P. Dey states that carbon dating proves that no settlement preceded the arrival of the first fleet.
This may be correct in the small area carbon dated, but over 500 chiefs representing about 75,000 of their people from all over the country acknowledged and accepted they were tangata Maori, and not tangata whenua or the indigenous people of New Zealand when they signed the Tiriti o Waitangi.
This must be more reliable than carbon dating from one small area.
While there was five hours of debate on the Tiriti o Waitangi on the February 5, 1840, there was no mention made that the chiefs and their people were not tangata Maori.
While just about everything about the Tiriti has been disputed, this has never been disputed since the Tiriti o Waitangi was signed in 1840.
R Baker, Palmerston North.
7 comments
English versus Maori
Posted on 01-02-2019 23:38 | By waxing
Aside from the fact that I am fascinated by your unequivocal assertions of what was said during discussions before the signing of the Treaty (were you there?) you should look first at the English version from which the Maori was translated. This refers to the chiefs as the "native" chiefs and then later talks of Maori as "the Aborigines of New Zealand". The meanings are very clear and undermine your assertion that there was no mention made that the Maori were not tangata Maori. The English version was then translated into Maori by an Englishman whose knowledge of Maori inadequately translated the very clear meanings of the English version. For Maori, they are tangata Maori and tangata whenua. You will have to find a better argument if you are going to try and find evidence for any other racial group here before them.
Radiocarbon on evidence so far ?
Posted on 04-02-2019 16:06 | By tutae.kuri
Hello waxing. R Baker was saying that Maori are not indigenous as they were travelers like everyone else in New Zealand. He is correct in terms of all my dictionaries. Perhaps you could look up the meaning yourself ? There is no English version of the Treaty although the later agreement signed at Kawhia was made up when Hobson was ill. The Treaty was translated from the Littlewood draft which is an exact match for the Treaty wording. That Draft has been relegated to obscurity because it does not suit the Politics of today.
(Were you there?) asks Waxo.
Posted on 06-02-2019 08:26 | By crazyhorse
All of a sudden Waxo asks R Baker if he was there in the good all days of the 1840s to back up his letter, well Waxo, there has been a lot of history written by people that were there, yes on the spot when it happened, but, now you take no notice of what they say, now the treaty industry and the grievance propaganda machine gets most of its "revised" made to order history from the likes of dame orange a Gov't appointed and paid historian, lol, we still use maori oral history from hundreds of years ago as evidence for colonisation and, the atrocities it caused though, rollup roll up history made to order here, let me settle a claim for you, for a small price of course!.
tk
Posted on 06-02-2019 17:37 | By waxing
Kia ora. Your dictionaries are different to mine or any I can find online. It comes from the Latin word "indigena" meaning "a native". I don't disagree that Maori were travellers, in that they travelled here. The issue with R Baker is whether Maori were the first to travel and stay here, and the specious arguments he uses to support his claim that they weren't and that they acknowledged so in signing the treaty. The Littlewood draft of the Treaty has been widely discredited by professional historians etc and it was not used to translate the Treaty into Maori. Busby drafted the three clauses/articles which were approved by Hobson - all recorded history as reported to the Colonial Office. Hobson wrote a different preamble. Missionary Henry Williams and his son Edward translated the English Treaty into Maori on 4 February 1840.
Crazy
Posted on 06-02-2019 17:46 | By waxing
You claim there "has been a lot of history written by people that were there, yes on the spot when it (the Treaty) happened". Please provide details of their names and histories. For your better information, Claudia Orange's PhD was on the Treaty. She travelled to London to study the relevant Colonial Office records (the first person to do so). Her resulting thesis was so well researched that even Professor Keith Sinclair (her PhD supervisor and author of the then accepted "History of New Zeal;and" had to change his mind. Her seminal book ("The Treaty of Waitangi") was based on her thesis. Perhaps you should read it.
Hi Waxing
Posted on 08-02-2019 16:58 | By tutae.kuri
As I said, the Littlewood Draft does not suit the Politics of the day and has been relegated to obscurity. Interesting to note who you deem to be professional historians. One should approach that statement with an open mind and research what axe they may have to grind first. It should be obvious that the LITTLEWOOD Draft dated 4th February 1840 had the exact translation for the Maori Treaty, word for word. The recent Hugh Kawaru translation looks like pure self serving for Waitangi Tribunal purposes. With regard to indigenous, all the people born in New Zealand are indigenous, not though in terms of a Rimu or Kauri tree which are truly indigenous.
tk2
Posted on 11-02-2019 15:05 | By waxing
The Littlewood draft has never been recognised other than by people wanting to use it for their own ends. The history for the drafting of the Treaty is recorded from early February 1840 and recognised by professional historians working as full time historians in universities who have kept themselves fully up to date with associated issues. Despite his assertions, crazy hasn't come up with any details of the other people and their different opinions he claims were there.Re indigenous, it doesn't matter if Maori have been here less time than a Rimu or Kauri, but they were the first people to land and live here. The carbon dating is now quite extensive in multiple areas and has not been contradicted in any scientific way.
Leave a Comment
You must be logged in to make a comment.