1. In reality, there is no significant difference between the English and Maori texts of the treaty. The only problem is that the social-engineers, intent upon deceiving the public, withhold the actual or real "Final English Draft" text and substitute it for a false, "composite" English text of superseded concepts.
   
   
2. The Maori word, "Kawanatanga" is actually the Maorification of an English word, "Governorship" (Kawana - Governor). The powers of a "Governor" were perfectly understood by the Maori chiefs, inasmuch as nearby Australia (where many Maori had visited as ship's crew, lived permanently or were receiving formal educations at the behest of their chiefs) was under the British Governorship of Sir George Gipps. Also, the Maori New Testament of the Bible, which was widely available in printed form, spoke of the far-reaching powers of the Governor of Judea, Pontius Pilate. The comparable structure of authority and sovereignty was very clearly laid out in the Bible: There was Head of State (Tino-Rangitira) Caesar; there was then Governor (Kawana) Pontius Pilate. Below them was the Herodean Royal family, with limited authority over Judean religious authorities of the Sanhedrin, Pharisees and Saducees (the equivalent of Maori Rangitiras, Tohungas and Kaumatuas) and the Judean citizenry. The final authority in all cases was Pilate, under the Roman State executive authority of Caesar, and Pilate was called upon to rule in all weighty regional matters of life and death or of great importance. This Biblical system perfectly described the kind of sovereign authority required by the British in order to institute colonial rule and the ability to make and enforce laws. The Tino Rangitira was Victoria, with Kawana William Hobson acting for her regionally. Everyone else was subservient to them. The requirement was one of absolute chiefly sovereignty being ceded to Queen Victoria and 540 chiefs chose to do this in full knowledge, after the consequences of this action were clearly explained to them. Hobson's edict was that no chief was permitted to sign the treaty until he fully understood it. It is a tremendous insult and sleight against the "Mana" (pride, dignity and knowledge) of the 1840's chiefs for their modern-day, activist progeny to refer to them as "stupid"or "traitors". What do the comfortable, pampered and soft modern offspring know of the problems or concerns of these astute chiefs, perceived or real, in facing an uncertain future. The chiefs weighed all in the balance and entered into long hui discussions before deciding on the best course for the safety, security, happiness and advancement of their people.
   
   
3. If Te Papa Museum embraced a true scholarship approach to their treaty display, instead of a Marxist propaganda approach, then there would be none of these politically-expedient distortions of the terms "tino rangitiratanga" and "kawanatanga", as understood and used in a circa 1840's context. To see Dr. Phil Parkinson's explanation of these "neologisms" CLICK HERE.
   
   
4. A careful reading of British Resident Busby's pre-treaty letters to his superiors or the report by Hobson stemming from his 1837 visit to New Zealand, coupled with Lord Normanby's 1839 Brief to Hobson and the speeches of the chiefs at the Waitangi assembly (both for and against the treaty), confirms that nothing less than full and absolute Sovereignty was to be ceded. The words of the chiefs on 5/2/1840 shows implicitly that they knew exactly what powers they were being called upon to cede to Queen Victoria and the consequences, forevermore, of that irrevocable decision.
   
   
5. The Te Papa explanatory caption goes on to state that, 'The idea of a supreme ruler over the entire county would have been completely alien to most Maori'. What Te Papa social-engineers deliberately omit to mention is that the day-to-day situation for most Maori had become very dangerous due to (a) The Musket Wars, in which upwards of 60,000 Maori had been killed maimed or enslaved in about twenty years of brutal intertribal fighting, rampant cannibalism and terrible carnage; (b) The large-scale rearming of the Southern tribes so that they could come north to wreak revenge upon the Ngapuhi instigators of the Musket Wars; (c) Moves by the nation of France to annex New Zealand and forcibly set up a French colony.
   
   
6. The situation in New Zealand was such that Ngapuhi didn't care what other regional chiefs did or didn't do, but Eastern and Western Ngapuhi were going to 'sit in the shadow of Queen Victoria' and become British subjects, under the protection of the biggest gun on the sea, Great Britain. By this carefully considered action they were going to bring stability to their own warring confederation of chiefs, as well as strongly intimidate and dissuade Southern Maori tribes from pursuing reprisal raids (utu) against Ngapuhi. It was a shrewd, carefully calculated move, which would also stop French annexation ambitions (already underway by Baron Du Thierry) in Ngapuhi territory. To the surprise of many, there was a general consensus, amongst many chiefs throughout New Zealand to follow suite in the steps of Ngapuhi at Waitangi, as most people were absolutely sick of the constant death and dying or uncertainty of daily life. The majority of chiefs made the informed decision to form a British colony and rapidly advance their people out of a stone age and into the modern world. It was an informed decision arrived at only after considerable discussion, wherein all of the pros and cons were carefully considered beforehand. The majority of chiefs (over 90%) never appeared to regret that decision and always stayed loyal to Queen Victoria.
   
   
7. In the above Te Papa Museum explanatory caption, the social-engineers tell a huge "porky" about Tino Rangitiratanga and the context in which it is used; (a) The term "Tino Rangitiratanga" is actually "missionary-speak" and was used by Reverend William Williams in 1833 to introduce the newly arrived British Resident, James Busby, as a chief who was greater than or of more paramount authority than other chiefs in the system of British hierachy...in other words a V.I.P.; (b) In the Treaty of Waitangi the term tino rangitiratanga is only used to denote possession, chieftainsip or ownership over physical goods and makes no reference, whatsoever, to the authority of the chiefs. It is used only to guarantee that everybody's (including British settlers) privately owned lands or physical possessions will not have to be forfeited to the Queen under the new regime of British Colonial rule. The text incorporating this phrase within the Maori treaty states: KO te Kuini o Ingarani kA wakarite kA wakaae ki nga Rangatira ki nga hapu-ki nga tangata katoa o Nu Tirani te tino rangatiratanga o ratou wenua o ratou kainga me o ratou taonga katoa... The Final English Draft states this text as: The Queen of England confirms and guarantees to the chiefs & tribes and to all the people of New Zealand the possession of their lands, dwellings and all their property. This is reiterated in a back-translation of the Maori text, officially undertaken for the New Zealand government by the Native Department in 1869: The Queen of England arranges and agrees to give to the Chiefs, the Hapus and all the people of New Zealand, the full chieftainship of their lands, their settlements and their property.
   
   
8. In a move to, undoubtedly, give the Te Papa Museum social-engineers a legal out, a small line of text at the bottom of the explanatory caption reads: This Maori translation is from the Treaty of Waitangi Amendment Act 1975. The English is from the Treaty of Waitangi Amendment Act 1975. What they fail to mention is that there is only one Treaty of Waitangi text and it's in the Maori language. There is no Official English Treaty of Waitangi, only the Final English Draft from which Te Tiriti O Waitangi was translated. Unfortunately for all New Zealanders, the 1975 Treaty of Waitangi Amendment Act was concocted by the activists to raise a defective English text to a status equal to Te Tiriti O Waitangi. The English text in question was not the Final English Draft text, but a composite text made from the early rough draft notes. Because of very serious omissions in that early text, the political opportunists wanted it to supplant and eclipse the singular authority of the Maori text, which is exactly what happened beyond 1975. Whereas the Maori text guarantees equality for all the newly dubbed "Official English" text can be easily twisted and construed to mean rights only for Maori and all non-Maori New Zealanders have been effectively written out of the treaty since 1975.
   
   
9. The explanatory caption states: 'The full treaty texts are on display upstairs'. The "upstairs" viewing platform only allows visitors to see the huge wall panels from above, but I didn't notice any "full treaty texts", only the huge panels, either without Preambles or with the Maori version Preamble blackened out in shadow and unreadable. There is, however, another console offering treaty texts, but it's avowed purpose seems to be to "confuse the issue" as to what is what or what means what, so that the average punter throws his or her hands up in despair and walks away.

Well, actually, there is no difference, but there's no profit to be had in having everything clearly understandable, which is exactly what the grievance-industry doesn't want. It's so simple really. Just take Te Tiriti O Waitangi and place it alongside the mother document from which it was made, et voila!, everything is clear. For a further verification of the simplicity of it all, how about introducing the "officially requested and commissioned" 1869 back-translation of Te Tiriti O Waitangi into English for the New Zealand government...but the downside is, of course, that simple exercise would undermine the lucrative scam and fraud perpetrated against the ever-patient and long-suffering people of New Zealand, who are required to pay, pay, pay for the manufactured guilt imposed upon them.

The defective English text used, coupled with the tag-on "Five Principles for Crown Action on the Treaty of Waitangi" makes a mockery of the treaty and allows it to be interpreted in any way that suits the Waitangi Tribunal. Were we to return to the only true treaty wording, no such leeway would exist.

1. I remember nothing but evil: painful festering sores all over my body... mosquito bites... bed bugs, the intense cold and of the hunger, the never ending hunger.
2. I very often think of the slaves in England and the empty bellies. A man is drove to be dishonest in England, but here there is no call for him to be...

• Why Leave?
• Fighting and persecution drive people from their countries.
• New farming methods destroy peasant farmer's livelihoods.
• Industrialisation forces people into cities for work and the cities fill up until they are bursting at the seams.
• For these reasons and more, people leave their homelands looking for a better life.

The undiscerning student would not put two and two together and would come away with an utterly wrong impression, which is exactly what the designers of this very confusing hodge-podge of a display, obviously, want to have happen. Immediately alongside a depressing picture of child factory workers in 1800's industrialised England and the encompassing plaintive statements about the rigours of daily life, is a picture suggesting the terrible, overcrowded, slum housing conditions that the unfortunates were living in. Here it is:

So there you have it folks; This is the kind of neighbourhood where all of those poor, hungry, mosquito and bedbug bitten refugees from 19th century industrialised England came from. At least that's the "dumbed-down" impression you're supposed to leave Te Papa with, ...if you haven't been concentrating meticulously and reading all the, almost illegible, "fine print". My, my... what a veritable, overcrowded hellhole Britain must have been!

Oh bugger!... teacher..., I wasn't paying attention...you mean to tell me that Statement No. 1 was made by Stephania Manterys, child refugee from Poland after World War II and that Statement No. 2 was made by Hodges Swain, rural worker from England, who arrived in New Zealand in 1874 and that the stacked up tenement housing is actually Hong Kong, China* in about 1960....?... Gee... who ever would have guessed that? The question goes begging: Why use a picture like this, unless you're (a) stupid (b) not so much as a pimple on a true historian's arse (c) a Marxist social engineer trying to instil the wrong impression on the gulible?

*Footnote: Despite the very compact nature of this Hong Kong tenement, the little apartments look clean, tidy and well maintained, by occupants who are obviously house-proud and making the very best of the otherwise cramped circumstances (pleasant facades and balconies, awnings, planter boxes, lots of clean washing hung out to dry, etc.)... something of a rabbit warren and not everyone's "cup of tea" , but not too bad and certainly a whole lot better than what the early settlers came to in New Zealand, as in this quote:

'They had arrived in a country that was, as a newborn colony, just being beginning to crawl. They had given up a comfortable home, cobbled streets and an ordered society to move across the world to a home in a little raupo hut and mud floors' (See: Taranaki Stories, Frederic Carrington Part 1, describing conditions ...circa 1841).

UNDSOWEITER

...And so forth and so on throughout this section of Te Papa Museum... the Marxist propaganda Museum of New Zealand, wherein no opportunity to confuse the meaning of the Treaty of Waitangi or take a demeaning swipe at whitey is overlooked.

I wonder why the display didn't mention the droves of "young adventurers", who were from excellent circumstances in their homelands and often the children of "landed-gentry". What about all the ones who came and figured New Zealand was an undeveloped backwater and cultureless vacuum, and returned forthwith to the "old country" or headed onwards to other more stimulating and interesting climes. The reasons for "globetrotting" were many and varied and it wasn't only about "doom & gloom"... a lot of people were just out and about doing their big OE.

Incorporating the phase, 'the slaves of England' in statement No 2 shows masterly use of the disinformation craft, so adeptly built into this panel presentation or the Treaty 2U exhibit (an extension of Te Papa Museum) travelling the country. The undiscerning student is drawn to think of actual "slaves" and conclude that the practice of transporting captive slaves to England and working them in terribly deprived conditions is being referred to here in this (circa 1874) statement.

The antislavery movement was strong, vocal and well underway in Britain by 1787 and grew in momentum under the leadership of William Wilberforce. Slavery was abolished in the British colonies in 1807 and became an illegal enterprise beyond that time, increasingly suppressed. Captain William Hobson himself (Lieut.-Governor of New Zealand, 1840-41 and Governor thereafter, until his death in September 1842) fought the slave traders around the coastal regions of Cuba and the Bahamas in 1828, with up to seven schooners under his command to end the illegal trafficking in humans. Alternatively, when Hobson arrived in New Zealand in 1840 to secure a treaty with the Maori chiefs, up to ten percent of Maori people were "slaves" in the service of other tribes. Their condition was far more dangerous than that of overseas slaves, as they could be castrated or killed and eaten by their masters at any moment. Hobson faced the difficult task of "freeing the slaves of New Zealand from their Maori masters", which he and others did by legislation, agreements and the paying of ransoms to secure release.

Gee! ... I wonder why the manipulative Marxist propaganda writers of Te Papa Museum don't mention these kinds of facts?

This is probably a section that Dr. Claudia Orange "checked for historical accuracy and reworked for general audiences"???

Whereas Te Papa Museum (Their Place) pushes and promotes a falsified Treaty of Waitangi text, they're very happy to support Maori false claims activism. Here they're advertising the Ngai-Tahu Exhibition. Ngai-Tahu are a group who received full and final settlement agreements to many of their claims to lands in New Zealand's South Island in 1944 and full and final settlements to all other outstanding claims by 1947. These facts go unmentioned in the very emotive, remanufactured Ngai-Tahu lament for redress and Te Papa Museum is quite happy to withhold that significant information from the public. In recent years, Ngai-Tahu have extorted further hundreds of millions of dollars out of the long-suffering people of New Zealand to settle claims that were fully settled over sixty years ago. It was only by Maori-activist and lawyer-led falsification of the Treaty of Waitangi that this kind of exploitation and extortionist racketeering became possible. The Ngai-Tahu banner shows Mt. Cook (Aoraki) in the South Island. Outstanding claims or loose ends and unresolved issues for large areas of the South Island (Kemp's Purchase) were settled in 1944. To see a Full & Final Settlement Act of Parliament: CLICK HERE.

The One New Zealand Foundation protest against the Treaty 2U travelling roadshow at Te Papa Museum, Wellington on Sunday 29th of April 2007. In the picture to the left, Ross Baker explains the content of rare, historic, treaty-related documents to members of the public outside Te Papa Museum. Treaty 2U exhibitors, by consequence, refuse to show the public these suppressed documents. In the picture to the right Kit O'Conner of Treaty 2U consults with Police, whom she or other Te Papa authorities have called to force the One New Zealand Foundation display to be, silenced, dismantled and moved on.

The ONZF had approached Wellington City Council, Te Papa Museum and also the Wellington (Lambton Quay) Port Authority for authorisation to run a protest display. It was determined that the Treaty 2U exhibit would be sitting adjacent to Lambton Quay territory and Ross Baker, Chairman of the ONZF, was given permission by the Lambton Quay Port Authority to run the ONZF display. Despite this, Te Papa Museum security personnel attempted to evict the ONZF protesters from Lambton Quay Port Authority land. When that failed, they called the police, who contacted the Lambton Quay Authority and determined that permission to run the ONZF display had been granted and that all legal criteria had been satisfied.

Kit O'Conner of Treaty 2U (who ducked behind the female cop to hide when this picture was being taken) was seen to be on the phone doing a big bleat and lament, which, according to the police, resulted in ONZF permission to run their display being rescinded (so much for "free speech" or the ability to bring a "balanced view", to counter the one-sided, propaganda content of Treaty 2U in New Zealand's capital city, Wellington). Even Dr. Paul Moon, New Zealand historian, has labelled the content of Treaty 2U as "propaganda" (see: Marae TV programme, TV1, screened 12/5/07).

Two days after this sorry move-you-on fiasco, a group of protesters against the "anti-smacking bill", holding placards, conducted their protest without interference outside the main door of Te Papa Museum. Many or most Wellington-based political protests are conducted, as a matter of course and without restriction, on the large public forecourt at Te Papa Museum.

It would appear that Te Papa social-engineers are deathly afraid of true, documented information about the Treaty of Waitangi being presented by the ONZF. This historically-documented information, which runs counter to Te Papa's on-site presentation, threatens to topple the Maori activist led grievance-industry of which Te Papa Museum is an integral part, primary supporter and major propaganda outlet.

Overseas visitors beware: Te Papa Museum is merely a glossy, money-sucking front for Maori-supremacy activism and Marxist pseudo-history. It is definitely "Their Place" and not "Our Place".

Martin Doutré, May 2007.