General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

MountainMaid
1News
comments

Comments by "MountainMaid" (@MountainMaid238) on "Trick or Treaty? Indigenous rights, referendums and the Treaty of Waitangi" video.

@bobsemple07 Since when? There were plenty of laws made, racist laws against Māori, on education, health etc. The recent laws to redress those racist laws were to fix those mistakes. How is basic NZ history not common knowledge for some?
15
@bobsemple07 Equality isn't even close to being achieved in this country. It's like if someone handed out cows milk to everyone and told them that's all they get, now you're equal, be happy. The lactose intolerant ones won't be 🤣
11
@edwardburn9994 Māori are indigenous and the rest of your comment is uneducated colonial nonsense
8
@schlookie Wrong, the other guy is right. Māori will be the second most populous ethnicities after Asians in 20-40 years. The Māori youth of today will be the taxpayers holding up the super of the aging Pākeha sector - unless they vote out that privilege
8
@schlookie Smartest thing you've said so far 🤣
8
@olsaffa7679 The gravy train has always been for the Pākeha, so you must be one too since you live for their way of being. Apartheid is discrimination against race and segregating a people by it. You're using the South African example of how it was applied, it's used here too but in different ways - to assimilate. And come on, why do you think SOME Māori sold SOME land? Some of that need came out of desperation, shit was changing and they were no longer thriving off the land (colonial butchering of waterways, forest etc for development) and losing access to traditional hunting/gathering sites. If you know anything about the history of the country, you'll know that much. Stone age haha you like your colonial mindset, that statement is so boring. Like I said Matauranga and quantum mechanics are alike so stone-age that. And if the Treaty is honoured this country will thrive because the science states 'whats good for Māori is good for everyone', because indigenous ideals favour diversity of land and people, protection of land and people. If Māori thrive, we all do
8
@davethewave7248 So quoting a Ngapuhi who became religious, not surprised he was for the Treaty for 'protection against lawless pākeha'. But it is a massive reach to then INFER from this instance, that ALL Māori completely and absolutely knew what the ENGLISH treaty was referring to, despite hundreds NOT signing that one, but Te Tīriti. You are also attempting to gaslight by saying because he was for the treaty, he and (massive leap here, watch the hamstring) other chiefs were all for it. Yes they were, but not for the same reasons the Crown were. The motivations were never the same. I've read what Nene and other chiefs have said, and because I know they don't think and feel like Pākeha/non-Māori, I'm not flavouring their words with British sensibilities the way you are. Māori absolutely were for a treaty that allowed them to be Māori, to retain being Māori (land = being Māori, so wouldn't be giving that up anymore than plucking out an eyeball and handing that over), and have a Queen that ruled her lawless pioneers. Getting more resources through trade with the incoming flux of potentially lawless Brits? Another bonus. All that makes complete sense, until the Crown reneged. And now here we are. Don't forget historians have to use the same primary sources we all do, and if they're not careful, they may not be able to read past some of the racist, subjective or outright fictional observations ethnographers recorded. That's why it's best to use critical thinking and throw the net wider, including histories recorded by other people/sources. So again, you haven't proven by giving direct evidence. You take one quote from a book, then radicalize it with a colonists perspective, a non-Māori perspective.
7
@edwardburn9994 Wow, how come you know only racist ideals about Māori but none of the facts? Whose manifesto are you quoting?
7
@222-i6o Rangatira was most definitely a word before colonisation, so indeed Rangatiratanga was and is a well understood concept by Māori - it's our own word. Just because it was new to the Pākeha is their problem. Māori never ceded. Hence, why laments, waiata, karakia, whakatauki etc regarding the Crown going back on their Treaty promise have been passed on SINCE 1840. Māori have never forgotten, and have made sure their descendants haven't either.
7
@olsaffa7679 If NZ manages to aid their indigenous population to thrive like they once did, then all of Aotearoa New Zealand will thrive
7
Kāo e hoa, manaaki still reigns. Just like our Tūpuna were attempting to do in the first place - you and yours are welcome. Always xox
7
@davethewave7248 Nope, you're wrong. Article 1: Govern, not sovereignty. Māori definitely knew the difference between the two, always have. Article 2: Possessions. This is about sovereignty. Māori retain the authority and ownership over everything that makes them who they are and their land. Article 3: the same rights as British subjects. Reasons why the crown entered into a treaty: there were unruly Brits already here that needed law and order, they wanted to establish another colony and beat the French to it, and the treaty gave them more power to do both. Without the Treaty the crown could do nothing. No land, no government, no rights to rule. Those are not 'getting nothing'. That's what modern day Aotearoa New Zealand society is made from. When you say 'think about it', that's when you start inferring and speculating and adding a modern lense to what happened. I'll go by the evidence rather than your interpretations and generalisations.
7
@davethewave7248 Yes the chiefs signed the Treaty that allowed the Queen to govern her subjects on their land (because the crown had no rights up until that point), protect Māori from lawless Brits using said governance, and guaranteeing Māori sovereignty. The Māori never (and continue not to) wanted the crown to 'solve their warring ways' as you infer, Māori were wanting the Queen to manage her own lawless people, maintain their sovereignty and have the protections that come with being a British subject. That's the Treaty. That has always been the Treaty.
6
@bobsemple07 That's inhumane, that covers all ages, sexes and races. You hate people or something?
6
@bobsemple07 Some of the best baristas are vegan Don't play games with my morning coffee ☕😂
6
@Matikemai2040 pests, invasive weeds, diseases Love it 🤣
6
@olsaffa7679 Blah, blah, blah. Tell me know nothing about Indigenous New Zealanders without telling me
6
 @j6077xxd Not all people, just the current majority. A majority built off the thieving of a British Crown.
6
@tjmarx Yeah, ok, but do you ever use critical thinking to think for yourself? Like, who decided this definition belongs in the dictionary I'm reading? Does that persons intention, understanding and potential agenda align with mine? Unity has multiple meanings depending on who is defining it. Indigenous, catholic, science etc. Your dictionary for unity is not the only knowledge base to draw from. And all words are made up anyway, so don't take yourself so seriously.
6
@davethewave7248 Prove it, don't infer, reference direct evidence that Māori knew they were giving up what made them who they are, and happily did so. You keep saying that statement without any proof all over the comment section.
5
@davethewave7248 You have to remember Dave, Māori are Iwi/hapu defined and were/are sovereign under those conditions. Fighting with other Iwi doesn't take that sovereignty away, why would it? How would it? It doesn't work that way, which is why all Iwi still own that sovereignty today. It's why northern and southern Māori, Taranaki and Waikato, are all still here in their sovereignty, and regardless of past history, ready to join all Iwi to fight against the government/Crown. To remind the Crown and all those illiterate in Te Tīriti that Māori retained their sovereignty in 1840, until today in 2024 and forever, even on Mars. I'm educated on our country's history not through books but through living it. I know the versions through media, our education system and through my own people on the west coast of Te Ika. There is also a very distinct difference between Māori and non-Māori that I think you're unaware of, or choose to ignore - the thinking between crown and Māori are not the same. Māori are hapu/Iwi based and are sovereign in that respect,and their intelligence's stem from that framework, and the crown are colonial-minded and define the world from its own sensibilities (or lack thereof), and many historians draw their insights with the same colonial ignorance. In saying that, even if Māori were to be written about, hardly any would share all their knowledge with non-Māori - such is the ingrained mistrust since the crown instigated a treaty that they immediately broke. So you can take your privilege and your readings with you to the grave because you will not change the mind of those who live the reality of a broken treaty - their lived realities I doubt very much are on your pages.
5
@bobsemple07 Ah nice, the worlds dying just the way you like it, it seems
5
@olsaffa7679 Well actually, the first New Zealanders were the Māori, and Britain came over and needed land and to rule her subjects already here, but had no jurisdiction and it was costing too much to try and conquer the Māori - hence the Treaty. So prior to 1840, this country indeed was Māori country. Now, because the Crown reneged on their Treaty promise, all their activities and laws should all be illegal. But they've carried on like nothing happened - and here we all are, you, me, Frank, Rajiv, Fita, Naeve, Siwa and Hawaiki dealing with the aftermath
5
@olsaffa7679 The problem is, there is a legal document called the Treaty in this country. It is supposed to be binding like any other jurisdiction we have. It should be held in the same regard as all laws passed in this country. So what, some laws are more lawful than others? Which ones? Are laws pertaining to children more lawful than the ones for elderly? Who decides? The colonisation that occurred in this country never should have happened even under their own laws. So if the government/crown back then can break laws, what's to stop them doing it tomorrow.
5
@olsaffa7679 The Treaty is ad hoc written into legislation, so is legal by proxy. It is a jurisdiction because the Crown needed it have authority over the people on this land. Without it, no jurisdiction for the government/crown to be here.
5
@olsaffa7679 And talking about taxes ... In 20 to 40 years (if not sooner) the second largest ethnicity after Asians in this country will be Māori. They'll be the taxpayers paying the super for elderly non-Māori who voted against their needs - unless Māori banned together and vote that little privilege along with other policies that don't benefit their health, education or rights to proper housing. Those adults will be the children living through this governments shenanigans, the children protesting, the children watching and waiting for their time.
5
@olsaffa7679 The Treaty was designed by the Crown, so it's important as anything else they design, especially since a whole-ass nation sprung out from it. It's given lesser importance after it was signed only because the government/Crown want to pretend they didn't agree to what it says. Also Te Tīriti is really simple, the language used isn't complicated so misinterpreting their meaning requires actual lying. Again, ancient Māori were strategists (obviously) and warriors so ceding isn't a natural response for Chiefs of that time, in addition to the fact that they don't think like a Pākeha - so yes getting the same protections (i.e the same rights as the British Subjects who were being a nuisance) secured Māori their sovereignty in their own land, which also means they don't cede sovereignty for that to be true. It's not hard to follow, and makes perfect sense. Having rights to continue being yourself isn't apartheid. Forcing a people who didn't agree to your changes (based on your value system - British, a 'white' race) in their country to live them - well, that sounds alot like apartheid in sheep's clothing doesn't it.
5
@JohanThiart Yes, and some of those needs are based on age, sex and... (hold your breath) race. Especially in a country when one race (non-Māori) have been draining the system dry for themselves since setting up said system
5
@davethewave7248 Te Tiriti clearly states that Māori gave the Queen permission to govern this country, and that Māori retain their sovereignty of all their possessions including land. When Hobson declared instead that the chiefs gave up their sovereignty (a warrior race just giving up? No, no-one would believe that), that's where he fd up. Badly. Even school children know this much.
5
@waynekilgour393 Young people today know more about the world they're inheriting than we did, because they're literally getting whatever we haven't squandered - which isn't much now. So don't compare, these kids haven't had the choice to keep their childhood dreams as long as we did
5
@waynekilgour393 How do you think the youth are lucky? Most will never own their own home, will always have microplastics in their air, land, Sea and blood, and are on a finite planet, with more humans to come. I think they might be more aware about the state of things than the elderly.
5
@steviejustamann9689 Children these days are more literate on matters that affect their future (or lack thereof) than the elderly who continue to vote like it's the 1960's, and have learnt nothing
5
@davethewave7248 I'm going to focus on the most glaring misinformation in your comments. Māori were absolutely forcibly and violently removed from their lands, Parihaka is one example. Māori were often illegally removed until legislation was passed to make it legal. Call it ethnic cleansing if you want. This historical fact you're absolutely wrong on - Te Tīriti is NOT a Māori translated version of the English, and the English version is NOT an English translated version of Te Tīriti. THEY ARE TWO SEPERATE DOCUMENTS. They were two separate documents at the time they were written. They are not the same, that's the problem. How is this not sinking in for you? Stop trying to change history with outright lying. Where did you ever learn that Māori experienced total loss of land before colonisation? They did not. Northern Māori lived in the north, I don't know any who don't. There are countless Iwi still there today. You keep looking at Māori ways of thinking with a colonised mind, only to prove your unrealistic view. Again, read the government apologies for proper facts and figures. And maybe learn Te Reo while you're at it understand the differences in the treaty and Te Tīriti, instead of quoting someone else's misunderstandings. In fact, until you acknowledge the truth that there are two separate documents, none of what you say is historically accurate. You're missing a big chunk of history from your worldview.
4
When He Whakaputanga was written, Māori were still hapu based people rather than Iwi like today. He Whakaputanga declared Māori sovereignty and that no foreigners could make laws in this country.
4
@davethewave7248 Can you please stop gaslighting? You're the one flavouring statements as genocide or ethnic cleansing. I'm not. I'm just stating what happened. Though if you look too hard at the facts, what happened to Taranaki Māori men, and the raping of women and children by European soldiers was abhorrent. From the beginning, Māori and their chiefs wanted to maintain their sovereignty as declared in He Whakaputanga 1835, and later in Te Tīriti with the Te Reo Māori version being the most popular and signed document. The first article says both Rangatira and kawanatanga, so it's obvious that it's a reference to governing - kawanatanga. Because in article 2, Rangatiratanga is referenced. It's referenced as the Queen giving permission to all Māori to retain their right to their sovereignty. In the context of the article 2 itself, it makes it very clear. There's no misinterpretation, because kawanatanga is in article 1, and Rangatiratanga in article 2, seperating the two concept's within context.
4
@bobsemple07 Ah now everything makes so much sense 🤣
4
@olsaffa7679 Can't. It's a legal document. If you revoke one jurisdiction, we should revoke all and start again.
4
@olsaffa7679 Yep, it sucks. Can't remember his name, but the dude who quickly wrote the treaty on his way to Aotearoa New Zealand (instead of while in England) and then hurriedly translated into Te Reo has caused this mess. But it's a founding document. And yes, millions of people work, live and breed on a land illegally obtained, laws brought over from Britain, that the colonial government couldn't even follow. The whole society of Aotearoa New Zealand is based on a lie.
4
@olsaffa7679 Not demanding anything, but don't want to be told by racist policies what cultural practices (ones developed and designed for this very soil) we can and can't do in the land that they came from
4
@olsaffa7679 Thanks for the healthy debate, yep I can't stand how much gets taken out of my pay for taxes - I guess some of it goes to the substandard medical care I've been receiving lately. Cheers
4
@stephenc8956 Oh no lol you said the evil word: egalitarian 🤣 One of the tools of Imperialism. Egalitarianism is how you conform people to fit into boxes in order to control. Agreed, it isn't wise to ignore the negative traits of any people - aren't you glad you didn't sprinkle your Christmas feast with mummified remains? European cannibalism. We know that Māori were business minded and recognised that the British had created a hell hole of their own land, and desperately needed more. Māori knew this and kindly offered them haven, with interest. The interest being having the same rights as those coming. It's a lie that we don't know why Māori signed the true treaty, Te Tīriti - we know why they signed: they wanted to continue having their own sovereignty, they also wanted the rights of British subjects, all in exchange for the Crown to govern and bring some of their people here. We know this because Māori have been complaining that that deal was breached from the very moment it was breached: which was immediately! This has always been known in Māori circles, but oppressed by mainstream up until recently. You probably meant egalitarianism as in equal for all rather than its imperial version, but I don't think that works. What I need as a cis lactose intolerant neurodiverse woman with dense bones, would be different to a diabetic trans woman who is vegan. Our needs are vastly different and require different spectrums of support throughout health, education, society etc. No thank you egalitarianism.
4
 @davethewave7248 He did. Obviously. Māori never, ever ceded sovereignty and never will. How is this most basic part of NZ history not common knowledge for some?
4
@davethewave7248 What are you talking about? Which Te Heu Heu are you referencing? Iwikau Te Heu Heu Tūkino of Tūwharetoa signed with Te Korohiko present because he bought into Williams explanations. I can't comment on Te Whero Whero, he's Waikato so I leave those matters to those who it belongs to - and I'll listen to his descendants before relying on the opinion of someone's quick google search. You might need to check your sources. Or crack a book. Or chat to a descendant.
4
@davethewave7248 Te Tīriti Article 1 - Māori give the British the right to govern Te Tīriti Article 2 - Māori retain sovereignty over their lands and taonga Te Tīriti Article 3 - Māori are promised the benefits of British citizenship That's the Treaty I've always known
4
Māori ARE indigenous, going by international definitions. What boat hating reference are you trying to spread? You look like your trying to start a conspiracy...
4
@waynekilgour393 They're aware, and they're angry about it. Majority of future adults (the children of today), are to live with what our generation has left for them. Your family is an exception, not the rule unfortunately. Most future Kiwis won't live like us. And they blame us and past generations for that.
4
@davethewave7248 Agreed, Busby designed He Whakaputanga as a way to further place Aotearoa into Imperialist hands, and Māori signed to further safeguard their people from the rapid change they were experiencing with the colonists. There again were two documents produced, the Māori version declaring that the chiefs were sovereign and no foreigners could make laws.
3
@davethewave7248 There, you speculated - you're assuming that for Māori would have to give up their sovereignty to be given the protections of British subjects. They didn't automatically assume that then, as thinking that way is a white, modern privilege way of thinking. So, let's do this again to see if you finally understand what's going on: Article 1: Governance Article 2: Sovereignty of land and culture Article 3: Rights as British Subjects. Done
3
@bobsemple07 🤣
3
@bobsemple07 Water laced with microplastics. Yum 😋. Probably the juice too
3
@olsaffa7679 Yep, that's right, it was costing too much. They had a budget for soldiers and war equipment and they were going over. It's part of our history, it's easy to look that stuff up. So the Crown created a Treaty they had no intention of honouring just so they could start their plundering - and here we are today. A legal document that they created that they didn't even follow. Sets up a precedence. Actually, ancient Māori were business savvy and had scientific concepts that align with quantum mechanics and other sciences, which is why Matauranga Māori and science pair so well when innovating. Bronze Age, stone age whatever are great milestones to mark some societal progress, but it's certainly not the only measure. In terms of hand outs, the colonial government/crown have ensured that Pākeha benefit the most since the 1800's. They set up the system we're all forced to live by, which addresses and nurtures British sensibilities and worldviews - and just expects -or gaslights - everyone else including the original New Zealanders to accept their normal as universal - because they say so. Nah. Also, genetics is a lottery so unless we go around sequencing everyone, we have no idea what genes a person has or has not. Best to stay clear of that blood quantum lunacy from the colonial era.
3
@olsaffa7679 Actually Ngati Tama and Ngati Mutunga brutalized the Moriori, not Māori. Now I sit back and wait for you to say it....
3
@olsaffa7679 No to one rule. This country was illegally obtained. A country that is now worth about $2 to $6 trillion and none of that going to the original owners. Just remember, today's Māori youth are tomorrows taxpayers. And from a net wealth of $2 trillion, $4 billion is nothing. That $4 billion is an investment for the elderly Pākeha to have healthy taxpayers to care for them in the coming future.
3
@chrissiecurtis3045 The government has always made race based policies - in favour of non-Māori. Always. That has to stop. Māori signed Te Tīriti to maintain their sovereignty, that is to continue living as Māori (which has never happened due to race based policies stopping them) etc. The hand outs such as oppressing Māori to advance the non-Māori in the country yes needs to end. Non-Māori have been receiving hand outs for so long, and have attempted to assimilate indigenous for so long, they don't even know they're receiving the hand outs in the first place. Time to share people.
3
@andycy2226 That's the agreement, because one race wanted to coexist in the land belonging to another race, and to do so they created the Treaty. Britain and her subjects didn't belong here without it. So yes it's based in race because well, it is. It's racist in today's context, sure. I don't know where your reasoning or information is from, but majority of Māori are in poverty and not middle class. You're intentionally spreading misinformation.
3
@andycy2226 You are in fact being the exact definition of racist, you just don’t know it. The multi ethnic government forced to uphold a ‘white’ Westminster system (an intrinsic racist paradigm that keeps the ‘white’ world rich - a prejudice), and in Aotearoa, limits the amount of influence a Treaty partner has (wether in government or out (breach of article 2) - prejudice and institutional power), in spite of a Treaty that was signed by both and backed by thousands of hours of expert and scientific evidence (institutional power again). Racism = prejudice + institutional power.
3
@LonelyVoiceintheDark I'm stating facts from the Māori version, Te Tīriti, so don't know how quoting from direct evidence makes me wrong. Te Tīriti is self explanatory, hence why hundreds of chiefs signed that version. Being an asshole is of course, optional. Not sure I've achieved that either, but go off.
3
You've been reading someone's Manifesto. Your paragraphs are littered with it. I don't know who you're referring to, but Māori have long memories and events are past on through the generations as they occurred at the time. So all this right-whinger philosophy and labelling you're hung up on doesn't fly with Māori. Those that were present at those events, pass on the information, which gets carried on throughout the generations. When you don't rely on a written language (and hence forget what you know), you have sharp minds with even sharper memories. So Māori know what their chiefs were thinking at the time, because all descendants are raised to know it. And the story has never changed. So I don't know who you think you're referencing, but it's not Māori.
3
@davethewave7248 Again, wrong. That's not how the tribes saw it, that's your modern take on it. I know some historians state as much, but ask the Iwi themselves and they say it differently. Stop lying about mass cannibal feasts, that never happened. That type of cannibalism never occurred, only ritual cannibalism. Humans were not a source of food. You're really uneducated on the cannibalism. Christianity is far from civilised. The Treaty gave the Queen and her people the right to be here. It wasn't to stop inter tribal warfare. Your stuck in your own narrative, and trying to flavour historical events with your racist agenda. Māori and young Aotearoa New Zealanders know the truth, know their history. Your slant on things is the institutionalized racism that will be stomped out by this generation. People are sick of the lies.
3
@davethewave7248 The truth around The Musket Wars is not the truth I'm debating. The wars have and still influence inter tribal relations and relationships today, for good and for bad. HOWEVER, what happened after the Treaty, the confiscations, the dodgy land deals etc, was worse because Māori were being forced into being something else, on an intergenerational scale. That kind of devastation on a people never ended, it is still causing harm to this day. There's a reason why the wars were forgotten - they were tragic, but the breach of the Treaty continues to destroy a people from in every way possible, to assimilate, to degrade.
3
@stephenc8956 They can, but as mentioned before, the ones around the Treaty, a relatively new event, has not changed. More often than not, when Māori oral tradition are analysed especially in topics like geography, exploration, agriculture etc they're accurate because they died if they were not. Understanding the Māori mind also helps to understand the way they would capture and transfer information, and most importantly - why. It's an old, often colonial fallacy to mistrust oral traditions because those uninformed think critical thinking is not applied, when it must be. That's how Māori survived.
3
@stephenc8956 I can see the colonised view and state of mind throughout your writings, which is justifiable if you've never had your worldview challenged. The ancient Māori mind is not present today, either culturally or socially like it once was. Colonisation is thanked for that. The separation of Māori and their culture has more or less been achieved, and what remains is a tiny portion of what once was. Yes, colonisation. May I ask why you glazed past the sciences of exploration and agriculture and focused on the warfare etc? I find your focus fascinating and tells me a lot. Personally I enjoy learning about their scientific mind, how quantum mechanics and the Māori worldview align (for Māori time is circular and can be 'viewed' forwards and backwards i.e mana of a person or people influences today's people and it's past people). Māori had Whare Wānanga long before the British introduction of its fledgling education system, where instead of silos of knowledge systems like the Europeans, it was integrated covering a wider, interdependent view of mental explorations. One other major difference - Māori always had an authority above them, so their intelligence's never included treating their environment as expendable, worthy of destruction and exploitation. Their ancestors, the Polynesians, were the astronauts of their time, traversing the largest ocean on the planet, using sophisticated navigation skills - a sharp scientific mind, inherited by their descendants. I often wonder what the Māori could have contributed to humanity if they were allowed to have had Te Tīriti honoured, and they continued to develop. After seeing what is happening overseas, would their knowledge systems create innovative breakthroughs that could save humanity from killing off the only planet we currently have to live on? Because they weren't about that in the first place.
3
@davethewave7248 How do you know what he realised? Do you know, that he knew, that there were two treaties going around? Also, you are doing what you have been accusing others of - putting your modern spin on a historical incident. You don't have direct evidence to prove that Mananui knew explicitly that to sign the English treaty meant to give away your sovereignty. You're modern day speculating there. Unless you have explicit evidence proving he knew exactly what the Crown and their lackeys were really up to - you've made no progress in your argument. I would agree that submitting to a Queen was probably not tasteful to a Tūwharetoa pallet, but as far as what most Māori back then knew (and we know this from their descendants) - the British would govern, but Māori would be sovereign.
3
Unity by whose definition and according to who?
3
@davethewave7248 I'm interested in history which is why I know a lot about it. 'Real history' in your mind, as shown by all your comments, is anything that you can add your modern take to. You keep saying 'radical' this, you keep saying 'misconceptions' and 'beliefs' - when that is EXACTLY what you have done! You're unable to set aside your own bias to realise the mental gymnastics you're doing with what you're reading is a reflection of your own mind, not true history. You've never actually shared anything that reflected actual history (cross referenced with other sources of information written by Māori to avoid non-Māori/Pākeha misinterpretation), only ever what non-Māori have published. Critical thinking requires you to view from all sides. Critical thinking requires you to set aside your bias. It's also condescending to think the only things you've decided to read, must be real history. You've yet to understand that your narrow view of Aotearoa New Zealand has meant you've reinterpreted events to fit your narrow view.
2
@stephenking4170 Initially it was Northern chiefs who signed the declaration because there were stupid rules like 'if you don't have a flag on your ship, we'll take it' which happened to the only NZ ship at the time. So Iwi got together (just like over the weekend), and organised a declaration of sovereignty and a flag, and informed Britain so they could stop taking stuff (which of course we know that didn't happen). The flag was initially designed to represent the Missionary Society but I think it was abandoned, so the informed Chiefs of the time chose it, and today it is associated with Māori sovereignty alongside, and as a precursor to, Māori intentions for Te Tīriti. If you understand He Whakaputanga, you'll understand Te Tīriti. The business savvy ancient Māori were being consistent with their communications. The Crown weren't and are still not today (the current coalition).
2
@davethewave7248 Most land was taken illegally, you continually try to spread that misinformation. Māori always had sovereignty in their terms - to be Māori, to be sovereign in Māori terms, not British. So they had sovereignty already, and they wanted to retain that and gain whatever other protections the Crown could offer especially when dealing with the lawless Brits that were already here. You keep trying to reinterpret the intentions of a people whose descendants have been telling the Crown and people like you EXACTLY what past and present Māori have been saying - the Treaty was breached, and the Crown has been illegal in their activities ever since, especially in their illegal raids and confiscations of land.
2
@davethewave7248 I am Tertiary trained and read for pleasure and choose wisely what written accounts I favour my time with. If mana or mana motuhake were to be used instead of rangatiratanga Māori would not have signed. I’ve just ran my eyes over the Te Reo version again (because I’m educated). Its easy to see where they were coming from and what they meant, and its consistent with He Whakaputanga - the Queen may govern, but in article 2 the chiefs were most definitely saying they retained their autocratic, supreme, sovereign rights, otherwise article 2 would be a repeat of article 1. So, I prefer to learn from the descendents of those affected because their evidence is more reliable being oral, and reading primary sources of information like the Māori version of the Treaty - because I can and I’m educated.
2
 @JohanThiart If the government handed out cows milk to everyone to live on, that's not equality to the lactose intolerant. Different services for different needs = equality
2
@davethewave7248 Bro, wtf are you on! No, there were not massive celebrations for the signing. Now THAT is a modern lense. There was not, not in the sense you're implying. Many young people in this country know what actually happened.
2
@davethewave7248 I don't know whose been informing your youth, but the youth I know get the real history from the elders who were raised knowing the truth. Māori have always known the truth, just because it's become recent knowledge for non-Māori doesn't change that. The truth of the Treaty has been passed on in song, speeches and storytelling since the 1800's, that's what I think you don't realise. The resistance to what happened isn't new, it's always been there for generations. The uncivilized people who have come here with their backwards ways of being, pretending that they were civilized (we're talking about dirty Victorians here, their habits and vices are well documented) is a propaganda that no-one is reaching for anymore. Those imperial lies are not believed anymore
2
@davethewave7248 Agreed. I think the Treaty/Te Tīriti should be discussed, because it's obvious so many people are illiterate on it. I think critical thinking is lacking when some study the history of its signing. Politicisation of the Treaty/Te Tīriti is what will cause the most division and is what worries me the most. I'm worried it could cause a civil unrest for this country.
2
@davethewave7248 Wow, your really trying rewrite history. The problem there is that most young people are literate in Treaty, and understand that Māori got shafted. Intentionally. Māori already had a robust economy and education system, and were often aiding British pioneers and their families. Māori were thriving, it was the newcomers who were struggling. This I learned at school. The confiscations were illegal, always were. Māori could sell land, and there is plenty of evidence where they were coerced and pressured and put into dire situations to do so. You continue to do two things: you dumb down Māori a lot and try to make out they were weak and feeble minded and needed many British things to thrive - they didn't. They didn't even want the Brits here, but because they were coming, it made sense that their sovereign leader should be taking care of them. Two - you intentionally misunderstand Māori to boost your argument. Māori and land are the same person. We have generations of proof that this is true for them. Seperating from their land was never done 'freely' - it used to be done only through war. You had to physically seperate the two. Then the crown and her subjects were coming over with a completely different worldview saying the 'our way is right', and began assimilating and dispossesing Māori in British ways. Māori then began dying off and became desperate - much to the newcomers benefit.
2
@gumdigger7595 Um, ok. So what does that have to do with how Māori understand the narrative? Do you think Māori can't think for themselves? Can't have their own truth, their own histories? They had a voice in the past, they have their own voice now. And Pākeha can interpret whatever they want.
2
@davethewave7248 Right off, you can see rose coloured glasses. 'Honorable men' - the Missionaries? According to who? Even now we know the atrocities committed by missionaries. Many were absolutely not honourable, either then or in today's standards. That blanket statement alone is ludicrous. Whose humanitarian ideals? Victorians or those of 2023? If they were Imperialist they had an agenda. Next thing you're going to say the murderous Captain Cook is an honourable historical figure 🤣 Māori did not sign up to have everything that was theirs, taken from them. You're right, they're not stupid. That's why Māori are so upset now, not because this is a recent grievance. It's an INTERGENERATIONAL grievance. Meaning, Māori signed Te Tīriti and the Crown and Hobson breached Te Tīriti. Again, were all these chiefs you quote and misinterpret, for the English treaty or Te Tīriti. The biggest signing event at Waitangi was with Te Tīriti. Māori had no concept of alienation of land in the sense that the Crown were proposing in their English treaty, which is probably why it was absent in Te Tīriti. I'm guessing you're living on stolen land, where Māori were forcibly removed from. I bet you're not into that kind of history. You need to look at Government apologies to get a true sense of history. You're not there yet, not even close. There are actual Treaty historians, people who've spent large amounts of time and have used legitimate science when researching - which is both objective and follows critical thinking. And...out. Well, no. Until everyone properly understands Te Tīriti, the true treaty - nobody is free.
1
@davethewave7248 Wrong, article 2 is not about property rights only, it clearly references sovereignty
1
@davethewave7248 Enjoying all the privileges the Empire was instituting for British subjects (whatever that was supposed to mean) whilst ALSO maintaining being Māori through sovereignty, land and culture.
1
@davethewave7248 Remember Dave, Māori were and still are, hapu and Iwi defined. Māori are sovereign under those terms. In rare and immediate occasions they come together, like they did recently, to join their voices as one for a common cause. But Māori are sovereign, always have been. I've been speaking in third person, but I'm Māori and am educated in both the Media's version of events, the school systems version of events, and my own peoples, which tends to be the majority of Māori version of events - because the Crown throw all Māori under one label when committing their illegal activity. And that's the difference, and why your interpretation gets muddled - because Māori see themselves in one way (hapu/Iwi) and the intelligence that comes from that framework of knowing, and then there's the colonial propaganda of events ,which no doubt you have drawn much of your readings from, as have many non-Māori historians. But hardly ever are Māori themselves asked for their truths, and if they are, they might not give it to you anyway. So deep is the mistrust since the crown reneged on the Treaty since it's inception. Your readings and your privilege are not going to change the minds of those Aotearoa New Zealanders who have to live with what happened. The truth for them is in their realities, not your pages.
1
@j6077xxd Non-Māori have had special race treatment since they illegally took over the country, set up the system to suit themselves, then cry when indigenous point out their thieving and lying. Then make up more race based laws to stop Māori from complaining about it. Time to sort that out, alright
1
@j6077xxd Then for starters, let's stop all those policies that elevate white/British sensitivities and preferences and see where that gets you. The entire society of this country is racist - it's built on colonialism and the British Empire. Everyone that was already here, and everyone yet to come, are just expected to buy into that regime. Nah.
1
@olsaffa7679 Your lack of education is showing - it is common sense that there is no such thing as good for all, otherwise give babies cigarettes and alcohol, and the elderly the grave since they are unproductive and useless. And there you go, apartheid is an Afrikaans word so why are you applying it? Races are not physically being seperated in NZ, so you're already using it out of context. Is being scientifically literate now a privilege for the woke? You're using so many cliches you're mooting your own argument. Good for all is never good for all, never was and never will be because humanity is diverse.
1
@andycy2226 That requires a history lesson and an understanding of the economy. A really simplified version of what happened is, Māori once were the only landowners. Then Britain came and took the land and introduced wealth via property and racist legislation to seperate Māori from said property over multiple generations. Without property you are in poverty. Now Māori are the worst statistic in their own land. Actually reading your question again, I'm not sure what you're asking.
1
@andycy2226 Where's your sources? You're stating history apparently. Never heard of your stats. And how do you know the Māori in jail now, are slave descendants. A scientist too. And you know materialistic Māori? Care to name them? They sound like people I'd like to meet. Does that observation include intermarriage with wealthy partners? If Māori numbered 2 million, any extra rights afforded to them would be a problem. But since they're approximately 14% or less, how does that bother other people? And more importantly, why?
1
@andycy2226 You need to understand that Māori are not individual, they're hapu based. If any of their hapu still occupy their lands, so does the individual even the enslaved ones. So unless the entire tribe disappeared (most of that happened due to colonisation), those Māori still hold true to that land, even today. But you're throwing around a bunch of information with no sources, and I've never heard of descendants of slaves in jail today. Lots of Māori are slave and chief descended. Some of your conspiracy theories are American flavoured. Māori were not slave owners like other ethnicities. It's not what their empire was built on, and isn't how modern Māori build for themselves today. That's a colonist mentality. If there were 2 million Māori, then extra rights would hinge other people also living in this country. However, Māori make up 14% so why are the majority worried? What do they apparently lose? That's what I'm really interested in.
1
@andycy2226 Also, the Treaty was supposed to guarantee Māori their sovereignty, so initially this country was promised to be two people. Māori were promised that, now they're barely equal.
1
@andycy2226 Depends on your definition of human rights. The distinction of difference is so obvious even the UN wrote policy around it. But also, seperate Iwi came together as Māori to sign a Treaty with an overseas political entity that was supposed to be binding, including the differences of needs between the two: one needed the human rights of bringing their own system of doing things to subjugate their people and Māori (though Māori saw this more caretaker than rulership), and the other the human right to continue developing the way they always had without interference.
1
@andycy2226 Well look at it the other way, do you think the Government/Crown legally have more rights than their Treaty partner? And because you might want to make it about race: the Crown, the representative of a German/english queen ("white") - do YOU think a white Queen and her progressive white governments deserve more rights than others?
1
@andycy2226 Then why does a 'white' government get to rule this country, and not a Māori one? Why do Pākeha ideals get more rights?
1
@andycy2226 You just said it, it's Westminster which is a 'white' system, why is that the system? Why not a Māori system? The government has multi ethnic members who enforce said 'white' system. The system is racist, given more rights (elevating and benefiting white/British subjects and their ideals above other cultures) since it's inception in this country.
1
@andycy2226 Evolved by whose standards? Māori or Pākeha? The government is a multi ethnic (Māori included) entity upholding a 'white' Westminster system. That system does not represent Māori interests and never have. The rights that Pākeha get to enjoy over any other ethnicity is to have their system of doing things (Westminster - it is too rigid to evolve enough to include Māori systems) upheld and be considered 'normal' and 'the best for everyone', above anyone else's especially Māori and even against scientific evidence.
1
@andycy2226 You are indeed being racist, by pushing a race-designed system (unless the Westminster system (prejudice) was designed by aliens, and therefore completely objective) as normal and 'the best for all humanity' (prejudice again) with no proof that it is other than its the current status quo (institutional power). That ignorant default in thinking is the exact definition of racism - prejudice plus institutional power.
1
@davethewave7248 Are you attempting to gaslight, as Hobson did? Hobson didn't understand Te Reo apparently, and likely assumed that the English version was a translation of the Māori one - which of course it isn't. Many Māori didn't sign because regardless they didn't trust these representatives who were fumbling with two different treaties - and rightly so. Look at the mess they've made. Hobson was a crook. He likely knew that not everything was above board, but he was going to get that land into Imperial hands no matter what.
1
Nobody is equal, otherwise we wouldn't have a retirement age. Work till you die says you, and put toddlers to work too while you're at it
1
@davethewave7248 There are many reasons the Māori fought with the crown but the main one is - homogeneity. Māori were more tribal back then, and would fight against their 'enemy' however they needed to. Today, ALL Māori have the same enemy. You're doing it again - ' Māori knew well'. That's you inferring. The descendants of Māori have oratory evidence of what their Tūpuna were thinking at the times you state. They were continuing to view their world the way they always had. What you continue to do in all your arguments is to put a modern lense on ancient Māori, say things like 'they knew' without direct evidence proving such, then say 'Māori needed the British for this and that' when they didn't.
1
Māori are the Indigenous and are recognised internationally as such. Go back to sleep.
1
@lilfridge5652 Who says the Europeans define the rest of the world? They don't. Māori ARE internationally recognised (google it) as indigenous, and yes there were/are other people in Aotearoa New Zealand who intermarried with Māori, which is where the Tangata Whenua of Māori comes from. They became one race after meeting. Their DNA now exists in today's Māori people. So Māori are indigenous by both definitions.
1
@gumdigger7595 Ooohhh ok, that makes more sense! I did wonder for a minute 🤔😂
1