 |
| ... We Were Ten Thousand Strong: The activists know that for the next few weeks, at least, the advantage lies with te iwi Māori and their Pakeha allies. Their most effective tactic – at Ratana, the Waitangi Tribunal, and at Waitangi, itself, on 6 February – will be to up the pressure on the Coalition Government and the Prime Minister. After Saturday, 20 January, they’ll be confident that Christopher Luxon will blink first. |
KING TUHEITIA’S HUI was an impressive demonstration of the power of te iwi Māori. The Kingitanga had planned for 3,000 attendees – 10,000 showed up. Since those present on the Turangawaewae Marae at Ngaruawahia on Saturday, 20 January 2024 were likely to be the most powerfully motivated defenders of te Ao Māori, it is reasonable to regard that number – 10,000 – as the core of Māori resistance to the Coalition Government’s policies.
Significantly, that number, 10,000, is greater than the active strength of the New Zealand Defence Force (currently around 9,000) and only slightly fewer than the current muster of sworn Police officers (10,549). Small wonder that veteran Māori nationalists Hone Harawira and Tame Iti, both present at Turangawaewae, invited the Coalition Government, via the news media, to “bring it on”.
The activists know that for the next few weeks, at least, the advantage lies with te iwi Māori and their Pakeha allies. Their most effective tactic – at Ratana, the Waitangi Tribunal, and at Waitangi, itself, on 6 February – will be to up the pressure on the Coalition Government and the Prime Minister. After Saturday, they’ll be confident that Christopher Luxon will blink first.
In the National Party, blinking may already be the preferred option. It is, after all, the party that kicked-off the Treaty settlement process more than 30 years ago. It was National’s John Key who brought the Māori Party into his coalition government (alongside Act!) in 2008. And it was Key who sent Pita Sharples to New York to sign the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. National’s record, vis-à-vis Māori Sovereignty and te Tiriti o Waitangi, is more than competitive with Labour’s.
If Christopher Luxon, like Jacinda Ardern, had led his party to an absolute majority in the House of Representatives, then Kingi Tuheitia would never have had to hold his hui.
But, that is not what happened.
With its final Party Vote stalling at 38 percent, it was clear that those on the right of the political spectrum harboured significant doubts about National. The share of the vote secured by National’s rivals, Act (8 percent) and NZ First (6 percent) indicated that National’s MPs would not be permitted to simply shrug off all responsibility for giving voice to the political rage holding so many voters in its grip. The smaller right-wing parties were there to ride alongside National and make sure it didn’t veer-off to the left like John “Labour-Lite” Key. At the slightest sign that National was about welch on the Coalition Agreement, Act and NZ First were expected to shoot the Coalition Government in the head.
What’s more, if Act and NZ First succumb to the same political pressures currently spooking National’s MPs, and simply abandon the commitments made to their followers on Te Reo Māori, co-governance, and te Tiriti, then the rage that propelled them into the House of Representatives will be forced to construct a new vehicle in which to carry the defenders of “New Zealand – as opposed to “Aotearoa” – into battle.
This will not be pretty.
Far too few New Zealanders fully appreciate what it took for 10,000 Māori to answer King Tuheitia’s summons. Inculcating the confidence needed to openly defy the policies of an elected government has been the work of decades. Tireless advocates of Māori sovereignty like the late Moana Jackson understood that the ultimate reclamation of their people’s patrimony would only become possible when Māori developed a political narrative that a significant percentage of educated Pakeha could be persuaded to endorse.
At the heart of that process was a wholesale revision of the meaning of te Tiriti. So long as the overwhelming majority of New Zealanders looked upon the document signed at Waitangi on 6 February 1840 as a simple treaty of cession, te iwi Māori could not hope to treat with the Crown as “partners”. That could only happen if the entire notion of an historical cession of sovereignty was overturned. Only when the claim that Māori never ceded sovereignty to the British Crown was accepted by the New Zealand state and its key institutions could “indigenisation”, “decolonisation” and co-governance become realistic political propositions.
Among a great many young, tertiary-educated Māori and Pakeha, the claim that Māori never ceded sovereignty has become an article of cultural and political faith. If one believes that the indigenous people of New Zealand never ceded sovereignty to their colonisers, then a constitutional revolution becomes not only morally desirable but politically necessary. Moreover, if right-wing political parties convinced that sovereignty was ceded back in 1840 are elected on a platform hostile to Māori claims, then forces unsympathetic to the “cession myth” will feel justified in opposing that right-wing platform by any means necessary.
And, you get 10,000 people answering King Tuheitia’s summons.
But, if Act is prevailed upon by National to back away from its promise to let the voters revise the Māori revision of the Treaty of Waitangi; and if it then refuses to step away from the coalition and move to the cross-benches; then somewhere between a tenth and a fifth of the electorate – and possibly a lot more – will find themselves in the market for a political champion who rejects entirely the niceties of traditional Māori-Pakeha relations, in favour of a new and unabashed ethno-nationalist vocabulary and manifesto.
In exactly the same way as Māori intellectuals undermined the “cession myth”, this new political movement would aim to undermine the “sovereignty myth”, and, in a distressingly short period of time, the leader of this aggressive ethno-nationalist populist movement could well be in a position to successfully summon 10,000 followers to his own … rally.
Exactly how Christopher Luxon chooses to navigate his government’s passage through these treacherous waters remains to be seen. He may be tempted to tear up the Coalition Agreement, call a new election, and seek an unequivocal mandate in support of decency, racial peace, and economic common-sense. But that would only work in circumstances where the rage of “traditional” Kiwis, the very same anger that propelled him into the prime-ministership, was subsiding. An unlikely turn of events, it must be said, with Ratana, with the Waitangi Tribunal looming and, beyond them, Waitangi Day.
Then again, Luxon might decide to do what Slobodan Milosevic did as Yugoslavia started coming apart at its ethnic seams: make himself the leader of the biggest and meanest sonofabitch in the ethnic valley.
As the person calling himself “Ricardo” commented on the author’s “Bowalley Road” political blog recently:
Massey’s Cossacks could reappear in any number of forms. There are approximately 100,000 to 200,000 ex-territorial soldiers (of all ages going back to the 1970s) who can still field strip an M16, make a bivouac, put up with rain and place the correct side of a claymore towards the enemy. Last reports say up to a million firearms are still to be registered. A direct threat to home and hearth could release basic impulses among their owners.
When the drift of politics encourages this kind of speculation, it is difficult to feel optimistic about New Zealand’s – or Aotearoa’s – future.
This essay was originally posted on the Interest.co.nz on Monday, 22 January 2024.
28 comments:
It was decades ago when the Beehive hosted a constitutional conference. The first day there was absolute unity amongst Maori representatives, whether from leading Iwi, urban Maori or what was seen as radical Maori, te Tiriti must be the founding basis of discussion. The day was won. The second day, rifts were obvious as conservative and progressive Maori representatives disagreed on other issues. The takeaway, the Treaty and the sovereignty of Maori is sacrosanct as a unifying cause, but Maori can be diverse as to the prioritizes and implementation and in particular economic philosophy.
I sense a shift in the decades subsequent. There has been greater devolvement into service delivery by Maori for Maori. This is widely accepted as effective, economically and for targeted outcomes. The mistrust between Iwi organizations and urban Maori is largely abated. The democratic structures of iwi leadership has seen flax-roots engagement and support. What was seen as radical then, is mainstream Maori focus now.
Demographic changes within Tauiwi are stark. Over five years ago, Pakeha ceased to be the majority of students in Auckland schools - it is now the largest minority. However, even with this, the economic and migration patterns mean that a large number of Auckland schools have other ethnic majorities with Pakeha down the list of minorities. Regardless of the ethnic make-up of the schools, all acknowledge Te Ao Maori and the importance to NZ.
Further, many have diverse ethnic identities. The number of generational Pakeha with close Maori family ties, friendships, work or education ties has an empathy and understanding of issues held by Maori that has strengthened by the year. The number of Maori-Pasifika families has been obvious. While the Maori identity anchors to NZ, the Pasifika focus finds commonality and geo-cultural unity. If the Tiriti is to be seen as Tangata Whenua as one signatory and Tauiwi (those that arrived under the auspice of the Crown) as the other, then the Tauiwi / Crown partner is undergoing major demographic change much of which is allied to many Maori views of the Treaty relationship. What is less certain is the new migrant communities, but the next generation coming through the school system will have awareness that the first generation does not.
To follow your Joni Mitchell derived headline -
And maybe it's the time of year
Yes, and maybe it's the time of man
And I don't know who I am
But life is for learning
With the sign of leadership at Turangawaewae, my question is whether Maori leadership is content to again sit back after ensuring the Tiriti standing. This government has labour and industrial policies that will disproportionately impact Maori, as is health education and cuts to government services. When te Iwi Maori join with urban Maori and the activists, it has shown to be the most powerful body in NZ, bar none. If Maori are protected from adverse policies, then all vulnerable NZ is. Partnership in its true sense should raise the position of all, and should shape our way forward.
As Maori activists have toiled away in the shadows for years and no one cared to noticed, and the Crowns representatives have seemingly simply rubber stamped every Waitangi Tribunal and claimants claim, no matter how ridiculous to keep the peace, the price of that was NZ was always going to reach this unavoidable point.
Logic suggests property rights, the single basic foundation building block of modern society are under direct threat. ACT certainly knows it. And then what? The country haemorrhages investment and it's all over.
National may just want to smile and wave and pretend everything is just fine, as do the vast majority of our media but this time it isn't. Fran O'Sullivan's article today, a rare voice in the wilderness and written in best diplomacy, suggests as much.
The 85%, who are routinely forgotten and who could be affected by this who aren't Maori have to say, no more. It was more or less what the election delivered anyway. This bullshit has crossed the line and throw your toys out of the cot all you want, this nation cannot tolerate an ethno state take over by a minority because forget even the unworkable fantasy that is co-governance , they want the entire house.
We are NOT to blame for all the ills that afflict some Maori, nor is a convenient rewrite of the Treaty to suit one side even acceptable, and Luxon, like it or not, is going to have to brace for impact and see this takeover off, that every previous government failed to realise or do!
Yet part of me thinks he was blissfully unaware that not only was this day coming, but that the subject existed at all!
Bring it on then.!
Seymours 3 clarifications are NOT altering the treaty...contrary to the hysterical claims of opponents! Engage brain, and READ the proposed inerpretation.
If you disagree with Seymour, me, and most Kiwis....kindly explain why one ethnicity should receive preference over ALL others..in this day and age?
' I rest my case m'lud"!
Cheers
christian prudence
Wed, 24 Jan, 21:34 (4 days ago)
to listener
Sending intelligence experts to the Red Sea is sub-optimal optics for the newly installed tripartite government.No western government has sided with the oppressed peoples of Palestine.
My understanding of ACTs policy is that they want a Bill, with public hearings to define the principles of the Treaty in terms of what the treaty actually said, not changing the Treaty itself. I believe they have already put forward the suggested wording. If they can persuade National/ NZ First, it would be a binding referendum next election. The process would be similar to the contentious End of Life bill. If that is correct, and I haven't seen evidence to the contrary, that looks like democracy in Action. It seems some distance away from what you wrote, Chris. Or were you swayed by the mischaracterisation from opponents?
"decency, racial peace, and economic common-sense"
Do you seriously believe allowing a form of apartheid in Nww Zealand would bring that? Do you seriously believe a few concessions would quieten the radical elites?
Give a man an inch and he'll demand a mile is particularly apt here whether you accept that or not.
The "10,000" is merely media hype yet you believe they are a considerable force that must be listened too. How many opposed enforced medical treatment during the ardern years yet in your opinion they deserved no voice.
Democracy is about people not race.
In my opinion.
Yet if 25 non-maori showed up for a protest demanding sovereignty had been ceded the response would be violent and shocking. The police would suddenly have no problem finding a backbone. Unlike at the Taipa boat ramp, where police leadership bows before their future tribal leaders.
The worst event during covid was allowing Hone to set up his tribal roadblocks. Now it is push forward, break the law with impunity, knowing the law will never be enforced. Unless you are white, then it will be a quick boot on the neck.
Re; Masseys Cossacks.
No thanx to you and your fellow travelers continually producing a never ending dissent.
Or do you think society could never have got this far (shit house as it is) without you.
Or do you think you and your ilk have contributed too much as it is.
Your last two articles Chris appear seasoned with fear. Perhaps too much insight into Te Ao Maori seeds compliance with staus quo? If one never faces adversity, one has never grown. NZ was an egalitarian society once, with courage to defend European sovereignty against invasion.
Where is the courage to reexamine Te Tiriti from a legal standpoint, for ALL nzers, towards stopping the cracks in the dam called democracy?
Chris: "it is difficult to feel optimistic about New Zealand’s – or Aotearoa’s – future."
Take heart, most people are of good intent. Sure, there are crazies but it's incumbent on those of us of with genuine good will to speak up honestly and courageously and not let it be that "The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity."
Chris, thanks for the reference but a little bit out of context. 2024 New Zealand is not the Balkans and I was describing a counter factual. In my humble opinion the best and coolest commentary was the recent column of Steven Joyce in the Herald. I think he sums up the rational, calm and centrist tendency that Luxon needs to tap into. May I quote..
"Unsurprisingly, the solution to all of this is in the middle. Broadly 80 per cent of New Zealanders across all ethnicities want to just feel like we all belong. They see us as a multicultural society which is at the same time proud of our unique Māori heritage. They want to see improvements in outcomes for disadvantaged Māori, but they don’t want to feel excluded themselves on the basis of ethnicity. They believe historic breaches of the Treaty should be remedied, and they also believe one person, one vote is sacrosanct.
They are uncomfortable with public service ministries being divided on ethnic grounds but they do believe there is room for different types of service provision to different groups, including ethnic groups. These days, no one bats an eyelid at the Wānanga or Whānau Ora – both of which do great work."
New Zealanders are fair and tolerant. We have no problem with resources targeted where they are needed. We do have a problem when the threat is we are to be excluded from decision making.
One of the reasons Maori don't care about assimilation theory or pakeha and their money is because pakeha do not share there resources with Maori, the same way that Maori is forced to share there resources with pakeha. I can't go to the government and say we need roads, schools, hospitals, airports and shipping terminals and ever expect the tax payer to pick up the tab. I can't have that expectation so if pakeha make a lot of money, Maori and its culture will not benefit from that.
"Ricardo" makes an interesting observation. From a pakeha perspective hording all of the resources isn't that hard for them. I also think that there is a biological adaptation that pakeha are being much more greedy. I'm not saying that pakeha are greedy I'm saying that if they continue to deny Tino Rangatiratanga then they will be very very evil.
I think what's happening is that the Maori culture is having success in reputation and with the domestic population and that greedy and angry individuals want to sanitise New Zealand culture of its indigenous problem.
I mean why make these dick measuring statements if you are not being appreciated for your successes but that's the disparity we are talking about it's got nothing to do with economics.
Maori could not be defeated on the battlefield but in economics Maori have been defeated and it grates on pakeha that Maori is turning that economic battle around.
The consequences of not speaking out:
Part of an interview of Jordan Peterson and the Toronto Sun.
If you're a Canadian and you think the Charter of Rights protects your rights you're a fool. That thing isn't worth the paper it's written on. You don't have property rights to any real and significant degree. You certainly don't have the right to free speech especially if you're a professional
The Canadians who are silent when their conscience is telling them to speak should pray that they die before the full consequences of their stupidity make themselves manifest but they'll have their children to suffer for them; because that's really the consequences of silence.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-s_4O0mAzZQ
Elite Maori and academics rather than the rest of the Maori population want a partnership with the crown. That way they can push for their own autonomy in many areas, and a share of the country’s tax take would be demanded to make this happen. They don’t want Seymour’s bill because public discussion opens the door to change the way the Treaty is perceived in its present form. IMO rather than making outrageous claims ranging from white supremacy, racism and planning to rewrite the treaty, Maori leaders need to be asked why we can’t have this discussion with the wider population that includes all ordinary Maori. I agree that the situation has the potential to worsen but that is largely due to the inflammatory language some Maori are using and by doing so know that they will attract many to their cause whether their claims are true or not. Remember that Seymour is reacting to the push towards the co government plan that these Maori want. Co Government was never on any agenda I saw but was deceitfully introduced by the last Labour government. Whether we agree or not Seymour has the right to question it and he is doing it through the correct procedures and openly which is more than Labour did. Let the bill be discussed with all NZrs including Maori rather than attempting to stifle it. Also we must remember that this is not the first time the Treaty has been scrutinised and if not discussed now it won’t be the last.
I agree with Peterson that if biological differences are minimised it maximises cultural differences. Where we differ is that if cultural differences are minimised, biological differences are equally maximised. These contradictions aren't due to to any failings in Paterson core training as a psychologist they are emotional outbursts.
Rangiuni Walker says the treaty represents a good deal for Maori because pakeha were outnumbered 60:1. In the next breath he calls people opposed to those resulting aspirations racist.
He says it isn't about Maori and pakeha but about power [hullo Marx]. He says the Waitangi Tribunal lets subjugated voices speak [hullo Focault].
Ranginui Walker interviewed by Kim Hill. 2004-11-20.
https://www.ngataonga.org.nz/search-use-collection/search/31830/
Here he argues immigration with Aussie Maxwell (1995).
He was right
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzfL5n4AKvQ&t=850s
Broadly 80 per cent of New Zealanders across all ethnicities want to just feel like we all belong. They see us as a multicultural society which is at the same time proud of our unique Māori heritage Ricardo quoting Steven Joyce
So we should all be the one ethnic group with our own referent (NZ) because ethnic behaviors evolved to unite the group against threat from other humans because those other NZrs need to be demonstrably us. You can see the problem with the ideology that calls opponents of current immigration practice as white supremacy/"racialised hegemony"?
Ranginui Walker also, somewhere, refers to the Balkans which he sees as the normal state of human nature. The difference is though, does the Maori fish swallow the European fish or vice versa?
Re CXH…I was at Taipa, supporting Ngati Kahu members in their efforts to highlight overfishing of Doubtless Bay–by Corporates, smaller commercial operations and six wheel boat trailer recreationals. Kai Moana should be first and foremost a food source for whanau be they Māori, Pākehā or other Tau Iwi. Sustainability is vital if there is to be fishing for anyone in the future.
Our best efforts revealed the small Police presence appeared to be “orders from Wellington” so that Mareeees aint gonna stop bal’heads from their “right to fish”. It was a peaceful protest till the head cop cuffed Wikatana Popata, then quickly uncuffed him when it was obvious the plods were outnumbered.
Now, Tai Tokerau Border Control during peak COVID was actually supported by many Pākehā in the Far North that I talked to, and others independently verifying they did in local media. It was hilarious, Hone Harawira invited Matt King to attend a TTBC site for a day, but he did not have the bottle to turn up.
There have long been armed dark kiwis ready to shoot members of the working class long before they ever took on the ruling class…but the good thing is many of them are fantasists muttering into wine jugs and beer cans in dimly lit sheds–and of course social media these days…
I am always taken back by the pique and rage some contributors express in this blog with little or no substance behind it. If there are decisions of the judiciary as to interpretation of the Treaty leading to jurisprudence of the principles of the Treaty, please identify which aspect of law was misinterpreted. Please explain as to why the considerable checks and balances within our judicial system has been unified as to those interpretations, including the British Law Lords when part of our system.
If the Waitangi Tribunal has erred in consideration of expert testimony of historians, legal experts and cultural authorities, please show that there is a consensus of academics and other specialists that disagree.
Otherwise, I my as well be reading the Simpson's headline "Old Man Yells At Cloud".
Sam - 'Maori could not be defeated on the battlefield but in economics Maori have been defeated and it grates on pakeha that Maori is turning that economic battle around.'
I assume this is why Maori celebrate the NZ land wars. Victory was theirs. Well I suppose it was for the likes of Ngapuhi who happily fought on the side of government in Waikato.
It's not the most powerful force, just the most disproportionately platformed.
How many thousands turned up for vaccine mandate protests, but were simply dismissed out of hand?
For all the political posturing and fancy arguments, there would be almost no support for this movement if there weren't large amounts of money to be looted in the process.
Anyone who supports the move toward an ethno-nationalost state in NZ had better be careful what they wish for, because it might just happen - and then we'll all be up the proverbial without a paddle.
Maori are not winning the economic battle, radical Maori are looting the NZ economy. Trying to steal what others worked hard to build by distorting the conversation and revising historical facts. THAT is what grates with most NZers
The Treaty of Waitangi was written by maybe half a dozen people. It grants no special rights or privileges that apply today so if you are interested in anti corruption why would you go after the treaty principles?
Take The Maori Kings position which is the Crown Governs its own people which is a position that has never changed that the entire land of New Zealand belong to pakeha. That's the position outlined in the treaty and we've never changed that.
Now Seymour and Winston wants to reject that position in order to support pakeha and fully smooth out the pillow. That's for Maori to be concerned about. As for the accusation of corruption and elitism that is also for Maori to deal with its really not your problem.
It is my understanding that regimentalism was a match for tribalism so we signed a treaty. Wasn't Maori who reneged on it.
The Kingitanga, te Iwi Maori, urban Maori authorities, academic and professional Maori as well as service delivery and rights based Maori are highly organized and networked. More importantly, have flax-roots support that is bottom up.
Too many in this blog use terms such as 'elites', 'radicals' or academics as a pretense they can demonize Maori without really demonizing Maori. All without basis or understanding of the support and networks.
I would suggest most Maori have on-going contact and information flow with Maori organization than any other group of New Zealanders have to local or central government, political organizations or NGOs.
I've been reading richard prebble's book I've been thinking.I picked it up at the local church fair for two dollars.Its only 113 pages long.In it he says leaders need courage and that david lange should not have displayed this attribute and had his famous cuppa.He remarks that workers wanted to get rid of penal rates and their allowances.Basically its self righteous bullshit designed as an apology of sorts for fucking things up so badly when as he states in his own words "I became the biggest businessman in the country".In charge of privatising twenty state owned enterprises.The post office that became telecom and the most efficient railways in the world as he describes tranzrail.It's delusional but my stockpile of other books I bought at the garage sale are longer so he's first off the block. the election chris prudence said...Labour party devalued the currency out at the mangere bridge hotel as vin from the reserve bank met Lange and Douglas.State assets were sold in the second half of the 87 Govt.And ramped up by Bolger and Shipley… https://teara.govt.nz/en/cartoon/33892/selling-state-assets Reply John September 14, 2023 at 8:57 am I guess we first need to define “workers” and “rich scroungers.” Reply Bob the first also known as John. September 14, 2023 at 5:50 pm How do you define it Bob? Reply Chris Prudence September 14, 2023 at 10:21 am Correction.It was treasury from whence Bernie Galvin came and Spencer Russell from the reserve bank but Rod Deane had a bit role as his deputy. Reply christian prudence September 15, 2023 at 12:16 am Floating the dollar and devaluation by twenty percent amounted to the same thing.
Lloyd Burr off drive on today fm described Chris Finlaysons rate of treaty Settlements as alarming just so the shift to Right Wing comments in the media in general.I didn't have access to my ontological vocation too become more fully human until I went to university and now I know what my real job or true career should be.We didn't have a private collection of books but relied on the local library.When the public is private we all lose out.Recently I sold my own collection of books as an adult and received one hundred dollars for over three hundred books. 27 May 2023 at 15:26 Delete Blogger chris prudence said... It's sometimes wrongly imagined that cosmologists and evolutionists must be serenely unconcerned about next year next week and tomorrow. I conclude with a cosmic perspective which actually strengthens my own concerns. The stupendous timespans of the evolutionary past are now part of common culture.
Maori are tangata whenua the people of the land and therefore have a moral right and precedence in Aotearoa.That right has largely been ignored by the Pakeha.Progressively and partly by force of arms but much more by legal, financial and legal chicanery have sought to dispose the Maori of their birthright to the land and the arguments between Pakeha and Maori goes right back to the beginnings of european settlement.Many Pakeha today sympathise with the view of history now being taught in our schools for the first time properly that Maori have had imposed upon them a law, a culture, a religion, a system of values an education and a language alien to their own.
So the corporates do the over fishing are Iwi owned, yet they are not protested. Over fishing by small operators was recently Maori done. It is a brave person, no matter their heritage, that points out locals over fishing. Sustainability is a great idea, but all stakeholders need to want the same thing.
It was all about stopping people from exercising their legal right to fish, despite your claims. If the law is wrong, work to change it. Instead you want your private sanctuary, yet you want these boffheads to fund your St John's and the fire service at the same time.
As for armed dark Kiwis ready to shoot fellow Kiwis? They are not, never will be Kiwis. They are dark, simple as that. Victims in their own mind. Fearful of having to accept their own very mixed heritage.
Sam: "...regimentalism was a match for tribalism so we signed a treaty. Wasn't Maori who reneged on it."
That wasn't why the Treaty was signed. Remember that the Land Wars happened after, not before, the Treaty. It was the Musket Wars which preceded the Treaty. It was that awful violence and the death toll, along with the desire to prevent a repetition, which spurred some chiefs into signing the Treaty.
Post a Comment