Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 12 Apr 2021 16:56:21 -0700 (PDT), James Christophers
Post by Rich80105 Post by George Black Post by John Bowes Post by John Bowes
I'd love to know where Aotearoa appears in the Treaty of Waitangi......
The primary purpose of the Treaty was to end open-slather lawlessness and re-start the country on a sound social, political and administrative footing. Spiritual niceties of a minority group - including spiritual references to a meteorological phenomenon - could be left until later, well after the crucially essential groundwork had been done.
Try addressing the question.
You. haven't put a question. You have merely stated your wish to know something to which you already know the answer.
Bullshit! I asked where in the treaty the name Aotearoa appeared. Just because you have a habit of avoiding questions makes no never mind Keith. You bullshitting and you know it!
<mindless trolling snipped!>
Evidently hye hasn't read the published link but continues to waffle
because thats what he does
shows that the Maori version including the word Aotearoa was used
referring to NEw Zealand in 1878.
Bowes's floundering invective and your follow-ups are both as may be. But, however one addresses
the proposition, the specific word Aotearoa is not mentioned in the original 1840 Treaty document. Certainly other transcribed
names and descriptions are incorporated, but it is from Howe and others we learn that none of these refer to New Zealand as a single entity.
It is perfectly OK to mention non-single-entity terms and descriptions in terms of the overall narrative. But these later contributions in no way
negate the original, simple fact of the matter, further clarified and expanded on in Howe's contribution to the discourse - a contribution, mark
you, whose authenticity has yet to be validly challenged in this thread.
My reading of John Bowes original post was to question the validity of
using 'Aotearoa' as an indigenous name for New Zealand.
An interpretation, yet his **valid** purpose and intent is...? We have yet to hear of it.
Cultural validation comes from common use and practice. Formal/official validation is bestowed by legal authority - "custom law", if you will.
We know that in 1840 "Aotearoa" as a name did not embrace the entire country, hence its non-inclusion in the original Treaty wording. But that does not disqualify it from being intrinsically indigenous to the Maori language prior to that date. Nor does it invalidate or rightfully exclude the Maori from later using as it as their name for the whole country post-1840.
The Maori are the indigenous people of this country. "Aotearoa" is a Maori word. So "Aotearoa" as spoken and later manifested in written form through transliteration is thereby, ipso facto, indigenous.
Since first introduced in 1915, every New Zealand passport bears the two equivalent titles "New Zealand" and "Aotearoa". Need further validation? The New Zealand/Aotearoa passport is the property of the New Zealand government - IOW, for more than a century the indigenous "Aotearoa" has been formally legitimised (validated), documented and familiarised through our higher legal authority.
And so it goes.
Even so, Maori is an orphan language whose teaching and (hoped-for) assimilation is treated as an additional form of cultural reinforcement. But for those - mostly the majority, kindly note - for too long burdened by their own cultural insecurities, it is a cultural reinforcement they can well do without.
(BTW. South Africa with it's 10% white minority and all its impossible trials and tribulations nevertheless boasts 11 official languages. All are represented to varying degrees in the nation's media. That's right - they manage.)