the correct decisions.
Here is my synopsis of the events which led to the Treaty:
The British plan was to ignore the fact that major atrocities were occurring in New Zealand and instead to make the focus on the unruly behaviour of British Subjects. This was because it was not Britain’s business to interfere in another country’s affairs; they had to make it look like they were tidying up their own mess. And so Lord Normanby’s 4000 word instructions to William Hobson were based around cleaning up this mess by offering a treaty to the New Zealanders.
The British politely acknowledge that whatever sovereignty that existed (some or none), belonged with the New Zealanders. In return for the cessation of that sovereignty the British would guarantee to protect ALL New Zealanders and attribute them equal rights with other British Subjects. Effectively they would become British through the establishment of the law and order in New Zealand, a separate process from the Treaty altogether.
Hobson decided that on his arrival he would proclaim that the Queen of England asserted her authority over all British Subjects and he would then negotiate a treaty with the natives, thus covering all the people who could reasonably be called “the inhabitants of New Zealand”. He made that proclamation on his arrival January the 30th 1840.
In my opinion this proclamation was obviously flawed though, as James Busby had been in New Zealand since 1833 as the British Resident, it was well known that he had no legal authority in a country with no law. This was precisely why the Treaty was needed in the first place.
However, on February the 1st Hobson began to draft preliminary notes with help of his secretary James Freeman. These notes are available in the New Zealand Archives, they are in the hand writing of Hobson and it can be seen the words in the draft are addressed to “The Native Chiefs and Tribes of New Zealand”. It can also be seen in the notes they are referring to “property rights”. About this time Hobson fell ill and progress slowed.
James Freeman continued to put together notes, but it was clear to both Busby and Hobson that Freeman’s royal style of writing was not going to achieve the outcomes they desired. Busby then took over the writing of the Treaty himself. He completed final draft 1 and met with Hobson and others on the evening of Feb 3rd 1840 and as a result of that meeting it was decided important changes still needed to be made. To this point the notes and drafts had not included New Zealand settlers, some who had been here for many generations and many had Polynesian wives and children, these people needed their rights secured also.
I personally believe that it was at that meeting on the evening of the 3rd of Feb 1840 that all in attendance realised that there could be no such thing as “Race”.
More meetings were held at James Clendon’s Okiato home near Kororareka. During the morning and early afternoon of the 4th of Feb at Clendon’s cottage the final draft (final draft 2) was completed and in the hand writing of Busby. This document is known today as the Littlewood Document and resides in Archives New Zealand.
This most important point to note is that overnight they had changed who the Treaty addressed to, it was now addressed to : “The Chiefs and Tribes and ALL the People of New Zealand”. And this is also mirrored in the translation of that document Te Tiriti o Waitangi which was translated overnight on the 4th Feb. TIt is clear then that the Treaty is not an agreement between the Maori people of New Zealand and the Crown, it an agreement between the people of New Zealand or “ki nga tangata katoa o Nu Tirani” as written in the Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and the Crown .
The following is the transcript of the Final Draft written by Busby, it is signed by Hobson and written on the correct watermark paper from Clendon’s stock . It was the source document used by Henry Williams and his son Edward to translate Te Tiriti o Waitangi and so it mirrors Te Tiriti phrase for phrase, given grammatical differences (Te Tiriti o Waitangi in Maori in brackets under).
It rests in the New Zealand Archives and it is dated 4th of February whereas the James Freeman copy of the Treaty adopted by the New Zealand government was cobbled together with notes from the 3rd of February, the day before meeting where they made vital changes to the Treaty.
The English Draft of the Treaty of Waitangi by James Busby
PREAMBLE
Her Majesty Victoria, Queen of England in Her gracious consideration for the chiefs and people of New Zealand, and her desire to preserve to them their land and to maintain peace and order amongst them, has been pleased to appoint an officer to treat with them for the cession of the Sovreignty of their country and of the islands adjacent to the Queen. Seeing that many of Her Majesty’s subjects have already settled in the country and are constantly arriving; And that it is desirable for their protection as well as the protection of the natives to establish a government amongst them.
Her Majesty has accordingly been pleased to appoint me William Hobson a captain in the Royal Navy to be Governor of such parts of New Zealand as may now or hereafter be ceded to her Majesty and proposes to the chiefs of the Confederation of the United Tribes of New Zealand and the other chiefs to agree to the following articles.
ARTICLE FIRST
The chiefs of the Confederation of the United Tribes and the other chiefs who have not joined the confederation, cede to the Queen of England for ever the entire Sovreignty of their country.
(Ko nga Rangatira o te wakaminenga me nga Rangatira katoa hoki ki hai i uru ki taua wakaminenga ka tuku rawa atu ki te Kuini o Ingarani ake tonu atu-te Kawanatanga katoa o ratou wenua.)
ARTICLE SECOND
The Queen of England confirms and guarantees to the chiefs & tribes and to all the people of New Zealand the possession of their lands, dwellings and all their property. But the chiefs of the Confederation and the other chiefs grant to the chiefs Queen, the exclusive right of purchasing such land as the proprietors thereof may be disposed to sell at such prices as shall be agreed upon between them and the persons appointed by the Queen to purchase from them.
(Ko te Kuini o Ingarani ka wakarite ka wakaae ki nga Rangatira ki nga hapu-ki nga tangata katoa o Nu Tirani te tino rangatiratanga o ratou wenua o ratou kainga me o ratou taonga katoa. Otiia ko nga Rangatira o te wakaminenga me nga Rangatira katoa atu ka tuku ki te Kuini te hokonga o era wahi wenua e pai ai te tangata nona te Wenua-ki te ritenga o te utu e wakaritea ai e ratou ko te kai hoko e meatia nei e te Kuini hei kai hoko mona.)
ARTICLE THIRD
In return for the cession of the Sovreignty to the Queen, the people of New Zealand shall be protected by the Queen of England and the rights and privileges of British subjects will be granted to them.
(Hei wakaritenga mai hoki tenei mo te wakaaetanga ki te Kawanatanga o te Kuini-Ka tiakina e te Kuini o Ingarani nga tangata *maori; katoa o Nu Tirani ka tukua ki a ratou nga tikanga katoa rite tahi ki ana mea ki nga tangata o Ingarani).
Signed, William Hobson, Consul & Lieut. Governor.
Now we the chiefs of the Confederation of the United tribes of New Zealand being assembled at Waitangi, and we the other chiefs of New Zealand having understood the meaning of these articles, accept of them and agree to them all.
In witness whereof our names or marks are affixed. Done at Waitangi on the 4th Feb. 1840.
Note:
• "Sovereignty" misspelled 3-times as it was in the original
• There are no “Principles” in the Treaty of Waitangi
• *In Article Three Maori text: The word “maori” meant “ordinary” in 1840. The Williams’s decided it was important to accentuate that although it was the Chiefs who ceded sovereignty in Article One it was “all the ordinary people” who were protected and gained equal rights as British Subjects. A new concept in New Zealand, hence it differs from Article Two where this accentuation was not required.
One can clearly see the New Zealand Government and the Waitangi Tribunal have a lot to answer for:
1. Why are we pandering to a group of people who for all intents and purposes did not exist in 1840?
2. The mixing and mingling of the various people in New Zealand has not stopped since the second group, whoever that may have been, met the first group. Since this is the same process which has also been occurring all over the world since Homo sapiens first ventured out of Africa, identification could surely only be geographical and not racial.
3. Why is the wealth of our country and our natural resources slowly being transferred into the pockets of Tribal Elite while tangata maori (ordinary people) continue to wallow in poverty? This a breach of the “protection” guaranteed in Article Three of the Treaty.
4. Why do we have the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 which states that only “people of the Maori Race” can bring claims to the Waitangi Tribunal? This is a breach of the “equality” guaranteed in Article Three of the Treaty.
These breaches are part of my Claim to the Waitangi Tribunal.
What’s My Claim?
Many will be aware I have registered a statement of Claim to the Waitangi Tribunal. But unless you have read my book you may not know what it is about.
It is about the erosion of democracy and equal rights in New Zealand in favour of separatism and apartheid systems.
It is easy to show New Zealand was most definitely founded on the principles of democracy and equal rights. However, it is also very easy to show the day that democracy and equal rights went out the window.
The idea of equal rights without the distinction of race was first introduced into New Zealand in the Treaty of Waitangi. The signatories, about 540 chiefs of New Zealand, were the instigators of freedom and democracy in our country and it is this them that we should celebrate on Waitangi Day.
For clarity here is the introduction of democracy and equal rights into New Zealand:
1840: The Treaty of Waitangi
ARTICLE THIRD (English Draft)
"In return for the cession of the Sovereignty to the Queen, the people of New Zealand shall be protected by the Queen of England and the rights and privileges of British subjects will be granted to them".
Equal Rights without the distinction of race was clearly the intention of Busby who wrote those words and Hobson who signed the document.
The following years were years of assimilation keen natives ready to embrace the laws and customs of the British. The constant bickering over land amongst competing tribes was never far from the surface though. Threats by a small minority group regarding sovereignty needed to be quelled and so a conference was called.
1860: Kohimarama Conference: A re affirmation of the Treaty of Waitangi
At the opening of the conference, a much bigger gathering of chiefs than the signing of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, Governor Gore Brown stood and spoke to the 112 chiefs who attended the opening and said:
“Her Majesty has instructed the Governors who preceded me, and she will instruct those who come after me, to maintain the stipulations of this Treaty inviolate, and to watch over the interests and promote the advancement of her subjects without distinction of Race”.
If there was ever any doubt about the principles of equal rights without the distinction of race, Governor Gore Brown and the Crown had silenced them.
At the conference pressure was put on the Crown to administer the protection promised in the Treaty. The Kingitanga movement were a threat to the sovereignty of New Zealand and the Crown had a duty to protect people from this uprising. The Chiefs speeches are recorded and the hatred for the Kingitanga movement is clear and widespread. These speeches can be read by Googling “Kohimarama Conference”.
All was well and the democratic principles were to be introduced through the establishment of law and order. Most New Zealanders flourished, the latest technology from Britain flooded into New Zealand and the memories of the depopulating years of genocide before the Treaty were but a distant memory.
Finally the Crown fulfilled its Treaty promise to protect the sovereignty of New Zealand by extinguishing the Kingitanga movement and handing out the punishment it had warned it would to the traitors, land confiscations. I only hope John Key would at the very least do the same today if there were an attack on our sovereignty. Only I hope he would do it quicker and with much more vengeance than the Crown did back then.
The democratic principles without distinction of race ended in New Zealand in 1975 with the introduction of the Treaty of Waitangi Act of 1975 and the setting up of a race based Waitangi Tribunal.
On the first day that Act was enabled 'Article Three' of the Treaty was breached by the Crown. Democratic principles went out the window and New Zealand was set forth on a path of separatism.
The Waitangi Tribunal practices an Apartheid system as it separates people based on race. It funds one racial group while refusing to even answer letters from anyone unless they prove they are a Maori.
The Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975
All claims must meet the requirements of section 6 of the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 (“the Act”). That section requires the following criteria to be fulfilled:
I. the claimant(s) must be a Māori;
II. and claim that an ordinance, Act or regulation, order, proclamation, notice or other statutory instrument, or policy, practice, act or omission of the Crown;
III. has prejudicially affected the claimant (s); and
IV. that the law, or the action, omission, practise or policy is inconsistent with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.
The Tribunal requires that claimants meet the definition under section 2 of the Act. This defines Maori as being a person of the Māori race of New Zealand; and includes any descendant of such a person.
I can tell you I have asked for the definition of the Maori Race many times, with no response.
SO, we can clearly see that the Crown has breached the “WITHOUT THE DISTINCTION OF RACE” it promised in Article Three of the Treaty. AND it has also breached the “EQUAL RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES” promised in Article Three.
These breaches are the basis of my “Te Pakeha Claim for Equality”.
At present while I have many ardent supporters I may soon call for a show of your support. Please think about how you may do this, ideas are always welcome.
Let’s Stand Up New Zealand, let’s not accept this racial disaster.
The Treaty of Waitangi Stakeholders
Little real thought has ever gone into who the stakeholders actually were with regards to the signing of Te Tiriti o Waitangi.
Firstly, to accurately analyse either the Treaty or who the stakeholders were we need to ensure we refer only to Te Tiriti o Waitangi and not to other documents that were not the Treaty, such as the false English version written by James Freeman. Or for that matter back translations by every Tom, Dick or Harry a hundred years after the event.
The established thinking in New Zealand regarding who the stakeholders are is based around biculturalism, or more accurately a contract reputedly between the British Crown and a people known as Maori.
This established thinking though is merely a revised set of loosely gathered circumstances all put together to suit a modern outcome, the treaty settlement process. However, most New Zealanders will be aware the details and circumstances that surround these back door deals, carried out by ex-Ngai Tahu Lawyer Chris Finlayson, which involve vast sums of tax payer money often do not align with reality. Particularly when it comes down to just who is eligible to ask for the vast sums of money or extra privileges, a somehow separate group of people called Maori… and no one else.
The reality is though; there were no people in New Zealand referred to as being “Maori” until the 1850s, a decade after the Treaty was signed. According to the William Williams Dictionary of the Maori Language the word “maori” was not used to describe groups of people until at least the 1850s. He corrects Kendall and Samuel Lee who thought the word meant indigenous, it actually meant: ordinary, usual or normal as in “normal dog” (kuri maori) or “ordinary water” (wai maori), whereas tangata maori meant “man, human as opposed to supernatural”.
That being the case, there can be no assertion that the Treaty or the settlement process should be based around a race known as Maori, as there is no reference to the Maori race in Te Tiriti o Waitangi.
The Treaty was written in 1840 and the three simple articles are directed at all the people of New Zealand or as written in the Treaty “ki nga tangata katoa o Nu Tirani”.
When we understand who these people were we will get a clearer picture of who the stakeholders were.
In 1840 there were approximately 600 separate and indiscriminate groups who lived in New Zealand and more than 500 representatives of these groups signed the Treaty. Others either weren’t asked or refused to sign, such as Tainui, Tuwharetoa and Tuhoe . The Treaty was an offer and the offer was being made by the British Crown to “the chiefs & tribes and to all the people of New Zealand”, as per the 4000 words of instruction handed to Hobson by Lord Normanby as he left Portsmouth. The offer was to be decided via a democratic process, which involved polling enough leaders or chiefs of these groups and if they agreed to the terms appropriate steps could then be taken to assert law and order and ultimately set up a government.
As a result of the signing of Te Tiriti o Waitangi in February 1840, on the 16th of November 1840 the Queen Victoria Royal Charter/Letters of Patent was to separate New Zealand from New South Wales and it was this document that became New Zealand’s founding document and first constitution.
In 1839 the groups who lived in New Zealand were made up of various mixtures of Micronesian, described by early European observers including Captain Cook and French explorer and trader de Serville, in 1769 as Malay. Melanesian, described as Papuan. There was also French, American, English and other Pacific Islanders. All lived here and had no means to travel back to where they came, and in fact most actually didn’t know where they came from.
It is argued that there were earlier groups such as the Waitaha or even earlier people living here, while we cannot rule that out, it has no bearing on the treaty process as the treaty encompassed all the people of New Zealand.
All of these groups had equal rights to be in New Zealand and all were given the protection that the Treaty offered. The Treaty also granted the rights and privileges of British subjects to all of the people of New Zealand. As a result of the democratic process of signing the Treaty all of these groups became one nation, or as Hobson said after every chief signed the Treaty “he iwi tahi tatou”, we are one people, New Zealanders living in New Zealand.
We can clearly see through this dissection that the stakeholders were the Crown and every person living in New Zealand, and in particular “the ordinary people of New Zealand” or as written in Te Tiriti o Waitangi “nga tangata maori Katoa o Nu Tirani”.
Considering the Treaty was directed at all the people of New Zealand it is rather hard to fathom that:
• No Treaty settlement money has ever been handed to an ordinary New Zealander.
• No person who does not claim to be a Maori, who did not exist when the treaty was signed, has ever been granted equal rights by the Waitangi Tribunal under the terms of the Treaty i.e. they will only hear claims by a group that “they” have defined as the Maori race although there is no official definition of the Maori race.
But, should we open the grievance process to every New Zealander?
If you think about it for long enough the preposterousness of our government handing out money to every ordinary New Zealander and allowing all the people of New Zealand to take their grievances to the Waitangi Tribunal would be sheer stupidity.
Yet, we have had 40 years of much worse than stupidity, we have had 40 years of the sheer madness of handing out money and privileges to Tribal elite on a racial basis. This has created a racial money grabbing hysteria that has made “them” very wealthy and ordinary New Zealanders ‘tangata maori” steadily worse off by every social indicator.
I believe tangata maori are beginning to realise this.
Maori Chiefs Fight Marxism from the Grave
Recently the Waitangi Tribunal said in its Wai 1040 Report that “rangatira, or Maori leaders, who signed te Tiriti o Waitangi in February 1840 agreed to share power and authority with Britain, but did not give up sovereignty to the British Crown”.
But what would one suspect from a Tribunal who may be in the last throws of their existence.
Like some of our early settlers the Waitangi Tribunal are fighting for their survival. Only in this case the battle is not a physical battle but an intellectual battle. As they become more and more aware that the public of New Zealand have had just about enough of the divisive and racist decisions that spew forth from their biased bowels, they have rather cleverly enlisted the minds and the hearts of the equally divisive and racist Tino Rangatiratanga sovereignty movement.
The Wai 1040 Report has provided just the nourishment that the sovereignty movement needed to further its indoctrination of innocent New Zealanders. And of course, the best place to carry this indoctrination out is where the most influence is to be gained, our Universities and the education system generally in New Zealand. We have recently seen examples of this in the blog http://www.nzcpr.com/the-tail-wagging-the-dog/#more-14076
By coincidence, many of the students in our Universities and a lot of our educators just happen to be sympathisers of Marxists, socialists and communists. Often they also have misguided racial notions which lean them towards minority groups and long suffering indigenous people who apparently are unable to fend for themselves. They have reinterpreted the Treaty of Waitangi to suit their cause and now want your money and your land. They state it is the Pakeha Crown that breached the Treaty and they now want special rights and privileges.
Make no mistake the Tino Rangatiratanga movement are a misguided and easily swayed group who push a racial superiority message in much the same way as Hitler did in Nazi Germany. They have been infiltrated by Marxists, communists and socialists and together they are know attempting to bring New Zealand to its knees.
To illustrate my point I quote Dougal McNeill of the International Socialist Organisation who states:
“Throughout the history of capitalism on these islands the two struggles – for Maori rights and for the working class more generally – have been intimately interconnected… In a country founded on land dispossession and theft, it’s impossible to imagine a socialism that doesn’t champion Tino Rangatiratanga”.
This crazy mix of racism, communism, socialism, and Marxism is what we are up against. A brown boil, bred in the gut of our education system, lancing itself over our lives every day as we are forced from our beaches, rivers and boatsheds by self-interested lunatics.
But this modern collection of misfits has something to contend with, the actual words spoken by true New Zealanders, the ones that embraced the joining of all the separate and warring groups of New Zealand into one nation. It is their aspirations for our future that are to be celebrated, it is their willingness to assimilate with 600 or so other groups that is a testament to who we really are as one nation, one people.
The following are the words from the mouths of just two of our great New Zealand chiefs spoken at the 1860 Kohimarama Conference.
Note:
• Contrary to the WAI 1040 Report sovereignty was ceded and acknowledged in 1860
• The number of breaches by tribes
• The lack of sympathy for the Kingitanga movement
Tamihana Te Rauparaha said on July 26th 1860 at the Kohimarama Conference “Truly it is as you say, Hone (John Hobbs), our old chiefs did agree to the Treaty of Waitangi and to the Sovereignty of the Queen. Te Rauparaha did not take exception to it; he signed his name and he took the blanket. I desire that we should ratify this Treaty, that we should hold it fast lest the Queen's protection should be withdrawn from us. Some persons in England wished to do away with that Treaty—it was the Queen who insisted and caused it to continue. Although the Maorie’s may have fought with the Europeans, yet that Treaty has not been made void. But this Maori King business may upset it. Do not consent that that Treaty should be for the Europeans alone, but let us take it for ourselves, and let it be a cover for our heads”.
Hukiki Te Ahu Karamu, (Ngatiraukawa,) Otaki:—I will speak about the Treaty at Waitangi. That Treaty of Waitangi which has been referred to in this conference as having its root with the Ngapuhi, although broken by Heke, although broken by Te Rangihaeata, although broken by Whanganui, and although broken by Te Rargitake, yet it is not ignored by the Europeans. Your manner of proceeding has been good. I supposed that the blankets which were brought up to Otaki were connected with that Treaty at Waitangi I have no sympathy with the Maori King movement.
There are many other speeches by many other chiefs at the 1860 Kohimarama Conference all echoing the sentiments of the two Chiefs above.
He Iwi Tahi Tatao = We are one Nation
WILL THE REAL TREATY PLEASE STAND UP!
Gareth Morgan has just stated that Pakeha are ignorant of the Treaty. Then, in his next statement he quotes from the false James Freeman “version” of the Treaty and not the actual Treaty.
It is absolutely hilarious (and slightly scary) that he stated that he has studied the Treaty for five years - but for the entire time he was reading the wrong document!! What a buffoon he is. There is no English Treaty, only Te Tiriti o Waitangi in the Nga Puhi dialect that the Chiefs had read to them and signed on February 6th 1840.
Even though this James Freeman false version has written on it “Done at Waitangi on the 6th February 1840” It, was not done at Waitangi on the 6th February 1840. It was never presented, read, discussed or signed at Waitangi on that day, therefore it is legally a fraudulent document. Yet it is this fraudulent document our Parliament as adopted as the “ENGLISH VERSION” of the Treaty and hangs on the walls of Te Papa and is shoved in front of our children’s eyes in our schools.
The chiefs had Te Tiriti o Waitangi AND the English draft of the Treaty read to them on Feb 6th 1840. The draft was translated into the Nga Puhi dialect by Henry Williams and his son Edward. This draft is authenticated in the hand writing of James Busby and signed by William Hobson. It sits in the New Zealand Archives. The Chiefs signed Te Tirirti o Waitangi and Hobson stated that “all signatures that are subsequently obtained are merely testimonials of adherence to the terms of that original document”.
Morgan cannot read Maori and neither can 95% of other New Zealanders, so I have copied the actual words of the draft in English and I have commented on each article for clarity. These English words were mirrored in the Te Tiriti o Waitangi and so I encourage every person in New Zealand to read and understand the draft of Te Tiriti o Waitangi below. Copy and paste it to your friends and family to prove that the only ignorant Pakeha person in New Zealand is Gareth Morgan.
Busby's final English draft written on the 4th of February 1840
.
Preamble:
Her Majesty Victoria, Queen of England in Her gracious consideration for the chiefs and people of New Zealand, and her desire to preserve to them their land and to maintain peace and order amongst them, has been pleased to appoint an officer to treat with them for the cession of the Sovereignty of their country and of the islands adjacent to the Queen. Seeing that many of Her Majesty’s subjects have already settled in the country and are constantly arriving; And that it is desirable for their protection as well as the protection of the natives to establish a government amongst them.
Her Majesty has accordingly been pleased to appoint me William Hobson a captain in the Royal Navy to be Governor of such parts of New Zealand as may now or hereafter be ceded to her Majesty and proposes to the chiefs of the Confederation of the United Tribes of New Zealand and the other chiefs to agree to the following articles.-
MEANING:
Note there is no distinction between any races, only between chiefs and other people. The Queen wishes to preserve everybody’s land and maintain peace. All the Tribes of New Zealand are included, this includes everyone who lives in New Zealand. This is because there approximately 600 different groups of people living in New Zealand. One of the groups living here is made up of 2000 Pakehas, they lived here! None of the groups are known collectively or individually as Maori. In 1840 the word “maori” meant “ordinary NOT “ordinary people”. Check yourselves here: http://nzetc.victoria.ac.nz/tm/scholarly/tei-WillDict.html There were no people known as Maori in New Zealand until the 1850s, at least a decade after the Treaty
ARTICLE FIRST
The chiefs of the Confederation of the United Tribes and the other chiefs who have not joined the confederation, cede to the Queen of England for ever the entire Sovereignty of their country.
MEANING:
The chiefs who signed the 1835 Declaration of Independence and every other leader of every group in New Zealand cede the entire Sovereignty of the whole country to the Queen. NOTE, NO MENTION OF MAORI, there are no Maori people in New Zealand in 1840, just people.
ARTICLE SECOND
The Queen of England confirms and guarantees to the chiefs & tribes and to all the people of New Zealand the possession of their lands, dwellings and all their property. But the chiefs of the Confederation and the other chiefs grant to the chiefs Queen, the exclusive right of purchasing such land as the proprietors thereof may be disposed to sell at such prices as shall be agreed upon between them and the persons appointed by the Queen to purchase from them.
MEANING:
The Queen confirms and guarantees property rights to every chief, tribe and every person living in New Zealand. Any leader of any group who wishes to sell land must only sell it to the representatives of the Queen at a price that they both agree on. NOTE: NO MENTION OF MAORI, there are no Maori people in New Zealand in 1840, just people.
ARTICLE THIRD
In return for the cession of the Sovreignty to the Queen, the people of New Zealand shall be protected by the Queen of England and the rights and privileges of British subjects will be granted to them.
Signed, William Hobson, Consul & Lieut. Governor.
MEANING: In return for ceding Sovereignty ALL the people of New Zealand will be protected by the Queen and have the same rights and privileges as the people of England. NOTE: NO MENTION OF MAORI, there are no Maori people in New Zealand in 1840, just people.
DID THE CHIEFS UNDERSTAND WHAT SOVEREIGNTY MEANT?
Yes, the Chiefs of the Confederation attempted to establish sovereignty in the 1835 Declaration of Independence 5 years before the signing of the Treaty. Either they had no idea of what sovereignty meant then when they signed that document or they had forgotten in five years.
You can read the undoubted evidence of their understanding of the meaning of Sovereignty spoken in their words here:
http://nzetc.victoria.ac.nz/tm/scholarly/tei-BIM504Kohi-t1-g1-t5-body1-d2.html
IN CONCLUSION:
It is plain to see in the text of the draft of the real Treaty of Waitangi what the intentions of the Treaty were. It is plain to see the Chiefs understanding of it at the 1860 Kohimarama Conference.
It is also plain to see the absolute disgust by the Chiefs of the Kingitanga movement. They were to go to war with the Crown against this mob shortly after the 1860 conference.
It is clear there was no separation of any New Zealanders because of “race” in the 1840 Treaty, it covers ALL New Zealanders.
Apart from guaranteeing property rights and establishing equal rights for All New Zealanders the document merely serves as a record of the cessation of Sovereignty.
There is no need for it to be in any constitution because it just paved the way for the Queens Royal Charter, the actual founding document of New Zealand.
For people who identify as Maori to get any more rights or preferential treatment over any other New Zealander is a breach of Article Third of the Treaty.
HISTORY PUTS THE SOVEREIGNTY ISSUE TO BED
I believe most New Zealanders want a unified country which is made of New Zealanders of good character, people who are proud of their country and want to advance our nation as great place to raise children, work, play and build a prosperous future.
Unfortunately, we have a growing number of people whose priority is not to look to the future but to dwell in the past. They wish to separate themselves from the people of New Zealand and assert that they are in fact Maori and so are different from the rest of us. They assert that they are in fact tangata whenua and deserve rights and privileges that others do not have in this country.
They believe that 175 years ago this different and separate people were collectively tricked into signing over sovereignty to the Crown when some 540 Chiefs signed the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840. They state that the Waitangi Tribunal in its “Wai 1040 Report” has confirmed they did not know what sovereignty was and so could not have signed it over.
Never mind these same people also assert that 5 years earlier they established sovereignty over New Zealand because 50 Chiefs signed the 1835 document known as the Declaration of Independence. Now, I am not sure how 50 tribes can establish sovereignty over 600 tribes by signing an unofficial document penned by a Pakeha, Even the most biased historian Claudia Orange stated ‘there was no indigenous political structure upon which to base a united congress’.
So to put the record straight and to correct the twisted history these so called separate peopIe assert I would like to point out the following:
The 1840 Treaty of Waitangi superseded the 1835 Declaration of Independence because nearly all the Chiefs that signed it signed the Treaty of Waitangi. The 1860 Conference in Kohimara then superseded the Treaty of Waitangi.
The conference at Kohimarama was the largest ever conference of its type in New Zealand and is an important part of our history. Over three weeks the Treaty was explained in great detail to 200 Chiefs including many that signed the ToW.
Explanations of exactly what was ceded, why and what it all meant were clearly spelled out including the denouncement of the Kingitanga movement in Waikato.
The opening speech by Govenor Gore Browne and the Chiefs ratification of the ceding of sovereignty can all be read HERE
It is pretty hard to argue Chiefs did not understand sovereignty and so couldn’t have ceded it after reading the speeches of the day. It is also clear that the Kingitanga movement was the enemy of most of the tribes who attended and the Crown, that’s why they fought them together as one nation.
That’s correct we were one nation then and we are one nation now, he iwi tahi tatou.
Let’s stop pandering to the separate people and continue to work at creating a special place for our children and ALL the people of New Zealand.
Wai 1040 or Lie 1040?
The Waitangi Tribunals revelations in Wai 1040 that Maori did not cede sovereignty in the 1840 Treaty of Waitangi are nothing more than fallacy.
Firstly it is clear that Pre European New Zealanders had no concept of sovereignty and as such sovereignty was not exercised in New Zealand. There was however momentary control of tribal areas until you were either killed or driven away. The Treaty does not so much establish that there WAS sovereignty rather it is a contract that makes it clear what ever sovereignty existed, some or none, was ceded.
At the signing of Feb 6 1840 Hone Hika’s statement “Thou go away, no, no, no, for the French people and the rum sellers will have us natives. Remain, remain…”
Or Matiu, a Chief of the Uri-o-Ngongo tribe, saying “Do not go back but stay here governor, stay and remain with us. You are as one with the missionaries a governor for us...” make it clear the chiefs knew what they were signing. After all these people were not stupid.
Despite the clarity of the speeches on the day, arguments are flung from every corner including the waitangi tribunal that maori did not have the term “sovereignty” explained to them. However, these same people also argue that maori had already established sovereignty over New Zealand via the 1835 declaration of independence. What sort of backwards argument is that? it is surely not possible that they didn’t understand sovereignty in 1840, but had already established sovereignty in 1835.
Both statements cannot be correct, but they are both used in Wai1040
Another very strange set of descriptions regarding culture occurs in Wai 1040.
Very early on in the report the Waitangi Tribunal establishes separatism with its
Chapter 2:Two People, Two Worlds. In this chapter and in our education generally we are constantly asked to believe that Maori are/were culturally different to Europeans. And it is this cultural difference that is the basis of the separatism the government and the Waitangi Tribunal force on the rest of New Zealand. No matter where you come from or what your culture happens to be, it is not just devalued beneath Maori culture, it is not dealt with at all in any respect, which is disrespectful to say the least.
Here is how the complex social structure of Maori culture and society is described in Wai 1040:
“In a world based on whakapapa, the choice between cooperation and competition depended to a significant extent on the closeness of kinship links, though other factors – such as whether cooperation served the hapū’s economic interests – were also relevant. Among closely related groups, the principle of manaakitanga was a significant influence on behaviour. Closely related to whanaungatanga, manaakitanga is often translated as hospitality, though it also encompassed values such as generosity, kindness, caring and support for others, all of which served to cement social relationships between groups as well as within them.”
This description sounds almost identical to western culture or for that matter any other developed society in the world. It does not sound like the collection of 600 separate nations who had just waged a 40 year war with each other where some 43,000 were killed or enslaved (a third of the population), an atrocity unrivaled in the modern world.
Here is the description attributed to British people:
“Yet, for all the advancements in understanding of the natural world, most Britons – even including the educated – still inhabited a world peopled by spirits, ghosts, demons, sorcerers, and witches. Furthermore, many educated Europeans believed fearsome giants guarded the entrances to the Pacific Ocean at Van Diemen’s Land, and Tierra del Fuego”
This description sounds almost identical to the superstitions that were so much part of Maori culture of the time.
These descriptions show a clear bias in the analysis by the Waitangi tTribunal, they appear to have swapped habits and ways of living of the two groups they are investigating to suit their twisted agenda. in doing so they have showed us that there really is no difference between maori and anyone else in New Zealand.
And if that is the case there is no reason to continue race based policies such as the racially biased and separatist Waitangi Tribunal.
The Idea of Being Maori
The idea of Maori being a separate people only began in the 1850’s, before that some 600 separate groups existed in New Zealand. 512 of those groups signed the Treaty and a number either weren’t asked or didn’t.
During the period 1830s to 1850s the word “maori” is not used in New Zealand literature to describe people. James Kendell nearly had it correct in the 1820s when he coined the word “Maodi” and suggested this meant native or indigenous. However when reading material of the times one can see he got it wrong, no one used this term to describe a group of people. William Williams had it correct by the 1840’s when the word “maori meant normal or ordinary. Considering it was members of the Williams (family) who translated the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840 it is the case in this document too.
When you see the word “maori” in the Treaty it means “ordinary” and when you see the words “tangata maori” they mean “ordinary people”.
The slow separation of the darker inhabitants and the lighter inhabitants into two groups is a social construct caused by generalising. It happens in many societies around the world and is what human rights groups have been fighting against for many decades. I applaud their efforts and am all for equal rights.
Unfortunately, we live in New Zealand and the government decided in 1975 to speed the division process up by OFFICIALLY dividing us into two groups, Maori and everyone else, in the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975.
They continue this division in our schools, museums, government departments, and councils and anywhere else they have a chance to indoctrinate. They give financial incentives for people to become Maori… and so they do.
The idea now is a very big one, but really it is childish and very dangerous indeed.
Germany can attest to the dangers of ideas that separate humans
An open letter to the poor of New Zealand
I am ashamed that I have to resort to a letter to tell you of the reasons why you must remain poor. Your plight could be improved immeasurably with money and resources that are presently being used in a racist tragedy playing out in front of you. You do not see this tragedy for what it is as you have been exposed to the lies and indoctrination which are prevalent in New Zealand.
Please read this letter carefully as you can make a choice to end race based politics this election. Simply give your party vote to a party that is committed to ending race based policies and ending the Waitangi Tribunal. Ensure these parties are held to account should they have an influence.
Why are billions of tax payer dollars every year being diverted from children and families living in poverty by our government on recommendations from the Waitangi Tribunal?
The money is being shovelled into the pockets of a “so called” Maori race because apparently a treaty that was signed with these people state we must treat them differently to everyone else. We must lift their culture above all others. Considering this seems a fairly callous thing to do i.e. ignore children and families in poverty and hand literally billions of dollars to people who already have an asset base of close to 40 billion dollars, an explanation is in order.
There is no requirement to be poor to receive this money, just a requirement to be of the Maori race.
Who is the “Maori Race” getting all the money?
Maori people were invented in the 1850’s about a decade after the Treaty of Waitangi was signed. Before the 1850’s the people of NZ were called New Zealanders. They were a mixture of the all the different groups that had travelled here from other lands.
The first group in New Zealand were a short, light-skinned people whose tribes were named Tuurehu-tuurangi, Pokepoke-wai, Haa-moamoa, Patu-paiarehe and Tuurehe. 76 Year old Monica Motumua of the Ngati Hotu tribe is descendant of these people who were referred to as Urukehu and recently had her DNA analysed. What was considerably surprising was the large percentage of the DNA which was taken up by northern European, Mediterranean; sub Saharan and southwest Asian DNA which all linked to Europe and/or the Middle East.
Monica can trace her ancestry 74 generations and states that her people have come from Iran through Borneo. Rock formations from these tribes still exist today and are many thousands of years old. Google “New Zealand History the Truth” if you find this hard to believe or Google “Monica Motumua” to find out more about Monica.
More recently a second migration was made by numerous groups who were travelling through what we know now as Polynesia. The earliest known bones ever found of these people date back to the late 1300s or early 1400s and were discovered at the Wairau Bar in Nelson, one of the most important archaeological sites in New Zealand. These people were a mixture of Melanesian and Micronesian people now known as Polynesian people. Studies of their bones showed that some were not born in New Zealand i.e. first settlers of this group.
Various mixtures of these groups continued to arrive from various places over a few centuries and these people formed the basis of the warrior tribes who almost caused the extinction of all human life in New Zealand between 1800 and 1840. These people also killed most of the Urukehu who were the original inhabitants. Photos of the period show the obvious differences between all of these tribes. None were known as Maori and their various cultures were Stone Age.
The third group to arrive was another wave of people out of Europe and these people arrived during the 1700s. They bought Christianity and all the advantages of the most advanced society in the world at that time to the war torn islands known only as New Zealand.
By the 1800s there were about 600 separate groups. Each of these groups had the same rights to be in New Zealand.
Because of continuing atrocities in this lawless land the British initiated a Treaty which was signed on February 6th 1840. The Treaty established a sovereign, the Queen of England. Property rights were also established and immediately all the groups in New Zealand gained the rights of the people of England. Every person in the 600 various groups who lived in New Zealand became a New Zealander. Most were related to Polynesians but some were European and some were descendants of Urukehu. None of these people were known as Maori.
In 1840 the word “maori” meant: normal, usual or ordinary. “tangata maori” meant: man or human being as opposed to a supernatural being. There was no group of people known as maori and there was no such thing as the maori race. This may be hard for you to believe but all you have to do is Google “Herbert H Williams Dictionary of the Maori Language” and look up the meaning of the word “maori”.
After you have done this I would like you to read the Treaty of Waitangi again, this time replace the word” maori” with the word “normal” and replace the words “tangata maori” with the word “humans”. It will be immediately obvious the Treaty is not a Treaty between “maori people” and the Crown but a treaty with the Crown and all the humans in New Zealand at that time.
The Treaty achieved its desired outcome and the atrocities subsided. The common practices of cannibalism, infanticide and slavery were immediately banned and slowly a peace came to the land.
Because of continuing colonisation from Europe land that was previously worthless became valuable and greedy people from all over New Zealand, Australia and even the French started to claim land as their own. Many people were selling land that was not theirs to sell. Because there had been no real ownership of anything previously, it was a difficult time. It was about this time, the 1850s that people began to refer to people as “Maori”. Even though the 600 various tribes were reaping the benefits of the Treaty some decided they would not recognise the sovereignty of the Crown and they became terrorists known as the Kingitanga movement .
The Crown along with members of the various 600 groups who supported them waged a war against these terrorists and eventually quelled the uprising. About 2000 people in total died in these sovereignty wars, which pales into insignificance when compared to the 43,000 who were killed or enslaved in the earlier tribal wars.
The Crown warned tribes that if your group aided and abetted these terrorists it was likely the group would forfeit any land that they owned to the Crown. While most of this land was given back some stayed with the Crown usually because ownership was difficult to establish. Various land courts were subsequently established and eventually full and final payments were made to all claimants.
Seems all fair enough but what is the reason the children living in poverty in New Zealand must remain in poor?
Despite the fact that the various members of the 600 groups had been intermarrying since time they came together, in 1975 the Labour Government of New Zealand divided all of the various 600 groups who lived in New Zealand into white people and brown people. They set up a Tribunal to deal with grievances that only the brown people had with regards to broken promises in the Treaty. They then called the brown people the “Maori Race”. They ignored the previous full and final payments made to these brown people. They ignored the 1840 meanings of the maori words in the Treaty of Waitangi and adopted a false English one which had different meanings. They then went on to adopt some “principles” that a judge made up in 1989.
Although the Waitangi Tribunal states: “it is a permanent commission of inquiry charged with making recommendations on claims brought by Māori relating to actions or omissions of the Crown that potentially breach the promises made in the Treaty of Waitangi”.
Not one recommendation made by the Waitangi Tribunal is made using the meanings of the words in 1840 when it was written. The word “maori” meant “normal” in 1840 and “tangata maori” meant “human” in the Treaty of 1840. The Tribunal have adopted a racist view and a grievance is only heard if you are brown and state you are a member of the “Maori Race”
Today the meanings of the words in Treaty and our history have been altered so much that people living in poverty in New Zealand simply accept they must continually pay brown people before their kids receive a decent education and nutritional food.
Once again, I am ashamed that this situation exists in my country and if you are living in poverty I feel for you. I do not care what colour you are or where you were born, if you are a New Zealander you should not have to endure this hardship. I for one am trying to do something about this.
Think carefully and vote wisely.
Wake up New Zealand
There are many countries around the world that have woken up to the fact that 'The concept of race disappeared from scientific discourse more than a decade ago'. The fact that New Zealand has continued to ignore what science and biologist have been telling them should be a crime. The result of NOT doing anything about this has New Zealand wallowing about cash strapped while a “so called” race of people have been handed our money, land, privileges and extra rights.
For this post I will not use the word “Maori” as this infers a race of people which, in fact has never existed and do not exist now. I have just finished reading a number of books and documents written pre 1850 and I could not find the word “Maori” as referring to people in any of them. They did not exist, they were usually referred to as New Zealanders. The word Maori which meant” ordinary” or “usual” was not used referring to people until sometime in the 1850’s. And since that time has slowly and incorrectly lulled people into believing they were a race of people.
The Swedish have just reminded it us there has never been such a thing.
How does this affect us?
During the 1860’s there was a war in New Zealand, it wasn’t a land war between races, as you are lead to believe, it was a sovereignty war as the Kingitanga movement tried to regain the sovereignty that was swapped for protection and equal rights in the 1840 Treaty of Waitangi. Most New Zealanders, whether their ancestors had been here 400 years or 40 were pro the government and wanted this act of treason quelled. The government forces that fought this illegal act were New Zealanders, of all colours.
During the uprising the terrorists were warned many times, give up your arms and cease this illegal activity or there will be heavy consequences. They refused to obey the law of the land and they refused to comply with the Treaty of Waitangi (which they had signed) and continued their terrorist acts against our country. As the terrorist ran from the law, tribes were told not to aid or protect these bands of murderers or they could lose their land too.
When the war was finally won by New Zealanders (the Crown) punishment was meted out in the form of land confiscations against the tribes who had aided these terrorists. The punishment was not against a race of people, because they were all different, as they still are today. Subsequent investigations at the time promptly handed most of this land back, punishment was short lived for some.
All good so far, the war has been won and to that point in our history no one as bothered with the false notion of race. Even the Treaty itself does not refer to race, if you remember the word Maori meant ordinary or usual. So when you see it in the Maori Treaty “tangata Maori” it means “ordinary people” not Maori (race) people, they did not exist.
Fast forward to 1975 and the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 which is when the “Race Card” is first played with any real consequences. This act gave recognition to the Treaty of Waitangi and established a Tribunal to investigate breaches of this Treaty by the New Zealand government.
All good so far, until we find that although the Treaty is between the Crown and All the people of New Zealand the only people who can make claims are people of the Maori race or a descendant of such a person!!!
OK, you may say how you can they define a race if they did not exist, you can’t is the answer. The Swedish have just reminded us.
If it is not bad enough that a huge fat racist organisation is at large in our justice department causing separatism and apartheid policies, yes you have that correct the racist Waitangi Tribunal are part of our justice department, the money, land, apologies, privileges are going to the descendants of the terrorists on the basis that we should have let them ignore the sovereignty and laws of the land and carry on doing just as they bloody well please.
Yes you have that correct the people who won the war against terrorism (us) have to pay the descendants of the terrorists who lost the war!!
How do we work out who are the descendants?
We don’t, anyone who states they have even the tiniest bit of this “so called” race can (and do) put their greedy racist hands out for our cash.
All New Zealanders need to think carefully about this situation when you vote later this year.