Mike Butler, Treatygate

473 chiefs signed Treaty that didn't mention water

Mike Butler is one of the experts who have been stocking my brain with Treaty facts for the past year.

This is Mike’s letter in today’s Dominion Post.

He reveals that the Maori Tiriti o Waitangi, which Hobson said was the only true Treaty — and which 473 out of 512 chiefs signed — made no mention of Maori owning fisheries or water.

In fact, Article 2 of the Tiriti — the article that talked about guaranteeing possessions — did not even use the word Maori.

It said that possession of their lands, dwellings and all their property was guaranteed to the chiefs and the tribes and to all the people of New Zealand.

The claim for water rights is a current invention conjured up by the Maori Council and the Waitangi Tribunal.

More evidence that it’s time the Treaty gravy train was sent on a one-way express journey from Wai-tangi to Tangi-wai.

Advertisements

32 thoughts on “473 chiefs signed Treaty that didn't mention water

  1. It’s another fictional invention to gain ever more of money from the long suffering taxpayer. Amazingly all the ‘water stories’ are now suddenly appearing with all sorts of emotions and feelings conjured up to support them.

    I find it totally disgusting that they are now going down this road. They know full well what they are doing and it is fraud on a grand scale. Oh how, they must be laughing behind their hands at how gullible we seem to be.

    They must be shot down in flames (not literally but I sometimes wonder!!) at once and everything to do with the Treaty industry must be dispensed with. It’s becoming a gigantic rort and surely everyone is at last starting to see how they have been hugely duped.

    It has never ceased to surprise me how apathetic the New Zealand people in the main are.

  2. You are right Helen – especially about the apathy. There will be a very big price to pay if a lot more people don’t shake themselves out of that apathy. As a wise man once said: “The price of freedom is eternal vigilance”. As a society we have not been vigilant, and so by stealth claims and assertions that were once unthinkable have become increasingly commonplace. We are also reaping the consequences of allowing a whole generation to be brainwashed by falsehoods. exaggeration and revision of documented history. Dr Goebbels said “the bigger the lie, the more likely it is to be believed” and “a lie repeated often enough becomes the truth”. Chilling stuff, and that evil history is being repeated as we speak.

  3. It does not depend on any particular version of the treaty.
    Under the treaty we were ‘to be’ one people with the rights and priviledges of equal citizens under the Crown, which happened to be Queen Victoria at the time.

    The re-writing and re interpreting of the Treaty by some very recent persons as a Partnership between the Crown and a number of ‘stone age tribes’ beggars belief and deserves nothing but contempt for twisting the language.

  4. You are so right, Don, and the Chiefs confirmed that this was their wish and understanding without any doubt at the Kohimarama Conference 20 years later.

  5. anakereiti, While it may not be what some understand the Tiriti to mean today, there is no doubt the chiefs understood it mean this on the 6th February 1840 at Waitangi, otherwise they would not have shook Governor Hobson’s hand after they had signed the Tiriti with the words, “He iwi tahi tatou – We are now one people”. They even gave him three hearty cheers at the end of the meeting.

  6. of course they cheered Ross. The treaty had been read to them in Maori. They had just been given their own sovereignty and full protection lol. Got their treasures hell they thought they were on a win win

  7. Anakereiti: we can see in the transcriptions of the chiefs’ speeches that they knew full well they were surrendering sovereignty.

    They weren’t stupid. They’d been to England and Australia. They’d read about governors in the Bible.

    They knew what sovereignty was. And they calculated they were better to surrender it, in exchange for the many benefits of being equal citizens of the British Empire.

    And they were right.

    They reiterated as much at Kohimarama in 1860.

    For today’s iwi leaders to claim otherwise just shows what a shameless pack of liars Maori have representing them.

    Isn’t it time an honest Maori stood up and disowned this mob?

    If you believe in a colourblind state (even if you don’t agree with my proposed method of achieving it) why don’t you stand up – and encourage your partner and friends to do the same?

    Otherwise these professional mourners and thieves will continue to give your people a bad name.

    Decent, honest Maori deserve better, don’t you think?

  8. Anakereiti, the final draft in English was also read and they knew exactly what it meant. Just read their speeches after both English and Maori texts were read, they knew exactly what it meant and had been discussing it for months with the Pakeha etc. Hone Heke was the first to sign and he could probable understand English better than many of the Pakeha. He knew exactlty what it meant, he had been to England. If they wanted protection they had to give up all their places/territories and their governments to the Queen. The Laws that followed gave the chiefs and tribes the same rights to their property as Pakeha under English law.

    “The chiefs placed in the hands of the Queen of England, the Sovereignty and authority to make laws”, Sir Apirana Ngata.

  9. Anakereiti, Sir Apirana Ngata also said, “If you think these things are wrong, then blame your ancestors who gave away their rights when they were strong”.

  10. Just quickly – the Kohimarama Conference went on for a month and 112 Chiefs attended the opening, others came later and others wrote in.

    Just counting those confirming that they knew what the Treaty was about I have counted 68 speakers for the first 2 days. I’m not going to count any further.

    A couple of excerpts from randomly selected speeches –

    Paora Tuhaere – ‘The best riches for us are the Laws of England. I want the Laws of England. Hearken, ye people, two things commend themselves to my mind – the Governor and the Queen. For thereby do we, both Pakeha and Maori, reap good.’

    Thomas Walker Nene – ‘I know no Sovereign but the Queen, and I never shall know any other. I am walking by the side of the Pakeha.’

    Tukihaumene – ‘My choice lies with the Governor and the Queen.’

    Makarini – ‘Go to the Governor, and say to him, that the tribes are all true to the Queen.’

    And so it goes on.

    Interestingly quite a number denigrated the idea of a Maori King.

    I hope this answers your question, Anakereiti.

    I endorse what John says and ask why don’t you and your partner stand up and encourage others to do the same. I can assure you it would be beneficial for you and everyone in the long run. It sounds as though you have been fed a long line of untruths.

  11. Rewa, a Catholic chief, who had been influenced by the French Catholic Bishop Pompallier, said “The Māori people don’t want a governor! We aren’t European. – on the 5th of February! We dont want a Governor!! So 40 odd signed the treaty on the 6th, another 100 the next – the rest signed round the country over the next few months.

    Very clearly Rewa was expecting a form of governance – and wasnt happy about that.

    25 Chiefs confirmed allegience at Kohimarama – which is
    quite considerably not the number that signed the Treaty initially.

    Hone Heke first to sign – why yes he may well have been – how many times did he cut down that flagpole, in his anger at what he considered being lied too!

    Yes he clearly understood Maori and English – and obviously felt quite passionately that he had been lied too.Rewas comment confirms the same. He didnt even want governance, so I can quite easily imagine how sovereignty sat with him. Again this indicates that Maori were advised “governance” –

  12. Opinions are like rectums… as everyone has one. Heres mine, again. I REITERATE open the North Head Devonport caves and tunnels and let the FACTS speak for themselves whilst reinstating the penalty for TREASON and holding those responsible for the CORRUPTION of our DEMOCRACY and TRUE ANCIENT HISTORY TO ACCOUNT. End of story, problem solved now please have a wee lie down girl 🙂 and take stock of events that have transpired of late, build a bridge and get over it. Peace out!.

  13. ORIGIN OF THE WEST COAST DIFFICULTY.

    Tuapeka Times, Volume XIV, Issue 787, 9 November 1881, Page 6 

    (From the Evening Star”)

    The difficulties in which the Colony has been involved, in respect of Native matters on the West Coast, although, explained in our columns and those of our contemporaries, would seem to be very imperfectly understood; and we find candidates in addressing those whom they hope in future to regard as constituents, platform orators, and contributors to the correspondence columns of newspapers, manifesting conspicuous ignorance of the real facts of the case.

    We will endeavor to state these in as succinct and intelligible a form as the complicated nature of the transactions allows.

    The great Waikato war was fought out in 1863-64, ending in the complete defeat of the King party in the Waikato and Tauranga.

    This war was, however, hardly over in these districts when it broke out fiercely on the West Coast, and thence spread across the island to the East, involving tribes that had either not at all or only partially been engaged in previous hostilities.

    The Natives resident in the country between Waitotara and Patea, the extreme northern portion of the then Wellington Province, belonging to the Ngatiruanui and Wanganui tribes, had sold a block of land to the Government immediately adjoining the Waitotara River to the north.

    This land was being occupied by settlers, and a road was in course of construction, when emissaries from the Ngatiruanui tribe residing further north, in the neighborhood of the Waimate Plains, came down the coast and attacked the road parties.

    Early in 1865 General Cameron took the field with several regiments of Imperial troops and large militia and Native contingents, and a campaign began which lasted several months, ending in the complete defeat of the insurgent tribes nearly all of whose people had been engaged in the hostilities.

    At the end of this war in September, 1865, the whole coast from Wanganui to New Plymouth was confiscated under the powers of the New Zealand Settlements Act.

    The Natives, however, were not driven from their territory.

    They were all, by very liberal arrangements of the Government, restored to a large portion of their country, and continued in seemingly friendly relations for nearly three years.

    Then again, in 1888, the West Coast Natives, under Tito Kowaru, rose in rebellion, and swept away nearly all the settlements over a space of forty miles which in the interval had been planted between Waitotara and Waingongoro.

    This outbreak ended in the defeat of Tito Kowaru.

    The country being again open for settlement was re-occupied, and afterwards the people of certain tribes were brought back and settled on reserves defined and surveyed for them by the Government, where they have continued to live to the present day.

    North of the Waingongoro River, however, it would appear from the reports of the West Coast Commission, complications in regard to making suitable provision for loyal Natives and for reserves were never satisfactorily adjusted, and it was the intention of effecting such adjustment, and thus removing all reasonable ground of disaffection on the part of the resident Natives, that the Commission was appointed.

    The recommendations of the Commission, the immediate steps taken by the Government to give these effect by special legislation, and the extremely liberal manner in which it was proposed to deal with all the Natives who possess original tribal interests in the confiscated territory, are now matters of history.

    All efforts to settle matters on a fair and equitable basis have been thwarted by Te Whiti and his adherents, and the present action of the Government has been rendered necessary in the interests of the Colony and of the Native race itself.

    Let us now consider what is the true position of the Native tribes under the confiscation, this being a subject very imperfectly understood.

    The confiscation was made in the following form:

    “The Governor (Sir George Grey), in the exercise of the power vested in him by the (New Zealand Settlements) Act, doth hereby, with the advice and consent of the Executive Council, set apart as eligible sites for colonisation the lands (on the West Coast), and doth declare that the (said) lands are required for the purposes of the said Act, and are subject to the provisions thereof, and doth reserve and take such lands for such purposes; and doth hereby, declare that no land of any loyal inhabitant within the said districts, whether held by Native custom or under Crown grant, will be taken except so far as may be absolutely necessary for the security of the country, compensation being for all land so taken and, further, that all rebel inhabitants of the said districts who come in within a reasonable time and make submission to the Queen will receive a sufficient quantity of land under grant from the Crown.”

    This Proclamation was heralded by another called the “Proclamation of Peace,” issued the same day, containing these words:

    “Out of the lands which have been confiscated at Taranaki and Ngatiruanui the Governor will at once restore considerable quantities to those of the Natives who wish to settle down on their lands, to hold them under Crown grants, and to live under the protection of the law.”

    The effect of these Proclamations was broadly this: The land of the rebels was confiscated; the land of the loyal Natives was preserved to them.

    The New Zealand Settlements Act empowered the Governor to proclaim districts and to reserve or take any land in a proclaimed district, and enacted that so soon as he declared any land so taken to be “required for the purposes of the Act, and subject to its provisions,” it immediately became “Crown land, freed and discharged from all title, interest, and claim of any person whomsoever.”

    Technically, therefore, the confiscating words extinguished the Native title, over the whole territory and Vested the estate in the Queen.

    The Proclamation was thus effectual to take all land, but it was equally effectual in its promise not to keep the land of any loyal Native, so far as such a promise could, in the nature of things, be redeemed.

    As a fact, Governor Sir Geo. Grey restored their land to certain chiefs of hapus and the loyal sections of the Taranaki and Ngatiruanui tribes.

    The position taken up by Te Whiti, who, it must be remembered, was never in active rebellion, was that the confiscation was altogether illegal and he himself and those resident Natives whom he could influence have refused to avail themselves of the “Proclamation of Peace,” whilst still persisting in occupying just such portions of the confiscated territory as they pleased, and obstructing European settlement in any portion of the area included.

    When the Commission was appointed, the Commissioners were given to understand that Te Whiti, encouraged thereto by certain Pakeha-Maoris, intended to contest before them the legality of the confiscation.

    Seeing that any useful result to the inquiry was hopeless if it were thus allowed to drift into impractical channels, the Commissioner at the outset told the Natives that they were not there to discuss such questions, but to learn what grievances they had, “so that the Governor might make good the faith of the country by giving them what successive Governments had promised.”

    Te Whiti and his adherents therefore ignored the Commission altogether, declining either to prosecute their claims or to come to any terms whatever.

    “It was not only,” says the third report, “the opposition of the Natives we had to meet.

    Strenuous efforts had long been, used to make the Natives believe that the confiscation was illegal and could be successfully contested in our Courts.

    There was money to be got by instilling this delusion into the Native mind; money to be got by litigation; money to be got meanwhile by jobbing in Maori land.

    Nor were wanting harpies that had infested the Coast for years, rogues whose trade was to poison the Native people against the Government and baffle every endeavor after peace.”

    Copied from: http://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/cgi-bin/paperspast?a=d&d=TT18811109.2.26&cl=search&srpos=39&e=——-10–31—-0native+claims+land+confiscation–&st=1

  14. I posted this on another blog and thought I would copy and paste it here.

    On September 17, 2012 at 4:50 pm Trina said:
    I think what is critical to understand is that we are not challenging Maori or their culture.

    What we are challenging are groups of neo tribal elitists who have created an industry out of the Treaty and are now accumulating their wealth through what Elizabeth Rata (2011) refers to as ‘collective capitalisation’ at the expense of all New Zealanders and our country.

    Back in the 1970′s our country shifted from class politics to identity politics.

    From the 1970′s through to the late 1980′s ‘inclusive bicultural’ policies and ideals were put into action to help bring Maori from the social fringes and into the mainstream.

    The adoption of social justice policies, cultural and language revival, and historical reparations were intended to help Maori with their integration (Rata, 2011; 2011).

    In 1985, government extended the jurisdiction of the Waitangi tribunal to investigate claims back to 1840 (Butler, 2011).

    From this point onwards, the original intention of inclusive biculturalism i.e to benefit all Maori, has been derailed by corporate tribes who have been able to claim their tribal existence back to 1840 (Rata, 2011; 2011).

    It was from the late 1980′s that tribal groups who were identified over this period, emerged as corporate tribes with political and economic ambitions, claiming a direct relationship with Government (Rata, 2011;2011).

    During the Clarke Labour Government, historical claims lodged after 1 September 2008 were closed off, then, in 2009, the National Government signed the United Nations Declaration on the ‘Rights of Indigenous Peoples’ which has opened up claims based on customary rights (Butler, 2011), i.e Foreshore and Seabed ; Water ; Wind etc.

    Over this entire period the neo-tribal Iwi elitists have accumulated incredible wealth, which is not been distributed to those who identify as Maori but are outside the ‘collective’ because they do not know what tribe they are from (Rata, 2011).

    The following quote from David Round (2000) cited in Rata (2011) illustrates that it is not the intention of Iwi neo-tribalists to use the wealth generated from Treaty settlements as a means to improve the social circumstances of their fellow Maori citizens :

    Sir Robert Mahuta, for example, declared in the 1997 Tainui Trust Board annual report that, regardless of the latest Treaty settlement, it was the Crown and not the tribe, who had the duty to provide proper health care, welfare, housing, employment and all the basic needs of the Maori people. (Round, 2000: 669).

    The following quote from Rata (2011) illustrates how all of the promotion of cultural revival that dismisses anything ‘Pakeha’ and the current negative statistics among Maori citizens actually assists the Tribal elitists position:

    The poor, locked out of modernity’s progress by an ideology that dismisses progress as ‘Western’, serve their time in an ahistorical timelessness.

    This is the stasis captured in Peter Sutton’s (2009) account of the
    degradation of re-indigenized Australian Aborigines. While indigenous elites operate in the real historical world, those they represent must remain fixed as the people in whose name indigenous politics can operate.

    In this way, indigeneity as a discourse of self-determination becomes complicit in incarcerating ordinary people in a polity that allows no contestation, despite the inequalities of class division.

    Tribal politics in New Zealand exemplifies this process. (Rata, 2011)

    Butler M (2011) Money for Nothing – Treaty Settlements 1989 -2011, Analysis and Commentary : http://www.nzcpr.com/guest255.htm

    Rata E (2011) Discursive Strategies of the Maori Tribal Elite: http://coa.sagepub.com/content/31/4/359.abstract

    Rata E (2011) The Unintended Outcomes of Institutionalising Ethnicity: The Case of Maori Education in New Zealand: https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=The+case+of+maori+Education+in+New+Zealand+-+Rata&oq=The+case+of+maori+Education+in+New+Zealand+-+Rata&gs_l=serp.12…4718.19546.1.23765.48.41.3.0.0.25.500.13574.2-18j17j5j1.41.0.les%3B..0.0…1c.1.fKOJzo8Tm10&psj=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=bd22cf44af930e63&biw=1270&bih=569

    On September 17, 2012 at 6:53 pm Trina said:
    I should add that Elizabeth Rata’s credentials are as follows:

    Associate Professor Elizabeth Rata is Deputy Head of School (Research) in Critical Studies in Education.

    She is a sociologist of education specialising in the relationship between education and society.

    Dr Rata is Editor of Pacific-Asian Education, Leader of the Knowledge and Education Research Group, a member of a European Union International Research Staff Exchange Scheme, and a former Fulbright Senior Scholar to Georgetown University, Washington D.C.

    Copied from: http://www.nzcpr.com/guest305.htm

    The above link will also take you to a article Elizabeth Rata wrote for NZCPR called An Argument against Iwi Claims to Constitutional Recognition and Public Resources.

  15. Here’s something to blow away claims to the veracity of Maori oral history. Historian Judith Binney explained, within the Maori oral tradition, there is ‘a continuous dialectic’ between past and present, where the past is reordered and the present reinterpreted (Binney 1987). The cycle of traditions about the people, land and events is dynamic, not static, where the words of the ancestors ‘exist still in memory, wrought into oral tradition, and they themselves can be encountered as they appear to the living’ (Binney 1987: 17).

    In other words, history is constantly re-interpreted according to the present. While this is probably true in non-Maori history, but the problem becomes more complex when the sources are oral. With nothing written, not only is the interpretation shifting, the facts, dates, and details of events continue to shift, so that what was true in 1840 could be something completely different in 1940, and again in 2012, especially when there are incentives for it to be different.

  16. Very interesting, Mike, but why am I not surprised? I have always said that stories change in the telling and I’ve long doubted that these oral stories that Maori say have been passed down, were the same as the first time the story was told. You have just confirmed it.

  17. We would be niave to think there are not some deliberate distortions of Maori history going on in the Tribunal.

    Look at the multi million dollar motivation they have to tweak and twist a few things.

    Have people not committed murder for less?

  18. Thanks again for the links provided above Trina. Some fascinating Sunday morning there …. particularly Prof. Elizabeth Rata’s exposure of “culturalist” polices in NZ education. What a profoundly stupid situation !!!

  19. Yes Trina ….. but certainly working extremely well in terms of turning Maori “under achievers” into future very successful “grievers” capable of using their “Maoriness” to rort the system

  20. From Ross Baker, who’s having trouble connecting:

    Anakereiti: you stated Hone Heke had a win/win situation when he signed the Treaty, but he had been lied to by Hobson.

    I agree he had a win/win situation, but Hobson did not lie to him.

    Under English law,

    “the chiefs and tribes and all the people of New Zealand had full chieftainship/possession of their lands, their settlements and their property … as long as they did not transgress the law “.

    Governor Hobson wrote that.

    Heke’s first win: he had the seat of government in Ngapuhi land, which would bring many Pakeha and trade to Ngapuhi.

    Heke’s second win: he had the protection of the British from the southern tribes that were accumulating muskets.

    His uncle Hongi Hika, a decade or so before the Treaty was signed, had slaughtered an estimated 60,0000 of his unarmed southern countrymen, and they were now about to travel north, fully armed for utu/revenge.

    There was also the fear that France was about to alienate New Zealand.

    Maori feared the French after the encounter with the La Favourite a few years earlier.

    The chiefs chose the British over all other nations.

    Hone Heke got very upset when Hobson decided to shift the seat of Government to Auckland, killing off his trade.

    And Hobson’s enforced English law over the country, as promised by the Treaty, took away Heke’s power or mana over his people.

    While at first Tamati Waka Nene agreed with some of Heke’s concerns, once Heke cut the flag pole down and attacked and burnt Russell to the ground, Tamati Waka Nene and his followers sided with the Government.

    After many long and hard-fought battles between Hone Heke and Tamati Waka Nene, his brother Patuoane and the British troops, Hone Heke laid down his arms and peace was established in the north.

    Later Heke gave his treasured greenstone mere to the Governor as a peace offering.

    It must also be remembered these chiefs had been born and bred warriors for hundreds of years.

    They were not going to be tamed over night.

    Most signed the Treaty, as they realised they had to stop the fighting if they were to survive.

    While some such as Hone Heke agreed to the Treaty on the day, it took them a while to surrender their power/mana to one sovereignty, one government, and one law.

  21. The primary cause of Hone Heke’s rebellion was the loss of his former, pre-treaty, very lucrative enterprises.

    Among the Bay of Island’s chiefs, including Hone Heke, Titore and Pomare, they had done very well indeed in collecting port-levies, running prostitution rings and supplying visiting sailors with alcohol.

    ‘Heke’s dissatisfaction with the state of maritime trade after 1840 is scarcely to be wondered at, seeing that in addition to the returns from the sale of food-supplies to the whalemen he had collected a kind of Customs dues from visiting ships.

    Before the British flag was hoisted he and his cousin Titore divided a levy of £5 on each ship entering the Bay.

    They collected their dues from the ships outside the anchorage, boarding them in their canoes before Tapeka Point was rounded.

    Many ships sailed up to the anchorages off Wahapu and Otuihu, in the passage to the Kawakawa and Waikare, and here Pomare collected his toll from each ship, for he was the paramount chief of the inner waters.

    Pomare also was the principal agent in the disreputable but profitable business of supplying girls as temporary wives to the crews of the whaleships during their stay in port.

    This was a leading line of Maori traffic with the shipping in unscrupulous old Kororareka and Otuihu, which not even the strong mission influence could extirpate.’

    (See: The New Zealand Wars, Vol. 1, pg. 16.)

    But then, after the treaty was signed, all such customs or other levies were funnelled into government coffers to help build the infrastructure of New Zealand and Hone’s money supply dried up.

    ‘In 1841, in a Government Ordinance, Customs duties were set forth in a brief schedule.

    All spirits, British, paid 4s. per gallon to the Customs; all other spirits, foreign, 5s.

    Tobacco, after the 1st January, 1842, was to pay 1s. per pound on the manufactured article and 9d. per pound on the unmanufactured; snuff and cigars, 2s. per pound.

    Tea, sugar, flour, and grain were taxed £5 on every £100 of value; wine, £15 per £100; all other foreign goods, £5 per £100.

    In 1844 firearms were taxed 30 per cent.’

    (See: The New Zealand Wars, Vol. 1, pg. 17.)

    ‘As well as trading in the staple products of potatoes, pork, and timber, Pomare II became a major dealer in spirits as well as profiting from gambling and the sexual services of slave women.

    In 1840 he ventured into tourism by charging members of Commander Wilkes’ United States Exploring Expedition one shilling each to view a ‘war dance’ and a sexually explicit performance by the women’

    (See: Chiefs of Industry by Hazel Petrie, pg. 42.)

    But then the seat of government moved from the Bay of Islands to Auckland in 1841, as Surveyor General, Felton Mathew had declared that the topography of the Bay of Islands landscape made it totally unsuitable as the location of a capital city.

    Also, the harbour at the Bay of Islands was wide open to the prevailing ESE wind, which often had the effect of locking ships in the bay for days on end until the wind changed direction.

    Shallows extended far from shore and landing people & supplies was often difficult due to breaking waves at the shore-line.

    Thereafter, the whaling ships and most other international vessels tended to congregate at Auckland as the major port of call and the Bay of Islands became an abandoned back-water.

    Another contributing factor to Hone Heke’s rebellion was when one of his former Taranaki female-slaves, Kotiro, publicly insulted him:

    ‘It was in 1844 that Heke came to the decision to use the setting-up of the flagstaff and the driving-away of the whalers as a take, or pretext.

    Shortly, he made a raid upon Kororareka with a strong war-party, on a taua muru, or punitive plundering expedition.

    This excursion seems to have been devised chiefly with a view to testing the temper of the whites and ascertaining what resistance he was likely to meet with in his campaign against the kara, the colours on Maiki Hill.

    The taua was by way of retaliation for an insult, serious in Maori eyes, offered by a woman in the township.

    This woman was Kotiro, a native of Taranaki, who had been led away captive by Ngapuhi fifteen years previously.

    She had been given to Heke as a slave.

    When she had been for some years at the Bay of Islands she married a Scottish blacksmith named Gray: one of her children was Sophia Hinerangi, the celebrated guide at Te Wairoa and Whakarewarewa, Rotorua, in after-years.

    When Gray died, Kotiro became the wife of another white man, Lord, who kept a store, lodginghouse, and butcher’s shop on Kororareka beach.

    One day she was bathing in the bay with a number of other women when an altercation occurred.

    The name of Hone Heke was mentioned, whereon Kotiro contemptuously called him an “upoko poaka” (“pig’s head”).

    This was a kanga, or curse, in Maori notion; and the women promptly sent word thereof to Heke.

    The taua muru was the sequel.

    Heke began to plunder Lord’s store; the trader compromised by offering a cask of twist tobacco as compensation for the insult.

    This offer being accepted, Lord asked for time to procure a cask of tobacco from the rear of the store; but this time he employed in cutting the cask into halves—it was the only one he had in stock.

    He then endeavoured to pass the half-cask on to the Maoris as a whole one, whereupon there was a furious uproar.

    Heke and his men partly looted the store; the woman Kotiro they carried off.

    This was on Friday, 5th July, 1844.

    For the next three days the war-party remained in the town, the young bloods swaggering into stores and private houses alike, seizing whatever they fancied.

    On the 8th July the flagstaff on Maiki Hill was cut down.’

    (See: The New Zealand Wars, Vol. 1, pp. 17-18).

    Another contributing factor was a clause in Article II of the Treaty of Waitangi, which forbade Maori to sell land privately, but only to the Queen’s designated government representative:

    ‘The correctness of Colenso’s fears that the natives did not understand the implications and effect of a provision of the Treaty conferring on the Crown the right of pre-emption are substantiated by the natives subsequent dissatisfaction with this clause, which later had to be waived by Hobson in favour of the New Zealand Company and also by Governor Fitzroy.

    The failure of the Crown to exercise its right of pre-emption [exclusive right of purchase], thereby preventing the natives from selling sufficient land to satisfy their desire for European products became a source of grievance and was a contributing factor to the outbreak of Heke’s rebellion’

    (See: William Colenso by A.G. Bagnall & G.C. Petersen, 1948, pg. 97.)

  22. Te Tiriti o Waitangi (the Maaori language version) signed by the majority of Rangatira (chiefs) does not have to have specifically mentioned water. The relevant clause in Article 2 of Te Tiriti is “ratou taonga katoa.” – literally all our treasures – that is, possession of all those things seen and unseen which hapu require/d to be independent and self-sustaining was guaranteed.

    You state that the word maaori (which literally means normal, every-day) was not mentioned in Te Tiriti. Again, this did not have to be mentioned – Maaori is the British label for tangata whenua and “back then”, the only people referred to as New Zealanders were in fact Maaori.

    So your italicised “all the people of New Zealand” was not referring to people who are in the overwhelming majority today. You need to appreciate that Te Tiriti was negotiated at a time where there were maybe 2000 British settlers present in a country of between 200 000 and 500 000 tangata whenua. Furthermore the “lingua franca” was te reo Maaori (which is referred to as to reo rangatira). Probably the one person who spoke only english, on Feb. 6, 1840 was William Hobson. The first international document where the independence of “Niu Tireni” was declared by Rangatira was the 1835 Declaration of Independence.

    You bitch and moan about “Griever Maaori” (your pathetic label) and the so-called “Treaty gravy train.” There was not one single outcry about tax-payer dollars when the Key Govt. bailed out South Canterbury Finance for $1.6 billion – and that surely was an example of directors’ incompetence, if not corruption. To date, Treaty Settlements have totalled LESS THAN $1 billion and most of these settlements have been at 2% of their real commercial value. The Ngai Tahu claim settled at $170 million was worth $28 billion. Why do you not focus on inequities CEOs’ pay packets (between 2004 and 2010, or 2011) which have risen 80% compared with 27% for other NZ workers?

  23. Marie: You are quite right that taonga today means “all things seen and unseen”.

    Or in other words, anything that Maori want or need in their lives – whether or not their fellow countrymen also need it.

    But that is most certainly not what it meant in 1840.

    Look in the only dictionary current at the time (linguistic consultant: chief Hongi Hika).

    You’ll see that taonga was defined as property procured by the spear, etc.

    Need a second opinion? Check the next dictionary that came out in 1844.

    Definition: property.

    The first mention of treasure was not till years later.

    And even if taonga had meant treasure in 1840, a warring stone age cannibal chief’s idea of treasure was objects that allowed him to stay alive in a harsh environment.

    Objects that gave him an edge over the next chief wanting to kill and eat him.

    Objects like tomahawks, muskets, spades, hoes, hammers and nails – AKA “the white man’s steel tools”.

    Not abstract notions of language (which was hardly under threat) or radio waves.

    In other words, today’s Griever Maori are just making it up as they go along.

    With their absurdly unfair claims, these diluted descendants of Maori are, in effect, demanding that their fellow New Zealanders pay them a licence fee for the use of New Zealand.

    How do you expect your countrymen (many of us undiluted descendants of the men who built modern New Zealand – with little help from Maori, I might add) to feel about that?

    You yourself are making up ludicrous population figures.

    There’s no way there were anything like 500,000 Maori in New Zealand in 1840, or even 200,000.

    Working back from the 1853 (I think was the year) census figures, using a reasonable annual rate of increase, Dr John Robinson estimates there were 70,000.

    I agree that South Canterbury Finance should not have been bailed out. But at least that was a one-off payment, not a never-ending rort like the Grievance Industry ransoms.

    What you are forgetting when you only calculate the cost of Treaty settlements are the hundreds of millions that taxpayers pay for Maori-only programmes every year.

    I will soon be doing a blog post totalling these, and it makes the Treaty settlements look quite minor.

    Also the $1 billion does not include the value of non-cash items in the settlements, including a considerable amount of land and property.

    And to value Ngai Tahu’s outrageous windfall as only a fraction of what they should have got is ridiculous.

    The politicians who agreed to pay $170 million to the descendants of 2000 people max on the grounds that they ‘owned’ the entire South Island should be locked up for treason.

    The fact is, these people (who were not originally South Islanders anyway) only pottered about in tiny enclaves near the coast.

    They had no clue about farming or forestry, so regarded the interior as surplus to requirements – which is why they sold virtually the whole South Island before 1840.

    It was the British whose efforts and initiative increased the value of the land, so for Maori to claim the added value shows just how greedy and dishonest these Grievers are.

  24. Marie, the Tiriti o Waitangi makes no mention of tangata whenua, they were called tangata maori.

    Tangata whenua were already inhabiting New Zealand when the tangata maori arrived.

    This was confirmed by Dr Ranginui Walker’s comment in the 1986 New Zealand Book of Events:

    “The traditions are quite clear, wherever crews disembarked there were already tangata whenua(prior inhabitants). The canoe people of the 14th century merged with these tangata whenua tribes. From this time on, the traditions abound with accounts of tribal wars over land and its resources”.

    The Tiriti only mentions, the chiefs, the hapu, the tangata maori and “all the people of New Zealand”.

    As the chiefs had sold or had contracts over 2/3 of New Zealand at the time the Tiriti was signed, Article Two also had to guarantee “to all the people of New Zealand” (non-Maori) the possession of their lands, their settlements and all their property, the same that was guaranteed to the chiefs and hapu.

    It could be said that at the time the Tiriti was signed, tangata maori were minor stakeholders in New Zealand.

    After the Tiriti was signed, some of these contracts were either rejected or reduced in size by the Colonial Government.

    Those who could not afford to defend their contracts in the Courts, or whose contracts were rejected or reduced in size, had their land returned – without refund or compensation – to the chiefs who had agreed to sell it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s