Mary Mary quite contrary, where do you get your information from?
If a Treaty is between two groups who speak different languages, it will need a translation, so both groups can understand it.
A law says that if a problem comes about because of translation the version to use, is the one that is written in the indigenous (native) language of the country where it was signed. In Aotearoa New Zealand that means Maori.
So Mary - who is distorting what?
A. Thompson, Katikati.
8 comments
Maori version
Posted on 12-04-2013 12:22 | By Captain Sensible
It is the maori that reject the maori version, and only true version of the treaty. The maori want to pick the "good bits" out of the wrongly named English versions which were only drafts. The maori version, the one with hundreds of maori chief signatures, is the one most unbiased historians accept. The grievance industry 'historians' have made a career from half truth and lies.
Captain Sensiible
Posted on 12-04-2013 19:39 | By PLONKER
You are wrong, the Littlewood treaty was correctly translated into Maori, and if the true meaning of Maori words (in 1849) are applied to it then if translates back to English correctly. The problem is that the Maori translation (of the littlewood treaty) and the Freeman version have been enacted, that is what Maori wanted as they have since 1975 speed up the process of "morphing" the meaning of Maori words to align to the freeman version. What has followed from that is the raft fo claims that prior to 1975 never existed. PS Maori are not indigenous to NZ.
@ Plonker
Posted on 12-04-2013 22:55 | By Captain Sensible
I was not referring to the "Littlewoods treaty", but the earlier drafts. Yes, what you say about the Littlewoods treaty is correct. I agree with what you say.
Captain Sensible
Posted on 13-04-2013 13:53 | By PLONKER
Thanks Mate, one correction to my last blog, 1849 s/be 1840.
Good example of
Posted on 13-04-2013 13:55 | By PLONKER
The NZGB was formed without anyone knowing to fabricate new names for places in NZ, despite NZ historic records otherwise e.g. the NZ Constitution Act of 1852 and the names in place at that time for the islands of NZ. I copy the following FYI = New Leinster, New Munster, and New Ulster. Posted on 12-04-2013 11:24 | By PLONKER When the islands of New Zealand were separated politically from the colony of New South Wales in 1840 and erected into a separate colony, the Royal Charter effecting this provided that 'the principal Islands, heretofore known as, or commonly called, the ‘Northern Island', the ‘Middle Island', and ‘Stewart's Island', shall henceforward be designated and known respectively as ‘New Ulster', ‘New Munster', and ‘New Leinster'”. These provincial divisions were at first of geographical significance only, and were not used as a basis for the government of the colony, then centralised in Auckland. The situation was altered in 1846, however, when a further Royal Charter divided the colony into two provinces and provided each with its own political institutions in addition to the central government at Auckland. The two provinces were called New Ulster and New Munster, New Leinster being merged with the South Island and the southern portion of the North Island up to the mouth of the Patea River, to form the new New Munster. Each province was provided with a Governor and Legislative and Executive Council, in addition to the Governor-in-Chief and Legislative and Executive Council for the whole colony. In 1851 the Provincial Legislative Councils were permitted to be partially elective. Before the elections were completed, however, the United Kingdom Parliament, by the New Zealand Constitution Act of 1852, abandoned both the nomenclature and the boundaries of these provincial divisions, and divided the colony into six provinces bearing names of local significance. From that date onwards New Munster and New Ulster, like New Leinster, disappeared from the New Zealand scene and became of historical significance only. Now the above is from an NZ government website ... look here: - http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/1966/provinces. So this confirms that non Maori were in NZ first and a long time ago and these names have officially been confirmed, hella-lul-ya bro!. Any problems we can call on our "Brothers in arms" to help as there has not been a lot to do back home for a few years now. PS don't bring back the red coats ...
Not lost
Posted on 14-04-2013 12:14 | By PLONKER
Just twisted, butchered and manufactured stories now from the Littlewood true meaning of it all.
The Treaty
Posted on 15-04-2013 08:20 | By AratakiJive
has now been changed from its original use, to now being called New Zealands FOUNDING DOCUMENT! All of a sudden the importance of this scarp of paper has changed yet again and now, as THE "founding document" it can be claimed and used as the center of a racist constitution... just how bad is that?
Null and void!
Posted on 16-04-2013 09:56 | By Captain Sensible
As far as treatys go, this is not even a true treaty. A Treaty can only be between two states. The warring ununified maori, were not a state. Therefore - null and void!
Leave a Comment
You must be logged in to make a comment.