1. Explain with at least 2 specific examples (events, dates, places) how the history of the treaty fits in with the larger global events of that error.
    1. During the early 1830’s the British government were petitioned by the NZ Maori for help to protect their people, as a result the British sent a the first official British resident, James Busby.  Britain entered this agreement seemingly not looking for a colony, but rather looking to bring democracy to the new land.  At the time the British aristocracy was a little wary of their public perception following the shockwaves (and beheadings) French created by the French Revolution and this liberal sentiment was often carried overseas by their emissaries.
    2. In 1947 the government officially replaced all references to ‘NZ Native’ with the term ‘Maori’.  This change was partly in acknowledgement for the role played by the 28th Maori battalion in WWII.
  2. Review one of the documents (the story of the treaty parts 1 and 2) . Discuss something new or interesting you have learned about NZ history from these readings.  Explain why you think it is interesting.
    1. On the 4th of February 1840 the treaty was given to Henry Williams and his son to translate into Maori, this job only took 1 evening and the treaty was ready to sign by the following day.   Personally I find this fact quite remarkable, that such an important document could be translated so hurriedly and with seemingly little regard to the correct translation of the text.  Maybe that was just the way things were done at the time (although I doubt it) or maybe it is a good indicator of the British governments true regard of the Maori people.
  3. What does the united nations have to do with the Treaty?
    In 2007 the United Nations adopted a policy known as UNDRIP (United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People).  148 members voted on the Declaration, whilst the vote was carried with a margin of 144/4, it is interesting to note that NZ voted AGAINST adopting the policy.  NZ voted against UNDRIP along with Canada, Australia and the USA.  All of these countries are similar in that they have origins as British colonies, and whilst all still have an indigenous population it forms only a relatively small percentage of the total.  Subsequently in 2010, NZ has endorsed UNDRIP, but in a non-binding way.For the following section I have taken reference from the official Endorsement of UNDRIP by Peter Sharples in 2010:

    1. Discuss 3 sections or statements from this document that have a significant impact on how NZ must deal with the Treaty.
      1. UNDRIP sets out aspirations for the rights and restitution of traditionally held land and resources.  NZ has developed its own unique approach to this with its claim settlement processes.
      2. NZ has worked to rectify the historic injustices suffered by Maori and is already committed to addressing them through the Treaty Settlement process.
      3. Where UNDRIP sets out principles for indigenous involvement in decision making processes, NZ relies upon its own distinct institutions and processes that allow for equal opportunities for Maori.
  4. Read the document that outlines the Treaty. What clause seems to be the most significant to YOU. Why?
    1. I guess the big balls up here is the translation between the English and Maori text.  In the second article the English text basically lays out that the Queen now owns your land, but you can stay there while she owns it, however she can sell it can’t she.  However, the Maori text seems to imply that the Queen will protect them and can agree to buy their land.  The two parties are basically signing a different agreement…. accident waiting to happen?
  5. What are your thoughts on minority indigenous groups having the right to govern themselves,when they have been colonized by a larger, more dominant culture?Depends where.  If there is a geographical boundary, such as Scotland/England, then this can work, however if a population is embedded within another having two sets of laws that apply to each ethnicity would be unmanageable, particularly once the two ethnicitys start to mix it up a little bit.
  6. Think about the idea of governing and protecting indigenous cultures  rights (intellectual as well (c)) and way of life.  Come up with one example of modern laws or examples of events where indigenous people have things in place to protect there culture and way of life.

    1. The UK – the UK is historically a mess, this goes back thousands of years.  There are no misunderstood treaties to fight about, England pretty much just took Scotland, Wales and Ireland.  Over the last 150 years each of these states has reached some stage of devolution from the UK.  Ireland managed to achieve a free state through violence, although the decision to leave the North in British rule is obviously a problem.  Scotland and Wales now have their own parliament that has restricted law making abilities.  This system seems to be a happy median that keeps all parties happy as was seen when Scotland recently voted to remain part of the UK.
  7. What threat does our digital age pose to indigenous and the small business alike and what measures are there to stop this from happening?
    1. The internet is the wild west, really anything goes, anyone can set up a shop or a service that can become an overnight success and they can make a million.  However big business has the resources and ability to quickly to copy successful ideas and steal them from under the nose of the little man.
      At the moment the internet is a fair playing field for all, this is known as the ‘neutral net’, everyone has equal access. Over the last few years there have been various pushes by big business to gain some sort of advantage by paying more, this was recently highlighted by the Facebook FreeNet app, an application that allowed free internet access to certain services, but paid services to others, it was to be funded by facebook and intended to tap into the vast reserve of users who currently have no access to the web.
Advertisements