Comments on: Maori and Pakeha are Not Partners to the Treaty of Waitangi

By: K Matena

K Matena — Wed, 05 Oct 2011 04:43:22 +0000

I would like to add one note, that the term ‘race’ by definition is the biological differences between ethnicities, however, it has now been proven that genetical differences within races is greater than genetical differences between races. Therefore the concept of ‘race’ doesn’t exist.

By: JOHN RU ALMOND

JOHN RU ALMOND — Sat, 19 Feb 2011 04:59:07 +0000

to whom it may concern,
god save the queen for she is my protector and teach me the law so one might better engage the enemy.
since at least 1877 the ‘treaty of waitangi, 1840′ was no more than a nullity, “designed to pacify the savage natives”.
commercially its value is void due to vagueness and failure of due process.
it was not then nor is it now in any way applicable to any modern scenario.
john 1:1, “in the begining was the word and the word was with god and the word was a god”, NWT 1984.
it is therefore prudent to know what is being said to whom and for what purpose in the first instance.
seek and you shall find (the truth) and it shall set you free (from all forms of slavery, liabilty or debt and ultimately death) for he who dose not know his rights, loses them.
ignorance of the law is not an excuse for any offence committed.
applying these words in research and discovery, understanding the laws of contract, property, rights and remedies reveals that under the cloud and noise of the smoke and mirrors utilised to distract from the real source of any confidence scheme lies the truth that can therefore be exposed to the ‘light of day’ and exorcise any unwanted vampiric parasites.
all codes can be broken and once a trap is discovered it can easily be avoided.
all that remains is that due process resume to provide justice without delay and provide a durable full and final civil settlement for each and everyone that applies themself.
can anyone tell me who ‘owns’ their PERSON?

john ru

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 28 Sep 2010 17:26:36 +0000

I found this blog to be quite twisted. The issues surrounding the Treaty are not about race, colour or creed, so I find your references to race and colour to be somewhat indicative of a rationale that views the Treaty in terms of race and/or colour which is unfortunate.

Also, the Treaty doesn’t seek to hold individuals or contemporary Pakaha society personally responsible for breaches of the Treaty.

While I acknowledge that words like ‘partnership’ and ‘contract’ are absent from the Treaty, I very much doubt that the Treaty would have been signed if the concept of an on-going partnership of some kind was not understood, as notions of reciprocity were at the heart of Maori tribal affairs between various hapu and with Pakeha.

I don’t see how the Treaty could not be viewed as something akin to partnership from the Maori point of view. At the time of the Treaty Maori understood that increasing numbers of Pakeha would settle NZ over time making it necessary for some type of agreement to exist in order to set out how Maori and Pakeha would co-exist in NZ from that point onward. There are many examples of the reciprocal nature of Maori-Pakeha relations in our early colonial period.

Maori were not under any real pressure to cede sovereignty to the British Crown. I am aware of the ‘French threat’ is usually invoked at this point, but I personally believe this to be an exaggerated threat, and one cooked up by the British who had a vested interest in convincing Maori to take the ‘threat’ seriously.

While it is convenient to for Treaty deniers today to argue that no such arrangement exists or should exist, I believe that to be indicative of their desire to simply do away with the Treaty and the obligations that it placed upon the Crown.

By: Charles

Charles — Fri, 23 Apr 2010 05:40:57 +0000

Two points:
1. Although some still think of Pakeha as meaning white skin, or European British descent, ‘Pakeha’, in its orginal meaning, and more established understandings now, is merely non-Maori. So it is not a racial or ‘genetic trait’ link as you suggest but something merely to mean non-indigenous, defined as other. (see Pakeha – Origin and Meaning – Jodie Ranford). Implication being that continued immigrants to NZ, whether white European or not are included on the side of the non-Maori half of the Treaty.
2. I wonder at what’s going on behind your need to seperate yourself as an individual from the Crown and therefore accept no personal implications or responsibility. It is a very hard thing to have to be held accountable for actions not done by oneself, and very contradictory to a Western individualistic value system. However, if you claim no link or shared responsibility with the Crown then surely it follows you cannot equally claim benefit from the Crown’s work – eg land, inherited wealth from generations of European colonists, all the benefits that come from your class being in a position of power. (If you don’t agree, try out ‘White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack’ P.McIntosh.)
The problem with reducing these kind of arguments to only an indivudalistic value system is that it makes it impossible for the recognition (and then possible change) of structurally unjust systems. It’s like in the 60s for women to raise their voice against discrimination and be told by individual men that they are not ‘antiwomen’. If individuals in this society do not accept their involement in a wider discriminating social structure, and potential benefit from that, then those structures will continue. “I did not see myself as a racist because I was taught to recognise racism only in individual acts of meanness by members of my group, never in invisible systems conferring unsought racial dominance on my group from birth…white skin… opens many doors for whites whether or not we approve of the way dominance has been conferred on us….. Whites are taught to think of their lives as morally neutral, normative, and average, and also ideal. (McIntosh, 1998).

By: Guest Post: Tim Wikiriwhi Reviews The Great Waitangi Debate (Uncut) « Theology Geek NZ

Wed, 03 Mar 2010 02:48:29 +0000

[...] POSTS: View “Marae: The Great Waitangi Debate” Here Sovereignty and The Treaty of Waitangi Maori and Pakeha are Not Partners to the Treaty of Waitangi (Our Review of the [...]

By: Sovereignty and The Treaty of Waitangi « Theology Geek NZ

Sovereignty and The Treaty of Waitangi « Theology Geek NZ — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 02:45:32 +0000

[...] RELATED POSTS: Maori and Pakeha are Not Partners to the Treaty of Waitangi [...]

By: Madeleine

Madeleine — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 21:22:44 +0000

Wow anonymous! I’ve never thought about it like that before.

Clearly Matt your argument has been shown to be wanting by anonymous’ devastatingly good rhetoric.
.-= My last blog-post ..Christianity on Trial @ Auckland University =-.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 20:55:42 +0000

bollocks u all suck dick!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

By: Blair Donkin

Blair Donkin — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 09:43:45 +0000

Hi Matt I really appreciated this article and the one that led me to it about obligations of each party under the Treaty in relation to who believed they agreed to what.

I have a question for you. I take your point about individuals having no special obligations to each other under the treaty for it is an agreement between the Crown and various Maori tribes. But, is there an onus on individuals as employees of the state and therefore its agents? Or, is one free as an individual to argue that they have no particular responsibilities under the treaty?

The reason I ask is I am a nurse and we are required by the Nursing Council and our employer to constantly demonstrate in all our interactions how we up hold the principles of the treaty (partnership, protection and participation). Which in my understanding are an overlay on the original treaty following a Royal Commission into the Crowns obligations under the treaty that then get passed onto individual employees and professional groups.

I would be interested to see the response of my colleagues to your blog but the whole Treaty message has been so integrated into Nursing Education and inculcated into the profession following the cultural safety row that erupted in Christchurch years ago , that I fear now a reasonable debate would be nigh on impossible. A sad state of affairs.

By: Treaty is not working « earth is my favourite planet

Treaty is not working « earth is my favourite planet — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 10:42:06 +0000

[...] “Marae: The Great Waitangi Debate” here M and M : Tune in to Marae tomorrow M and M : Maori and Pakeha are not partners to the Treaty of Waitangi Not PC : Why the Treaty is Holding us Back Not PC : February 6 Should be One Law For All Day NZ [...]