They (chiefs) told the bishop (Pompallier) they thought of their fledging nation as a ship and wanted helmsmen to help steer it, but in signing the treaty they did not sell the ship.
In Transition from tradition to modernity, Colin James writes of the Treaty in Maori Law Review June 2013.
"It is, first, the founding document of the constitutional government, through Article 1. That is not seriously contestable now."
So why do Brash and a handful of right wing zealots continue to contest it?
Second, through Article 2, the Treaty is "the guarantor of certain rights to iwi and hapu of control of their properties and taonga and of a place in the control of some national and local resources. There is much to discuss and resolve yet in that sphere..."
Most important, the Treaty is, third, through Article 3, a guarantor of wider rights of full citizenship, both to Maori and... (non-Maori). That requires attention to cultural and other inequalities, in some cases through Article 2-type initiatives (for example whanau ora) and to the impacts of history on the capacity for citizenship".
Brash's annus horribilis, 1975 - the year of Waitangi Day and the Waitangi Day and the Waitangi tribunal - is but one milestone amid 170 years of hapu/iwi struggle, recovery and restitution from unquestionably racist governance imposed by successive waves of Pakeha settlers.
We are very much in a redress and rebuilding stage, constructing a true, uniquely Aotearoan multicultural society upon indisputably bicultural, power-sharing foundations.
The ship sailed 42 years ago Don, get on board, to paraphrase Sir James Henare: We have come too far to not go further: done too much not to do more.
WALLY HICKS
Kohukohu