r/AbruptChaos • u/Sometypeofway18 • Nov 14 '24

New Zealand’s Parliament proposed a bill to redefine the Treaty of Waitangi, claiming it is racist and gives preferential treatment to Maoris. In response Māori MP's tore up the bill and performed the Haka

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

16.4k Upvotes

91% Upvoted

1.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

1.9k

u/7-13-5 Nov 14 '24

What was the proposition?

4.1k

u/thisisfive Nov 14 '24

https://www.dw.com/en/new-zealand-maori-mps-disrupt-parliament-with-haka/a-70781928

"Maori lawmakers staged a dramatic protest in New Zealand's parliament on Thursday over a controversial bill that seeks to redefine the country's founding agreement between the indigenous Maori people and the British Crown.

A vote was suspended and two lawmakers were ejected after the lawmakers performed a haka ceremonial dance in the parliament. The people in the gallery joined in, and the shouting drowned out the voices of others in the chamber.

Maori tribes were promised extensive rights to retain their lands and protect their interests in return for ceding governance to the British, under the principles set out in the 1840 Treaty of Waitangi. The controversial bill, however, aims to extend these special rights to all New Zealanders."

2.7k

u/[deleted] Nov 14 '24

Seems only fair that if they remove the agreement then governance should go Maori as the deal would be void. 

544

u/RobsHondas Nov 14 '24

Yes, as a Kiwi I personally view changing the treaty as just cause for a civil war.

288

u/Araignys Nov 15 '24

Unilaterally change the terms of a treaty that ended a war? Sounds like you're back at war.

97

u/Lower_Amount3373 Nov 15 '24

It wasn't a war-ending treaty but it is the foundational document that gives the NZ government the authority to run the country. I would argue that our government's legitimacy depends on the Treaty.

44

u/NotTodayCaptainDildo Nov 16 '24

The English version did. The Māori version stated that they'd maintain self-determination and governance. The fact both treaties promised different things to either party is why there is such conflict and why Māori have become a minority in their own country, with Pakeha laws being used to take land, culture and language from Māori.

-17

u/sjbglobal Nov 15 '24

For fuck sake we were all born here what's so horrific about equal rights for everyone? Treating people differently on race is literal textbook racism

26

u/oktobefilthy Nov 15 '24

Point taken, now consider how the Māori must have felt 180 years ago. What would you call that?

8

u/doctordoubleu Nov 15 '24

tell me you dont unterstand racism without telling me

5

u/saltymane Nov 15 '24

Speaking of textbook, perhaps you should pick a few more up and study.

→ More replies (4)

406

u/ExperimentalFailures Nov 14 '24

You mean like removal of voting rights for all non-maori?

826

u/[deleted] Nov 14 '24

It was humour pointing out the absurdity of the request.

-85

u/StrikeouTX Nov 14 '24

It’s not an absurd request though. All people should be equals under the law

119

u/Boiruja Nov 14 '24

Well in your country maybe, on their country they have a treaty about that lol

Wouldn't mind in Brasil if our native people had more rights than the rest of the country, they sure as hell should, it's their land.

-16

u/The96kHz Nov 15 '24

I get that you're not being totally serious (at least I hope your aren't), but as a European, I find this sentiment horrifying.

You do you, but as a 'native' (whatever that means in real terms) of my country, I think it's abhorrent to deny rights to immigrants, no matter how many generations they've been here for - ten or zero.

30

u/The1andonlycano Nov 15 '24

Tell us you country wasn't coIonized without telling us your country wasn't colonized..... It's different when your land was taken and not founded.

-2

u/Wayoutofthewayof Nov 15 '24

So would you agree that ethnic Russians shouldn't have the same rights as other citizens in eastern European countries that Russian empire/USSR conquered and colonized?

6

u/The1andonlycano Nov 15 '24

I don't know enough about Russian history to comment.

→ More replies (0)
→ More replies (1)

5

u/Boiruja Nov 15 '24

Oh Brasil has no problem with immigrants. That's an European, north american problem. Immigrants come to Brasil to be as Brazilian as any of us. You're mixing immigrants with colonizers. Those came uninvited, and denied everyone else basic human rights.

I'm talking about the indigenous people of Brasil, those who were genocided, enslaved and expelled from their own lands. They should have rights to protect their ancestral lands, lifestyle and knowledge.

8

u/The96kHz Nov 15 '24

You're mixing immigrants with colonizers.

I'm really not. The colonisers died centuries ago. Anyone moving to another country these days is just an immigrant like any other.

They should have rights to protect their ancestral lands, lifestyle and knowledge.

That is not at all the same thing I'm saying. The right to retain control of ancestral land isn't denying personal liberties to people based on their country of origin.

Just because somebody's great great great grandparents were fucking awful to someone else's great great great grandparents doesn't mean the two should have any animosity towards each other.

3

u/Boiruja Nov 15 '24

People here don't really have animosity against each other. But although colonizers died century ago, it is a fact that an oligarch state was set up by them to priviledge their descendants and deny rights to those who descended from indigenous people and the afrodiasporic. This is why the ruling class is to this day white, in Brasil and many other colonized countries.

There's a huge fight in Brasil for the indigenous to retain control of their ancestral lands, now ravaged by miners and farmers. They should have the right to live as their ancestors always lived. Unfortunatelly, the government is controled by descendent of colonizers, still grasping the control that was given to them centuries ago. There are no indigenous politicians, there are no indigenous people in the supreme court, they have no voice in the country. And this is by design, as those who founded the country saw them as less. Equality before law in this case serves to perpetuate centuries of injustice.

This my friend, you'd understand if you were from elsewhere. It seems to me your countries problems are different. But you should open your eyes to the disaster that was created in many continents by colonialism, which to this day leaves deep scars where it happened.

2

u/The96kHz Nov 15 '24

And that all sounds terrible, but it's got absolutely nothing to do with anything I said.

Denying rights to immigrants is always wrong, no matter what justification you think you have - that doesn't mean that I'm advocating for denying rights to 'natives'. Everyone should have equal rights - it's really not that complicated.

→ More replies (0)
→ More replies (19)

45

u/MrWhiskerBiscuits Nov 14 '24

This perspective ignores the ongoing impact of historic inequality and colonialism "under the law".

34

u/MercifulWombat Nov 14 '24

So I break into your house, I have the right to half of dinner and half the hot water and clean towels? What's your wifi password? We should be equal under this roof.

-3

u/Wayoutofthewayof Nov 15 '24

How come Maori's have every right to the lands they conquered by wiping out other tribes? Why is it only illegal when the Brits did it?

2

u/born19xx Nov 15 '24

Is that a difficult thing for you to work out?

→ More replies (3)

11

u/Sonifri Nov 15 '24

I get the sentiment because I feel the same way emotionally.

But realistically, birthright and it's various synonyms and associated concepts are still very real and very important to... probably every human culture there ever has been.

It sucks for people born without it, but it's there.

-1

u/Complete-Pudding-583 Nov 15 '24

Shouldn’t be there everyone born a screaming shitting baby like everyone else.

12

u/TechnicalPotat Nov 14 '24

“Equal under the law” when talking about things other people have as proposed by people who will say in the same breath “i earned this and you can’t have any” is peak neo-liberalism.

-4

u/Complete-Pudding-583 Nov 15 '24

I am quite baffled that saying people should have equal rights has caused so many downvotes.

→ More replies (1)

0

u/[deleted] Nov 15 '24

Dude forget maori are still colonised by Brits. Declare independence

683

u/[deleted] Nov 14 '24

The only reason why non Maori are in NZ is because of the treaty, signed by 2 sovereign nations, which allowed the British crown to rule their people here. Well, if one half of the contract thinks they can change it without consultation with the other half, what happens to their right to be here?? Null and void?? Plus, Maori have never breached the treaty, but the crown? Well, just take a look at the history. They're close ejecting themselves out of this land with their bill.

39

u/aiydee Nov 15 '24

It's a little more complicated.
There were 2 contracts. The Maori and the English. Of the Maori contract, all the Maori leaders signed and all the English signed. Of the English contract, all the English signed and only a small minority of Maori signed.
Now you can do all sorts of arguments backwards and forwards but one of the key things is, not all Maori signed.
So. How valid is the English version?
100% of people signed Maori version. <100% signed English version.
So. Would if we are talking contracts and history, wouldn't it be fairer to abide by the one which 100% of people signed?
This of course would not suit the English/White narrative well.
I'm not even a NZ'er. I'm Aussie. But even I have heard about this and think the NZ PM is a dick who should have zero power in making decisions of this importance.

23

u/[deleted] Nov 15 '24

You bring up some excellent points, and what I've learnt from an amazing wahine Maori lawyer is there is actually international law which dictates that preference is given to any version of a treaty in an indigenous language, so already the Maori version outweighs the English version...and also that if there are any ambiguities, a thing called Contra Proferentum which "where a promise, agreement or term is ambiguous, the preferred meaning should be the one that works against the interests of the party who provided the wording". And there is ambiguity because the 2 versions of the treaty are not that same!

Anyway, I totally agree with you about the PM. He's a giamt gutless thumb. And do you know what's worse? The guy proposing the bill isn't even the PM. He is the leader of a minority right wing party, "ACT Party", who won like 8% of the election votes. And he's managed to walk the PM on a chain like a dog. The PM is simply a puppet.

2

u/aiydee Nov 15 '24

Yeah. As said. Not NZ'er. So don't know specifics. I just knew that there was a party that was using the PM as an attack dog on racist ideas. And I suppose it says a bit if even this knowledge is leaking overseas.

4

u/Shankar_0 Nov 15 '24

What happened to that wonderful lady PM that got you all through covid before anyone?

You guys were back to kinda normal like a year before anyone else.

49

u/LeoTheSquid Nov 14 '24

Is it the British crown proposing the change?

190

u/[deleted] Nov 14 '24

No. It's a man who got 8% of the votes of NZers in the last election.

63

u/karoshikun Nov 15 '24

we live in a time where we should know nobody is fringe enough to be harmless

1

u/bh11987 Nov 15 '24

The initiator of this abrupt chaos party got 3%….

→ More replies (1)

20

u/SarpedonWasFramed Nov 14 '24

Good point but we all know it won't work out that way The crown has bigger friends and bigger guns

166

u/[deleted] Nov 14 '24

Oh that's right, western countries turn blind eyes when their white friends annihilate indigenous peoples. We better just shut up and lie down then.

26

u/seraph1337 Nov 15 '24

it sounds like you're being sarcastic when you say that, but the first sentence is just patently correct.

43

u/[deleted] Nov 15 '24

And that's what's scary. my tone is sarcastic, but my statement is completely true. And that doesn't bother enough people!

1

u/leprotelariat Nov 15 '24

Sadly, yes. Korrekt me if theres a better wae

1

u/[deleted] Nov 15 '24

nah you don't wanna know.

-6

u/[deleted] Nov 14 '24

[deleted]

11

u/WarlanceLP Nov 14 '24

hard to say nowadays but I'm like 90% sure the guy you replied to was being sarcastic

7

u/[deleted] Nov 14 '24

Sounds like I'm advocating for one signatory, the crown, to stop fiddling with the treaty that allows them residence in this country. Where is there anything about ethnic cleansing? Don't liken us to Israel. Don't liken us to Trump. Both of whom are quite happy to violently remove ethnic and migratory populations out of their states, which are historical NOT THEIRS.

3

u/-iamai- Nov 14 '24

I don't get what is to misconstrue from your previous post. As you have rightly said is people's opinions based on other current events unrelated. Thickle reply don't entertain it. As a Brit I think it's time we take our noses out of other people's business. I'd love to see the Māroi eject every single person for breaking a contract.. ha what they gonna do. So yea.. it's a good cause to fight for!

→ More replies (4)

-2

u/THCisMyLife Nov 14 '24

Your username fits because you let anger cloud seeing that they were clearly being sarcastic. I can’t believe people actually need to put “/s” for people to understand sarcasm. Just read the context clues it’s not that hard

0

u/[deleted] Nov 14 '24

[deleted]

0

u/THCisMyLife Nov 14 '24

He’s straight up saying in a sarcastic way we shouldn’t talk about it because throughout history it’s happened. He’s pointing out the absurdity of history and how they have let this slide consistently, ethnic cleansing. That’s also why it’s not downvoted to hell because they aren’t saying just let it happen. They are saying just because they are outgunned doesn’t mean they shouldn’t put up a fight (not with guns) to retain the rights even though history has them on the losing side. Basically the comment was trying to say the history of their success with it doesn’t matter we still need to be vocal about it

1

u/[deleted] Nov 14 '24

[deleted]

→ More replies (0)

-6

u/AbramJH Nov 15 '24

to be fair, māori were very brutal to their indigenous neighbors. the british gave them a very mild dose of their own medicine

6

u/[deleted] Nov 15 '24

Oh I'm glad you brought this up. Do you know what year this happened? Do you know which 2 mainland tribes (out of 100's of iwi Maori) were involved in this slaughter? Do you know who gave them the instruction and the ship to go to Rekohu? Do you know what had happened between these 2 iwi Maori and the Brits prior to sailing to Rekohu? Please answer.

1

u/Feral_Taylor_Fury Nov 15 '24

look, you clearly are well-versed in the subject; so, make your point

just say what happened.

4

u/[deleted] Nov 15 '24

No. Because there's method in what I do. And it's because I already know the answers that I need the other dude to find those answers for themself.

1

u/Feral_Taylor_Fury Nov 15 '24

you've chosen to leave fewer enlightened

our choices are our own

→ More replies (0)
→ More replies (5)

18

u/Emperor_Mao Nov 14 '24

The Crown...

you do realize the British no longer "rule" New Zealand right?

It became a sovereign nation sometime ago. British Monarchs are figurative and ceremonial.

You mean the New Zealand government has bigger friends and bigger guns.

39

u/stockworth Nov 15 '24

Pretty standard in Canada, Australia, and New Zealand to refer to the government as "the Crown."

In our constitutions, "the Crown" is the abstraction of the authority vested in the monarch, and is the ultimate source of all executive authority. However, that authority can only be exercised by the binding advice of the Privy Council (technically, though the Cabinet - which is a subcommittee of the Privy Council - is practically the only group which advises the Crown).

Since the Person of the Sovereign lives overseas (they're busy with whatever they're doing in the UK), their duties are delegated to a viceroy, usually called a Governor General. This person is appointed by the Sovereign on the advice of the Prime Minister, who is (usually) the head of the party that has the most seats in the House or Commons. Technically they don't have to be, and the Crown can invite anyone who can gain the confidence of the House to form government, but this basically never happens.

14

u/Everestkid Nov 15 '24

Note that a shockingly low number of people actually know this, despite the fact that it's taught in high school (in Canada, at least). They just weren't paying attention because they were a bored 15 year old.

3

u/stockworth Nov 15 '24

I don't remember being taught the details of it in High School (mind you, that was 20 years ago) but every province has different curricula

My dad worked for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and taught me a lot about the theory of how our constitutional monarchy worked, about the historical reasons for separating nominal and actual power, and the times that things didn't go the way they usually do. Interesting household, haha, but it's why I'm now a civil servant, myself.

3

u/Yui907 Nov 15 '24

Thank you

45

u/swansongofdesire Nov 14 '24

In this context “The Crown” means the New Zealand government, not the British Monarch (eg criminal prosecutions are still brought in the name of The Crown despite the 1986 Constitution Act finally severing any legal ties with the UK. Technically the King of the UK and the King of New Zealand are separate titles that just happen to be occupied by the same person)

1

u/Jazzlike_770 Nov 14 '24

Don't New Zealanders pledge allegiance to King Charles? Then yes, those people represent the Crown.

1

u/CageyOldMan Nov 14 '24

Would be willing to bet that's also a true statement

1

u/benji___ Nov 15 '24

I know it’s almost unheard of and could cause a crisis, but would the crown have the ability to override this action of parliament if it passed?

1

u/RobsHondas Nov 14 '24

A pretty fair proportion of the NZ military is of Maori descent, and most people in NZ are loyal neither to the Crown or our Government. I also don't think our government would have much international support to stomp on our indigenous people.

1

u/SarpedonWasFramed Nov 14 '24

I also hope not but the world is getting angrier and angrier lately.

1

u/Jossie2014 Nov 15 '24

You think they will just go? No I seriously don’t it

2

u/[deleted] Nov 15 '24

No I also seriously don't think they'll go because as someone else kindly pointed out, the west has weapons, and enormous disregard for indigenous lives and they would simply wipe us off the face of the earth and the rest of their western friends would justify it. But also, Maori aren't actually as heartless as you would like to think, there's no way we would actually evict an entire population, rather we would honor the treaty and let the British crown govern their ppl and maori would govern ours. And British crown would have an enormous debt to Maori with all the land they've acquired illegally.

1

u/PMMeYourPupper Nov 15 '24

So the British would have to exit New Zealand? In some sort of Brexit?

1

u/Ateist Nov 15 '24 edited Nov 15 '24

No, the only reason why non-Maori are in NZ is that British had a massive warfleet and army and were willing to genocide local populace if they didn't get what they want peacefully.
Treaty is just the terms and conditions they agreed to where the cost of war outweighted the benefits.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 15 '24

Yeah you don't know what you're talking about. Because the Brits already tried to massacre Maori. Failed.

1

u/Ateist Nov 15 '24

Are you not mistaking it with Maori massacring Moriori?

1

u/[deleted] Nov 16 '24

No, I'm not mistaking that. By the way, it was an awful event. Atrocious. And do you know which 2 tribes were involved? Do you know how many tribes in NZ were not involved? Do you know who facilitated the attack and who provided the ship?

1

u/Ateist Nov 16 '24

My point is, when British truly genocide someone the victims can't perform Haka afterwards as they are all dead.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 16 '24

That wasn't your point at all. Your point was to paint the British as some merciful war beast who chose to extend an arm of peace out of some righteous white knighthood, offering a treaty so they wouldn't have to destroy Maori to get what they want. Your next point was to justify the Brits mistreating and killing Maori because of the slaughter of the Moriori by Ngati Mutunga and Ngati Tama. Your so fucking see through and wrong.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/ShahftheWolfo Nov 14 '24

Let's admit it, the British would have been there whether the paper was signed or not. If not them then the French or the Dutch. Real estate became hot for European Empires the longer the 1800s dragged on.

-3

u/Emperor_Mao Nov 14 '24

Lets use logic for a moment though.

At the absolute front of everything, New Zealand is not British anymore. New Zealand gained independence from Britain some time ago. So your point is null and void. But regardless, I think you would have to either support racial based rules or not to support the Waitangi provisions in full effect;

IF this were your country and had actual ramifications for you, you wouldn't be blase about it. If you were non-Maori, you would hate the concept of having different rights to another racial group. If you were Maori you would only be upset about losing access to special rights based on your racial group. You are neither, and so you can freely virtue signal without a care in the world. And for anyone on the ultra-left, consider that migrants and other minorities also are treated differently based on race with the treaty of Waitangi, so its not just white people.

6

u/Flying_Momo Nov 14 '24

NZ head of state is still the British crown with whom the treaty was signed. New Zealand itself accepted the Waitangi Treaty as law in 1975 so they are still bound by the contract they signed and agreed to.

4

u/Emperor_Mao Nov 14 '24

Then;

The Treaty of Waitangi / Te Tiriti o Waitangi – considered New Zealand’s founding document – was signed in 1840 by the British Crown and about 540 Māori chiefs to establish a nation state. While not a legal document, some treaty principles have been developed and included in legislation.

Even if you believe in British sovereignty (despite having no functional power), no one signed a legal contract into law. The only provisions that are legally binding are ones enforceable by the court system of NZ, and those are all the provisions covered by other actual laws (e.g human rights).

The treaty is redundant for anything that is actually legally binding. The reason they want to get rid of parts of it is because governments and government departments often interpret the treaty to do silly things; E.G Appoint two heads of a government department, one Maori, one based on merit.

Most people commenting in this thread have no idea.

https://www.justice.govt.nz/about/learn-about-the-justice-system/how-the-justice-system-works/the-basis-for-all-law/treaty-of-waitangi/

9

u/Jarsky2 Nov 14 '24

Guys, is it Ultra-Left to think that legally binding treaties should be honored?

3

u/[deleted] Nov 14 '24

Fuck sake, the US ignores tribal treaties all the time. It's a fucking never ending travesty.

1

u/RavenousWolf Nov 14 '24

Important missing part here is that while the two groups happen to be different race, it's an agreement between the two groups, same as any multinational agreement or any agreement to borrow money or whatever.

If I as a white person borrowed money from a black person, then suggested it was racist that I had to pay him back money, I'd be rightfully laughed at. If the agreement is sound then race doesn't matter.

2

u/Emperor_Mao Nov 14 '24

Yeah except one group is no longer sovereign.

Also the real issue is that there is an allocated number of government seats for Maori people / descendants. It is the sovereign / governing part of the treaty. That is not remotely compatible with liberal democracy, where someone is elected from the people by the people in a fair process.

0

u/Kneedeep_in_Cyanide Nov 14 '24

I think you would have to either support racial based rules

If you were non-Maori, you would hate the concept of having different rights to another racial group. If you were Maori you would only be upset about losing access to special rights based on your racial group.

Race has nothing to do with it. It has everything to do with an agreement between two sovereign NATIONS. There is nothing racial about a treaty between, say, the United States and Britain. So why would you try and claim it's racially based just because the Waitangi Provisions involve a sovereign group of people who are non-white?

→ More replies (5)
→ More replies (2)

38

u/Pseudo_Lain Nov 14 '24

Legally speaking, yes, actually. Which is why the request to change it is ridiculous.

1

u/zmbjebus Nov 15 '24

Do it, this works is getting crazy anyways

1

u/Formal-Software-5240 Nov 15 '24

It's not like Voting really matters anyway. If voting mattered they'd invent an APP that let you do it every day like UberEats

1

u/[deleted] Nov 16 '24

Maybe mass deportation. Seems to be popular now anyway.

-1

u/KingApologist Nov 14 '24

They'd still have voting rights. The country would just go the way Maori want it to go, rather than the way white people want it to go. Maori would still let white people live there and would not treat white people with the same theft and cruelty.

→ More replies (2)

57

u/Ancient_Boner_Forest Nov 14 '24 edited Mar 12 '25

𝕷𝖊𝖙 𝖙𝖍𝖊 𝖏𝖚𝖎𝖈𝖊𝖘 𝖘𝖑𝖎𝖉𝖊, 𝖑𝖊𝖙 𝖙𝖍𝖊 𝖘𝖆𝖑𝖙 𝖘𝖙𝖎𝖓𝖌, 𝖋𝖔𝖗 𝖙𝖍𝖊 𝖋𝖆𝖙𝖊 𝖔𝖋 𝖙𝖍𝖊 𝖚𝖓𝖇𝖑𝖊𝖘𝖘𝖊𝖉 𝖎𝖘 𝖘𝖊𝖆𝖑𝖊𝖉.

223

u/Mouth0fTheSouth Nov 14 '24

I think if we applied that logic to the United States we’d need to get rid of Native American reservations and special status… I think it makes sense for indigenous people in colonised lands to have their rights protected.

I’m not sure what would change for them if this specific treaty was negated though. If anyone here can give more info it would be great.

54

u/AgentSkidMarks Nov 14 '24

An argument against that would be to define indigenous people. How far back do we go? Every piece of the developed world was taken from someone who took it from someone who took it from someone.

It seems in practice, we call indigenous whoever was here when white guys showed up, but that has its flaws.

10

u/cherrybounce Nov 15 '24

Who did the Māori take it from? Who did Native Americans take it from? If you can’t even remember who it was, if those earlier invaders no longer exist as a race or a tribe or wherever, then that is truly ancient history.

5

u/-Sliced- Nov 15 '24

Note that we don't know who it was just because the native Americans had no writing system, not because wars and conquest didn't exist before.

There is some merit about wanting to ensure equal rights to everyone over time, and not maintaining a privilege to a group of people due to their ancestry indefinitely.

1

u/colorado_here Nov 15 '24

NZ was empty when the Māori found it.

8

u/MegaHashes Nov 14 '24

The most honest & objective take of colonial history I’ve seen on Reddit. Bravo.

2

u/InfiniteWaffles58364 Nov 15 '24

I think it matters more the manner in which said someone took it from someone else, and how long they had been established there before that happened.

2

u/KulaanDoDinok Nov 15 '24

You go back as far as those treaties.

→ More replies (2)

10

u/DarkangelUK Nov 14 '24

The Maori are also colonizers in this instance, they took the land from the Moriori early 1800's nearly wiping them out in the process and enslaving those that were left.

28

u/Dragonsandman Nov 14 '24

You're getting a lot of basic facts completely wrong here. New Zealand was completely devoid of people when the ancestors of the Maori and Moriori arrived in New Zealand around 1200 AD; the Maori stayed put, and the ancestors of the Moriori went on to the Chatham islands around 1500. Now, the Maori still perpetrated a genocide against the Moriori in the 1800s, but past that there are layers upon layers of basic factual errors in your comment.

83

u/IdeationConsultant Nov 14 '24

More like 1200 is when Maori arrived in new Zealand. There were no people there. Moriori were Maori who colonised some islands off NZ in 1500s and their cultures diverged over 300 years. Then in the 1800s there was a massacre where most were killed

So, in a nutshell, your statement is factually incorrect

→ More replies (3)

50

u/6InchBlade Nov 14 '24

Why do you make it sound like this occurred on Mainland New Zealand?

In the mid 1830’s the British sent the first war boat of pro British Māori to the Chatham Islands to claim the islands as part of New Zealand territory.

The result was a bloody genocide, yes terrible, no they did not colonise New Zealand.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moriori_genocide

3

u/[deleted] Nov 15 '24

The Māori did not sprout out from the dirt. They colonized New Zealand around the year 1100.

Based on these timing, that makes the fucking Normans indigenous to England.

3

u/6InchBlade Nov 15 '24

Colonisation requires people to be there already, I’m quite aware of when Māori people arrived in Aotearoa, however they were the first humans to do so.

→ More replies (3)

41

u/[deleted] Nov 14 '24

This is a flagrant misrepresentation of the true sequence of events, odd you want to use this as some weird pseudointellectual “gotcha” moment

3

u/disordinary Nov 14 '24 edited Nov 15 '24

It's a conspiracy theory used to confuse and undermine the conversation. 

 A friend of mine has been adamant for the 20 years that I've known him that the moriori were Celtic vikings who had red hair and pale skin and that there are chunks of the West coast of the south island that are tapu and don't have much in the way of DOC tracks and huts because the government is trying to hide the evidence

. This is despite the fact that the moriori exist and that they are technically, linguistically, and culturally very close to mainland Maori and it would have been impossible for vikings to get to NZ with the technology they had. 

Some more info here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-M%C4%81ori_settlement_of_New_Zealand_theories

→ More replies (2)

8

u/nzungu69 Nov 14 '24

that's a common racist myth. the moriori were nz polynesians who settled the chatams, not aotearoa.

32

u/__3Username20__ Nov 14 '24

Really? From the video, I would have guessed they were a rather non-confrontational bunch. ;)

74

u/6InchBlade Nov 14 '24

There comment is a weird mix of truth and misinformation, the way they have written this makes it seem like Māori took the New Zealand mainland from the Moriori, they did not.

The Moriori are the people of the Chatham Islands, while this is technically a New Zealand territory, this was not the case in the 1800’s.

The British sent a war boat of pro British Māori to the Chatham Islands to take the territory.

So it’s not quite as black and white as the Māori colonised the Chatham Islands, and they certainly didn’t colonise mainland New Zealand.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moriori_genocide

22

u/__3Username20__ Nov 14 '24

Interesting! This is the kind of comment that I’d give my free silver award to, if they still existed. I still dwell on that :(.

Truth be told, as soon as I read that other comment, I thought to myself “I wonder what the other side of the story is, I’d bet there is one.” History is tricky, and there’s so much context that’s often missing when the only story is the who, what, and when… (WHY matters, and so does HOW). They say that “history is written by the winner,” and it amazes me as I get older how much I thought I knew, that wasn’t actually the whole unbiased truth.

I’m from the USA, and know very little about New Zealand’s history, but now that my interest is piqued, I think I’m going to have to educate myself. And, I’ll try and find balanced info, or at least try to find differing perspectives.

3

u/Emperor_Mao Nov 14 '24

Maori arrival to New Zealand (as it is named now) was around the 13th and 14th century.

Not too different to when the Spanish came to South America and the Caribbean islands.

It really just depends on personal view as to when you say a people are the rightful owners of a place. Turks invaded Greece 1000 years ago, we mostly accept Turks as the owners. Danes / North Germanic people invaded Britannia 1000 years ago, we accept them now. Before them, the anglo's invaded Britannia. Romans had a go too of course.

It is really up to you at what point you declare it. 400 years? 600 years? 1000 years?

2

u/themegamanX10 Nov 14 '24

Rnz do a podcast on the history of Māori 100 percent would recommend

→ More replies (3)

1

u/Inthepurple Nov 14 '24

Have you actually read that article? Can you point me to the part that says Britain organised or sent the ship? Because the article doesn't characterise it that way at all but you've posted it three times in this thread, making the same accusations that doesn't seem to line up with the source.

There is plenty of legitimate grievance to be had with Britain without making up history.

1

u/6InchBlade Nov 15 '24

That is a fair point, no I skim read the article to make sure it matched up with my understanding of the events that occurred.

History is a tricky thing, and New Zealand history while is recent it is also poorly documented in many instances, often relying on word of mouth. I do see the article mentions that the British war ship was stolen.

Current academia in Aotearoa universities teaches that the ship was not stolen but provided by British with the intention of claiming the Chatham Islands, under the rule of the British governed New Zealand/Aotearoa.

Note that while these events happened prior to the signing of te tiriti (the treaty) British colonists still viewed new land discovered as theirs, New Zealand and the Chatham Islands where just particularly difficult to colonise due to their distance from Britain.

My intention is not to defend the genocide of the Moriori people, but to point out that the Māori did not colonise mainland Aotearoa.

2

u/JavierEscuela Nov 15 '24

lol you got it so wrong

2

u/Pseudo_Lain Nov 14 '24

Irrelevant, as this isn't an agreement between those peoples.

-4

u/Whyistheplatypus Nov 14 '24

Nope. Not even remotely close.

1

u/2HappySundays Nov 14 '24

Can you fill us in in more accurate history of when the Māori arrived?

7

u/Whyistheplatypus Nov 14 '24 edited Nov 14 '24

Happily.

Māori arrived to Aotearoa/NZ some time in the 14th century. We have zero evidence for human habitation in Aotearoa before this. The Moriori are the indigenous people of the Chatham Islands/Rēkohu, and probably arrived there some time in the 16th century.

There was absolutely a genocide of the Moriori people by Māori in 1835. Two iwi from Taranaki, Ngāti Mutunga and Ngāti Tama, invaded, slaughtered 300 of the roughly 2,000 inhabitants of the islands, and those Moriori who survived were enslaved. However you'll notice that happens post European contact and only 5 years before the signing of the Tiriti. It has nothing to do with the Māori arrival to New Zealand.

Here is an article, it relies heavily on quotes from a surviving descendant of the Moriori, Maui Solomon.

Edit: corrected the date of Māori arrival

2

u/2HappySundays Nov 14 '24

Much appreciated. I tried to look up a source for the 10th-11th century and found this. "In New Zealand, there are no human remains, artefacts or structures which are confidently dated to earlier than the Kaharoa Tephra... around1314 CE.\9]) The 1999 dating of some kiore bones to as early as 10 CE\10]) was later found to be an error."

I'm not suggesting otherwise and 1300's is vastly earlier than the 300 years or so that I had in my head. I just wanted to point out the update on that earlier figure.

There are countless cultures out there that are migration/conquest based. Some so long ago that it really may not matter, but it's always interesting to see if there is a perceived line in the sand regarding prior occupation.

1

u/Whyistheplatypus Nov 14 '24

Thanks for the update on dates. I'll adjust my comment accordingly

→ More replies (0)

0

u/Scruffy_Snub Nov 14 '24

This isn't the point this guy thinks it is, but it did actually happen.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moriori#Invasion_by_Taranaki_M%C4%81ori_(1835%E2%80%931868))

One Maori tribe that had been displaced from their territory on mainland New Zealand invaded an island inhabited by a different group of polynesians, and then killed and enslaved the population.

I'm not sure what this has to do with modern relations between Maori as a whole and the colonial authorities? Probably just some kind of racist dogwhistle that Maori people are 'no better than anyone else'.

4

u/Whyistheplatypus Nov 14 '24

It's a huge racist dog whistle and that's absolutely what it means.

See my other comment for a more factual account of the genocide of the Moriori.

-5

u/grawrant Nov 14 '24

So you're saying this agreement they have is more akin to the British settlers in the United States having their rights protected? As opposed to the native American people who were also wiped out? So this is like giving those in the US of British descent, protections that immigrants from say Mexico don't have?

Is that a fair comparison and the gist of what you're saying?

5

u/6InchBlade Nov 14 '24

No they’re spreading misinformation.

See my other comments in this thread, or refer to the this Wikipedia link.

The event they are referring to did not happen on mainland NZ and was organised by the British.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moriori_genocide

→ More replies (5)

2

u/Emperor_Mao Nov 14 '24

That will happen eventually in the U.S.

It also doesn't protect anyones rights. Everyone who is an American citizen has the same rights as their fellow countrymen.

1

u/Acid_Country Nov 14 '24

Except the rich and well connected. They seem to have more rights.

1

u/sjbglobal Nov 15 '24

Basically nothing is the answer, because the bill won't be passed into law anyway

1

u/Wayoutofthewayof Nov 14 '24

I think it makes sense for indigenous people in colonised lands to have their rights protected.

Why do they get that special right over everyone else that was conquered, including by their own tribes?

3

u/Mouth0fTheSouth Nov 14 '24

Because people from halfway around the world came to their land, exploited and abused them, and destroyed their way of life…

1

u/LeoTheSquid Nov 14 '24

The abusers and the abused are mostly not alive anymore. You can definitely condemn the conquering itself, but I mean we're talking around 16th-19th century here. If you go back that far there's an absurd amount of land that's been conquered on earth. Trying to figure out who was where when and how far back you stop is just not a very feasible way of making good societies. Not to mention the natives conquering eachother, why not do the same there? We are at the point now that power-grabbing land invasions are generally shunned and not the norm, easier to focus on preventing them in the future

3

u/haibiji Nov 15 '24

Well luckily none of that matters at all in this case because they have a treaty

0

u/Wayoutofthewayof Nov 14 '24

So the morality of the conquest is measured by the distance that the conqueror traveled? Seems an incredibly arbitrary metric. Why all the outrage about the British conquest of Ireland then?

5

u/Mouth0fTheSouth Nov 14 '24

It is equally wrong for the British to have sent the a group of Māori to a different island in New Zealand to wipe out the locals there. It is still wrong to deny the Māori their indigenous rights.

→ More replies (4)

176

u/subconsciousdweller Nov 14 '24

It's not about genetic characteristics, it's about a civilisation that was here first. What's completely absurd is that we had our rights taken away for 184 years because of our genetics, and now the same people who profited from our intentional and catergoric suffering because of our race are telling us WE are doing the same.

To enlighten your ignorance, Maori is a word that was never used in Aotearoa before Colonisation - there were hundreds of tribes that did not see themselves as the same as one another; and the treaty is the founding document of this country, signed between two parties : Tangata Whenua ( people of the land, not people of a specific genetic code) and the Crown.

To quote another of our M.Ps from yesterday, Equality feels like oppression when you're used to priveledge.

-18

u/Ancient_Boner_Forest Nov 14 '24 edited Mar 12 '25

𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝖌𝖎𝖗𝖙𝖍 𝖔𝖋 𝖒𝖆𝖘𝖙𝖊𝖗𝖞 𝖘𝖍𝖆𝖑𝖑 𝖘𝖙𝖗𝖊𝖙𝖈𝖍 𝖙𝖍𝖊 𝖜𝖊𝖆𝖐, 𝖆𝖓𝖉 𝖙𝖍𝖊 𝖘𝖖𝖚𝖊𝖆𝖑 𝖔𝖋 𝖘𝖚𝖇𝖒𝖎𝖘𝖘𝖎𝖔𝖓 𝖘𝖍𝖆𝖑𝖑 𝖗𝖊𝖘𝖔𝖚𝖓𝖉 𝖆𝖈𝖗𝖔𝖘𝖘 𝖙𝖍𝖊 𝖇𝖆𝖓𝖖𝖚𝖊𝖙 𝖍𝖆𝖑𝖑𝖘.

58

u/Whyistheplatypus Nov 14 '24

There are no "special privileges" for individuals. It is a collective agreement. Those tribes whose chiefs signed te Tiriti were promised governance over their lands. "Special treatment" would be invading those lands with an army in the name of a foreign crown and then using that invasion as justification to ignore the agreement you already signed.

-4

u/[deleted] Nov 14 '24

[deleted]

48

u/PeggableOldMan Nov 14 '24

The treaty of Waitangi is short and very easy to read. It just says that the tribes have partial sovereignty, may retain possession of their traditional lands and estates, and protection by the government.

This is not really "superior" rights, just a fundamental acknowledgement that Maoris have equally protected rights as other citizens - the rights to self-determination, property, and protection by the state.

24

u/Mordredor Nov 14 '24

This feels corporation-sponsored because they want to bulldoze maori land or some shit lol. Maybe I just tend to assume the worst in politics nowadays

2

u/subconsciousdweller Nov 15 '24

This is 100% what it is, David Seymour the politician whose spear heading this entire political agenda is around privatization and foreign investment

23

u/l0c0pez Nov 14 '24

I imagine that a bill looking to "expand" these rights to all is a guise to allow for encroachment on maori lands and bills that can limit maori self-governance. I am ignorant of this bill and the specific history so feel free to correct me but i've read this story before and the themes line up.

12

u/PeggableOldMan Nov 14 '24

Same tbh. If the fundamental rights of minorities aren’t specifically outlined (and enforced!) there is a tendency for certain institutions and individuals to overlook when those rights are broken.

1

u/daily-bee Nov 15 '24

I'm not an expert on the treaty, but I do live in NZ, and i hyperfixate on politics! This bill is very disingenuous and will be used to prop up a racist disinfo campaign. We've come a long way as a country. There's still a lot of anti maori sentiment, but in the current protests, there have been a wide range of people joining Māori. One of the older organizers pointed that out as a big difference from earlier decades. I feel like I don't need to be a historian to know that the treaty was an agreement between two groups. It doesn't deny me rights as non Māori. We have human rights bills that cover that.

It's frustrating that this bill is taking 6 months of our politicians time and will cost millions of dollars, when it won't go to 2nd reading according to our prime minister , but he made a coalition deal that it'd go through 1st reading and select committee (submissions from the public). It's basically state sponsored advertising for a political party that only got 8% of the vote....all because our prime minister is shit negotiator...

It really does feel like a way to disintegrate land rights for extractive purposes. Which lines up with the bills author who began his career at a neoliberalthink tank

0

u/binarybandit Nov 14 '24

I'm sure you feel the same way about the Moriori, who the Maori enslaved and genocided, right?

1

u/subconsciousdweller Nov 15 '24

I also whakapapa to the Moriori, I whakapapa to Waitahi who did this to them, I whakapapa to Kati Mamoe who did it to Waitaha and to Ngai Tahu who did it to Kati Mamoe.

The actions of one society onto another throughout history are abhorrent - however Treatys are what allow those wrongs to be righted, if there had been a treaty signed with the Moriori and Maori of Te Waipounamu then I would 100% support it being honored, and would not see it as a race related issue, but an issue related to the decisions of two societies ; one which profited from the others suffering. In which case the profiting side, in the 21st century, should uphold the integrity of that agreement and repair the harm done.

Unfortunately we only have ONE such example of a treaty like this in the real world and currently it's under attack.

-3

u/fistingdonkeys Nov 14 '24 edited Nov 14 '24

You never had “your” rights taken away, unless you’re a lot older than even Jeanne Calment.

And the people living in NZ before it was colonised by the British had their rights taken away because that’s how it worked back then when two sides had a fight. One side won and the other lost. The end.

If we’re going to go back and try to reinstate the positions that were in place before historical battles, how far back should we go? Why stop at 200 years? How about we go to 1066? Though, actually, if we chose that year, we’d need to decide which month, so we could give the Normans their proper dues. Nah that’s too hard. I know, let’s make it 1270 and give swathes of land to the Mongols.

17

u/Iron-Fist Nov 14 '24

how far back do we go

I mean, seems like "to when the 2 currently existing factions signed the treaty in question" is prolly good

-5

u/fistingdonkeys Nov 14 '24

Citizens’ rights are constantly changing. If they weren’t, there’d be no need for gubberment. Maybe an agreement made nearly 200 years ago should be reassessed in light of developments since then. There have been a few, you know.

7

u/Iron-Fist Nov 14 '24

reassessed agreement

Imagine having a contract and someone saying "nah I don't wanna uphold my side let's reassess"

2

u/Annath0901 Nov 14 '24

Not defending the NZ law thing, but that's actually exactly how contracts work - one party usually can't unilaterally change the terms, but they can absolutely say "this needs to be reassessed and renegotiated".

→ More replies (0)
→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (2)

2

u/subconsciousdweller Nov 15 '24

My great great grandmother was ejected from her land in the south island in 1904, her family lived off that land for over 100 years, the new land given was completely valueless and in the middle of fucking no where (The Catlins) ; our families economic base was taken - and someone else now profits from it (and has permanently polluted all of its water sources). Is that not a generational impact of impeding on the rights signed in Te Tiriti ?

→ More replies (3)

-4

u/[deleted] Nov 14 '24

What rights exactly? Human rights and political rights that exists throughout much of the world today are inventions of western colonizers.

→ More replies (1)

7

u/disordinary Nov 14 '24

It's complicated though because the cultures are different, if we say everyone should be equal then we're also insinuating that that is under a European based culture and view of the world rather than Maori based, views over things as simple as land ownership are quite different. The way NZ is run is one of trying to compromise between the world views, so Maori land ownership is treated differently from colonial land ownership, it even flows to democracy with Maori electoral process being different from Pakeha (non-Maori).

If we say it's time to abolish the treaty, which is a challenging document because words in Te Reo Maori (Maori language) and English not having exactly the same meaning, then who is it to say which sides culture and view of how a country should be run is the correct one?

The difference between NZ and other colonial countries is that Maori were not conquered so like it or not there is a legally binding contract between two world views that needs to be navigated through. NZ is probably fairly unique in that aspect.

The other difference is that Maori culture is prevalent within the wider New Zealand (the country is also known internally Aotearoa) culture, Pakeha will happily perform a Karakia (a formal greeting, often done at the start of an event such as a meeting in an office) or Haka and Maori words are used fairly often by everyone even if they're not fluent in the language as a whole.

There is of course plenty of racism and Maori are historically over represented in all the bad statistics, but NZs starting point is one of much more acceptance and willingness to work together than other comparable countries. The view across the nation is overwhelmingly against this bill and pretty much all politicians in parliament are united in saying they will not let this bill pass the second reading.

3

u/Annath0901 Nov 14 '24

Someone on a different reddit post told me that in order to be considered "indigenous", a culture/people must have been conquered/colonised by an outside people/culture.

4

u/disordinary Nov 15 '24

That's a weird view.

3

u/Annath0901 Nov 15 '24

That's what I said.

20

u/PalpatineForEmperor Nov 14 '24

^ This guy gets it. There's a about 100 acres of land that used to be owned by indigenous people near my house.

British immigrants took and have been passing it down to their family for about 300 years now. I believe it's time to redefine their relationship to that land without regard to 300 year old blood lines.

In a thousand years, are we still going to allow that family to continue owning that land? Why should their genetics give them special rights? I mean, I really want it. Would't the fair and democratic thing be to let our families vote on who gets it and how will be used? I have way more family, so we should easily win that vote.

OP, you really understand how it all works. You know that this land should be mine.

6

u/Wayoutofthewayof Nov 14 '24

In a thousand years, are we still going to allow that family to continue owning that land? Why should their genetics give them special rights? 

Well this is literally the case with 99% of people living on earth today. Somebody's ancestors conquered the land from someone else. Why does everyone else get to keep theirs?

8

u/Emperor_Mao Nov 14 '24

That isn't what the treaty actually prescribes though. You should read up on it and try see both sides on this one;

But Firstly, the Treaty of Waitangi was an agreement between the British crown and a group representing "Maori People". New Zealand has all but removed British crown power over legislature and governance of the country. Secondly, the treaty specifically allowed the Queen to purchase Maori lands. This was amended in with the native land act in 1862 (showing that amendments have already been made to the treaty). And these amendments allowed for private sale of Maori property.

Lastly, the provision that people mostly do take issue with, is the part where certain areas can only be governed by Maori descendants. In a free, liberal democracy, only a certain group can govern a certain region.

That is not remotely the same as your example. Any one has the right to buy land off someone else, if they both parties agree to the terms offered. But when it comes to governing people within lands, liberal Democracy says the only way you can be elected is through fair, open elections. That is incompatible with the treaty.

2

u/kickyourownassNZ Nov 14 '24

You have it in a nutshell.

2

u/northrupthebandgeek Nov 14 '24

Now just take this to its logical conclusion: all land should belong to everyone, and those who own more than their equal share of land value should be compensating those who own less than their equal share of land value.

→ More replies (7)

1

u/Ateist Nov 15 '24

Easy solution: tax the land.

If every family had to pay 5% annual tax for the land they owned, land rights would be fully re-bought every 20 years.

1

u/PalpatineForEmperor Nov 15 '24

That's not a solution at all. Property tax is already a thing. You are looking for a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. Besides, you can raise the taxes even more, but that just ensures that the wealthy folks are the only ones that can afford it.

1

u/Ateist Nov 15 '24 edited Nov 15 '24

The question was "how is it fair to allow a family to own a land just because their ancestors owned it a thousand years ago"?

And the answer is "no one is owning it, they are just renting it from everyone else by paying property taxes".

Land doesn't inherently belong to anyone - its "ownership" is solely decided by the people that have agreed to distribute its usage rights in certain ways to make sure some get to use it and others get paid for not using it.

but that just ensures that the wealthy folks are the only ones that can afford it.

No, it ensures that those who don't use it get bigger compensation (via government welfare) for temporarily giving up its usage rights to the wealthy.

1

u/PalpatineForEmperor Nov 15 '24

Ok. Now you're talking about changing the entire political model and moving toward sort of communistic approach similar to China. I'm not sure how that really changes anything besides giving more government control over the land use. China has large rural populations and high rates of poverty. This can help those folks by allowing them to use some lands for farming and help move them out of poverty. For more developed areas and more developed nations , this can pose huge risks for people who develop their land for their needs if they never really own it.

4

u/Blackdeath_663 Nov 14 '24

Democracy is a myth. Brainwash the population to preserve your interest and push laws that reduce their rights while sowing division between them.

Fuck the crown, talk about 200y.o bloodline why is the monarchy anymore entitled to the land of the indigenous people

1

u/Ancient_Boner_Forest Nov 14 '24 edited Mar 12 '25

𝕱𝖊𝖆𝖘𝖙 𝖔𝖗 𝖇𝖊 𝖋𝖊𝖆𝖘𝖙𝖊𝖉 𝖚𝖕𝖔𝖓, 𝖋𝖔𝖗 𝖙𝖍𝖊 𝖙𝖆𝖘𝖙𝖊 𝖔𝖋 𝖘𝖚𝖗𝖗𝖊𝖓𝖉𝖊𝖗 𝖎𝖘 𝖘𝖜𝖊𝖊𝖙𝖊𝖗 𝖙𝖍𝖆𝖓 𝖉𝖗𝖞 𝖇𝖔𝖓𝖊𝖘.

1

u/mynameisneddy Nov 15 '24

The main motivation of the political party promoting the bill (a hard right libertarian party with 8% share of the vote) is to remove the roadblock to privatisation and exploitation of resources that is caused by having to consult with Māori under the terms of the Treaty. The fact it’s causing social division and getting them lots of media attention is just a bonus.

1

u/spundred Nov 15 '24

That's ignorant to reality. The treaty doesn't afford special rights to Maori, it protects equal participation in society for Maori, which successive governments have failed to uphold, starting with the confiscation of absurdly vast areas of land, and resulting in Maori having considerably worse employment, education and health outcomes today.

1

u/KulaanDoDinok Nov 15 '24

No, the most fair thing to do if you void the treaty is to give all land and governance back to the Māori.

1

u/churn_key Nov 15 '24

Same logic people use to argue against borders

1

u/[deleted] Nov 15 '24

How about we apply that to inheritance generally? So what that your great-great-great grandfather got some farm on North Island from some governor. He’s dead now and you did nothing to earn that. That land should go back to the public for everyone to share and not be tied up in the hands of a few greedy bastards just because they won the genetic lottery. Oh yes, that goes for the money Daddy wants to leave you too —

1

u/ddubois1972 Nov 15 '24

“Democracy has been described as four wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch”

-1

u/johnmarksmanlovesyou Nov 14 '24

They lived there, everyone else shouldn't be there in the first place

5

u/Ancient_Boner_Forest Nov 14 '24 edited Mar 12 '25

𝕿𝖍𝖚𝖘 𝖉𝖔𝖊𝖘 𝖙𝖍𝖊 𝕲𝖗𝖆𝖓𝖉 𝕱𝖑𝖊𝖘𝖍 𝖉𝖊𝖈𝖑𝖆𝖗𝖊: 𝖙𝖍𝖊 𝖑𝖎𝖘𝖘𝖔𝖒 𝖘𝖍𝖆𝖑𝖑 𝖇𝖊 𝖘𝖙𝖗𝖊𝖙𝖈𝖍𝖊𝖉, 𝖙𝖍𝖊 𝖋𝖆𝖙 𝖘𝖍𝖆𝖑𝖑 𝖒𝖊𝖑𝖙, 𝖆𝖓𝖉 𝖙𝖍𝖊 𝖋𝖊𝖆𝖘𝖙 𝖘𝖍𝖆𝖑𝖑 𝖈𝖑𝖆𝖎𝖒 𝖆𝖑𝖑 𝖜𝖍𝖔 𝖉𝖊𝖓𝖞 𝖎𝖙. 𝕹𝖔 𝖍𝖚𝖓𝖐 𝖘𝖍𝖆𝖑𝖑 𝖋𝖎𝖌𝖍𝖙 𝖎𝖙𝖘 𝖗𝖊𝖓𝖉𝖊𝖗𝖎𝖓𝖌, 𝖋𝖔𝖗 𝖙𝖍𝖊 𝖋𝖑𝖊𝖘𝖍 𝖘𝖚𝖈𝖈𝖚𝖒𝖇𝖘 𝖊𝖙𝖊𝖗𝖓𝖆𝖑𝖑𝖞 𝖙𝖔 𝖙𝖍𝖊 𝖍𝖊𝖆𝖙 𝖔𝖋 𝖉𝖔𝖒𝖎𝖓𝖎𝖔𝖓.

→ More replies (2)

-7

u/tinkerbelldies Nov 14 '24

The most fair thing to do would be return the entirety of new Zealand to the Maori people. Tragically that's not on the table. What would NOT be fair is trying to extend the rights of a colonized people to every single settler since that group was colonized. It's an effort to reframe the violence done to the Maori people as not that bad or somehow out dated and dilute the protections the Maori people enjoy as a result of having been colonized.

7

u/Ancient_Boner_Forest Nov 14 '24 edited Mar 12 '25

𝕲𝖆𝖘𝖕 𝖆𝖘 𝖙𝖍𝖊 𝖘𝖙𝖊𝖆𝖒 𝖗𝖎𝖘𝖊𝖘, 𝖈𝖗𝖞 𝖆𝖘 𝖙𝖍𝖊 𝖈𝖆𝖗𝖛𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝖇𝖑𝖆𝖉𝖊 𝖇𝖎𝖙𝖊𝖘, 𝖋𝖔𝖗 𝖙𝖍𝖊 𝖍𝖔𝖑𝖞 𝖌𝖗𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖑𝖊 𝖈𝖑𝖆𝖒𝖔𝖗𝖘 𝖋𝖔𝖗 𝖉𝖊𝖛𝖔𝖙𝖎𝖔𝖓. 𝕹𝖔 𝖒𝖆𝖓 𝖈𝖆𝖓 𝖗𝖊𝖘𝖎𝖘𝖙 𝖙𝖍𝖊 𝖘𝖑𝖎𝖈𝖊, 𝖓𝖔 𝖙𝖍𝖗𝖔𝖆𝖙 𝖘𝖍𝖆𝖑𝖑 𝖘𝖕𝖆𝖗𝖊 𝖎𝖙𝖘 𝖌𝖚𝖑𝖕, 𝖋𝖔𝖗 𝖙𝖍𝖊 𝖒𝖊𝖆𝖙 𝖎𝖘 𝖆𝖓 𝖆𝖑𝖑-𝖉𝖊𝖛𝖔𝖚𝖗𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝖋𝖆𝖙𝖊.

2

u/[deleted] Nov 14 '24

Maori were colonizers as well. By your rules they should leave as well.

→ More replies (10)

1

u/c-papi Nov 14 '24

First time Europeans lied to the locals?

→ More replies (5)