Littlewood Treaty & The Treaty of Wai...

Littlewood Treaty & The Treaty of Waitangi

Posted in the New Zealand Forum

First Prev
of 15
Next Last

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#1 Nov 14, 2012
the Littlewood Treaty was discovered in 1989 and is now challenging the Treaty industry...

http://youtu.be/2PE-j9ZOhrg

“Tino Rangatiratanga”

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#2 Nov 16, 2012
No it isn't. It isn't even a treaty in any meaningful sense give that nobody ever signed it!

http://www.victoria.ac.nz/stout-centre/resear...

Since: Nov 08

Auckland

#3 Nov 16, 2012
And so says That Maori Guy. Our very own revisionist historian.

“Tino Rangatiratanga”

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#4 Nov 16, 2012
On the contrary, Guts. Issues of interpretation or how it came into existence aside, the fact that no-one signed it is the proverbial elephant in the room. The fact that no-one signed it means that it has no standing, and cannot purport to represent the wishes of anyone.

Are you suggesting that a treaty signed by nobody should trump one that was signed?

Revision indeed!

“Educating Utus”

Since: Aug 10

Papakura, New Zealand

#5 Nov 18, 2012
Part Maori Guy wrote:
No it isn't. It isn't even a treaty in any meaningful sense give that nobody ever signed it!
http://www.victoria.ac.nz/stout-centre/resear...
You seem to have missed the point again part Maori guy. The Littlewood Treaty is the one the Maori version was translated from in 1840 and doesn't mention forests and fisheries and includes all NZrs, not just Maori and the Crown. It appears the Waitangi Tribunal and the govt negotiators have been using an out of date version.

http://www.investigatemagazine.com/jan4treaty...

“Tino Rangatiratanga”

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#6 Nov 18, 2012
If it were at all possible for you to be intellectually honest and considerate of all of the forensic evidence rather than simply defaulting to a position that supports your racist ideology, then you’d surely reconsider your view given James Clendon’s own clear and unambiguous statement that the Littlewood Treaty is in fact a back-translation of Te Tiriti, a fact Martin Doutre is unable to explain away.

Also, you’d have to wonder, surely, what type of Treaty would be worth signing if it didn’t include the guarantee of forests and fisheries given that these are both prized and important material resources for Maori people at the time. To suggest that these were not understood as taonga and that Maori consciously and deliberately disregarded them makes people like you look foolish.

The term ‘New Zealanders’ as it was used then meant Maori, as people of British origin were typically referred to separately as British, English, or European etc.

Since: Nov 08

Auckland

#7 Nov 18, 2012
That Maori Guy wrote:
If it were at all possible for you to be intellectually honest and considerate of all of the forensic evidence rather than simply defaulting to a position that supports your racist ideology, then you’d surely reconsider your view given James Clendon’s own clear and unambiguous statement that the Littlewood Treaty is in fact a back-translation of Te Tiriti, a fact Martin Doutre is unable to explain away.
Also, you’d have to wonder, surely, what type of Treaty would be worth signing if it didn’t include the guarantee of forests and fisheries given that these are both prized and important material resources for Maori people at the time. To suggest that these were not understood as taonga and that Maori consciously and deliberately disregarded them makes people like you look foolish.
The term ‘New Zealanders’ as it was used then meant Maori, as people of British origin were typically referred to separately as British, English, or European etc.
If it were at all possible for you to be intellectually honest, why would the Crown have signed such a one way Treaty that provides all the benefits to Maori and little in the way of benefit to the Commonwealth?

Your last sentence is bullshit. The term New Zealander as it was used then meant exactly that...New Zealander. If they meant Maori, they would have said Maori.

Revision, revision, revision. Always to suit your own greedy, selfish, racist agenda.

“Tino Rangatiratanga”

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#8 Nov 18, 2012
Nice way to imitate me Guts. Do you know what they say about imitation and flattery?

What’s “one way” about it? The Treaty gave Pakeha the right to settle in NZ and to govern (the degree of which depends on which treaty text is being considered) and in return guaranteed the material possessions that Maori already had prior to British intervention, and the rights of British subjects.

Your assumption that ‘New Zealanders’ as it was used in the context of the period and that it meant the same thing then as it does now is easy to make, but it’s incorrect. For one thing, Maori, being a tribal people, self identified on the basis of tribe. The word ‘Maori’ used collectively to differentiate between people of any Maori iwi as distinct from settlers came later.

The term ‘New Zealanders’ to mean Maori appears in several documents as well as in parliamentary debates dating from this period. The terms: native, aborigine and New Zealander were often used synonymously to mean Maori.

Since: Nov 08

Auckland

#9 Nov 18, 2012
That Maori Guy wrote:
Nice way to imitate me Guts. Do you know what they say about imitation and flattery?
What’s “one way” about it? The Treaty gave Pakeha the right to settle in NZ and to govern (the degree of which depends on which treaty text is being considered) and in return guaranteed the material possessions that Maori already had prior to British intervention, and the rights of British subjects.
Your assumption that ‘New Zealanders’ as it was used in the context of the period and that it meant the same thing then as it does now is easy to make, but it’s incorrect. For one thing, Maori, being a tribal people, self identified on the basis of tribe. The word ‘Maori’ used collectively to differentiate between people of any Maori iwi as distinct from settlers came later.
The term ‘New Zealanders’ to mean Maori appears in several documents as well as in parliamentary debates dating from this period. The terms: native, aborigine and New Zealander were often used synonymously to mean Maori.
I can assure you that you are last person I want to imitate...or flatter, come to think of it.

It certainly seems to be getting more and more 'one way', the more that people like you revise history to suit your greedy agenda. There is NO WAY any colonising nation would put forward such a daft notion as you've described it. To colonise a country, yet leave everything for the natives...including land, water and air. Especially the bit where the British right to govern is questioned in the manner we witness today (by you, and others on the gravy train). Like I said, get all the benefits, without sacrificing a thing. That's a crock, and you know it.

Nice bullshit way to dismiss the 'New Zealander" description too, by the way. Now we can see clearly where the term "cunning as a Maori dog" comes from. Revision, revision, revision. With that type of crap, surely we could rewrite the history of the whole of mankind and expect everyone to believe.

“Tino Rangatiratanga”

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#10 Nov 19, 2012
Gutsfull wrote:
<quoted text>
Your last sentence is bullshit. The term New Zealander as it was used then meant exactly that...New Zealander. If they meant Maori, they would have said Maori.
Revision, revision, revision. Always to suit your own greedy, selfish, racist agenda.
It’s a shame that you are so arrogantly dismissive. I can understand that you might be surprised to learn that the term New Zealander in the context of 1840 (and prior) meant Maori, but for you to call BS about something you clearly have no appreciation of is, if nothing else, an indictment of your prejudice and unwillingness to consider new information.

New Zealand was known to Europeans as New Zealand before 1840, and so it shouldn’t be controversial to learn that the indigenous inhabitants who were virtually 99% of the population were also known as New Zealanders. At the time of the signing of the Treaty settlers typically referred to themselves as British or European as I’ve already mentioned. There was no naturalization process by which they became or thought of themselves as New Zealanders. This wouldn’t happen until much later.

For the sake of engaging you in open dialog in good faith, I’ve listed a number of links to references which unambiguously use the term New Zealander to mean Maori as used by prominent Europeans of the day:

Charles Darwin
http://darwin-online.org.uk/converted/Ancilla...

Edward Shortland
http://www.amazon.com/Traditions-Superstition...

Joel Samuel Polack
http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/biographies/1p18/...

Rev. William Yate
http://www.bushmansfriend.co.nz/naming-native...

John Bidwill
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Rambles_in_New_...

Marianne Williams
http://nzhistory.blogspot.com/2011/03/belich-...

Search for ‘New Zealanders’.

I can list several more, including Henry Williams, Edward Gibbon Wakefield, and Charles Heaphy but these exist in books for which I cannot find any online resource.

Obviously, Guts, it isn’t a matter of ‘revision’ and I wasn’t BS-ing. I accept your apology ;-)
true blue kiwi

Endeavour Hills, Australia

#11 Nov 20, 2012
I am so, so, so, OVER.. the Treaty of Waitangi, crap, plz excuse my french. Maori land activists, demanding this, wanting that. I was at the East Coast of N.Z. living and working there, when the so-called bunch of thugs.. who called themselves Maori Rastafarians, were running riot up and down the coast, burning churches, terrorising innocent kiwis. They did not represent the Maori, at all..wannabe thugs who went as far as chopping the head of a male person. This was in the early 1980s, from what I recall. They were demanding land rights, etc, on the basis, that they were wronged by the white man blah blah. Whatever, just go get a job, educate yourself and work hard, then and ONLY... can these so-called land activists have the right to say, YES, THIS IS MINE(be it a car, house, etc), because they have worked for it, with their own hands, and brains. Leave the past in the past and just get on with life, be you Maori, or whatever race.

“Tino Rangatiratanga”

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#12 Nov 20, 2012
No comment, Guts? I suppose you're still working on that humble pie. That was a rather large piece you cut for yourself.

Bon apitite!

Since: Nov 08

Auckland

#13 Nov 20, 2012
That Maori Guy wrote:
No comment, Guts? I suppose you're still working on that humble pie. That was a rather large piece you cut for yourself.
Bon apitite!
Settle down and wipe the drool from your mouth, Maori Guy. I haven't got around to checking all your (no doubt one sided) links yet.

And I feel I must request you pull your head in. Sorry to burst your bubble, but you're not the one-stop authoritative source on Maori issues you try to make out to be.

Since: Nov 08

Auckland

#14 Nov 21, 2012
That Maori Guy wrote:
<quoted text>

For the sake of engaging you in open dialog in good faith, I’ve listed a number of links to references which unambiguously use the term New Zealander to mean Maori as used by prominent Europeans of the day:
So. You point me to a bunch of sites that show the term New Zealander being used in context of it meaning Maori. But the term Maori also appears prolifically throughout most of the same texts, as does the term 'native' and 'Native New Zealanders.

But seriously, Maori Guy, if a document of this magnitude was being drawn up, would it not be a certainty that the two main parties to the agreement would be clearly identified? By the use of the word, ooh I don't know...maybe 'native', or even 'native of New Zealand' when referring to the people indigenous to the land? Oh wait...there it is. Third Article: "the Queen of England extends to the Natives of New Zealand Her royal protection..." Crikey.

Riddle me this Batman...was the treaty signed between Maori and the Crown, or between New Zealanders and the Crown?

As an aside, if there is even the tiniest possibility of ambiguity in relation to the content of the treaty (of which there does seem to be in fact ample room for mis-interpretation by those with an agenda), why is that these ambiguities always end up settling in favour of Maori?

Must say again that your interpretation of the treaty makes it out to be a very one sided affair. If you could rewrite history how you want, you'd have it set out like the English were bagging for scraps.
beatlesinthebog

New Zealand

#15 Nov 21, 2012
Gutsfull wrote:
<quoted text>
So. You point me to a bunch of sites that show the term New Zealander being used in context of it meaning Maori. But the term Maori also appears prolifically throughout most of the same texts, as does the term 'native' and 'Native New Zealanders.
But seriously, Maori Guy, if a document of this magnitude was being drawn up, would it not be a certainty that the two main parties to the agreement would be clearly identified? By the use of the word, ooh I don't know...maybe 'native', or even 'native of New Zealand' when referring to the people indigenous to the land? Oh wait...there it is. Third Article: "the Queen of England extends to the Natives of New Zealand Her royal protection..." Crikey.
Riddle me this Batman...was the treaty signed between Maori and the Crown, or between New Zealanders and the Crown?
As an aside, if there is even the tiniest possibility of ambiguity in relation to the content of the treaty (of which there does seem to be in fact ample room for mis-interpretation by those with an agenda), why is that these ambiguities always end up settling in favour of Maori?
Must say again that your interpretation of the treaty makes it out to be a very one sided affair. If you could rewrite history how you want, you'd have it set out like the English were bagging for scraps.
Sounds pretty right to me,Gf,but pray enlighten my simplistic little mind......if NZ was ever to become a republic,would not all this "Treaty" stuff be null and void? Maybe I have it completely wrong (as you're bound to edify me on,Muddy Guy),but I've always been under the assumption that the agreements were made with the 'Crown'....meaning the English 'Crown'. Presumably the 'Treaty Trough Feeders' would have this in mind and have their arguments well prepared in case this horrible scenario ever did happen to occur. Hmmmmmmmm...just a thought! Waddya reckon?
Archie

Auckland, New Zealand

#16 Nov 21, 2012
This blog has really opened up my eyes on the whole treaty of waitangi thing. When you look at it objectively, Maori guy is spot on! I think we owe Maori one heck of an apology, which should include the return of all the land, forestries and fisheries that they clearly did not want to part with. Honestly, Maori have been way too generous and understanding, all the while they have been taken for a merry ride by the government. It makes me feel ashamed that I voted for such a dishonest, racist system.

“Educating Utus”

Since: Aug 10

Papakura, New Zealand

#17 Nov 21, 2012
Archie wrote:
This blog has really opened up my eyes on the whole treaty of waitangi thing. When you look at it objectively, Maori guy is spot on! I think we owe Maori one heck of an apology, which should include the return of all the land, forestries and fisheries that they clearly did not want to part with. Honestly, Maori have been way too generous and understanding, all the while they have been taken for a merry ride by the government. It makes me feel ashamed that I voted for such a dishonest, racist system.
Spoken like a true spineless white apologist. In 1840 when the Maoris were told they could sell land they were lining up to flog it off for a quick buck. They didn't own any forestries and fishing was a simple, subsistance way of life and nothing to do with the multi million dollar industry that is Sealord, handed to them on a plate.

Since: Nov 08

Auckland

#18 Nov 21, 2012
Archie wrote:
This blog has really opened up my eyes on the whole treaty of waitangi thing. When you look at it objectively, Maori guy is spot on! I think we owe Maori one heck of an apology, which should include the return of all the land, forestries and fisheries that they clearly did not want to part with. Honestly, Maori have been way too generous and understanding, all the while they have been taken for a merry ride by the government. It makes me feel ashamed that I voted for such a dishonest, racist system.
Well if you feel so bad about it, why don't you offer to pay more taxes? And while you're at it, have your family sign over everything they own to some local Maori family. Maybe that will help ease your shame. After all, nothing of what your family owns was achieved off the back of their own hard work was it? No...it was all stolen off Maori, right?

You're a disgrace.

Since: Nov 08

Auckland

#19 Nov 21, 2012
beatlesinthebog wrote:
<quoted text>Sounds pretty right to me,Gf,but pray enlighten my simplistic little mind......if NZ was ever to become a republic,would not all this "Treaty" stuff be null and void? Maybe I have it completely wrong (as you're bound to edify me on,Muddy Guy),but I've always been under the assumption that the agreements were made with the 'Crown'....meaning the English 'Crown'. Presumably the 'Treaty Trough Feeders' would have this in mind and have their arguments well prepared in case this horrible scenario ever did happen to occur. Hmmmmmmmm...just a thought! Waddya reckon?
Big problem we face now Beatles is that work is already well under way to ensure that a New Zealand constitution will be written with the "principles of the Treaty" well and truly embedded.

I'm actually starting to think we're best keeping in the Commonwealth. Things are out of control with the Treaty now, but can you imagine how we'd be stitched up with all the academics and liberal white apologists (like the guy posting two up from this one) producing the content of our new constitution?

In fact, for this reason, I've found myself with a new affinity for the monarchy.

There's info, links and references to this subject on Muriel Newman's site.
Archie

Auckland, New Zealand

#20 Nov 21, 2012
Actually, it would be more spineless not saying anything about a dishonest and racist system that continues to trample on the rights of a proud people. A people that fought and died for us, in the hopes that their descendants would be treated fairly. Evil things happen when good men don't say anything.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 15
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

New Zealand Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Father of seven jailed 10 years for rape (Sep '10) 14 hr Sensible Sentencing 31
News Girl 'revictimised' by rapist's letter (Oct '10) 14 hr Sensible Sentencing 9
News New Zealand troops to leave Afghanistan early (May '12) Tue arkieguide 7
God Damned Holy Spirit!!! Jul 25 doG naDedm Hloy r... 1
Qualitylocal wee-d/Meds---Hash/Coke in Auckland Jul 25 Norman 1
News Palmerston North retirement home top of the pop... Jul 25 Kelly - DJ 1
News The bad news behind the good news of fixing Ant... Jul 8 Earthling-1 2
More from around the web