Sex toys and Waitangi Day - Whats your take on the flip flopping day.

Forums › Off topic › Sex toys and Waitangi Day - Whats your take on the flip flopping day.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8

MikeAqua

4952 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2011

Reply # 1488194 9-Feb-2016 16:54

2 people support this post

I do think the treaty has an important role around the collective rights of iwi. Waitangi day means nothing to me.

If my memory of history classes is correct ..

The Treaty of Waitangi didn't establish a country.

It did establish a colony within the British Empire.

In 1852 we became a dominion 'where Britain goes we go etc'.

In the middle of last century (50s/60s I forget) we became a truly independent nation. I believe Jim Bolger once suggested we should celebrate that as our true national day. Something separate and positive is needed. A day where we focus on the values that unite, not the politics that divide.

I supported Clarke not attending I support Key in similar circumstances.

Mike

networkn

17957 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5171

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

Reply # 1488198 9-Feb-2016 17:01

Unless I am missing something, there is nothing "founding" about the treaty of Waitangi. It's an agreement to settle land disputes. Our founding documents were the constitutions handed down from Mother Britian at our inception and amendments subsequently.

There are next to no items in the TOW to my knowledge that governs our behaviour laws or anything else, other than as they relate to land settlements.

I think people often mistake this document as part of our founding documents when it fact, it's a significant (and important) part of our HISTORY.

networkn

17957 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5171

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

Reply # 1488204 9-Feb-2016 17:08

One person supports this post

MikeAqua:

I supported Clarke not attending I support Key in similar circumstances.

Agreed.

I notice that Andrew (I don't have an original thought) Little has jumped on the bandwagon suggesting he will "always" go to Waitangi. Easy to say when you don't have a country to look after as a whole.

6FIEND

659 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 554

Reply # 1488538 10-Feb-2016 08:39

2 people support this post

networkn:

Unless I am missing something, there is nothing "founding" about the treaty of Waitangi. It's an agreement to settle land disputes. Our founding documents were the constitutions handed down from Mother Britian at our inception and amendments subsequently.

There are next to no items in the TOW to my knowledge that governs our behaviour laws or anything else, other than as they relate to land settlements.

I think people often mistake this document as part of our founding documents when it fact, it's a significant (and important) part of our HISTORY.

The treaty of Waitangi has nothing whatsoever to do with settling land disputes, it is concerned with the ceding of governance of NZ by the Maori Chiefs to the British Crown in exchange for protection and the right to be treated as equals to British citizens/settlers. Land disputes arose from the confiscation of lands after the Treaty was signed. (Some by way of punishment for crimes of rebellion, others through greed and corruption of some of the colonial settlers... these disputes form the basis of the current iteration of Treaty claims.)

Te Tiriti o Waitangi is a rather brief document, and I encourage all New Zealanders to read it.

An even more concise version of it is quoted here:

Preamble: This is a treaty for the Maori people & the Settlers so that they can both be protected and live in peace together.
Article 1:  The Maori Chiefs surrender entire governorship of NZ to the Queen.
Article 2:  The Maori Chiefs get to keep their lands, dwellings & possessions.
Article 2a:  Any land they wish to sell may only be sold to the Crown. (At a mutually agreeable price.)
Article 3:  The Queen will protect the Maori and give them the same rights as the settlers.

6FIEND

659 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 554

Reply # 1488594 10-Feb-2016 09:45

One person supports this post

BTW, if anyone is interested in more than just the brief summary above, here is an interesting (I think) comparison.

The document on the left is the hand-written text of the Treaty that Governor Hobson dictated to his secretary. (Richard Busby) A typed version of this text is included next to it for ease of reading.

This document was then given to the missionaries for translation into Maori. This became "Te Tiriti o Waitangi" which is the document that was read out to the Chiefs and the one that they all signed. The Maori text of "Te Tiriti o Waitangi" is included on the right hand side.

Where it gets interesting is the translation of Te Tiriti back into English. A 1915 translation is included in the middle. It matches the original English text almost exactly (better than Google's translation service does today for English -> Japanese -> English :-)

The current "official" English version of the Treaty never existed on Feb 6th 1840. The differences between the two documents is not because of poor translation by the missionaries, or misunderstood concepts by the Chiefs - it is because the adopted English text is in fact an earlier draft of the Treaty that Hobson had previously rejected. It came to have official standing only because Te Tiriti was delayed en route to a signing ceremony in the Waikato, and the assembled Chiefs there needed something to make their mark on after being read the Te Tiriti text. (Hobson didn't sign this document until after he suffered a debilitating stroke... if you check his signature on it, it's a barely legible scrawl)

Compare the signature on the English vs. Te Tiriti.

networkn

17957 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5171

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

Reply # 1488601 10-Feb-2016 10:01

2 people support this post

6FIEND:

networkn:

Unless I am missing something, there is nothing "founding" about the treaty of Waitangi. It's an agreement to settle land disputes. Our founding documents were the constitutions handed down from Mother Britian at our inception and amendments subsequently.

There are next to no items in the TOW to my knowledge that governs our behaviour laws or anything else, other than as they relate to land settlements.

I think people often mistake this document as part of our founding documents when it fact, it's a significant (and important) part of our HISTORY.

The treaty of Waitangi has nothing whatsoever to do with settling land disputes, it is concerned with the ceding of governance of NZ by the Maori Chiefs to the British Crown in exchange for protection and the right to be treated as equals to British citizens/settlers. Land disputes arose from the confiscation of lands after the Treaty was signed. (Some by way of punishment for crimes of rebellion, others through greed and corruption of some of the colonial settlers... these disputes form the basis of the current iteration of Treaty claims.)

Te Tiriti o Waitangi is a rather brief document, and I encourage all New Zealanders to read it.

An even more concise version of it is quoted here:

Preamble: This is a treaty for the Maori people & the Settlers so that they can both be protected and live in peace together.
Article 1:  The Maori Chiefs surrender entire governorship of NZ to the Queen.
Article 2:  The Maori Chiefs get to keep their lands, dwellings & possessions.
Article 2a:  Any land they wish to sell may only be sold to the Crown. (At a mutually agreeable price.)
Article 3:  The Queen will protect the Maori and give them the same rights as the settlers.

Well, I don't often get things this badly wrong, but seems I owe some people a sincere apology for my longstanding misunderstanding of the treaty and the order in which things happened. I feel red faced and deservedly so. I am not sure how what I (recall being) taught at school falls so far from the facts.

I am happy to stand by my original comments that the claims made on the treaty were valid and should be settled hastily and should be final in all regards.

I am not sure now that a change of name would be entirely appropriate, but should still be considered given NZ is a melting pot of cultures and beliefs and that the entire week was farcical and a distraction from what should be a national day, not about 1 area of NZ.

Reciprocity

111 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 84

Reply # 1490209 11-Feb-2016 10:06

One person supports this post

Very good synopsis.

A few minor points:

6FIEND: The document on the left is the hand-written text of the Treaty that Governor Hobson dictated to his secretary. (Richard Busby)

That would be James Busby - the British Resident and Administrator for the Queen before Hobson was sent.

6FIEND: ...the adopted English text is in fact an earlier draft of the Treaty that Hobson had previously rejected.

Is was based on an earlier, rejected draft version and further changed by one of Hobson's secretaties, James Freeman.

It really ought not have ever existed, let alone been ratified as an official text. Hobson was clear that there was only ever one version - Te Tiriti o Waitangi. In his own words:

“The treaty which forms the base of all my proceedings was signed at Waitangi on the 6th February 1840, by 52 chiefs, 26 of whom were of the federation, and formed a majority of those who signed the Declaration of Independence.

This instrument I consider to be de facto the treaty, and all signatures that are subsequently obtained are merely testimonials of adherence to the terms of that original document”.

Geektastic

11831 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3836

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

Reply # 1490657 11-Feb-2016 17:30

6FIEND:

BTW, if anyone is interested in more than just the brief summary above, here is an interesting (I think) comparison.

The document on the left is the hand-written text of the Treaty that Governor Hobson dictated to his secretary. (Richard Busby) A typed version of this text is included next to it for ease of reading.

This document was then given to the missionaries for translation into Maori. This became "Te Tiriti o Waitangi" which is the document that was read out to the Chiefs and the one that they all signed. The Maori text of "Te Tiriti o Waitangi" is included on the right hand side.

Where it gets interesting is the translation of Te Tiriti back into English. A 1915 translation is included in the middle. It matches the original English text almost exactly (better than Google's translation service does today for English -> Japanese -> English :-)

The current "official" English version of the Treaty never existed on Feb 6th 1840. The differences between the two documents is not because of poor translation by the missionaries, or misunderstood concepts by the Chiefs - it is because the adopted English text is in fact an earlier draft of the Treaty that Hobson had previously rejected. It came to have official standing only because Te Tiriti was delayed en route to a signing ceremony in the Waikato, and the assembled Chiefs there needed something to make their mark on after being read the Te Tiriti text. (Hobson didn't sign this document until after he suffered a debilitating stroke... if you check his signature on it, it's a barely legible scrawl)

Compare the signature on the English vs. Te Tiriti.

That middle version really is quite remarkable gibberish. No wonder everyone is confused.

pctek

616 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 102

Reply # 1491269 12-Feb-2016 16:47

One person supports this post

It is a good day. But the news media have spent far too much time focussing on that pathetic group of s*** stirrers up north every year and the politicians have likewise spent far too much time there too.

So that's where ha;lf the tribes signed to document that had 2 different translations. And? Moving on now, maori friends I have don't care about the w***s up there making a scene every yeaR.

Mr key and the rest should go to the beach next year instead.

JimmyH

2536 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1198

Reply # 1492318 14-Feb-2016 23:07

One person supports this post

I see the Herald is reporting that JK was Jeered and Booed by anti-TPP protesters at the Big Gay Out as well.

There is a bit in the story stating that "three protesters also closed in on him holding signs that said 'capitalism is climate change war and pollution' "

I don't even know what that slogan means, let alone what it remotely has to do with a gay pride day?

If this is the sort of abusive and incoherent nonsense that was happening at Waitangi, I take it as confirming my view he was right to just give it a miss.

Geektastic

11831 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3836

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

Reply # 1492326 14-Feb-2016 23:15

JimmyH:

I see the Herald is reporting that JK was Jeered and Booed by anti-TPP protesters at the Big Gay Out as well.

There is a bit in the story stating that "three protesters also closed in on him holding signs that said 'capitalism is climate change war and pollution' "

I don't even know what that slogan means, let alone what it remotely has to do with a gay pride day?

If this is the sort of abusive and incoherent nonsense that was happening at Waitangi, I take it as confirming my view he was right to just give it a miss.

Agreed. You don't get the impression that the placard waivers have day jobs as neurosurgeons...

gzt

10125 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1541

Reply # 1492338 14-Feb-2016 23:38

PMs giving Waitangi days a miss is nothing new. As for the TPP protesters at the Big Gay Out, I did not see any detailed reporting but it is possible the protesters have legitimate concerns to express about potential future availability of biologic Aids related treatments.

It is also possible they just went along for a good yell at the PM for no particular reason. According to reporting at least three were climate change oriented, leaving 27 other protesters views unaccounted for.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8