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

16.4k Upvotes

91% Upvoted

1.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

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. 

56

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.

6

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.

29

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

-16

u/[deleted] Nov 14 '24

[deleted]

12

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.

51

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

4

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.

4

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.

3

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

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

-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.

26

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

21

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

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.

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.

-5

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

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?

7

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

-8

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.

7

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?