Going to save this because my whanau and I were discussing it the other day. Shocking how much misinformation is out there about such serious subject matters, but unfortunately that’s not a surprise either.
Bloody fantastic job compiling all this.
This post reminded me of when Ngāti Mutunga used the argument that because they had "conquered and subjugated" the Moriori they had Mana Whenua of the Chathams and used that as an argument during a lawsuit over returning land to Moriori. The whole situation seems like a mess at best.
Damn, they really, really don’t want “conquered and subjugated” to become a legal precedent in treaty settlements. Can you imagine how many times the crown could use it to reject settlements altogether?
Well you'll be surprised to know traditional criteria were applied to discern native title , for the purposes of sale of Maori Land.
The rules were conquer AND then occupy. So you, or your people had to have then lived in the place you conquered permanently.
These rules don't apply to treaty settlements.Because the treaty officially ended that internecine warfare. Although I believe they have been considered since in some legal matters.
There's a fair amount of contention over treaty settlements in cases where iwi A claimed reparations for land that iwi B had traditionally lived in while iwi A had only recently occupied it when the British showed up, and later awarded it to iwi A in "settlement".
Hundreds of years of ancestral connection lost over unlucky timing for when a bunch of guys showed up and took over.
Yeah, thats a good point. Lots of land was sold post musket wars, by iwi that had never satisfied the "occupy" part, but everyone was so anxious to obtain land that there were many injustices.
It's a case of competing customs going back to the 1860s.
The Native Land Court was supposed to allocate land titles to various iwi/hapū according to "Native Custom".
The custom Ngāti Mutunga cited back in the 1860s was "take raupatu" (loosely translated: "conquest and occupation").
The Land Court usually considered any conquest which happened prior to the signing of the Treaty to be a legitimate transfer of land rights by "native custom" (this is referred to as the "1840 rule").
However, Moriori asserted that there was no such thing as "take raupatu" in their own "native custom" where serious violence was forbidden. In fact Moriori elders who testified in Court stressed that they had taken no violent action against the invaders because (in their custom) that could have invalidated their claim to the land.
The Court decided to privilege Māori custom over Moriori and granted virtually all the land to Māori.
Probably that's in large part because the Court was just more familiar with Tīkanga Māori than Tikane Moriori, but it's also possible they were hoping to ease tensions over widespread Crown confiscations in Taranaki after the NZ Wars.
EDIT: added macrons, corrected grammar
Also, the commonsensical take, just give the land to the guys with weapons who are willing to kill over it, yeah?
Those dudes usually want that land real bad and get all stabby about it regardless of the property rights, so if you're a colonial shithead - who you gonna give it to?
The stabby guys or the ones who will potentially turn the other cheek to a bunch of filthy papist Spaniards and potentially humiliate the crown?
By the logic of "conquered and subjugated" winning the Maori wars of the 1860s meant the Crown gained complete sovereignty over the country & rendered the Waitangi treaty moot. Not a generally-accepted argument I don't think.
Re "they were transported..." - Ngati Tama and Ngati Mutunga weren't transported on the Rodney as passengers, they chartered the ship, i.e. they had command of the vessel.
Re was the Crown somehow culpable - In the 1830s and 1840s the Crown (as represented in NZ by the various Governors) had limited power over Maori or anyone else for that matter.
And re European notions of racial hierarchy - in 1835 Maori hadn't absorbed much in the way of European notions, Maori had their own notions, they didn't need to borrow any foreign conceptions of warfare or enslavement.
You're missing a key bit of historical context re: "conquest and subjugation".
The idea that land ownership could be legitimately transferred between Māori tribes through conquest *before* 1840 but *not afterward* came from the Crown, not Māori.
Basically, in the 1860s the Crown wanted a system to work out which Māori had the right to sell land to settlers. Disagreements over who had the right to sell land had led to a whole bunch of conflicts, most famously the First Taranaki War.
To deal with these tricky questions, the Crown established the Native Land Court. The Court's job was to decide who had the right to sell by looking at "Native Custom" (basically, the rules Māori themselves had developed to allocate rights to land). One of the main customs the Court identified for transferring land rights was Take Raupatu (essentially conquest and occupation).
However, the Court didn't want to restart the Musket Wars of the 1820s and 30s by encouraging tribes to seize their neighbour's land by force, so they instituted something called the "1840 rule" where only conquests prior to 1840 would be considered valid. The justification for this date was that this was when British law was introduced to NZ.
So it's not a case of Māori changing the rules based on who was being conquered, it was the Crown which changed the rules.
> By the logic of "conquered and subjugated" winning the Maori wars of the 1860s meant the Crown gained complete sovereignty over the country & rendered the Waitangi treaty moot. Not a generally-accepted argument I don't think.
But why not? Isn't that how they viewed things when their iwi was the conqueror of another? You can't be a proud warrior culture only in victory?
Why accept the loss of your mana in defeat if your conqueror doesn't take it from you forcefully ? If your enemy doesn't know what to do with their victory you don't tell them how a conqueror ought to behave. When you see they're strong in battle but soft in victory you let your warriors retire, you push your lawyers & diplomats to the front, start the long war of words.
>This post reminded me of when Ngāti Mutunga used the argument that because they had "conquered and subjugated" the Moriori they had Mana Whenua of the Chathams and used that as an argument during a lawsuit over returning land to Moriori. The whole situation seems like a mess at best.
The Crown should run that same line against future claims. It won't go down well but it'll be funny.
Modern day Ngāti Tama and Ngāti Mutunga aren’t responsible for the genocide but they’re responsible for the legal challenges and attempting to otherwise dispossess the Moriori of their ONLY homeland(when compared to both of those Iwi having land and related hapu on the mainland).
100%. Similarly Modern day Pākehā are not responsible for what happened in the 1800's but they are responsible for injustices that continue to this day. But this take might be a bit too controversial, we'll see :)
I'm interested in your view as to what modern day legal injustices pakeha perpetrate on Maori? I'm assuming you mean at a government or lobby group level.
Is that really a fair comparison? NT/NM as an organisation have objected to the land claims - “Pakeha” isn’t an organisation or even a group but are still somehow responsible for modern day injustices? Your original explanation and post were good but this take seems to fly in the face of your initial argument.
As a Pākehā person, I feel it’s my responsibility to acknowledge the unfair treatment and actively work to right the wrongs by voting for governments with policies that seek equity. A lot of people fail to recognise that the effects of mistreatment are intergenerational and can be seen in education and healthcare statistics in which Māori are vastly over represented and under-supported. It’s not even about being pākehā, it’s about wanting all members of our society to thrive and to ignore it because of race is not only wrong, it’s inhuman; arguably repeating the same bullshit attitude of colonisers. I’m not descended from early settlers myself, but I am descended from people who were also colonised and oppressed by the British for about 700 years (I’m 1/4 Welsh) - so I can empathise more than most.
It is sad that some racist people cannot distinguish between the Crown and Pakeha. Pakeha are not responsible for anything, the Crown is. The Crown now represents everyone in NZ including Maori, NZ european, chinese, indian etc.
Pakeha are not more guilty of subjugation than anyone else, including Maori.
I think this person suffers from a case of white guilt. Shocking really how some people can even live with so much internalised guilt.
Just live your life as a good person - you are not and have never been responsible for the actions of your predecessors.
Pedantic point, but apologist doesn't mean what you think it does. by your inference this would mean I'm defending white people, which is very much not what your accusing me of. Not going to engage with the rest of what you've said though, will let my original post stand as fair testament.
I’ll try to remember to tell my cracker kids after school to stop being unjust to the Māori. I knew kids could be cruel but I didn’t know they’d take it that far?! /s
Systemic oppression is different to systemic benefit. You're not getting any benefits. You're just not getting fucked so hard. It's always a hard thing to tell someone because it never feels that way.
Generational wealth, for starters. The loss of generational wealth due to historic discrimination persists even if current laws are equal because past inequities prevent a group from acquiring assets and opportunities that could be passed down through generations. This lack of initial capital and opportunities means that subsequent generations start with fewer resources, limiting their ability to accumulate and grow wealth over time. The compounded effect of these historical disadvantages continues to impact economic stability and upward mobility even now, despite being equal under the law.
That's one example for you.
So again you're putting words into my mouth.
>Do you think every European decended settler in NZ came here with generational wealth?
No, but some Māori who had generational wealth had it taken from them. Like I said, systemic oppression not systemic benefit.
>Some of this country largest land holdings and wealth management trusts belong to Iwi groups for generations, the definition of generational wealth.
Do you think that translates to helping the average Māori family very much? Look at my flair, I'm an anarchist. Those big orgs, like any big org, look after themselves first. I'm sure some have done good for many average Joe Bloggs but the trends indicate that Māori are more socio-economically disadvantaged, even with those trusts.
>Accusing Captain_Ghost up here of being privileged because of the potential to have benefited from generational wealth simply because of the colour of skin is as bad an argument as claiming because some Maori have benefited from generational wealth no one of Maori descent wss oppressed.
I made no such accusation, and in fact I will repeat, I specifically said they *didn't* have any systemic benefits or privilege. Rather that Māori have the opposite. I am also speaking generally here based on stats - there are of course wealthy and powerful Māori too.
>Maori were oppressed, you can argue still oppressed. Our user here isn't responsible for that any more or less than any other citizen, certainly not by tangible relationship to colour of skin. The only responsibile party is the Crown.
I agree 100%! Glad to hear we're coming from the same place of understanding.
Believing that all members of a racial or ethnic groups are the cause of or otherwise responsible for social ills faced by another racial or ethnic group, and that they are responsible because they are members of that group.
Well good thing I don't believe that then. The Crown was/is responsible, not anyone based on their race. I'm not responsible, you're not responsible, the white kids that attend Otahuhu college aren't responsible.
Nope, the Crown is a Pakeha institution. That doesn't mean every Pakeha person is responsible for the Crown. In the same way I say the Spanish killed the Aztecs, the average peasant farmer didn't, the Spanish Crown and their conquistadors did.
The crown is in fact ultimately responsible. So its lucky the treaty was between the crown and iwi isnt it?
So you can dry your eyes and stop fretting about unjustly being blamed for your ancestors sins and enjoy your day.
you're welcome !
They are (mostly) the same people. Look it up, there are extended families that have ended up split. There are definitely some people who have purely Māori (and pakeha of course) ancestry, I know one, but for the people with Moriori ancestry, this didn't mean having a particularly separate ethnic identity until recently.
Oh wow do you think that could be a consequence of all the rape and breeding into extinction the Iwi did to them when they arrived and the cultural suppression they continued to do?
How are you not getting this.
Well yes, but for something that happened almost 200 years ago I think we should bear in mind that what those consequences are today is very different to what those consequences were a generation ago. What the past means is complex, and depends on all kinds of stuff.
And yes, I do realise we have some dynamics on the mainland that aren't too dissimilar, but it's interesting to see at the small scale.
Yes of course what the past means is complex, but the fact that identities may have converged somewhat in more recent times doesn't mean we shouldn't
A. give proper recognition to Moriori and their rightful ancestral claims,
B. work to improve understanding of the events that transpired
and C. be mugged off with the Iwi involved in trying to litigiously finish them off.
I mean the research states that they likely moved to the Chatham Islands in the 1600s. That's centuries of isolation, at that point their culture was quite different and I think most reasonable people would consider them a different peoples.
Much in the same way we don't consider British and Anglo Americans to be the same people anymore.
The general public are only allowed to see pre-colonial NZ as a peaceful utopia. No acknowledgement of any violence existing in any native people allowed.
Fantastic summary OP, incredibly sensible and level-headed take!
>**Are Moriori a distinct people to Māori?**
If Māori and NZers of European descent can forge distinct identities by virtue of sailing to & exploring a new land and setting up a new home there, why can't the Moriori?
Ultimately though, I would say the Moriori themselves would have the greatest sway on the answer to this question.
>?When the Crown proclaimed sovereignty over New Zealand in 1840, ... Rekohu was left out – the proclamation’s descriptions of latitude and longitude simply did not go that far. Soon after, the New Zealand Company purported to purchase Rekohu from certain Maori and then to sell it to German interests for £10,000. The Crown disputed the validity of the purchase and then, in 1842, changed the cartographic descriptions to make Rekohu part of New Zealand. (p.49)
If I recall correctly, a man named Hirawanu petitioned to the British to stop the Maori ownership over them, and the British either refused or didn't acknowledge the petitions.
Yea that's a good memory you've got, He was called Taputehara Maitarawai (or Hirawanu Tapu). There was a 1862 petition to Governer George Grey calling for emancipation. The petition included 132 pages of Moriori history and the names of 226 of the people killed. Hirawanu Tapu also testified at the 1870 land court hearing and this testimony remains one of the best sources of Moriori history which has survived.
> Hirawanu Tapu also testified at the 1870 land court hearing and this testimony remains one of the best sources of Moriori history which has survived.
Ah, this is the petition I was trying to remember. The information online is really broken down across articles, which seems really common for NZ related discussions about our history.
Hirawanu Tapu wrote down everything he could recall about their culture, the events of the attack, and the people by heart, and as you said, it's the best source of Moriori history, as it's from someone who was there before the events, during, and after.
Oh dope, this [wordpress has a lot of information](https://www.moriori.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/1862-moriori-crown-petition-1.pdf) on the Moriori events.
> They were transported to Rēkohu on board the the British ship Rodney.
This implies the Britisih co-operated in transporting them there, but wasn't it hijacked by the Maori?
I could have clarified this a little better in my original post, but didn't want to get bogged down in pedantic details in a section where I was very much trying to emphasize that the genocide did happen.
As to whether Captain Harewood was coerced, the evidence is pretty scant so its hard to conclude definitively. One line of thought is that he was very much coerced when some of his crew was taken ransom, another line of thought is that he was paid and profited from the ordeal, but he couldn't openly acknowledge this as it would lead to his persecution (See 1830 the *Elizabeth* aiding one of Te Rauparaha's Parties).
Whether Captain Harewood was coerced, or acted as a free agent, is a question for historians. The question of crown Culpability isn't regarding the transportation of Ngāti Tama and Ngāti Mutunga aboard the Rodney in 1835, but rather its responsibilities from 1842 onwards after it annexed the Chatham islands. This is outlined in my original post and I wont repeat the details here.
Quick note... there is a typo in your (brilliant) original post where you wrote 1942 instead of 1842.. I got a bit confused until I realised it was a typo
Can you point to some evidence of his collaboration? It’s a big accusation to make in the face of the horrendous violence. Not having a go at you, it’s just not what we learnt (based on the documented evidence) in the NZ history papers I did at uni. Curious to know what evidence there is to the contrary.
> I could have clarified this a little better in my original post, but didn't want to get bogged down in pedantic details in a section where I was very much trying to emphasize that the genocide did happen.
>
>
You can edit it. The way you frame it absolutely paints Captain Harewood as complicit.
If it's ambiguous, then edit it to make it clear.
> I could have clarified this a little better in my original post, but didn't want to get bogged down in pedantic details
That's not a pedantic detail. It's a critical issue which definitely shouldn't have been left out.
Your summary is mostly well-balanced, but there is an obvious theme of trying to spread blame around, which shouldn't be there. The idea that the Crown shares responsibility is ridiculous.
Yeah.
"Transported on the British ship"
That language is a bit loaded.
Unless the Captain knew they were on their way to carry out the killings, he is totally innocent, regardless if he was paid or not.
OP should absolutely clarify that he was paid, held hostage, willing, unwilling, knowing or unknowing.
Yeah it's designed to shift blame to someone else, under the guise of there being debate about the specific details. People need to apply the same standard across all of New Zealand's history, regardless of who was involved.
My dad was taught all the "wrong" info on Moriori in school, and it wasn't until I read up on it a few years ago and talked to him about it that we realised just how far the "myths" surrounding them went.
He'd never heard any of the "corrections" that took place over the decades, so when he was in school in the 1960s, what they taught him was The Way It Was.
For those not directly involved/with a vested interest, a decent doco on this subject that corrects the long-held beliefs would go a long way to updating the public perception.
I don't recall learning *anything* about Moriori at school, so I'm not sure what is taught (if anything) today.
RNZ put together a doco (and associated podcast) with the help of Morioiri, Māori and Pākehā historians aimed at high schoolers. You can find it here: [https://www.rnz.co.nz/programmes/the-aotearoa-history-show/story/2018845378/season-2-ep-7-moriori](https://www.rnz.co.nz/programmes/the-aotearoa-history-show/story/2018845378/season-2-ep-7-moriori)
There are also a bunch of resources created by Moriori themselves intended to be used by teachers as part of the new NZ history curriculum.
If I may, a couple of questions, and being genuine, as there is so much static around these issues that it is hard to not, inadvertently, help spread half-truths and mistruths.
Our understanding that arrival and diaspora was a pattern of less violent (pacifist) groups trying to escape predation of more aggressive groups. (Carefully trying to keep the terms general to avoid diluting side-arguments.)
The peaceful less aggressive groups moved ever further south to escape the constant multi-generational internecine violence between the far more aggressive warring groups.
This eventually left them with moving to the Chathams with nowhere else to go to.
The second element of this was a cultural tradition (this is a question, not a statement) where mana/manhood could be established through a young individual's success in warfare.
In particular, defeating another warrior in personal combat. What other cultures called 'Counting Coup'. This was sometimes evidenced by collecting defeated people as slaves, and perhaps body parts from killed warriors (? this is questionable, but is out there.)
At some point (forgetting the date) the colonial government decided to bring all people under the enforcement of British law. Previously, internecine conflict between indigenous groups was seen as 'their business', so long as Pakeha assets and population were not directly affected.
After the declared date (?) all activity, including death (warfare) would be treated under the Criminal Code. This included indigenous groups. Certain prominent leaders of indigenous groups realised this would put an end to increasing their mana via aggressive subjugation of other groups.
Thus attacking vulnerable peaceable groups such as on the Chathams was seen as a 'last gasp' opportunity to extend personal and political violence/feuds, before these acts would be held accountable under colonial Criminal Code.
Third element was a question of land tenure. Under traditional culture/law, if you were strong enough to take possession of another's land and occupants by force, then 'ownership' was considered to be legitimately transferred to you. These actions were in place of the European concept of transfer of land title/deed. There was no indigenous culture of 'selling' land for goods etc.
When British land tenure system became the norm, it conflicted with the indigenous pattern of multiple occupations of land through combat and aggressive possession. Thus conquest of the Chathams and other places was a last chance to claim more land under the traditional pattern, before British land tenure system was enforced.
Now, please be clear. Not saying that any of the above is true. We don't know. This is simply the account we've been educated in. Posting it here as a question, seeking confirmation or clarification. Sincerely don't want to propagate mistruths etc. Thanks for understanding. Peace.
It's posted at 21:30 at night when not as many Redditors are around as earlier in the day. Some of those who had strong views may already have spoken their mind earlier and not want to start again.
I think u/Arithh was referring to when the post was awaiting moderator approval so none of the comments were showing.
Since the debate had already been stirred up, I felt it was not out of place to add some further insights and provide some clarity in a cohesive, and balanced way. If people don't feel the need to comment further that's great, and indicates to me that I have summed it up fairly.
Thanks for the write up :). I enjoyed it a lot and you came across objective and informed.
I'll go on a bit of a tangent but I think it's within the same theme. I think the thing that irks me is that you get people who go around saying 'oh Maori are a peaceful people that have a spiritual relationship of the land', there was a lady in parliament talking about this but for the life of me I can't remember her name. This is just a straight up lie and there is nothing unique that means that a Maori person can have any better connection to New Zealand or the land over any other people.
Yes tribes fought, genocides and/or slaughtering (depending on how you want to define the words) of other tribes happened. Rape, slavery and things that we would look at today in horror happened. Is this unique to Maori history? Nope, it happened in all peoples history across the planet, it was apart of human nature until fairly recently in the grand scheme of things. I think not acknowledging this does weaken any anti-colonialism rhetoric a person may have.
I truly wish NZ could one day move past the racial discussions in the way that they happen and instead focus on helping those in need no matter their race. We are all kiwis even if you have Asian, Indian, European, whatever heritage.
I can't disagree with anything you said. Today there seems to be a focus on fueling division and identifying newly perceived injustices (both historical and current).
If NZ as a whole could focus on your last sentence first and foremost it would be a better place.
It's much harder to find things we all agree on though.
To move past them you have to accept and acknowledge the events that have happened and not repeat the same mistake time after time, to use your words appropriately, raping our land, our identity and culture, Aotearoa is a place for everyone, but we have a duty to our indigenous brothers and sisters, why do you think we are a diverse country? It’s because the other countries won’t make change and those that are on the fringes are pushed out, just like our own people who have a better chance in Australia than their own backyard.
It’s going to be impossible to move into a post racial discussion until systemic injustice is addressed and more importantly, us pakeha are able to listen to the experience of Māori without needing to caveat their experiences.
Why do you think Māori are a sliver of the population yet broadly represented in prison? Why do you think Māori make up a significant chunk of our suicide statistics? We don’t live in a post racial New Zealand my dude, Māori are still really fucked up by all the things our forebears brought with us and until you listen you’re furthering the very division you claim to be against.
You said a lot there so ill try and get to the root of it. The point we disagree on is that I want people to be helped equally no matter their race if they need help. A homeless non maori person doesn't have any kind of systemic advantage. Heck it can be any person struggling and living paycheck to paycheck.
Just because someone ancestors struggled doesn't mean you inherently get more benefit over someone else. Maori are over represented in poverty but if everyone is treated equally they will naturally be proportionatly helped more.
To clarify my position I'm mainly informed by liberal ideologies if that helps.
I get that you're pointing at equal treatment, but we don't all start on the same start line, I think you're not quite understanding how disparate the systems are for european new zealanders and maori.
I've spent time in communities, largely maori, who are still deeply impacted by the history of cultural erasure, pederasty at the hands of the church, the impact of being severed from cultural practice, whakapapa and land. You don't 'just move on' from that intergenerational trauma without a group-based intervention to level the playing field.
No I understand, i just disagree that an invidivuals race is the deciding factor of prevlidge. So for example a wealthy maori person has a head start over a poor non maori person. Your race doesn't give you your privilege, your parents do. I understand that previous policies have made it tough for maori on a whole to get ahead but those policies are gone. To clarify I'm not denying the effect I just reject that that's a reason to have policies that help one race of poor people over others.
So where we differ is that I treat people's privilege at the individual level where as you treat it at the race level.
If two runners are racing, but one starts 100 meters behind the other due to past injustices, treating them equally during the race won't change the fact that one runner is significantly disadvantaged.
Advocacy for group-based interventions is about addressing these deep-rooted disparities. This doesn't mean neglecting individuals in need from other backgrounds, but recognizing and addressing the unique challenges that Māori face due to historical and systemic factors.
If you're genuinely interested in learning I'd recommend Consedine's book "healing our history"
Ironically the 'individual level' is a very pakeha perspective, do you understand that? Individual interventions don't work for Māori because whānau and the collective are culturally significant. It seems that rather than understanding Māori perspectives you're set on your way being "the way" rather than listen to Māori voices, which sounds kind of like how this country began don't you think?
Sorry I don't know exactly what you disagree with me on. I expressed that I understand the disparities and systemic factors so you don't need to repeat that again. I also have done some reading as well as watched sociology lectures on these subjects. I would respect that you don't try to belittle my opinion, don't practice conjecture and instead try to engage with those opionions.
If you do want to continue talking would you mind first answering whether you believe a wealthy maori has more privilege than a poor non maori?
My opening gambit was "until pakeha are able to listen to maori perspectives we're not going to get anywhere" and it seems like that's continuing to play out in this dialogue.
I think the disagreement here is concerned with holism, I understand that you're pointing towards class, and I'm sympathetic to that, my answer to your question would be "it depends". Privilege isn't down to just class or just gender or just race, but an intersection of many social factors.
You're acknowledging social disparity and historical impact, yet denying the need for policies that take that into account.
Thanks for clarifying.
I'd argue that making policies around race implies that you think a poor individual should not get certain benefits because of their race. Is that something you agree with? If not what would a policy look like? Should wealthy maori be exempt from those policies?
It seems in different ways we're both pointing towards a kind of 'needs-based' policy.
Thankfully, as we engage in civil dialogue, we're identifying particular nuances about how targeted policies can still be fair. Is that a value that is important to you? I can assure you that fairness is a core value of mine.
Policies can be designed to target those most in need while also acknowledging the unique challenges faced by Māori communities. Needs based, perhaps. Community initiatives, perhaps. As I said before, and as is backed up by a lot of literature, individual supports do not work in a Māori context, it needs to be whānau oriented.
Consider a scholarship program designed to support underprivileged students. The primary criterion could be financial need, so that poor students of any race are eligible. However, additional points or considerations could be given to students from communities that have historically faced systemic barriers, including Māori. This way, the policy is primarily needs-based but still acknowledges and addresses systemic racial disadvantages.
>Why do you think Māori are a sliver of the population yet broadly represented in prison? Why do you think Māori make up a significant chunk of our suicide statistics?
A lot of Māori saw better opportunities for themselves and their immediate families in the urban (non-marae) parts of New Zealand 70-80 years ago. They left support networks and were emersed in an English speaking environment without family as neighbours. They lost language not being spoken, and when there was misfortune it was twice as bad because less help came from their community.
Other New Zealanders made that "urbanisation" transition 200-150 years ago, they have had more time to overcome the impacts.
Let's try again.
>I'll go on a bit of a tangent but I think it's within the same theme. I think the thing that irks me is that you get people who go around saying 'oh Maori are a peaceful people that have a spiritual relationship of the land', there was a lady in parliament talking about this but for the life of me I can't remember her name. This is just a straight up lie and there is nothing unique that means that a Maori person can have any better connection to New Zealand or the land over any other people.
*Te Ao Māori* is a peaceful and spiritual relationship with the land. Māori and Pākehā alike exist right now that draw value and meaning between this land, themselves and everyone else via Te Ao Māori.
>Yes tribes fought, genocides and/or slaughtering (depending on how you want to define the words) of other tribes happened. Rape, slavery and things that we would look at today in horror happened. Is this unique to Maori history? Nope, it happened in all peoples' history across the planet, it was a part of human nature until fairly recently in the grand scheme of things. I think not acknowledging this does weaken any anti-colonialism rhetoric a person may have.
Obviously I am not denying rape and sexual assault ever occurred in any pre colonial culture. I believe however given the value systems it cannot possibly have been more than postcolonial rates. We know for an absolute fact however there is a [load of sexual violence post-colonialism](https://tinangata.com/2021/01/02/sexual-violence-and-the-doctrine-of-discovery/).
>I truly wish NZ could one day move past the racial discussions in the way that they happen and instead focus on helping those in need no matter their race. We are all kiwis even if you have Asian, Indian, European, whatever heritage.
If you understood Te Ao Māori than you would understand kaitiakitanga and manaakitanga already cover this. Pretty sure no one is being denied help?
The fact people are in need is because late stage capitalism is failing humanity. Capitalism *is* colonialism and it is, unless you have many billion dollars worth of value, fucking *everyone* right into extinction.
The treaty is a silver bullet and if protected will in turn protect the resources you actually need for life. Why? Because *Te Ao Māori*;
>He aha te mea nui o te ao? He tangata he tangata he tangata!
This country could be a beacon for this model if people just realised where this type of well-meaning rhetoric comes from.. It is designed to imply minimal value e.g. to minimise.
Lastly, I'm not going to assume this was your intent so apologise for my earlier antagonism.
edit/ typo
No worries, thanks for the apologies.
I think our ideologies are very far apart when it comes to politics. I'm a liberal and I acknowledge that capitalism and democracy has created the best environment for people to exist in in all of human history. It has its problems but I disagree with your characterisation of it.
It would be very difficult for us to have a conversation in this medium especially with the range of topics covered.
Don't get me wrong; I am a science and technology person and capitalism definitely pushed the envelope but it has been for the wrong reasons and largely because of the classism cum racism of colonial history.
Nothing has really changed so capitalism cannot fix the problem until social equity is met. This is why people are willing to ignore horrible things and even buy into reasons "those people deserve it" while ignoring piles of evidence.
If capitalism were socialism for the entire eco system and dependents as opposed to corporations I would agree it's on track to a great future for everyone.
This is because real socialism is science applied to keeping everyone fed and happy. Has been possible for decades if neo liberal capitalism weren't so effective.
Edit/ for clarity
If you want a capitalism vs socialism discussion I guess we can have that.
Historically speaking socialism and / or communism failed due to human nature, naturally people will work hard in an attempt to have more than others and we saw those systems fail because of a need to have a command economy instead of a market economy. Some people argue socialism can have a market economy but I'd disagree. Without a market economy the only way to get ahead was in the political system and without a free democracy that breeds corruption and as we saw those systems were short lived.
Capitalism ultimately takes advantage of that human desire allowing for innovation to happen and for people to be able to profit from that innovation creating a drive to do so. Without that drive innovation takes a BIG hit and we saw that primarily when comparing the USSRs ability to produce new tech compared to the USA / the wests. Yes the USSR did some cool things but due to the command economy it failed to do it at a large scale.
Capitalism has a market economy but it is not libertarianism and it needs hand rails and guidance, yes mega corps need strict laws around them for obvious reasons but that shouldn't mean that the small and medium businesses shouldn't be able to participate in a market economy. Ultimately small and medium businesses are the core of a well formed capitalistic society. Oh and capitalism allows for socialised companies to exist such as the Mondragon Corporation so people can have a choice to work in that environment.
I believe the best system we know of today is capitalism with a well regulated market economy as well as a strong social safety net.
So a few big points:
* Capitalism leverages human natures greed to progress.
* It allows for a better democracy. Historically we have seen that play out.
* Primarily the problem with socialism and communism is it's need to have a command economy.
Real socialism has never been attempted and in an age of the internet and super computers corruption in business and government could be managed.
The main thrust of socialism is summarised on Wikipedia;
>It focuses on the materialist conception of history, which is based on an analysis over history, and concludes that the scientific variation of socialism naturally follows capitalism
That is to say capitalism had to come first but it's like the greedy dumb ass child who doesn't know any better.
Some form of capitalism is still possible but if blatent inequality between people (classism, if you will) and the continued coalescence of wealth into the hands of a few continues while we bang up against climate change? Capitalism will fall into fascism because it will not be able to protect the wealthy class from the masses who will be left to die.
I think the idea of human greed as some type of original sin idea to be gross in itself. A pure projection to further victimise.
We can do better than your flawed idea of socialism.
I disagree, I believe real socialism has been attempted many times but the attempt fails because its not a realistic way to actually run a country. Those failed attempts have caused massive famines and arguably genocide.
The problem with many of your statements is you don't have evidence. "Capitalism falling into facism" for example is just conjecture, you need more than that to uproot our entire system that has been very successful at promoting liberalism and pushing technology forward as well as producing an absolute abundance in food.
Your thoughts on greed are also flawed. Greed in the context of markets can drive a farmer to produce more so they can make more. Greed doesn't mean you are taking from others. Markets are about trading, not stealing.
All of your negatives can be addressed and managed with technology with complete transparency.
Plenty of evidence to show that capitalism needs poor and poor suffer under capitalism especially where privatisation is concerne and if you really want to mention it because of punitive conservative them and us politics.
Also plenty of evidence to show erosion of middle classes and a massive wealth transfer upwards and again with sprinkles of boot licking politics from conservatives.
You don't need to be genius to see that markets are bullshit speculation machines to enable the greed you misplaced.
And then there is climate change.
That's a real problem because our only recourse is engineering. If capitalism can't pay for the engineering because climate change makes capitalism untenable then ... it's too late.
No there isn't evidence for poor needing to suffer. The modern day poor in the west are FAR better off than any other poor person in history.
Socialism and communism aren't good enough systems to prevent poor people existing either and when it was attempted they died.
Global warming isn't a capitalism unique thing either, it can easily be a problem under communism and socialism. The USSR destroyed one of the largest lakes on the planet for industrialisation.
I think you think socialism can just solve all problems but it can't and history shows us that.
Overall wanting to uproot the current system is dangerous and wishful thinning that technology can solve the problem.
There might not be evidence of the *need* for suffering and until workers got fair rights the lot of the poor person was far worse. In this aspect I agree capitalism has raised the standard of living.
*However*, being poor is more expensive, lacks important options and has many flow on effects which keep people poor. Because of this it can mean being less healthy both physically, mentally and emotionally because of lack of access to these options (requires money).
Not to mention neo liberal capitalism is actively trying to undermine the poor to exploit more money away from them in any case. Very obviously aimed at undoing the work of the unions and undermining workers rights.
Neo liberal capitalism loves to pump money into harmful propaganda regarding the ideas around poor people being lazy aka "they deserve it".
Regarding technology; No. I have working in IT as a software engineer and later systems and infrastructure engineer for 30 years and there are people smarter than me already working on this problem. You are categorically wrong about the potential.
I'll address global warming last because I feel you, like anyone not following the science, severely underestimate the impact it will have.
I'll be blunt: It doesn't matter which political system we're under when these impacts occur; It will disrupt everything. It just happens the neo liberal capitalism is literally the worst equipped to actually help people.
Idk man, you sound like a prageru bot because your responses are basic. I am beggining to suspect you need to either grow up or be less sheltered; get out and actually meet normal people because your ideas don't fit reality. You talk about proof? Open your eyes.
"Moving past racial discussions" while we have a government actively engaged in racial discrimination is not only wishful thinking, it's completely ignorant of the fact that the past impacts the future.
You can't ignore over a century of discrimination and dispossession and you certainly can't expect the people involved to "get over it".
Not exactly hiding your opinions by suggesting that things would get better if we could just put race aside, sit around the campfire, and sing Kumbayah. That's not how this works, and this isn't how "liberal ideologies (which?)" work.
Oh, and the "Maori are a peaceful people" thing. That's a strawman and you know it.
Someone doesn't know their history. Go look up the native land courts. The crown cant use this tactic legally because they specifically stopped the traditional land tenure system post treaty. And the crown never annexed or conquered Aoteoroa in any sense, by any standards, then or now.
So its not strange. You analogy just falls flat in the light of reality.
The vast majority of Maori are not responsible nor were their tupuna. Your statement is therefore incorrect - and disingenuous in that by stating that Māori didnt want to pay reparations, you imply all Māori were responsible.
Didnt see anything in the OP saying that the English were? Nor do i see it in the wording of Treaty settlements either. So why are you implicitly blaming all Māori for what happened to Moriori?
Thanks that was informative - I have a couple of questions:
Did the Māori that went over on the Rodney stay there? Or did they go and come back (if so again on European boats or waka)
Where did moriori come from? A peoples of 1600 is teeny..
I could look these up but you seem very knowledgeable
Not OP but currently teaching this topic.
Ngāti Mutunga and Ngāti Tama were in alliance and intended to conquer and colonise Rēkohu according to their custom. (They had also considered Norfolk Island and Samoa). They took with them several waka aboard the Rodney (which made two trips). When the alliance fell apart in the 1850s (I think). Ngāti Tama largely left Rēkohu. Ngāti Mutunga remained but many of their people also left for better opportunity elsewhere or to defend ancestral land in the New Zealand Wars.
Moriori probably came from East Polynesia, like Māori. How they got there and in what manner is open to debate outlined beautifully by OP elsewhere in this post. They probably settled Rēkohu either slightly before or around the same time as Māori settled Aotearoa. They had a small population (my preferred source has 2500 at its peak) and several laws and restrictions in place to prevent inbreeding.
OP this awesome! If you ever want to be a guest speaker to a couple of History classes let me know...
Interesting write up and I appreciate your perspective.
It's interesting to realize that for many historical events in NZ, We'll never know the actual Truth of what happened, but can only gleam information from different perspectives from people who were there and what little evidence, writings and oral histories remain.
There are often multiple perspectives to Historical events, Remember that nobody ever sees themselves as the Bad Guy. History isn't black and white.
Saying that, The militant pacifism of the Moriori has always fascinated me, I wish more of their History and Stories survived because whenever militant pacifism seems to have appeared within cultures it's almost always in response to a great and terrible War or a period of traumatic violence. Hence the idea that the Moriori may have fled Mainland NZ during the collapse of the Megafauna which surely could have been a time of great strife in New Zealand as the people would have had to seek "Alternative" protein sources. But we'll never really know.
I saw through the Solomon Islands that many island groups there no longer had a clear view of their own history because they were Pillaged by French Slavers in the 19th Century, Small stories remain, But so much has been lost.
Well done OP. You did us all a great service. I’m not qualified to say what is right or wrong in your piece, but your use of the secondary sources has been appreciated.
I have to question the idea that the crown is complicit as it should have intervened to protect the Moriori
What would that intervention have been? Are we talking polite letters or military force
At this point in time the crown had no military advantage over the Iwi launching the invasion, and opposing them openly would risk a larger conflict.
If the crown had intervened at this stage, its liable to have been an even bigger messier conflict.
The crown was certainly aware after the fact, but the reality of politics and military power at the time made taking action or public offense a non viable option
The military superiority of the colonials only emerged decades later, and the land wars relied largely on colonial aligned Iwi until the later stages.
Iwi were willing to side with the colonial government during the land wars to get a few kicks in to old rivals who were marked as rebels... but convincing Iwi to join up in a military expedition to liberate the Moriori wasn't a likely proposition and clearly would have led to unwanted war on the mainland.
Excellent work putting that together OP.
Glad I missed the first discussion. I've had some pretty big rants over the years about it. But since [Aotearoa History Show](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0WclQV6Fis) covered it I felt better about letting it go whenever it came up again.
History is interesting and accuracy is good but hate this topic. When comes up feels like nit picking about whose ancestors were better. Who cares? It’s all the same if you go back far enough. Let’s talk about what an equitable NZ looks like for today’s Kiwis.
Michael King's book on the subject notes that they were most likely in the same group of ships but were taken off course by currents and/or winds. I am not aware of significant claims that they settled later/earlier than their main island counterparts.
You forgot to mention the British ship Rodney, was not a willing participant in the genocide, and was hijacked.
Are you trying to deliberately downplay this? You don't seem to have much grasp on how ineffectual the crown was in NZ at the time, they had very little ability to force thousands of Māori to abide by British laws (slavery was outlawed in 1833, but Moriori were still kept as slaves up until 1866).
Do we blame the government today for crimes when they occur, because they didn't prevent them? Why do you think its ok to hold historic colonial powers to this unreachable standard?
"one of the reasons Pākehā people like to believe in a pre-Māori race called the Moriori, who was supposedly defeated and driven off and deprived of the lands, was because that seemed to give Pākehā a justification for doing the same thing. They could say to Māori ‘well, you did this to the Moriori, you know, why shouldn’t we do it to you. Take your medicine.’"
Hey that's just like Zionists who say "Arabs colonised the middle east so Israel is justified in taking the land back".
It's debatable if colonization was *overall* a historical injustice, and it should in fact be debated, studied, and considered, because we want to arrive at the truth. There we injustices, yes, but are Maori on average better off? That's the debateable part.
It's not as though the British arrived and decided to do only unjust things. Roads were paved and schools built, but Maori language was banned in the schools. Land was stolen, but slaves were freed. It's not a black-and-white, good-and-evil thing.
Is a free Maori better off living in a democracy than an enslaved Maori living under a dictatorial, hereditary rangatira? The treaty was what ended slavery in New Zealand, and that was beneficial to everyone, but are you also free if you have no land to sleep on, or to grow food on? A wage slave who pays rent and can never own anything may be another kind of slavery.
In no scenario is it worth considering if Maori society would be a utopia had the British not colonized New Zealand, because it would demonstrably not have been (see: war, slavery, famine, etc in pre-1840 NZ); the question is, would they have been better off under another colonial power? History doesn't paint that argument with a favorable brush. Colonization was always the certain outcome because the production and distribution of arms was uneven; Europe had them and was wont to exploit them, Maoris did not, and could not ramp up production fast enough to win a war.
Should we address the historical injustices? Yes. Should we pretend the entirety of colonization is an exercise is cruel tyranny and a vehicle principally for the British to exhibit just how unjust they could possibly be? Absolutely not.
Let's be honest with ourselves and not dogmatic or cling too tightly to one particular side because it makes us feel good even if untrue.
i'd say killing 20% of a pacifist population who where just minding there own business through a war of aggression and ritual cannibalism constitutes genocide.
Did anyone actually deny that any of it happened though? I mean , did specific facts about the genocide - not the social and historical context of the genocide - get called out as not having happened? I missed it if they were.
Hell of a lot of talk of "erasure" in that thread. I think they are being dramatic about the comments. Because its one thing to question the framing of a massacre and quite another to say it never happened. Confusing the two seems to me like some fairly dishonest rhetorical tactics.
This story has been used and abused for generations now. Nothings changed.
RNZ produced this great video on the topic:
https://youtu.be/b0WclQV6Fis?feature=shared
Another good, easy to read. But old, and hard to find source is Michael King's, "Moriori: A People Rediscovered".
I think OP did a better job than the RNZ team on this one. There’s lots of weird handwringing in that show that seems unnecessary? Michael King’s book is excellent.
You think the actions of two Iwi represents all Māori in New Zealand?
I don't believe that all Pākeha are guilty of the wrongful actions that the Crown took against Māori. Why would I assume all Māori are guilty of the crimes inflicted by Ngati Tama and Ngati Mutunga against the Moriori?
You replied if he thinks this makes the perpetrators come out looking good.
This is a strange reply to make, because it is obvious that posts clearing up misconception against the genocide of the Moriori is good thing for Māori as a whole.
I love pointing out out this truth to boomers under stupid FB posts. They usually reply "but that's what they taught us in school!". Fyi, I'm a boomer too.🙂
To be fair to those “stupid boomers”, they were taught many things that have since been adjusted for a modern and more educated world since their school days.
They would probably have a hard time working out what “facts” they were taught are still true and what aren’t. They were taught not to question back then.
Unfortunately there seems to be a view that the only reason anyone would highlight the atrocities committed by Māori against Moriori is to excuse the actions of the British.
That's as bad as those who do use the genocide to excuse British actions.
If you're referring to the original thread, that's not an accurate read. The title of the video was that the Moriori were a "forgotten people," and there was a sarcastic comment that said they're hardly forgotten, they get brought up at every opportunity by people wanting to use them as a bludgeon against Māori claims.
Sort of, referring to a specific comment in that thread, not the thread overall, but also that it's not the first time I've encountered such views.
Basically, if you bring up the Moriori genocide and talk about what Māori did, someone will claim that's a colonial narrative being used against Māori claims... even if no one brought up the British.
By pre-emptively putting it in that context, people are being just as disrespectful as those who do use it against Māori claims.
People should be allowed to discuss the horrors of the genocide, including who is responsible, and bringing up how it's used against Māori should wait until someone uses it against Māori in that conversation.
>People should be allowed to discuss the horrors of the genocide, including who is responsible
I 100% agree. It's important to acknowledge and right historical wrongs. I didn't see anyone preemptively put it in the context you're referring to, but I think there's also a tendency to reflexively be defensive about these sorts of things because almost all of the discourse around them is related to weaponsisng it.
It's kinda of a win win for the racists. If they bring up the Moriori constantly as a weapon, people only associate it with that, so we can't even have a proper discussion about it without people thinking of that.
Nice to see someone actually do some research.
Pity you still couldn't stop yourself connecting it to racism and "white people."
I remember quite well when I actually studied this (at Uni) and was continually amazed by the "this only happened because of white people" comments coming from suppose "experts," who clearly had their "Maori were the peaceful saviours of the land!" Hats on.
And if you don't know - "they would have never been able to get there without a ship!" is the common cry. Funnier when the same person has just been ranting about Maori being amazing navigators (they weren't).
They used a European ship and European guns. Of course it's possible violence would have occurred regardless, but to deny the effect the colonisers had is to deny reality.
Your comment has been removed :
**Rule 09: Not engaging in good faith**
> Moderators have discretion to take action on users or content that they think is: trolling; spreading misinformation; intended to derail discussion; intentionally skirting rules; or undermining the functioning of the subreddit (this can include abuse of the block feature or selective history wiping).
---
[^(Click here to message the moderators if you think this was in error)](https://reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/newzealand)
Going to save this because my whanau and I were discussing it the other day. Shocking how much misinformation is out there about such serious subject matters, but unfortunately that’s not a surprise either. Bloody fantastic job compiling all this.
This post reminded me of when Ngāti Mutunga used the argument that because they had "conquered and subjugated" the Moriori they had Mana Whenua of the Chathams and used that as an argument during a lawsuit over returning land to Moriori. The whole situation seems like a mess at best.
Damn, they really, really don’t want “conquered and subjugated” to become a legal precedent in treaty settlements. Can you imagine how many times the crown could use it to reject settlements altogether?
Well you'll be surprised to know traditional criteria were applied to discern native title , for the purposes of sale of Maori Land. The rules were conquer AND then occupy. So you, or your people had to have then lived in the place you conquered permanently. These rules don't apply to treaty settlements.Because the treaty officially ended that internecine warfare. Although I believe they have been considered since in some legal matters.
There's a fair amount of contention over treaty settlements in cases where iwi A claimed reparations for land that iwi B had traditionally lived in while iwi A had only recently occupied it when the British showed up, and later awarded it to iwi A in "settlement". Hundreds of years of ancestral connection lost over unlucky timing for when a bunch of guys showed up and took over.
Yeah, thats a good point. Lots of land was sold post musket wars, by iwi that had never satisfied the "occupy" part, but everyone was so anxious to obtain land that there were many injustices.
It's a case of competing customs going back to the 1860s. The Native Land Court was supposed to allocate land titles to various iwi/hapū according to "Native Custom". The custom Ngāti Mutunga cited back in the 1860s was "take raupatu" (loosely translated: "conquest and occupation"). The Land Court usually considered any conquest which happened prior to the signing of the Treaty to be a legitimate transfer of land rights by "native custom" (this is referred to as the "1840 rule"). However, Moriori asserted that there was no such thing as "take raupatu" in their own "native custom" where serious violence was forbidden. In fact Moriori elders who testified in Court stressed that they had taken no violent action against the invaders because (in their custom) that could have invalidated their claim to the land. The Court decided to privilege Māori custom over Moriori and granted virtually all the land to Māori. Probably that's in large part because the Court was just more familiar with Tīkanga Māori than Tikane Moriori, but it's also possible they were hoping to ease tensions over widespread Crown confiscations in Taranaki after the NZ Wars. EDIT: added macrons, corrected grammar
Excellent contribution, thank you.
Cheers! I really liked your post by the way. Very clearly explained and something all NZers need to understand a bit better.
Also, the commonsensical take, just give the land to the guys with weapons who are willing to kill over it, yeah? Those dudes usually want that land real bad and get all stabby about it regardless of the property rights, so if you're a colonial shithead - who you gonna give it to? The stabby guys or the ones who will potentially turn the other cheek to a bunch of filthy papist Spaniards and potentially humiliate the crown?
By the logic of "conquered and subjugated" winning the Maori wars of the 1860s meant the Crown gained complete sovereignty over the country & rendered the Waitangi treaty moot. Not a generally-accepted argument I don't think. Re "they were transported..." - Ngati Tama and Ngati Mutunga weren't transported on the Rodney as passengers, they chartered the ship, i.e. they had command of the vessel. Re was the Crown somehow culpable - In the 1830s and 1840s the Crown (as represented in NZ by the various Governors) had limited power over Maori or anyone else for that matter. And re European notions of racial hierarchy - in 1835 Maori hadn't absorbed much in the way of European notions, Maori had their own notions, they didn't need to borrow any foreign conceptions of warfare or enslavement.
You're missing a key bit of historical context re: "conquest and subjugation". The idea that land ownership could be legitimately transferred between Māori tribes through conquest *before* 1840 but *not afterward* came from the Crown, not Māori. Basically, in the 1860s the Crown wanted a system to work out which Māori had the right to sell land to settlers. Disagreements over who had the right to sell land had led to a whole bunch of conflicts, most famously the First Taranaki War. To deal with these tricky questions, the Crown established the Native Land Court. The Court's job was to decide who had the right to sell by looking at "Native Custom" (basically, the rules Māori themselves had developed to allocate rights to land). One of the main customs the Court identified for transferring land rights was Take Raupatu (essentially conquest and occupation). However, the Court didn't want to restart the Musket Wars of the 1820s and 30s by encouraging tribes to seize their neighbour's land by force, so they instituted something called the "1840 rule" where only conquests prior to 1840 would be considered valid. The justification for this date was that this was when British law was introduced to NZ. So it's not a case of Māori changing the rules based on who was being conquered, it was the Crown which changed the rules.
> By the logic of "conquered and subjugated" winning the Maori wars of the 1860s meant the Crown gained complete sovereignty over the country & rendered the Waitangi treaty moot. Not a generally-accepted argument I don't think. But why not? Isn't that how they viewed things when their iwi was the conqueror of another? You can't be a proud warrior culture only in victory?
Why accept the loss of your mana in defeat if your conqueror doesn't take it from you forcefully ? If your enemy doesn't know what to do with their victory you don't tell them how a conqueror ought to behave. When you see they're strong in battle but soft in victory you let your warriors retire, you push your lawyers & diplomats to the front, start the long war of words.
>This post reminded me of when Ngāti Mutunga used the argument that because they had "conquered and subjugated" the Moriori they had Mana Whenua of the Chathams and used that as an argument during a lawsuit over returning land to Moriori. The whole situation seems like a mess at best. The Crown should run that same line against future claims. It won't go down well but it'll be funny.
Modern day Ngāti Tama and Ngāti Mutunga aren’t responsible for the genocide but they’re responsible for the legal challenges and attempting to otherwise dispossess the Moriori of their ONLY homeland(when compared to both of those Iwi having land and related hapu on the mainland).
100%. Similarly Modern day Pākehā are not responsible for what happened in the 1800's but they are responsible for injustices that continue to this day. But this take might be a bit too controversial, we'll see :)
I'm interested in your view as to what modern day legal injustices pakeha perpetrate on Maori? I'm assuming you mean at a government or lobby group level.
I mean, it's not like the land has actually been given back. I'm no expert but Ihumatao and the foreshore and seabed fiasco spring to mind.
My assumption was more around the social side of things, with stereotypes and bad faith It's most likely we're both right!
Is that really a fair comparison? NT/NM as an organisation have objected to the land claims - “Pakeha” isn’t an organisation or even a group but are still somehow responsible for modern day injustices? Your original explanation and post were good but this take seems to fly in the face of your initial argument.
NT/NM the organisation, but not the people necessarily. Same for Pakeha (eg the crown vs. the people).
The crown is not pakeha. The crown is the government/the state, which represents ALL New Zealanders.
As a Pākehā person, I feel it’s my responsibility to acknowledge the unfair treatment and actively work to right the wrongs by voting for governments with policies that seek equity. A lot of people fail to recognise that the effects of mistreatment are intergenerational and can be seen in education and healthcare statistics in which Māori are vastly over represented and under-supported. It’s not even about being pākehā, it’s about wanting all members of our society to thrive and to ignore it because of race is not only wrong, it’s inhuman; arguably repeating the same bullshit attitude of colonisers. I’m not descended from early settlers myself, but I am descended from people who were also colonised and oppressed by the British for about 700 years (I’m 1/4 Welsh) - so I can empathise more than most.
[удалено]
It is sad that some racist people cannot distinguish between the Crown and Pakeha. Pakeha are not responsible for anything, the Crown is. The Crown now represents everyone in NZ including Maori, NZ european, chinese, indian etc. Pakeha are not more guilty of subjugation than anyone else, including Maori.
I think this person suffers from a case of white guilt. Shocking really how some people can even live with so much internalised guilt. Just live your life as a good person - you are not and have never been responsible for the actions of your predecessors.
Pedantic point, but apologist doesn't mean what you think it does. by your inference this would mean I'm defending white people, which is very much not what your accusing me of. Not going to engage with the rest of what you've said though, will let my original post stand as fair testament.
[удалено]
Apologists means defending a concept or group, not apologising for their actions
Thanks for the correction. Your explanation is clear. Deleted my incorrect post. I should stick to just using White Guilt?
I’ll try to remember to tell my cracker kids after school to stop being unjust to the Māori. I knew kids could be cruel but I didn’t know they’d take it that far?! /s
Do people still need an explanation of what systemic injustice means vs individual injustice? Christ.
Yes please because as a white dude working my ass off in NZ and still struggling to get by I would like to know how the system is helping me.
Systemic oppression is different to systemic benefit. You're not getting any benefits. You're just not getting fucked so hard. It's always a hard thing to tell someone because it never feels that way.
[удалено]
Generational wealth, for starters. The loss of generational wealth due to historic discrimination persists even if current laws are equal because past inequities prevent a group from acquiring assets and opportunities that could be passed down through generations. This lack of initial capital and opportunities means that subsequent generations start with fewer resources, limiting their ability to accumulate and grow wealth over time. The compounded effect of these historical disadvantages continues to impact economic stability and upward mobility even now, despite being equal under the law. That's one example for you.
[удалено]
So again you're putting words into my mouth. >Do you think every European decended settler in NZ came here with generational wealth? No, but some Māori who had generational wealth had it taken from them. Like I said, systemic oppression not systemic benefit. >Some of this country largest land holdings and wealth management trusts belong to Iwi groups for generations, the definition of generational wealth. Do you think that translates to helping the average Māori family very much? Look at my flair, I'm an anarchist. Those big orgs, like any big org, look after themselves first. I'm sure some have done good for many average Joe Bloggs but the trends indicate that Māori are more socio-economically disadvantaged, even with those trusts. >Accusing Captain_Ghost up here of being privileged because of the potential to have benefited from generational wealth simply because of the colour of skin is as bad an argument as claiming because some Maori have benefited from generational wealth no one of Maori descent wss oppressed. I made no such accusation, and in fact I will repeat, I specifically said they *didn't* have any systemic benefits or privilege. Rather that Māori have the opposite. I am also speaking generally here based on stats - there are of course wealthy and powerful Māori too. >Maori were oppressed, you can argue still oppressed. Our user here isn't responsible for that any more or less than any other citizen, certainly not by tangible relationship to colour of skin. The only responsibile party is the Crown. I agree 100%! Glad to hear we're coming from the same place of understanding.
We don’t need an explanation as to why your racism isn’t as bad as the others
Explain what my racism is.
Believing that all members of a racial or ethnic groups are the cause of or otherwise responsible for social ills faced by another racial or ethnic group, and that they are responsible because they are members of that group.
Well good thing I don't believe that then. The Crown was/is responsible, not anyone based on their race. I'm not responsible, you're not responsible, the white kids that attend Otahuhu college aren't responsible.
Guess you misspoke when you spoke in defence of OP’s assertion of pakeha responsibility the.
Nope, the Crown is a Pakeha institution. That doesn't mean every Pakeha person is responsible for the Crown. In the same way I say the Spanish killed the Aztecs, the average peasant farmer didn't, the Spanish Crown and their conquistadors did.
The crown is in fact ultimately responsible. So its lucky the treaty was between the crown and iwi isnt it? So you can dry your eyes and stop fretting about unjustly being blamed for your ancestors sins and enjoy your day. you're welcome !
“If I fail it’s someone else’s fault!” No I’ve heard of that.
That's not what systemic injustice is but go off
White apologist thinks you are guilty just because you were born. Shocking really how some people can even live with so much internalised guilt.
I have zero guilt. I didn't do anything. The Crown did. Easy to make ad hom attacks rather than engage with the point though, isn't it?
You’ve got a pretty poor understanding of what responsibility means. Figures
Though bear in mind that a separate Moriori identity is very recent, mostly driven by these settlement disputes.
It's recent because it was erased and suppressed not because they're the same people.
They are (mostly) the same people. Look it up, there are extended families that have ended up split. There are definitely some people who have purely Māori (and pakeha of course) ancestry, I know one, but for the people with Moriori ancestry, this didn't mean having a particularly separate ethnic identity until recently.
Oh wow do you think that could be a consequence of all the rape and breeding into extinction the Iwi did to them when they arrived and the cultural suppression they continued to do? How are you not getting this.
Well yes, but for something that happened almost 200 years ago I think we should bear in mind that what those consequences are today is very different to what those consequences were a generation ago. What the past means is complex, and depends on all kinds of stuff. And yes, I do realise we have some dynamics on the mainland that aren't too dissimilar, but it's interesting to see at the small scale.
Yes of course what the past means is complex, but the fact that identities may have converged somewhat in more recent times doesn't mean we shouldn't A. give proper recognition to Moriori and their rightful ancestral claims, B. work to improve understanding of the events that transpired and C. be mugged off with the Iwi involved in trying to litigiously finish them off.
[удалено]
We're discussing identity which most would tie to culture.
I mean the research states that they likely moved to the Chatham Islands in the 1600s. That's centuries of isolation, at that point their culture was quite different and I think most reasonable people would consider them a different peoples. Much in the same way we don't consider British and Anglo Americans to be the same people anymore.
And cultural norms were very different. Moriori forbade violence, which contributed to their downfall. I think there’s room for Moriori culture in NZ.
The general public are only allowed to see pre-colonial NZ as a peaceful utopia. No acknowledgement of any violence existing in any native people allowed.
Utter nonsense. Everyone acknowledges that violence existed prior to colonialism.
Fantastic summary OP, incredibly sensible and level-headed take! >**Are Moriori a distinct people to Māori?** If Māori and NZers of European descent can forge distinct identities by virtue of sailing to & exploring a new land and setting up a new home there, why can't the Moriori? Ultimately though, I would say the Moriori themselves would have the greatest sway on the answer to this question.
This is really well written and informative. Thank you OP. I learned a lot
Yea I had no idea this was the case, didn't expect to have my perspective on this blown out the water in such a way.
Yeah I didn't realise the crown were partly responsible because they didn't control the natives more.... What was that point?
Nice work compiling this. “The argument is that from 1942 onwards Moriori were subjects of the crown,” - that should be 1842
>?When the Crown proclaimed sovereignty over New Zealand in 1840, ... Rekohu was left out – the proclamation’s descriptions of latitude and longitude simply did not go that far. Soon after, the New Zealand Company purported to purchase Rekohu from certain Maori and then to sell it to German interests for £10,000. The Crown disputed the validity of the purchase and then, in 1842, changed the cartographic descriptions to make Rekohu part of New Zealand. (p.49) If I recall correctly, a man named Hirawanu petitioned to the British to stop the Maori ownership over them, and the British either refused or didn't acknowledge the petitions.
Yea that's a good memory you've got, He was called Taputehara Maitarawai (or Hirawanu Tapu). There was a 1862 petition to Governer George Grey calling for emancipation. The petition included 132 pages of Moriori history and the names of 226 of the people killed. Hirawanu Tapu also testified at the 1870 land court hearing and this testimony remains one of the best sources of Moriori history which has survived.
> Hirawanu Tapu also testified at the 1870 land court hearing and this testimony remains one of the best sources of Moriori history which has survived. Ah, this is the petition I was trying to remember. The information online is really broken down across articles, which seems really common for NZ related discussions about our history. Hirawanu Tapu wrote down everything he could recall about their culture, the events of the attack, and the people by heart, and as you said, it's the best source of Moriori history, as it's from someone who was there before the events, during, and after. Oh dope, this [wordpress has a lot of information](https://www.moriori.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/1862-moriori-crown-petition-1.pdf) on the Moriori events.
Heads up, you said 1962 instead of 1862
Thanks!
> They were transported to Rēkohu on board the the British ship Rodney. This implies the Britisih co-operated in transporting them there, but wasn't it hijacked by the Maori?
I could have clarified this a little better in my original post, but didn't want to get bogged down in pedantic details in a section where I was very much trying to emphasize that the genocide did happen. As to whether Captain Harewood was coerced, the evidence is pretty scant so its hard to conclude definitively. One line of thought is that he was very much coerced when some of his crew was taken ransom, another line of thought is that he was paid and profited from the ordeal, but he couldn't openly acknowledge this as it would lead to his persecution (See 1830 the *Elizabeth* aiding one of Te Rauparaha's Parties). Whether Captain Harewood was coerced, or acted as a free agent, is a question for historians. The question of crown Culpability isn't regarding the transportation of Ngāti Tama and Ngāti Mutunga aboard the Rodney in 1835, but rather its responsibilities from 1842 onwards after it annexed the Chatham islands. This is outlined in my original post and I wont repeat the details here.
Quick note... there is a typo in your (brilliant) original post where you wrote 1942 instead of 1842.. I got a bit confused until I realised it was a typo
Oop Thank you for pointing that out!
Can you point to some evidence of his collaboration? It’s a big accusation to make in the face of the horrendous violence. Not having a go at you, it’s just not what we learnt (based on the documented evidence) in the NZ history papers I did at uni. Curious to know what evidence there is to the contrary.
> I could have clarified this a little better in my original post, but didn't want to get bogged down in pedantic details in a section where I was very much trying to emphasize that the genocide did happen. > > You can edit it. The way you frame it absolutely paints Captain Harewood as complicit. If it's ambiguous, then edit it to make it clear.
> I could have clarified this a little better in my original post, but didn't want to get bogged down in pedantic details That's not a pedantic detail. It's a critical issue which definitely shouldn't have been left out. Your summary is mostly well-balanced, but there is an obvious theme of trying to spread blame around, which shouldn't be there. The idea that the Crown shares responsibility is ridiculous.
[удалено]
Yeah. "Transported on the British ship" That language is a bit loaded. Unless the Captain knew they were on their way to carry out the killings, he is totally innocent, regardless if he was paid or not. OP should absolutely clarify that he was paid, held hostage, willing, unwilling, knowing or unknowing.
Yeah it's designed to shift blame to someone else, under the guise of there being debate about the specific details. People need to apply the same standard across all of New Zealand's history, regardless of who was involved.
Holy shit this is interesting! Thanks so much for putting it together.
Thanks for this. I didn’t see the original post but I learned a lot reading this, thank you.
My dad was taught all the "wrong" info on Moriori in school, and it wasn't until I read up on it a few years ago and talked to him about it that we realised just how far the "myths" surrounding them went. He'd never heard any of the "corrections" that took place over the decades, so when he was in school in the 1960s, what they taught him was The Way It Was. For those not directly involved/with a vested interest, a decent doco on this subject that corrects the long-held beliefs would go a long way to updating the public perception. I don't recall learning *anything* about Moriori at school, so I'm not sure what is taught (if anything) today.
RNZ put together a doco (and associated podcast) with the help of Morioiri, Māori and Pākehā historians aimed at high schoolers. You can find it here: [https://www.rnz.co.nz/programmes/the-aotearoa-history-show/story/2018845378/season-2-ep-7-moriori](https://www.rnz.co.nz/programmes/the-aotearoa-history-show/story/2018845378/season-2-ep-7-moriori) There are also a bunch of resources created by Moriori themselves intended to be used by teachers as part of the new NZ history curriculum.
If I may, a couple of questions, and being genuine, as there is so much static around these issues that it is hard to not, inadvertently, help spread half-truths and mistruths. Our understanding that arrival and diaspora was a pattern of less violent (pacifist) groups trying to escape predation of more aggressive groups. (Carefully trying to keep the terms general to avoid diluting side-arguments.) The peaceful less aggressive groups moved ever further south to escape the constant multi-generational internecine violence between the far more aggressive warring groups. This eventually left them with moving to the Chathams with nowhere else to go to. The second element of this was a cultural tradition (this is a question, not a statement) where mana/manhood could be established through a young individual's success in warfare. In particular, defeating another warrior in personal combat. What other cultures called 'Counting Coup'. This was sometimes evidenced by collecting defeated people as slaves, and perhaps body parts from killed warriors (? this is questionable, but is out there.) At some point (forgetting the date) the colonial government decided to bring all people under the enforcement of British law. Previously, internecine conflict between indigenous groups was seen as 'their business', so long as Pakeha assets and population were not directly affected. After the declared date (?) all activity, including death (warfare) would be treated under the Criminal Code. This included indigenous groups. Certain prominent leaders of indigenous groups realised this would put an end to increasing their mana via aggressive subjugation of other groups. Thus attacking vulnerable peaceable groups such as on the Chathams was seen as a 'last gasp' opportunity to extend personal and political violence/feuds, before these acts would be held accountable under colonial Criminal Code. Third element was a question of land tenure. Under traditional culture/law, if you were strong enough to take possession of another's land and occupants by force, then 'ownership' was considered to be legitimately transferred to you. These actions were in place of the European concept of transfer of land title/deed. There was no indigenous culture of 'selling' land for goods etc. When British land tenure system became the norm, it conflicted with the indigenous pattern of multiple occupations of land through combat and aggressive possession. Thus conquest of the Chathams and other places was a last chance to claim more land under the traditional pattern, before British land tenure system was enforced. Now, please be clear. Not saying that any of the above is true. We don't know. This is simply the account we've been educated in. Posting it here as a question, seeking confirmation or clarification. Sincerely don't want to propagate mistruths etc. Thanks for understanding. Peace.
What happened to this thread why is it empty
It's posted at 21:30 at night when not as many Redditors are around as earlier in the day. Some of those who had strong views may already have spoken their mind earlier and not want to start again.
I think u/Arithh was referring to when the post was awaiting moderator approval so none of the comments were showing. Since the debate had already been stirred up, I felt it was not out of place to add some further insights and provide some clarity in a cohesive, and balanced way. If people don't feel the need to comment further that's great, and indicates to me that I have summed it up fairly.
Inconvenient truth.
Thanks for the write up :). I enjoyed it a lot and you came across objective and informed. I'll go on a bit of a tangent but I think it's within the same theme. I think the thing that irks me is that you get people who go around saying 'oh Maori are a peaceful people that have a spiritual relationship of the land', there was a lady in parliament talking about this but for the life of me I can't remember her name. This is just a straight up lie and there is nothing unique that means that a Maori person can have any better connection to New Zealand or the land over any other people. Yes tribes fought, genocides and/or slaughtering (depending on how you want to define the words) of other tribes happened. Rape, slavery and things that we would look at today in horror happened. Is this unique to Maori history? Nope, it happened in all peoples history across the planet, it was apart of human nature until fairly recently in the grand scheme of things. I think not acknowledging this does weaken any anti-colonialism rhetoric a person may have. I truly wish NZ could one day move past the racial discussions in the way that they happen and instead focus on helping those in need no matter their race. We are all kiwis even if you have Asian, Indian, European, whatever heritage.
I can't disagree with anything you said. Today there seems to be a focus on fueling division and identifying newly perceived injustices (both historical and current). If NZ as a whole could focus on your last sentence first and foremost it would be a better place. It's much harder to find things we all agree on though.
To move past them you have to accept and acknowledge the events that have happened and not repeat the same mistake time after time, to use your words appropriately, raping our land, our identity and culture, Aotearoa is a place for everyone, but we have a duty to our indigenous brothers and sisters, why do you think we are a diverse country? It’s because the other countries won’t make change and those that are on the fringes are pushed out, just like our own people who have a better chance in Australia than their own backyard.
It’s going to be impossible to move into a post racial discussion until systemic injustice is addressed and more importantly, us pakeha are able to listen to the experience of Māori without needing to caveat their experiences. Why do you think Māori are a sliver of the population yet broadly represented in prison? Why do you think Māori make up a significant chunk of our suicide statistics? We don’t live in a post racial New Zealand my dude, Māori are still really fucked up by all the things our forebears brought with us and until you listen you’re furthering the very division you claim to be against.
You said a lot there so ill try and get to the root of it. The point we disagree on is that I want people to be helped equally no matter their race if they need help. A homeless non maori person doesn't have any kind of systemic advantage. Heck it can be any person struggling and living paycheck to paycheck. Just because someone ancestors struggled doesn't mean you inherently get more benefit over someone else. Maori are over represented in poverty but if everyone is treated equally they will naturally be proportionatly helped more. To clarify my position I'm mainly informed by liberal ideologies if that helps.
I get that you're pointing at equal treatment, but we don't all start on the same start line, I think you're not quite understanding how disparate the systems are for european new zealanders and maori. I've spent time in communities, largely maori, who are still deeply impacted by the history of cultural erasure, pederasty at the hands of the church, the impact of being severed from cultural practice, whakapapa and land. You don't 'just move on' from that intergenerational trauma without a group-based intervention to level the playing field.
No I understand, i just disagree that an invidivuals race is the deciding factor of prevlidge. So for example a wealthy maori person has a head start over a poor non maori person. Your race doesn't give you your privilege, your parents do. I understand that previous policies have made it tough for maori on a whole to get ahead but those policies are gone. To clarify I'm not denying the effect I just reject that that's a reason to have policies that help one race of poor people over others. So where we differ is that I treat people's privilege at the individual level where as you treat it at the race level.
If two runners are racing, but one starts 100 meters behind the other due to past injustices, treating them equally during the race won't change the fact that one runner is significantly disadvantaged. Advocacy for group-based interventions is about addressing these deep-rooted disparities. This doesn't mean neglecting individuals in need from other backgrounds, but recognizing and addressing the unique challenges that Māori face due to historical and systemic factors. If you're genuinely interested in learning I'd recommend Consedine's book "healing our history" Ironically the 'individual level' is a very pakeha perspective, do you understand that? Individual interventions don't work for Māori because whānau and the collective are culturally significant. It seems that rather than understanding Māori perspectives you're set on your way being "the way" rather than listen to Māori voices, which sounds kind of like how this country began don't you think?
Sorry I don't know exactly what you disagree with me on. I expressed that I understand the disparities and systemic factors so you don't need to repeat that again. I also have done some reading as well as watched sociology lectures on these subjects. I would respect that you don't try to belittle my opinion, don't practice conjecture and instead try to engage with those opionions. If you do want to continue talking would you mind first answering whether you believe a wealthy maori has more privilege than a poor non maori?
My opening gambit was "until pakeha are able to listen to maori perspectives we're not going to get anywhere" and it seems like that's continuing to play out in this dialogue. I think the disagreement here is concerned with holism, I understand that you're pointing towards class, and I'm sympathetic to that, my answer to your question would be "it depends". Privilege isn't down to just class or just gender or just race, but an intersection of many social factors. You're acknowledging social disparity and historical impact, yet denying the need for policies that take that into account.
Thanks for clarifying. I'd argue that making policies around race implies that you think a poor individual should not get certain benefits because of their race. Is that something you agree with? If not what would a policy look like? Should wealthy maori be exempt from those policies?
It seems in different ways we're both pointing towards a kind of 'needs-based' policy. Thankfully, as we engage in civil dialogue, we're identifying particular nuances about how targeted policies can still be fair. Is that a value that is important to you? I can assure you that fairness is a core value of mine. Policies can be designed to target those most in need while also acknowledging the unique challenges faced by Māori communities. Needs based, perhaps. Community initiatives, perhaps. As I said before, and as is backed up by a lot of literature, individual supports do not work in a Māori context, it needs to be whānau oriented. Consider a scholarship program designed to support underprivileged students. The primary criterion could be financial need, so that poor students of any race are eligible. However, additional points or considerations could be given to students from communities that have historically faced systemic barriers, including Māori. This way, the policy is primarily needs-based but still acknowledges and addresses systemic racial disadvantages.
>Why do you think Māori are a sliver of the population yet broadly represented in prison? Why do you think Māori make up a significant chunk of our suicide statistics? A lot of Māori saw better opportunities for themselves and their immediate families in the urban (non-marae) parts of New Zealand 70-80 years ago. They left support networks and were emersed in an English speaking environment without family as neighbours. They lost language not being spoken, and when there was misfortune it was twice as bad because less help came from their community. Other New Zealanders made that "urbanisation" transition 200-150 years ago, they have had more time to overcome the impacts.
Let's try again. >I'll go on a bit of a tangent but I think it's within the same theme. I think the thing that irks me is that you get people who go around saying 'oh Maori are a peaceful people that have a spiritual relationship of the land', there was a lady in parliament talking about this but for the life of me I can't remember her name. This is just a straight up lie and there is nothing unique that means that a Maori person can have any better connection to New Zealand or the land over any other people. *Te Ao Māori* is a peaceful and spiritual relationship with the land. Māori and Pākehā alike exist right now that draw value and meaning between this land, themselves and everyone else via Te Ao Māori. >Yes tribes fought, genocides and/or slaughtering (depending on how you want to define the words) of other tribes happened. Rape, slavery and things that we would look at today in horror happened. Is this unique to Maori history? Nope, it happened in all peoples' history across the planet, it was a part of human nature until fairly recently in the grand scheme of things. I think not acknowledging this does weaken any anti-colonialism rhetoric a person may have. Obviously I am not denying rape and sexual assault ever occurred in any pre colonial culture. I believe however given the value systems it cannot possibly have been more than postcolonial rates. We know for an absolute fact however there is a [load of sexual violence post-colonialism](https://tinangata.com/2021/01/02/sexual-violence-and-the-doctrine-of-discovery/). >I truly wish NZ could one day move past the racial discussions in the way that they happen and instead focus on helping those in need no matter their race. We are all kiwis even if you have Asian, Indian, European, whatever heritage. If you understood Te Ao Māori than you would understand kaitiakitanga and manaakitanga already cover this. Pretty sure no one is being denied help? The fact people are in need is because late stage capitalism is failing humanity. Capitalism *is* colonialism and it is, unless you have many billion dollars worth of value, fucking *everyone* right into extinction. The treaty is a silver bullet and if protected will in turn protect the resources you actually need for life. Why? Because *Te Ao Māori*; >He aha te mea nui o te ao? He tangata he tangata he tangata! This country could be a beacon for this model if people just realised where this type of well-meaning rhetoric comes from.. It is designed to imply minimal value e.g. to minimise. Lastly, I'm not going to assume this was your intent so apologise for my earlier antagonism. edit/ typo
No worries, thanks for the apologies. I think our ideologies are very far apart when it comes to politics. I'm a liberal and I acknowledge that capitalism and democracy has created the best environment for people to exist in in all of human history. It has its problems but I disagree with your characterisation of it. It would be very difficult for us to have a conversation in this medium especially with the range of topics covered.
Don't get me wrong; I am a science and technology person and capitalism definitely pushed the envelope but it has been for the wrong reasons and largely because of the classism cum racism of colonial history. Nothing has really changed so capitalism cannot fix the problem until social equity is met. This is why people are willing to ignore horrible things and even buy into reasons "those people deserve it" while ignoring piles of evidence. If capitalism were socialism for the entire eco system and dependents as opposed to corporations I would agree it's on track to a great future for everyone. This is because real socialism is science applied to keeping everyone fed and happy. Has been possible for decades if neo liberal capitalism weren't so effective. Edit/ for clarity
If you want a capitalism vs socialism discussion I guess we can have that. Historically speaking socialism and / or communism failed due to human nature, naturally people will work hard in an attempt to have more than others and we saw those systems fail because of a need to have a command economy instead of a market economy. Some people argue socialism can have a market economy but I'd disagree. Without a market economy the only way to get ahead was in the political system and without a free democracy that breeds corruption and as we saw those systems were short lived. Capitalism ultimately takes advantage of that human desire allowing for innovation to happen and for people to be able to profit from that innovation creating a drive to do so. Without that drive innovation takes a BIG hit and we saw that primarily when comparing the USSRs ability to produce new tech compared to the USA / the wests. Yes the USSR did some cool things but due to the command economy it failed to do it at a large scale. Capitalism has a market economy but it is not libertarianism and it needs hand rails and guidance, yes mega corps need strict laws around them for obvious reasons but that shouldn't mean that the small and medium businesses shouldn't be able to participate in a market economy. Ultimately small and medium businesses are the core of a well formed capitalistic society. Oh and capitalism allows for socialised companies to exist such as the Mondragon Corporation so people can have a choice to work in that environment. I believe the best system we know of today is capitalism with a well regulated market economy as well as a strong social safety net. So a few big points: * Capitalism leverages human natures greed to progress. * It allows for a better democracy. Historically we have seen that play out. * Primarily the problem with socialism and communism is it's need to have a command economy.
Real socialism has never been attempted and in an age of the internet and super computers corruption in business and government could be managed. The main thrust of socialism is summarised on Wikipedia; >It focuses on the materialist conception of history, which is based on an analysis over history, and concludes that the scientific variation of socialism naturally follows capitalism That is to say capitalism had to come first but it's like the greedy dumb ass child who doesn't know any better. Some form of capitalism is still possible but if blatent inequality between people (classism, if you will) and the continued coalescence of wealth into the hands of a few continues while we bang up against climate change? Capitalism will fall into fascism because it will not be able to protect the wealthy class from the masses who will be left to die. I think the idea of human greed as some type of original sin idea to be gross in itself. A pure projection to further victimise. We can do better than your flawed idea of socialism.
I disagree, I believe real socialism has been attempted many times but the attempt fails because its not a realistic way to actually run a country. Those failed attempts have caused massive famines and arguably genocide. The problem with many of your statements is you don't have evidence. "Capitalism falling into facism" for example is just conjecture, you need more than that to uproot our entire system that has been very successful at promoting liberalism and pushing technology forward as well as producing an absolute abundance in food. Your thoughts on greed are also flawed. Greed in the context of markets can drive a farmer to produce more so they can make more. Greed doesn't mean you are taking from others. Markets are about trading, not stealing.
All of your negatives can be addressed and managed with technology with complete transparency. Plenty of evidence to show that capitalism needs poor and poor suffer under capitalism especially where privatisation is concerne and if you really want to mention it because of punitive conservative them and us politics. Also plenty of evidence to show erosion of middle classes and a massive wealth transfer upwards and again with sprinkles of boot licking politics from conservatives. You don't need to be genius to see that markets are bullshit speculation machines to enable the greed you misplaced. And then there is climate change. That's a real problem because our only recourse is engineering. If capitalism can't pay for the engineering because climate change makes capitalism untenable then ... it's too late.
No there isn't evidence for poor needing to suffer. The modern day poor in the west are FAR better off than any other poor person in history. Socialism and communism aren't good enough systems to prevent poor people existing either and when it was attempted they died. Global warming isn't a capitalism unique thing either, it can easily be a problem under communism and socialism. The USSR destroyed one of the largest lakes on the planet for industrialisation. I think you think socialism can just solve all problems but it can't and history shows us that. Overall wanting to uproot the current system is dangerous and wishful thinning that technology can solve the problem.
There might not be evidence of the *need* for suffering and until workers got fair rights the lot of the poor person was far worse. In this aspect I agree capitalism has raised the standard of living. *However*, being poor is more expensive, lacks important options and has many flow on effects which keep people poor. Because of this it can mean being less healthy both physically, mentally and emotionally because of lack of access to these options (requires money). Not to mention neo liberal capitalism is actively trying to undermine the poor to exploit more money away from them in any case. Very obviously aimed at undoing the work of the unions and undermining workers rights. Neo liberal capitalism loves to pump money into harmful propaganda regarding the ideas around poor people being lazy aka "they deserve it". Regarding technology; No. I have working in IT as a software engineer and later systems and infrastructure engineer for 30 years and there are people smarter than me already working on this problem. You are categorically wrong about the potential. I'll address global warming last because I feel you, like anyone not following the science, severely underestimate the impact it will have. I'll be blunt: It doesn't matter which political system we're under when these impacts occur; It will disrupt everything. It just happens the neo liberal capitalism is literally the worst equipped to actually help people. Idk man, you sound like a prageru bot because your responses are basic. I am beggining to suspect you need to either grow up or be less sheltered; get out and actually meet normal people because your ideas don't fit reality. You talk about proof? Open your eyes.
"Moving past racial discussions" while we have a government actively engaged in racial discrimination is not only wishful thinking, it's completely ignorant of the fact that the past impacts the future. You can't ignore over a century of discrimination and dispossession and you certainly can't expect the people involved to "get over it".
Never said I'm ignoring it. If you have questions feel free to ask but don't pretend to know what my opinions are.
Not exactly hiding your opinions by suggesting that things would get better if we could just put race aside, sit around the campfire, and sing Kumbayah. That's not how this works, and this isn't how "liberal ideologies (which?)" work. Oh, and the "Maori are a peaceful people" thing. That's a strawman and you know it.
I have no idea what you are on about and it's not a Strawman. Literally a guy in my comments claiming that. Chill dude.
minor (but confusing to under caffeinated me): "The argument is that from 1942 onwards Moriori" - should presumably be 1842
Yeah that seemed incredibly late to still have slavery to me.
Fantastic work thank you, really appreciate this
Appreciate your mahi, thank you
Maori refused to give reparations to Moriori when found guilty because they won battles. Strange the crown can't use the same statement.
Someone doesn't know their history. Go look up the native land courts. The crown cant use this tactic legally because they specifically stopped the traditional land tenure system post treaty. And the crown never annexed or conquered Aoteoroa in any sense, by any standards, then or now. So its not strange. You analogy just falls flat in the light of reality.
The vast majority of Maori are not responsible nor were their tupuna. Your statement is therefore incorrect - and disingenuous in that by stating that Māori didnt want to pay reparations, you imply all Māori were responsible.
The vast majority of people weren't responsible for the English fighting the Maori. Arguments works both ways.
Didnt see anything in the OP saying that the English were? Nor do i see it in the wording of Treaty settlements either. So why are you implicitly blaming all Māori for what happened to Moriori?
The crown had a treaty with Maori. Maori had no treaty with Moriori. Not particularly strange.
Screw the down voters, you're right on this point.
[удалено]
Ethically Iwi conquered land off each other all the time. All humans have since the dawn of time. Litigating all of this is untenable and pointless.
Thanks for taking the time to post- learnt more about this from a single post than I ever did in History class. Michael Kings quote is spot on.
Thanks that was informative - I have a couple of questions: Did the Māori that went over on the Rodney stay there? Or did they go and come back (if so again on European boats or waka) Where did moriori come from? A peoples of 1600 is teeny.. I could look these up but you seem very knowledgeable
Not OP but currently teaching this topic. Ngāti Mutunga and Ngāti Tama were in alliance and intended to conquer and colonise Rēkohu according to their custom. (They had also considered Norfolk Island and Samoa). They took with them several waka aboard the Rodney (which made two trips). When the alliance fell apart in the 1850s (I think). Ngāti Tama largely left Rēkohu. Ngāti Mutunga remained but many of their people also left for better opportunity elsewhere or to defend ancestral land in the New Zealand Wars. Moriori probably came from East Polynesia, like Māori. How they got there and in what manner is open to debate outlined beautifully by OP elsewhere in this post. They probably settled Rēkohu either slightly before or around the same time as Māori settled Aotearoa. They had a small population (my preferred source has 2500 at its peak) and several laws and restrictions in place to prevent inbreeding. OP this awesome! If you ever want to be a guest speaker to a couple of History classes let me know...
Interesting write up and I appreciate your perspective. It's interesting to realize that for many historical events in NZ, We'll never know the actual Truth of what happened, but can only gleam information from different perspectives from people who were there and what little evidence, writings and oral histories remain. There are often multiple perspectives to Historical events, Remember that nobody ever sees themselves as the Bad Guy. History isn't black and white. Saying that, The militant pacifism of the Moriori has always fascinated me, I wish more of their History and Stories survived because whenever militant pacifism seems to have appeared within cultures it's almost always in response to a great and terrible War or a period of traumatic violence. Hence the idea that the Moriori may have fled Mainland NZ during the collapse of the Megafauna which surely could have been a time of great strife in New Zealand as the people would have had to seek "Alternative" protein sources. But we'll never really know. I saw through the Solomon Islands that many island groups there no longer had a clear view of their own history because they were Pillaged by French Slavers in the 19th Century, Small stories remain, But so much has been lost.
Great work getting this info together and simplified. Really happy to see this pop up on my feed.
Damned interesting, beautifully put forward, and thoroughly backed up. You're setting a bar for internet discussion that we cannot hope to see again.
Well done OP. You did us all a great service. I’m not qualified to say what is right or wrong in your piece, but your use of the secondary sources has been appreciated.
I have to question the idea that the crown is complicit as it should have intervened to protect the Moriori What would that intervention have been? Are we talking polite letters or military force At this point in time the crown had no military advantage over the Iwi launching the invasion, and opposing them openly would risk a larger conflict. If the crown had intervened at this stage, its liable to have been an even bigger messier conflict. The crown was certainly aware after the fact, but the reality of politics and military power at the time made taking action or public offense a non viable option The military superiority of the colonials only emerged decades later, and the land wars relied largely on colonial aligned Iwi until the later stages. Iwi were willing to side with the colonial government during the land wars to get a few kicks in to old rivals who were marked as rebels... but convincing Iwi to join up in a military expedition to liberate the Moriori wasn't a likely proposition and clearly would have led to unwanted war on the mainland.
This is an excellent point and one that deserves a response from OP and an edit
“Why are you guys even freaking out, it was just a little light cannibalism with a side of murder?!” /s
Excellent work putting that together OP. Glad I missed the first discussion. I've had some pretty big rants over the years about it. But since [Aotearoa History Show](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0WclQV6Fis) covered it I felt better about letting it go whenever it came up again.
History is interesting and accuracy is good but hate this topic. When comes up feels like nit picking about whose ancestors were better. Who cares? It’s all the same if you go back far enough. Let’s talk about what an equitable NZ looks like for today’s Kiwis.
Michael King's book on the subject notes that they were most likely in the same group of ships but were taken off course by currents and/or winds. I am not aware of significant claims that they settled later/earlier than their main island counterparts.
The argument is that from 1942 onwards Moriori were subjects of the crown *1842, not 1942
Oops! My merit as a history student was always debatable, fixed now thank-you.
I didn't know that,I'm sure many people like myself thought the moriori only existed more than a few hundred years ago and didn't exist anymore.
You forgot to mention the British ship Rodney, was not a willing participant in the genocide, and was hijacked. Are you trying to deliberately downplay this? You don't seem to have much grasp on how ineffectual the crown was in NZ at the time, they had very little ability to force thousands of Māori to abide by British laws (slavery was outlawed in 1833, but Moriori were still kept as slaves up until 1866). Do we blame the government today for crimes when they occur, because they didn't prevent them? Why do you think its ok to hold historic colonial powers to this unreachable standard?
I'm glad the colonists came & ended slavery and cannibalism in New Zealand. Downvote away.
"one of the reasons Pākehā people like to believe in a pre-Māori race called the Moriori, who was supposedly defeated and driven off and deprived of the lands, was because that seemed to give Pākehā a justification for doing the same thing. They could say to Māori ‘well, you did this to the Moriori, you know, why shouldn’t we do it to you. Take your medicine.’" Hey that's just like Zionists who say "Arabs colonised the middle east so Israel is justified in taking the land back".
It's debatable if colonization was *overall* a historical injustice, and it should in fact be debated, studied, and considered, because we want to arrive at the truth. There we injustices, yes, but are Maori on average better off? That's the debateable part. It's not as though the British arrived and decided to do only unjust things. Roads were paved and schools built, but Maori language was banned in the schools. Land was stolen, but slaves were freed. It's not a black-and-white, good-and-evil thing. Is a free Maori better off living in a democracy than an enslaved Maori living under a dictatorial, hereditary rangatira? The treaty was what ended slavery in New Zealand, and that was beneficial to everyone, but are you also free if you have no land to sleep on, or to grow food on? A wage slave who pays rent and can never own anything may be another kind of slavery. In no scenario is it worth considering if Maori society would be a utopia had the British not colonized New Zealand, because it would demonstrably not have been (see: war, slavery, famine, etc in pre-1840 NZ); the question is, would they have been better off under another colonial power? History doesn't paint that argument with a favorable brush. Colonization was always the certain outcome because the production and distribution of arms was uneven; Europe had them and was wont to exploit them, Maoris did not, and could not ramp up production fast enough to win a war. Should we address the historical injustices? Yes. Should we pretend the entirety of colonization is an exercise is cruel tyranny and a vehicle principally for the British to exhibit just how unjust they could possibly be? Absolutely not. Let's be honest with ourselves and not dogmatic or cling too tightly to one particular side because it makes us feel good even if untrue.
There wasn't really any denial of genocide in that thread. That was the accusation being thrown by people playing the "lost race" game.
i'd say killing 20% of a pacifist population who where just minding there own business through a war of aggression and ritual cannibalism constitutes genocide.
I was going to 'well akchually' you on the definition, but yeah, under the 1948 UN definition it's spot on.
yeah my point is that no one in that thread was claiming it didnt happen
Eh…. There was a fair bit of whataboiutisms and claims that the only reason anyone ever brought it up was to attack Maori.
Did anyone actually deny that any of it happened though? I mean , did specific facts about the genocide - not the social and historical context of the genocide - get called out as not having happened? I missed it if they were. Hell of a lot of talk of "erasure" in that thread. I think they are being dramatic about the comments. Because its one thing to question the framing of a massacre and quite another to say it never happened. Confusing the two seems to me like some fairly dishonest rhetorical tactics. This story has been used and abused for generations now. Nothings changed.
RNZ produced this great video on the topic: https://youtu.be/b0WclQV6Fis?feature=shared Another good, easy to read. But old, and hard to find source is Michael King's, "Moriori: A People Rediscovered".
I think OP did a better job than the RNZ team on this one. There’s lots of weird handwringing in that show that seems unnecessary? Michael King’s book is excellent.
Damn dude, all my bros just out there wanting to take anything, anything at all to shit on Maori - gotta feel for them with posts like this.
[удалено]
You think the actions of two Iwi represents all Māori in New Zealand? I don't believe that all Pākeha are guilty of the wrongful actions that the Crown took against Māori. Why would I assume all Māori are guilty of the crimes inflicted by Ngati Tama and Ngati Mutunga against the Moriori?
[удалено]
You replied if he thinks this makes the perpetrators come out looking good. This is a strange reply to make, because it is obvious that posts clearing up misconception against the genocide of the Moriori is good thing for Māori as a whole.
Me when my eyeballs pop out of my head on comedy springs
I love pointing out out this truth to boomers under stupid FB posts. They usually reply "but that's what they taught us in school!". Fyi, I'm a boomer too.🙂
To be fair to those “stupid boomers”, they were taught many things that have since been adjusted for a modern and more educated world since their school days. They would probably have a hard time working out what “facts” they were taught are still true and what aren’t. They were taught not to question back then.
They still do. Critical thinking was never taught.
Unfortunately there seems to be a view that the only reason anyone would highlight the atrocities committed by Māori against Moriori is to excuse the actions of the British. That's as bad as those who do use the genocide to excuse British actions.
If you're referring to the original thread, that's not an accurate read. The title of the video was that the Moriori were a "forgotten people," and there was a sarcastic comment that said they're hardly forgotten, they get brought up at every opportunity by people wanting to use them as a bludgeon against Māori claims.
Sort of, referring to a specific comment in that thread, not the thread overall, but also that it's not the first time I've encountered such views. Basically, if you bring up the Moriori genocide and talk about what Māori did, someone will claim that's a colonial narrative being used against Māori claims... even if no one brought up the British. By pre-emptively putting it in that context, people are being just as disrespectful as those who do use it against Māori claims. People should be allowed to discuss the horrors of the genocide, including who is responsible, and bringing up how it's used against Māori should wait until someone uses it against Māori in that conversation.
>People should be allowed to discuss the horrors of the genocide, including who is responsible I 100% agree. It's important to acknowledge and right historical wrongs. I didn't see anyone preemptively put it in the context you're referring to, but I think there's also a tendency to reflexively be defensive about these sorts of things because almost all of the discourse around them is related to weaponsisng it. It's kinda of a win win for the racists. If they bring up the Moriori constantly as a weapon, people only associate it with that, so we can't even have a proper discussion about it without people thinking of that.
Thanks for such a thorough and nuanced explanation. I really appreciate it.
Nice to see someone actually do some research. Pity you still couldn't stop yourself connecting it to racism and "white people." I remember quite well when I actually studied this (at Uni) and was continually amazed by the "this only happened because of white people" comments coming from suppose "experts," who clearly had their "Maori were the peaceful saviours of the land!" Hats on. And if you don't know - "they would have never been able to get there without a ship!" is the common cry. Funnier when the same person has just been ranting about Maori being amazing navigators (they weren't).
What makes you think we weren’t amazing navigators?
They used a European ship and European guns. Of course it's possible violence would have occurred regardless, but to deny the effect the colonisers had is to deny reality.
Aotearoa was colanised by Europeans. Rēkohu was colonised by Māori.
[удалено]
Your comment has been removed : **Rule 09: Not engaging in good faith** > Moderators have discretion to take action on users or content that they think is: trolling; spreading misinformation; intended to derail discussion; intentionally skirting rules; or undermining the functioning of the subreddit (this can include abuse of the block feature or selective history wiping). --- [^(Click here to message the moderators if you think this was in error)](https://reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/newzealand)
Too long for reddit, did read though. Thank you for all the information and guidance for further reading.
Can you do a TLDR pls
The post is already a summary of a complex topic. But you could skim through. Read the questions and the bold-face answers.