By: johngoodier1
22/04/2009
2:26 pm Yahoo! Profile:
johngoodier1 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
I am so over this damn debate about Moari/Pakeha
Its Ridiculous and considering we are the only nation where the Indigenous People are thriving AND contributing,
and we are all intergrated quite well,
BUT There is stll this division!!!!!!
I mean what ever happened to getting judged by the merits of our ability, rather than out inheriant physical features,
Come on, lets be an example to the world that we are NOT OUR HAIR! AND WE ARE NOT OUR SKIN BUT RATHER THE FREEDOM WITHIN!!! |
|
By: mozzarella68
22/04/2009
9:40 pm Yahoo! Profile:
mozzarella68 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Yeah, well I'm so over the constant Pakeha denial of NZ's history of injustice directed at Maori.
"I mean what ever happened to getting judged by the merits of our ability, rather than out inheriant physical features"
This is a classic example of denial. Tell me, what merits of ability are required to continue to profit from confiscated Maori lands?
If Maori were indeed "thriving" then the socio-economic indicators would tell us a different story.
Why is there so much emotional resistance toward the policies of reconciliation and settlement in general, and toward the Treaty in particular when both are designed to bring Maori and Pakeha together as equals?
Answer: Because people like you don't want justice. You want to keep the status quo but retain the benefits that that Treaty gave you i.e. the right to call yourself a New Zealander. |
|
By: jayjon89
22/04/2009
9:58 pm Yahoo! Profile:
jayjon89 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| mozzarella68 you keep repeating the same old rubbish about the evil whities,give it a rest,you are so boring ,we know about the very poor downtrodden maori and how you are suffering.BOORING !!!!!!!! |
|
By: nstoked
22/04/2009
10:04 pm Yahoo! Profile:
nstoked Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
I agree well said , I think it could have been far worse. Just imagine if it had been another country that settled NZ. Not the Brits, if that was the case I think this chat would not be taking place.
At least the country as a whole has recognised a contract ...albeit an old one and is trying to make up for lost time. Time to move on |
|
By: eaglekiwi_13
22/04/2009
10:16 pm Yahoo! Profile:
eaglekiwi_13 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Ok lets do this.
Have your muskets ,blankets , rats ( and other pests you bought from England ) and STD diseases back. Take them all back ,everything you exchanged for decieving Indigenous people ( including The USA and trade and warfare with the American Indians)
Take it all back and get off the damn land.
Ok if you want to negoiate some more , and can be trusted to not lie ( by omission) then you can pay rent and live peacefully under agreed new laws.
The laws wont be from Hawaii or England they will be written by New Zealanders and for New Zealanders ( and whomever decides to take out Citizenship and allegience ) to >>>>>>>>>>>>NEW ZEALAND<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< |
|
By: paerina
22/04/2009
11:09 pm Yahoo! Profile:
paerina Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
There is no separation between maori and pakeha..
just a coupla zenophobic pink and coco heads standing in a row... |
|
By: lonestarr2222
22/04/2009
11:17 pm Yahoo! Profile:
lonestarr2222 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| I am sick of the division everywhere too |
|
By: mozzarella68
22/04/2009
11:25 pm Yahoo! Profile:
mozzarella68 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
jayjon: Show me where I said Pakeha were evil in any post I've ever made.
At least I make an effort to argue my point with facts, and I present the same whenever possible. |
|
By: mozzarella68
22/04/2009
11:30 pm Yahoo! Profile:
mozzarella68 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
nstoked:"I think it could have been far worse. Just imagine if it had been another country that settled NZ. Not the Brits, if that was the case I think this chat would not be taking place."
Can you cite a case where the indiginous people are actually worse off across all of the socio-economic indicators as a result of colonisation by some imperial power other than Britian?
Colonisation isn't designed to benefit the colonised.
As I understnad it, people from French Polynesia can get French citizenship and the benefits thereof, all we get from the British is a 2 year working visa if you're lucky. |
|
By: dingerway
22/04/2009
11:39 pm Yahoo! Profile:
dingerway Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| mozza,you have educated us white folks with all of your wisdom about all things that whitie did to your forefathers,please,guy,wh en are you going to get the message that ranting daily about the same old,same old is not going to change anything at all,we know of the wrong doings of the past,move on,live a life,go forward,lots of wrong things have been done to me.I do not dwell on those.Life is short,go and kiss your loved ones,be kind to your neighbour. |
|
By: myobadmm
22/04/2009
11:51 pm Yahoo! Profile:
myobadmm Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Gidday Mozz ...
Yes ... Can you cite a case where the indiginous people are actually worse off across all of the socio-economic indicators as a result of colonisation by some imperial power other than Britian?
... Rwanda/Burundi ... the Colonisers (Belgians) decided that the locals be split into Tutsi and Hutu based on appearance, wealth and social status ... result ... civil war which has ripped the countries to pieces with genocide on both sides.
True ... As I understnad it, people from French Polynesia can get French citizenship and the benefits thereof, all we get from the British is a 2 year working visa if you're lucky.
... BUT ... French Polynesia is NOT independent ... still a colony of France and heavily subsidised by them. |
|
By: ress@xtra.co.nz
23/04/2009
12:24 am Yahoo! Profile:
ress@xtra.co.nz Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
I'm just thinkin what maori would be now if Brits didn't come and didn't do those "horrible" things? I'm afraid that NZ would resemble Cook Islands, Samoa, or something close to that. Maori would be still running around hills hunting the rest of survived birds or pirating like those mobs of somalian cost.
Let's face it. Not-colonised african or pacific nations are still far behind. Perhaps, maori could make some progress towards civilization, but certainly would not enjoy the same social benefits as they do now.
Saying "take it all back and get off the damn land" does not give you any credit. If suddenly it comes true...life standards here will certainly plunge. |
|
By: paerina
23/04/2009
12:39 am Yahoo! Profile:
paerina Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
would not enjoy the same social benefits as they do now.
interesting comment....
so this is much ado about nothing... |
|
By: elalamein@xtra.co.nz
23/04/2009
2:43 am Yahoo! Profile:
elalamein@xtra.co.nz Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
ress
Maori would still have their land, autonomy, no whites, or prisons and beneficiaries.
Civilization according to whom YOUR lot? |
|
By: elalamein@xtra.co.nz
23/04/2009
3:04 am Yahoo! Profile:
elalamein@xtra.co.nz Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
nstoked
The ToW treaty/contract is akin to another old one The Magna Carta [1215]which redefined the limits of royal power a seminal constitutional practices. This became the basis for all currents laws in ALL the British colonies.
Your thread is quite narrowly defined as what ifs? Ill add to the, what ifs New Zealand or [sea land] could have been French, Dutch, Asian, German.
The Brits on learning about these other countries interests scrambled to formulate the ToW hence the haste and why so many copies were made at the time.... yes there were also other reasons but that was the main one.
I dont mind the separation, it aught to be a celebration of the two groups diversity each has something to offer. |
|
By: elalamein@xtra.co.nz
23/04/2009
3:09 am Yahoo! Profile:
elalamein@xtra.co.nz Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
mozzarella.
Arohamai mo to whaakaro. He tuturu Maori koe. Engari mohitia tenei korero ..... "Father forgive them they know not what they do" Nga tauiwi, tino kino to ratou korero mo to korero nei. |
|
By: mozzarella68
23/04/2009
3:30 am Yahoo! Profile:
mozzarella68 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
myobadmm: Thanks for your response. Iâm not used to getting many that go beyond the usual insults we normally get on these MBs.
You make a good point with Rwanda. I didn't consider Africa because when justification of British colonialisation of NZ is made, the alternatives cited are usually French or American, so I was thinking about settler colonies of NZ, Australia, Canada and the US.
I donât know much about the African colonial experience. My interests are primarily settler colonialism in NZ but also Australia and North America. As I understand it, the industrial colonisation model used in Africa doesnât compare well to NZ because the primary motivation was resource exploitation for European consumption. White settlement was largely a secondary concern in as much as it served a its primary purpose. NZ on the other hand was colonised with the intention of settlement.
Also, African colonies of the industrial period typically suffered from a lack of modernisation (why bother to modernise a place you donât plan to settle significantly?) during this time and much destabilization in the years since, so the NZ/Africa comparison differs here too.
Ultimately, the question of who is or was âworse offâ in this case is academic and serves one purpose i.e. to help justify colonisation regardless of whether it's in Africa or NZ. |
|
By: rchamf27
23/04/2009
7:57 am Yahoo! Profile:
rchamf27 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| Good luck to you (post starter). It's never going to happen. I'm over it and am not going to waste any more of my precious time trying to use logic with the racist Maori on here. |
|
By: mudge_rowe
23/04/2009
8:21 am Yahoo! Profile:
mudge_rowe Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| maori were a stone age people if white people didn't come here maori would still be stone age |
|
By: datagarble
23/04/2009
8:26 am Yahoo! Profile:
datagarble Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| Wood age more like it. |
|
By: mozzarella68
23/04/2009
9:42 am Yahoo! Profile:
mozzarella68 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
mudge_rowe: "maori were a stone age people if white people didn't come here maori would still be stone age"
Here is another example of colonial justification, except this is (typically of mudge) racist in nature. I agree that Pakeha brought technology with them mudge, but the reason I disagre with your unreasoned statement is because you obviously assume that the only way to aquire technology is to invent it.
Did you invent the car you drive or the PC you used to post your racist comment? I doubt it. One of the main conduits of technology is trade, and Maori were already engaged in commercial ventures before the British showed colonial interest in NZ.
Maori owned trading ships; owned flour mills; brought innovations such as wheat cultivation and commercial dairy farming, which were first established in New Zealand by northern chiefs; traded in flax; transported cargoes of flax, pigs, wheat and other produce within NZ as well as New South Wales.
Maori were sought after as trading partners and middle men for the sale of pigs and potatoes for western seafarers.
1831 was the peak year for the flax trade, 1182 tons
being exported to Sydney, 800 of which had been contracted by the British Navy.
By 1833, timber had replaced flax as the Maoriâs
greatest export earner.
In 1830, 28 ships averaging 110 tons made 56 voyages between Sydney and New Zealand carrying Maori grown potatoes and milled grain.
Maori were also contracting American ships for the export of sealskins for the Chinese market, and foreign vessels from France, Tahiti, Brazil, Portugal, the Netherlands, New South Wales, and Tasmania sought Maori for spars destined for foreign markets.
The point is, given that Maori were able to not just trade, but engage in successful commercial ventues that could produce a surplus, it isn't unreasonable to suggest that Pakeha did not "give" anything to Maori that they couldn't get elsewhere, including technology. |
|
By: atonspark
23/04/2009
9:46 am Yahoo! Profile:
atonspark Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
The Tribes also wrote letters to England pleading for the Crown to send ships, men and armaments to protect them from the marauders of the time.
. |
|
By: xavarian1
23/04/2009
9:52 am Yahoo! Profile:
xavarian1 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
mozzarella
While you are about it, perhaps you would like to consider what was called "French Indo-China". The French dealt with unrest there after the War by using a mobile guillotine on the back of a truck. Look at this blood soaked monster and the pile of heads beside it, and think about what you have been saying. |
|
By: mozzarella68
23/04/2009
10:01 am Yahoo! Profile:
mozzarella68 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
atonspark: Some historians view the "need" as percieved or even manufactured in view of Britians increased intrest in NZ settlement. Maori had the military ability to deal with marauders, but the consequences were bad for business.
Also, the argument exists that the "protection" was actually a request for the British to manage their own in NZ.
The argument goes both ways. Britian could have become targets of imperial agression from other countries, in which case Maori co-operation would have been a valuable asset. |
|
By: mozzarella68
23/04/2009
10:04 am Yahoo! Profile:
mozzarella68 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
xavarian: I'm not excusing French agression or their colonial ambitions, the point is, Maori demonstrated the ability to create trade surplus using their own efforts which is something Pakeha always lay against Maori today.
All I am saying is that while the introduction of technology by the British is important, it is also exaggerated.
Maori could have aquired it elsewhere. |
|
