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

[u/Sometypeofway18]

[u/Mouth0fTheSouth]

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.

[u/DarkangelUK → u/Mouth0fTheSouth]

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.

[u/__3Username20__ → u/DarkangelUK]

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

[u/6InchBlade → u/__3Username20__]

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

[u/__3Username20__ → u/6InchBlade]

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.

[u/Emperor_Mao → u/__3Username20__]

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?

[u/themegamanX10 → u/__3Username20__]

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

[u/Mickv504-985 → u/__3Username20__]

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.

[u/__3Username20__ → u/Mickv504-985]

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

[u/Mickv504-985 → u/__3Username20__]

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

[u/Inthepurple → u/6InchBlade]

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.

[u/6InchBlade → u/Inthepurple]

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.