Your correspondent M.J. Fore (September 20) refers to "only 39 chiefs signing the English version of the Treaty".
Had Mr Fore done any research he would know the reason why that version of the Treaty was used.
About a month after the Treaty of Waitangi signing, Rev. Maunsell invited Māori south of the Manukau Harbour to a gathering at his mission station at Port Waikato.
About 1500 attended, including the Waikato Chief Te Wherowhero.
Maunsell had been promised a copy of the Māori version of the Treaty would be couriered to him, but it did not arrive on time so he improvised by using a copy of the "Freeman" English version.
It is very well documented that those present were well aware of the meaning of the document they were asked to sign.
Thirty-two mainly Waikato/Tainui Māori signed on the day, and a further seven a few days later at Waiuku.
That signing of 32 chiefs was third largest of all.
The language on the paper did not diminish the significance of the event.
Sorry, Mr Fore; there is nothing sinister to be found.
MURRAY REID
Cambridge
Cars, cows and concrete
John Archer is the latest doomsayer to tell us the world is overpopulated and going to end. After other false arguments, it is now "climate change" that "proves" we have too many people for Earth to sustain.
Mr Archer argues Earth can only sustain 2 billion people, others that 1 billion is too many, and others that Earth can sustain 50 billion. Clearly there is great disagreement.
Mr Archer blames the end of the world most especially on consumerism and other "c" words like " ... cars, cows, concrete, children ... ", based on the view that humans are the primary cause of climate change through greenhouse gases we cause or produce, and acting like this is "proven science" when it is not.
We don't hear much in the news or anywhere else that disagrees with these claims.
Perhaps that is because any climate scientist who dares to question these claims finds themselves without funding or grants, labelled a "denier", and forced to look for funding or work elsewhere, which gets them labelled as "sell-outs" or "in the pocket of big business".
Should we trust those at the UN and other such bodies who now inform us we only have 10 or 12 years to stop irreversible "climate change"?
Like this:
"Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of "eco-refugees", threatening political chaos, said Noel Brown, director of the New York office of the UN Environment Programme. He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human control. As the warming melts polar ice-caps, ocean levels will rise by up to three feet, enough to cover the Maldives and other flat island nations, Brown told the Associated Press in an interview on Wednesday."
Since this was published by AP on June 30, 1989, it looks like the "10-year window" has been shut, bolted, and thrown away by now. And as the polar ice-caps melt (oops, the Antarctic is still gaining ice), and the Maldives, Pacific islands and low-lying parts of Wanganui have all disappeared under the rising seas, I guess we can only sit back and enjoy our "cars, cows, concrete, and children".
K A BENFELL
Gonville
•Send your letters to: Letters, Whanganui Chronicle, 100 Guyton St, PO Box 433, Whanganui 4500 or email letters@wanganuichronicle.co.nz
