A well argued and referenced thesis. >https://waikanaewatch.org/2024/02/10/maori-definitely-ceded-sovereignty-with-te-tiriti/
Rich will bag the site and the author because he has no alternative to that in >his limited intellect.
But hopefully some will read this and evaluate the content.
On Fri, 09 Feb 2024 19:09:19 GMT, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz>What a pity you cannot open your mind - but I guess that is a rare form of a recessive gene. It is hard to accept any other explanation of someone who blindly refuses to even try to comprehend other people's opinions.
wrote:
A well argued and referenced thesis. >>https://waikanaewatch.org/2024/02/10/maori-definitely-ceded-sovereignty-with-te-tiriti/
Rich will bag the site and the author because he has no alternative to that >>in
his limited intellect.
But hopefully some will read this and evaluate the content.
Like many articles, the author has selected what he wanted to hear -
the Atlas Network and others are disseminating clear and simple
answers that do not reflect the actual decisions made all those years
ago - but Waikanaewatch and others will pretend that they have not >selectively cherry-picked for the story they wanted to hear. The
reality is quite a bit harder to grasp - first the determinative
version is the document in Maori signed by a majority of the chiefs -
for those that signed another document the Maori version is the one
read to them. Secondly there were multiple versions in English sent to
Sydney and / or London, with significant differences between them. The
actual document signed did vary from the various instructions sent to
New Zealand.
For a wider view, read the first four articles at
https://www.pundit.co.nz/
(two by Brian Easton, two by Tim Watkin)
Both urge us to understand that the reality is not as simple as some
would like you to believe - the views of different parties to Te
Tiriti varied, and our understanding has changed over time.
Currently it looks as though Seymour will get his wish - a select
Committee that sits for a long time agreeing on very little, but
persuading a few more people that the economic lens through which the
Atlas Network is pushing to have the Treaty seen is essentially a
political position that does not respect even the other current
coalition partners - and in the process encouraging extremist views on
both sides of the Treaty debate. It may well split the coalition and
lead to a new government, but leaving a population more split between >economic ideologies - certainly that would lead to Luxon and Winston
retiring but that is minor compared with the work a new government
would have in trying to reduce the social divisions which underlies
the push from ACT currently.
On Fri, 09 Feb 2024 19:09:19 GMT, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz>
wrote:
A well argued and referenced thesis. >>https://waikanaewatch.org/2024/02/10/maori-definitely-ceded-sovereignty-with-te-tiriti/
Rich will bag the site and the author because he has no alternative to that in
his limited intellect.
But hopefully some will read this and evaluate the content.
Like many articles, the author has selected what he wanted to hear -
the Atlas Network and others are disseminating clear and simple
answers that do not reflect the actual decisions made all those years
ago - but Waikanaewatch and others will pretend that they have not >selectively cherry-picked for the story they wanted to hear.
The
reality is quite a bit harder to grasp - first the determinative
version is the document in Maori signed by a majority of the chiefs -
for those that signed another document the Maori version is the one
read to them. Secondly there were multiple versions in English sent to
Sydney and / or London, with significant differences between them. The
actual document signed did vary from the various instructions sent to
New Zealand.
For a wider view, read the first four articles at
https://www.pundit.co.nz/
(two by Brian Easton, two by Tim Watkin)
Both urge us to understand that the reality is not as simple as some
would like you to believe - the views of different parties to Te
Tiriti varied, and our understanding has changed over time.
Currently it looks as though Seymour will get his wish - a select
Committee that sits for a long time agreeing on very little,
but
persuading a few more people that the economic lens through which the
Atlas Network is pushing to have the Treaty seen is essentially a
political position that does not respect even the other current
coalition partners - and in the process encouraging extremist views on
both sides of the Treaty debate. It may well split the coalition and
lead to a new government, but leaving a population more split between >economic ideologies - certainly that would lead to Luxon and Winston
retiring but that is minor compared with the work a new government
would have in trying to reduce the social divisions which underlies
the push from ACT currently.
On Fri, 09 Feb 2024 19:09:19 GMT, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz>
wrote:
A well argued and referenced thesis. >>https://waikanaewatch.org/2024/02/10/maori-definitely-ceded-sovereignty-with-te-tiriti/
Rich will bag the site and the author because he has no alternative to that in
his limited intellect.
But hopefully some will read this and evaluate the content.
Like many articles, the author has selected what he wanted to hear -
the Atlas Network and others are disseminating clear and simple
answers that do not reflect the actual decisions made all those years
ago - but Waikanaewatch and others will pretend that they have not selectively cherry-picked for the story they wanted to hear. The
reality is quite a bit harder to grasp - first the determinative
version is the document in Maori signed by a majority of the chiefs -
for those that signed another document the Maori version is the one
read to them. Secondly there were multiple versions in English sent to
Sydney and / or London, with significant differences between them. The
actual document signed did vary from the various instructions sent to
New Zealand.
For a wider view, read the first four articles at
https://www.pundit.co.nz/
(two by Brian Easton, two by Tim Watkin)
Both urge us to understand that the reality is not as simple as some
would like you to believe - the views of different parties to Te
Tiriti varied, and our understanding has changed over time.
Currently it looks as though Seymour will get his wish - a select
Committee that sits for a long time agreeing on very little,
but
persuading a few more people that the economic lens through which the
Atlas Network is pushing to have the Treaty seen is essentially a
political position that does not respect even the other current
coalition partners - and in the process encouraging extremist views on
both sides of the Treaty debate. It may well split the coalition and
lead to a new government, but leaving a population more split between economic ideologies - certainly that would lead to Luxon and Winston
retiring but that is minor compared with the work a new government
would have in trying to reduce the social divisions which underlies
the push from ACT currently.
On 2024-02-09, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:No he is suggesting that the only thing that Select Committees should consider are things he agrees with.
On Fri, 09 Feb 2024 19:09:19 GMT, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz>
wrote:
A well argued and referenced thesis. >>>https://waikanaewatch.org/2024/02/10/maori-definitely-ceded-sovereignty-with-te-tiriti/
Rich will bag the site and the author because he has no alternative to that >>>in
his limited intellect.
But hopefully some will read this and evaluate the content.
Like many articles, the author has selected what he wanted to hear -
the Atlas Network and others are disseminating clear and simple
answers that do not reflect the actual decisions made all those years
ago - but Waikanaewatch and others will pretend that they have not
selectively cherry-picked for the story they wanted to hear. The
reality is quite a bit harder to grasp - first the determinative
version is the document in Maori signed by a majority of the chiefs -
for those that signed another document the Maori version is the one
read to them. Secondly there were multiple versions in English sent to
Sydney and / or London, with significant differences between them. The
actual document signed did vary from the various instructions sent to
New Zealand.
For a wider view, read the first four articles at
https://www.pundit.co.nz/
(two by Brian Easton, two by Tim Watkin)
Both urge us to understand that the reality is not as simple as some
would like you to believe - the views of different parties to Te
Tiriti varied, and our understanding has changed over time.
Currently it looks as though Seymour will get his wish - a select
Committee that sits for a long time agreeing on very little,
Are you suggesting that Select Committee are a waste of time? In a democracy >time is needed to work through the issues. It is a feature of a democracy.
but
persuading a few more people that the economic lens through which the
Atlas Network is pushing to have the Treaty seen is essentially a
political position that does not respect even the other current
coalition partners - and in the process encouraging extremist views on
both sides of the Treaty debate. It may well split the coalition and
lead to a new government, but leaving a population more split between
economic ideologies - certainly that would lead to Luxon and Winston
retiring but that is minor compared with the work a new government
would have in trying to reduce the social divisions which underlies
the push from ACT currently.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Did you even look at the Pundit articles?
On Fri, 09 Feb 2024 19:09:19 GMT, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz>What a pity you cannot open your mind - but I guess that is a rare form of a >recessive gene. It is hard to accept any other explanation of someone who >blindly refuses to even try to comprehend other people's opinions.
wrote:
A well argued and referenced thesis. >>>https://waikanaewatch.org/2024/02/10/maori-definitely-ceded-sovereignty-with-te-tiriti/
Rich will bag the site and the author because he has no alternative to that >>>in
his limited intellect.
But hopefully some will read this and evaluate the content.
Like many articles, the author has selected what he wanted to hear -
the Atlas Network and others are disseminating clear and simple
answers that do not reflect the actual decisions made all those years
ago - but Waikanaewatch and others will pretend that they have not >>selectively cherry-picked for the story they wanted to hear. The
reality is quite a bit harder to grasp - first the determinative
version is the document in Maori signed by a majority of the chiefs -
for those that signed another document the Maori version is the one
read to them. Secondly there were multiple versions in English sent to >>Sydney and / or London, with significant differences between them. The >>actual document signed did vary from the various instructions sent to
New Zealand.
For a wider view, read the first four articles at >>https://www.pundit.co.nz/
(two by Brian Easton, two by Tim Watkin)
Both urge us to understand that the reality is not as simple as some
would like you to believe - the views of different parties to Te
Tiriti varied, and our understanding has changed over time.
Currently it looks as though Seymour will get his wish - a select
Committee that sits for a long time agreeing on very little, but
persuading a few more people that the economic lens through which the
Atlas Network is pushing to have the Treaty seen is essentially a
political position that does not respect even the other current
coalition partners - and in the process encouraging extremist views on
both sides of the Treaty debate. It may well split the coalition and
lead to a new government, but leaving a population more split between >>economic ideologies - certainly that would lead to Luxon and Winston >>retiring but that is minor compared with the work a new government
would have in trying to reduce the social divisions which underlies
the push from ACT currently.
Let us not overlook the deliberate putting down of anybody that Rich does not >want to believe. Incurable I suspect.
On 2024-02-09, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 09 Feb 2024 19:09:19 GMT, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz>
wrote:
A well argued and referenced thesis. >>>https://waikanaewatch.org/2024/02/10/maori-definitely-ceded-sovereignty-with-te-tiriti/
Rich will bag the site and the author because he has no alternative to that in
his limited intellect.
But hopefully some will read this and evaluate the content.
Like many articles, the author has selected what he wanted to hear -
the Atlas Network and others are disseminating clear and simple
answers that do not reflect the actual decisions made all those years
ago - but Waikanaewatch and others will pretend that they have not
selectively cherry-picked for the story they wanted to hear. The
reality is quite a bit harder to grasp - first the determinative
version is the document in Maori signed by a majority of the chiefs -
for those that signed another document the Maori version is the one
read to them. Secondly there were multiple versions in English sent to
Sydney and / or London, with significant differences between them. The
actual document signed did vary from the various instructions sent to
New Zealand.
For a wider view, read the first four articles at
https://www.pundit.co.nz/
(two by Brian Easton, two by Tim Watkin)
Both urge us to understand that the reality is not as simple as some
would like you to believe - the views of different parties to Te
Tiriti varied, and our understanding has changed over time.
Currently it looks as though Seymour will get his wish - a select
Committee that sits for a long time agreeing on very little,
Are you suggesting that Select Committee are a waste of time? In a democracy >time is needed to work through the issues. It is a feature of a democracy.
but
persuading a few more people that the economic lens through which the
Atlas Network is pushing to have the Treaty seen is essentially a
political position that does not respect even the other current
coalition partners - and in the process encouraging extremist views on
both sides of the Treaty debate. It may well split the coalition and
lead to a new government, but leaving a population more split between
economic ideologies - certainly that would lead to Luxon and Winston
retiring but that is minor compared with the work a new government
would have in trying to reduce the social divisions which underlies
the push from ACT currently.
Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:Where on earth did you get that crazy idea? But when a majority of
On 2024-02-09, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 09 Feb 2024 19:09:19 GMT, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz>
wrote:
A well argued and referenced thesis. >>>>https://waikanaewatch.org/2024/02/10/maori-definitely-ceded-sovereignty-with-te-tiriti/
Rich will bag the site and the author because he has no alternative to that >>>>in
his limited intellect.
But hopefully some will read this and evaluate the content.
Like many articles, the author has selected what he wanted to hear -
the Atlas Network and others are disseminating clear and simple
answers that do not reflect the actual decisions made all those years
ago - but Waikanaewatch and others will pretend that they have not
selectively cherry-picked for the story they wanted to hear. The
reality is quite a bit harder to grasp - first the determinative
version is the document in Maori signed by a majority of the chiefs -
for those that signed another document the Maori version is the one
read to them. Secondly there were multiple versions in English sent to
Sydney and / or London, with significant differences between them. The
actual document signed did vary from the various instructions sent to
New Zealand.
For a wider view, read the first four articles at
https://www.pundit.co.nz/
(two by Brian Easton, two by Tim Watkin)
Both urge us to understand that the reality is not as simple as some
would like you to believe - the views of different parties to Te
Tiriti varied, and our understanding has changed over time.
Currently it looks as though Seymour will get his wish - a select
Committee that sits for a long time agreeing on very little,
Are you suggesting that Select Committee are a waste of time? In a democracy >>time is needed to work through the issues. It is a feature of a democracy. >No he is suggesting that the only thing that Select Committees should consider >are things he agrees with.
Anything else is a waste of time - in other words he hates our version of >democracy, he would prefer Marxism.What crazy ideas you have! I have never criticised the Select
but
persuading a few more people that the economic lens through which the
Atlas Network is pushing to have the Treaty seen is essentially a
political position that does not respect even the other current
coalition partners - and in the process encouraging extremist views on
both sides of the Treaty debate. It may well split the coalition and
lead to a new government, but leaving a population more split between
economic ideologies - certainly that would lead to Luxon and Winston
retiring but that is minor compared with the work a new government
would have in trying to reduce the social divisions which underlies
the push from ACT currently.
On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 10:01:17 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Fri, 09 Feb 2024 19:09:19 GMT, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz>
wrote:
A well argued and referenced thesis. >>>https://waikanaewatch.org/2024/02/10/maori-definitely-ceded-sovereignty-with-te-tiriti/
Rich will bag the site and the author because he has no alternative to that in
his limited intellect.
But hopefully some will read this and evaluate the content.
Like many articles, the author has selected what he wanted to hear -
the Atlas Network and others are disseminating clear and simple
answers that do not reflect the actual decisions made all those years
ago - but Waikanaewatch and others will pretend that they have not >>selectively cherry-picked for the story they wanted to hear.
So you attack the authors as usual Rich. You have not even tried to
rebut those statements you consider 'cherry picked'.
The
reality is quite a bit harder to grasp - first the determinative
version is the document in Maori signed by a majority of the chiefs -
Those Maori Chiefs were entirely illiterate in European terms. The
written Maori word was an invention of Europeans. Maori depended on >Europeans to tell them what was in the Maori version.
No comment on this, Crash?for those that signed another document the Maori version is the one
read to them. Secondly there were multiple versions in English sent to >>Sydney and / or London, with significant differences between them. The >>actual document signed did vary from the various instructions sent to
New Zealand.
For a wider view, read the first four articles at >>https://www.pundit.co.nz/Then why do you object to a proposed Bill that seeks to define what
(two by Brian Easton, two by Tim Watkin)
Both urge us to understand that the reality is not as simple as some
would like you to believe - the views of different parties to Te
Tiriti varied, and our understanding has changed over time.
this understanding is? Of the 3 party leaders in government, 2 of
them are themselves Maori.
Currently it looks as though Seymour will get his wish - a select
Committee that sits for a long time agreeing on very little,
Your bias laid bare. The Bill is yet to be presented so you don't
know what is in it. You don't know which Select Committee it will be >referred to and therefore you don't know who will be on it. Your
conjecture on the results and timeframe is therefore completely
irrational.
but
persuading a few more people that the economic lens through which the
Atlas Network is pushing to have the Treaty seen is essentially a
political position that does not respect even the other current
coalition partners - and in the process encouraging extremist views on
both sides of the Treaty debate. It may well split the coalition and
lead to a new government, but leaving a population more split between >>economic ideologies - certainly that would lead to Luxon and Winston >>retiring but that is minor compared with the work a new government
would have in trying to reduce the social divisions which underlies
the push from ACT currently.
On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 02:44:09 GMT, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz>Your comment immediate;ly above. Perhaps you meant something else but maybe you should learn English first.
wrote:
Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:Where on earth did you get that crazy idea?
On 2024-02-09, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:are things he agrees with.
On Fri, 09 Feb 2024 19:09:19 GMT, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz>
wrote:
A well argued and referenced thesis. >>>>>https://waikanaewatch.org/2024/02/10/maori-definitely-ceded-sovereignty-with-te-tiriti/
Rich will bag the site and the author because he has no alternative to >>>>>that
in
his limited intellect.
But hopefully some will read this and evaluate the content.
Like many articles, the author has selected what he wanted to hear -
the Atlas Network and others are disseminating clear and simple
answers that do not reflect the actual decisions made all those years
ago - but Waikanaewatch and others will pretend that they have not
selectively cherry-picked for the story they wanted to hear. The
reality is quite a bit harder to grasp - first the determinative
version is the document in Maori signed by a majority of the chiefs -
for those that signed another document the Maori version is the one
read to them. Secondly there were multiple versions in English sent to >>>> Sydney and / or London, with significant differences between them. The >>>> actual document signed did vary from the various instructions sent to
New Zealand.
For a wider view, read the first four articles at
https://www.pundit.co.nz/
(two by Brian Easton, two by Tim Watkin)
Both urge us to understand that the reality is not as simple as some
would like you to believe - the views of different parties to Te
Tiriti varied, and our understanding has changed over time.
Currently it looks as though Seymour will get his wish - a select
Committee that sits for a long time agreeing on very little,
Are you suggesting that Select Committee are a waste of time? In a democracy >>>time is needed to work through the issues. It is a feature of a democracy. >>No he is suggesting that the only thing that Select Committees should >>consider
But when a majority ofObviously.
Select Committee members decide they have considered a bill for long
enough, or that they agree that the legislation should not proceed for
some reason, they are likely to get a report back to parliament
quickly. Keeping a select Committee going just to air issues in the
media may hold up more important legislation
I didn't say you had - do learn some English.Anything else is a waste of time - in other words he hates our version of >>democracy, he would prefer Marxism.What crazy ideas you have! I have never criticised the Select
Committee system in that way.
but
persuading a few more people that the economic lens through which the
Atlas Network is pushing to have the Treaty seen is essentially a
political position that does not respect even the other current
coalition partners - and in the process encouraging extremist views on >>>> both sides of the Treaty debate. It may well split the coalition and
lead to a new government, but leaving a population more split between
economic ideologies - certainly that would lead to Luxon and Winston
retiring but that is minor compared with the work a new government
would have in trying to reduce the social divisions which underlies
the push from ACT currently.
On Fri, 09 Feb 2024 22:16:04 GMT, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz>Did you even turn your brain on today?
wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Did you even look at the Pundit articles?
On Fri, 09 Feb 2024 19:09:19 GMT, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz>What a pity you cannot open your mind - but I guess that is a rare form of a >>recessive gene. It is hard to accept any other explanation of someone who >>blindly refuses to even try to comprehend other people's opinions.
wrote:
A well argued and referenced thesis. >>>>https://waikanaewatch.org/2024/02/10/maori-definitely-ceded-sovereignty-with-te-tiriti/
Rich will bag the site and the author because he has no alternative to that >>>>in
his limited intellect.
But hopefully some will read this and evaluate the content.
Like many articles, the author has selected what he wanted to hear -
the Atlas Network and others are disseminating clear and simple
answers that do not reflect the actual decisions made all those years
ago - but Waikanaewatch and others will pretend that they have not >>>selectively cherry-picked for the story they wanted to hear. The
reality is quite a bit harder to grasp - first the determinative
version is the document in Maori signed by a majority of the chiefs -
for those that signed another document the Maori version is the one
read to them. Secondly there were multiple versions in English sent to >>>Sydney and / or London, with significant differences between them. The >>>actual document signed did vary from the various instructions sent to
New Zealand.
For a wider view, read the first four articles at >>>https://www.pundit.co.nz/
(two by Brian Easton, two by Tim Watkin)
Both urge us to understand that the reality is not as simple as some >>>would like you to believe - the views of different parties to Te
Tiriti varied, and our understanding has changed over time.
Currently it looks as though Seymour will get his wish - a select >>>Committee that sits for a long time agreeing on very little, but >>>persuading a few more people that the economic lens through which the >>>Atlas Network is pushing to have the Treaty seen is essentially a >>>political position that does not respect even the other current
coalition partners - and in the process encouraging extremist views on >>>both sides of the Treaty debate. It may well split the coalition and
lead to a new government, but leaving a population more split between >>>economic ideologies - certainly that would lead to Luxon and Winston >>>retiring but that is minor compared with the work a new government
would have in trying to reduce the social divisions which underlies
the push from ACT currently.
Let us not overlook the deliberate putting down of anybody that Rich does not >>want to believe. Incurable I suspect.
On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 12:04:56 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 10:01:17 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:
On Fri, 09 Feb 2024 19:09:19 GMT, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz>
wrote:
A well argued and referenced thesis. >>>>https://waikanaewatch.org/2024/02/10/maori-definitely-ceded-sovereignty-with-te-tiriti/
Rich will bag the site and the author because he has no alternative to that in
his limited intellect.
But hopefully some will read this and evaluate the content.
Like many articles, the author has selected what he wanted to hear -
the Atlas Network and others are disseminating clear and simple
answers that do not reflect the actual decisions made all those years
ago - but Waikanaewatch and others will pretend that they have not >>>selectively cherry-picked for the story they wanted to hear.
So you attack the authors as usual Rich. You have not even tried to
rebut those statements you consider 'cherry picked'.
The
reality is quite a bit harder to grasp - first the determinative
version is the document in Maori signed by a majority of the chiefs -
Those Maori Chiefs were entirely illiterate in European terms. The
written Maori word was an invention of Europeans. Maori depended on >>Europeans to tell them what was in the Maori version.
And your evidence for this? We do know that some Maori had been
fighting with British Troops, and many had traded with non-Maori.
Certainly all of them would have been able to listen to the Treaty
being read in Maori and discuss and then decide whether they agreed to
sign - and yes they could sign documents.
No comment on this, Crash?
for those that signed another document the Maori version is the one
read to them. Secondly there were multiple versions in English sent to >>>Sydney and / or London, with significant differences between them. The >>>actual document signed did vary from the various instructions sent to
New Zealand.
Then why do you object to a proposed Bill that seeks to define what
For a wider view, read the first four articles at >>>https://www.pundit.co.nz/
(two by Brian Easton, two by Tim Watkin)
Both urge us to understand that the reality is not as simple as some >>>would like you to believe - the views of different parties to Te
Tiriti varied, and our understanding has changed over time.
this understanding is? Of the 3 party leaders in government, 2 of
them are themselves Maori.
There has been a tendency to say that decisions leading to the
coalition agreement are now settled policy for the government, but
they do need to get legislation through parliament; indeed that is
specific in relation to the legislation that Seymour is trying to put >through. It is as wrong to say that because Seymour and Peters each
had at least one Maori grandparent or great-grandparent does not
necessary mean that they are both accepted by most people as holding
views that are acceptable to most Maori. What do you think the
relevance is of having both Maori and Pakeha ancestors is, Crash? Is
it relevant to the politics of tier views in relation to Ti Tiriti?
Currently it looks as though Seymour will get his wish - a select >>>Committee that sits for a long time agreeing on very little,
Your bias laid bare. The Bill is yet to be presented so you don't
know what is in it. You don't know which Select Committee it will be >>referred to and therefore you don't know who will be on it. Your >>conjecture on the results and timeframe is therefore completely
irrational.
but
persuading a few more people that the economic lens through which the >>>Atlas Network is pushing to have the Treaty seen is essentially a >>>political position that does not respect even the other current
coalition partners - and in the process encouraging extremist views on >>>both sides of the Treaty debate. It may well split the coalition and
lead to a new government, but leaving a population more split between >>>economic ideologies - certainly that would lead to Luxon and Winston >>>retiring but that is minor compared with the work a new government
would have in trying to reduce the social divisions which underlies
the push from ACT currently.
On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 21:30:41 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>It was read to them in Maori. There had been whalers and missionaries
wrote:
On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 12:04:56 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>wrote:
On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 10:01:17 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>wrote:
On Fri, 09 Feb 2024 19:09:19 GMT, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz>
wrote:
A well argued and referenced thesis. >>>>>https://waikanaewatch.org/2024/02/10/maori-definitely-ceded-sovereignty-with-te-tiriti/
Rich will bag the site and the author because he has no alternative to that in
his limited intellect.
But hopefully some will read this and evaluate the content.
Like many articles, the author has selected what he wanted to hear - >>>>the Atlas Network and others are disseminating clear and simple
answers that do not reflect the actual decisions made all those years >>>>ago - but Waikanaewatch and others will pretend that they have not >>>>selectively cherry-picked for the story they wanted to hear.
So you attack the authors as usual Rich. You have not even tried to >>>rebut those statements you consider 'cherry picked'.
The
reality is quite a bit harder to grasp - first the determinative >>>>version is the document in Maori signed by a majority of the chiefs -
Those Maori Chiefs were entirely illiterate in European terms. The >>>written Maori word was an invention of Europeans. Maori depended on >>>Europeans to tell them what was in the Maori version.
And your evidence for this? We do know that some Maori had been
fighting with British Troops, and many had traded with non-Maori.
Certainly all of them would have been able to listen to the Treaty
being read in Maori and discuss and then decide whether they agreed to
sign - and yes they could sign documents.
No-one can ever be sure that what Maori were told was in the Maori
version was true.
Given that the English version is now widelyThere were about 7 different drafts and alleged English versions of
acknowledged as different to the Maori version, how can we rely on
those same people (European colonisers all) to correctly represent the
aural Maori language from the written Maori language they had
invented?
In the research I have done there is no indication whatever that anyBy the 1840s there were rapidly growing towns (Auckland and Wellington
Maori ever learned English in the 1840 or thereabouts.
However theThe Treaty was presented in Maori by a church minister fluent in the
focus of interactions between Maori and non-Maori in those times was
on non-Maori who could hold a conversion in Maori with Maori. Feel
free to cite any evidence of English-speaking Maori at that time.
The proposed critical elements of the Bill as set out by Seymour seeksNo comment on this, Crash?for those that signed another document the Maori version is the one >>>>read to them. Secondly there were multiple versions in English sent to >>>>Sydney and / or London, with significant differences between them. The >>>>actual document signed did vary from the various instructions sent to >>>>New Zealand.
Then why do you object to a proposed Bill that seeks to define what
For a wider view, read the first four articles at >>>>https://www.pundit.co.nz/
(two by Brian Easton, two by Tim Watkin)
Both urge us to understand that the reality is not as simple as some >>>>would like you to believe - the views of different parties to Te
Tiriti varied, and our understanding has changed over time.
this understanding is? Of the 3 party leaders in government, 2 of
them are themselves Maori.
There has been a tendency to say that decisions leading to the
coalition agreement are now settled policy for the government, but
they do need to get legislation through parliament; indeed that is
specific in relation to the legislation that Seymour is trying to put >>through. It is as wrong to say that because Seymour and Peters each
had at least one Maori grandparent or great-grandparent does not
necessary mean that they are both accepted by most people as holding
views that are acceptable to most Maori. What do you think the
relevance is of having both Maori and Pakeha ancestors is, Crash? Is
it relevant to the politics of tier views in relation to Ti Tiriti?
Currently it looks as though Seymour will get his wish - a select >>>>Committee that sits for a long time agreeing on very little,
Your bias laid bare. The Bill is yet to be presented so you don't
know what is in it. You don't know which Select Committee it will be >>>referred to and therefore you don't know who will be on it. Your >>>conjecture on the results and timeframe is therefore completely >>>irrational.
but
persuading a few more people that the economic lens through which the >>>>Atlas Network is pushing to have the Treaty seen is essentially a >>>>political position that does not respect even the other current >>>>coalition partners - and in the process encouraging extremist views on >>>>both sides of the Treaty debate. It may well split the coalition and >>>>lead to a new government, but leaving a population more split between >>>>economic ideologies - certainly that would lead to Luxon and Winston >>>>retiring but that is minor compared with the work a new government >>>>would have in trying to reduce the social divisions which underlies
the push from ACT currently.
On Sun, 11 Feb 2024 18:00:52 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 21:30:41 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:It was read to them in Maori. There had been whalers and missionaries
On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 12:04:56 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>wrote:
On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 10:01:17 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>wrote:
On Fri, 09 Feb 2024 19:09:19 GMT, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> >>>>>wrote:
A well argued and referenced thesis. >>>>>>https://waikanaewatch.org/2024/02/10/maori-definitely-ceded-sovereignty-with-te-tiriti/
Rich will bag the site and the author because he has no alternative to that in
his limited intellect.
But hopefully some will read this and evaluate the content.
Like many articles, the author has selected what he wanted to hear - >>>>>the Atlas Network and others are disseminating clear and simple >>>>>answers that do not reflect the actual decisions made all those years >>>>>ago - but Waikanaewatch and others will pretend that they have not >>>>>selectively cherry-picked for the story they wanted to hear.
So you attack the authors as usual Rich. You have not even tried to >>>>rebut those statements you consider 'cherry picked'.
The
reality is quite a bit harder to grasp - first the determinative >>>>>version is the document in Maori signed by a majority of the chiefs -
Those Maori Chiefs were entirely illiterate in European terms. The >>>>written Maori word was an invention of Europeans. Maori depended on >>>>Europeans to tell them what was in the Maori version.
And your evidence for this? We do know that some Maori had been
fighting with British Troops, and many had traded with non-Maori. >>>Certainly all of them would have been able to listen to the Treaty
being read in Maori and discuss and then decide whether they agreed to >>>sign - and yes they could sign documents.
No-one can ever be sure that what Maori were told was in the Maori
version was true.
in New Zealand for quite a few years, and there had been trade -
including trade with firearms. Of course there were some Maori who
spoke English and some English that spoke Maori
Given that the English version is now widelyThere were about 7 different drafts and alleged English versions of
acknowledged as different to the Maori version, how can we rely on
those same people (European colonisers all) to correctly represent the >>aural Maori language from the written Maori language they had
invented?
the Treaty. There were different version sent to Sydney and London. Considerable academic research was done to determine just what Maori
believed were in the words in the Ti Tiriti document signed by most
Maori. By that time there had been a considerable time since the
actual singing, and both some Maori and some English settlers had
developed different interpretations themselves; this caused few
problems at that time - Maori were badly affected by the loss of land
(with as far as they were concerned no possibility of redress at that
time); were very affected by disease, with epidemics having a higher
death toll for Maori than for Europeans largely due to lower isolation
in living conditions; and by the period between the wars, the Maori
language itself was in decline. So the opinion of for example Ngata,
who spent a lot of time as one of a very small number of Maori around
him, holds no more weight than that of any member of parliament at
that time - they were trying to make the best of a poor situation with
no power to make demands for recovery of land etc.
In the research I have done there is no indication whatever that anyBy the 1840s there were rapidly growing towns (Auckland and Wellington
Maori ever learned English in the 1840 or thereabouts.
at least); trade was spread around New Zealand; churches were spread
across New Zealand, and there had been a lot of travel by both Maori
and Europeans. Population at that time was about 80,000 Maori and 2000 non-Maori. By the end of 1842 Maori numbers had reduced to 76,900 and non-Maori to 10,992, by 1850 that was 65,650 and 22,108 . . .
However theThe Treaty was presented in Maori by a church minister fluent in the language.
focus of interactions between Maori and non-Maori in those times was
on non-Maori who could hold a conversion in Maori with Maori. Feel
free to cite any evidence of English-speaking Maori at that time.
The proposed critical elements of the Bill as set out by Seymour seeksNo comment on this, Crash?for those that signed another document the Maori version is the one >>>>>read to them. Secondly there were multiple versions in English sent to >>>>>Sydney and / or London, with significant differences between them. The >>>>>actual document signed did vary from the various instructions sent to >>>>>New Zealand.
Then why do you object to a proposed Bill that seeks to define what >>>>this understanding is? Of the 3 party leaders in government, 2 of
For a wider view, read the first four articles at >>>>>https://www.pundit.co.nz/
(two by Brian Easton, two by Tim Watkin)
Both urge us to understand that the reality is not as simple as some >>>>>would like you to believe - the views of different parties to Te >>>>>Tiriti varied, and our understanding has changed over time.
them are themselves Maori.
to impose a view that is markedly different from the view held by most
New Zealanders.
If it does get to a select Committee you could expect
a move to replace the definitions in the Bill with something along the
lines of the understanding currently used by the courts. A huge cost
for no appreciable benefit
There has been a tendency to say that decisions leading to the
coalition agreement are now settled policy for the government, but
they do need to get legislation through parliament; indeed that is >>>specific in relation to the legislation that Seymour is trying to put >>>through. It is as wrong to say that because Seymour and Peters each
had at least one Maori grandparent or great-grandparent does not >>>necessary mean that they are both accepted by most people as holding >>>views that are acceptable to most Maori. What do you think the
relevance is of having both Maori and Pakeha ancestors is, Crash? Is
it relevant to the politics of tier views in relation to Ti Tiriti?
Currently it looks as though Seymour will get his wish - a select >>>>>Committee that sits for a long time agreeing on very little,
Your bias laid bare. The Bill is yet to be presented so you don't
know what is in it. You don't know which Select Committee it will be >>>>referred to and therefore you don't know who will be on it. Your >>>>conjecture on the results and timeframe is therefore completely >>>>irrational.
but
persuading a few more people that the economic lens through which the >>>>>Atlas Network is pushing to have the Treaty seen is essentially a >>>>>political position that does not respect even the other current >>>>>coalition partners - and in the process encouraging extremist views on >>>>>both sides of the Treaty debate. It may well split the coalition and >>>>>lead to a new government, but leaving a population more split between >>>>>economic ideologies - certainly that would lead to Luxon and Winston >>>>>retiring but that is minor compared with the work a new government >>>>>would have in trying to reduce the social divisions which underlies >>>>>the push from ACT currently.
On 2024-02-11, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Exactly, he wants there to be a conversation of the whole of New Zealand (as best as is possible), he does not want tribal rule, apartheid philospohies to bury that converstaion.
On Sun, 11 Feb 2024 18:00:52 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 21:30:41 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>wrote:It was read to them in Maori. There had been whalers and missionaries
On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 12:04:56 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>wrote:
On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 10:01:17 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>wrote:
On Fri, 09 Feb 2024 19:09:19 GMT, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> >>>>>>wrote:
A well argued and referenced thesis. >>>>>>>https://waikanaewatch.org/2024/02/10/maori-definitely-ceded-sovereignty-with-te-tiriti/
Rich will bag the site and the author because he has no alternative to >>>>>>>that in
his limited intellect.
But hopefully some will read this and evaluate the content.
Like many articles, the author has selected what he wanted to hear - >>>>>>the Atlas Network and others are disseminating clear and simple >>>>>>answers that do not reflect the actual decisions made all those years >>>>>>ago - but Waikanaewatch and others will pretend that they have not >>>>>>selectively cherry-picked for the story they wanted to hear.
So you attack the authors as usual Rich. You have not even tried to >>>>>rebut those statements you consider 'cherry picked'.
TheThose Maori Chiefs were entirely illiterate in European terms. The >>>>>written Maori word was an invention of Europeans. Maori depended on >>>>>Europeans to tell them what was in the Maori version.
reality is quite a bit harder to grasp - first the determinative >>>>>>version is the document in Maori signed by a majority of the chiefs - >>>>>
And your evidence for this? We do know that some Maori had been >>>>fighting with British Troops, and many had traded with non-Maori. >>>>Certainly all of them would have been able to listen to the Treaty >>>>being read in Maori and discuss and then decide whether they agreed to >>>>sign - and yes they could sign documents.
No-one can ever be sure that what Maori were told was in the Maori >>>version was true.
in New Zealand for quite a few years, and there had been trade -
including trade with firearms. Of course there were some Maori who
spoke English and some English that spoke Maori
Given that the English version is now widelyThere were about 7 different drafts and alleged English versions of
acknowledged as different to the Maori version, how can we rely on
those same people (European colonisers all) to correctly represent the >>>aural Maori language from the written Maori language they had
invented?
the Treaty. There were different version sent to Sydney and London.
Considerable academic research was done to determine just what Maori
believed were in the words in the Ti Tiriti document signed by most
Maori. By that time there had been a considerable time since the
actual singing, and both some Maori and some English settlers had
developed different interpretations themselves; this caused few
problems at that time - Maori were badly affected by the loss of land
(with as far as they were concerned no possibility of redress at that
time); were very affected by disease, with epidemics having a higher
death toll for Maori than for Europeans largely due to lower isolation
in living conditions; and by the period between the wars, the Maori
language itself was in decline. So the opinion of for example Ngata,
who spent a lot of time as one of a very small number of Maori around
him, holds no more weight than that of any member of parliament at
that time - they were trying to make the best of a poor situation with
no power to make demands for recovery of land etc.
In the research I have done there is no indication whatever that any >>>Maori ever learned English in the 1840 or thereabouts.By the 1840s there were rapidly growing towns (Auckland and Wellington
at least); trade was spread around New Zealand; churches were spread
across New Zealand, and there had been a lot of travel by both Maori
and Europeans. Population at that time was about 80,000 Maori and 2000
non-Maori. By the end of 1842 Maori numbers had reduced to 76,900 and
non-Maori to 10,992, by 1850 that was 65,650 and 22,108 . . .
However theThe Treaty was presented in Maori by a church minister fluent in the
focus of interactions between Maori and non-Maori in those times was
on non-Maori who could hold a conversion in Maori with Maori. Feel
free to cite any evidence of English-speaking Maori at that time.
language.
The proposed critical elements of the Bill as set out by Seymour seeksNo comment on this, Crash?for those that signed another document the Maori version is the one >>>>>>read to them. Secondly there were multiple versions in English sent to >>>>>>Sydney and / or London, with significant differences between them. The >>>>>>actual document signed did vary from the various instructions sent to >>>>>>New Zealand.
Then why do you object to a proposed Bill that seeks to define what >>>>>this understanding is? Of the 3 party leaders in government, 2 of >>>>>them are themselves Maori.
For a wider view, read the first four articles at >>>>>>https://www.pundit.co.nz/
(two by Brian Easton, two by Tim Watkin)
Both urge us to understand that the reality is not as simple as some >>>>>>would like you to believe - the views of different parties to Te >>>>>>Tiriti varied, and our understanding has changed over time.
to impose a view that is markedly different from the view held by most
New Zealanders.
The bill is to set out the "principles" of the Treaty, this then forms part >of a referendum, which will be binding.
Seymour is seeking to have a referendum so that hopefully the country will >see and accept the results.
If it does get to a select Committee you could expect
a move to replace the definitions in the Bill with something along the
lines of the understanding currently used by the courts. A huge cost
for no appreciable benefit
There has been a tendency to say that decisions leading to the >>>>coalition agreement are now settled policy for the government, but
they do need to get legislation through parliament; indeed that is >>>>specific in relation to the legislation that Seymour is trying to put >>>>through. It is as wrong to say that because Seymour and Peters each
had at least one Maori grandparent or great-grandparent does not >>>>necessary mean that they are both accepted by most people as holding >>>>views that are acceptable to most Maori. What do you think the >>>>relevance is of having both Maori and Pakeha ancestors is, Crash? Is >>>>it relevant to the politics of tier views in relation to Ti Tiriti?
Currently it looks as though Seymour will get his wish - a select >>>>>>Committee that sits for a long time agreeing on very little,
Your bias laid bare. The Bill is yet to be presented so you don't >>>>>know what is in it. You don't know which Select Committee it will be >>>>>referred to and therefore you don't know who will be on it. Your >>>>>conjecture on the results and timeframe is therefore completely >>>>>irrational.
but
persuading a few more people that the economic lens through which the >>>>>>Atlas Network is pushing to have the Treaty seen is essentially a >>>>>>political position that does not respect even the other current >>>>>>coalition partners - and in the process encouraging extremist views on >>>>>>both sides of the Treaty debate. It may well split the coalition and >>>>>>lead to a new government, but leaving a population more split between >>>>>>economic ideologies - certainly that would lead to Luxon and Winston >>>>>>retiring but that is minor compared with the work a new government >>>>>>would have in trying to reduce the social divisions which underlies >>>>>>the push from ACT currently.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 110:05:49 |
| Calls: | 6,662 |
| Files: | 12,209 |
| Messages: | 5,335,821 |