|
---- Original Message -----
From: "Ross Baker" <rossbaker@austarnet.com.au>
To: "Paul Moon" <paul.moon@aut.ac.nz>
Sent: Monday, January 18, 2010 1:12 PM
Subject: Re: Treaty.
Paul,
There is no denying the British recognised sovereignty of the territories of the 52 chiefs of the United Tribes that signed the Declaration of Independence in 1835, but it is doubtful whether Britain fully recognised or accepted sovereignty of all the other chiefs/tribes. This is confirmed by Hobson making sure he got the majority of the signatories to the Declaration to sign the Treaty but claimed sovereignty over all the territories of New Zealand without all the chiefs/hapus signing the Treaty, therefore Britain could not have recognised or accepted all the tribes/hapus sovereignty of their territories, except those that signed the Declaration.
As the Treaty has never been ratified or passed into law, it may not have been intended as a Treaty between two nations, it could have been just a Treaty between a number of individual parties. A treaty does not necessarily have to be between two nations, it can be an agreement between two or more parties. There is no mention of sovereignty in the Tiriti o Waitangi - just "to give up/tukua New Zealand to the Queen", but all this is immaterial as there is no denying, Britain gained sovereignty over all the territories of New Zealand once the Treaty was signed. New Zealand became its owe sovereign nation with the passing and acceptance of the Statute of Westminster in 1947 and we all became New Zealand Citizens under one law, one flag.
Still, this was not our original concern. We were concerned you said the treaty only consisted of 4 sentences - later reducing it to 3 – a Preamble and three Articles. It's a fact, the Tiriti o Waitangi consists of 8 sentences - a Preamble, three Articles, a Consent and the date and location it was executed. While it may only have 3 or 4 'legal' sentences, your main aim in this article was to make Hobson and Busby look incompetent by stating it only consisted of 4 sentences. Hobson was far from incompetent in all walks of his life, if only we had people of this calibre today, none of this rubbish would be tolerated!
You also stated Hobson left school before the age of ten. This is incorrect and was use by you to destroy Hobson's ability to draft the Treaty. Hobson joined the British Navy at the age of ten and won his commission as a Lieutenant at the early age of 19. He then went on to become the Captain of a 28 gun warship, which would have required a very high degree of education, not only in his seamanship ability but also in his ability to understand, write and communicate legal documents and situations far beyond our
understanding today! Britain held supreme maritime power at this time.
As for, ".....and make explicit the expectations of the colonial administration in areas such as the economy, taxation, legislative and judicial powers, and overall jurisdiction", this was fully stated, as far as it could be at the time, in Article 3. Remember, Hobson was dealing with a people with very little, if any understanding of a united government,
economy, taxation or legislative and juridical powers that had to be phased in over time, as the Colonial Office had advised in their instructions.
Hobson's main aim in treating with the natives at the time, was to bring law, order and protection to a people who were slowly becoming extinct by their own hand, and the only 'legal' way for Britain to achieve this, was to gain sovereignty over the whole country, which Hobson did very successfully, without fuss with his Treaty and Governorship under extremely difficult circumstances.
Paul, it's time people with a little Maori ancestry, real or perceived and a Pakeha education, stopped continually belittling my ancestors and in most cases theirs as well, that saved their "native" ancestors from self-destruction. People like Hobson, Busby, Williams and hundreds of others lay down their lives to help your ancestors, but today many part-Maori and their pale mates belittle them with half-truths - how ungrateful is that! It's time you and your mates showed a little more respect for the people who
have done so much for the Maori population and New Zealand as a whole!
Yes, I agree there were mistakes made, and not only to Maori, but I am sure you will agree, New Zealand is a much better and safer place to live in now than it was prior to 1840 - so show a little respect to those who made it this way for all to enjoy. I don't expect you to reply to this - but think about it before you belittle our ancestors in your next article and show them a little more respect, you and your mates owe it to them big time!
Remember Paul, without British intervention, it could have been your tattooed head sitting on a pole in an enemies pa, or in a museum somewhere around the world!
Regards,
Ross Baker.
Researcher, One New Zealand Foundation Inc.
This email will be posted on our website, www.onenzfoundation.co.nz
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Moon" <paul.moon@aut.ac.nz>
To: <rossbaker@austarnet.com.au>
Sent: Monday, January 18, 2010 1:49 PM
Subject: Re: Treaty.
Dear Ross,
As I said previously, I am very stretched for time with my heavy writing schedule. I have, however, given you the courtesy of replies to your emails, and have tried to be as fair as possible. I note that few other academics have afforded you the same time.
Your latest comments, however, fall below a standard, which would incline me to respond to them directly. In particular, your reference to belittling ancestors and needing to show respect, I consider to be unnecessary, while your statement 'Remember Paul, without British intervention, it could have been your tattooed head sitting on a pole in an enemies pa, or in a museum somewhere around the world!' I find to be offensive on many levels.
I would therefore appreciate it if you avoid sending me these sorts of emails in the future.
Thanks you,
Paul
Professor Paul Moon
FRHistS UCol (London), BA (Auck), MPhil(Hons) (Massey), MA(Hons)(AUT), PhD (Massey)
------- Original Message -----
From: "Ross Baker" <rossbaker@austarnet.com.au>
To: "Paul Moon" <paul.moon@aut.ac.nz>
Sent: Monday, January 18, 2010 3:48 PM
Subject: Re: Treaty.
Thanks Paul,
Now you know how we feel when you "academics" belittle our ancestors to score points to support your unsubstantiated rubbish!
It used to be Rev Henry Williams and his son Edward with their translation of the Treaty into the Maori language, but the "final draft" found in 1989 soon put a stop to this. You don't have to be an "academic" to see there was no way the Maori version could be translated from James Freeman's unauthorised "Royal Style" version compiled for overseas dispatch. If Hobson hadn't realised it, the gathering at Waitangi when both were read, would have without doubt!
Paul, I respect you for responding, I agree most "academics" crawl back into their hole and hide when the going gets tough!
Anyway Paul, I'm pleased it hit a cord and hopefully you will now show more respect to my/our ancestors in the future. The Maori race today sure owes it to them - big time!
Regards,
Ross Baker.
The head has no body under it! An illustration taken from F E Manning's book, "Old New Zealand" written in 1912.
|
