R.Paterson (April12) and Bruce Moon claim that the ‘official' English version of the Treaty of Waitangi is false.
R.Paterson seems unaware that Bruce Moon is an unqualified amateur historian who has ignored inconvenient facts. Professional historian Claudia Orange quotes one of these inconvenient facts on page 260 of her book ‘The Treaty of Waitangi'. She records that a copy of the ‘official' English version of the Treaty was sent by Governor Hobson to his superior, Governor Gipps, in Sydney on 5-6 February 1840.
This ‘official' English version was also signed by Governor Hobson and 45 Waikato chiefs and is now in the National Archives in Wellington. It is the ‘official' English version used by the Waitangi Tribunal.
Bruce Moon has never disputed these facts but they completely destroy his claim that the ‘official' English version is false.
The problem that R.Paterson and Bruce Moon have is that Governor Hobson himself chose to have two ‘official' versions of the Treaty, Maori and English, that do not translate exactly.
Arguing about the Littlewood Treaty changes nothing. We are stuck with the two ‘official' Treaties authorised by Governor Hobson in 1840.
It's a goneburger.
Peter Dey, Welcome Bay.
125 comments
Sorry Pete
Posted on 19-04-2013 12:07 | By TERMITE
The Freeman Treaty that a few Waikato Maori signed only happened because the official one (Littlewood) did not arrive in time. Other than this one event all other Maori in NZ signed the Littlewood treaty. Hobson himself was recorded as noting that the Freeman document was a "fake" and that the "LIttlewood" treaty was the real one. Mr Paterson is right that the Freeman Treaty as enacted does nto translate to Maori treaty also as enacted using 1840 word meanings. That of itself should alert you to the major floor in what you are saying. Also just because the Whaitangi Tribunal use the Freeman Treaty doe snot mean that it was the original signed document. In essence your argument has the same basis as the US used to pick a fight with Iraq ... both have the same substance.
Maori want the Freeman Treaty
Posted on 19-04-2013 12:11 | By TERMITE
That is because they can pretend that it translates to the Maori version, so morphing the words to a new found meaning now that was not even in existence in 1840. This suits the "treaty brigade" feasting of the NZ taxpayers. Even Hobson stated that the Freeman treaty was a fake. So all we are left with is that there is some other "windfall" reason for this scandilous trail of gravy train feeders.
Light reading for Pete
Posted on 19-04-2013 14:27 | By TERMITE
This is the kind of rubbish that is coming into NZ more and more by the proponents of PC and all that stuff. The NZGB idea of changing the names of NZ because they have not been confirmed, but read on and learn something you don't want to hear! New Leinster, New Munster, and New Ulster. When the islands of New Zealand were separated politically from the colony of New South Wales in 1840 and erected into a separate colony, the Royal Charter effecting this provided that 'the principal Islands, heretofore known as, or commonly called, the ‘Northern Island', the ‘Middle Island', and ‘Stewart's Island', shall henceforward be designated and known respectively as ‘New Ulster', ‘New Munster', and ‘New Leinster'”. These provincial divisions were at first of geographical significance only, and were not used as a basis for the government of the colony, then centralised in Auckland. The situation was altered in 1846, however, when a further Royal Charter divided the colony into two provinces and provided each with its own political institutions in addition to the central government at Auckland. The two provinces were called New Ulster and New Munster, New Leinster being merged with the South Island and the southern portion of the North Island up to the mouth of the Patea River, to form the new New Munster. Each province was provided with a Governor and Legislative and Executive Council, in addition to the Governor-in-Chief and Legislative and Executive Council for the whole colony. In 1851 the Provincial Legislative Councils were permitted to be partially elective. Before the elections were completed, however, the United Kingdom Parliament, by the New Zealand Constitution Act of 1852, abandoned both the nomenclature and the boundaries of these provincial divisions, and divided the colony into six provinces bearing names of local significance. From that date onwards New Munster and New Ulster, like New Leinster, disappeared from the New Zealand scene and became of historical significance only. Now the above is from an NZ government website ... look here: - http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/1966/provinces So this confirms that non Maori were in NZ first and a long time ago and these names have officially been confirmed, hella-lul-ya bro!. Any problems we can call on our "Brothers in arms" to help as there has not been a lot to do back home for a few years now. PS don't bring back the red coats ...
TERMITE fiction
Posted on 19-04-2013 18:52 | By Peter Dey
Governor Hobson sent a copy of the ‘official' English version of the Treaty of Waitangi to Sydney on February 6 1840. This ‘official' version is the same as the Waikato Maori version and the National Archives version. Termite does not deny these facts so that everything else he writes is pointless rambling and proves nothing.
Oh Pete please read on ...
Posted on 19-04-2013 21:16 | By TERMITE
The 6/2/1840 is the day in Waitangi that the Treaty was "being" signed so can not possibly have been "also" sent to Sydney. In addition to that the Freeman "created" a regal version that was sent to the UK that was later, to be very kind Freeman he applied "a very liberal artist license" and interpreted it in his own way so as flowery enough for "His" purpose what ever that maybe. The real treaty is the Littlewood one actually resides in US, it was given to Clendon and he placed it in the Penn State University. The Littlewood is also stored in a "safe place" in NZ archives. Anyway Pee-tee we are in the 21st century not the 19th century, please do catch up.
Island names
Posted on 19-04-2013 21:19 | By TERMITE
That has stumped you and your think tank/brains trust in Wellington that feed off legal aid Waitangi trough. PS you seem to haev overlloked the Island naming issue, is that because Maui was "another" fantasy?
Pointless rambling
Posted on 19-04-2013 22:37 | By Peter Dey
Claudia Orange in her book 'The Treaty of Waitangi” records that an official copy of Hobson's English version of the Treaty was sent to Sydney on 5-6 February 1840. This copy resides in the British Colonial Office records. By denying this fact TERMITE shows that he is still writing ignorant fiction. This is the only ‘official' English version of the Treaty that was ever used. The Littlewood version was only a draft used to prepare the Waitangi Maori Treaty. The ‘official' English version was chosen by Governor Hobson. Waikato chiefs and Governor Hobson signed a copy of it which still exists in the National Archives. The Waitangi Tribunal uses the same version because it is the only ‘official' English version that has ever existed. There are two ‘official' Treaties, one in Maori and one in English. They are not literal translations but Governor Hobson chose them both and he was in charge. TERMITE is still writing pointless rambling proving nothing.
Fraud
Posted on 20-04-2013 08:57 | By The Big Tomatosaurus
"She records that a copy of the ‘official' English version of the Treaty was sent by Governor Hobson to..." Hold it right there!!!! There is only ONE version...the maori version. That was translated word for word to the Littlewoods version which Claudia would rather ignore because it would destroy her grievance industry. So she chooses to refer to irrelevent drafts and rough copies as an "english version". This is fraud and the griever industry will do all they can to support that fraud.
Historical fact
Posted on 20-04-2013 14:02 | By Peter Dey
TERMITE it is an historical fact, quoted by Claudia Orange, that a copy of the ‘official' English version of the Treaty was sent to Sydney on 5-6 February 1840. It was only a copy of what was prepared before 6 February. Because you cannot prove that this is not an historical fact everything else you write proves nothing.
Peter got it wrong
Posted on 20-04-2013 14:18 | By [email protected]
Hobson only authorised one treaty to be signed by the chiefs and that was Te Tiriti o Waitangi in the maori Language.The government's English text of the treaty used today is not the final draft and had nothing to do with the document the chief's signed at Waitangi on the 6th February 1840. All others were "merely testimonials of adherence to the terms of that original document". Ian Brougham Wanganui
Gong Burger?
Posted on 20-04-2013 18:07 | By TERMITE
Is more like it, a bit of deafening noise to wake up the forefathers and tell it how it is. Look elsewhere Pete, example "History v Farce" and the letetrs of others make it clear that the facts are there but you are not ... yet anyway.
Fleeced Burger
Posted on 20-04-2013 19:23 | By Crash test dummies
That is more like what happened!!!!!
Fantasy
Posted on 20-04-2013 19:56 | By Peter Dey
The Waitangi Tribunal's English text of the treaty is the same as the ‘official' English text that Governor Hobson sent to Sydney on February 5-6 1840. This is fact. Read the letter. This ‘official' English version, used by the Waitangi Tribunal, was selected by Governor Hobson. Anyone who ignores these simple facts is writing fantasy. Fantasy proves nothing.
Some corrections
Posted on 20-04-2013 21:43 | By Peter Dey
Correction for Ian Brougham and Big Tomatosaurus. Governor Hobson sent two Treaty versions to Sydney on February 6 1840, an English version and a Maori version. The English version he sent is the same as the Waitangi Tribunal version. They were both official because Governor Hobson was in charge and he sent them both. Correction for Big Tomatosaurus. The Littlewood version is the final draft prepared by James Busby on February 4, and used to prepare the Maori version. It is only a draft. Correction for TERMITE. Hobson sent a copy of the English version to Sydney on February 5-6. This was possible at any time around February 6. The signing of the Maori version made no difference.
Correction for TERMITE
Posted on 21-04-2013 13:45 | By Peter Dey
Correction for TERMITE. The names New Munster and New Leinster were used in 1846. This was long after Maori arrived in New Zealand about 1250 AD. People who think that there were settlers in New Zealand before Maori arrived do not make sense. It does not make sense to say that oral stories which cannot be verified are more believable than modern radiocarbon evidence that can be verified. We are in the 21st century not the 19th century.
@ ParoaPete
Posted on 21-04-2013 17:34 | By Major Think
Are you aware Claudia Orange has no credibility because she virtually ignores that really inconvenient Littlewoods treaty? She despises that version because it destroys her theory.
What a fuss
Posted on 21-04-2013 18:35 | By Johnnyredneck
I grow tired of all the anti treaty letters that go on here. It just reinforces the rest of the countries views that Tauranga is a conservative redneck backwater. At the end of the day treaty or no treaty, someone got ripped off. I am proud to live in one of the few countries that actively seeks compensation for those it wronged in the past. Get over it and grow some humanity. If you do a bit of research you will find that payouts for Treaty claims are tiny compared to government corporate bailouts for the likes of Southland Finance, Air NZ etc. those rich white guys are the ones you need to moan about, not someone who gets a few million for land that was taken that is worth potentially billions.
Major Think
Posted on 22-04-2013 11:28 | By Peter Dey
Claudia Orange wrote the most widely regarded book about the Treaty of Waitangi. Her credibility is greater than anybody who is making an issue of the Littlewood draft. The Littlewood draft surfaced in 1989 after Claudia Orange published her book in 1987. She has no need to change anything. The Litlewood draft is simply the final draft for the Maori version. It was never given any status or sent anywhere by Governor Hobson. Governor Hobson used the Waitangi Tribunal version of the Treaty on many occasions and sent it to his superiors on several occasions. He chose the Waitangi Tribunal version to be the official version and it was his choice to make. That is an historical fact.
Whcih Freeman Treaty?
Posted on 22-04-2013 12:07 | By YOGI
there were 6 versions all somewhat different, which one made it to the Waitangi Tribunal? Oh I know the best one for claims, does that have anything to do with the true history of NZ ... oh no it does not.
Hey Pete
Posted on 22-04-2013 12:20 | By YOGI
Where did Maori get Kumara from?
Taking land?
Posted on 23-04-2013 11:17 | By Jimmy
A fair trade of weapons and clothes for land? How on earth could that possibly be taking? I was taught the the Maori could never lay claim on ownership of land. It looks to me as a trade of goods for land is by no means taking. Wether that land was forcefully taken by one from another previously is irellevant. The "trade" of the land let someone live longer in life. To me that is a fair trade.
Pete's a
Posted on 23-04-2013 13:32 | By YOGI
Pete has just verified that the Littlewood treaty (Hobson confirmed as the real treaty) is the one translated to the Maori version, that of course means that the Freeman one (Hobson confirmed as the "not" the real treaty) should not be looked at as it is not real. Thanks Pete for the confirmation of that you have at last caught up on your reading s of the "truth" of it all. Please do keep it coming as it is very pleasing to assist you to find the truth and enlightenment all at the same time.
YOGI is confused
Posted on 23-04-2013 16:44 | By Peter Dey
YOGI seems to think that the most accurate English translation of the Maori Treaty of Waitangi is the real English version. What YOGI needs to understand is the historical fact that Governor Hobson was in charge of proceedings at Waitangi. He decided what the ‘official' English and Maori versions would be, and they are now in the National Archives, and used by the Waitangi Tribunal. Neither YOGI nor anybody else can now change what Governor Hobson decided.
Strong Rumour
Posted on 23-04-2013 17:53 | By Captain Sensible
Rumour has it that the term "Indian Giver" is being changed to "Maori Giver" due to all those claims on things they either sold ( sometimes several times), traded or gave away.
Gone Burger Pete
Posted on 24-04-2013 09:41 | By YOGI
The Littlewood treaty (Hobson stated it was the true English version and "he" read it out out at Whaitangi) it is in the National Achives so you are getting better by being 50% correct now, Ssdly however the Whaitangi Tribunal is not lookin gat that nor want to, and in fact none of the claimants want to either.
Irrelevant fantasy
Posted on 24-04-2013 10:58 | By Peter Dey
There is no evidence that Governor Hobson read out the Littlewood draft at Waitangi, or said that the Littlewood draft was the true English version of the Treaty of Waitangi. YOGI may wish it so but wishing does not make it so. Governor Hobson never gave the Littlewood draft any status, and he never sent it anywhere as an official document. The Littlewood draft in the National Archives is only a draft. It was signed by nobody. The ‘official' English version in the National Archives was signed by Governor Hobson and Maori chiefs. YOGI does not dispute the fact that Governor Hobson sent a copy of this as the ‘official' version of the Treaty to his superiors in Sydney, so everything YOGI writes about the Litttlewood draft is irrelevant fantasy.
Pete Poroa
Posted on 25-04-2013 11:20 | By PLONKER
Hobson said and wrote that he did, your heading is right mate but after that thre is a bit of factual stuff missing.
Here is how it is Pete
Posted on 25-04-2013 11:26 | By TERMITE
There were 6 other races here at various times that included: - Moriori, Celts, Scottish, Spanish, Norse and Arabs. there is a lot of carbon dated information available to show that each of these ethnic groups were here and took up residence for lengthy periods of time measurable in many hundreds of years, some date back to as much as 1900BC and that is a very long way before Maori arrive in NZ in about 1450AD when General Zheng He's naval fleet dropped off a small group of islander slaves in the New Plymouth area that they no longer wanted in their naval fleet. The sad part about that was that the Scottish that were living in the area either became a meal or breeding material. By the time Cook arrived little had changed in that way of life and death here except that the blood lines had mixed now and the path towards the claimed "culture" was well and truly underway: slavery, cannibalism, tribal wars. In essence the Maori race was a small group that interbreed with the locals that were already here (proof in the DNA of Maori) so there are no 'real' Maori left in NZ and perhaps in 200-300 years those remaining will also disappear into the rest of the population. Simple questions arise to show how far off track that NZ history has fallen of the tracks of reality, easy questions like: - 1. The sweet potato came from Peru not Maori, 2. The so call Pohutakawa Tree is not native to NZ it is in fact from South America, 3. In 1860's around Thames a grand old oak tree was found and it was some 8m in diameter, there was no way it could have been planted when cook was around NZ on one of his trips around 1769-1778, the tree was a lot older than that, estimated to be some 400 years old (allowing for a quicker growing time that the UK, a sample shows that the acorn planted that became the tree came from the UK. 4. Rats in NZ have DNA traceable back to china, most likely escaping off the Chinese Naval ships that were here in NZ waters from time to time, they have been here for centuries before Maori arrived in 1450AD. 6. Maori DNA relates back to the pacific islands and the data linkages shows that they arrived about 1430-1460AD. 7. Even Maori verbal myths handed down from one generation to the next refer to "fairy" people (or white people) these peoples moved away from Maori so residing in the hills and inland, they were basically hunted down over time and exterminated (perhaps a grievance for that is a good idea? Oh but 'OPS' someone has eaten all the evidence ...) 8. In many secluded caves and other places carbon dated information has been extracted and confirmed over time showing constant NZ occupation by non-Maori sine around 1900BC. 9. Thousands of skeletons were found buried in Northland, all herded and butchered, Maori did not want to know about it as they were non-Maori and dated before the recognized date of arrival of Maori around 1450AD, and these were collected up and taken to the local fertiliser works and ground up 10. There are buildings made of stone, Maori had not completed the "Bone Age" by the time Capt Cook arrived in NZ in 1769. 11. When the Bombays SH1 was realigned and widened a number of years ago NZTA found large stones of the likes of Stonehenge that dated back thousands of years, these were unceremoniously picked up and buried nearby, this stone work had significantly Arabic symbols carved into them. 12. There si no way Maori travelled from the Island to NZ in, on or under a canoe or raft type sailing vessel, simply because the only trees available to them were Palm trees or the like and there is no way that some hundreds of people could have occupied and survived that journey through the Tasman especially being one of the roughest seas in the world. 13. We know the Freeman Treaty (included in the Waitangi Treaty Act 1975) does not translate to the Maori version also enacted into the same statute. Hobson even clearly stated that the Freeman was a fake and he had never signed it, someone else had, now we all know what that is called don't we "a forgery", that fact is widely known yet somehow that document ended up being enacted in 1975. 14. "Under" the significant ash layer of 186AD that resulted from a Taupo eruption at that time there are well established and complete villages, pottery, tools and so on, all perfectly preserved as was from that time, none of them are possibly Maori in any way. Well that is 14 simple and obvious examples for Paroa Pete to read "and weep" about. These things are so obvious, well documented that there is just no way around the obvious conclusions that I have only briefly noted above. PS Pete I recommend you open your mind, go read a lot and most importantly stop referring to the faithful in Wellington for riding instructions, they all have a vested interest in keeping the current "head in the trough" scenario going as long as possible, at least until all the current batch of claims are signed off and the hand is on the loot.
TERMITE's comments are irrelevant
Posted on 25-04-2013 21:40 | By Peter Dey
TERMITE is still not facing up to one inconvenient fact. The official English version of the Treaty of Waitangi was made official when Governor Hobson sent a copy to Sydney on February 5-6 1840. This same version was signed by Governor Hobson and Maori chiefs and is in the National Archives. It is official because Governor Hobson made it official. The Waitangi tribunal uses it because Governor Hobson made it official. TERMITE can write thousands of words but they are irrelevant because none of them can undo Governor Hobson's decision.
It may be inconvenient but it is the real deal ...........
Posted on 26-04-2013 07:57 | By RORTSCAM
@ Paroa Pete - there is only one legitimate version of the Treaty or Tiriti o Waitangi and that is the Maori version signed at Waitangi on 6 February 1840 by Hobson and the assembled chiefs.
Pete
Posted on 26-04-2013 08:28 | By YOGI
Read it again mate, you missed all of it ... and you have repeated the same dicredited statement.
@ Paroa Pete
Posted on 26-04-2013 10:55 | By TERMITE
Sorry Pete that is a repeat of what you ahev said before, nothing new added to it and so your shaky posture crumples again at the first sign of a question on the horizon.
TERMITE and YOGI have no answer
Posted on 26-04-2013 13:51 | By Peter Dey
TERMITE and YOGI have no answer to my fact that Governor Hobson made the Waitangi Tribunal version of the Treaty of Waitangi official when he sent it to his superior in Sydney. They do not deny this. Everything else they write is irrelevant. By repeating this I am simply pointing out that they have no answer.
Te Tiriti O Waitangi (Littlewood vs Freeman) Result Team Termite 10/10 defeats Piccolo Pete 0/10
Posted on 28-04-2013 08:37 | By Scambuster
Captain William Hobson is on the record as categorically stating that the carefully considered Maori wording is "de facto the Treaty (ie the Maori and only version signed at Waitangi on Thursday 6 February 1840)and all signatures subsequently obtained are mere testimonials of adherence to the terms of the original document ".(See Treaty of Waitangi by T.L Buick @ pg147). Any other version fabricated after the original Treaty was signed is merely a back translation and of no moment. On the other hand Hobson's 'final draft' (the 'Littlewood draft') can be legitimately used to show the English words translated into maori and vice versa and they marry up virtually word for word !! GAME SET AND MATCH - GOTCHA.
Hobson's actions contradict Scambuster's words
Posted on 28-04-2013 10:38 | By Peter Dey
Scambuster you still have not accepted the fact, recorded by Claudia Orange from British Colonial Office records, that the ‘official' English version of the Treaty was sent by Governor Hobson to his superiors on February 5-6 1840. It was not fabricated after the original Treaty was signed. It was the original Treaty in English written before the Maori Treaty was written. Governor Hobson made it official. His actions speak louder than words. You obviously have twisted the meaning of Hobson's words because what he did contradicts what you say. What Hobson did contradicts everything you say and he was in charge of the proceedings at Waitangi.
Paora Pete
Posted on 28-04-2013 11:53 | By PLONKER
You just can not get past information like SCAMBUSTED "you", the informaiton is authentic, real and how it happened. Now we all know that does not suit Waitangi claim feasting army in Wellington and the "in co-horts" trough feeders all over New Zeland but that is how iut is and what we all have been trying to allow you time to "read" and understand, as said "GAME SET AND MATCH - GOTCHA" 11/11 now, care to play some more Pete, go on spin the wheel again?
Scambusters misunderstands Hobson
Posted on 28-04-2013 12:23 | By Peter Dey
Scambuster obviously does not understand what Governor Hobson meant when he spoke about the Maori version of the Treaty of Waitangi at Waitangi. Whatever Governor Hobson said he did not mean that his English version was not official. If he meant that he would have said it.
YOGI, TERMITE, Scambuster, and PLONKER have no answer
Posted on 28-04-2013 12:53 | By Peter Dey
You people are writing hundreds of words and every word you write ignores the historical fact that Governor Hobson made his English version of the Treaty official when he sent it to Sydney on February 5-6 1840. Pretending that this historical fact does not exist puts you all in fantasyland.
Te Tiriti O Waitangi is the Littlewood Treaty
Posted on 28-04-2013 16:45 | By TERMITE
Thank you Scambuster, that about explains everything, I do think the tally is a bit more than that, there were 14 points that are "unanswerable" from 25/4/2013 blog, nevermind everything else here and elsewhere. The score on Pete from me alone is 23/23, if you added up eveything in the past few months then it would be 300/300 odd. I would have to make a comment though, that Pete is making the success rate "SOOO" easy because he continues to make the same mistakes, misquotes and generally attempts tore-write history over and over with the same mistruths, errors and ommissions. If only he could more on to read more, learn more and so come a little closer to the truth of it all. When he is able to achieve this he will no longer need everyone else's comments as he will be "signing off the same song sheet". We can all then move on together.
Hobson
Posted on 28-04-2013 19:51 | By Peter Dey
Peter Dey produced evidence in his letter which shows that Governor Hobson's official English version of the Treaty of Waitangi is not false. It was authorised by Governor Hobson. YOGI, TERMITE, Scambuster, and PLONKER have so far failed to produce any evidence that disproves what Peter Dey wrote. The Littlewood draft seems to be almost certainly the final translation draft used to write the Maori version of the Treaty. This does not make the Littlewood draft official, and it does not make the official English version false. Governor Hobson authorised official English and Maori versions to his superiors, so they are what the Waitangi Tribunal uses. Governor Hobson did not authorise the Littlewood draft to anybody.
TERMITE's fiction
Posted on 28-04-2013 21:42 | By Peter Dey
TERMITE has made some remarkable claims that have nothing to do with the English version of the Treaty of Waitangi. Here are some of them. Claim 1) There is a lot of carbon dated information showing other ethnic groups lived here before Maori. Janet Wilmshurst's 2011 radiocarbon data shows this claim to be total fiction. Claim 2) About the year 1450 Zheng He came here with a fleet from China. The National Geographic internet article on Zheng He shows that he never came to New Zealand. Claim 3) There were Scottish settlers living in New Plymouth in 1450. Janet Wilmshurst's 2011 radiocarbon data shows this claim to be total fiction. Claim 4) The Maori race was a small group that interbred with locals who were already here. DNA evidence shows that Maori descend completely from East Polynesia and this claim is total fiction. Claim 5) The sweet potato came from Peru not Polynesia. The sweet potato came from Peru to Polynesia and then to New Zealand. Prove otherwise. Claim 6) Maori DNA shows that Maori arrived here about 1450. DNA data shows no such thing. Prove otherwise. Janet Wilmshurst's data shows that Maori arrived here about 1250. Claim 7) Radiocarbon information shows occupation in New Zealand as far back as 1900BC. This is total fiction. Prove otherwise. Claim 8) Under the 186 AD Taupo ash cloud there are complete villages. This is total fiction. Prove otherwise. Claim 9) Maori had not completed the ‘bone age' by the time Captain Cook arrived. This is total fiction because there is no such archaeological period as the ‘bone age'. When we consider the final piece of fiction here we can see that TERMITE is just having a game and is quite happy writing fiction for entertainment. Why bother with the score when the whole game is writing fiction.
Pete 5 Opponents 0
Posted on 29-04-2013 13:14 | By Peter Dey
Peter Dey's letter made 5 points. Opponents have disproved none of these. This makes the score Pete 5/5, opponents 0/5. Sorry guys. You lost.
Hobson never said anything was fake
Posted on 29-04-2013 14:21 | By Peter Dey
TERMITE claims that Hobson was recorded as noting that the Freeman document was a 'fake” and that the 'Littlewood” treaty was the real one. Governor Hobson never said any such thing. Governor Hobson referred to the Maori version of the Treaty and said: 'This instrument I consider to be de facto the treaty and all signatures that are subsequently obtained are merely testimonials of adherence to the terms of the original document.” He most likely meant that this was the master copy for all the other Maori copies that were taken round the country to be signed. He did not say that his English version of the Treaty was false or fake. His English version was his starting point. It was composed before the Maori version was composed.
Pete is that all ya got?
Posted on 29-04-2013 15:40 | By YOGI BEAR
Janet Wilmshurst's findings are discredited and some, start again bro.
More fiction from YOGI BEAR
Posted on 29-04-2013 18:08 | By Peter Dey
YOGI BEAR is writing more fiction when he writes that Janet Wilmshurst's findings are discredited. Janet Wilmshurst's 2011 research paper was reviewed and published by the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. The National Academy of Sciences of the United States is the official independent provider of science information to the United States Government. They have held that position since set up by President Lincoln in 1863. Janet Wilmshurst's research showed that there was no radiocarbon evidence of any people settled in New Zealand before Maori arrived about 1250 AD. Her research findings are totally credible. They would not be supported by US National Academy of Sciences otherwise.
The Hobson English Treaty came first
Posted on 29-04-2013 18:30 | By Peter Dey
Scambuster claims that Governor Hobson's official English version of the Treaty of Waitangi was fabricated after the Maori version was signed and is therefore of no moment. This is clearly a ridiculous claim. The first English version that Governor Hobson had was prepared for him by James Busby on February 4. This was the one he sent officially to his superiors on February 5-6. Governor Hobson always used this official English version. That is why it was available and signed by Waikato Maori when no Maori version was available.
Fraud fiction from Big Tomatosaurus
Posted on 29-04-2013 22:18 | By Peter Dey
Big Tomatosaurus claims that there is only one version of the Treaty of Waitangi, the Maori version. He claims that Claudia Orange chooses to refer to irrelevant drafts and rough copies as an 'English version” and that this is fraud. Big Tomatosaurus produces nothing to disprove the points made in Peter Dey's letter. Governor Hobson authorised two official versions of the Treaty to his superiors, one English and one Maori. It is therefore fiction to claim that there is only one version of the Treaty. It is also fiction to refer to the English version as fraud. Big Tomatosaurus is getting information from unreliable sources.
You are right Pete
Posted on 30-04-2013 16:02 | By YOGI BEAR
You say "irrelevant drafts and rough copies as an 'English version” and that this is fraud." As you are talking about the Freeman versions and there were many of them I cnow can agree with you ... at last you are getting there.
Pete is
Posted on 30-04-2013 16:13 | By YOGI BEAR
Pete says the "offical" treaty was sent to NSW on 5/2/1840, then how possibly can it have been at Waitangi on 6/2/1840 to be signed by the Maori Chiefs present and Hobson? How possibly can it be read out? Poor old Pete is all messed up on the dates, facts, evidence, Hobson's statements and well generally more or less everythign here, I guess it is self beneficial to hold on to the myths and dreamtime things in the hope one day that something will appear that help retrospectively jsutify all the darstedly deeds to date imposed on the NZ taxpayer. News flash Pete, "forever" is a long time ...
ParoaPete/ Peter Dey
Posted on 30-04-2013 19:26 | By ow
ParoaPete/ Peter Dey Same person ? There cant be be two people so good at storytelling?
Scambuster is 100% Correct
Posted on 30-04-2013 19:43 | By CONDOR
@ParoaPete you go and play as many games of Ringa Ringa Rosie with ms Orange and her mob as you like it will not change one thing.Really you should also change the medication for your delusions because your assertions are becoming more and more irrational and bizzare.No English version of any treaty was signed on 4th or 5th February 1840 and only the maori Te Tiriti O Waitangi was signed by the Chiefs and Hobson at Waitangi on 6th February 1840.The relic treaty is of no moment anyway because it was never recognised at international law.The position is NZ was acquired by acts of state -with Hobson's proclamations of 21 May 1840 and Her Majesty's Government approval of 2nd October 1840 being the definitive Acts.
Helping Pete
Posted on 30-04-2013 19:48 | By YOGI BEAR
Just as a hint of a "wee minor bit" of what is out there is the real world and not in fairy land Pete, take a look at this "David Rankin, a Ng?puhi elder, has drawn attention to Maori legends suggesting that people, some of them with fair skin, were already present in the islands when the Maori arrived, and has claimed the existence of a conspiracy among academics (Wilmshurst and the likes) to suppress inquiry" and the purpose fo suppression is to ensure that there is no opposition to the Wellington lot feasting from the taxpayer coffers year in year out.
Part 2
Posted on 30-04-2013 19:50 | By YOGI BEAR
Take a read of this Pete .... "All over New Zealand there are ancient, carved bullaun bowls, just as one finds all over Ireland. Left: A perfectly preserved and unweathered South Auckland bullaun that was buried under ash from the 186 AD Taupo eruption, but exposed after road excavations in 1992. Next: A double set of bullauns in a trickle stream in Taranaki. Next: British Antiquarian Stuart Mason surveys a bullaun near Lyttelton, South Island, NZ, a well-known haunt of the ancient Patu-paiarehe. Right: One of two bullauns carved into white limestone above the beach at Mahia Peninsula. In Europe these hewn bowls developed into Roman Christian baptismal fonts, after the church fathers found they were unable to eradicate the ages-old ritual washing practices of the Pagans, so adopted them."
Part 3
Posted on 30-04-2013 19:51 | By YOGI BEAR
Here is more elsewhere ... "A Roman coin with Caesar Augustus stamped on it and dating to 7 BC was found during excavations beside the Taylor River, Blenheim in December 2003. Another was found many years ago in Hawkes Bay while a hole was being dug for a clothes-line post at a new subdivision."
Part 4
Posted on 30-04-2013 19:56 | By YOGI BEAR
More for Pete ..."A number of pictures (four) were printed in 'inThe Journal Of The Polynesian Society, Volume XIII - 1905' there were three Egyptian women and a fourth was a Maori woman shown. The Egyptian women are Assouan, from Upper Egypt. All display chin, lip or forehead tattoos, it is very hard to tell the difference between the four photos, in fact you an't tell the difference.
CONDOR is ignoring hard fact
Posted on 30-04-2013 22:41 | By Peter Dey
The historical fact, which CONDOR does not deny, is that Governor Hobson sent an official COPY of the English version of the Treaty of Waitangi to his superiors on February 5-6 1840. CONDOR is ignoring this fact. It is in the British Colonial Office records. Nobody has ever said that an English version was signed at Waitangi. The English version copy was sent as an official document. The fact that New Zealand was acquired as a colony by a British Act of Parliament does not change the Treaty at all and does not change Hobson's decision to create two official versions of the Treaty. The Treaty of Waitangi Act quite rightly contains these two versions of the Treaty. People who object to this still have not disproved the points made in Peter Dey's letter.
YOGI BEAR's evidence is unscientific
Posted on 30-04-2013 23:16 | By Peter Dey
YOGI BEAR presents a great deal of evidence for pre-Maori settlement in New Zealand but it is all unreliable because it all depends on oral explanations from unknown unscientific sources. It is all contradicted by modern scientific evidence. Modern scientific evidence shows conclusively that there were no pre-Maori settlers in New Zealand. You would expect that in the 21st century people would realise that scientific evidence is reliable and that stories from unknown sources are unreliable. This is the way it works in criminal trials. People in the 21st century who say that they do not believe scientific evidence have lost the plot.
Yes it is a down down PP Dey
Posted on 01-05-2013 07:08 | By ROCCO
Conclusively proven one draft treaty Hobson's unsigned final draft (aka the Littlewood draft)currently held in Archives NZ and one only legitimate Treaty the maori Te Tiriti O Waitangi dated 6 February 1840.
Treaty copy to NSW?
Posted on 01-05-2013 09:54 | By YOGI BEAR
Pete we don't care about a copy being sent to NSW on 5/2/1840, it was not signed so meand "Nothing".
rocks and boulders
Posted on 01-05-2013 09:58 | By YOGI BEAR
Well rocks boulders and the like present here in NZ today are "hard evidence, Wilmshurst completely ignores that blatantly obvious becuase there is no explanation that diverts one from the obvious conclusion of the simple fact is that it is "there", Pete the score must be about 100/100 now, hints-a-plenty ... in that.
2 way street
Posted on 01-05-2013 10:34 | By Jimmy
So the treaty that protected all Maori and led them to be able to "lay claim" to grievances for land taken life taken etc etc. Does this not also work the other way? How about the descendants of the settlers whose lives were taken AFTER the signing of the treaty. Do they happen to get any kind of compensation? Can they claim back the land that was "stolen" that was originally purchased at a fair and agreed on price. Or even taken from them that was originally uninhabited and unwanted. The treaty is a 2 way street. My understanding is once a treaty is broken by one party, its null and void
ROCCO, Hobson's English version is legitimate
Posted on 01-05-2013 14:07 | By Peter Dey
It is an undeniable fact that Waikato Maori and Governor Hobson signed the English version of the Treaty of Waitangi. This makes it legitimate. It is in the National Archives for that reason. It was the same version that Governor Hobson copied officially to his superiors. Nobody at all signed the Littlewood draft and Governor Hobson never made it official or legitimate.
Read it again Pete ...
Posted on 01-05-2013 16:27 | By YOGI BEAR
The only treaty that is legitimate is the Maori Te Tiriti O Waitangi dated 6 February 1840, that is the one that is signed by both Maori and Hobson, that makes it a "deal" and of course Maori have broken every clause in it repeatedly since. The Littlewood final draft, was translated into the Maori version, "Te Tiriti O Waitangi" that means the Littlewood has some standing as the English version of that which has been signed (Hobson confirmed this). Now that just leaves the Freeman versions x 6 or so, they are all complmpletely different and it certainly does not matter at all where they were sent or not they were never ever the "real deal" here (Hobson confirmed this) and also confirmed that the signature of Hobson on the Freeman is not Hobsons (Hobson confirmed this) Hobson himself confirmed that at the time. Come on Pete what more do you need to know, hear or see, oh thats right you need to read it in Wilmshursts scibblings that if sent by email would not be allowed into even the "junk mail" can.
YOGI BEAR, rock stories are non-scientific
Posted on 01-05-2013 16:41 | By Peter Dey
It does not matter how hard rocks and boulders are, the stories about them are all supposition. Nobody can verify the truth of these stories and the stories are contradicted by scientific evidence. None of the non-scientific evidence that people produce for pre-Maori settlement in New Zealand can be verified. It is all supposition. This is the 21st century. When people reject scientific evidence they just make themselves look stupid.
Nothing
Posted on 01-05-2013 17:00 | By The Master
After reading all for days I see that you have not put up anything new, just repeats and rehashing of all from before.
IT WAS MADE SIMPLE FOR SIMPLE PP PEOPLE
Posted on 01-05-2013 18:39 | By CONDOR
Just remember words Hobsons 'final draft' of the Treaty and Maori Tiriti O Waitangi signed 6 February 1840 keep chanting this and the voices in your head will go away.Or 'arani arani arani' will do the trick too.
Pete and Rocks
Posted on 01-05-2013 22:37 | By MISS ADVENTURE
Pete please read very carefully ... so you know the difference between: Rocks, science and fiction. ROCKS: are real things, they can be touched, they are physically there. SCIENCE: the purpose here is to explain logically the "real" things like rocks, it is not to explain them away so they vanish. FICTION: now the purpose of this is to cloud everything else, like science, this is done by selectively butchering information and placing a nice pretty label on it something like wilmshurst has and pretend it is real, in fact more real than a lump of rock. The rocks referred to are "real" you can not dispute, change or alter that simple concept. What is happening in Wellington and you seem to have brought into it sadly for you is that "purported" science is then being used to change the obvious and undisputable, that is called "Treaty Negotiation", at least that is the game being played here. Just to be sure Pete, I have traavelled wide and far and I have in my travels seen a lot of things, but these rocks are something else and it is a moving experience to realise that they are there and just how long they have been there is way longer than expected, that is amazing. All that you are trying to do here is selectively chop out of the truthful bits of New Zealand history, if you can't then deny they are even there, look the other way and carry on regardless in complete denial.
More fiction from YOGI BEAR
Posted on 01-05-2013 23:12 | By Peter Dey
It is ridiculous for YOGI BEAR to say that it does not matter where the English version of the Treaty of Waitangi was sent. A copy was sent by Governor Hobson as an official document to the British Colonial Office. It became official because of where he sent it. Hobson never said it was not the real deal. He sent it officially himself for goodness sake. Governor Hobson never said that his signature on the Waikato document was false and National Archives confirms that Hobson's signature there is not false. YOGI BEAR is making up false information. YOGI BEAR is also pretending that scientific facts do not exist. In the 21st century it does not make sense to reject scientific evidence which proves that Maori were the first settlers in New Zealand.
Dreamer Pete
Posted on 02-05-2013 09:51 | By YOGI BEAR
Pete says "A copy was sent by Governor Hobson as an official document to the British Colonial Office." What Pete Dey failed to realise is that it was not "signed" by anyone, when 'another document' (Littlewood final draft translated to Maori, Tiriti O Waitangi signed 6 February 1840) means all other documents are meaningless, END OF STORY. What you are holding onto Pete is a discredited document that has a forged signiture on it (Confirmed by Hobson himself) what morre do you need to know. Posting off a piece of paper to NSW doe not make it "official" anything ever. However the Tiriti O Waitangi signed 6 February 1840 in Waitangi "is it" Pete you are having major problems here getting your feet on the ground here. The NZ National Archives never confirmed that Hobson's signature there is not false, MUCH more importantly Hobson himself did, GAME SET MATCH ALL OVER ROVER PETE AGAIN!. Pete says "In the 21st century it does not make sense to reject scientific evidence which proves that Maori were the first settlers in New Zealand." Please read the many posting below Pete, what you sadly have not grasped is that science is applied to the facts and theories are developed not the other way around. The boulders are "real" and until your 'science' fits the evidence of other than the selective scribings of Janet Wilmshurst your opinion will be hugely limited to the noddyland.
Absolute Bollocks
Posted on 02-05-2013 10:00 | By ROCCO
It has never ever been established that maori were the first peoples in NZ and all the reputable evidence available shows they were not. Any scientific evidence that examines only things maori can only show when maori may have got here and that could be as late as 1400AD.Finally maori are not indigenous to NZ.
Science
Posted on 02-05-2013 10:42 | By Jimmy
Good thing about "modern science", it can always be "manufactured" to represent the truth that people want you to believe, not necessarily "actual truth". Now archaeological evidence, that's another story.
Non comprehenda
Posted on 02-05-2013 17:17 | By YOGI BEAR
Pete what you say makes no sense at all, how can a treaty that you say is valid (and it is not) is firstly sent to NSW "BEFORE" 6/2/1840 and also was sent to Raglan and sign by but a handful of Maori Chiefs there is the true one. If this was right then the genuine one as signed by Maori at Waitangi can not also be right. Hobson said it was right but you are saying now that "science" in the 21st century surpasses all of that? How strange is that? Creditbility here is waning very fast when these irreconcilable things you then say are "all good to go" the "real deal" or something. For you to stack all of this up like that and pretend it is real is nothing less than a "magic mushroom show from Nelly Seagoon"!
YOGI BEAR, Hobson used COPIES of the Treaty
Posted on 03-05-2013 03:28 | By Peter Dey
Governor Hobson sent one COPY of the English version of the Treaty of Waitangi to the British Colonial Office on February 5-6 1840. This copy is in the Colonial Office records. It is Governor Hobson's chosen official version. There was another COPY with Governor Hobson's signature on that was signed by Waikato Maori. This copy is in the National Archives and Governor Hobson authorised it. If you contact National Archives they will confirm that Governor Hobson's signature on it is genuine. This English version has been the official version for the past 172 years. The official English and Maori Treaty versions both have documents with Hobson's signature and Maori signatures on them. That is why it is right for the Waitangi Tribunal to use them. The Littlewood draft has no signatures on it. Governor Hobson chose not to make it official. Nobody can now undo Governor Hobson's decision.
LISTEN UP HERE IS THE REAL DEAL BUDDY BOY
Posted on 03-05-2013 20:52 | By ROCCO
Peter Dey of Welcome Bay is not correct to say "we are stuck with the two official treaties authorised by Governor Hobson in 1840 because Hobson and others presented, had signed, and printed the Maori language Te Tiriti.It was only at the Waikato Heads signing that an English version was used to collect some signatures. Mr.Dey seems blissfully unaware that an official appraisal of the Busby February 4 draft of the Treaty of Waitangi, aka the Littlewood Draft, was done in 2006. The Treaty of Waitangi Information Unit commissioned historian Donald Loveridge to do it . That Busby was the author of the text had been confirmed in 2000, by Dr Phil Parkinson, a treaty researcher at National Archives. Dr. Loveridge, who has worked for the Crown Forestry Rental Trust and treaty claimants, issued a memo on the document, in 1993, in response to a request from the Treaty Issues Team at the Crown Law Office, noting that the Busby February 4 document "is virtually identical in all respects to the Clendon translation". The "Clendon translation" refers to a transcription of the Busby February 4 draft, that U.S. Consul James Reddy Clendon sent to the United States on February 20, 1840, with a copy of the treaty, in Maori, plus a covering letter. Clendon described the document as a 'translation”. The only difference from the Busby February 4 document is that the last line reads 'Done at Waitangi on the Sixth day of February in the year of our Lord One Thousand Eight Hundred & Forty”, instead of the 'Done at Waitangi on the 4th Feb. 1840”. In his 2006 appraisal, Dr.Loveridge re-stated his view the Busby February 4 document was a back translation of the Maori text of the treaty, especially because Clendon said it was. But Dr. Loveridge also noted that "if Clendon's description was not correct, however - for whatever reason the position would remain that the date was used intentionally, and that the Littlewood document is in fact a copy of the missing draft”. Now that summary just blows your machinations out of the water doesn't it .
ROCCO's comments change nothing
Posted on 04-05-2013 11:32 | By Peter Dey
ROCCO states that the Littlewood draft of the Treaty of Waitangi was written by James Busby and was a final draft for the Maori version of the Treaty of Waitangi. This information is well known and not disputed by professional historians, but it does not make Hobson's English version false. In 2013 the Government and the Waitangi Tribunal want to have an English version of the Treaty to use. ROCCO wants them to use a translation of the Maori version. However Governor Hobson always used his original version (the official Colonial Office and Waikato version) whenever he had to produce an English version. He never used the Littlewood version. That is why it is not correct to call Hobson's English version false, and why it is sensible for the Waitangi Tribunal to use it.
Befundled Pete?
Posted on 04-05-2013 11:52 | By The Master
You are gradually getting there Pete, the first three lines of your reply to ROCCO are correct, but as at the 6/2/1840 the only treaty that existed was the Maori Treaty and it is what was signed in Waitangi. To be clear james Busby and Hobson worked on the final draft that was written by Busby (The Littlewood Fianl Draft) and it is this that was translated to Maori being the official, signed treaty and you have accepted this, where now is your problem after that?
Pete is quiet now?
Posted on 05-05-2013 18:19 | By The Master
Perhaps ratehr than wastign everyone's elses time here perhaps you could provide the questions to Janet and ask for a bit of guidance, I am sure the facts from all others as presented here will assist her also in the need of a retraction and rebuttal from her. Anyway as usual "Silence is golden" and as they say also "The truth speaks for itself" and you are not "speaking" at all.
The official English Treaty is still not false
Posted on 06-05-2013 11:54 | By Peter Dey
Nothing that The Master or anybody else has written disproves the fact that our present official English version of the Treaty of Waitangi was chosen by Governor Hobson so it is not false
Full circle of history?
Posted on 06-05-2013 16:53 | By YOGI BEAR
Looks to me that Custer (Paroa Pete) has allowed the fickle finger of fate to encircled him with the truth and reality. What a surprise that is, glad to see that Pete is finally connecting a few bits of the puzzle and so we can all move on to better discussions points.
poor old pete !
Posted on 06-05-2013 22:14 | By ow
He must have got fed up with you lot !
The Master is confused about 'official'
Posted on 06-05-2013 23:39 | By Peter Dey
The Master is wrong when he says that on 6/2/1840 only one treaty existed. On 6/2/1840 Governor Hobson had already sent an official copy of his English version of the Treaty of Waitangi to the Colonial Office. So on 6/2/1840 two official treaties existed, one (English) on its way to Sydney and one (Maori) that was to be signed at Waitangi. Governor Hobson did not make the Litttlewood draft official. Governor Hobson made his chosen English version of the Treaty official. An official document is not false. A draft document is not official. The Waitangi Tribunal is correct to use official documents so it uses Governor Hobson's chosen official English version of the Treaty.
Maori and fisheries rights
Posted on 07-05-2013 09:29 | By Peter Dey
The objection that people have to the English version of the Treaty is really just a way of objecting to Maori fisheries rights. Governor Hobson's English Treaty guarantees Maori ownership of their fisheries. It seems amazing that people object to Governor Hobson's English Treaty just so they can say that Maori have no right to their traditional fisheries. They claim that Governor Hobson's English version is false but they never come up with any evidence to prove it. All they come up with is the fact that the English and Maori versions of the Treaty are not exact translations but we have always known that anyway.
End of the line
Posted on 07-05-2013 09:37 | By YOGI BEAR
For Pete, We all acknowledge that the Freeman Treaty is the offically adopted Waitangi tribunal treaty and that is the one enacted by statute. But factually, morally, in translation it is not and most importantly It did not even exist on 6/2/1840, it was created afterwards in it many forms. Add to that also that The Littlewood translates perfectly to Te Tiriti O Waitangi and back again. Freeman is completely different.
Me OW
Posted on 07-05-2013 14:04 | By The Master
Yes I think so, Pete could only hold out for so long and then the truth was unavoidable.
YOGI BEAR, Hobson's English Treaty came first
Posted on 07-05-2013 22:19 | By Peter Dey
YOGI BEAR repeats the mistake made by The Master when he says that the official English Treaty of Waitangi did not exist on 6/2/1840. The official English Treaty was the first document created for Governor Hobson on 3/2/1840. He sent a copy of it to the British Colonial Office on 5-6/2/1840 according to Colonial Office records. The Maori version signed at Waitangi was written after the official English version. The official English version of the Treaty was chosen and made official by Governor Hobson and nobody in this column has proved otherwise. It is amazing that so many writers to this column keep going on when they have not yet disproved anything in Peter Dey's letter.
Pete
Posted on 08-05-2013 10:24 | By YOGI BEAR
Same same, read it again Pete ... nothing new in that for you or me, your dates are the wrong way around. Add to that the purported treaty sent to NSW was "BEFORE" the other real one was presented and signed at Waitangi. Think again Pete you can not sign a treaty document if it is floating around out on the ocean somewhere. PS the Freeman fake treaty was "created" after 6/2/1840. Your "facts" and science don't line up with reality, no timeline and contrary to what thise that were there at the time said and did. How far away from the truth can you be ... lots!
Hobson's English Treaty
Posted on 08-05-2013 13:41 | By YOGI BEAR
That is the Littlewood treaty then translated to Maori, Tiriti o Waitangi. Thanks for confirming that as correct. The last peice of the puzzle for you left to realise and understand is that the Freeman treaty's many versions all came "later".
YOGI BEAR is denying Colonial Office records
Posted on 08-05-2013 13:56 | By Peter Dey
YOGI BEAR says that the official English version of the Treaty of Waitangi could not have been sent to Sydney before the Maori version was signed at Waitangi. British Colonial Office records show that Governor Hobson sent a COPY of his official English Treaty to Sydney on 5-6/2/1840. He had a COPY to send because it was written by James Busby for Governor Hobson on 3/2/1840. Bruce Moon says the same in the book 'TWISTING THE TREATY”. YOGI BEAR produces no credible evidence to back up his claims. He has still produced no evidence to disprove anything in Peter Dey's letter.
credible evidence
Posted on 08-05-2013 15:22 | By YOGI BEAR
Easy Pete, Tell us again Pete, which treaty was signed at Waitangi? was it Tiriti o Waitangi? If it was then that is the "signed" treaty, right Pete?
Keep it simple for Pete?
Posted on 08-05-2013 15:55 | By YOGI BEAR
Please tell me if the 3/2/1840 is before or after 6/2/1840? Hint, they are not the same.
YOGI BEAR the Littlewood draft was sent nowhere
Posted on 08-05-2013 16:33 | By Peter Dey
Governor Hobson's English version of the Treaty of Waitangi was not the Littlewood draft. We know that because a copy of Governor Hobson's English version is still in the British Colonial Office records. It is the copy sent by Governor Hobson to the Colonial Office on 5-6/2/1840. Governor Hobson could have sent the Littlewood draft but he chose to send his original English version, which is now our official version. When choosing the official English version of the Treaty of Waitangi Governor Hobson actually chose not to use the Littlewood draft even though he could have done so.
YOGI BEAR, 3/2/1840 is before 6/2/1840
Posted on 08-05-2013 19:27 | By Peter Dey
On 3/2/1840 Governor Hobson's official English Treaty was written. This came before 6/2/1840 when a copy of his official English version was sent to Sydney and the official Maori Treaty was signed.
YOGI BEAR is confusing 'signed' and 'official'
Posted on 08-05-2013 20:12 | By Peter Dey
YOGI BEAR believes that the only true Treaty of Waitangi is the Maori version because it was the only one signed on 6/2/1840 at Waitangi. However Governor Hobson's action contradicts YOGI BEAR's belief. Governor Hobson created two official versions of the Treaty, an English version (not the Littlewood draft), and a Maori version. He sent both these versions as official documents to the British Colonial Office. He did not say that the signed Treaty was the only official document. YOGI BEAR has still disproved nothing in Peter Dey's letter.
Signed v official?
Posted on 09-05-2013 08:39 | By YOGI BEAR
So Pete are you admitting that the "official" treaty is not signed? That the "signed" treaty is not officially "it"? If so then it is a waste of time having a meeting at Waitangi, all the chiefs and Hobson being there having a we chat for a bit, then signing the "real" treaty. You are saying that Hobson did not need to waste his time with all that, he just needed to write and post it off the NSW? Is that what you are saying Pete?
YOGI BEAR only one Treaty had to be signed
Posted on 09-05-2013 10:49 | By Peter Dey
YOGI BEAR the 'signed” Treaty from Waitangi is the official Maori version. Governor Hobson had to get just one version signed. The unsigned English Treaty that Governor Hobson sent to the Colonial Office from Waitangi is the official English version. He did not have to get it signed to make it official. He just had to get one Treaty signed. Waikato chiefs signed a copy of Governor Hobson's English version. They did not have to sign the Maori version to confirm their agreement.
Misled without credible evidence
Posted on 09-05-2013 13:59 | By Peter Dey
For three weeks now we have had writers still claiming that the official English version of the Treaty of Waitangi is false. Surely by now they should realise that they have been sucked in because they can produce no evidence to back up their claim. The people who are providing them with information have no credible evidence to provide. There is none. The official English version of the Treaty is not false.
Well done Pete
Posted on 09-05-2013 23:15 | By Plonker
You confirmed the critical last item, that being that the Maori version was the only one signed and so the only one that matters. By the way the Freeman treaty did not exist until after 6/2/1840, does not translate to the Mori version that was signed is nothing better than bog paper. You have successfully scuttled Mori in total, well done. By your argument the fact that 500 Maori signed the Littlewood Translation to Maori means nothing. By what you also say the Freemen one sent to NSW also happened to be at the Waikato Heads that you say is the "real Deal"? On your reasoning the legal effect is that there is no treaty at all, so please refund all claims and interest thereon, not that any are genuine claim existed anyway as NZ was acquired by acts of state by way of Hobson's proclamations. GAME SET MATCH GAME OVER ROVER…
PLONKER is confused
Posted on 10-05-2013 11:17 | By Peter Dey
PLONKER is confused when he says that the Maori version of the Treaty of Waitangi was the only one signed. The English Treaty (not the Littlewood draft) was signed by Waikato chiefs and by Governor Hobson. Governor Hobson made them both official when he sent them to the Colonial Office. There is no Freeman Treaty. The English Treaty that Governor Hobson sent to NSW on 6/2/1840 was produced by James Busby on 3/2/1840. The fact that 500 Maori signed the Maori Treaty means that it definitely matters. That is why Governor Hobson made it official. The Treaty of Waitangi has been accepted since 1840 as a genuine treaty between Maori and the Crown. The fact that we have a Treaty of Waitangi Act of Parliament proves that the Treaty is not a legal nullity.
Treaty
Posted on 10-05-2013 14:41 | By Jimmy
If the treaty has been generally accepted since 1840 why have those affected by the treaty not abided by the treaty? A treaty is only a treaty as long as both parties abide by what is in it. If one or both parties "break" the treaty is it not therefore null? If this is the case then the treaty was null many many years ago.
Say it again Pete....
Posted on 10-05-2013 17:44 | By The Master
That is a very strange reply Pete, if I understand correctly you have said that the "unsigned" treaty is the real one because it is enacted via the Waitangi Treaty Act of 1975. How strange that is, it is like Parliment passing an act makes the history of NZ for the 200 years prior completely irrelevant and wrong? I can not believe that you would think that nevermind write it here.
Goneburger?
Posted on 14-05-2013 14:08 | By JoeDavies
People who argue that the English version of the Treaty of Waitangi is the official or 'true' version need to research the contra preferentum principle that applies under international law to such treaties. It is the Maori version that is the only valid Treaty of Waitangi.
Contra preferentum gives Maori the benefit of any doubt
Posted on 14-05-2013 22:32 | By Peter Dey
The principle of contra preferentum says that when one party makes up a contract the other party gets the benefit of any doubt. In the case of the Treaty of Waitangi Maori get the benefit of the doubt taking both English and Maori versions into account. Both versions were made up by the Crown. International treaties are covered by the United Nations Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Clause 33 states that where a treaty is in two languages and a 'comparison of texts discloses a difference of meaning, the meaning which best reconciles the texts, having regard to the object and purpose of the treaty, shall be adopted.”
Pete, just another brick in the wall?
Posted on 14-05-2013 22:34 | By Plonker
@ Joe Davies. Yes I agree, the international rule of thumb is that the agreement is in the tougue of the party with whom the agreement is being signed. Although that was a challenge at that time as there was no written Maori Language much prior of any consequence, no problem now with the 20 volumes now and the "Smurfing" of the meanings all over the place to support "Treaty Claims Unlimited Inc" viz WTF Tribunal.
Confirmation again from Pete
Posted on 15-05-2013 11:07 | By YOGI BEAR
Thank you Pete you have just confirned that the fake Freeman version (in English) is actually meaningless, this is of course completely and utterly correct and pretty much what everyione else has been trying to tell you for months ... So we are now all agreed that Tiriti o Waitangi (see for example RORTSCAM 26/4/13) is the only correct treaty document, right Pete
OVERTIME DEY DREAMING
Posted on 15-05-2013 11:18 | By R.Paterson
Mr Dey the ‘Littlewood Draft' is conclusively Hobson's final draft of the Treaty. Simply do the research and acknowledge that only the legitimate maori version of the Tiriti-o-Waitangi was signed at Waitangi on 6 February 1840. Freeman's flowery ‘royal style' back mistranslation (around ½ dozen different versions) followed sometime after the treaty signing and a copy was it seems sent by Freeman to NSW Governor Gipps on 21 February 1840. The Treaty itself was not regarded as having any legal significance until 1975(perhaps not even then) not being recognisable as a treaty in International law. See the Privy Council decision Heu Heu (1941) case which confirmed this. Separatists, revisionists and maori interests have been busy re inventing history since 1975. Please go and read Lord Normanby's 14 August 1839 instructions to Hobson and Lord Russell's 5 December 1840 instructions to Hobson. Also check out www.treatyofwaitangi.net.nz (Clendon's dispatches). Accept the position that the Treaty is a relic of the past and most of us want to live in today's world. Either get over your obsession or if you don't wish to be a NZ citizen sharing equal rights with your fellow citizens, then please move to place where inequality is the state law and where they will grant you special separatism privileges. R Paterson
Pete says
Posted on 15-05-2013 15:39 | By YOGI BEAR
"difference of meaning" between teh two treaties, but if Pete was using the correct translation from 1840 for Maori words of the time then the Maori translation of the treaty matches perfectly the Littlewood final draft. Of course the reason for that was of course that teh Littlewood was translated into Maori, being Tiriti o Waitangi as signed in Waitangi. Looks liek the end of the game for you here Pete?
YOGI
Posted on 15-05-2013 16:48 | By Jimmy
Does it matter wether the "littlewood" treaty is translation TO or FROM Maori? Isn't it more important that they translate back and forth precisely? In all my years i've never heard of 2 things being treated as one when they are completely different but supposedly the same.
R Paterson
Posted on 15-05-2013 18:06 | By Plonker
Yes that about sums it up and Pete has no way around this sample sample of facts. Clearly Pete has a issue but there is a huge gap between the facts of it and the "Story according to Pete". The story line must be beneficial somehow considering teh lenght of time that has elapsed and now the degree of crumbling of the dream-land stuff from before, can't believe the complete turn around from before.
R.Paterson is contradicted by historic fact
Posted on 15-05-2013 19:05 | By Peter Dey
It is a wrong claim by R.Paterson that the copy of the English Treaty sent to Governor Gipps on February 21, 1840 was written after February 6 and is a back-translation of the Maori Treaty. It is a historical fact that copies of our present official English Treaty were sent by Governor Hobson to his superiors on February 5-6 and February 16 as recorded by the British Colonial Office. This official English Treaty was James Busby's first draft. It was therefore written first before the Maori treaty was written. Governor Hobson chose it to be his official version ahead of the final (Littlewood) draft. This makes our official English Treaty genuine and not false, and it makes the Littlewood draft simply a working copy.
Tiriti-o-Waitangi
Posted on 15-05-2013 19:22 | By Plonker
Well if the Freeman versions did not exist on 6/2/1840 then there is just no way that they could ever be considered as real. In fact that means the WFT Tribunal has knowingly relied upon what is not the true treaty.
R.Paterson, relics of the past are not out of date
Posted on 15-05-2013 20:37 | By Peter Dey
R.Paterson refers to the Treaty of Waitangi as a relic of the past and suggests it is out of date. Two other relics of the past are the American Declaration of Independence and the Magna Carta. They are not out of date. R.Paterson produces no evidence to show that the Treaty of Waitangi is out of date. It does not have an expiry date on the bottom. R.Paterson is expressing a personal opinion unsupported by any credible evidence.
YOGI BEAR, there is no fake Freeman version of the Treaty
Posted on 15-05-2013 21:31 | By Peter Dey
There is no fake Freeman version of the Treaty of Waitangi. There is only James Busby's first draft which Governor Hobson adopted as his official English version on February 5-6, 1840. The fact that the Maori Treaty matches the Littlewood final draft does not make the Littlewood draft official. It just makes it a working copy. The fact that the Maori treaty was signed on February 6, 1840 does not make it the only correct Treaty document. Governor Hobson sent both an official English Treaty document and an official Maori Treaty document to his superiors.
Fake Freeman
Posted on 16-05-2013 11:22 | By YOGI BEAR
Good one Pete, you have already said it "means nothing" I would add to that by saying: the freeman does not translate to Tiriti-o-Waitangi, it never existed at Waitangi on 6/2/1840, never was signed. The fact that you have admitted that the Littlewood final draft was translated to Maori Tiriti-o-Waitangi speaks further volumes about the essence of your position as being fatally flawed. The Freeman versions, and there were some 5-6 or something also speaks volumes about it as being "nothing" yet 150 years odd later it is enacted and falsely so. You have verified with now despite previous assertions otherwise, this is an about face and that is overdue, glad to see you are getting onto the trail of "truth" at last.
YOGI BEAR, denying facts loses you credibility
Posted on 16-05-2013 12:50 | By Peter Dey
YOGI BEAR is now just repeating statements that have already been proved wrong or irrelevant. The Waitangi Tribunal uses the official English Treaty version which was sent by Governor Hobson on 6/2/1840 to his superiors. YOGI BEAR has no credibility because he pretends that this is not historic fact when it is in the Colonial Office records. The fact that it was not signed at Waitangi is irrelevant. Only one document needed to be signed at Waitangi. YOGI BEAR says that the English version was never signed but again he has no credibility because an English copy was later signed by Governor Hobson and Waikato Maori. The Waitangi Tribunal is not obliged to use only the Maori version of the Treaty when Governor Hobson's actions make it absolutely clear that he regarded our official English Treaty as the original Treaty.
Befuddled Pete
Posted on 16-05-2013 17:45 | By The Master
You have said "James Busby's first draft" actually Busby was the author of the Littlewood final draft, it was called that because Hobson approved it and that was then translated to Maori between teh 4-6/2/1840. You also say "which Governor Hobson adopted as his official English version on February 5-6, 1840" that is the correct part of what you say. The mistake you are making is referring to one of the Freeman versions, that is impossible as the Freeman only appeared in its many versions late in February 1840 apparently (depends which one you are referring to? but regardless they are all bog paper at best on a bad day in the office ...). It is impossible to have posted the Freeman scibbles to NSW or that they were translated to Maori to be at Waitangi on 6/2/1840 or that Maori even saw it then to even possibly sign it, they did NOT sign it because 'IT DID NOT EXIST ON 6/2/1840'. I a sure you can understand that very simple concept.
Except the name ...
Posted on 16-05-2013 17:52 | By The Master
Pete you are telling the truth, just Change "Freeman" to "Littlewood" being Hobsons final draft prepared by Busby then given to Williams to translate to Maori (all a joint effort) all done and completed by 6/2/1840, the only treaty and the only relvant document. Freeman was not there!
The Master is also denying historical fact
Posted on 16-05-2013 19:24 | By Peter Dey
The Master is the one who is befuddled. Read 'Twisting the Treaty” page 34. It says that James Busby produced a first English Treaty draft on February 3, and the following day produced a final English Treaty draft (the Littlewood draft). James Busby was responsible for both drafts. Governor Hobson sent a copy of James Busby's first draft to his superiors on February 5-6, and made it his official English Treaty version. This is an historical fact as recorded in Colonial Office records. He sent the copy on February 5-6 two days after it was written on February 3. It is wrong to refer to it as Freeman's version when James Busby was in charge.
DONE AND DUSTED
Posted on 16-05-2013 20:20 | By R.Paterson
Looks like everyone is agreed there is only one legitimate Treaty of Waitangi namely the maori version Tiriti o Waitangi and Article 2 refers to 'all the people of New Zealand'. The Littlewood Draft is most certainly William Hobson's 'final draft' prepared by James Busby and translated into maori by Henry Williams & Son. Q.E.D (quad erratum demonstrandum). Treaty no longer serves any useful purpose anyway and this is all very academic .
ENSURE THERE IS ONLY ONE LAW FOR ALL IN NZ
Posted on 17-05-2013 07:58 | By ROCCO
I agree definitively the maori tiriti o waitangi is the only legitimate treaty and conclusively Hobson's final draft aka the Littlewood draft is where it was translated from in English to maori- there is no English treaty. That may be an inconvenient truth for the modern day rorters scammers troughers and other charlatans of this world but there are no 'ifs' or 'buts' about it.SOLUTIONS: reject all references to the Treaty of Waitangi or its so called fabricated principles in any proposed Constitutional document and remove such references from all existing legislation,abolish all race based parliamentary seats along with any race based representation on local authorities, abolish the WTF Waitangi Tribunal and finally oppose separatism in all its forms.Go read Twisting the Treaty (Tross Publication)while you are at it I think that will remove any lingering doubts.
Peter Dey has not been disproved
Posted on 17-05-2013 18:43 | By Peter Dey
Still nobody has disproved anything in Peter Dey's letter. People say there is only one legitimate Treaty but they produce no evidence to disprove the fact that Governor Hobson gave us two legitimate Treaties. The Waitangi Tribunal is correct to use the official English version. The Littlewood draft is only a working copy and is not official.
99% OF LAWS ARE THE SAME FOR ALL
Posted on 17-05-2013 19:37 | By Peter Dey
99% OF New Zealand laws are the same for all. The laws in New Zealand that relate to Maori actually take nothing from Pakeha at all. They are simply an effort to remove disadvantage from Maori. The Treaty of Waitangi gives Maori no special privileges. It only gives Maori the same legal rights as Pakeha. Anti-Maori campaigners are like spoiled children. They think someone else has got something they have not got, and they are whining about it even though they have got much more than the other person anyway.
Paroa Pete
Posted on 18-05-2013 15:22 | By Plonker
No one needs to disprove Peter Dey's letter, he needs to "prove" that it is right and he can't, you can't as the 100% facts of it are clear as Dey already, not even you have presented anything of any use except where of late you have merely confirmed much of what all others are saying. When you haev done that sort of means that all you said before is a waste of time, space and effort and some.
PLONKER, THE EVIDENCE IS IN THE LETTER
Posted on 18-05-2013 17:32 | By Peter Dey
Plonker, Peter Dey has provided the evidence in his letter that proves what he writes. Governor Hobson authorised a legitimate English Treaty and a legitimate Maori Treaty. The evidence that proves this is in the British Colonial Office records and the NZ National Archives. Nobody has disproved this evidence.
Pete a
Posted on 19-05-2013 17:13 | By Plonker
Yet another contradiciton Pete, you have said in your letter that "This ‘official' English version was also signed by Governor Hobson and 45 Waikato chiefs" but a blog or two below you have said the opposite. You need to complete erase your C: drive and reinstall the Operating system mate, the viruses are running the place for you.
There can only be one!
Posted on 20-05-2013 09:18 | By YOGI BEAR
"Real" Treaty Pete, that is how it happens, to do something else only leads to trouble as Maori are doing now by diving inbetween the two and picking the best of both worlds and that certainly was not intended by Hobson nor Maori at that thime.
Leave a Comment
You must be logged in to make a comment.