Quote:
|
Originally Posted by fixed_truth
Article 1 gifts Kawanatanga (governance) and what this looks like is made clearer by Article 2 with Maori retaining Tino Rangatiratanga (chiefly authority).
Claiming Maori just willingly gave up their country is a wild take.
|
Please quote the relevant parts. Don't paraphrase or summarize or imply or assume. Show me the words of the contract, in whichever language you believe says it best, and how you think they mean what you claim they mean.
Because reading the words at face value (of the Maori version which is supposed to say something different to the English which is obviously not what you claim), to me they say no such thing. It seems awfully clear.
Article 1 says "The chiefs of the Confederation and all the chiefs who have not joined that Confederation
give absolutely to the Queen of England for ever the complete government over their land." That's a big difference from what you're claiming.
I already addressed Article 2 and how it's basically property rights (control/authority) over resources
in their possession (ie, they did not have to surrender all their property/land, which may well have been a concern). It certainly does not give them complete control/authority over *all* natural resources.
From memory [which is fallible] the treaty claims used to be based around "stolen land" or dishonest deals. At some point in the last 20 years it's moved from being "the contract was broken by theft and we lost possession unfairly" [and I was not present during any of the deals or agreements, so I can only assume someone DID take advantage at some point and these may have been valid objections] to "this contract actually says we went 50/50 in the country and are not subjects of the Queen at all, and we want Maori descendants to have superior voting power".
To that, it's a hard disagree from me.
And they didn't "give up willingly" - there were wars and fighting and bloodshed, and the Treaty was a way to put an end to this and become what was meant to be a civil society, living as one people under the protection of the Queen.
Can you please address my point about whether one Maori chief has authority over the land of another Maori chief, on the basis that they are both Maori? Because I think this point makes it clear that chiefs maintain authority only over *that which they possess* and not authority over all resources in the entire country. From there, the rest follows.