mhaze,

"A lion is fierce
His teeth can pierce
The skin of a postman's knee
It serves him right
That because of his bite
He gets no letters you see."

You left out the part where I provided you with several
links that should have explained the reason for my stance
to you at that time. I felt there was no need for any
further dialogue. The links were self-explanatory.
I also felt that I can't be held responsible for how you
interpreted the links.

Anyway, that was then, this is now.

My "modus operandi" has always been understatement and that
just doesn't always work on this forum as I'm finding out
which is unfortunate because it forces me to react - which
I don't really enjoy doing.

As for the "grain of salt?"

I take everything with a grain of salt.

Hi Paul,

Just came back from NZ, my dad's funeral up at Kaitaia, in the Dally cemetery there. On the Treaty of Waitangi, there is no reference there to internal governance but certainly to the transfer of political sovereignty to the British Crown - AND there is no reference in the Treaty to land tenure or any State/Crown rights to interfere in land ownership. It's very interesting that in two of the books of Professor Ian Kawharu - on Maori Land Tenure and the Treaty of Waitangi -there is little or no association, cross-over, between the two. From the outset, not just Maori land-use was recognised by the British, but land ownership as well. The rip-offs and thefts came later.

As i understand it, in the Treaty of Waitangi, how the various Maori groups organised themselves and managed their own affairs was not challenged, but if they did want to sell their land, only the new administration was authorised to handle any sales. Of course, by 1840, a hell of a lot of changes had already occurred, especially during the Wars which the Treaty was intended to bring to a close. But it's striking, in the context of the current tepid discussions about Indigenous sovereignty here, how the two issues of political sovereignty and relationship to land manage to get confused and tangled. Fools seem to be happy to rush in where angels would fear to tread.

Cheers,

Joe

Hi Joe,
My sincere condolences at the loss of your Dad.

The Treaty of Waitangi was partially in response to the Musket Wars which the likes of chief Hongi Hika were prosecuting to the max against other iwi in the early part of the 19th Century. In 1835 over 50 chiefs from the Confederation of United Tribes signed the 'Deceleration of Independence of New Zealand', in effect the United Tribes established an independent country in the north with its own flag, and laws based on the principle of 'utu'. James Busby the British Resident who arrived in 1833, fostered the independent concept, more for commercial reasons, rather than any nationalistic notions. In 1830 the first NZ built trading ship 'The Sir George Murray' had been confiscated along with its cargo of trade goods in Sydney for failing to fly a recognized flag. The ship and cargo were auctioned off, but later the ship was granted a temporary licence to trade, until a permanent arrangement could be found. The Maori chiefs Patuone and Taonui as part owners of the venture, along with several Europeans, had accompanied the ship with the view to establishing trading links with NSW. But put simply the British view was, no country, no trade.

Patuone was a leading advocate for a treaty, along with others, having written to the British Monarch in 1831 requesting British protection of their sovereignty "from those that would take away their land, and act troublesome or vicious towards them", both Maori and European. King William IV however dismissed the request, saying he was sorry, but believed the troubles had passed.

The big land grab by the Pakeha came much later with the 'Settlement Act' in 1863. Land confiscation was supposedly retribution for those tribes that had engaged in rebellion (Maori Wars) against the British authority, but it soon included other tribes that had been pro British, or neutral.

Joe, just as a side, the New Zealand Government has made financial offers of compensation to the various Iwi's, under the Treaty settlements, its well over $1 billion.

Does anyone have info if there was a kind of treaty with the supposedly original inhabitants of New Zealand from before the Maori ? I was told quite often that the Maoris aren't the aboriginal inhabitants.

Thanks, Paul, that's fascinating - my brother has a piece of land up near Mangonui which was originally land belonging to one tribe which was wiped out in an epidemic before 1800; the Rarawa took it over, then had it invaded by Ngapuhi who eventually sold it to the government. But recently both Rarawa and Ngapuhi were compensated for it (i.e. double-payment), and my brother's Maori daughters are a bit crooked on him for buying it (triple-payment). I wonder how many times someone can be paid for something they sell ? Once, I would have thought, but I'm not very PC these days.

Individual, what's your point ? Every bit of land in the world with people on it has probably been invaded many times over, but whoever is there now is recognised as the owners, legitimate holders. Get used to it. In any case, the Moriori - I presume that's who you were talking about - were the original occupants of the Chatham Islands, and their ancestors came from around the Bay of Plenty and the Waikato (check out Angela Ballara's book "Iwi") - they're not the original owners of all of NZ as the myth asserts, but probably originally a clan of one of those groups.

Joe