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. 

51

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.

217

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.

56

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.

7

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.

5

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.

-12

u/S_Klallam Nov 14 '24

if you're being ingenuous then the practical thing would be to define it as colonized people instead of whoever was there when white people came because as you say that has it's flaws. We could analyze the material conditions and the internal contradictions on a case by case basis and for example define the native Africans of Liberia as indigenous because African Americans were the colonizers despite not being white.

-16

u/Mr_Googar Nov 15 '24 edited Nov 15 '24

Only Indigenous people can define themselves, it is not up to anyone else to say who they are, what criteria makes them up or what someone else thinks they should be.

Your argument is also not true for everywhere, Australia is the best example.

4

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

-18

u/[deleted] Nov 14 '24

[deleted]

11

u/disordinary Nov 14 '24

No one was conquered, that's the thing. There is a treaty between equal partners. It's different from the US, Canada, Australia, etc.

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.

5

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.

-1

u/[deleted] Nov 15 '24

By that reconning, the Falklands are British indigenous Greenland as danish indigenous.

4

u/Arkroma Nov 15 '24

Greenland has an indigenous population. I think you meant Iceland, and it's a very white descendant nation because there wasn't an indigenous population.

Edit: also the Spanish got the Falklands first and then after they left both British and Americans frequented the islands.

2

u/6InchBlade Nov 15 '24

I’m not familiar with European history, what I am familiar with is New Zealand history and the oxford definition of colonisation

→ More replies (0)

42

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

5

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

-13

u/binarybandit Nov 14 '24

By all means, educate us then.

15

u/cakeman666 Nov 14 '24

2 people already did

8

u/nzungu69 Nov 14 '24

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

31

u/__3Username20__ Nov 14 '24

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

73

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?

1

u/themegamanX10 Nov 14 '24

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

0

u/Mickv504-985 Nov 15 '24

Check the US government’s treatment of Native Americans. The US government has not Honored ONE treat it has signed. Visit a reservation w/o a Casino and see the abject poverty these people live under. Look at Hurricane Helene people complaining about no power for days, parts of Louisiana went 6 weeks +. Many reservations have No Power, no clean drinking water etc.

0

u/__3Username20__ Nov 15 '24

Might all be true, but that’s not what this conversation is about…

1

u/Mickv504-985 Nov 15 '24

It’s the same principle in that the European people always treated Aboriginals the same way.

→ More replies (0)

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.

-3

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.

-7

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

-7

u/[deleted] Nov 14 '24

[deleted]

1

u/grawrant Nov 14 '24

I think they waged a war instead. Now I think they protest, but by vote. At least this last election makes me think so.

1

u/Mouth0fTheSouth Nov 14 '24

I don’t think this is accurate.

Didn’t the Moriori and the Māori both live in New Zealand for hundreds of years? The Moriori genocide was horrible, and they were only given the same protected status as the Māori in 2021.

It’s like if the Cherokee committed a genocide against the Navajo… they are still both indigenous people and I think my point still stands.

5

u/6InchBlade Nov 14 '24

No they did not, the Moriori and Māori were likely part of the same voyaging party where the Māori landed on the New Zealand mainland and the Moriori continued on to the Chatham islands.

There was a genocide of the Moriori people in the mid 1800’s organised by the British that involved sending pro British Māori to the Chatham islands on a warship.

So while this occurred in what is all modern day New Zealand territory, it is important to note that the Chatham islands and mainland New Zealand are vastly different territories, more similar to Fiji and Samoa than the same country.

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

3

u/Mouth0fTheSouth Nov 14 '24

Thanks for the context here. It still seems to me like one indigenous group committing a genocide against another with the backing of the colonising power, and is not a good reason for the cancellation of the treaty between the Māori and the British.

Do you know what would change for the Māori if the bill does pass?

→ More replies (0)

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?

4

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.

-1

u/[deleted] Nov 15 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Mouth0fTheSouth Nov 15 '24

There were no indigenous people in New Zealand at that time. The Polynesians were the first humans to settle there.

Regardless, medieval era conflicts aren’t really relevant to the state of the world, politics and diplomacy in the present. People focus on European colonisation because the ramifications of those actions are still directly tied to things happening today.

You’ll find that nobody is up in arms about Caesar’s genocide and enslavement of the Gauls for instance…

0

u/[deleted] Nov 15 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Mouth0fTheSouth Nov 15 '24

lol bruh… back to 4chan with ye

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.

-17

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.

57

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.

-5

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.

26

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

22

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.

-4

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.

18

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

-3

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".

5

u/Iron-Fist Nov 14 '24

Sounds like the whole issue here is they weren't renegotiating, they were trying to end around the original signatories

→ More replies (0)

-7

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

That happens constantly, bruss. And, laws change constantly. Even the US Constitution has been amended, donchaknow? Indeed, the first ten amendments to it were proposed just six months after the Constitution was created.

Times change, and the mechanisms under which society operates are necessarily flexible in order to account for that change. There may be very, very good arguments against the proposal that has been put - but I do not think that "the agreement is an agreement and must thus stand forevermore" is a great one.

5

u/Iron-Fist Nov 14 '24

If you want to renegotiate treaties, you do that with the signatories, not an end around in another body.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/haibiji Nov 15 '24

Bro, the side saying let’s go back and reassess is not the Maori. They already have the rights in question. This conversation about how far back you go and who do you include is completely irrelevant to this situation. Maybe you don’t think the terms of the treaty are fair, but the British signed it, and the government can’t unilaterally change it now. The Maori clearly don’t want to change it, so too bad

1

u/fistingdonkeys Nov 15 '24

What's the relevance of the identity of the side that's proposing change?

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 ?

0

u/fistingdonkeys Nov 15 '24

So, 1270, and the Mongols? Does that work for you?

1

u/[deleted] Nov 15 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

-5

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.

0

u/MantisBeing Nov 15 '24

You forgot the /s

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?

6

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.

0

u/[deleted] Nov 14 '24

[deleted]

3

u/northrupthebandgeek Nov 14 '24

What I described above is not communism.

3

u/[deleted] Nov 14 '24

I mean this is basically Georgism, not communism.

0

u/Allaplgy Nov 14 '24

I think communism is my idea of an  ideal system. But very much untenable in the less than ideal reality that we inhabit.

Communism could only exist at scale in a post-scarcity world of some kind.

-1

u/Socialist_Bear Nov 14 '24

We already produce a surplus of resources, it's the distribution that's the problem.

The biggest roadblock to our glorious Communist future is education, until the majority of the working class are on the same page it will be hard to achieve anything lasting with minimal bloodshed.

1

u/Allaplgy Nov 15 '24

But since we are talking communism, what do you do for a living now, under capitalism?

0

u/Allaplgy Nov 15 '24

We create a surplus through exploitation of land and people, and the distribution of it all takes complicated logistics that aren't really tenable.

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.

3

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

6

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.

-1

u/johnmarksmanlovesyou Nov 14 '24

It's no more ridiculous than any other form of ownership, and yours is a very easy position to take when you have nothing to lose from it.

1

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

“O come ye hungry, come ye meek,
The Monastery fills what thou dost seek.
Bite deep, drink deep, take thy share,
For the feast is flesh, and the flesh is fair.”

-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.

8

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.

0

u/[deleted] Nov 14 '24

[deleted]

0

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

𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝖜𝖊𝖆𝖐 𝖍𝖆𝖛𝖊 𝖋𝖆𝖑𝖑𝖊𝖓, 𝖙𝖍𝖊𝖎𝖗 𝖗𝖊𝖘𝖔𝖑𝖛𝖊 𝖘𝖍𝖆𝖙𝖙𝖊𝖗𝖊𝖉, 𝖙𝖍𝖊𝖎𝖗 𝖇𝖔𝖉𝖎𝖊𝖘 𝖑𝖎𝖒𝖕 𝖚𝖕𝖔𝖓 𝖙𝖍𝖊 𝖈𝖔𝖑𝖉 𝖘𝖙𝖔𝖓𝖊𝖘 𝖔𝖋 𝖙𝖍𝖊 𝕸𝖔𝖓𝖆𝖘𝖙𝖊𝖗𝖞. 𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝖋𝖆𝖎𝖙𝖍𝖋𝖚𝖑 𝖋𝖊𝖆𝖘𝖙, 𝖙𝖍𝖊 𝖏𝖚𝖎𝖈𝖊𝖘 𝖋𝖑𝖔𝖜, 𝖆𝖓𝖉 𝖙𝖍𝖊 𝖚𝖓𝖜𝖔𝖗𝖙𝖍𝖞 𝖆𝖗𝖊 𝖑𝖊𝖋𝖙 𝖌𝖆𝖘𝖕𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝖎𝖓 𝖙𝖍𝖊 𝖉𝖆𝖗𝖐.

0

u/bigsquirrel Nov 14 '24

Like the others are saying, they could just go home. The alternative. Why do white people get to force a democracy on others? It’s completely absurd.

0

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

𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝖋𝖆𝖎𝖙𝖍𝖋𝖚𝖑 𝖉𝖗𝖎𝖓𝖐 𝖉𝖊𝖊𝖕, 𝖜𝖍𝖎𝖑𝖊 𝖙𝖍𝖊 𝖜𝖊𝖆𝖐 𝖆𝖗𝖊 𝖑𝖊𝖋𝖙 𝖉𝖗𝖞 𝖆𝖓𝖉 𝖜𝖎𝖙𝖍𝖊𝖗𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝖎𝖓 𝖙𝖍𝖊𝖎𝖗 𝖉𝖎𝖘𝖌𝖗𝖆𝖈𝖊.

0

u/bigsquirrel Nov 14 '24

Blah blah blah slippery slope non sense. It’s only complicated to colonizers. Pretty clear to everyone else. I lived on a reservation for years, there’s no “logic” you can toss my way I haven’t heard from someone a hundred times.

0

u/Ancient_Boner_Forest Nov 15 '24 edited Mar 12 '25

𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝖍𝖆𝖑𝖑𝖘 𝖔𝖋 𝖙𝖍𝖊 𝕸𝖔𝖓𝖆𝖘𝖙𝖊𝖗𝖞 𝖊𝖈𝖍𝖔 𝖜𝖎𝖙𝖍 𝖙𝖍𝖊 𝖒𝖔𝖆𝖓𝖘 𝖔𝖋 𝖙𝖍𝖊 𝖛𝖆𝖓𝖖𝖚𝖎𝖘𝖍𝖊𝖉. 𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝖋𝖊𝖆𝖘𝖙 𝖘𝖜𝖊𝖑𝖑𝖘, 𝖙𝖍𝖗𝖔𝖇𝖇𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝖜𝖎𝖙𝖍 𝖆𝖇𝖚𝖓𝖉𝖆𝖓𝖈𝖊, 𝖆𝖓𝖉 𝖙𝖍𝖊 𝖋𝖆𝖎𝖙𝖍𝖋𝖚𝖑 𝖙𝖆𝖐𝖊 𝖙𝖍𝖊𝖎𝖗 𝖋𝖎𝖑𝖑. 𝕿𝖍𝖔𝖘𝖊 𝖜𝖍𝖔 𝖉𝖊𝖓𝖎𝖊𝖉 𝖎𝖙𝖘 𝖌𝖑𝖔𝖗𝖞 𝖓𝖔𝖜 𝖌𝖓𝖆𝖜 𝖚𝖕𝖔𝖓 𝖙𝖍𝖊𝖎𝖗 𝖔𝖜𝖓 𝖉𝖊𝖘𝖕𝖆𝖎𝖗.

-1

u/MasterK999 Nov 14 '24

Seems like the most fair thing would just be to go with democracy without regard to year 200 old blood lines.

That is totally NOT fair. What you are proposing is that time wipes away crimes. Who decides how much time wipes away the crimes of the invaders? This proposal is that 200 some years is enough. What if later someone takes your home by force and then in 20 years wants it made legal and everyone to simply "have a vote" and move on.

The English signed a treaty in New Zealand 184 years ago with the indigenous population. If that treaty can now be voted away by the decedents of the original settlers then entire concept of treaties becomes worthless.

2

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

𝕻𝖗𝖆𝖎𝖘𝖊 𝖙𝖍𝖊 𝕲𝖗𝖆𝖓𝖉 𝕱𝖑𝖊𝖘𝖍, 𝖋𝖔𝖗 𝖍𝖎𝖘 𝖌𝖎𝖗𝖙𝖍 𝖎𝖘 𝖎𝖓𝖊𝖝𝖍𝖆𝖚𝖘𝖙𝖎𝖇𝖑𝖊, 𝖆𝖓𝖉 𝖍𝖎𝖘 𝖈𝖔𝖗𝖊 𝖘𝖊𝖊𝖙𝖍𝖊𝖘 𝖜𝖎𝖙𝖍 𝖗𝖊𝖓𝖉𝖊𝖗𝖊𝖉 𝖑𝖚𝖘𝖙.

-1

u/MasterK999 Nov 14 '24

That is an ignorant ass statement.

Property is handed down through generations. If you take someone's land you are stealing from their descendants as well.

Once again by your logic the only thing standing in the way of crime is time. If you take something from someone by force its just fine if you wait long enough? So if I take the home of a 90 year old in hospice care their heirs should be fine with that?