If you were given the task of adding NZ to the British empire and you were >out numbered by a large number would you not think that the current way of >submission might not work so how about we offer a treaty to get the peace >until we can get some more boat loads of people from home (UK) until the >numbers are on our side.
On 6 May 2025 08:46:45 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
If you were given the task of adding NZ to the British empire and you were >>out numbered by a large number would you not think that the current way of >>submission might not work so how about we offer a treaty to get the peace >>until we can get some more boat loads of people from home (UK) until the >>numbers are on our side.
Hobson clearly thought this way. NZ is a few small islands too far
away from the state of NSW to mount a cheap military invasion in the
usual fashion of the day. That a few British citizens had had the
folly to buy into from London real estate agents to escape English
poverty was not too much of an issue. If Hobson could get the natives
to cede sovereignty without a serious military operation - well this
had never been done before but why not?.
On Tue, 06 May 2025 21:31:39 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On 6 May 2025 08:46:45 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
If you were given the task of adding NZ to the British empire and you were >>>out numbered by a large number would you not think that the current way of >>>submission might not work so how about we offer a treaty to get the peace >>>until we can get some more boat loads of people from home (UK) until the >>>numbers are on our side.
Hobson clearly thought this way. NZ is a few small islands too far
away from the state of NSW to mount a cheap military invasion in the
usual fashion of the day. That a few British citizens had had the
folly to buy into from London real estate agents to escape English
poverty was not too much of an issue. If Hobson could get the natives
to cede sovereignty without a serious military operation - well this
had never been done before but why not?.
It is not clear how much Hobson knew of the New Zealand situation
before he arrived, and when he did get to Waitangi the Treaty was
virtually agreed without ceding sovereignty, but certainly easing the
path for more settlers from England arriving, and a cessation to most
of the warfare that had been happening. That Maori did not cede
sovereignty is now well established
, but there was a long period when
many thought that they could ignore the provisions of the Treaty;
there have been quite a large number of grievances found to be
legitimate.
On Tue, 06 May 2025 21:31:39 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On 6 May 2025 08:46:45 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
If you were given the task of adding NZ to the British empire and you were >>> out numbered by a large number would you not think that the current way of >>> submission might not work so how about we offer a treaty to get the peace >>> until we can get some more boat loads of people from home (UK) until the >>> numbers are on our side.
Hobson clearly thought this way. NZ is a few small islands too far
away from the state of NSW to mount a cheap military invasion in the
usual fashion of the day. That a few British citizens had had the
folly to buy into from London real estate agents to escape English
poverty was not too much of an issue. If Hobson could get the natives
to cede sovereignty without a serious military operation - well this
had never been done before but why not?.
It is not clear how much Hobson knew of the New Zealand situation
before he arrived, and when he did get to Waitangi the Treaty was
virtually agreed without ceding sovereignty, but certainly easing the
path for more settlers from England arriving, and a cessation to most
of the warfare that had been happening. That Maori did not cede
sovereignty is now well established,
but there was a long period when many thought that they could ignore
the provisions of the Treaty; there have been quite a large number of grievances found to be legitimate.
On 2025-05-07 02:58:59 +0000, Rich80105 said:Yes they had tribes whose Chiefs held elements of leadership /
On Tue, 06 May 2025 21:31:39 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On 6 May 2025 08:46:45 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
If you were given the task of adding NZ to the British empire and you were >>>> out numbered by a large number would you not think that the current way of >>>> submission might not work so how about we offer a treaty to get the peace >>>> until we can get some more boat loads of people from home (UK) until the >>>> numbers are on our side.
Hobson clearly thought this way. NZ is a few small islands too far
away from the state of NSW to mount a cheap military invasion in the
usual fashion of the day. That a few British citizens had had the
folly to buy into from London real estate agents to escape English
poverty was not too much of an issue. If Hobson could get the natives
to cede sovereignty without a serious military operation - well this
had never been done before but why not?.
It is not clear how much Hobson knew of the New Zealand situation
before he arrived, and when he did get to Waitangi the Treaty was
virtually agreed without ceding sovereignty, but certainly easing the
path for more settlers from England arriving, and a cessation to most
of the warfare that had been happening. That Maori did not cede
sovereignty is now well established,
The Maori could not "cede" what they didn't have. Any talk of "Maori >sovereignty" is a load of bollocks trying to confuse things with modern
day semantics and political manoeuvring.
The Treaty was signed in 1840.
The *first* Maori King was in 1858. Before that the Maori were a bunch
of separate tribes, some with mutual agreements and friendships, and
some having continued battles. There was no "soverignty", there wasn't
even any unity, hence why multiple chiefs had to sign the Treaty.
Thw whole 'debate' and 'restoration' nonsense is, as usual, simply a
small bunch of selfish fools wanting to get things for themselves. Even
most Maori don't give a damn about any of this ancient history, and
they simply want to live their lives now like almost everyone else.
but there was a long period when many thought that they could ignore
the provisions of the Treaty; there have been quite a large number of
grievances found to be legitimate.
On Wed, 7 May 2025 18:29:24 +1200, It's A Me <its-a-me@mario.com>Nonsense.
wrote:
On 2025-05-07 02:58:59 +0000, Rich80105 said:Yes they had tribes whose Chiefs held elements of leadership /
On Tue, 06 May 2025 21:31:39 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On 6 May 2025 08:46:45 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
If you were given the task of adding NZ to the British empire and you were
out numbered by a large number would you not think that the current way of
submission might not work so how about we offer a treaty to get the peace >>>>> until we can get some more boat loads of people from home (UK) until the >>>>> numbers are on our side.
Hobson clearly thought this way. NZ is a few small islands too far
away from the state of NSW to mount a cheap military invasion in the
usual fashion of the day. That a few British citizens had had the
folly to buy into from London real estate agents to escape English
poverty was not too much of an issue. If Hobson could get the natives >>>> to cede sovereignty without a serious military operation - well this
had never been done before but why not?.
It is not clear how much Hobson knew of the New Zealand situation
before he arrived, and when he did get to Waitangi the Treaty was
virtually agreed without ceding sovereignty, but certainly easing the
path for more settlers from England arriving, and a cessation to most
of the warfare that had been happening. That Maori did not cede
sovereignty is now well established,
The Maori could not "cede" what they didn't have. Any talk of "Maori >>sovereignty" is a load of bollocks trying to confuse things with modern
day semantics and political manoeuvring.
The Treaty was signed in 1840.
The *first* Maori King was in 1858. Before that the Maori were a bunch
of separate tribes, some with mutual agreements and friendships, and
some having continued battles. There was no "soverignty", there wasn't
even any unity, hence why multiple chiefs had to sign the Treaty.
sovereignty
- the Treaty preserved many of those rights; they did notRepeating a lie does not make it true.
cede sovereignty either individually or collectively.
Thw whole 'debate' and 'restoration' nonsense is, as usual, simply a
small bunch of selfish fools wanting to get things for themselves. Even >>most Maori don't give a damn about any of this ancient history, and
they simply want to live their lives now like almost everyone else.
but there was a long period when many thought that they could ignore
the provisions of the Treaty; there have been quite a large number of
grievances found to be legitimate.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Indeed you keep on implying that a lie has been given without any
On Wed, 7 May 2025 18:29:24 +1200, It's A Me <its-a-me@mario.com>Nonsense.
wrote:
On 2025-05-07 02:58:59 +0000, Rich80105 said:Yes they had tribes whose Chiefs held elements of leadership /
On Tue, 06 May 2025 21:31:39 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On 6 May 2025 08:46:45 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
If you were given the task of adding NZ to the British empire and you were
out numbered by a large number would you not think that the current way of
submission might not work so how about we offer a treaty to get the peace
until we can get some more boat loads of people from home (UK) until the >>>>>> numbers are on our side.
Hobson clearly thought this way. NZ is a few small islands too far
away from the state of NSW to mount a cheap military invasion in the >>>>> usual fashion of the day. That a few British citizens had had the
folly to buy into from London real estate agents to escape English
poverty was not too much of an issue. If Hobson could get the natives >>>>> to cede sovereignty without a serious military operation - well this >>>>> had never been done before but why not?.
It is not clear how much Hobson knew of the New Zealand situation
before he arrived, and when he did get to Waitangi the Treaty was
virtually agreed without ceding sovereignty, but certainly easing the
path for more settlers from England arriving, and a cessation to most
of the warfare that had been happening. That Maori did not cede
sovereignty is now well established,
The Maori could not "cede" what they didn't have. Any talk of "Maori >>>sovereignty" is a load of bollocks trying to confuse things with modern >>>day semantics and political manoeuvring.
The Treaty was signed in 1840.
The *first* Maori King was in 1858. Before that the Maori were a bunch
of separate tribes, some with mutual agreements and friendships, and
some having continued battles. There was no "soverignty", there wasn't >>>even any unity, hence why multiple chiefs had to sign the Treaty.
sovereignty
- the Treaty preserved many of those rights; they did notRepeating a lie does not make it true.
cede sovereignty either individually or collectively.
Thw whole 'debate' and 'restoration' nonsense is, as usual, simply a >>>small bunch of selfish fools wanting to get things for themselves. Even >>>most Maori don't give a damn about any of this ancient history, and
they simply want to live their lives now like almost everyone else.
but there was a long period when many thought that they could ignore
the provisions of the Treaty; there have been quite a large number of
grievances found to be legitimate.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 7 May 2025 19:59:39 -0000 (UTC), TonyYou are the bigot, not me. And you are the one that abuses.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Indeed you keep on implying that a lie has been given without any
On Wed, 7 May 2025 18:29:24 +1200, It's A Me <its-a-me@mario.com> >>>>wrote:Nonsense.
On 2025-05-07 02:58:59 +0000, Rich80105 said:Yes they had tribes whose Chiefs held elements of leadership / >>>>sovereignty
On Tue, 06 May 2025 21:31:39 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>> wrote:
On 6 May 2025 08:46:45 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
If you were given the task of adding NZ to the British empire and you >>>>>>>>were
out numbered by a large number would you not think that the current way
of
submission might not work so how about we offer a treaty to get the >>>>>>>>peace
until we can get some more boat loads of people from home (UK) until the
numbers are on our side.
Hobson clearly thought this way. NZ is a few small islands too far >>>>>>> away from the state of NSW to mount a cheap military invasion in the >>>>>>> usual fashion of the day. That a few British citizens had had the >>>>>>> folly to buy into from London real estate agents to escape English >>>>>>> poverty was not too much of an issue. If Hobson could get the natives >>>>>>> to cede sovereignty without a serious military operation - well this >>>>>>> had never been done before but why not?.
It is not clear how much Hobson knew of the New Zealand situation
before he arrived, and when he did get to Waitangi the Treaty was
virtually agreed without ceding sovereignty, but certainly easing the >>>>>> path for more settlers from England arriving, and a cessation to most >>>>>> of the warfare that had been happening. That Maori did not cede
sovereignty is now well established,
The Maori could not "cede" what they didn't have. Any talk of "Maori >>>>>sovereignty" is a load of bollocks trying to confuse things with modern >>>>>day semantics and political manoeuvring.
The Treaty was signed in 1840.
The *first* Maori King was in 1858. Before that the Maori were a bunch >>>>>of separate tribes, some with mutual agreements and friendships, and >>>>>some having continued battles. There was no "soverignty", there wasn't >>>>>even any unity, hence why multiple chiefs had to sign the Treaty.
- the Treaty preserved many of those rights; they did notRepeating a lie does not make it true.
cede sovereignty either individually or collectively.
evidence of that - and repeating your lie, without evidence, is
probably the only aspect of your myriad of unsupported personal
opinions that we can rely on - your unwillingness to apply to yourself
the standards you espouse to others being a simple result of your >>consistent duplicity. So provide evidence to support your assertions,
Tony, or perhaps preferably just go way and keep your bigotry and lies
to yourself.
Now let's be clear.
You are the one who claims aovereignty was not ceded.
Until the last few years, it was assumed (for excellent reasons) that it was in
fact ceded, and then the racist and greedy fools like you pop up and say it was
not ceded. And with zero evidence to support your lies.
So once and for all - show evidence that sovereignty was not ceded, it is not >for me to show that it was because that was clearly the intent - promising >allegiance to the Queen and her successors clearly proves that sovereignty was >in fact ceded - and willingly.
You are the one that needs to show otherwise or go back to your lies.
Thw whole 'debate' and 'restoration' nonsense is, as usual, simply a >>>>>small bunch of selfish fools wanting to get things for themselves. Even >>>>>most Maori don't give a damn about any of this ancient history, and >>>>>they simply want to live their lives now like almost everyone else.
but there was a long period when many thought that they could ignore >>>>>> the provisions of the Treaty; there have been quite a large number of >>>>>> grievances found to be legitimate.
On Wed, 7 May 2025 19:59:39 -0000 (UTC), TonyYou are the bigot, not me. And you are the one that abuses.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Indeed you keep on implying that a lie has been given without any
On Wed, 7 May 2025 18:29:24 +1200, It's A Me <its-a-me@mario.com>Nonsense.
wrote:
On 2025-05-07 02:58:59 +0000, Rich80105 said:Yes they had tribes whose Chiefs held elements of leadership / >>>sovereignty
On Tue, 06 May 2025 21:31:39 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>> wrote:
On 6 May 2025 08:46:45 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
If you were given the task of adding NZ to the British empire and you >>>>>>>were
out numbered by a large number would you not think that the current way >>>>>>>of
submission might not work so how about we offer a treaty to get the >>>>>>>peace
until we can get some more boat loads of people from home (UK) until the
numbers are on our side.
Hobson clearly thought this way. NZ is a few small islands too far >>>>>> away from the state of NSW to mount a cheap military invasion in the >>>>>> usual fashion of the day. That a few British citizens had had the >>>>>> folly to buy into from London real estate agents to escape English >>>>>> poverty was not too much of an issue. If Hobson could get the natives >>>>>> to cede sovereignty without a serious military operation - well this >>>>>> had never been done before but why not?.
It is not clear how much Hobson knew of the New Zealand situation
before he arrived, and when he did get to Waitangi the Treaty was
virtually agreed without ceding sovereignty, but certainly easing the >>>>> path for more settlers from England arriving, and a cessation to most >>>>> of the warfare that had been happening. That Maori did not cede
sovereignty is now well established,
The Maori could not "cede" what they didn't have. Any talk of "Maori >>>>sovereignty" is a load of bollocks trying to confuse things with modern >>>>day semantics and political manoeuvring.
The Treaty was signed in 1840.
The *first* Maori King was in 1858. Before that the Maori were a bunch >>>>of separate tribes, some with mutual agreements and friendships, and >>>>some having continued battles. There was no "soverignty", there wasn't >>>>even any unity, hence why multiple chiefs had to sign the Treaty.
- the Treaty preserved many of those rights; they did notRepeating a lie does not make it true.
cede sovereignty either individually or collectively.
evidence of that - and repeating your lie, without evidence, is
probably the only aspect of your myriad of unsupported personal
opinions that we can rely on - your unwillingness to apply to yourself
the standards you espouse to others being a simple result of your
consistent duplicity. So provide evidence to support your assertions,
Tony, or perhaps preferably just go way and keep your bigotry and lies
to yourself.
Thw whole 'debate' and 'restoration' nonsense is, as usual, simply a >>>>small bunch of selfish fools wanting to get things for themselves. Even >>>>most Maori don't give a damn about any of this ancient history, and >>>>they simply want to live their lives now like almost everyone else.
but there was a long period when many thought that they could ignore >>>>> the provisions of the Treaty; there have been quite a large number of >>>>> grievances found to be legitimate.
On Wed, 7 May 2025 23:46:20 -0000 (UTC), TonyNothing there that supports your lies.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 7 May 2025 19:59:39 -0000 (UTC), TonyYou are the bigot, not me. And you are the one that abuses.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Indeed you keep on implying that a lie has been given without any >>>evidence of that - and repeating your lie, without evidence, is
On Wed, 7 May 2025 18:29:24 +1200, It's A Me <its-a-me@mario.com> >>>>>wrote:Nonsense.
On 2025-05-07 02:58:59 +0000, Rich80105 said:
On Tue, 06 May 2025 21:31:39 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 6 May 2025 08:46:45 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote: >>>>>>>>
If you were given the task of adding NZ to the British empire and you >>>>>>>>>were
out numbered by a large number would you not think that the current >>>>>>>>>way
of
submission might not work so how about we offer a treaty to get the >>>>>>>>>peace
until we can get some more boat loads of people from home (UK) until >>>>>>>>>the
numbers are on our side.
Hobson clearly thought this way. NZ is a few small islands too far >>>>>>>> away from the state of NSW to mount a cheap military invasion in the >>>>>>>> usual fashion of the day. That a few British citizens had had the >>>>>>>> folly to buy into from London real estate agents to escape English >>>>>>>> poverty was not too much of an issue. If Hobson could get the natives >>>>>>>> to cede sovereignty without a serious military operation - well this >>>>>>>> had never been done before but why not?.
It is not clear how much Hobson knew of the New Zealand situation >>>>>>> before he arrived, and when he did get to Waitangi the Treaty was >>>>>>> virtually agreed without ceding sovereignty, but certainly easing the >>>>>>> path for more settlers from England arriving, and a cessation to most >>>>>>> of the warfare that had been happening. That Maori did not cede
sovereignty is now well established,
The Maori could not "cede" what they didn't have. Any talk of "Maori >>>>>>sovereignty" is a load of bollocks trying to confuse things with modern >>>>>>day semantics and political manoeuvring.
The Treaty was signed in 1840.
The *first* Maori King was in 1858. Before that the Maori were a bunch >>>>>>of separate tribes, some with mutual agreements and friendships, and >>>>>>some having continued battles. There was no "soverignty", there wasn't >>>>>>even any unity, hence why multiple chiefs had to sign the Treaty. >>>>>Yes they had tribes whose Chiefs held elements of leadership / >>>>>sovereignty
- the Treaty preserved many of those rights; they did notRepeating a lie does not make it true.
cede sovereignty either individually or collectively.
probably the only aspect of your myriad of unsupported personal
opinions that we can rely on - your unwillingness to apply to yourself >>>the standards you espouse to others being a simple result of your >>>consistent duplicity. So provide evidence to support your assertions, >>>Tony, or perhaps preferably just go way and keep your bigotry and lies
to yourself.
Now let's be clear.
You are the one who claims aovereignty was not ceded.
Until the last few years, it was assumed (for excellent reasons) that it was >>in
fact ceded, and then the racist and greedy fools like you pop up and say it >>was
not ceded. And with zero evidence to support your lies.
So once and for all - show evidence that sovereignty was not ceded, it is not >>for me to show that it was because that was clearly the intent - promising >>allegiance to the Queen and her successors clearly proves that sovereignty >>was
in fact ceded - and willingly.
You are the one that needs to show otherwise or go back to your lies.
See your reply to my post providing just that evidence in the thread
"Re: Sovereignity" on Wed, 7 May 2025 05:30:54 -0000 (UTC)
Now try and provide evidence that anyone else shares your ignorant >assertions.I don't make ignorant assertions, I have explained the error of your ways, you merely ignore the truth - as usual.
Claiming that you never have to justify your wild assertions isI don't do that, that accusation is just more of your rudeness and childish abuse.
typical of your ignorance and arrogance . . .
Thw whole 'debate' and 'restoration' nonsense is, as usual, simply a >>>>>>small bunch of selfish fools wanting to get things for themselves. Even >>>>>>most Maori don't give a damn about any of this ancient history, and >>>>>>they simply want to live their lives now like almost everyone else. >>>>>>
but there was a long period when many thought that they could ignore >>>>>>> the provisions of the Treaty; there have been quite a large number of >>>>>>> grievances found to be legitimate.
On Thu, 8 May 2025 00:41:02 -0000 (UTC), TonyTemper, temper little chap.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 7 May 2025 23:46:20 -0000 (UTC), TonyNothing there that supports your lies.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 7 May 2025 19:59:39 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:You are the bigot, not me. And you are the one that abuses.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Indeed you keep on implying that a lie has been given without any >>>>>evidence of that - and repeating your lie, without evidence, is >>>>>probably the only aspect of your myriad of unsupported personal >>>>>opinions that we can rely on - your unwillingness to apply to yourself >>>>>the standards you espouse to others being a simple result of your >>>>>consistent duplicity. So provide evidence to support your assertions, >>>>>Tony, or perhaps preferably just go way and keep your bigotry and lies >>>>>to yourself.
On Wed, 7 May 2025 18:29:24 +1200, It's A Me <its-a-me@mario.com> >>>>>>>wrote:Nonsense.
On 2025-05-07 02:58:59 +0000, Rich80105 said:
On Tue, 06 May 2025 21:31:39 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 6 May 2025 08:46:45 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>
If you were given the task of adding NZ to the British empire and >>>>>>>>>>>you
were
out numbered by a large number would you not think that the current >>>>>>>>>>>way
of
submission might not work so how about we offer a treaty to get the >>>>>>>>>>>peace
until we can get some more boat loads of people from home (UK) >>>>>>>>>>>until
the
numbers are on our side.
Hobson clearly thought this way. NZ is a few small islands too far >>>>>>>>>> away from the state of NSW to mount a cheap military invasion in the >>>>>>>>>> usual fashion of the day. That a few British citizens had had the >>>>>>>>>> folly to buy into from London real estate agents to escape English >>>>>>>>>> poverty was not too much of an issue. If Hobson could get the >>>>>>>>>>natives
to cede sovereignty without a serious military operation - well this >>>>>>>>>> had never been done before but why not?.
It is not clear how much Hobson knew of the New Zealand situation >>>>>>>>> before he arrived, and when he did get to Waitangi the Treaty was >>>>>>>>> virtually agreed without ceding sovereignty, but certainly easing the >>>>>>>>> path for more settlers from England arriving, and a cessation to most >>>>>>>>> of the warfare that had been happening. That Maori did not cede >>>>>>>>> sovereignty is now well established,
The Maori could not "cede" what they didn't have. Any talk of "Maori >>>>>>>>sovereignty" is a load of bollocks trying to confuse things with modern >>>>>>>>day semantics and political manoeuvring.
The Treaty was signed in 1840.
The *first* Maori King was in 1858. Before that the Maori were a bunch >>>>>>>>of separate tribes, some with mutual agreements and friendships, and >>>>>>>>some having continued battles. There was no "soverignty", there wasn't >>>>>>>>even any unity, hence why multiple chiefs had to sign the Treaty. >>>>>>>Yes they had tribes whose Chiefs held elements of leadership / >>>>>>>sovereignty
- the Treaty preserved many of those rights; they did notRepeating a lie does not make it true.
cede sovereignty either individually or collectively.
Now let's be clear.
You are the one who claims aovereignty was not ceded.
Until the last few years, it was assumed (for excellent reasons) that it >>>>was
in
fact ceded, and then the racist and greedy fools like you pop up and say it >>>>was
not ceded. And with zero evidence to support your lies.
So once and for all - show evidence that sovereignty was not ceded, it is >>>>not
for me to show that it was because that was clearly the intent - promising >>>>allegiance to the Queen and her successors clearly proves that sovereignty >>>>was
in fact ceded - and willingly.
You are the one that needs to show otherwise or go back to your lies.
See your reply to my post providing just that evidence in the thread
"Re: Sovereignity" on Wed, 7 May 2025 05:30:54 -0000 (UTC)
I don't make ignorant assertions, I have explained the error of your ways, >>you
Now try and provide evidence that anyone else shares your ignorant >>>assertions.
merely ignore the truth - as usual.
You have failed miserably to show that sovereignty was not ceded. It is up to >>you to do that, not me to do the opposite.
I repeat for your edification and education.
"So once and for all - show evidence that sovereignty was not ceded, it is >>not
for me to show that it was because that was clearly the intent - promising >>allegiance to the Queen and her successors clearly proves that sovereignty >>was
in fact ceded - and willingly."
On the basis of that post from you, it is clear that you are ignorant,
rude, arrogant, obstructive, stupid, irrational, untruthful, devoid of
honour or intelligence, and that it is up to you to prove that anyone
else shares your ignorant assertions.
Now read: >https://www.google.com/search?q=did+maori+cede+sovereignty+in+the+treaty+of+waitangi
and : >https://maorilawreview.co.nz/2014/11/waitangi-tribunal-finds-treaty-of-waitangi-signatories-did-not-cede-sovereignty-in-february-1840/
I don't do that, that accusation is just more of your rudeness and childish >>abuse.
Claiming that you never have to justify your wild assertions is
typical of your ignorance and arrogance . . .
Thw whole 'debate' and 'restoration' nonsense is, as usual, simply a >>>>>>>>small bunch of selfish fools wanting to get things for themselves. Even >>>>>>>>most Maori don't give a damn about any of this ancient history, and >>>>>>>>they simply want to live their lives now like almost everyone else. >>>>>>>>
but there was a long period when many thought that they could ignore >>>>>>>>> the provisions of the Treaty; there have been quite a large number of >>>>>>>>> grievances found to be legitimate.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 7 May 2025 23:46:20 -0000 (UTC), TonyNothing there that supports your lies.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 7 May 2025 19:59:39 -0000 (UTC), TonyYou are the bigot, not me. And you are the one that abuses.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Indeed you keep on implying that a lie has been given without any >>>>evidence of that - and repeating your lie, without evidence, is >>>>probably the only aspect of your myriad of unsupported personal >>>>opinions that we can rely on - your unwillingness to apply to yourself >>>>the standards you espouse to others being a simple result of your >>>>consistent duplicity. So provide evidence to support your assertions, >>>>Tony, or perhaps preferably just go way and keep your bigotry and lies >>>>to yourself.
On Wed, 7 May 2025 18:29:24 +1200, It's A Me <its-a-me@mario.com> >>>>>>wrote:Nonsense.
On 2025-05-07 02:58:59 +0000, Rich80105 said:
On Tue, 06 May 2025 21:31:39 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On 6 May 2025 08:46:45 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote: >>>>>>>>>
If you were given the task of adding NZ to the British empire and you
were
out numbered by a large number would you not think that the current >>>>>>>>>>way
of
submission might not work so how about we offer a treaty to get the >>>>>>>>>>peace
until we can get some more boat loads of people from home (UK) until >>>>>>>>>>the
numbers are on our side.
Hobson clearly thought this way. NZ is a few small islands too far >>>>>>>>> away from the state of NSW to mount a cheap military invasion in the >>>>>>>>> usual fashion of the day. That a few British citizens had had the >>>>>>>>> folly to buy into from London real estate agents to escape English >>>>>>>>> poverty was not too much of an issue. If Hobson could get the natives
to cede sovereignty without a serious military operation - well this >>>>>>>>> had never been done before but why not?.
It is not clear how much Hobson knew of the New Zealand situation >>>>>>>> before he arrived, and when he did get to Waitangi the Treaty was >>>>>>>> virtually agreed without ceding sovereignty, but certainly easing the >>>>>>>> path for more settlers from England arriving, and a cessation to most >>>>>>>> of the warfare that had been happening. That Maori did not cede >>>>>>>> sovereignty is now well established,
The Maori could not "cede" what they didn't have. Any talk of "Maori >>>>>>>sovereignty" is a load of bollocks trying to confuse things with modern >>>>>>>day semantics and political manoeuvring.
The Treaty was signed in 1840.
The *first* Maori King was in 1858. Before that the Maori were a bunch >>>>>>>of separate tribes, some with mutual agreements and friendships, and >>>>>>>some having continued battles. There was no "soverignty", there wasn't >>>>>>>even any unity, hence why multiple chiefs had to sign the Treaty. >>>>>>Yes they had tribes whose Chiefs held elements of leadership / >>>>>>sovereignty
- the Treaty preserved many of those rights; they did notRepeating a lie does not make it true.
cede sovereignty either individually or collectively.
Now let's be clear.
You are the one who claims aovereignty was not ceded.
Until the last few years, it was assumed (for excellent reasons) that it was >>>in
fact ceded, and then the racist and greedy fools like you pop up and say it >>>was
not ceded. And with zero evidence to support your lies.
So once and for all - show evidence that sovereignty was not ceded, it is not
for me to show that it was because that was clearly the intent - promising >>>allegiance to the Queen and her successors clearly proves that sovereignty >>>was
in fact ceded - and willingly.
You are the one that needs to show otherwise or go back to your lies.
See your reply to my post providing just that evidence in the thread
"Re: Sovereignity" on Wed, 7 May 2025 05:30:54 -0000 (UTC)
I don't make ignorant assertions, I have explained the error of your ways, you >merely ignore the truth - as usual.
Now try and provide evidence that anyone else shares your ignorant >>assertions.
You have failed miserably to show that sovereignty was not ceded. It is up to >you to do that, not me to do the opposite.
I repeat for your edification and education.
"So once and for all - show evidence that sovereignty was not ceded, it is not >for me to show that it was because that was clearly the intent - promising >allegiance to the Queen and her successors clearly proves that sovereignty was >in fact ceded - and willingly."
I don't do that, that accusation is just more of your rudeness and childish >abuse.
Claiming that you never have to justify your wild assertions is
typical of your ignorance and arrogance . . .
Thw whole 'debate' and 'restoration' nonsense is, as usual, simply a >>>>>>>small bunch of selfish fools wanting to get things for themselves. Even >>>>>>>most Maori don't give a damn about any of this ancient history, and >>>>>>>they simply want to live their lives now like almost everyone else. >>>>>>>
but there was a long period when many thought that they could ignore >>>>>>>> the provisions of the Treaty; there have been quite a large number of >>>>>>>> grievances found to be legitimate.
On Wed, 07 May 2025 14:58:59 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 06 May 2025 21:31:39 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>wrote:
On 6 May 2025 08:46:45 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
If you were given the task of adding NZ to the British empire and you were >>>>out numbered by a large number would you not think that the current way of >>>>submission might not work so how about we offer a treaty to get the peace >>>>until we can get some more boat loads of people from home (UK) until the >>>>numbers are on our side.
Hobson clearly thought this way. NZ is a few small islands too far
away from the state of NSW to mount a cheap military invasion in the >>>usual fashion of the day. That a few British citizens had had the
folly to buy into from London real estate agents to escape English >>>poverty was not too much of an issue. If Hobson could get the natives
to cede sovereignty without a serious military operation - well this
had never been done before but why not?.
It is not clear how much Hobson knew of the New Zealand situation
before he arrived, and when he did get to Waitangi the Treaty was
virtually agreed without ceding sovereignty, but certainly easing the
path for more settlers from England arriving, and a cessation to most
of the warfare that had been happening. That Maori did not cede
sovereignty is now well established, but there was a long period when
many thought that they could ignore the provisions of the Treaty;
there have been quite a large number of grievances found to be
legitimate.
Reading a biography of Hobson clearly indicates that he had official >involvement in NZ well before the Treaty was first signed at Waitangi:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Hobson
The Treaty was the result of the Declaration of Independence of 1835
which was interpreted as a declaration of Sovereignty by a number of
Maori tribes.
The intent of the Treaty from a British point of view was clearly to >establish British Sovereignty over NZ, enforced by superior military >capability that would ultimately lead to Maori subjugation as was
always intended (but not by Hobson). Maori were no doubt deceived by
what the British meant in granting them equal citizenship rights (with >British settlers).
There followed a fairly long period where non-Maori increasingly
asserted control of resources in NZ at the expense of Maori. From a
British viewpoint this was normal practice in such as NZ.
The commitment by the Crown to grant equal rights as stipulated in the
ToW was shamefully ignored for many decades after it was signed and
the Maori population was exceeded by non-Maori. This is why the
Waitangi Tribunal was established.
On Tue, 06 May 2025 21:31:39 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On 6 May 2025 08:46:45 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
If you were given the task of adding NZ to the British empire and you were >>>out numbered by a large number would you not think that the current way of >>>submission might not work so how about we offer a treaty to get the peace >>>until we can get some more boat loads of people from home (UK) until the >>>numbers are on our side.
Hobson clearly thought this way. NZ is a few small islands too far
away from the state of NSW to mount a cheap military invasion in the
usual fashion of the day. That a few British citizens had had the
folly to buy into from London real estate agents to escape English
poverty was not too much of an issue. If Hobson could get the natives
to cede sovereignty without a serious military operation - well this
had never been done before but why not?.
It is not clear how much Hobson knew of the New Zealand situation
before he arrived, and when he did get to Waitangi the Treaty was
virtually agreed without ceding sovereignty, but certainly easing the
path for more settlers from England arriving, and a cessation to most
of the warfare that had been happening. That Maori did not cede
sovereignty is now well established, but there was a long period when
many thought that they could ignore the provisions of the Treaty;
there have been quite a large number of grievances found to be
legitimate.
On Thu, 08 May 2025 15:31:16 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>Not an authoritative body in terms of sovereignty, their job was entirely unrelated. They do tend to stick their noses into other business however. Certainly no evidence that supports your wish.
wrote:
On Wed, 07 May 2025 14:58:59 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:
On Tue, 06 May 2025 21:31:39 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>wrote:
On 6 May 2025 08:46:45 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
If you were given the task of adding NZ to the British empire and you were >>>>>out numbered by a large number would you not think that the current way of >>>>>submission might not work so how about we offer a treaty to get the peace >>>>>until we can get some more boat loads of people from home (UK) until the >>>>>numbers are on our side.
Hobson clearly thought this way. NZ is a few small islands too far >>>>away from the state of NSW to mount a cheap military invasion in the >>>>usual fashion of the day. That a few British citizens had had the >>>>folly to buy into from London real estate agents to escape English >>>>poverty was not too much of an issue. If Hobson could get the natives >>>>to cede sovereignty without a serious military operation - well this >>>>had never been done before but why not?.
It is not clear how much Hobson knew of the New Zealand situation
before he arrived, and when he did get to Waitangi the Treaty was >>>virtually agreed without ceding sovereignty, but certainly easing the >>>path for more settlers from England arriving, and a cessation to most
of the warfare that had been happening. That Maori did not cede >>>sovereignty is now well established, but there was a long period when >>>many thought that they could ignore the provisions of the Treaty;
there have been quite a large number of grievances found to be >>>legitimate.
Reading a biography of Hobson clearly indicates that he had official >>involvement in NZ well before the Treaty was first signed at Waitangi:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Hobson
Thanks Crash - I was not aware of his provisional appointment in July
1839; but he arrived in New Zealand (presumably Auckland) on 29
January 1840 and met with Maori Chiefs on 5 February 1840 - not much
time to discuss with those who were drafting the Treaty that was
eventually signed. I understand that he left Waitangi very quickly
after the signing as he was ill. Yes he did proclaim sovereignty, and
that was presumed to be correct (albeit subject to the terms of the
Treaty), until further investigation determined that Maori had not
ceded sovereignty.
The Treaty was the result of the Declaration of Independence of 1835
which was interpreted as a declaration of Sovereignty by a number of
Maori tribes.
The intent of the Treaty from a British point of view was clearly to >>establish British Sovereignty over NZ, enforced by superior military >>capability that would ultimately lead to Maori subjugation as was
always intended (but not by Hobson). Maori were no doubt deceived by
what the British meant in granting them equal citizenship rights (with >>British settlers).
There followed a fairly long period where non-Maori increasingly
asserted control of resources in NZ at the expense of Maori. From a >>British viewpoint this was normal practice in such as NZ.
The commitment by the Crown to grant equal rights as stipulated in the
ToW was shamefully ignored for many decades after it was signed and
the Maori population was exceeded by non-Maori. This is why the
Waitangi Tribunal was established.
and only after that event did we finally get later clarification: >https://www.google.com/search?q=did+maori+cede+sovereignty+in+the+treaty+of+waitangi
and : >https://maorilawreview.co.nz/2014/11/waitangi-tribunal-finds-treaty-of-waitangi-signatories-did-not-cede-sovereignty-in-february-1840/
On Thu, 08 May 2025 15:31:16 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Wed, 07 May 2025 14:58:59 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:
On Tue, 06 May 2025 21:31:39 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>wrote:
On 6 May 2025 08:46:45 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
If you were given the task of adding NZ to the British empire and you were >>>>>out numbered by a large number would you not think that the current way of >>>>>submission might not work so how about we offer a treaty to get the peace >>>>>until we can get some more boat loads of people from home (UK) until the >>>>>numbers are on our side.
Hobson clearly thought this way. NZ is a few small islands too far >>>>away from the state of NSW to mount a cheap military invasion in the >>>>usual fashion of the day. That a few British citizens had had the >>>>folly to buy into from London real estate agents to escape English >>>>poverty was not too much of an issue. If Hobson could get the natives >>>>to cede sovereignty without a serious military operation - well this >>>>had never been done before but why not?.
It is not clear how much Hobson knew of the New Zealand situation
before he arrived, and when he did get to Waitangi the Treaty was >>>virtually agreed without ceding sovereignty, but certainly easing the >>>path for more settlers from England arriving, and a cessation to most
of the warfare that had been happening. That Maori did not cede >>>sovereignty is now well established, but there was a long period when >>>many thought that they could ignore the provisions of the Treaty;
there have been quite a large number of grievances found to be >>>legitimate.
Reading a biography of Hobson clearly indicates that he had official >>involvement in NZ well before the Treaty was first signed at Waitangi:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Hobson
Thanks Crash - I was not aware of his provisional appointment in July
1839; but he arrived in New Zealand (presumably Auckland) on 29
January 1840 and met with Maori Chiefs on 5 February 1840 - not much
time to discuss with those who were drafting the Treaty that was
eventually signed.
I understand that he left Waitangi very quickly
after the signing as he was ill. Yes he did proclaim sovereignty, and
that was presumed to be correct (albeit subject to the terms of the
Treaty), until further investigation determined that Maori had not
ceded sovereignty.
The Treaty was the result of the Declaration of Independence of 1835
which was interpreted as a declaration of Sovereignty by a number of
Maori tribes.
The intent of the Treaty from a British point of view was clearly to >>establish British Sovereignty over NZ, enforced by superior military >>capability that would ultimately lead to Maori subjugation as was
always intended (but not by Hobson). Maori were no doubt deceived by
what the British meant in granting them equal citizenship rights (with >>British settlers).
There followed a fairly long period where non-Maori increasingly
asserted control of resources in NZ at the expense of Maori. From a >>British viewpoint this was normal practice in such as NZ.
The commitment by the Crown to grant equal rights as stipulated in the
ToW was shamefully ignored for many decades after it was signed and
the Maori population was exceeded by non-Maori. This is why the
Waitangi Tribunal was established.
and only after that event did we finally get later clarification: >https://www.google.com/search?q=did+maori+cede+sovereignty+in+the+treaty+of+waitangi
and : >https://maorilawreview.co.nz/2014/11/waitangi-tribunal-finds-treaty-of-waitangi-signatories-did-not-cede-sovereignty-in-february-1840/
On Thu, 08 May 2025 16:03:02 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>Indeed, and it is possible, perhaps even likely, that Hobson did not
wrote:
On Thu, 08 May 2025 15:31:16 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>wrote:
On Wed, 07 May 2025 14:58:59 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>wrote:
On Tue, 06 May 2025 21:31:39 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>wrote:
On 6 May 2025 08:46:45 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
If you were given the task of adding NZ to the British empire and you were
out numbered by a large number would you not think that the current way of
submission might not work so how about we offer a treaty to get the peace >>>>>>until we can get some more boat loads of people from home (UK) until the >>>>>>numbers are on our side.
Hobson clearly thought this way. NZ is a few small islands too far >>>>>away from the state of NSW to mount a cheap military invasion in the >>>>>usual fashion of the day. That a few British citizens had had the >>>>>folly to buy into from London real estate agents to escape English >>>>>poverty was not too much of an issue. If Hobson could get the natives >>>>>to cede sovereignty without a serious military operation - well this >>>>>had never been done before but why not?.
It is not clear how much Hobson knew of the New Zealand situation >>>>before he arrived, and when he did get to Waitangi the Treaty was >>>>virtually agreed without ceding sovereignty, but certainly easing the >>>>path for more settlers from England arriving, and a cessation to most >>>>of the warfare that had been happening. That Maori did not cede >>>>sovereignty is now well established, but there was a long period when >>>>many thought that they could ignore the provisions of the Treaty;
there have been quite a large number of grievances found to be >>>>legitimate.
Reading a biography of Hobson clearly indicates that he had official >>>involvement in NZ well before the Treaty was first signed at Waitangi:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Hobson
Thanks Crash - I was not aware of his provisional appointment in July
1839; but he arrived in New Zealand (presumably Auckland) on 29
January 1840 and met with Maori Chiefs on 5 February 1840 - not much
time to discuss with those who were drafting the Treaty that was
eventually signed.
Correct. The British Crown is noted for many things in those days but >consulting with the natives in new colonies was not one of them.
Yes, it took a long time for scholarship to give us the real history -I understand that he left Waitangi very quickly173 years later? Spare me that rationality of that logic. See my
after the signing as he was ill. Yes he did proclaim sovereignty, and
that was presumed to be correct (albeit subject to the terms of the >>Treaty), until further investigation determined that Maori had not
ceded sovereignty.
response later in this post.
Or academic study of records still remaining after all those years -The Treaty was the result of the Declaration of Independence of 1835 >>>which was interpreted as a declaration of Sovereignty by a number of >>>Maori tribes.
The intent of the Treaty from a British point of view was clearly to >>>establish British Sovereignty over NZ, enforced by superior military >>>capability that would ultimately lead to Maori subjugation as was
always intended (but not by Hobson). Maori were no doubt deceived by >>>what the British meant in granting them equal citizenship rights (with >>>British settlers).
There followed a fairly long period where non-Maori increasingly
asserted control of resources in NZ at the expense of Maori. From a >>>British viewpoint this was normal practice in such as NZ.
The commitment by the Crown to grant equal rights as stipulated in the >>>ToW was shamefully ignored for many decades after it was signed and
the Maori population was exceeded by non-Maori. This is why the
Waitangi Tribunal was established.
and only after that event did we finally get later clarification: >>https://www.google.com/search?q=did+maori+cede+sovereignty+in+the+treaty+of+waitangi
and : >>https://maorilawreview.co.nz/2014/11/waitangi-tribunal-finds-treaty-of-waitangi-signatories-did-not-cede-sovereignty-in-february-1840/
So OK - the Waitangi Tribunal decided in 2014 that Maori did not cede >sovereignty - 40 years after it was established and 173 years after
the Treaty was signed. Dodgy modern revision of history or what?
The fact remains that the ToW was instigated by Hobson and the
motivation for it was the peaceful assimilation of the natives in a
new colony into the British Empire. The subsequent actions of the
various forms of colonial government that evolved from British
settlement - clearly indicated that the Crown did not consider Maori
as equals, continuing the historical attitudes of the Crown to
conquered lands that became part of the British Empire.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 00:49:44 |
| Calls: | 10,387 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 14,061 |
| Messages: | 6,416,723 |