Thankyou for your wise and well presented commentary on the debate.
From the commentary, I would mention the Quote below.
"My point being” he (Metlik) said “to think the Rangatira would surrender their mana to a couple of blokes and some missionaries is preposterous, culturally and psychologically impossible.”
In my honest humble critique and personal opinion,
Somewhat obviously this modern pseudo academic is besotted with the newly configured construction of Rangatira "Mana". This construct only lives in the minds of modern armchair activists and their ill informed followers. Whilst Mana may have been attributed, mostly underpinned by fear of violence, by the underlings of the various tribes, this mana status was never accorded any serious value by the British, the British military, the British Navy, nor the Australian Office of the Colonial Service. The very idea that; uneducated, ignorant, predominantly heathen, cannibal, natives, most of whom could not write their own name, carried any sort of superior status such as portrayed by the modern construct of "mana", is greater than preposterous, it is unthinkable.
To put this in the correct perspective. To think a Commissioned British Naval Officer, with such education as to navigate a ship to the far side of the world, one expressly instructed and guided by his Superior, one holding the Office Of Governor, and command of the Military forces and Naval Forces, would consider to negotiate on the Treaty Document written under his own authority, would accept to make a Treaty on Behalf of his Sovereign, without the primary purpose of Total and complete Governance of ALL the peoples, (to be relegated to only governing the white Settlers, which incidentally he was already empowered to do irrespective of the Treaty), Thereby negating the very purpose of such a Treaty, is not only Stupendously Preposterous, but clearly demonstrates the dereliction of intellect in this modern pseudo academic proposer, who conveniently fails to recognize Hobson's primary purpose.
Sadly this demonstrates that this modern representation of "mana" is no more developed and educated than were the signatories of 1840. This is not entirely unexpected given the intense focus on a stagnant 1840s language and culture and the inward looking self serving tribal hierarchy of that culture.
If the construct interpretation what this proposer says were to be true, then the Treaty is fundamentally flawed, and should be immediately declared Void and abandoned by the Crown.
I watched the Treaty debate and the incorrect informstion about the chiefs was mind blowing.. as offered by Helmet. The fact that some Chiefs were so concerned about the actual out of control massacre of tribes against tribes. They went to England to seek help from Queen Victora to restore law and order. All countries have pasts they dont want to discuss but the Maori way of dominance over each other reached a crisis point. Cannibalism was a fact so was the taking of prisoners and other more horrendous activities. Stick to the facts. People who have migrated here had children made a commitment to the developmwnt of NZ. David has taken a huge step in defining what the orginal Treaty stated because in1975 unbeknown to most New Zealanders a new interpretation was written. How dare they!!!. I would like to see more programmes still discussing true facts about our Treaty. Well done to David for being calm in the midst of a fervent discussion. We cannot have 2 methods of governance. We must stick to democrocracy
Thankyou for your wise and well presented commentary on the debate.
From the commentary, I would mention the Quote below.
"My point being” he (Metlik) said “to think the Rangatira would surrender their mana to a couple of blokes and some missionaries is preposterous, culturally and psychologically impossible.”
In my honest humble critique and personal opinion,
Somewhat obviously this modern pseudo academic is besotted with the newly configured construction of Rangatira "Mana". This construct only lives in the minds of modern armchair activists and their ill informed followers. Whilst Mana may have been attributed, mostly underpinned by fear of violence, by the underlings of the various tribes, this mana status was never accorded any serious value by the British, the British military, the British Navy, nor the Australian Office of the Colonial Service. The very idea that; uneducated, ignorant, predominantly heathen, cannibal, natives, most of whom could not write their own name, carried any sort of superior status such as portrayed by the modern construct of "mana", is greater than preposterous, it is unthinkable.
To put this in the correct perspective. To think a Commissioned British Naval Officer, with such education as to navigate a ship to the far side of the world, one expressly instructed and guided by his Superior, one holding the Office Of Governor, and command of the Military forces and Naval Forces, would consider to negotiate on the Treaty Document written under his own authority, would accept to make a Treaty on Behalf of his Sovereign, without the primary purpose of Total and complete Governance of ALL the peoples, (to be relegated to only governing the white Settlers, which incidentally he was already empowered to do irrespective of the Treaty), Thereby negating the very purpose of such a Treaty, is not only Stupendously Preposterous, but clearly demonstrates the dereliction of intellect in this modern pseudo academic proposer, who conveniently fails to recognize Hobson's primary purpose.
Sadly this demonstrates that this modern representation of "mana" is no more developed and educated than were the signatories of 1840. This is not entirely unexpected given the intense focus on a stagnant 1840s language and culture and the inward looking self serving tribal hierarchy of that culture.
If the construct interpretation what this proposer says were to be true, then the Treaty is fundamentally flawed, and should be immediately declared Void and abandoned by the Crown.
Very well said, Zespritz.
As you clearly describe - it is ridiculous to claim that the signees of the Treaty did not cede sovereignty.
That's what the purpose of the Treaty was !!
I watched the Treaty debate and the incorrect informstion about the chiefs was mind blowing.. as offered by Helmet. The fact that some Chiefs were so concerned about the actual out of control massacre of tribes against tribes. They went to England to seek help from Queen Victora to restore law and order. All countries have pasts they dont want to discuss but the Maori way of dominance over each other reached a crisis point. Cannibalism was a fact so was the taking of prisoners and other more horrendous activities. Stick to the facts. People who have migrated here had children made a commitment to the developmwnt of NZ. David has taken a huge step in defining what the orginal Treaty stated because in1975 unbeknown to most New Zealanders a new interpretation was written. How dare they!!!. I would like to see more programmes still discussing true facts about our Treaty. Well done to David for being calm in the midst of a fervent discussion. We cannot have 2 methods of governance. We must stick to democrocracy
"one wonders just what level of indoctrination is taking place during school hours."
Does the 'wondering one' include yourself, with grandies going through this indoctrination, Peter?
Well said Peter. Bradbury's rant was appalling, clearly he's wishing for a return to the barbarity of 180 years ago.