New Zealand election thread

[BlackCat]

Unles I'm wrong then this happend at least 200 years ago - it is pretty stupid to use todays viewpoints on what happend then.

[FrostyBoy]

Originally posted by Agathon


Plenty far. If they hadn't been conquered, infected and subjugated they would have made their own country or federation. They weren't idiots you know. They managed to pwn the British Army on numerous occasions (a rare occurrence for the 19th century).

Native peoples aren't the helpless, ignorant saps you like to paint them as.

I never said they were helpless, but you can't deny that they would not have gotten far if it were not for European technology, you can't seriously believe that the Maori would have progressed the people into the modern world by themselves do you? Name one recent tribal country that has done that.

That's ridiculous, they didn't give them the land. No-one has ever said that.

I said willing and not willing, because many were willing and many were not, but the English "took" it off them anyway. Why? Because the English wanted New Zealand to be one country, not a divided one; Is that not a good vision? Of course, much of the Maori people would not have understood the importance of that back then; but now most of them do.

Your "the British gave them the world" is typical white-supremacist balderdash.

The British did give them the world. So would the French or Dutch or Portuguese. Though the Spanish would probably have killed them off.

My point is, the British didn't kill the Maori off, the British wanted peace with them and the Maori were not as segregated as the Aboriginies or African Americans.

So, with the way the world was, the Maori have had it good, and they still do.

Now, a minority, but a large minority ( ) are unknowingly dividing New Zealand. I know they will fail, but still, their actions are unreasonable.

What do they want? All Pakeha's to go back to Europe?

[Flip McWho]

The Maori party effectively does yes.

The extremists what a separate Maori government, which has no feasabliity at all.

Heck one of their policies is to give superannuation to the Maoris starting at age 60 and to continue giving to all others at the normal age of 65. Why, because the Maori life expectancy is like 8 years lower than everyone else. Now hows that for a policy?

[Flip McWho]

Because the English wanted New Zealand to be one country, not a divided one; Is that not a good vision? Of course, much of the Maori people would not have understood the importance of that back then; but now most of them do.

Umm not true as far as i'm aware. The treaty gave the crown the right of pre-emption so they were able to set the buying price for the land give or take what the Maori wanted, thats all pretty fair and doesn't deserve to be disputed. The land that was taken unwillingly was mainly taken in the NZ land wars of the 1870s-80s and was confiscated of the tribes that didn't side with the Crown.

[FrostyBoy]

Well thats kind of what I was talking about.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Flip McWho
And your stuff is typical feel sorry for the natives balderdash. That can work both ways dude.

I don't feel sorry for them, I just want the law applied fairly.

[Az]

Never piss off a Maori Az. They're a tough bunch. Not as crazy tough as Fijians, but tough. Ask the British army, who received numerous hidings at Maori hands in the 19th C.

a)@ "never piss off an X".
b) if you think that they had any chance with the progress of technology, you're seriously deluded.
c)that's not even the point. They may have won - but would become another fine part of a collection of 3rd world countries.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Flip McWho
Also the dispute is over the meanings of the words. The argument goes that the Maori had no equivalent word for soveriegnty in the Maori language and that the word the poms did use didn't mean the exact same. They should used the kawangatanga which means chieftainship is one line of thought. The Maori didn't think they were giving up their chieftainship rights at all and thats where some of the issue is.

The translations don't really mean crap because isn't it according to the UN that the native peoples language is used.

Right, and how are we going to know what the native language version says without a translation into English, hmmm...?

The Maori Chiefs who signed the Treaty knew exactly what they were doing. For New Zealand to become a British Colony, Britain had to obtain the Maori's consent to Sovereignty over the whole land without force, and this was clearly communicated to the Chiefs in long discussions during the days leading up to the signing of the treaty. After each chief signed the Treaty, Hobson shook their hand and repeated, "He iwi tahi tatou - we are now one people". As Sir Apirana Ngata once said, "if you think these things are wrong, then blame your ancestors when they gave away their rights when they were strong".

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Agathon
Why doesn't the government give them back the land that was unfairly taken?

What land is that? Are you still banging on about forests and fisheries? No such thing was promised, as I have shown.

What makes you think that Maori people were incapable of having their own country?

At the time they were incapable because of tribal infighting. They were literally on the road to extinction.

In 1820 Ngapuhi chief Hongi made a trip to England to meet the King. On his way back to New Zealand he stopped off in Australia and traded all the gifts the King had given him for 300 muskets. Once he got back to New Zealand he initiated a ten year period of warfare and cannibalism on his "fellow countrymen", slaughtering thousands.

In 1832 James Busby was appointed as Resident to New Zealand. He was instructed to direct the Maoris towards a form of united Government or collective Maori Sovereignty to stop inter-tribal fighting and bring law and order to all the people of New Zealand.

In 1835 the Declaration of Independance was signed by 34 chiefs, but was abandoned because, as usual, inter-tribal tension and fighting took precedence over political cooperation. It became evident that the chiefs could never form a united working Government.

They certainly managed quite well adapting to the new technologies of the colonists, and they even had their own printing presses and newspapers.

Early in 1837, a serious outbreak of inter-tribal fighting began in many parts of New Zealand. Up until this time the Maoris had been cultivating their land and had built up large gardens, orchards and flax plantations but had exchanged most of the produce for muskets and powder. The temptation now was to abandon and neglect all this and settle old scores with their rival tribes once they had sufficient fire power. What they had achieved since the Europeans arrived was destroyed for ever by their own hand and the will to fight.

[Flip McWho]

Ummm a) translate it from Maori into English rather than the other way round which has always traditionally been the case.

b) The land being that which was confiscated, in the NZ land wars. Please don't deny any land was confiscated.

c) Road to extinction my ass.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Flip McWho
Ummm a) translate it from Maori into English rather than the other way round which has always traditionally been the case.

I've already provided you with two English translations of the Maori version.

b) The land being that which was confiscated, in the NZ land wars. Please don't deny any land was confiscated.

Of course there were land confiscations. This was a response to a small minority of Maori rebels. The wars were very costly and were not the direct fault of the Imperial or Colonial Government. The Governor had to confiscate land conquered from the tribes who started the wars to meet the costs and to show that there was now one law for all. Many innocent settlers lost their land and/or their lives by the "rebels" during these wars, yet their ancestors have never received compensation or a Government funded Tribunal to hear their grievances as have Maoris.

As Sir Apirana Ngata stated in his book, The treaty of Waitangi- An Explanation, "Some have said that these confiscations were wrong and that they contravene the articles of the Treaty of Waitangi, but the chiefs placed in the hands of the Queen of England, the Sovereignty and authority to make laws. Some sections of the Maori people violated that authority, war arose and blood was spilled. The law came into operation and the land was taken as payment. This in itself is Maori custom-revenge-plunder to avenge a wrong. It was their chiefs who ceded that right to the Queen. The confiscations can not therefore be objected to in the light of the Treaty."

c) Road to extinction my ass.

Gosh, that's an awfully convincing argument.

[Agathon]

Have to laugh at Cali. Either they were rebels, and therefore subjects, in which case the war was illegitimate. Or they weren't subjects, but a free people and ergo not rebels.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Agathon
Have to laugh at Cali. Either they were rebels, and therefore subjects, in which case the war was illegitimate. Or they weren't subjects, but a free people and ergo not rebels.

Have to laugh at you and your ignorance. They were a small minority of Maori who chose to rebel against the agreement they had made with the British crown. The British rightfully enforced their sovereignty over New Zealand.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Caligastia

Have to laugh at you and your ignorance. They were a small minority of Maori who chose to rebel against the agreement they had made with the British crown. The British rightfully enforced their sovereignty over New Zealand.

Not all the tribes signed the Treaty. I think Tainui was the most notable exception.

[Flip McWho]

Aye not all the tribes signed the treaty.

I'd like proof of not many tribes joined in.

The issue is over whether the soverignty off the british crown extended over the Maori. Thats where a lot of the argument is. The Maori didn't really understand the term sovereignty in the same way the poms did.

Also as Agathon said, not all tribes signed the treaty, what about their land confiscations? All's fair in love and war aye?


My argument was about as convincing as yours. The Maori were nowhere near extinction untill the Brits got here and gave them the ability to wipe each other out enmasse, aka muskets. Before that yes plenty of infighting, but nowhere near extinction. Hell I've tried some wonderful sh*t but I want whatever the hell you're smoking.