Ryan’s ramble reeks

With Rogers Rabbits away we were left with Ryan Wood’s rambling about revival (The Weekend Sun, March 2).The topic was noble enough, just not the negative colonist overtones that still breathe within the underdeveloped points around treaty partnership and treaty breaches.

More capable scholars have already established that Maori only signed the Maori translation of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Why sign only the Maori translation of the Treaty? The intent was to keep rangatiratanga or sovereignty in this land with Maori. Why else would tens of thousands of Maori concede to the minority group from overseas?

It was Henry Williams, a friend to Maori, who attempted to keep the British colonising another indigenous people. He wrote rangatiratanga with both a Maori and British heart, expecting peace. In many ways Maori were too generous towards the British.

What did Henry do so well that Jacinda Ardern has also learned first-hand? He spent generous amounts of time with the people. He fed them; literally. He learned te reo Maori and tikanga.

Could Ryan Wood argue that he too has engaged in such ways? If not, I suggest his Aotearoa education is not yet complete. Tama tu, tama ora, tama noho tama mate.

K Setiu, Papamoa.


6 Comments

Same old peope, same old rubbish

Posted on 14-03-2018 12:58 | By waxing

Every week we get the same old people regurgitating their same old completely unsubstantiated rubbish. Stupid comments so easily dealt with - e.g. why did Maori sign the Maori Treaty? Because they only understood Maori.... Maori only given standard rights for British citizens? Read the preface to the Treaty please.... Unfortunately it won’t make any difference because these people are blinded by their emotional prejudices and will exploit all opportunities each week to express them.

Negative colonist overtones

Posted on 10-03-2018 19:47 | By crazyhorse

Now modern revisionist ’capable" scholars have established that Maori only signed the Maori translation of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Why sign only the Maori translation of the Treaty? The intent was to keep rangatiratanga or sovereignty in this land with Maori. Why else would tens of thousands of Maori concede to the minority group from overseas?,easy K Setiu, all the losers and bludgers that look upon the TOW as a meal ticket it only matters what the english version of the TOW means it was written by the poms after several years of "begging" by northen maori it only matters what the English wanted it to mean, it’s not 1840 now suck it up and deal with it, you live in a wonderfull country make the most of it but its not the other 85% of your countrymen to "spoonfeed you"".

LOL, HISTORY, WHAT HISTORY?.

Posted on 10-03-2018 13:06 | By crazyhorse

How "embarrassing" and typical K Setiu hasn’t a clue about there own history.The 1840 translation, meaning of te tino rangitiratanga in the treaty is maori were given full chieftainship of their lands, their settlements their property, standard rights for British subjects, "honest" Kawharu’s mistranslation is the unqualified exercise of chieftainship,this member of the waitangi tribunal in one foul slash of his pen gives maori """"sovereignty""", everyone else can understand this why not people like K Setiu, why the need to be pitied or feel the victim.

Aotearoa education

Posted on 09-03-2018 16:01 | By crazyhorse

If K Setiu actually believes what he or she just wrote then no wonder we are heading down the road to separatism.

underdeveloped points around treaty partnership?

Posted on 09-03-2018 12:11 | By MISS ADVENTURE

A very strange comment, the part moari and english written Littlewood final draft match perfectly and no where is the word "partnership" stated anywhere! In addition one of the three key points clearly states that soveireignity is ceded to the Queen, how can these points be "twisted" into something else?

Ryan is correct

Posted on 09-03-2018 09:16 | By Captain Sensible

Ryan is correct as all the real researched history books state. Your knowledge appears lacking....maori were continually warring with each other, eating and enslaving each other and lived in a brutal stoneage world. The Europeans offered an opportunity for the first time in their lives to actually legally own land and live safely under British rule. You have been brainwashed by the untruths in the treaty "industry" and should read fact, not opinion. To try to judge what happened nearly 200 years ago by today’s standards just shows you as ignorant of what happened.

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to make a comment. Login Now
Opinion Poll

Would you take a homeless person in for a night?

Yes
No

VOTE
VIEW RESULTS