G'morning all,

Fascinated by all the extraordinary huffing and puffing prompted 
from all quarters by certain innocuous remarks made to the Orewa 
Rotary, (wherein a proposal to ensure fairness to all citizens was 
perceived as a call to racism),  I thought to check out my copies 
of the Treaty that is alleged to have "founded the nation".

Not feeling any sense of "partnership" to this document or its 
signatories,  I was particularly interested in determining what 
relationships were set down for whom by the agreement.

The NZ Encyclopedia tells me that "the text of the treaty was 
written in English and then it was fairly translated into Maori" 
(by the cleric who had devised the written form of the language, 
and was therefore not a stranger to its nuances).

"The Treaty that was signed by almost all the Maoris was the one 
in the Maori language", states McLauchlan.

I find that the only mention of "Pakeha" in the Maori version is 
in one paragraph of the Introduction that explains why the Treaty 
is being signed.

The official English text's introduction spoke of...

"Her Majesty therefore being desirous to establish a settled form 
of Civil Government with a view to avert the evil consequences 
which must result from the absence of the necessary Laws and 
Institutions alike to the native populations and to Her 
subjects..."

This was translated by the Rev William Williams into...

"Na ko te Kuini e hiahia ana kia wakaritea te Kawanatanga kia kana 
ai nga kino e puta mai ki te tangata Maori ki te Pakeha e noho 
ture kore ana", it says.

The literal translation of this explanatory piece is...

"Now, the Queen desires to arrange the governorship lest evils 
should come to the Maori people and the Europeans who are living 
here without law."


Seems clear to me that this set of Chinese whispers sees Pakeha as 
"Europeans" distinct from any other groups of people....

The three principle clauses of the Treaty install governorship of 
NZ in Queen Victoria for ever (1),  the second affirms the right 
of the Chiefs to their possessions (2) and the last one defines 
who the Queen will now protect in return for Maori consent to 
governorship (3).

The third one says...

"Ko te Tuatoru

Hei wakaritenga mai hoki tenei mo te wakaaetanga ki te Kawanatanga 
o te Kuini - Ka tiakina e te Kuini o Ingarani nga tangata maori 
katoa o Nu Tirani ka tukua ki a ratou nga tikanga katoa rite tahi 
ki ana mea ki nga tangata o Ingarani."

Literally...

"This is the Third.

This is the arrangement for the consent to the governoship of the 
Queen.  The Queen will protect all the Maori people of New 
Zealand, and give them all the same rights as those of the people 
of England."

From the official English version...

"Article The Third

In consideration of which Her Majesty the Queen of England extends 
to the Natives of New Zealand Her royal protection and imparts to 
them all the Rights and Privileges of British Subjects."


Thus the only mention of "Pakeha" lies in Queen Victoria's concern 
to bring law to a land populated by Maori and "Europeans";  while 
these "Europeans" are to benefit,  this is their only mention and 
role.

I believe it follows that the Maori people were to be specifically 
protected,  and to have the same rights as "tangata o Ingarani" - 
the "people of England" or "British Subjects" - and not
of Pakeha 
or Europeans.

The signatories were the Chiefs on behalf of their Confederation, 
and Hobson, the Consul and Lieutenant-Governor appointed to 
represent Queen Victoria.   These were the parties to the Treaty.

I understand that all persons living in New Zealand thus enjoyed 
the `same rights as those of the people of England' until the 1947 
ratification of the 1931 Statute of Westminister weaned NZ from 
Mother England.

Then, all NZ citizens of whatever origin became effectively `The 
Crown',  finally realising the end aim of the original Treaty, as 
far as I can see - civility for all residents equally.

So where in the Treaty is there set down a partnership between any 
`European' sector of NZers and any `Maori' sector to direct `The 
Crown' ?

And how can any one `sector' now use a 1840 Treaty to legitimately 
require the whole (and therefore itself) to favour it above others 
in 2004 ?

Worse still,  where did our `rights of the people of England' go
(There's some ex-Magna Carta "droits de monseignor" I wish to 
exercise without being done for general naughtiness)

Any Aunt Agatha aching to aid this anguished and anxious asker ?

:-((

   
___ MultiMail/MS-DOS v0.45

--- Maximus/2 3.01