Rangatiratanga means "Ownership"

 IT MIGHT SURPRISE YOU to know, since so much hangs upon it, that the Treaty's term 'tino rangatiratanga' is 'a missionary neologism'—one of many. [1] Its root word is ‘rangatira,’ which was of course an original te reo word meaning ‘chief.’ This new word coined by Williams then stresses the power, authority, and agency of the chief.

Article Two of Te Tiriti promises to preserve tino rangatiratanga; courts have interpreted this in various ways to mean that chiefs (Rangatira) retain some kind of chiefly power. But Te Tiriti itself fails to fully clarify of what that power consists. [2] Lawyers since have taken full advantage of this imprecision by arguing that it means some kind of chiefly sovereignty (although not over the whole country, since each iwi only extended so far). Ned Fletcher and others have argued since that the English text agrees with this idea, saying that the sovereignty ceded by the Treaty was “compatible with ongoing tribal self-government,” suggesting then that “tino rangatiratanga” means Māori self-government. 

His view is both an expansion and a clarification of the mainstream view of what “tino rangatiratanga” might mean.

Context is important. Like most law, Te Tiriti is hierarchical. Article One focusses on sovereignty; Article Two has a focus on land and resources. There was a logical progression from one Article to another, with the first Article, logically and in law, taking precedence. Sovereignty first, then clarifying what that sovereignty is for.

So with this context then, what is chieftainship about? Answer: It is primarily about ownership — about ownership of that land and those resources. But it is ownership in a "chiefly" sense — a feudal right held by lords — analogising the neo-feudal control of a chief over a tribe's land and resources (and in some senses persons!) to that of a property right. 

The European feudal system grew out of a legitimate need for organised protection, explains Ayn Rand, as a way to find some peace within the near-anarchy of Europe after the fall of Rome. "The system, in essence, consisted in the peasants swearing allegiance to a lord, who claimed ownership of the land and a percentage of their harvest in exchange for his duty to protect them against military attacks." But as she observes, "this system brought some semblance of order, but no protection and no peace." The era in which it operated was also the longest period of stagnation—intellectually and productively—in Europe's history." [3] ed

men

were

left

in

was alsothe

total

power

of

an

armed

ruler,

who

had

his

own

military

gang

and

who

robbed

them

as

ruthlessly

as,

but

more

systematically

than,

any

foreign

invader.

The

history

of

the

Middle

Ages

is

a

series

of

internal

and

external

wars:

there

were

various

lords

struggling

to

enlarge

their

domains,

foreign

lords

strug-

gling

to

subjugate

neighboring

lands,

and

bloody,

hopeless

uprisings

of

desperate

peasants,

bloodily

suppressed.

It

was

also

the

longest

period

of

stagnation

-

intel-

lectually

and

productively

-

in

Europe's

history.

If there's one thing on which Karl Marx and Ayn Rand can agree, it's the injustice of this mangled societal system. So a promise to preserve this archaic feudal power was either clumsy, or in error. Perhaps the kind of mangled lawlerly prose one might expect from a simple missionary, a minor clerk, and an ailing sea captain, all writing in haste.

In his book One Sun in the Sky, author Ewen McQueen explains why Williams's translation reverts to the collective to offer the guarantees of Article Two:

It is true that in translation Henry Williams has taken an approach that better aligns with the more [collectivist] Māori world-view, rather than the more individualistic European outlook. As such the Māori version does not refer to individuals holding exclusive possession of property. Instead we find chiefs exercising “chieftainship over the lands, villages and all their treasures." [4]

In seeking to find a te reo word to describe the unfamiliar concept of property rights, Williams has unfortunately conflated a legitimate recognition of an individual right to property with an analogy to feudalism and a non-existent claim to a collective right. But feudalism is a busted flush. And "the expression 'collective rights' is a contradiction in terms.” [5]

This then makes for a disastrous confusion. Confusion, because the intent of Article Two is to impart property rights, an individual right. But the reference to "chieftainship" makes the promise about collective tribal rights over land with the tribes' rights embodied in a chief.  Disastrous because Te Tiriti should have treated all Maori as individuals instead of as members of a tribe. But it really does nothing of the sort except by implication.

Instead, as written, it cemented in and buttressed the tribal leadership and communal structures that already existed here —encouraging the survival of this wreck of a system until morphing, as it has today, into this mongrelised sub-group of pseudo-aristocracy: of Neotribal Cronyism. 

This is not what was aimed at, but it is what was written. But the law cannot protect a non-existent right. As [former Chief Justice] William Martin wrote in 1860, in seeking to understand the intent of the authors,

"This tribal right is clearly a right of property… To themselves they retained what they understood full well, the ‘tino Rangatiratanga,’ ‘full Chiefship,’ in respect of all their lands…’” [6]

This is not trivial. This is why sovereignty, was ceded. This is what we must understand. Tino rangatiratanga ("a right of property") under kāwanatanga katoa (the "complete Government") of the British Queen.

“EVEN THE 'TINO' OF the Māori version is better understood in this context,” argues McQueen. “It does not mean that the chiefs’ authority is unqualified in a government sense. Rather it is Henry Williams’s translation of how the chiefs would retain possession of the lands, forests and fisheries. The English version emphasised such possession would continue ‘full exclusive and undisturbed.’ Williams has rendered this concept as ‘tino’ rangatiratanga. It is about Māori retaining full agency over their land and resources. It is not a statement about unqualified political sovereignty.” [Emphasis mine.]

So “rangatiratanga” relates to ownership. “Tino” gives force to this relationship, giving it the force of a property right.

NOTES:

[1] Paul Moon, The Path to the Treaty of Waitangi, David Ling Publishing, (2002) p. 147

[2] Hugh Kawharu back-translates te tino rangatiratanga as 'the unqualified exercise of their chieftainship,' which doesn't quite clarify things, although the next phrase tries, the Queen guaranteeing "to protect the Chiefs, the subtribes and all the people of New Zealand in the unqualified exercise of their chieftainship over their lands, villages and all their treasures ..."
    In Ned Fletcher's reconstructed English text, the corresponding phrase is "full exclusive and undisturbed possession of their Lands and Estates, Forests Fisheries and other properties ... " 

[3] Ayn Rand, 'A Nation's Unity, Part II,' Ayn Rand Letter, Oct 23 1972 (New York) p. 2

[4] Ewen McQueen, One Sun in the Sky, Galatas Press (2020), p. 42-43. 

[5] Ayn Rand, ‘Collectivized Rights,’ in The Virtue of Selfishness, New York, Signet, June 1963

[6] William Martin, The Taranaki Question, The Melanesian Press(1860), p. 9.

[This post is based on the 2024 post at my NZ History blog: 'POSTSCRIPT 2: Rangatiratanga as Ownership'

RELATED:

• It's still the "chieftainship" that is the problem — NOT PC
• Kawanatanga katoa > tino rangatiratanga — A POLITICALLY INCORRECT HISTORY OF NEW ZEALAND
• When was sovereignty properly established here?  — A POLITICALLY INCORRECT HISTORY OF NEW ZEALAND
• Ned's Puzzling Treaty — NEWSROOM