How did the Treaty of Waitangi, intended as it was from the outset to be a formula for unification and a totally egalitarian fair and friendly society, get so distorted after 1975?
The true meaning and intent of the treaty was well understood for 135-years, until tampered with and maliciously reinvented by self-serving greedy opportunists.
These twisted individuals, their lawyers and moral-coward rent-a-prick historians, couldn’t care less about historical truth, as their purpose was, and continues to be, to wreak-havoc by forcibly instituting tribalist, corporate and Marxist political agendas.
This socially destructive meddling leads to separatism, favouring only an elite few, domineering the lives and liberties of a majority, sub-class population who become subservient to part-Maori supremacist masters.
So, the question goes begging:
How is it that we understood the true intent and meaning of the Treaty for 135-years, only to see it radically reinterpreted and revised, then turned into a formula for separatism and apartheid?
Between March and April 1840, there were a series of innocent, minor glitches, during the treaty assembly and signing process, that 135-years later were fraudulently used to “break” the treaty.
FOR WANT OF A NAIL
‘For want of a nail the shoe was lost. For want of a shoe the horse was lost. For want of a horse the rider was lost. For want of a rider the battle was lost. For want of a battle the kingdom was lost. And all for the want of a horseshoe nail’ (John Gower’s Confesio Amantis, circa 1390).
A nail comes adrift.
Hobson was quite a sick man from the day he arrived in New Zealand and a very sick man one month later, having been stricken with a debilitating stroke and uncertain if he would ever recover sufficiently to carry on as Lieutenant-Governor. Even on the 5th of February, at the treaty grounds, his pallid and sickly expression did not go unnoticed. After the meeting an old chief confronted Hobson and his party as they made their way to their boat, and gazed intently into the Lieutenant Governor’s face for a few minutes. ‘Then in a loud shrill voice he cried out in wailing tones - “Aue he koroheke! E kore e roa kua mate”. Hobson asked Reverend William Colenso for a translation of what was said, but Colenso was evasive, until pressed by Hobson to tell him. Reluctantly, Colenso told him that the grey-haired chief had said - ‘Alas! An old man. He will soon be dead’ (See The Treaty of Waitangi, by T.L. Buick, pg. 148).
Governor William Hobson, 1792 to 1842, painting by L.C. Mitchell.
Throughout much of the first month in New Zealand, Hobson was running on empty, but pushed himself hard, even though he had few energy reserves to draw upon. Although he always attempted to keep up appearances and exhibit an astute and noble bearing, or put on as brave a face as he could in public, it’s likely he virtually collapsed into bed upon his return, each day, to the seclusion of his cabin aboard H.M.S Herald or other facilities where he stayed.
(1) Because of illness, Hobson had to rely heavily on his staff, some of whom he barely knew. One such individual was James Stuart Freeman, a 3rd class clerk assigned to Hobson by Governor Sir George Gipps of N.S.W. to act as Hobson’s private secretary. Of some of the staff assigned to Hobson, a future Auckland newspaper editor, Samuel Martin, wrote:
‘Captain Hobson is accompanied by several officers, selected for their known incompetency, by George Gipps. What assistance he is to expect from these persons I do not know, but they are evidently sent to New Zealand because Sir George Gipps has no use for their services here, and was consequently anxious to get rid of them’ (see J Buller, pg. 371).
The task of Hobson’s secretary was to keep records, report daily events and make up overseas despatches, such that Hobson’s superiors could stay abreast of developments within the fledgling colony. In many or most cases journal entries or letters and reports had to be hand written in duplicate or triplicate…a copy or two for despatch overseas or elsewhere and one for the Colonial Secretary’s records. Because of illness or a rigorous travel schedule, Hobson had little hope of supervising Freeman to any great degree and had to rely on Gipps’ earlier judgment that Freeman was competent. He should have been, as he was a well-educated man of about 32-years of age (estimated to have been born in 1808), who had attended Eton Public School and then Oxford University. He had married Eleanor Moslyn on the 24th of October 1836 at Old Church, St Pancras, London, England before emigrating to Australia and taking up clerical duties within the N.S.W Government.
Freeman had a very presentable writing style and a good command of English, but, having only newly arrived in New Zealand, lacked any knowledge of the Maori language.
(2) After the Treaty of Waitangi was signed, Freeman felt he should create Formal Royal Style memorial documents in very pretentious, high-falutin language to send exclusively to royalty or dignitaries in foreign governments. All were earmarked only for overseas despatch and all were made up of varying, “composite text” found only in the rough draft English notes and not the Final Draft.
This preoccupation was based upon a somewhat archaic, obsolete tradition and a good example of this flowery kind of salutation is found in the foreword section of the King James version of the Bible:
To the Most High and Mighty Prince James,
by the Grace of God,
King of Great Britain, France, and Ireland,
Defender of the Faith, &c.
The Translators of the Bible wish Grace, Mercy, and Peace,
through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Great and manifold were the blessings, most dread Sovereign, which Almighty God, the Father of all mercies, bestowed upon us the people of England, when first he sent Your Majesty’s Royal Person to rule and reign over us. For whereas it was the expectation of many, who wished not well unto our Sion, that, upon the setting of that bright Occidental Star, Queen Elizabeth, of most happy memory, some thick and palpable clouds of darkness would so have overshadowed this land, that men should have been in doubt which way they were to walk, and that it should hardly be known who was to direct the unsettled State; the appearance of Your Majesty, as of the Sun in his strength, instantly dispelled those supposed and surmised mists, and gave unto all that were well affected exceeding cause of comfort; especially when we beheld the Government established in Your Highness and Your hopeful Seed, by an undoubted Title; and this also accompanied with peace and tranquillity at home and abroad....etc., etc.
Historian Ruth Ross observed the following in 1972, about 20-years before Busby’s final English draft was rediscovered and placed back into the public arena:
‘What then is ‘the English version’? In all, Hobson forwarded five English versions to his superiors in Sydney or London. The differences in wording of three of these versions are minor, of significance only because there are differences; two of the texts have a different date, differ substantially in the wording of the preamble from the others, and from each other at one very critical point in the second article. A comparison of all five English versions with the Maori text makes it clear that the Maori text was not a translation of any one of these English versions, nor was any of the English versions a translation of the Maori text.
The relationship of these five English versions with the draft notes printed in Fac-similes was as follows: Hobson’s draft became the preamble of three of the English versions, the preamble of the other two versions following the preamble in the Freeman draft. There is no mention of forests and fisheries in one version, but otherwise the articles in all five versions are the same and draw heavily on Busby’s draft, shorn of the major part of his wordy conclusion. Busby’s articles, however, were in large measure an expansion of those in Freeman’s notes’ (See Te Tiriti O Waitangi - Texts and Translations, New Zealand Journal of History, 1972).
We now know that at least 7 of these versions were created by Freeman between February and July 1840 and they were all different in wording to a greater or lesser extent.
Part 2 of How the Treaty of Waitangi was Reinvented After 1975, will be published next month. Sign up now to ensure you don’t miss it!