Wednesday, December 03, 2008

The ironies of pseudo-history

Matthew Dentith has a difficult job: the University of Auckland philosophy student and part-time lecturer is writing his PhD thesis on conspiracy theories. Matthew grew up in Devonport, in the shadow of the earthworks and navy barracks of North Head, and his interest in strange ideas was piqued by the persistent speculation that the Head's network of tunnels and caves contained secret, sealed-up rooms filled with dismantled Boeing aeroplanes and live explosives.

Matthew has gradually complemented his investigations into cryptoarchaeology with studies of other weird pieces of flora and fauna found deep in the forest of conspiracy theory. UFOlogists, Obamaphobes, and anti-semites have all been grist for Matthew's blog, and for The Dentith Files, the Sunday morning show he runs on BFM.

Early last month on BFM Matthew discussed the outbreak of anti-semitic conspiracy theory on Karyn Hay and Andrew Fagan's talkback show, and referred to the vigorous debates between Hay and her detractors which filled the comments boxes of this blog.

Last Sunday Matthew and I discussed my open letter to the editor of The Franklin E Local about that magazine's attempts to persuade its readers that white people are the real tangata whenua of Aotearoa. You can listen to the interview here.

While Matthew and I were gasbagging, proud ancient Celt Martin Doutre was nailing twenty-nine questions to the discussion board of the Scoop Review of Books, in response to my open letter and to other criticisms of his ideas. Doutre wants to restrict other participants in the Scoop discussion to 'Yes/No' answers, presumably because he yearns to cry 'Gotcha!' when he finally forces participants in the gigantic anti-Celt conspiracy to answer 'Yes' to the questions from the prosecutor's bench. Really, though, answering 'Yes' to many of Doutre's questions proves nothing about the Celtic New Zealand thesis, unless one also accepts a series of premises which Doutre holds.

Take, for instance, Doutre's question about whether the Auckland War Memorial Museum holds red hair samples found in rock shelters in the Waitakeres. A 'Yes' answer to this question doesn't necessarily support the claim that Celts lived in the Waitakeres in ancient times: it is not only Europeans who can have red hair, and in any case the colour of an individual's hair can change after death. (I would point out to Martin that the hair of a lot of the Egyptian mummies is red, but I fear that he would simply reply to this by asserting that the ancient Egyptians were Celts.)

Another pointless Doutre question concerns the possibly non-Maori skull recently discovered in the Wairarapa and dated at three hundred and fifty years old. As I noted a couple of months back, it's possible, though not probable, that this skull came from a European who arrived in the North Island before Cook.

But how exactly does the fact that a European woman might have been knocking round in the North Island in the 1600s prove that Celts arrived here in massive numbers five thousand years ago and built a huge advanced cilivisation, complete with universities and observatories?

It's interesting to reflect on the Wairarapa skull, because the case actually undermines Doutre's claims about a gigantic conspiracy to suppress New Zealand history. The skull was discovered, examined by a coroner, and sent off for radiocarbon dating and examination by three specialists. It is now being looked after by a museum curator in the Wairarapa, who is consulting with local iwi. Further tests are likely.

The curator who is holding on to the skull is quite open-minded about its origins - he has cited the legend of Rongotute, a European ship which is supposed to have been wrecked somewhere on the south coast of the North Island a few decades before the arrival of Cook, as possible support for the idea that the skull really did belong to a white woman who lived here three hundred and fifty years ago. On the other hand he acknowledges that radiocarbon dating does not deal well with the relatively recent past, that the craniologists were divided on whether the skull is Maori or non-Maori, and that even if the tests were accurate and the skull is European that doesn't prove the European was living here in the 1600s - after all, it was reasonably common for better-off nineteenth century European settlers to keep old skulls as ornaments in their lounges and studies.

All in all, we don't have a very effective conspiracy here, do we? If Martin Doutre's view of the world were at all accurate, then a crack team from the United Nations/Ministry of Maori Affairs would have turned up at Masterton Museum in the ninja suits, confiscated the skull, and buried it in some obscure place, or better still blown it up. Radiocarbon tests would never have been allowed, and craniologists would never have been permitted to inspect the skull.

There are numerous other examples of controversies about Kiwi prehistory which would never have been allowed to happen, if the conspiracy Doutre complains about so often really existed. Doutre is keen to point Scoop Review of Books readers towards a rambling article on the One New Zealand Foundation website written by his mate, 'Dr' Kerry Bolton.

Bolton's piece is supposed to be a discussion of the controversy which has raged since the radiocarbon test Richard Holdaway did back in the nineties on some kiore bones found in the Hawkes Bay. Holdaway's bones were found to be about eighteen hundred years old, upsetting the idea that New Zealand was not settled until about one thousand years ago.

If Doutre and Kerry Bolton were right about a huge conspiracy to suppress history, then the debate about Holdaway's findings would never have occurred. The reason why Holdaway's tests have proved controversial is not because they challenge a politically correct team of control freaks, but because they contradict a lot of the hard evidence we have that shows humans made little or no impact on the environment of these islands before about a thousand years ago.

Kerry Bolton is keen to associate himself with Richard Holdaway, but he doesn't seem to realise that Holdaway actually accepts the evidence that no significant population of humans existed here until about a thousand years ago. From the time he first published his test results, Holdaway has said that he thinks that the people who brought kiore here in the third century either died off quickly, or else 'dropped their rats off and left'. Holdaway's writings on the rat bone controversy give no support at all to Bolton and Doutre's thesis that white people arrived here thousands of years ago in large numbers.

There is a certain pathos in the way that Bolton and Doutre on the one hand condemn academics and museum workers, and insist that these people are part of an enormous conspiracy, and on the other hand try desperately to associate themselves with any scholar they think might be halfway sympathetic to the Celtic New Zealand thesis. In my open letter I pointed out the way that Doutre and co. misused the writing of Paul Moon and the archaeological work of Michael Taylor to suggest that both these people are in some way supportive of the notion that Celts are the tangata whenua of New Zealand. Bolton's attempt to associate himself with Holdaway is no less pathetic.

The Celtic New Zealand circle also seems to have a curious desire to associate itself with Maori oral tradition and contemporary Maori opinion, in spite of its members' frequent outspoken attacks on Maori.

Doutre argues that Elsdon Best somehow endorsed the theory that whites settled New Zealand thousands of years ago because Best believed that a Melanesian people populated New Zealand hundreds of years before Maori. (How exactly, I wonder, would this follow, even if Best had the authority Doutre claims for him? The last time I checked, the peoples of places like Vanuatu and the Solomons didn’t look a great deal like folks from Ireland and Brittany.)

Best’s claim that Melanesians got to New Zealand first, and were then driven to remote regions of the North Island and to the Chathams, was based upon a misunderstanding of Maori oral history and physiology (unlike Doutre, Best had the excuse of being a pioneer in New Zealand ethnology; we shouldn’t, then, treat his failures in the way we treat the wilful ignorance of the Celtic New Zealand circle).

Best mistakenly thought that the the ‘Maruiwi’ tribe, which existed hundreds of years ago in the North Island but later morphed into other groups (Maori social organisation could be quite fluid) was the same thing as the ‘Moriori’ people who are the tchakat henu (tangata whenua) of the Chatham Islands (Rekohu and Rangiaora).

In fact, Moriori were a group of early Maori who left the northern South Island around the fourteenth century and lived in isolation on the Chathams until 1791, when the first Europeans visited the island. In that time, they developed a distinct culture which both harks back to and extends the achievements of archaic Maori culture.

David Simmons dissected Best’s erroneous use of Maori oral tradition in his 1975book The Great New Zealand Myth. Like Doutre and Kerry Bolton today, Best tended to select bits and pieces of oral tradition that suited his preconceptions and interpret them literally. Thus he accepted the part of the Maruiwi story that said the tribe were the first people in New Zealand, but ignored the part which said that the Maruiwi came from a homeland to the southwest of New Zealand, where there is nothing but water. Maori oral tradition is fascinating and rich in insights, but it should not be treated as a literal guide to the past, anymore than King Lear should be taken as a straightforward guide to ancient Britain.

Today, Doutre and Bolton are happy to trumpet some aspects of some oral traditions as literal truth, but ignore others that obviously don’t fit their claims about a white tangata whenua. For example, they refer to legends of a pale-skinned fairy folk as literal truth, but ignore the legends which say that Maori were preceded in parts of New Zealand by hairy half-men. If Doutre and Bolton were consistent, they would have to argue that bigfoot, as well as Celts, inhabited New Zealand in ancient times.

There’s also the inconvenient fact that some iwi have traditions which say they emerged straight from the earth in their rohe, and are therefore autochthonous as well as indigenous. It’s hard to square such stories with claims that Maori arrived a few hundred years ago to find an advanced Celtic civilisation which had been flourishing for millenia.

Perhaps the most bizarre expression of the Celts' 'love-hate' attitude to serious scholarship and to Maori tradition comes in Kerry Bolton's booklet Ngati Hotu: the White Warrior Tribe. This text repeats all the usual stories about a conspiracy to suppress white history by politically correct academics and troublemaking Maoris, and then segues into a celebration of the fact that the Waitangi Tribunal's Pouakani Report has supposedly acknowledged that white people lived in the central North Island in prehistoric times. At one moment the scholars who make up the Tribunal's research team are anti-white racists, and in the next they are revealing the hidden history of the white race to the world.

What the Pouakani Report actually does is discuss Ngati Hotu as an early tribal grouping in the central North Island. The Tribunal does not offer one word of support for Bolton and Doutre's belief that the Ngati Hotu were a remnant of a Celtic people who sailed to New Zealand thousands of years ago, invented the hei tiki and the carved meeting house, built observatories and established universities, and were eventually driven into the hinterlands of the country by a few wakaloads of arrivals from Polynesia.

On the radio last Sunday Matthew and I kicked around the idea that the Celtic New Zealand thesis is a sort of ironic unconscious homage to the cultural achievements of Maori and the political achievements of the Maori renaissance of recent decades. Bolton's attempt to associate himself with the Waitangi Tribunal he despises shows how weird and ironic the homage can be.

5 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bolton's writings about Celtic New Zealand for the fascist Nationalist Alliance are no longer being distributed. Is this because the NA has split or because the writings in question have no credibility?

4:08 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

check out this blog. it's not shit.
http://www.jarbury.net/

4:25 pm  
Blogger Giovanni said...

Another meritorious contribution - thank Maps.

6:56 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

21 August 2004

H R Baker

C/- One New Zealand Foundation Inc
PO Box 1
Awanui
Northland

Dear Mr. Baker,

The Treaty Of Trickery

I have recently come across this article on the Internet, and notice you make the following comment:

'Our professional historians, unfortunately, find themselves in the very difficult position of trying to salvage whatever credibility they can, given their past public comments regarding interpretations of the Treaty. I personally feel Dr Parkinson, by his above commentary, is placing himself in a safe middle ground or netherworld between understandings of the past 30 years and what is emerging as the real truth now. Others like Claudia Orange, Paul Moon or Kerry Howe don't seem to know what to do, so refrain from addressing the Littlewood Treaty issue altogether. Although they are getting plenty of media attention, they are utterly silent about the Littlewood Treaty and refuse to be drawn into this debate'.

I must admit to being a bit surprised by this statement. Far from finding myself 'salvaging whatever credibility I can', or not knowing what to do and refraining from addressing the Littlewood 'Treaty', the opposite is more true.

When the story about this supposed Treaty was published in Investigate magazine, I was phoned by Radio New Zealand to give them some background on the issue. I explained the various historical and policy reasons why it was not a treaty, and concluded to the reporter that it could not possibly be a treaty because no-one had signed it- and so it fell at the first hurdle of the definition of a treaty. I would be happy to refer you to the international law position on this matter.
I then wrote to Investigate magazine on two occasions (both letters were published) explaining some of the faults in the claims made about the so-called Littlewood treaty. Thus, in no way was I 'utterly silent' on the matter and neither did I refuse to debate it as you claim.
My purpose in writing this letter is not to engage in debate on the Littlewood document, because I suspect we would not reach agreement. However, I did want the opportunity to correct the misrepresentation about me in your article.
A I have hopefully demonstrated, I am happy to engage in this issue, because I imagine like yourself, I am passionate about history. However, mislabelling adversaries does not do much to advance the debate.

Yours sincerely,

Paul Moon.

28 August 2004. 32/6 Aerodrome Road,
Maroochydore,
Queensland, 4558,
Australia.


Dr Paul Moon,
Auckland University of Technology,
Private Bag 92 006,
Auckland .


Dear Paul,

THE TREATY OF TRICKERY

Thank you for your letter dated the 21 August 2004.

At no time have I ever stated the "Littlewood Treaty" is a "Treaty" or even a "supposed Treaty". This was a name given to it by the historians at the National Archives in 1989/92. All the evidence shows it is the final draft that was given to Henry Williams by William Hobson at 4-00pm on the 4 February 1840 to be translated into Maori to become the Tiriti O Waitangi, the only "Treaty" authorized and pre-signed by Hobson under orders from the Colonial Office.

In 1991/2, I wrote to the National Archives on numerous occasions pointing out the following reasons why this document was the final draft. These findings were also published in 1992 in my book, "He Iwi Tahi Tatou - We are now one people".

1. Littlewood was a prominent lawyer in New Zealand from 1840, so this document could have quite easily come into his possession. (James Clendon was party to the drafting of this final draft). After the Tiriti O Waitangi was checked against the final draft on the morning of the 5th February, James Busby could have given Clendon the final draft to be copied and despatched to the US Secretary of State on the 20 February 1840. The copy to the US Secretary of State is virtually identical to the final draft, the Littlewood Treaty. As Littlewood was Clendon's lawyer, he could have given this final draft to him for safekeeping. The reason it was found in the Littlewood's possession in 1989.

2. This document is written on paper with an 1833 W Tucker watermark. (It has since been found that the final draft was written at Clendon's house and Clendon was the only individual in New Zealand known to have used this 1833 W. Tucker paper).

3. The document is dated the 4 February 1840, the date the final draft was actually written. (The Tiriti O Waitangi and all other translations are dated the 6 February, therefore it is not a translation).

4. Some of the notes used to draft the final draft had the letter "e" missing from the word sovereignty. This document also has the letter "e" missing from the word sovereignty. All translations have sovereignty spelt correctly. (Therefore it is not a translation, but must have very close ties to the earlier drafts).

5. I found this document was written in the same hand writing as most of the previous drafts. (This was confirmed by Dr Phil Parkinson in 2000. In 1992, the National Archives stated it was by an "unknown author" even after I had given them two indisputable leads as to who wrote it).

6. It translates virtually word perfect to the Tiriti O Waitangi. (This is also an indisputable fact and was confirmed by respected Ngapuhi Maori leader, Sir Graham Rankin).

7. This document relates to the exact instruction and understanding that Hobson was given by the Colonial Office. (Once again, an indisputable fact).

I was very surprised in 1992, when the National Archives, after I had given them all this factual and indisputable evidence, made the public announcement that this document was "just a copy of the Maori version by an unknown author". At the time, this was a lie and to this day, the professional historians have done their best to suppress the truth. Even Dr. Parkinson's statement in 2000, "it was written by James Busby", has been kept from the public.

I realize that the truth will destroy many professional historian's work, but history is not something that is always cut and dried. New evidence can completely change what was believed previously. Professional historians should be man or woman enough to face up to the fact they could be wrong and re-assess the facts and make adjustments. Unfortunately, New Zealand's Professional historians will not face up to the fact that a document, that we know was lost once it was translated into the Tiriti O Waitangi, has been found. From the evidence we now have, it is a crime to suppress this fact from the public, they have a right to know.

Since 1992, much more evidence has come to light. Dr. Phil Parkinson found in 2000, as I had found in 1992, this document was written by James Busby and over the last twelve months, Martin Doutré has found, beyond all reasonable doubt, it can only be the final draft for the Tiriti O Waitangi. No Professional historian has been able to dispute this evidence with documented factual evidence.
See www.treatyofwaitangi.net.nz

I make no apologies for the comments in my article on the One New Zealand Foundation Inc, website. When Dr. Phil Parkinson found and agreed it was written by Busby, a major breakthough, you and your colleagues remained "utterly silent". This should have made national headlines and opened the doors for further research. The only person to do this has been Martin Doutré, who can now prove "beyond all reasonable doubt", the "Littlewood Treaty" is not a translation, but is in fact, the final draft for the Tiriti O Waitangi.

Finally, your statement that you have not refused to debate the issue is not true. You have not debated the issue, you have tried to throw the public off by saying, as you admit in this letter, it is not a "treaty". This was never the debate, we all know it is not a "treaty". The debate is, the author, the date, the way the Littlewood Treaty mirrors the Tiriti O Waitangi, the owner of the paper it is written on and the wording of the 20 February 1840 despatch to the United States. You and your colleagues got it wrong and you and your colleagues must admit this and put it right. The people of New Zealand have a right to know.

This history belongs to the people of New Zealand. NOT A FEW PROFESSIONAL HISTORIANS WHO ARE AFRAID IT WILL DESTROY THEIR LIFE'S WORK, IF THEY LET IT BE KNOWN.

"SUPPRESSIO VERI, SUGGESTIO FALSI - SUPPRESSION OF THE TRUTH CONVEYS A FALSEHOOD"

Yours sincerely,

Ross Baker.

Researcher, One New Zealand Foundation Inc.

P.S. Your letter and my reply will be posted on our website. The N. Z. public has a right to know.





Ross Baker
32/6 Aerodrome Road
Maroochydore
Queensland 4558
AUSTRALIA

30 August 2004


Dear Ross,

Once again, many thanks for your letter of 28 August. As I mentioned, I am currently completing a major biography of Hone Heke Ngapua, and so my time is fairly limited. However, I would like to discuss the Littlewood document with you, and would hope you can also put this letter, unedited, on your website.
I thought that rather than endlessly firing off opposing views at each other, it might be helpful to establish which aspects of our views are essentially similar, and where they separate. To help in this process, I have copied below the main points in your letter, and provided my responses. Hopefully this will be a useful way of exploring the matter:

Your comment:
Littlewood was a prominent lawyer in New Zealand from 1840, so this document could have quite easily come into his possession. (James Clendon was party to the drafting of this final draft. After the Tiriti O Waitangi was checked against the final draft on the morning of the 5th February, James Busby could have given Clendon the final draft to be copied and dispatched to the US Secretary of State on the 20 February 1840. The copy to the US Secretary of State is virtually identical to the final draft, the Littlewood Treaty. As Littlewood was Clendon's lawyer, he could have given this final draft to him for safekeeping. The reason it was found in the Littlewood’s possession in 1989.

My response:
I agree. This is a likely and credible explanation as to how the document ended up in Littlewood’s possession. What is known of the circumstances of the days in question would make it difficult to rule this explanation out.



Your comment:
This document is written on paper with an, 1833 W Tucker watermark. (It has since been found that the final draft was written at Clendon’s house and Clendon was the only individual in New Zealand known to have used this 1833 W. Tucker paper.

My response:
I am not familiar with this watermark, but if this has been proven, then it would not be inconsistent with the events of the days in question, so I would have to agree to this possibility as well.

Your comment:
The document is dated the 4 February 1840, the date the final draft was actually written. (The Tiriti O Waitangi and all other translations are dated the 6 February, therefore it is not a translation.)

My response:
I am not sure which draft is being referred to here, but I agree that the Littlewood document is dated 4 February 1840, and that there was almost certainly no subsequent drafting of the Treaty’s English text.

Your comment:
Some of the notes used to draft the final draft had the letter “e” missing from the word sovereignty. This document also has the letter “e” missing from the word sovereignty. All translations have sovereignty spelt correctly. (Therefore it is not a translation but must have very close ties to the earlier drafts)

My response:
This may well be the case, but the difficulty in being certain about this is that we cannot be sure whether the Littlewood document is a copy of the final draft, or whether the final draft was based on the, Littlewood document. Both possibilities could explain the spelling irregularity. So too could the fact that poor spelling was not limited to just one person involved in assembling the text of the Treaty.

Your comment:
I found this document was written in the same hand writing as most of the previous drafts. (This was confirmed by Dr Phil Parkinson in 2000. In 1992, the National Archives stated it was by an “unknown author” even after I had given them two indisputable leads as to who wrote it).

My response:
I am unable to comment on the responses of the National Archives. I have no connection with them, apart from using their services and archives.

Your comment:
It translates virtually word perfect to the Tiriti O Waitangi. (This is also an indisputable fact and was confirmed by respected Ngapuhi Maori leader, Sir Graham Rankin).

My response:
First, Graham did not have a knighthood. He wrote the foreword for my biography of Hone Heke shortly before he died, and I have maintained a close working relationship with his family ever since.

The issue of translation is one point where our views diverge. You seem to be claiming that the Littlewood document is the final English version from which the Maori translation was made. The marginally closer resemblance to the Maori text created by Williams et al. is cited is evidence of this. However, the English and Maori texts ought not to match, because according to Williams’ own account, he was unable (or more probably unwilling) to render an accurate translation. His exact words were ‘In this translation [that is, the translation into Maori], it was necessary to avoid all expressions of the English for which there was no expressive term in the Maori’. Instead, Williams produced an approximate translation of the English text, attempting to preserve, in his words, ‘the spirit and tenor of the treaty’, rather than produce an exact translation.

Thus, according to Williams’ own account of 4 February, the English text of the Treaty cannot possibly match precisely the Maori text. This is a major stumbling block in accepting the Littlewood document as the final English draft of the Treaty. I have detailed the suspicious events surrounding Williams’ translation of the treaty in my book Te Ara Ki Te Tiriti, pp. 139-149.

Another question which arises here is that if the Littlewood document is the final draft of the English text, why did Hobson send the ‘official’ English text back to the Colonial Office – this is the version published in Great Britain Parliamentary Papers.

It might also be interesting to consider whether the Littlewood document was a copy of the English text of the Treaty made by Busby for Clendon. This would account for a number of the issues you raise in respect to the similarities between the Littlewood document and the Clendon copies of the Treaty. This is a possibility that cannot be ruled out altogether.

Your comment:
This document relates to the exact instruction and understanding that Hobson was given by the Colonial Office. (Once again, an indisputable fact).

My response:
This ‘fact’ certainly is disputable. There is no substantial part of Normanby’s instructions that appear in the Littlewood document that do not appear in the ‘official’ English text of the Treaty. Moreover, the area of Colonial Office policy on the Treaty is enormously intricate and detailed. Again, I would refer you to my book Te Ara Ki Te Tiriti, which is the first full examination of this policy ever published.

Your comment:
I realize that the truth will destroy many professional historians work, but history is not something that is always cut and dried. New evidence can completely change what was believed previously. Professional historian should be man or woman enough to face up to the fact they could be wrong and re-assess the facts and make adjustments. Unfortunately, New Zealand’s Professional historians will not face up to the fact that a document, that we know was lost once it was translated into the Tiriti O Waitangi, has been found. From the evidence we now have, it is a crime to suppress this fact from the public, they have a right to know.

My response:
I agree fully that history is seldom clear-cut. I also agree that new evidence can change existing interpretations. I myself am familiar with hostility from a handful of historians when I have challenged existing views on certain historical ‘facts’.. Hopefully this letter demonstrates, though, that I am prepared to consider new evidence, and am prepared to be convinced by the evidence. I certainly hope that you do not consider I have committed a crime by suppressing anything.

Your comment:
I make no apologies for the comments in my article on the One New Zealand Foundation Inc, website. When Dr. Phil Parkinson found and agreed it was written by Busby, a major breakthough, you and your colleagues remained “utterly silent”. This should have made national headlines and opened the doors for further research. The only person to do this has been Martin Doutré, who can now prove “beyond all reasonable doubt”, the “Littlewood Treaty” is not a translation, but is in fact, the final draft for the Tiriti O Waitangi. Finally, your statement that you have not refused to debate the issue is not true. You have not debated the issue, you have tried to throw the public off by saying, as you admit in this letter, it is not a “treaty”. This was never the debate, we all know it is not a “treaty”. The debate is, the author, the date, the way the Littlewood Treaty mirrors the Tiriti O Waitangi, the owner of the paper it is written on and the wording of the 20 February 1840 dispatch to the United States. You and your colleagues got it wrong and you and your colleague must admit this and put it right. The people of New Zealand have a right to know.

My response:
The only reason for me possibly being ‘utterly silent’ on this matter when your website first raised it is that I was unaware of your website at that time. It’s as simple as that. The first I heard of this issue was when a Radio New Zealand journalist phoned me and asked for an opinion. Rather than rejecting the Littlewood document, I asked her to fax me a copy of the article which had just appeared in Investigate Magazine. Since then, I have written to Investigate Magazine, outlining several reasons why I considerate unlikely that the Littlewood document is the final draft of the English version of the Treaty. So I stand by my statement that I have been prepared to debate the matter – something which I hope this letter demonstrates.

I might also take this opportunity to mention your reference to ‘my colleagues’. I certainly do not work in research with other historians. In fact, I deliberately choose to work alone. I have no political affiliations, I do not receive funding from anyone for my work (in fact, I finance all my research entirely myself) and am therefore not under any pressure to produce conformist history. Indeed, I might see a fellow historian for a few minutes once every two or three years. There is certainly no conspiracy of historians that I am aware of to pervert the historical record, despite claims and implications to the contrary.


I hope this brief analysis has advanced the debate a bit. As you will see, there are several areas where we are in full agreement, and probably a few more areas where a bit more evidence may make arguments more compelling. I have written this letter in the spirit of open historical enquiry, and hope it is treated as such.

All the best,

Paul



Ross Baker
8 September 2004. 32/6 Aerodrome Road,
Maroochydore,
Queensland, 4558,
Australia,


Dr Paul Moon
Auckland University of Technology,
Private Bag, 92 006,
Auckland,
New Zealand.


Dear Paul,

Re; Littlewood Treaty Document

Thank you for your letter dated the 30th August 2004. I am pleased to see from your letter, we can communicate and discuss our views honestly and openly.

From the research I and others have done over the last fifteen years since the Littlewood document was found, there is no doubt in my mind that it is the final draft from which the Tiriti O Waitangi was translated and the English version that was read by Hobson in conjunction with the Titiri O Waitangi, read by Williams to the gathering at Waitangi on the 5 and 6 February 1840.

You state the Tiriti O Waitangi ought not to match the Littlewood treaty document because according to Williams words, "In this translation, it was necessary to avoid all expressions of English for which there was no expressive term in the Maori". I agree, Williams translation did not precisely match the final draft word for word. He re-phrased parts of the translation, but again in his own words, it still preserved "the spirit and tenor of the treaty". I have shown these changes in red in the attached treaty versions.

When we match the Littlewood document (the final English draft) with a back-translation by T. E. Young of the Native Department made in 1869 or any other true translation, it is simple to see that "the spirit and tenor of the treaty" was kept by Williams. While he made "expression changes", it did not change the meaning or understanding of the treaty in any way. Both versions, while not being literally word perfect, are virtually word perfect when one is translated from the other. He simply changed the words in some sentences so that they complied with the way Maori was spoken and understood at the time. The only way a translation can be made from one language to another. Williams did not re-write the Treaty, he only translated it into the Maori language, but still a very accurate translation.

On the morning of the 5th February, Hobson, Busby and others met behind locked doors to check the accuracy of the translation before they were read to the gathering. The only change made was the word whakaminenga in favour of huihuinga. At no time was one version's translation challenged against the other when they were read sentence by sentence in conjunction with the other. This could not have been achieved with the many and varied earlier drafts or the "English translations" that were despatched by Hobson/Freeman at a later date. The English version Hobson/Freeman sent back to the Colonial Office was not published as the "official" English text in the British Parliamentary Papers as you state, only a "translation".


The other comment you make, the Littlewood document may be a copy of the final draft or visa versa, but this is only speculation. Apart from all the other evidence showing it is the final draft, if it was only a copy, then it would be very unlikely for it to be so worn, especially on the folds, etc. The Littlewood document shows it has been folded and unfolded on many, many occasions as it would have been from the 4th February, the date it was written, until it was finally filed away by Henry Littlewood for safe keeping. It also must have had great significance for Littlewood to have kept it when you consider the thousands of other documents he must have had during his time as a solicitor in New Zealand.

Hopefully this will clear up the points we disagree on. With the evidence becoming available, the Littlewood treaty document can only be the "final draft". There is now far too much evidence in its favour to say otherwise.

Yours sincerely,


Ross Baker.

James Busby's final English draft written on the 4th of February 1840.

Her Majesty Victoria, Queen of England in Her gracious consideration of the chiefs and the people of New Zealand, and Her desire to preserve to them their lands and to maintain peace and order amongst them, has been pleased to appoint an officer to treat with them for the cession of the Sovreignty of their country and of the islands adjacent, to the Queen. Seeing that many of Her Majesty's subjects have already settled in the country and are constantly arriving, and it is desirable for their protection as well as the protection of the natives, to establish a government amongst them.

Her Majesty has accordingly been pleased to appoint Mr. William Hobson, a captain in the Royal Navy to be Governor of such parts of New Zealand as may now or hereafter be ceded to Her Majesty and proposes to the chiefs of the Confederation of United Tribes of New Zealand and the other chiefs to agree to the following articles.

Article first

The chiefs of the Confederation of the United Tribes and the other chiefs who have not joined the confederation, cede to the Queen of England for ever the entire Sovreignty of their country.

Article second

The Queen of England confirms and guarantees to the chiefs and the tribes and to all the people of New Zealand, the possession of their lands, dwellings and all their property. But the chiefs of the Confederation of United Tribes and the other chiefs grant to the Queen, the exclusive rights of purchasing such lands as the proprietors thereof may be disposed to sell at such prices as may be agreed upon between them and the person appointed by the Queen to purchase from them.

Article third

In return for the cession of their Sovreignty to the Queen, the people of New Zealand shall be protected by the Queen of England and the rights and privileges of British subjects will be granted to them.

Signed, William Hobson

Consul and Lieut. Governor.

Now we the chiefs of the Confederation of United Tribes of New Zealand assembled at Waitangi, and we the other tribes of New Zealand, having understood the meaning of these articles, accept them and agree to them all. In witness whereof our names or marks are affixed. Done at Waitangi on the 4th of February, 1840.
Rev. Henry Williams' translation into Maori from Busby's final draft.

Ko Wikitoria te Kuini o Ingarani i tana mahara atawai ki nga Rangatira me nga Hapu o Nu Tirani i tana hiahia hoki kia tohungia ki a ratou o ratou rangatiratanga me to ratou wenua, a kia mau tonu hoki te Rongo ki a ratou me te Atanoho hoki kua wakaaro ia he mea tika kia tukua mai tetahi Rangatira-hei kai wakarite ki nga Tangata Maori; o Nu Tirani-kia wakaaetia e nga Rangatira Maori; te Kawanatanga o te Kuini ki nga wahikatoa o te Wenua nei me nga Motu-na te mea hoki he tokomaha ke nga tangata o tona Iwi Kua noho ki tenei wenua, a e haere mai nei.

Na ko te Kuini e hiahia ana kia wakaritea te Kawanatanga kia kaua ai nga kino e puta mai ki te tangata Maori ki te Pakeha e noho ture kore ana.
Na, kua pai te Kuini kia tukua a hau a Wiremu Hopihona he Kapitana i te Roiara Nawi hei Kawana mo nga wahi katoa o Nu Tirani e tukua aianei, amoa atu ki te Kuini, e mea atu ana ia ki nga Rangatira o te wakaminenga o nga hapu o Nu Tirani me era Rangatira atu enei ture ka korerotia nei.

KO TE TUATAHI
Ko nga Rangatira o te wakaminenga me nga Rangatira katoa hoki ki hai i uru ki taua wakaminenga ka tuku rawa atu ki te Kuini o Ingarani ake tonu atu-te Kawanatanga katoa o ratou wenua.

KO TE TUARUA
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. Otiia ko nga Rangatira o te wakaminenga me nga Rangatira katoa atu ka tuku ki te Kuini te hokonga o era wahi wenua e pai ai te tangata nona te Wenua-ki te ritenga o te utu e wakaritea ai e ratou ko te kai hoko e meatia nei e te Kuini hei kai hoko mona.

KO TE TUATORU
Hei wakaritenga mai hoki tenei mo te wakaaetanga ki te Kawanatanga o te Kuini-Ka tiakina e te Kuini o Ingarani nga tangata Maori; katoa o Nu Tirani ka tukua ki a ratou nga tikanga katoa rite tahi ki ana mea ki nga tangata o Ingarani.

[signed] William Hobson Consul &

Lieutenant Governor

Na ko matou ko nga Rangatira o te Wakaminenga o nga hapu o Nu Tirani ka huihui nei ki Waitangi ko matou hoki ko nga Rangatira o Nu Tirani ka kite nei i te ritenga o enei kupu, ka tangohia ka wakaaetia katoatia e matou, koia ka tohungia ai o matou ingoa o matou tohu.
Ka meatia tenei ki Waitangi i te ono o nga ra o Pepueri i te tau kotahi mano, e waru rau e wa te kau o to tatou Ariki.
T.E Young's back-translation of the Maori text into English (1869).

Victoria, Queen of England, in her kind thoughtfulness to the Chiefs and Hapus of New Zealand, and her desire to preserve to them their chieftainship and their land, and that peace may always be kept with them and quietness, she has thought it a right thing that a Chief should be sent here as a negotiator with the Maoris of New Zealand - that the Maoris of New Zealand may consent to the Government of the Queen of all parts of this land and the islands, because there are many people of her tribe that have settled on this land and are coming hither.

Now the Queen is desirous to establish the Government, that evil may not come to the Maoris and the Europeans who are living without law.
Now the Queen has been pleased to send me, William Hobson, a Captain in the Royal Navy, to be Governor to all the places of New Zealand which may be given up now or hereafter to the Queen; an he give forth to the Chiefs of the Assembly of the Hapus of New Zealand and other Chiefs the laws spoken here.

The First
The Chiefs of the Assembly, and all Chiefs also who have not joined the Assembly, give up entirely to the Queen of England for ever all the Government of their lands.

The Second
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. But the Chiefs of the Assembly, and all the other Chiefs, gives to the Queen the purchase of those pieces of land which the proprietors may wish, for such payment as may be agreed upon by them and the purchaser who is appointed by the Queen to be her purchaser.

The Third
This is an arrangement for the consent to the Government of the Queen. The Queen of England will protect all the Maoris of New Zealand.. All the rights will be given to them the same as her doings to the people of England

William Hobson

Consul and Lieutenant Governor

Now, we the Chiefs of the Assembly of the Hapus of New Zealand, now assembled at Waitangi. We also, the Chiefs of New Zealand, see the meaning of these words: they are taken and consented to altogether by us. Therefore are affixed our names and marks.
This done at Waitangi, on the sixth day of February, in the year one thousand eight hundred and forty, of Our Lord.




15 October 2004.



Paul,



I have added my comments in red and thank you for your comments. This is the only way to resolve our differences. These are very brief, the full evidence can be found on www.treatyofwaitangi.net.nz. It must be realised though, we are still working on further evidence, which will be posted as it becomes available. Your comments are very valuable in doing this. All I can say, the final draft has far more credibility than today’s “official” English version of the Treaty for the simple reason, Hobson never made an “official” English version.





Regards,



Ross.



cc. Claudia Orange



13 October 2004.



Hi Ross,

Thanks for this email. Despite what you have written, I feel there are still some serious problems with the Littlewood document being described as the ‘official’ English version of the Treaty. The reasons for this are historical, linguistic, and constitutional. I have briefly summarised some of my concern:
As I have said before, the Littlewood document is not a Treaty. It is the final draft of the Treaty of Waitangi, written by James Busby under the direction of William Hobson on the 4th February 1840. That night it was translated into the Tiriti O Waitangi by the Rev. Henry Williams and then both read together at Waitangi on the 5th and 6th February 1840, and witnessed by over 500 people.

It is the document, which Clendon asked for as an “official” copy of the final draft of the Tiriti O Waitangi to despatch to the Secretary of State in America, and is the document he received from Hobson and had Commodore Wilkes copy and despatch on the 5 April 1840.


First, the historical reasons:
1. Your explanation thus far still does not account for the version of the Treaty Hobson sent to the Colonial Office. You seem to imply that Hobson was also mistaken about the ‘official’ version of the Treaty * something that, given his position and his role in its drafting, seems highly improbable.
Hobson had no idea of what Freeman was despatching to the Colonial Office as the Treaty of Waitangi. If he had, he would have known it was not the final draft he had made on the 4th of February or the version he had read to the gathering at Waitangi on the 5th and 6th February or the final draft he had sent to Clendon in mid-March 1840 (probably hand delivered by Felton Mathew on the 13th). After the rough draft notes were taken by Cooper to Busby on the 2nd of February, Freeman does not seem to have stayed abreast of the text changes made on the 4th. Hobson had not given him a copy of the final draft or an “official” English version of the Treaty or its translation. It appears that Hobson always retained the final English draft document on his person for reading at assemblies where settlers were present and that it always travelled with him.

There is absolutely no evidence that Hobson was interested in or ever made an “official” English version of the Treaty. His only interest was in obtaining enough signatures to complete his one and only reason for sailing half way around the world and that was to “Proclaim the Sovereignty of New Zealand to Britain”. A job he completed in just four months, one month of this severely incapacitated by a stroke and regaining his strength only slowly thereafter. Hobson’s lack of interest in an official” English version is shown by having 200 copies of the Maori version printed by Colenso, but not one English version.



2. As I mentioned previously, the Maori and English versions of the Treaty ought not to match precisely as you claim the Littlewood document and the Maori text of the Treaty do. This is because of Henry Williams’ statement that he was unable to do a precise translation of the English document into Maori. You have not accounted for this in your explanation.
Williams did not say he was unable to make a precise translation of the English document into Maori, he said, “In this translation it was necessary to avoid any expression of English for which there was no expressive term in Maori”. He simply changed some words in some sentences so they complied with the way Maori was understood and spoken at the time. This is quite evident when both documents are placed side by side. He also said, “I still kept the spirit and tenor of the Treaty”. This is definitely not evident if we place todays “official” document side by side with the Tiriti O Waitangi. They are like chalk and cheese. Hobson and Busby also checked the translation against the final draft and only made a change to one word. This would have been very difficult to do if they had used today’s “official” version. Try it for yourself. The so-called “official” version has very translatable words in it like Australia, Ireland, forests, fisheries, etc., in it. Maori were very well acquainted with these places or terms. They are not in the Tiriti O Waitangi simply because they were not in the final English draft. Although history has not been kind to Reverend Henry Williams because of his appalling translation, as it turns out it is the historians who are wrong and Reverend Williams and his son Edward did a superb, precise job.

Mr T E Young of the Native Department had no trouble translating today’s “official” English version into Maori in 1865. If this was the version Williams had to translate, then he would also have had no problem but his version was different, it was the final draft, the Littlewood document. Mr Young then translated the Tiriti O Waitangi into English and it virtually mirrors the final draft. At this stage the historians and Government must have known there was a problem but have continued to use the compiled version from the early drafts. This should have stopped in 1989 when the final draft came to light, but it was unfortunately written off as, just another translation of the Maori version by an unknown author. .



3. It is still entirely possible that the superfluous versions of the Treaty - such as Busby's copy, and those derived from it, were simply poor copies of poor copies. Their similarities in no way prove a mistake, much less a conspiracy. You have not accounted for the likely possibility that the copies were simply made for individuals’ personal records.
This statement of the final draft being poor copies of poor copies – get real! I suppose all the people who spelt sovereignty wrong just happen to be making personal records. What about the one given to Clendon as the “official” final draft, it had the mistake, but Clendon’s “translation” did not. This mistake follows through from the rough notes, early drafts, final draft, Wilkes despatch and the final draft found in 1989, but no others. Come on Paul, let’s keep it real!!!



4. You say that the Littlewood document, dated 4 February 1840, necessarily supercedes all other English versions. If it was a copy of Busby’s notes for the treaty, then this cannot be the case. Also, I think the weight of argument would fall in favour of the English version contained in the Great Britain Parliamentary Papers. I think someone like Swainson would have had something to say on the matter if there were any material differences between the version Hobson sent to London and the one you are forwarding as the ‘original/official’ version.
I have never said it was a copy of Busby’s notes. It is the final draft, like any final draft, is based on previous drafts or notes. How would Swainson know there was a problem, as this final draft was only found in late 1989? All the despatched Treaty’s were compiled by Freeman from earlier notes. No Maori version was received until early 1841, some seven months after New Zealand had been ceded to Britain. Not much of an issue for Britain then. They had achieved what they had set out to do. Did it really matter what it really said now? It was a very small part of the bigger picture by them.



5. The complete absence of any discussion among New Zealand officials in 1840 on the English version of the Treaty must be taken into consideration when considering the role of the Littlewood document. Why would there be any discussion on the English version? Hobson had said there was only one version and that was the Tiriti O Waitangi, the one he pre-signed and sent to those collecting signatures. None of these people would have known what Freeman was despatching. They had all heard and agreed to the final draft read at Waitangi on the 5th and 6th February in conjunction with the Tiriti O Waitangi, so there was no reason for discussion. I am sure if they had known what was being despatched, there would have been much discussion, as they would have all known it was not the final draft or a translation of the Tiriti O Waitangi and let Hobson know. As there is no “official” English version, then the English document, the final draft read at Waitangi on the 5th and 6th February and witnessed by the gathering of Maori and European, is the only English version that can hold any “official” recognition. All others are fiction. Treaty researcher, Brian Easton writes that in 1840-41 there were many English “back-translations” of the Tiriti O Waitangi being done, seemingly due to the fact that no coherent or official English text seemed to exist at that point in time.





Second, the linguistic reasons:
1. From what I have read on your website, the crux of the difference between the English version of the Treaty and the Littlewood document seems to focus on certain linguistic differences between the two documents, with the implication that the scope of some of the Treaty’s provisions might differ from what they are currently understood to be. Looking at the variations you draw attention to, I cannot see a material difference of the significance that would come even close to reaching the threshold for an alternative reading of the Treaty.
When we take into account why Clendon was so involved in the final drafting, which has never been taken into account, this becomes very clear. The Treaty had to involve all the people of all races in New Zealand otherwise it may not have been accepted by the rest of the world, especially America and France. Hobson also agreed with the French Bishop Pompallier to allow all religions and cultures to continue in New Zealand. While it is a very simple document, it took all the aspects at the time in New Zealand into consideration. Again very underestimated by previous researchers as can be seen by the harmonious and continuing growth within New Zealand by many countries and races over the years. The treaty encompassed the rights of all concerned and not just Maori…a concept,.unfortunately, now disrupted by the continuing distortion of the Treaty and the history surrounding it by those who are to gain most. The Treaty was based on the document, the signing, a handshake and the words, He iwi tahi tatou – We are now one people. Very simple, but very factual!!!



2. There is a difference in the use of words and phrases in the nineteenth century from their use currently * ‘the ordinary people of New Zealand’, and ‘New Zealanders’ being two such examples. I do not feel that you have acknowledged the changes in the meaning of words and phrases over time. A reading of documents from the Colonial Office during this period would help put these words and phrases in their proper context.

We can see how conversant the professionals are in Colonial documents, it took eleven years to even recognise Busby’s writing!!! Why would he say, the chiefs and tribes and all the people of New Zealand if the chiefs and tribes were “all the people of New Zealand”. While I agree some phrases and words had minor differences or connotations in the nineteenth century, they were not in the habit of repeating themselves.



Thirdly, the constitutional reasons:
1. These are perhaps a bit more hazy, but none-the-less important. The absence of any dispute over the text of the English version around the time the Treaty was signed must indicate that there was agreement on the provisions of the English text at least. (See 5 above) Notwithstanding this, though, the ensuing consensus suggests that the ‘official’ English version of the Treaty currently in use is, at the very least, the de facto correct version on the basis that there was an unbroken consensus accepting it, extending back to 1840.
This is incorrect, as it was not accepted as can be seem from the many translations appearing in 1865, querying the English version. You seemed to have overlooked James Edward Fitzgerald’s comment, “If this document was signed in the Maori tongue, what ever the English translation might be, had nothing to do with the question. Governor Hobson may have wished the Maori to sign one thing and they might have signed something totally different. Were they bound by what they signed or by what Hobson meant them to sign?” This shows there was concern that the two versions varied considerably. It was also a known fact that the final draft was missing and this was of concern right from the beginning. If they had had the final draft at this time, there would have been no need for the many back-translations or concerns.



2. There may have been disputes over the meaning of the English text, but this is different from the fact that there is no evidence at all of any individual in a lifetime after the Treaty was concluded challenging the legitimacy of the text. As you have pointed out, there were enough people present during the formation of the Treaty’s text that if there was any material difference between the ‘official’ version and what you claim as the correct version, a record of this concern would almost certainly have survived. From my readings, I have yet to discover such a concern being put to paper.
(See Constitutional Reasons, 1. above re Fitzgerald). See also: http://www.eastonbh.ac.nz/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=211



As I mentioned previously, I am in no way trying to belittle your research. All of us are concerned with establishing the facts as far as we can, and I can assure you that your suggestion of a conspiracy among historians to conceal anything relating to the Treaty is simply wrong. A reading of the current scholarship on the Treaty shows that it has been examined from numerous angles, with academics and other researchers always keen to uncover facts, not conceal them. Not much “keen uncovering” of the Littlewood document to date!!!!



My view is that the burden of proof * as far as the claim that the Littlewood document is the correct English text of the Treaty * rests with you. The points I have briefly raised, above, hopefully demonstrate that at present, the proof is inadequate. We’re working on it, pity a few others with unlimited Government funding and facilities would not help!!! Dr Phil Parkinson was a great help in admitting that the Littlewood document was in Busby hand, but now he’s, unfortunately, been shut down!!!.

Regards,





Paul.



16 October 2004



Hello Ross,
Thanks for your latest reply. I think we have reached the point where it would probably be unproductive to continue. I would like to comment, however on your statement that 'We're working on it, pity a few others with unlimited Government funding and facilities would not help' I can assure you that no historian I know of in New Zealand has unlimited Government funding, and that most of us do our work for reasons other than financial gain. I have made a point of funding my own research and facilities - largely because I like the independence this gives me. Also, the implication in your reply that there has been some concerted effort to conceal a supposed truth about the Treaty is also without evidence. There are other points I could address in your reply, but as I say, we seem to have reached the end of the road. I wish you well with your research.
Regards,



Paul





16 October 2004.



Paul,

I am very sorry you have taken this stance. If you say the professional historians have not concealed the truth about the Treaty, then why did they not correct their findings publicly that the Littlewood documents was by an unknown author when in fact it was by the author of most of the Treaty drafts, James Busby. This is something the people of New Zealand had a right to know, especially when they had been told to the contrary.
You also told me in a previous email, you were not funded by Government, so this last comment was not directed at you although it seems from this email you are funded by Government. Remember, you contacted me first I am only putting forward the evidence you asked for in reply to your emails. You can either agree with it or disagree with it but to pull the plug now can only mean two things:

1. You have been warned off like others.
2. The evidence presented cannot be disputed.

I would be very disappointed if I went to all this trouble to reply to your emails and you have chickened out!

Regards,



Ross Baker.



18 October 2004





Paul,

I realise you do not want to discuss this further but I feel this is important.



In Claudia Oranges book, 'Treaty of Waitangi', page 85, she states, "The Colonial Office would also have been unaware from his (Hobson's) reports that there may be a substantial difference in meaning between the English treaty text and the Maori text, the one that had been usually signed (pre-signed by Hobson for the chiefs to sign). Hobson, indeed, may not have realised it. Henry Williams, best placed to know this, only created confusion. Hobson (Freeman) sent his superiors several English copies, each with slight variations. On one copy, Williams appended a certification (written by Freeman) that the English text was, "as literal translation of the Treaty of Waitangi (not signed) as the Idiom of the Language will admit to". This was not so. There was no translation of the Maori text, nor was the Maori text an accurate translation of any of the English versions. To add to the confusion, Hobson finally sent both Maori and English texts to London on the 15 October, both were headed "Treaty", were said to be "certified" and to have receive 512 signatures. But when the same copies were printed for publication, the Maori text was headed "Treaty" and the English "Translation". On the basis of Hobson's inaccurate reporting etc etc".



Paul, this is virtually the same as I wrote to you except Claudia did not have the "final draft, the Littlewood document" or the evidence to back it up at the time she wrote her book. If she had, then I do not think we would be having this discussion today. She would have realised, there was no "official" English version, only the Tiriti O Waitangi, "de facto the Treaty", which gave equal rights to "all the people of New Zealand".



Regards,



Ross Baker.



17 October 2004.



Hi Ross,
Thanks for this. I'm afraid my writing commitments are such that I am unable to continue much further with this discussion. In the matter of the extract you have quoted, maybe it would be better to follow it up with Dr. Orange. I do not see how the segment you have quoted from her book necessarily advances your argument. As I mentioned previously, there are a range of reasons why the littlewood document is unlikely to be the 'original' English text of the Treaty, and that even if there was evidence for this, there are other considerations, which render the argument of little value.



Regards



Paul



Final comment.


Paul,

“There is NO ‘original’ English text of the Treaty and never has been. The Littlewood document is the final draft from which the Tiriti O Waitangi was translated. Your final comment, “of little value to whom”, could be of tremendous value to the taxpayers on New Zealand.



PAUL, THERE IS NO ENGLISH TEXT OF THE TREATY AND NEVER HAS BEEN!!!!!!!!!!!!



I have tried, but none are so deaf as those who do not want to hear!!!!!!!!!





Ross Baker



Researcher, One New Zealand Foundation Inc.

11:08 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You Might be interested to see this about the Littlewood Treaty and the Treaty of Waitangi


http://youtu.be/2PE-j9ZOhrg

9:58 pm  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home