Paragraph 1 -
There were numerous events that led to the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi in the 1830’s one such event known as the Harriet Affair led them to fight between Maori and Pakeha, through, cannibalism, events, and inequality. One such event became the well known Harriet Affair this happened in April 1834. During this event, the Guard family consisting of Elizabeth, John, her two children and shiploads of unnamed crew members boarded a ship, where they were tragically shipwrecked on the Taranaki coast. They made, as instinctive survivors tents created out of the ship sails, in some myths it rumored 12 unfortunate crew members were chopped and killed by the Maori during an attack and possibly eaten as an act of cannibalism. Elizabeth
…show more content…
It all began as William Hobson voyaged to New Zealand to form an agreement on behalf of her Majesty Queen Victoria, the queen and sovereign present at that time period. To begin the treaty James Freeman and James Busby drafted our beloved treaty that should have been done by the then governor William Hobson but wasn’t due to him falling ill. Missionary Henry Williams as a Maori to English translator, translated the treaty into native language Maori for the New Zealand natives to understand. On the 5th of February 1840, William Hobson the governor read in English the treaty to the Maori chiefs present at the signing, then once more in Maori. Many chiefs took different sides as soon as it came to the complex matter of the treaty, which brought forth a conversation spanning 5 painstaking hours. Even though it was delayed for two more days, the next day on the 6th of February the chiefs thought otherwise and decided to start their departure due to lack of food and the ever-popular tobacco. At midday, as there was nothing on the agenda, governor Hobson decided that no further discussion is required and that the signatures (marks) should be done immediately. Meanwhile, Missionary William Colenso told governor Hobson, that the Maori might not know what they were signing which can …show more content…
Chiefs including Te Rauparaha thought that the land he conquered over the previous years would still be his. Similarly, Tamati Waka Nene thought the treaty would bring peace over land quarrels and putting the British in Maori control. Hone Heke, a chief supporting the British, thought if they didn’t have the foreigners protecting their land, estates and precious assets, all of it would be captured by the French. Greatly known Maori chief Hone Heke also decided for himself that Maori were powerless without the governor, who was “like a father to son”. The British Crown worried immensely of the large masses of inappropriately behaving British landing in New Zealand waters, which might end up stirring up quarreling and problems beyond their imagination. The Crown also “wanted a treaty” to ensure the Maori chiefs, (representatives) that no other powerful nation such as the French would be able to “conquer New Zealand”. It is also because of the enormous numbers of British behaving badly through various ways. While the British wanted trading rights from the Maori, on the other hand, the Crown just wanted rights to govern New Zealand their way, while keeping the British in control and having the Maori ensured they were being protected
Sauguarrum’s testimony on the negotiations reveals that the English had twisted what the Penobscot leader had said to the English. Firstly, Sauguarrum talked personally to an English man about the structure of the treaty and what will be addressed. However, the answers he gave to the English never showed up in the treaty. For example, Sauguarrum did acknowledge the English king, but did not see King George as his own king. Also, during the negotiations, the English allowed the Indian chiefs to decide on justice if any quarrels occurred between the two parties, but in the treaty, King George and the English get to decide the punishment. This account of the negotiations leading up to the treaty reveal that the English intentionally changed the language in treaty to give English complete control over the Abenaki Indians. The first-hand account of the negotiations also reveals that there were complications ...
The League of Nations did not prevent another World War due to numerous different reasons. First of all, the League of Nations whole identity was to maintain peace, discourage aggression from any nation, and to inspire other countries to cooperate especially in the field of trading different resources. One of the main ideas involved in the non-prevention of another war by the League of Nations was the Treaty of Versailles. The League of Nation was fully responsible for the process of the treaty going through the International Court of Justice. One the treaty was signed, Germany was reprimanded unethically. The Germans soon started cheating and developed military forces like submarines in the region of the Netherlands and placed tanks in Russia.
The British won the war over the French and gained territory in the Ohio Valley, which was the start of the shady relationship. The British won in Quebec and took over French forts. The British claim their land and the Native Americans doesn’t like the result. The Indians wanted peace and a relationship similar to the French. “British traders also defrauded Indians on numerous occasions and ignored traditional obligations of gift giving (Hewitt and Lawson 134).”
The Treaty of New Echota, was ratified by the United States Senate, by one vote, without the approval of the Cherokee Nation (The Cherokee and the Trail of Tears). The treaty brought abou...
Thurston, Lorrin A. “A hand-book on the annexation of Hawaii.” Foreign and Commonwealth Office Collection (1897).
Despite the fact that these agreements were a clear violation of existing British law, they were used later to justify the American takeover of the region. The Shawnee also claimed these lands but, of course, were never consulted. With the Iroquois selling the Shawnee lands north of the Ohio, and the Cherokee selling the Shawnee lands south, where could they go? Not surprisingly, the Shawnee stayed and fought the Americans for 40 years. Both the Cherokee and Iroquois were fully aware of the problem they were creating. After he had signed, a Cherokee chief reputedly took Daniel Boone aside to say, "We have sold you much fine land, but I am afraid you will have trouble if you try to live there."
UVW. (2014, April 29th). TAKITIMU: The Gods of Maori. Retrieved from VIctoria University of Willington: http://nzetc.victoria.ac.nz/tm/scholarly/tei-MitTaki-t1-body-d1-d4-d1.html
The two men had opposing views on whether or not the tribe should sign the treaty and go west, or reject the offer and remain in Georgia, potentially becoming homeless. Chief John Ross led the majority of the Cherokee Natives who believed that the treaty was unlawful because it disregarded the complaints of the Natives- they were feeling as if they were not being treated like members of the human race. This side called themselves the National Party. The National Party felt as if Americans were taking away their homes and their land (which they were), and leaving them to fend for themselves. This side wanted to stay in Georgia and fight for what is rightfully theirs and stop white political powers from forcing the tribe to
According to the PBS show “Hawaii's Last Queen” the Republic Hawaii's president Sanford Dole annexed the kingdom of Hawaii to the U.S on August 12, 1898. An organization supporting annexation called the Hawaiian League led by Lorrin Thurston which took many other forms forced King Kalakaua to sign the bayonet constitution. This constitution striped the power of the monarchy and when his death came his sister Lili'uokalani ascended to the throne and her hopes were to restore power to the Hawaiians which the constitution took away. The missionary boys did not like the queens ideals so they planned to overthrow the monarchy for good which they did later on in history. The annexation was an unjust act done by a group of bisness men wanting power and Hawaii as a territory of the U.S. Although some might argue that annexation was good because it allowed trade to the U.S tariff free others oppose that it was biased because it stripped Hawaiian of their rights to vote and destroyed the Hawaiian monarchy.
...the British, while still holding treaties with the American government, Tecumseh lost Shawnee support in him as the speaker of the Shawnees.
Again there was another treaty signed in December 29, 1835 which is called The Treaty of New Echota. It was signed by a party of 500 Cherokee out of about 17,000. Between 1785 and 1902 twenty-five treaties were signed with white men to give up their tribal lands.
Massasoit, the Chief of the Wampanoag Indians at the time, signed a treaty of peace with the English that promised not to give up their land to anybody without the knowledge and consent of the Plymouth government first. It wasn’t until 1630 when the situation reversed with the increasing number of settlers moving to the Massachusetts Bay Colony known as “The Great Migration”, that the Natives became angered. The new settlers, the Puritans, were in desperate need of land and would do anything to get it. They wiped the Pequoit Indians out in the Pequoit War of 1637, and other than those who chose to convert to the Puritan religion and way of life, the Pequoit had vanished. Many of the Indian tribes were in trouble with the threat of loss of land, as well as loss of lives.
According to Jackson (1988), the persistent myth that no real law existed in New Zealand prior to 1840, is a racist and colonising myth used to justify the imposition of ongoing application of law from Britain. Pre-European Maori society regulated behaviour and punished wrongdoings through the sanction of muru. Jackson defines muru as, “a legalised system of plundering as penalty for offences, which in a rough way resembled (the Pakeha) law by which a man is obliged to pay damages” (p.40). Due to the law brought and imposed by settlers, it rendered Maori’s values, ways of thinking, and living. This essay aims to discuss the Maori social and cultural values expressed in the sanction muru. Furthermore, how the British opposition to the use of
The Treaty of Waitangi is a very important document to New Zealand. It is an agreement that was drawn up by representatives of the British Crown and Maori Hapu and Iwi. It was first signed at the Bay of Islands on February 6th, 1840. There has been a lot of debate over the years about the translation of words between the English and Te Reo Maori versions of the text and the differences in the word meaning over the who languages. In this assignment I am going to cover the rights and responsibilities that the treaty contains and an explanation of the differences in wordings and I am also going to contextualise my understanding of the differences of wording against the Maori Worldview and the Declaration of Independence.
To conclude, Te reo Maori is one of the treasures given to Maori people as one of their taonga from their God as part of their identity. It is important for the Maori people to keep their language survives for the mokopuna as well as connecting them to the land, values and beliefs. The principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi were partnership, participation and protection that the Crown failed to act upon which result in Waitangi Tribunal. Te Whariki and New Zealand curriculum promotes and implement bicultural to revitalised Te reo Maori as well as strengthening the partnership between Maori and Pakeha of the Te Tiriti of Waitangi.