The Treaty of Waitangi

According to the article by Sabine Fenton and Paul Moon, printed in Tymoczko and Gentlizer's Translation and Power, Henry Williams, a missionary, was the cause of a great deal of unrest because he chose to make people happy instead of being honest. He thought that British colonialism would lead to the health and prosperity of the Maori, so he cheeted. His translation of the English version of the treaty of Waitangi overlooked the gap between cultures at convenient places so that the Maori would perceive the portections but would not understand the loss of soverignty.

This situation was compounded by further misrepresentation, when he sent the English and Maori copies back, to be printed in the news, with titles reversed. In this public printing, williams attached the title "as literal a translation as the idiom of the language will admit of" to an English version not backtranslated from the Maori.

As you can imagine, both sides felt that they were right. Now, after the research done by various investigators, we know that both sides were right, it was williams who was wrong. That realization, however, does nothing to sort out the continuing issues surrounding the treaty.

I'd say the moral of the story is, "be careful, misleading people for their own good may not be good for anyone." What do you think we can take out of this?