The opponents clearly have not read the Treaty, the limitations you are implying were not included as a condition. As this is a contract between equal powers it cannot be unilaterally changed.
KiwiNZ: The opponents clearly have not read the Treaty, the limitations you are implying were not included as a condition. As this is a contract between equal powers it cannot be unilaterally changed.
Not sure if you're calling me an opponent there - if you are, then you clearly haven't read what I've written.
I've just asked one of my many Maori friends, who is very knowledgeable in this area, about the first sentence of Article 2 (where taonga is mentioned) and he had this to say:
"Ko te Kuini o Ingarangi The queen of England
Ka whakarite Will arrange
Ka whakaae Agrees
Ki nga rangatira To the chiefs
Ki nga hapu To the tribes (sub tribes)
Ki nga tangata katoa o Nu Tirani And all peoples of NZ
Te tino rangatiratanga Absolute authority
Ki o ratou whenua Of their lands
O ratou kainga Of their villages
Me o ratou taonga katoa. And all their treasures.
rangatiratanga and taonga are the words most in contention"
Whilst the Treaty brings the people of the country together under a single document, it cannot address cultural issues that separate those peoples cultural values. The most obvious example being the definition of land/property rights. Where one culture see's absolute transferable ownership, the other see's guardianship and shared ownership... though perhaps in some cases this model has been stretched in recent times.
And it's the vocal minorities (on both sides) that push to manipulate the process, based on cultural differences, rather than pursuing the mainstream approach that is helping to define who we New Zealanders actually are. (Sometimes it's easier to get traction for dissenting views.)
The vocal argument is actually very similar on both sides: On one hand it's; 'we won't do it your way as we didn't sign up to your system', and on the other it's the; 'you can have what you want as long as you only use it in a way you would have in the past'. There's no real attempt to work together and instead these voices focus on the negatives (of the past) rather than on the positives of a future.
They're failing to see the Treaty for what it is and will use it as a white flag, or a red one, rather than a combined one.
Bit like Government really. The opposition is always right, except of course when it is no-longer the opposition.
Unfortunately the treaty is a retarded foundation for this country:
Where are we going to be in xx years... great great great grand children of sort of European descent (but not really due to interracial marriage/breeding with Asian's, Indian's, Samoan's, Tongan's, Maori etc) still making settlements to great great great grand children of sort of Maori descent (but not really due to interracial marriage/breeding with Asian's, Indian's, Samoan's, Tongan's, Maori etc).... neither of which had anything remotely to do with far events past.
Race and ethnicity are not fixed over time.
The sooner we become a republic with one law for all, no special anything by race the better.
Ragnor: Unfortunately the treaty is a retarded foundation for this country:
Where are we going to be in xx years... great great great grand children of sort of European descent (but not really due to interracial marriage/breeding with Asian's, Indian's, Samoan's, Tongan's, Maori etc) still making settlements to great great great grand children of sort of Maori descent (but not really due to interracial marriage/breeding with Asian's, Indian's, Samoan's, Tongan's, Maori etc).... neither of which had anything remotely to do with far events past.
Race and ethnicity are not fixed over time.
The sooner we become a republic with one law for all, no special anything by race the better.
Or ...
We could have the great, great, great grand children of those who are alive now leaning about how, in a time where some indigenous people were classified as plants, the new people in New Zealand and the people who were already here sat down and tried to make an agreement on how to live together in a fair way, they called this The Treaty of Waitangi.
Sure, as often happens there were some hiccups. At some point some land was taken in what were rather dodgy circumstances and at another time some very outrageous claims were made over what was 'owned' by who and how that ownership worked.
Basically everybody tried their best to get along and nobody got too silly because they all remembered that the people who wrote and signed the Treaty of Waitangi were trying to do their best to get along as well and it was a good example.
New people to New Zealand, from all over the world, could see that from the earliest days people here have tried to get along by coming together to make agreements and while those people were never perfect they always tried to be fair.
History is not fixed over time either, we make it everyday by the stories we tell ourselves and each other.
I wouldn't have a problem with half of the treaty claims if the money gained from such actually passed down the line to those who's name the claim was made in instead of staying in the pockets of the few already rich Maori
the right of ownership for Maori in 1840 or before was what you could keep by right of arms so if you went to war over a piece of land, foreshore, lake or whatever and you lost then you lost the ownership seems simple to me give me a gun lets go to war
Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.
Dratsab: ...Me o ratou taonga katoa. And all their treasures.
rangatiratanga and taonga are the words most in contention"
Yep - hit the nail on the head there.
Taonga != Treasures Taonga = Posessions
Specifically, in the context of 1840, Taonga meant "Posessions obtained by the spear" a.k.a. the spoils of war. ("Tao" = "Spear" -> Taonga indicates 'From the Spear') as per the 1820 Maori dictionary produced in consultation with Ngapuhi Chief Hongi Hika.
It did not mean the Sun, stars, Moon, Wind, Water or 4G RF Spectrim.
Further evidence of this is in William Willaims' 1837 translation of the New Testament - Matther 6:19-21 uses the word 'taonga' in its reference to 'Worldly Posessions'. The verse goes on to be even more specific - defining these as items that "...can be devoured by moths and vermin" or "...that thieves can break in and steal"
It is only since the mid-eighties that the meaning of this word has been twisted to mean, "anything and everything that Maori value & cherish".
Dratsab: ...Me o ratou taonga katoa. And all their treasures.
rangatiratanga and taonga are the words most in contention"
Yep - hit the nail on the head there.
Taonga != Treasures Taonga = Posessions
Specifically, in the context of 1840, Taonga meant "Posessions obtained by the spear" a.k.a. the spoils of war. ("Tao" = "Spear" -> Taonga indicates 'From the Spear') as per the 1820 Maori dictionary produced in consultation with Ngapuhi Chief Hongi Hika.
It did not mean the Sun, stars, Moon, Wind, Water or 4G RF Spectrim.
Further evidence of this is in William Willaims' 1837 translation of the New Testament - Matther 6:19-21 uses the word 'taonga' in its reference to 'Worldly Posessions'. The verse goes on to be even more specific - defining these as items that "...can be devoured by moths and vermin" or "...that thieves can break in and steal"
It is only since the mid-eighties that the meaning of this word has been twisted to mean, "anything and everything that MaoriCAN MAKE A BUCK FROM".
I'm only going to say this once and if nobody wants to engage so be it but I feel the need to say it.
Why does there seem to be an issue with Maori exploiting a market opportunity to as some have said 'make a buck'. Isn't that we are supposed to do? Take advantage of opportunities to enrich ourselves?
Where is the outcry against those who use the current fashion for 'renewable' power to create wind turbines which don't really generate much power but attract massive government subsidies or builders and property developers who used relaxations in building regulations to make millions (billions?) building leaky homes?
These groups saw an opportunity to 'make a buck' and did, or are doing, just that. Why don't we have the same venom for wind turbine makers and builders? With these people we say: 'they were, are, acting within the law' and leave it at that.
As far as I am aware all these claims by Maori are within the law.
We might grumble or pick out individuals and say 'that person did wrong' but we don't say that group is bad in the same way. It seems we are holding Maori to a different standard.
Why?
Or it might just be me, or I might be missing something.
crackrdbycracku: I'm only going to say this once and if nobody wants to engage so be it but I feel the need to say it.
Why does there seem to be an issue with Maori exploiting a market opportunity to as some have said 'make a buck'. Isn't that we are supposed to do? Take advantage of opportunities to enrich ourselves?
Where is the outcry against those who use the current fashion for 'renewable' power to create wind turbines which don't really generate much power but attract massive government subsidies or builders and property developers who used relaxations in building regulations to make millions (billions?) building leaky homes?
These groups saw an opportunity to 'make a buck' and did, or are doing, just that. Why don't we have the same venom for wind turbine makers and builders? With these people we say: 'they were, are, acting within the law' and leave it at that.
As far as I am aware all these claims by Maori are within the law.
We might grumble or pick out individuals and say 'that person did wrong' but we don't say that group is bad in the same way. It seems we are holding Maori to a different standard.
Why?
Or it might just be me, or I might be missing something.
[edited for clarity]
u what? Are you seriously saying there has been no outcry on the leaky homes problem? Are you actually serious when you say that?
u what? Are you seriously saying there has been no outcry on the leaky homes problem? Are you actually serious when you say that?
No, I am saying that we are not labeling all builders and property developers the way we are labeling all Maori.
Look at where the outrage is directed, at the central and local government. Under current rules the central government covers a quarter of the cost of repairs, the local government covers a quarter and the home owner half.
How many builders or property developers have been prosecuted for what could be called criminal negligence or sued for damages? As far as I am aware, none. They acted under the law as it was at the time and 'we the people' say that's fine.
We are blaming the government for setting up the circumstances where this was allowed to happen. We are not blaming those who took advantage of the circumstances to their own advantage.
I find it interesting that you can link the situations. They are completely different in my opinion. The leaky homes problem arose from dodgy suppliers shafting their customers.
It was a one on one situation (that occurred thousands of times unfortunately) before the law stood in to provide a remedy.
Lets not forget that any business offering substandard services and materials (such as the builders and manufacturers responsible for leaky homes) may profit over the short term from their greedy behaviour - but over the longer term they loose.
Unreasonable Maori claims will affect the whole country - including the majority of Maori.
Only a few will benefit from these claims and the whole country pays.
All it will do is make the top few rich Maori even wealthier and everyone else will be worse off.
HOWEVER - the similarities are that the law should now be providing a remedy to these situations to stem this unreasonable behaviour from the select few 'powerful' Maori organizations.
It was a one on one situation (that occurred thousands of times unfortunately) before the law stood in to provide a remedy.
Really? I thought the one of the major problems was that laws over liability are not clearly defined. The recent case in Auckland being an example the court needing to define who is responsible/liable for what basically leaving home owners to wait to be told they got to hold the bag.
In contrast the Government has shown willingness to legislate over Maori claims clearly in the past such as foreshore and seabed. That didn't drag on for years and didn't cost the country much money. I think this current claim over water will go the same way.
Lets not forget that any business offering substandard services and materials (such as the builders and manufacturers responsible for leaky homes) may profit over the short term from their greedy behaviour - but over the longer term they loose.
No they don't. They declare bankruptcy making you and me, taxpayers, liable for the debts and are free to do the same thing again. Recently experts have claimed there are still leaky homes being built.
Unreasonable Maori claims will affect the whole country - including the majority of Maori.
Only a few will benefit from these claims and the whole country pays.
All it will do is make the top few rich Maori even wealthier and everyone else will be worse off.
You can argue needs of the many versus needs of the few and long term vs short term till the end of time. Property developers and builders made piles of cash from leaky homes, now they are making piles from 'fixing' leaky homes. Yeah, some rich Maori will get richer. So? Rich people always get richer, is it somehow different because they are Maori?
My point is that at worst Maori behaviour over claims is no worse, however the public reaction appears markedly different.
I can see your point and I'm not disputing rich Maori. It doesn't matter what race they are. Everyone has a right to accumulate wealth - this is a democracy. But the powerful Maori can exploit the current state of laws which are in their favour.
It is the crown that gave them this right - and only the accumulation of wealth and power that's enabled them to give credibility to such ridiculous claims.
These so called 'powerful Maori' (or representatives) who exploit the system do not share the resulting benefits with the rest of their tribe who are the true beneficiaries of such claims.
Instead they horde it and grow even wealthier and more powerful.
My dispute is with the LAW that enables this - not Maori.
Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly
to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.
ID Verified
Trusted
