1. The Treaty of Waitangi –Te Tiriti O Waitangi 6 Feb 1840 -Hobson sent to New Zealand to establish civil government to protect the rights of British and Maori subjects. -He consulted local Europeans and Missionaries and fashioned a treaty (Busby’s DOI). Henry Williams (Missionary) translated it into Maori in haste. -Hobson spoke in English, pushy for signatures. Williams translated the speeches and the Treaty text into Maori. The Missionaries supported the document.

2. -Translation issues, angered Settlers. Missionaries fully translating? -Firstly, Chiefs were hostile fearing loss of mana. Tides turned with positive speeches by Waka Nene and Hone Heke suggesting it was too late. Europeans were here to stay. -Hobson halted further debate on the 6 th, forced signatures from all who were present. Maori, given enough oral dialogue to make correct decision?

3. European & Maori cultures collide -There was little or no explanation of the transfer of power to the British. As Maori were largely tribal, they had no concept of sovereignty. It wasn’t in their vernacular-poor substitutes were included. -An ambiguous text (English versions understated) the Treaty has several key concepts which were not properly translated or explains. Williams used ‘missionary Maori, which over emphasised biblical references. -Most Maori could not read or write, discussion was the key activity, and was more important than text…differing cultural values. -An oral culture had little use for the written word at that time.

4. -Pre-Emption-Hobson saw it as a crown monopoly over all land transactions; meaning ‘first option’-In translation Williams used the word ‘Hokonga’-meaning buying, selling, barter, exchange, barter. -The concept of sovereignty was not translated properly. Meaning supreme rule. Translated as ‘Kawanatanga’- meaning the governorship used Pontius Pilate in Palestine in the time of Christ. -Suggestion ‘Mana’ would have been a better word or Rangatiratanga –Chieftanship. Although, -Michael King suggests ‘tino rangatiratanga’ was more accurate term for sovereignty than mana. The term gives Maori the rights to govern their own affairs.

5. -The treaty set up 2 sovereignties. Orange suggests Maori believed they were to be joint custodians of the land, or in conjunction with Britain. A great deal of authority was still to be in Maori hands. -Hobson collected another 56 signatures from Hokianga, then another 500. Except to the Ngapuhi it had little meaning till 1860. (A local agreement)

6. -Historians suggest that the only true treaty is the Maori version. All duplicate copies differed from each other (4 English, one Maori). -Forest and fisheries were absent from the Maori version. To Maori it seemed they were getting much more than they were giving. -If Maori knew they were giving up their land they would have never signed. -Hobson claimed full sovereignty of all islands on May 21. He did so to counter the N.Z.C settlements in Wellington (Wakefield) -NZ part of the British Empire on 2 October 1840. S.I discovered by Cook, English property.

7. General Impact of the Treaty -After the signing Maori and Pakeha held quite different views- leading to race relations of the present day -Pakeha put main focus on Article One of the English version, which they interpreted as giving them sole- authority in NZ. -Ignored Article Two, which states Maori could hold on to anything they wanted.

8. -The notion of property to Pakeha was different to Maori. Pakeha=permanent state. Maori=slightly mutable concept=mana (metaphysical-spiritual), changeable- custodians. -Maori emphasised Article Two of the Maori translation- Guaranteed Ranagatiratanga (chief powers and mana unqualified exercise of chieftainship over their lands, villages and all treasures)…mana=land possession: the same to Maori, so they interpreted sovereignty; land ownership, property rights as the same thing. General Impact of the Treaty

9. Why Maori signed the Treaty? - Pressure of the situation and pressure from missionaries who were trusted. -Expectation that the benefits would outweigh their fears. -Possibility of using British authority in Maori conflicts. -Connection to the British monarch. -Missionaries suggested the treaty was like a Biblical covenant.

10. Why Maori signed the Treaty? -Increased status for Maori that the Treaty seemed to suggest. -Maori preference towards British over French. -Increase in trade and material benefits, land sales & trade. -British assistance as Maori became modern. -Ranagatiratanga-cheiftanship of their lands. -Maori had little understanding of how many British there were.

11. 1st Article of the Treaty The distinction between ‘sovereignty and ‘kawanatanga’ was considerable. Authority vs. a vague sense of government. Kawana=Pontius Pilate Governorship. The concept of annexation or ‘substantive sovereignty is absent in the Maori text. 500 chiefs signed the Maori version, whereas the English text was signed by only 32 chiefs in Waikato, and seven others in Manakau. Modern historiography suggest the Maori version is the truest version.

12. 2nd Article Rangatiratanga is a more powerful term than the English word ‘posession’. The Maori term is a universal term for property, power, leadership, ownership and spiritual strength, compared to posession in English- to have.

13. 3rd Article The Third Article It is clear in the Third article that the Maori would be accepted into British law and assimilated into British culture. Assimilation and eventual amalgamation was the British policy on race relations (does the Treaty suggest this?).

14. Key Problems with the Treaty The Treaty was produced in four English versions and one Maori. Each version was different. There was no universal text. Maori at this time were an oral culture with no written history, Maori achieve social goals by discussion and group forum. There were no written documents in Maoridom. It was a European concept. Henry Williams translation was a rushed one in ‘missionary Maori’. Little time was given to produce an acceptable translation

15. The Treaty 1840-1900 Taking away Maori right to freely sell land meant they were not true British citizens at all. The British deliberately understated key terms to make the document ambiguous and to create an uncertainty over issues. The Treaty was couched in terms that would make Chiefs sign (deceit or ambiguous bureaucracy?)

16. The Treaty 1840-1900 The Treaty presented an ‘ideal’ situation and lacked any depth or substance to cope with the many variables of cross-cultural assimilation. Many high powered Chiefs refused to sign it at all (Te Wherowhero of waikato, Taraia of Thames & Tupaea of Tauranga all rejected the Treaty) Hawkes Bay and Wairarapa Chiefs were not even asked to sign

17. Treaty of Waitangi Q&A Hist 300 Why is the Treaty worded differently in respective languages? Which version should be upheld as legally binding? What did the British gain by creating an ambiguous document? Is a written document a suitable medium for Maori? Explain your answer? Is ‘all your treasures’ a suitable translation for all New Zealand Fisheries and Forests? Explain your answer. Is the Treaty of Waitangi an agreement between two equal parties? Explain your answer.