Welcome!

Darshan Jariwala

November 19th, 2018

Darshan Jariwala (en guyaratí, દર્શન જરીવાલા) (Bombay, 29 de septiembre de 1958) es un actor indio de cine, teatro y televisión.​ Ganó el Premio Nacional de Cine en la categoría de mejor actor de reparto por su participación en la película biográfica Gandhi, My Father.​ Interpretó el papel de Cheddilal Chaturvedi en el programa de televisión Saas Bina Sasural, emitido por Sony Entertainment Television entre el 18 de octubre de 2010 y el 6 de septiembre de 2012.​

Jariwala es hijo de la veterana actriz Leela Jariwala (contemporánea de Dina Pathak) y de Vidyasagar Jariwala.​ Ha actuado en teatro, cine y televisión en su país natal. Uno de sus papeles en televisión más recordados fue en la serie Narsinh Mehta acerca del santo poeta Krishna.​ Su papel como Mahatma Gandhi en la película biográfica de 2007 Gandhi, My Father le valió el reconocimiento a nivel internacional.​

Sus obras de teatro incluyen Hatheli Par BaadBaaki, Patro Mitro, Mulraj Mansion y Andhalo Pato. Actuó en dos obras hindi, Uncle Samjha Karo y Going Solo 2. Su compañía Leela Theatres produjo una obra en inglés, Salt & Pepper, protagonizada por él mismo junto con otros reconocidos actores de teatro como Mandira Bedi, Kuki Grewal y Vikram Kochar. La obra fue escrita y dirigida por Vikranth Pawar.​

Ha actuado en películas hindi como Honeymoon Travels Pvt Ltd, Guru, Aap Kaa Surroor, Phata Poster Nikla Hero y Humshakals.​ Feroz Abbas Khan (director de Gandhi, My Father y una veterana personalidad en el teatro indio) lo contactó inicialmente para que interpretara el papel de Mahatma Gandhi en su obra Mahatma v/s Gandhi, pero debido a problemas de calendario, el actor tuvo que abandonar el proyecto.​ Sin embargo, Feroz estaba decidido a elegirlo como Gandhi y nuevamente se le acercó para que interpretara al dirigente del movimiento de independencia indio en la cinta Gandhi, My Father, proyecto que finalmente se materializó en el año 2007.​​ La película relata la problemática relación entre Mahatma y su hijo Harilal Gandhi, quien tenía como objetivo estudiar en el extranjero y convertirse en un abogado, mientras que su padre esperaba que Harilal lo acompañara en la lucha por sus ideales de paz.​ El filme polarizó a la crítica, aunque las actuaciones de Jariwala y Akshaye Khanna fueron alabadas de forma unánime.​ Por su desempeño, Jariwala obtuvo un Premio Nacional de Cine en la categoría de mejor actor de reparto en la ceremonia celebrada en el año 2007.​

En 1980 se casó con la actriz de televisión india Apara Mehta, con quien tiene una hija. Han estado viviendo separados durante mucho tiempo debido a diferencias personales, pero no están oficialmente divorciados.​​

Bojkott

November 18th, 2018

En bojkott innebär att man vägrar att handla, samarbeta, eller på annat sätt befatta sig med person, organisation eller dylikt i påtryckningssyfte. Exempel: I mitten på 1990-talet var det många som inte köpte franska viner för att de var emot Frankrikes planer på att genomföra provsprängningar av kärnvapen. Bojkott har även på senare tid används som ett allmänt avståndstagande från något. Exempel: Bojkott av julfirande, man firar inte jul.

Det är vanligt att bojkotta företag som tillverkar sina varor med hjälp av barnarbetare eller dylikt. Ett exempel är arabiska länders bojkott av alla varor som är tillverkade i Israel, framförallt från ockuperat område, eller innehåller någon komponent tillverkad av företag som stödjer eller bidrar till den israeliska staten. Detta har ibland lett till märkliga situationer, där en leverantör försöker dölja ursprunget genom att slipa bort tillverkarbeteckningar på någon i utrustningen ingående känslig komponent.

Ibland försöker man även att förmå andra parter att delta i samma bojkott, för att tvinga fram en ekonomisk kollaps. Ett relativt framgångsrikt exempel är den internationella bojkott av varor från Sydafrika som många länder införde i mitten av 1980-talet till följd av nya strängare raslagar i landet.

Ordet har sitt ursprung från engelskans boycott som kommer av att irländska arrendatorer på 1880-talet vägrade arbeta för egendomsförvaltaren Charles Boycott.

Walerian Gaprindaszwili

November 18th, 2018

Walerian Gaprindaszwili (ur. 16 stycznia 1982) – gruziński szachista, arcymistrz od 2002 roku.

Największe sukcesy w karierze odniósł jako nastolatek. W 1993 (w Szombathely) i 1994 r. (w Băile Herculane) dwukrotnie zdobył tytuły mistrza Europy juniorów do 12 lat, natomiast w 1995 r. (w São Lourenço) – tytuł mistrza świata do 14 lat.

W 2000 r. wypełnił dwie normy arcymistrzowskie na międzynarodowych turniejach w Ałuszcie (w jednym dzieląc I m. wspólnie z Aleksandrem Riazancewem i Pawłem Eljanowem, a w drugim zajmując II m. za Andrejem Kawalouem). W 2001 r. zwyciężył (wspólnie z Peterem Endersem i Ibragimem Chamrakułowem) w Oldenburgu, natomiast w 2002 r. zdobył tytuł wicemistrza Gruzji juniorów do lat 20, był najlepszym zawodnikiem reprezentacji Gruzji podczas meczu z Turcją (wspólnie z Tamazem Gelaszwilim i Badurem Dżowabą zdobyli po 9½ w 12 partiach) oraz wypełnił trzecią normę arcymistrzowską, dzieląc II m. w otwartym turnieju w Kocaeli (za Michaiłem Gurewiczem, wspólnie z Antoanetą Stefanową, Szachrijarem Mamediarowem, Wasylem Spasowem, Baadurem Dżobawą i Merabem Gagunaszwilim). W 2005 r. zajął II m. (za Sananem Dowliatowem) w Baku, podzielił III m. w turnieju B festiwalu Aerofłot Open w Moskwie (za Zawenem Andriasanem i Elmirem Gusejnowem) oraz zdobył w Tbilisi tytuł indywidualnego mistrza Gruzji. W 2006 r. podzielił II m. w Stambule (za Iwerim Czigladze, wspólnie z m.in. Walerijem Awieskułowem i Tornike Sanikidze) oraz zwyciężył w Adanie (wspólnie z m.in. Micheilem Mczedliszwilim i Giorgim Bagaturowem), natomiast w 2007 r. podzielił II m. w Resztcie (za Ehsanem Ghaemem Maghamim) oraz w Urmii (za Mortezą Mahjoobem).

Najwyższy ranking w karierze osiągnął 1 stycznia 2003 r., z wynikiem 2491 punktów zajmował wówczas 14. miejsce wśród gruzińskich szachistów.

Treaty of Waitangi

November 17th, 2018

The Treaty of Waitangi (Māori: Te Tiriti o Waitangi) is a treaty first signed on 6 February 1840 by representatives of the British Crown and Māori chiefs (rangatira) from the North Island of New Zealand. It is a document of central importance to the history and political constitution of the state of New Zealand, and has been highly significant in framing the political relations between New Zealand’s government and the Māori population.

The Treaty was written at a time when British colonists were pressuring the Crown to establish a colony in New Zealand, and when some Māori leaders had petitioned the British for protection against French forces. It was drafted with the intention of establishing a British Governor of New Zealand, recognising Māori ownership of their lands, forests and other possessions, and giving Māori the rights of British subjects. It was intended to ensure that when the declaration of British sovereignty over New Zealand was made by Lieutenant Governor William Hobson in May 1840, the Māori people would not feel that their rights had been ignored. Once it had been written and translated, it was first signed by Northern Māori leaders at Waitangi, and subsequently copies of the Treaty were taken around New Zealand and over the following months many other chiefs signed. Around 530 to 540 Māori, at least 13 of them women, signed the Treaty of Waitangi, despite some Māori leaders cautioning against it. An immediate result of the Treaty was that Queen Victoria’s government gained the sole right to purchase land. In total there are nine signed copies of the Treaty of Waitangi including the sheet signed on 6 February 1840 at Waitangi.

The text of the Treaty includes a preamble and three articles. It is bilingual, with the Māori text translated from the English. Article one of the English text cedes “all rights and powers of sovereignty” to the Crown. Article two establishes the continued ownership of the Māori over their lands, and establishes the exclusive right of pre-emption of the Crown. Article three gives Māori people full rights and protections as British subjects. However, the English text and the Māori text differ in meaning significantly, particularly in relation to the meaning of having and ceding sovereignty. These discrepancies led to disagreements in the decades following the signing, eventually culminating in the New Zealand Wars.

During the second half of the 19th century, Māori generally lost control of the land they had owned, some through legitimate sale, but often due to unfair land deals or outright seizure in the aftermath of the New Zealand War. In the period following the New Zealand Wars, the New Zealand government mostly ignored the Treaty and a court case judgement in 1877 declared it to be “a simple nullity”. Beginning in the 1950s, Māori increasingly sought to use the Treaty as a platform for claiming additional rights to sovereignty and to reclaim lost land, and governments in the 1960s and 1970s were responsive to these arguments, giving the Treaty an increasingly central role in the interpretation of land rights and relations between Māori people and the state. In 1975, the Waitangi Tribunal was established as a permanent commission of inquiry tasked with interpreting the Treaty, researching breaches of the Treaty by the British Crown or its agents, and to suggest means of redress. In most cases, recommendations of the Tribunal are not binding on the Crown, but settlements totalling almost $1 billion have been awarded to various Māori groups. Various legislation passed in the later part of the 20th century has made reference to the Treaty, but the Treaty has never been made part of New Zealand municipal law. Nonetheless, the Treaty is widely regarded as the founding document of New Zealand.

Waitangi Day was established as a national holiday in 1974 and commemorates the date of the signing of the Treaty.

The first contact between the Māori and Europeans was in 1642, when Dutch explorer Abel Tasman arrived and was fought off, and again in 1769 when the English navigator Captain James Cook claimed New Zealand for Britain at the Mercury Islands. Nevertheless, the British government showed little interest in following up this claim for over half a century. The first mention of New Zealand in British statutes is in the Murders Abroad Act of 1817, which clarified that New Zealand was not a British colony (despite being claimed by Captain Cook) and “not within His Majesty’s dominions.” Between 1795 and 1830 a steady flow of sealing and then whaling ships visited New Zealand, mainly stopping at the Bay of Islands for food supplies and recreation. Many of the ships came from Sydney. Trade between Sydney and New Zealand increased as traders sought kauri timber and flax and missionaries purchased large areas of land in the Bay of Islands. This trade was seen as mutually advantageous, and Māori tribes competed for access to the services of Europeans that had chosen to live on the islands because they brought goods and knowledge that were essential to the local iwi (the Māori word for the social unit often called “tribe” or “people”). At the same time, Europeans living in New Zealand needed the protection that Māori chiefs could provide. As a result of trade, Māori society changed drastically up to the 1840s. They changed their society from one of subsistence farming and gathering to cultivating useful trade crops.

The Māori generally respected the British, partially due to encouragement from missionaries and also due to British status as a major maritime power, which had been made apparent to Māori travelling outside New Zealand. The other major powers in the area around the 1830s included American whalers, whom the Māori accepted as cousins of the British, and French Catholics who came for trade and as missionaries. The Māori were still deeply distrustful of the French, due to a massacre of 250 people that had occurred in 1772, when they retaliated for the killing of Marion du Fresne and some of his crew. While the threat of the French never materialised, in 1831 it prompted thirteen rangatira (major chiefs) from the far north of the country to meet at Kerikeri to compose a letter to King William IV asking for help to guard their lands. It is the first known plea for British intervention written by Māori. In response, the British government sent James Busby in 1832 to be the British Resident in New Zealand. In 1834 Busby drafted a document known as the Declaration of the Independence of New Zealand which he and 35 northern Māori chiefs signed at Waitangi on 28 October 1835, establishing those chiefs as representatives of a proto-state under the title of the “United Tribes of New Zealand”. This document was not well received by the Colonial Office in Britain, and it was decided that a new policy for New Zealand was needed.

From May to July 1836, Royal Navy officer Captain William Hobson, under instruction from Sir Richard Bourke, visited New Zealand to investigate claims of lawlessness in its settlements. Hobson recommended in his report that British sovereignty be established over New Zealand, in small pockets similar to the Hudson’s Bay Company in Canada. Hobson’s report was forwarded to the Colonial Office. From April to May 1838, the House of Lords held a select committee into the “State of the Islands of New Zealand”. The New Zealand Association (later the New Zealand Company), missionaries, Joel Samuel Polack, and the Royal Navy made submissions to the committee.

On 15 June 1839 new Letters Patent were issued to expand the territory of New South Wales to include the entire territory of New Zealand, from latitude 34° South to 47° 10′ South, and from longitude 166° 5′ East to 179° East. Governor of New South Wales George Gipps was appointed Governor over New Zealand. This was the first clear expression of British intent to annex New Zealand.

Hobson was called to the Colonial Office on the evening of 14 August 1839 and given instructions to take the constitutional steps needed to establish a British colony. He was appointed Consul to New Zealand and was instructed to negotiate a voluntary transfer of sovereignty from the Māori to the British Crown as the House of Lords select committee had recommended in 1837. Normanby gave Hobson three instructions – to seek a cession of sovereignty, to assume complete control over land matters, and to establish a form of civil government, but he did not provide a draft of the Treaty. Normanby wrote at length about the need for British intervention as essential to protect Māori interests, but this was somewhat deceptive. Hobson’s instructions gave no provision for Māori government of any kind nor any Māori involvement in the administrative structure of the new colony.

Historian Claudia Orange argues that prior to 1839 the Colonial Office had initially planned a “Māori New Zealand” in which European settlers would be accommodated without a full colony where Māori might retain ownership and authority over much of the land and cede some land to settlers as part of a colony governed by the Crown. However, Normanby’s instructions in 1839 show that the Colonial Office had shifted their stance toward colonisation and “a settler New Zealand in which a place had to be kept for Māori”, primarily due to pressure from increasing numbers of British colonists. The Colonial Office was forced to accelerate its plans because of both the New Zealand Company’s hurried dispatch of the Tory to New Zealand on 12 May 1839 to purchase land, and plans by French Captain Jean François L’Anglois to establish a French colony in Akaroa. After examining Colonial office documents and correspondence (both private and public) of those who developed the policies that led to the development of the Treaty, historian Paul Moon similarly argues that Treaty was not envisioned with deliberate intent to assert sovereignty over Māori, but that the Crown originally only intended to apply rule over British subjects living in the fledgling colony, and these rights were later expanded by subsequent governors through perceived necessity.

Hobson left London on 15 August 1839 and was sworn in as Lieutenant-Governor in Sydney on 14 January, finally arriving in the Bay of Islands on 29 January 1840. Meanwhile, a second New Zealand Company ship, the Cuba, had arrived in Port Nicholson on 3 January with a survey party to prepare for settlement. The Aurora, the first ship carrying immigrants, arrived on 22 January.

On 30 January 1840 Hobson attended the Christ Church at Kororareka (Russell) where he publicly read a number of proclamations. The first was the Letters Patent 1839, in relation to the extension of the boundaries of New South Wales to include the islands of New Zealand. The second was in relation to Hobson’s own appointment as Lieutenant-Governor of New Zealand. The third was in relation to land transactions (notably on the issue of pre-emption).

Without a draft document prepared by lawyers or Colonial Office officials, Hobson was forced to write his own treaty with the help of his secretary, James Freeman, and British Resident James Busby, neither of whom was a lawyer. Historian Paul Moon believes certain articles of the Treaty resemble the Treaty of Utrecht (1713), the British Sherbro Agreement (1825) and the treaty between Britain and Soombia Soosoos (1826).

The entire Treaty was prepared in four days, in which it underwent many revisions. There were doubts even during the drafting process that the Māori chiefs would be able to understand the concept of relinquishing ‘sovereignty’.

Realising that a treaty in English could not be understood, debated or agreed to by Māori, Hobson instructed missionary Henry Williams and his son Edward Marsh Williams, who was more proficient in Te Reo, the Māori language, to translate the document, and this was done overnight on 4 February. The translation of the Treaty was reviewed by James Busby, and he proposed the substitution of the word whakaminenga for huihuinga, to describe the “Confederation” or gathering of the chiefs. This no doubt was a reference to the northern confederation of chiefs with whom Hobson preferred to negotiate, who eventually made up the vast majority of signatories to the Treaty. Hobson believed that elsewhere in the country the Crown could exercise greater freedom over the rights of ‘first discoverers’, which proved unwise as it led to future difficulties with other tribes in the South Island.

On 5 February the original English version Treaty and its translation into Māori were put before a gathering of northern chiefs inside a large marquee on the lawn in front of Busby’s house at Waitangi. Hobson read the Treaty aloud in English and Williams read his Māori version. Māori chiefs (rangatira) then debated the Treaty for five hours, much of which was recorded and translated by the Paihia missionary station printer, William Colenso. Rewa, a Catholic chief, who had been influenced by the French Catholic Bishop Pompallier, said “The Māori people don’t want a governor! We aren’t European. It’s true that we’ve sold some of our lands. But this country is still ours! We chiefs govern this land of our ancestors”. Moka ‘Kainga-mataa’ argued that all land unjustly purchased by Europeans should be returned. Whai asked: “Yesterday I was cursed by a white man. Is that the way things are going to be?”. Protestant Chiefs such as Hōne Heke, Pumuka, Te Wharerahi, Tamati Waka Nene and his brother Eruera Maihi Patuone were accepting of the Governor. Hōne Heke said:

Governor, you should stay with us and be like a father. If you go away then the French or the rum sellers will take us Māori people over. How to you. Some of you tell Hobson to go. But that’s not going to solve our difficulties. We have already sold so much land here in the north. We have no way of controlling the Europeans who have settled on it. I’m amazed to hear you telling him to go! Why didn’t you tell the traders and grog-sellers to go years ago? There are too many Europeans here now and there are children that will unite our races

Bishop Pompallier, who had been counselling the many Catholic Māori in the north concerning the Treaty, urged them to be very wary of the Treaty and not to sign anything. He left after the initial discussions and was not present when the chiefs signed.

For Māori chiefs, the signing at Waitangi would have needed a great deal of trust. Nonetheless, expected benefits of British protection must have outweighed their fears. In particular, the French were also interested in New Zealand, and there were fears that if they did not side with the British that the French would put pressure on them in a similar manner to that of other Pacific Islanders farther north in what would become French Polynesia. Māori at the signing were further encouraged by English Missionaries, who believed that British regulation would be invaluable to the future welfare of Māori as European settlers continued to arrive.

Afterward, the chiefs then moved to a river flat below Busby’s house and lawn and continued deliberations late into the night. Busby’s house would later become known as the Treaty House and is today New Zealand’s most visited historic building.

Hobson had planned for the signing to occur on 7 February however on the morning of 6 February 45 chiefs were waiting ready to sign. Around noon a ship carrying two officers from HMS Herald arrived and were surprised to hear they were waiting for the Governor so a boat was quickly despatched back to let him know. Although the official painting of the signing shows Hobson wearing full naval regalia, he was in fact not expecting the chiefs that day and was wearing his dressing gown or “in plain clothes, except his hat”. The Treaty signing began in the afternoon.

Hobson headed the British signatories. Hōne Heke was the first of the Māori chiefs who signed that day. As each chief signed, Hobson said “He iwi tahi tātou“, meaning “We are [now] one people”. Two chiefs, Marupō and Ruhe, protested strongly against the Treaty as the signing took place but they eventually signed and after Marupō shook the Governor’s hand, seized hold of his hat which was on the table and gestured to put it on.

Hobson considered the signing at Waitangi to be highly significant, he noted that twenty-six of the forty-six ‘head chiefs’ had signed. Hobson had no intention of requiring the unanimous assent of Māori to the Treaty, but was willing to accept a majority, as he reported that the signings at Waitangi represented “Clear recognition of the sovereign rights of Her Majesty over the northern parts of this island”. However, those that signed at Waitangi did not even represent the north as a whole; an analysis of the signatures shows that most were from the Bay of Islands only, and that not many of the chiefs of the highest rank had signed on that day. Hobson considered the initial signing at Waitangi to be the “de facto” treaty, while later signings merely “ratified and confirmed it”,

To enhance the Treaty’s authority, eight additional copies were sent around the country to gather additional signatures:

About 50 meetings were held from February to September 1840 to discuss and sign the copies, and a further 500 signatures were added to the Treaty. While most did eventually sign, especially in the far north where most Māori lived, a number of chiefs and some tribal groups ultimately refused, including Pōtatau Te Wherowhero (Waikato iwi), Tuhoe, Te Arawa and Ngāti Tuwharetoa and possibly Moka ‘Kainga-mataa’. A number of non-signatory Waikato and Central North Island chiefs would later form a kind of confederacy with an elected monarch called the Kīngitanga. (The Kīngitanga Movement would later form a primary anti-government force in the New Zealand Wars.) While copies were moved around the country to give as many tribal leaders as possible the opportunity to sign, some missed out, especially in the South Island, where inclement weather prevented copies from reaching Otago or Stewart Island. Assent to the Treaty was unanimous in Kaitaia, as well as possibly the Wellington to Whanganui region, but there were at least some holdouts in every other part of New Zealand.

Nonetheless, on 21 May 1840, Lieutenant-Governor Hobson proclaimed sovereignty over the whole country, (the North Island by Treaty and the South Island and Stewart Island by discovery) and New Zealand was constituted as a colony separate from New South Wales on 16 November 1840. The British government was told that the North Island had been ceded with “unanimous adherence” (which was not accurate) and while Hobson claimed the South Island by discovery based on the “uncivilised state of the natives”, in actuality he had no basis to make such a claim. In reality, Hobson issued the proclamation because he felt it was forced on him by settlers from the New Zealand Company who had attempted to form an independent settlement government at Port Nicholson and claimed legality from local chiefs. Hobson also failed to report to the British government that the Māori text of the Treaty was substantially different from the English one (which he might not have known at the time) and also reported that both texts had received 512 signatures, where in truth the majority of signatures had been on the Māori copies that had been sent around the country, rather than on the single English copy. Basing their decision on this information, on 2 October 1840, the Colonial Office approved Hobson’s proclamation. They did not have second thoughts when later reports revealed more detail about the inadequacies of the Treaty negotiations, and they did not take issue with the fact that large areas of the North Island had not signed. The government had never asked for Hobson to obtain unanimous agreement from the indigenous people.

In 1841, Treaty documents, housed in an iron box, narrowly escaped damage when the government offices at Official Bay in Auckland were destroyed by fire. They disappeared from sight until 1865 when a Native Department officer worked on them in Wellington at the request of parliament and produced an erroneous list of signatories. The papers were fastened together and then deposited in a safe in the Colonial Secretary’s office.

In 1877, the English-language rough draft of the Treaty was published along with photolithographic facsimiles, and the originals were returned to storage. In 1908, historian and bibliographer Dr Thomas Hocken, searching for historical documents, found the Treaty papers in poor condition, damaged at the edges by water and partly eaten by rodents. The papers were restored by the Dominion Museum in 1913 and kept in special boxes from then on. In February 1940, the Treaty documents were taken to Waitangi for display in the Treaty House during the Centenary celebrations. It was possibly the first time the Treaty document had been on public display since it was signed. After the outbreak of war with Japan, they were placed with other state documents in an outsize luggage trunk and deposited for secure custody with the Public Trustee at Palmerston North by the local MP, who did not tell staff what was in the case. However, as the case was too large to fit in the safe, the Treaty documents spent the war at the side of a back corridor in the Public Trust office.

In 1956, the Department of Internal Affairs placed the Treaty documents in the care of the Alexander Turnbull Library and they were displayed in 1961. Further preservation steps were taken in 1966, with improvements to the display conditions. From 1977 to 1980, the library extensively restored the documents before the Treaty was deposited in the Reserve Bank.

In anticipation of a decision to exhibit the document in 1990 (the sesquicentennial of the signing), full documentation and reproduction photography was carried out. Several years of planning culminated with the opening of the climate-controlled Constitution Room at the National Archives by Mike Moore, Prime Minister of New Zealand, in November 1990. It was announced in 2012 that the nine Treaty of Waitangi sheets would be relocated to the National Library of New Zealand in 2013.

HER MAJESTY VICTORIA Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland regarding with Her Royal Favor the Native Chiefs and Tribes of New Zealand and anxious to protect their just Rights and Property and to secure to them the enjoyment of Peace and Good Order has deemed it necessary in consequence of the great number of Her Majesty’s Subjects who have already settled in New Zealand and the rapid extension of Emigration both from Europe and Australia which is still in progress to constitute and appoint a functionary properly authorised to treat with the Aborigines of New Zealand for the recognition of Her Majesty’s Sovereign authority over the whole or any part of those islands – Her Majesty therefore being desirous to establish a settled form of Civil Government with a view to avert the evil consequences which must result from the absence of the necessary Laws and Institutions alike to the native population and to Her subjects has been graciously pleased to empower and to authorise me William Hobson a Captain in Her Majesty’s Royal Navy Consul and Lieutenant-Governor of such parts of New Zealand as may be or hereafter shall be ceded to her Majesty to invite the confederated and independent Chiefs of New Zealand to concur in the following Articles and Conditions.

Article the first:

The Chiefs of the Confederation of the United Tribes of New Zealand and the separate and independent Chiefs who have not become members of the Confederation cede to Her Majesty the Queen of England absolutely and without reservation all the rights and powers of Sovereignty which the said Confederation or Individual Chiefs respectively exercise or possess, or may be supposed to exercise or to possess over their respective Territories as the sole sovereigns thereof.

Article the second:

Her Majesty the Queen of England confirms and guarantees to the Chiefs and Tribes of New Zealand and to the respective families and individuals thereof the full exclusive and undisturbed possession of their Lands and Estates Forests Fisheries and other properties which they may collectively or individually possess so long as it is their wish and desire to retain the same in their possession; but the Chiefs of the United Tribes and the individual Chiefs yield to Her Majesty the exclusive right of Preemption over such lands as the proprietors thereof may be disposed to alienate at such prices as may be agreed upon between the respective Proprietors and persons appointed by Her Majesty to treat with them in that behalf.

Article the third:

In consideration thereof Her Majesty the Queen of England extends to the Natives of New Zealand Her royal protection and imparts to them all the Rights and Privileges of British Subjects.

(signed) William Hobson, Lieutenant-Governor.

The Treaty itself is short, consisting of a preamble and three articles.

The English text (from which the Māori text is translated) starts with the preamble and presents Queen Victoria “being desirous to establish a settled form of Civil Government”, and invites Māori chiefs to concur in the following articles. The first article of the English text grants the Queen of England “absolutely and without reservation all the rights and powers of Sovereignty” over New Zealand. The second article guarantees to the chiefs full “exclusive and undisturbed possession of their Lands and Estates Forests Fisheries and other properties.” It also specifies that Māori will sell land only to the Crown (Crown pre-emption). The third article guarantees to all Māori the same rights as all other British subjects.

KO WIKITORIA te Kuini o Ingarani i tana mahara atawai ki nga Rangatira me nga Hapu o Nu Tirani i tana hiahia hoki kia tohungia ki a ratou o ratou rangatiratanga me to ratou wenua, a kia mau tonu hoki te Rongo ki a ratou me te Atanoho hoki kua wakaaro ia he mea tika kia tukua mai tetahi Rangatira – hei kai wakarite ki nga Tangata maori o Nu Tirani – kia wakaaetia e nga Rangatira Maori te Kawanatanga o te Kuini ki nga wahikatoa o te wenua nei me nga motu – na te mea hoki he tokomaha ke nga tangata o tona Iwi Kua noho ki tenei wenua, a e haere mai nei.

Na ko te Kuini e hiahia ana kia wakaritea te Kawanatanga kia kaua ai nga kino e puta mai ki te tangata Maori ki te Pakeha e noho ture kore ana.

Na kua pai te Kuini kia tukua a hau a Wiremu Hopihona he Kapitana i te Roiara Nawi hei Kawana mo nga wahi katoa o Nu Tirani e tukua aianei amua atu ki te Kuini, e mea atu ana ia ki nga Rangatira o te wakaminenga o nga hapu o Nu Tirani me era Rangatira atu enei ture ka korerotia nei.

Ko te tuatahi (Article 1):

Ko nga Rangatira o te wakaminenga me nga Rangatira katoa hoki ki hai i uru ki taua wakaminenga ka tuku rawa atu ki te Kuini o Ingarani ake tonu atu – te Kawanatanga katoa o o ratou wenua.

Ko te tuarua (Article 2):

Ko te Kuini o Ingarani ka wakarite ka wakaae ki nga Rangitira ki nga hapu – ki nga tangata katoa o Nu Tirani te tino rangatiratanga o o ratou wenua o ratou kainga me o ratou taonga katoa. Otiia ko nga Rangatira o te wakaminenga me nga Rangatira katoa atu ka tuku ki te Kuini te hokonga o era wahi wenua e pai ai te tangata nona te Wenua – ki te ritenga o te utu e wakaritea ai e ratou ko te kai hoko e meatia nei e te Kuini hei kai hoko mona.

Ko te tuatoru (Article 3):

Hei wakaritenga mai hoki tenei mo te wakaaetanga ki te Kawanatanga o te Kuini – Ka tiakina e te Kuini o Ingarani nga tangata maori katoa o Nu Tirani ka tukua ki a ratou nga tikanga katoa rite tahi ki ana mea ki nga tangata o Ingarani.

(signed) William Hobson, Consul and Lieutenant-Governor.

Na ko matou ko nga Rangatira o te Wakaminenga o nga hapu o Nu Tirani ka huihui nei ki Waitangi ko matou hoki ko nga Rangatira o Nu Tirani ka kite nei i te ritenga o enei kupu, ka tangohia ka wakaaetia katoatia e matou, koia ka tohungia ai o matou ingoa o matou tohu.

The Māori text has the same overall structure, with a preamble and three articles. The first article indicates that the Māori chiefs “give absolutely to the Queen of England for ever the complete government over their land” (according to a modern translation by Hugh Kāwharu). With no adequate word available to substitute for ‘sovereignty’, as it was not a concept in Māori society at the time, the translators instead used kāwanatanga (governorship or government). The second article guarantees all Māori “chieftainship over their lands, villages and all their treasures” (translated), with ‘treasures’ here translating from taonga to mean more than just physical possessions (as in the English text), but also other elements of cultural heritage. The second article also says: “Chiefs will sell land to the Queen at a price agreed to by the person owning it and by the person buying it (the latter being) appointed by the Queen as her purchase agent” (translated), which does not accurately convey the pre-emption clause of the English text. The third article gives Māori the “same rights and duties of citizenship as the people of England” (translated); roughly the same as the English text.

The English and Māori texts differ. As a translation of the document originally penned in English, the Māori text generally fails to convey the meaning of the English text.

The differences between the two texts have made it difficult to interpret the Treaty and continues to undermine its effect. The most critical difference between the texts revolves around the interpretation of three Māori words: kāwanatanga (governorship), which is ceded to the Queen in the first article; rangatiratanga (chieftainship) not mana (leadership) (which was stated in the Declaration of Independence just five years before the Treaty was signed), which is retained by the chiefs in the second; and taonga (property or valued possessions), which the chiefs are guaranteed ownership and control of, also in the second article. Few Māori involved with The Treaty negotiations understood the concepts of sovereignty or “governorship”, as they were used by 19th-century Europeans, and lawyer Moana Jackson has stated that “ceding mana or sovereignty in a treaty was legally and culturally incomprehensible in Māori terms”.

Furthermore, kāwanatanga is a loan translation from ‘governorship’ and was not part of the Māori language. The term had been used by Henry Williams in his translation of the Declaration of the Independence of New Zealand which was signed by 35 northern Māori chiefs at Waitangi on 28 October 1835. The Declaration of Independence of New Zealand had stated “Ko te Kīngitanga ko te mana i te w[h]enua” to describe “all sovereign power and authority in the land”. There is considerable debate about what would have been a more appropriate term. Some scholars, notably Ruth Ross, argue that mana (prestige, authority) would have more accurately conveyed the transfer of sovereignty. However, it has more recently been argued by others, including Judith Binney, that mana would not have been appropriate. This is because mana is not the same thing as sovereignty, and also because no-one can give up their mana.

The English-language text recognises Māori rights to “properties”, which seems to imply physical and perhaps intellectual property. The Māori text, on the other hand, mentions “taonga”, meaning “treasures” or “precious things”. In Māori usage the term applies much more broadly than the English concept of legal property, and since the 1980s courts have found that the term can encompass intangible things such as language and culture. Even where physical property such as land is concerned, differing cultural understandings as to what types of land are able to be privately owned have caused problems, as for example in the foreshore and seabed controversy of 2003–04.

The pre-emption clause is generally not well translated. While pre-emption was present in the Treaty from the very first draft, it was translated to hokonga, a word which simply meant ‘to buy, sell, or trade’. Many Māori apparently believed that they were simply giving the British Queen first offer on land, after which they could sell it to anyone. Another, less important, difference is that Ingarani, meaning England alone, is used throughout in the Māori text, whereas “the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland” is used in the first paragraph of the English.

Based on these differences, some Māori academics argue that the two versions of the Treaty are distinctly different documents they refer to as “Te Tiriti o Waitangi” and “The Treaty of Waitangi”, and that the Māori text should take precedence, because it was the one that was signed at Waitangi and by the most signatories. The Waitangi Tribunal, tasked with deciding issues raised by the differences between the two texts, also gives additional weight to the Māori text in its interpretations of the Treaty.

The entire issue is further complicated by the fact that, at the time, Māori society was an oral rather than literate one. Māori present at the signing of the Treaty would have placed more value and reliance on what Hobson and the missionaries said, rather than the words of the actual Treaty. At the time of the signing by over 600 “chiefs” only 12 could sign their own name and most of these had a very shaky, uncertain style indicating inexperience with writing. The rest put an X or drew part of their moko (personal facial tattoo).

Māori beliefs and attitudes towards ownership and use of land were different from those prevailing in Britain and Europe. The chiefs would traditionally grant permission for the land to be used for a time for a particular purpose. A northern chief, Nōpera Panakareao, also early on summarised his understanding of the Treaty as “Ko te atarau o te whenua i riro i a te kuini, ko te tinana o te whenua i waiho ki ngā Māori” (The shadow of the land will go to the Queen [of England], but the substance of the land will remain with us). Nopera later reversed his earlier statement – feeling that the substance of the land had indeed gone to the Queen; only the shadow remained for the Māori.

In November 1840 a royal charter was signed by Queen Victoria, establishing New Zealand as a Crown colony separate from New South Wales from May 1841.

The short-term effect of the Treaty was to prevent the sale of Māori land to anyone other than the Crown. This was intended to protect Māori from the kinds of shady land purchases which had alienated indigenous peoples in other parts of the world from their land with minimal compensation. However, before the Treaty had been finalised the New Zealand Company had made several hasty land deals and shipped settlers from Great Britain to New Zealand, hoping the British would be forced to accept its land claims as a fait accompli, in which it was largely successful.

In part the Treaty was an attempt to establish a system of property rights for land with the Crown controlling and overseeing land sale to prevent abuse. Initially this worked well with the Governor and his representatives having the sole right to buy and sell land from the Māori. Māori were eager to sell land, and settlers eager to buy.

The Crown was supposed to mediate the process to ensure that the true owners were properly identified (difficult for tribally owned land) and fairly compensated, by the standards of the time. In particular, the Governor had the responsibility to protect Māori interests. Still, Hobson, as Governor of New Zealand, and his successor Robert FitzRoy both took seriously their duty as protectors of Māori from unscrupulous settlers, working actively to prevent shady land deals. Hobson created a group of ‘Protectors of the Aborigines’; officials specifically appointed to verify owners, land boundaries, and sales. Lack of funds often prevented land deals at this time, which created discontent among those who were willing but unable to sell. Combined with a growing awareness of the profit margins that the government was receiving by reselling the land at a profit, there was growing discontent among Māori with the pre-emption clause. At this time Māori and others argued that the government’s abuse of the pre-emption clause was incompatible with article three of the Treaty which guaranteed Māori equal rights to those of British subjects. FitzRoy was sympathetic to their pleas and decided to waive the pre-emption clause in 1844, allowing land sales directly to individuals.

FitzRoy’s successor George Grey was appointed Governor in 1845. He viewed the ‘Protectors’ as an impediment to land acquisition and replaced them with new officials whose goals were not to protect Māori interests, but rather to purchase as much land as possible. Grey restored pre-emption by passing the Native Land Purchase Act in 1846, which contemporary writers viewed as a “first step towards a negation of the Treaty of Waitangi”. This ordinance also tightened government control of Māori lands, prohibiting Māori from leasing their land and restricting the felling of timber and harvesting of flax. A high court case in 1847 (R v Symonds) upheld the Crown’s right to pre-emption, and allowed Grey to renegotiate deals made under Fitzroy’s waiving of the pre-emption clause. Governor Grey set out to buy large tracts of Māori land in advance of settlement at low prices, later selling it to settlers at higher prices and using the difference to develop land access (roads and bridges). Donald McLean acted as Grey’s intermediary and negotiator, and as early as 1840 was aware that Māori had no concept of the sale of land in British sense. Soon Māori became disillusioned and less willing to sell, while the Crown came under increasing pressure from settlers wishing to buy. Consequently, government land agents were involved in a number of dubious land purchases, agreements were sometimes negotiated with only one owner of tribally owned land and in some cases land was purchased from the wrong people altogether. The whole of the South Island was purchased by 1860 in several large deals, and while many of the sales included provisions of 10 percent of the land set aside for native inhabitants, these land area amounts were not honoured or were later transmuted to much smaller numbers. In some cases Grey or his associates bullied the owners into selling by threatening to drive them out with troops or employ rival chiefs to do so.

The growing discontent over sovereignty of the country led to several minor skirmishes and disputes through the 1840s, in which the government cracked down on dissidents. The Māori King Movement (Kīngitanga) began in the 1850s partly as a means of focusing Māori power in a manner which would allow them to negotiate with the Governor and Queen on equal footing. Chiefs justified the King’s role by the Treaty’s guarantee of rangatiratanga (chieftainship). Tensions continued to escalate in the early 1860s, when the government used the Maori King movement as an excuse to invade lands in the eastern parts of the North Island, culminating in the Crown’s confiscation of large parts of the Waikato and Taranaki from the Māori there. The armed conflicts eventually became known as the New Zealand Wars. The Treaty was used to justify the idea that the chiefs of Waikato and Taranaki were rebels against the Crown.

In July 1860, during the conflicts, Governor Thomas Gore Browne convened a group of some 200 Māori (including over 100 Chiefs) to discuss the Treaty and land at Kohimarama, Auckland. This became known as the Kohimarama Conference, and was an attempt to prevent the spread of fighting to other regions of New Zealand. Those at the conference reaffirmed the Treaty and the Queen’s sovereignty, and suggested that a native council be established, but this did not occur.

The Native Land Court (later renamed the Māori Land Court) was established under the Native Land Court Act of 1862, which also finally abolished the Crown right to pre-emption. It was through this court that much Māori land was alienated, and the way in which it functioned is much criticised today. A single member of a tribal group could claim ownership of communal tribal land, which would trigger a court battle in which other tribal members were forced to participate in, or else lose out. The accumulation of court fees, lawyers fees, survey costs, and the cost of travelling to attend court proceedings resulted in mounting debts that could only be paid by the eventual sale of the land. In effect, Māori were safe from the court only until a single tribal member broke ranks and triggered a case, which would invariably result in sale of the land. By the end of the century, nearly all of the highest quality Māori land had been sold, with only two million hectares remaining in Māori possession.

Although the Treaty had never been incorporated into New Zealand municipal law, its provisions were first incorporated into legislation as early as the Land Claims Ordinance 1841 and the Native Rights Act 1865. However, in the 1877 Wi Parata v Bishop of Wellington judgement, Judge Prendergast argued that the Treaty was a ‘simple nullity’ in terms of transferring sovereignty from Māori to the United Kingdom. This remained the legal orthodoxy until at least the 1970s. Māori have since argued that Prendergast’s decision, as well as laws later based on it were a politically convenient and deliberate ploy to legitimise the seizure of Māori land and other resources.

Despite this, Māori frequently used the Treaty to argue for a range of demands, including greater independence and return of confiscated and unfairly purchased land. This was especially the case from the mid-19th century, when they lost numerical superiority and generally lost control of most of the country and had little representation in government or the councils where decisions that impacted their affairs were made. Simultaneously, Māori rights over fisheries (guaranteed in article 2 of the Treaty) were similarly degraded by laws passed in the late 19th century.

Over the longer term, the land purchase aspect of the Treaty declined in importance, while the clauses of the Treaty which deal with sovereignty and Māori rights took on greater importance. In 1938, the judgement of the case Te Heuheu Tukino v Aotea District Maori Land Board considered the Treaty as valid in terms of the transfer of sovereignty, but the judge ruled that as it was not part of New Zealand law it was not binding on the Crown.

The Treaty returned to the public eye after the Treaty House and grounds were purchased by the Governor-General, Viscount Bledisloe, in the early 1930s and donated to the nation. The dedication of the site as a national reserve in 1934 was probably the first major event held there since the 1840s. The profile of the Treaty was further raised by the centenary of 1940. For most of the twentieth century, text books, government publicity and many historians touted the Treaty as the moral foundation of colonisation and argued that it set race relations in New Zealand above those of colonies in North America, Africa and Australia. There was some popular acceptance of the idea that the Treaty transferred sovereignty since the early twentieth century. Popular histories of New Zealand and the Treaty often claimed that the Treaty was an example of British benevolence and therefore an honourable contract. However, even though Māori continued to challenge this narrative, its lack of legal significance in 1840 and subsequent breaches tended to be overlooked until the 1970s, when these issues were raised by the Māori protest movement.

The Waitangi Day Act of 1960 was a token gesture towards acknowledging the Treaty of Waitangi, and somewhat proceeded the Māori protest movement as a whole. It established Waitangi Day, although it did not make it a public holiday, and the English text of the Treaty appeared as a schedule of the Waitangi Day Act but this did not make it a part of statute law. Subsequent amendments to the Act, as well as other legislation, eventually acquiesced to campaigns to make Waitangi Day a national holiday in 1976.

During the late 1960s and 1970s, the Treaty of Waitangi became the focus of a strong Māori protest movement which rallied around calls for the government to “honour the treaty” and to “redress treaty grievances.” Maori boycotted Waitangi Day in 1968 over the Māori Affairs Amendment Act (which was perceived as a further land grab) and Māori expressed their frustration about continuing violations of the treaty and subsequent legislation by government officials, as well as inequitable legislation and unsympathetic decisions by the Māori Land Court continuing alienation of Māori land from its owners. The protest movement can be seen as part of the worldwide civil rights movement, which emerged in the 1960s.

As a response to the protest movement, the Treaty finally received limited recognition in 1975 with the passage of the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975, which established the Waitangi Tribunal, but this initially had very limited powers to make findings of facts and recommendations only. The Act was amended in 1985 to enable it to investigate Treaty breaches back to 1840, and also to increase the Tribunal membership. The membership was further increased in another amendment in 1988.

The Treaty was incorporated in a limited way into New Zealand law by the State Owned Enterprises Act 1986. Section 9 of the act said “Nothing in this Act shall permit the Crown to act in a manner that is inconsistent with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi”. The government had proposed a transfer of assets from former Government departments to state-owned enterprises, but because the state-owned enterprises were essentially private firms owned by the government, there was an argument that they would prevent assets which had been given by Māori for use by the state from being returned to Māori by the Waitangi Tribunal and through Treaty settlements. The Act was challenged in court in 1987, and the judgement of New Zealand Maori Council v Attorney-General defined the “Principles of the Treaty” and the proposed sale of government assets was found to be in breach of this proviso. This allowed the courts to consider the Crown’s actions in terms of compliance with the Treaty and established the principle that if the Treaty is mentioned in strong terms in a piece of legislation, it takes precedence over other parts of that legislation should they come into conflict. The “Principles of the Treaty” became a common topic in contemporary New Zealand politics, and in 1989, the Fourth Labour Government responded by adopting the “Principles for Crown Action on the Treaty of Waitangi” a similar list of principles to that established in the 1987 court case.

Legislation after the State Owned Enterprises case has followed suit in giving the Treaty an increased legal importance. In New Zealand Maori Council v Attorney General (1990) the case concerned FM radio frequencies and found that the Treaty could be relevant even concerning legislation which did not mention it and that even if references to the Treaty were removed from legislation, the Treaty may still be legally relevant. Examples include the ownership of the radio spectrum and the protection of the Māori language.

Some have argued that the Treaty should be further incorporated as a part of the New Zealand constitution, to help improve relations between the Crown, Māori and other New Zealanders. The Fourth Labour Government’s Bill of Rights White Paper proposed that the Treaty be entrenched in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. However, this proposal was never carried through to the legislation, with the attitude of many Māori towards it “suspicious, uneasy, doubtful or undecided.” Many Māori were concerned that the proposal would relegate the Treaty to a lesser position, and enable the electorate (who under the original Bill of Rights would be able to repeal certain sections by referendum) to remove the Treaty from the Bill of Rights altogether. Geoffrey Palmer commented in 2013 that:

We were obliged, due to Māori opposition, to drop the Treaty from the Bill of Rights. That was a great pity and it is a step that I advocate be taken still in the context of having a superior law Bill of Rights.

During the 1990s there was broad agreement between major political parties that the settlement of historical claims was appropriate. Some disagreed however, and claims of a “Treaty of Waitangi Grievance Industry”, which profits from making frivolous claims of violations of the Treaty of Waitangi, were made by a number of political figures in the late 1990s and early 2000s, including former National Party leader Don Brash in his 2004 “Orewa Speech”. The “Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Deletion Bill” was introduced in the New Zealand Parliament in 2005 as a private member’s bill by New Zealand First MP Doug Woolerton. Winston Peters, the 13th (and current) Deputy Prime Minister of New Zealand, and others supported the bill, which was designed to remove vague references to the Treaty from New Zealand law. The bill failed to pass its second reading in November 2007.

In terms of public opinion, a study in 2008 found that among the 2,700 voting age New Zealanders surveyed, 37.4% wanted the Treaty removed from New Zealand law, 19.7% were neutral, and 36.8% wanted the Treaty kept in law; additionally, 39.7% agreed Māori deserved compensation, 15.7% were neutral, and 41.2% disagreed.

While the Treaty is still today not specifically part of New Zealand domestic law, it is nevertheless regarded as the founding document of New Zealand.

During the early 1990s, the government began to negotiate settlements of historical (pre-1992) claims. As of September 2008, there were 23 such settlements of various sizes, totalling approximately $950 million. Settlements generally include financial redress, a formal Crown apology for breaches of the Treaty, and recognition of the group’s cultural associations with various sites. The tribunal has, in some cases, established that the claimants had not given up sovereignty, and there are ongoing discussions with regards to the applicability of land seized in conflicts and obtained through Crown pre-emption. However, the Tribunal’s findings do not establish that the Crown does not have sovereignty today, since the Crown has de facto sovereignty in New Zealand regardless and the Tribunal has no authority to rule otherwise. Treaty Settlements minister Chris Finlayson emphasised that: “The Tribunal doesn’t reach any conclusion regarding the sovereignty the Crown exercises in New Zealand. Nor does it address the other events considered part of the Crown’s acquisition of sovereignty or how the Treaty relationship should operate today”. Recommendations of the Tribunal are not binding on the Crown, but have often been followed.

The anniversary of the signing of the Treaty – 6 February – is the New Zealand national day, Waitangi Day. The day was first commemorated in 1934, when the site of the original signing, Treaty House, was made a public reserve (along with its grounds). However, it was not until 1974 that the date was made a public holiday. Waitangi Day has been the focus of protest by Māori (as was particularly the case from the 1970s through to the 1990s), but today the day is often used as an opportunity to discuss the history and lasting effects of the Treaty. The anniversary is officially commemorated at the Treaty House at Waitangi, where it was first signed.

In 1940, New Zealand issued a 2​12d stamp recognising the centenary of the Treaty.

New Zealand Post issued a miniature sheet of two stamps in 1990 to commemorate the 150th anniversary of the signing of the Treaty.

Another miniature sheet was issued in 2015 to mark the 175th anniversary. The $2.50 sheet showed the figures of Tamati Waka Nene and William Hobson shaking hands.

Henry V. Graham

November 17th, 2018

Henry Vance Graham (May 7, 1916 – March 21, 1999) was a Army general who protected black activists during the Civil Rights Movement. He is most famous for asking Alabama Governor George Wallace to step aside and permit black students to register for classes at the University of Alabama in Tuscaloosa in 1963 during the “Stand in the Schoolhouse Door” incident.

In 1934, at the age of 18, Graham joined the National Guard, a reserve component of the United States Army, and served in Europe during World War II. In 1945, he attained the rank of Lt. Colonel and served in the Korean War in 1952. For his military services he received Bronze Star Medals and a Legion of Merit. He also served as Adjutant General for the State of Alabama from 1959 to 1961. In 1961, Graham was promoted to the rank of Brigadier General.

General Graham had several prominent roles in the American civil rights movement. In 1961, General Graham led the Alabama National Guard to protect the Freedom Riders from mob violence. On the evening of May 21, 1961, Freedom Riders and their supporters met at Ralph Abernathy’s First Baptist Church in Montgomery, Alabama to honor their struggle. Martin Luther King, Jr also flew in to offer support. As white mobs gathered outside the church and became increasingly agitated, the Kennedy Administration and Alabama Governor John Malcolm Patterson agreed to employ Alabama National Guard troops to surround the church for safety. At the request of King, General Graham entered the church to inform the crowd that they would have to wait until the next morning to leave the church. At dawn, Graham arranged for the members of the crowd to be escorted to their homes. Two days later, on May 24, Graham was responsible for escorting the Freedom Riders from the Montgomery bus terminal to the Alabama-Mississippi border using a convoy of three planes, two helicopters, and seventeen highway patrol cars.

In his most prominent role, on June 11, 1963, General Graham confronted Governor George Wallace at the University of Alabama for refusing to allow two black students, James Hood and Vivian Malone, to register for classes. Among a crowd of media, Governor Wallace obstructed the doorway of Foster Auditorium in an attempt to disregard federal law requiring the University to integrate. United States Deputy Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach had approached Wallace earlier in the day and requested his cooperation in standing aside. When Wallace refused, President Kennedy mobilized the Alabama National Guard and General Graham was called to the University. Graham approached Wallace with four sergeants, saluted Wallace and said “It is my sad duty to ask you to step aside under the orders of the President of the United States.” The episode is known as the “Stand in the Schoolhouse Door.”

From March 21 to 24, 1965, General Graham was responsible for escorting voting-rights marchers in their third attempt to walk during the Selma to Montgomery marches in Alabama. This occurred two weeks after marchers had been beaten and tear-gassed in front of news media for an earlier attempt to march in what became known as Bloody Sunday.

The episode is re-enacted in the 1994 film Forrest Gump which includes original footage of General Graham and Governor Wallace outside Foster Auditorium. In the 1997 TV movie George Wallace, Graham was portrayed by Jan Johannes.

General Graham died March 21, 1999. He and his wife, Jane, had four children. The commercial real estate firm he founded, Graham & Company, is managed by his two surviving sons.

Graham served in the National Guard from 1934 until his retirement in 1976 with the rank of Major General. He was called to active duty for federal service during World War II and the Korean War, with the following dates of rank.

Due to the service component intricacies of the National Guard versus federalized status, while a Major General in the National Guard, Graham was twice appointed as Brigadier General in the Army of the United States in order to perform federalized duties under the authority of the President of the United States. The first occurrence was on June 11, 1963, and again on September 13, 1963; both events were in connection with federalization due to civil rights tensions in Alabama.

On March 13, 1970, while still serving as a Major General and National Guard Adjutant General, Henry Graham accepted a “dual commission” as a Chief Warrant Officer in the National Guard, solely for the purposes of performing flight operations as pilot of a McDonnell F-101 Voodoo. This unusual administrative move was to enable General Graham, who did not hold the proper military occupational specialty to serve as a pilot, and to perform flight training and duties as a Warrant Officer. In theory, General Graham was technically resigned from his general officer’s commission each time he flew, was a Warrant Officer in the air, and then reinstated as a Major General when the flight mission concluded. In practice, however, General Graham maintained his rank and insignia at all times.

Mohamed Elneny

November 16th, 2018

† Kampe (mål).

Mohamed Naser Elsayed Elneny (født 11 juli, 1992) er en egyptisk fodboldspiller som spiller for den engelske klub Arsenal og det egyptiske landshold. Han deltog i De Olympiske Lege 2012 hvor han optrådte med det egyptiske u-23 landshold. For Egyptens A-landshold var han med ved VM 2018 i Rusland.

1 El-Hadary | 2 Gabr | 3 Elmohamady | 4 Gaber | 5 Morsy | 6 Hegazy | 7 Fathy | 8 Hamed | 9 Mohsen | 10 Salah | 11 Kahraba | 12 Ashraf | 13 Abdel-Shafy | 14 Sobhi | 15 Hamdy | 16 Ekramy | 17 Elneny | 18 Shikabala | 19 Said | 20 Samir | 21 Hassan | 22 Warda | 23 El Shenawy | Træner Cúper |

Stadion PMFC

November 16th, 2018

Stadion PMFC is a UEFA Category 1 football stadium in Pécs, Hungary. It is currently used for football matches and is the home stadium of Pécsi MFC. The stadium is able to hold 7,000 people and was opened in 1955. The stadium used to be referred to as “PMSC stadion” due to the old name of the local team, and sometimes referred to as “Újmecsekaljai stadion”, which is derived from the name of the district, where the stadium is located.

The history of the stadium, as well as the history of the football club is closely related to uranium mining in Pécs. Due to the mining of this mineral, a whole new district was built in the western edge of the city in order to provide accommodation to the miner, and their families. This new part of the city is called Uranium City (Uránváros in Hungarian), and along with the apartments, theaters, sport complexes and parks were built, too. The building of a new football stadium was also part of this program.

Coordinates:

Gianni Grana

November 3rd, 2018

Gianni Grana (San Nicandro Garganico, 1º luglio 1924 – Tor Lupara, 1º ottobre 2001) è stato uno scrittore italiano.

Nato il 1º luglio 1924 a Sannicandro Garganico (Fg), è vissuto nell’infanzia a Firenze, pochi anni a Chieti e a Venezia e per oltre mezzo secolo nell’area di Roma. Ha militato nell’Azione cattolica e nel partito fascista.

Laureato in Lettere nel 1948 e in filosofia nel 1950 all’Università di Roma, insegnante di lettere nelle scuole medie dal 1948 al 1951, dirigente statale nei Servizi editoriali e Informazioni della Presidenza del Consiglio (1951 – 73), è stato libero docente di letteratura italiana nell’Università di Roma dal 1963 fino al 1973.

Dimissionario da tutti gli uffici istituzionali e onorevolmente pre-pensionato, da allora si è ritirato a vivere, a studiare e a scrivere fuori dalla capitale, in una raccolta “villa A” a Torlupara di Mentana, per ritrovare identità “umana” tra animali e piante. Qui oltre a scrivere, come ha sempre fatto, ha composto immagini con cartoni e legni, metalli, vetri e altri materiali, teso alla necessità labile del dire e del fare per resistere significando.

È morto a Torlupara il 1º ottobre 2001, mentre stava lavorando al quarto volume della sua ultima opera.

Oltre a una grande quantità di articoli e saggi su riviste e giornali, ha pubblicato varie Lecturae Dantis edite dalla SEI e da Le Monnier. Sue monografie critiche, su Daniello Bartoli, Mazzini e la letteratura, Federico De Roberto, Giovanni Papini, Curzio Malaparte, Cesare Pavese, Adriano Tilgher critico, Mario Fubini, Emilio Villa, sono apparse nelle collane di letteratura italiana edite da Marzorati e dirette – con collaborazione di critici e storici della letteratura italiana – da Grana stesso: I Contemporanei (6 volumi, 1963-74); I Critici (5 volumi, 1969); Novecento (10 volumi, 1979; nuova edizione in 11 volumi, 1987,88).

Ha pubblicato i seguenti libri:

Hemileuca

November 3rd, 2018

Hemileuca er en slekt av sommerfugler som hører til familien påfuglspinnere (Saturniidae).

Middelsstore (vingespenn 50-90 millimeter), forholdsvis spinkle, bredvingede påfuglspinnere uten øyeflekker på vingene. Kroppen er kledt med nokså lange, litt uryddige hår. Vingene er kontrastrikt tegnet i svart, hvitt, gult, brunt eller oransje.

Som hos mange andre påfuglspinnere kan larvene leve på mange ulike busker og trær. Larvene lever gjerne selskapelig, i alle fall som unge. De kan legge ut på vandringer på en lang rekke, den ene bak den andre. Som andre påfuglspinnere har de voksne reduserte mundeler, og de tar ikke næring til seg. Noen flyr om natten, andre om dagen.

Larvene, til dels også de voksne sommerfuglene, er kledt med neslehår. Disse frigjør gift om man kommer i kontakt med dem og kan utløse hudirritasjon, av og til også mer alvorlige komplikasjoner. Hemileucinae er den sommerfugl-gruppen som forårsaker mest medisinske problemer i Mellom- og Sør-Amerika.

Slekten er utbredt i Nord-Amerika og Mexico.

Instruktionsuppsättning

November 3rd, 2018

En instruktionsuppsättning eller ISA (från engelskans Instruction Set Architecture) beskriver vilka tillgångar som finns tillgängliga för programmeringen av en processor. Bland annat beskrivs de instruktioner, register, adresseringslägen, minnesarkitektur och interrupthantering (avbrottshantering) som processorn stöder. Instruktionsuppsättningen definierar även processorns maskinkod, dvs hur instruktionerna blir uttryckta som sekvenser av binära ettor och nollor.

Instruktionsuppsättningar kan skilja sig mellan processorer inte bara på grund av vilka operationer som stöds, utan även hur hämtning och lagring av värden i arbetsminnet stöds (CISC vs RISC).

Två olika processorer kan ha samma instruktionsuppsättning även om de internt har helt olika mikroarkitekturer, se till exempel Intels Pentium- och AMD:s Athlon-processorer.

Även om det är teoretiskt möjligt att konstruera en processor som endast har en slags instruktion, har de flesta vanliga processorer instruktioner av ett flertal olika typer.

Aritmetikinstruktioner utför operationer på heltal. Bland operationerna räknas addition, subtraktion, logiska operationer som AND, OR, och XOR, aritmetisk och logisk skiftning, m.fl. Multiplikation och division förekommer ofta, men inte alltid eftersom dessa operation kan utföras av algoritmer som använder sig av enklare additions- och subtraktionsinstruktioner.

Flyttalsinstruktioner utför operationer på flyttal. Bland operationerna finns addition, subtraktion, multiplikation, division, stöd för konvertering mellan heltal och flyttal, samt ibland även mer avancerade operationer som kvadratrot, trigonometriska funktioner m.m.

Vissa RISC-arkitekturer kan endast hämta och lagra värden i arbetsminnet genom särskilda minnesinstruktioner (ofta kallade load och store).

Hoppinstruktioner tillåter programmet att ändra instruktionssekvensens normalt linjära förlopp genom att ändra värdet på instruktionspekaren. Greninstruktioner tillåter dessutom hopp som betingas av ett villkor (till exempel “utför hoppet endast om ett registervärde är lika med noll). Förgreningar/hopp kan bland annat ske vid If-satser, loopar, goto-satser och funktionsanrop. Hoppinstruktioner är avgörande för programmering; utan dem går det inte att skriva programslingor.

Anropsinstruktioner möjliggör abstraktion genom att tillåta anrop till subrutiner. Processorn lagrar en returadress (nästa instruktion) och börjar exekvera subrutinens instruktioner. När en returinstruktion påträffas återställs den lagrade returadressen, varpå processorn fortsätter exekvera sekventiellt. Särskilda systemanropsinstruktioner anropar operativsystemet å programmets vägnar för att utföra operativsystemspecifika funktioner som till exempel att läsa från datafiler eller visa text på bildskärmen.

Några av processorns instruktioner är endast avsedda att användas av operativsystemet; dessa systeminstruktioner är “skyddade” i det avseendet att om ett användarprogram försöker använda dem så avbryts programmet omedelbart av operativsystemet. Några processorarkitekturer (som Intel 8080 och x86) har speciella in- och utenhetsinstruktioner som används för att kommunicera med kringutrustning; dessa är skyddade i moderna operativsystem för att förhindra att flera program orsakar konflikter genom att försöka använda sig av samma kringenhet samtidigt.

Beroende på processorns arkitektur kan en typisk instruktion specificera 0 eller flera explicita adresser till de operander (argument) eller andra parametrar som används i operationen; här medräknas även adressen till den plats där resultatet lagras (i förekommande fall). Instruktionsuppsättningar kan kategoriseras alltefter hur många adresser instruktionerna använder som mest.

Operander kan vara av olika typer:

2016 fashion trends

MCM Rucksack | Kelme Outlet | maje dresses outlet| maje dresses for sale

kelme paul frank outlet new balance outlet bogner outlet le coq sportif outlet shopping online dresses grocery shopping online clothes shopping online