Changing the 1840 Treaty

(This is the second part of Andy’s article. Scroll down to May 7 to see Part 1.)

Altering small m’s to capital M’s

By Andy Oakley

Nor does the word Maori with a capital M appear anywhere in the 1840 copies of Te Tiriti … read any of the 1840 te reo maori sheets which contain the signatures of chiefs and you will note that on all of them the word maori has a small ‘m’.

In 1840 the word maori simply meant “ordinary” and was used in Te Tiriti to distinguish between Chiefs or rangitira, and everyone else. (From Part 1.)

The Maori Text of Te Tiriti in Schedule One of The Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975, reveals that the third use of the word Maori in the Preamble suddenly a capital M is used in the word Maori.

Now considering this version of Te Tiriti is the one used in law, you would think it would be vital to get the simple task of copying the original 1840 documents correctly and triple checked.

Obviously, because today we recognise the word Maori with a capital ‘M’ describes, what later became the social construct, the Maori People of New Zealand, some smart fraudulent cookie has decided to change it to a capital M in the version of Te Tiriti we use in our legislation.

Not only that, every time Te Tiriti is reprinted in documents within our schools, universities, museums and government departments ALL the small m’s used in the word Maori have been replaced with capital M’s.

Changing a Treaty which was for all New Zealanders

So, by changing the meaning of the word Maori from the adjective “ordinary” which is how it was used in Te Tiriti, to a noun that describes only the brown people of New Zealand, which was not in use in 1840, a major fraud has been committed.

We have gone from an inclusive document that was addressed to the chiefs and the people of New Zealand or “ki nga Rangatira me nga Hapu o Nu Tirani”, we now have an exclusive document that appears to be addressed to Maori people. 

Whereas in 1840, of the approximately 72,000 humans living here there were at least 2000 Europeans, this is about 3% of the population.

Many of these people had been here for more than one generation and were married to New Zealand women with any number of mixed ancestry children.

Along with them lived some 600 other groups most with little or no political association with each other. None were in a competition as to who arrived first and so claiming that they owned all the land, the sea and everything that existed.

Depopulating violence was the usual method of sorting who owned what and it was the Treaty which bought British law and order that put an end to that almost overnight.

The government only allows Maori to make claims

Ngai Tahu lawyer turned Minister of Treaty Settlements, Chris Finlayson, signs off another settlement cheque

So the Treaty was addressed to all New Zealanders, but in 1975 our government introduced a law which only allows one race to make claims of any breaches.

Today this so called race have extracted $4 billion dollars from our economy in pay outs including back dated rents. They have organised themselves into corporations, grown a $50 billion dollar economy and have ignored the people I grew up with in Cannons Creek.

This is a tragedy.

Why have the experts ignored the changes?

What is unbelievably hard to fathom, and also very suspicious, is that I am a drop out, who grew up in Cannons Creek Porirua, with no academic qualifications whatsoever, yet I can analyse New Zealand History and our Treaty and find glaring omissions, errors and fraud in our legislation.

The entire history of panelists on the Waitangi Tribunal, experts such as Dame Claudia Orange, Professor Paul Moon and any number of other so called government experts either miss these, or deliberately leave out of their published work.

(My evidence is published in my book Once We Were One: the Fraud of Modern Separatism, published by Tross Publishing.)

 

 

 

 

 

Well done! An analysis based on written, indisputable and chronologically appropriate material rather than the more commonly used rewritten nonsense ever evolvingly interpreted to suit political needs.

1 Comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.