The Constitution. And shit. [Archive]

Oakie

25th June 2013, 19:24

New Zealand does have a constitution. it’s just not all written down in a single document. Our constitutional rules include legislation such as the Bill of Rights Act 1990 and the Constitution Act 1986, foundational documents such as the Treaty of Waitangi signed in 1840 and constitutional principles.

New Zealand is one of only three countries, including Israel and the United Kingdom, that does not have a constitution written down in a single document.

In New Zealand, we base our constitution on principles, which include:

The rule of law i.e. everyone in New Zealand, including governments, must follow the law.
New Zealand is a representative democracy i.e. voters elect people to represent them in Parliament.
We have a responsible government i.e. the Ministers who make up the Government must also be members of Parliament and are accountable to Parliament.

No I didn't come up with that. Linky link for the full article >>> http://www.ourconstitution.org.nz/New-Zealands-Constitution

mashman

25th June 2013, 19:31

We can heaps of pies bro, cos we got a good constitution.

Have you seen the resultant shit from those pies :shifty:

Akzle

25th June 2013, 19:33

unstuck

25th June 2013, 19:36

Have you seen the resultant shit from those pies :shifty:

Not yours I aint no.:oi-grr:

Smifffy

25th June 2013, 19:36

OR
The govt wasnt constitutionally formed so that legislation is unlawful.

I was more wondering what the average joe THOUGHT not googld. It seems to be a catchphrase accepted/taken in ignorance.

Just more of the 3 second sound bite bullshit that this country runs on.

mashman

25th June 2013, 19:39

Not yours I aint no.:oi-grr:

heh... I was going for a metaphor in line with the OP, but hey, the poo lady would fall in love with my perfectly formed bum drops.

oneofsix

25th June 2013, 19:42

I might e totally wrong here but I thought our version of constitution was based on the fabric of common law and a few bits of of legislation. By trying to put it in a single document we are allowing the current fear ridden government to dictate the countries future mode of operation. The USA's and most other constitutions were written during optimistic times in their countries. Those that weren't have created despot states where the people have suffered.

Laava

25th June 2013, 19:53

Right then, thats constitution wrapped up. Spose you wanna talk shit now.

Akzle

25th June 2013, 19:55

Akzle

25th June 2013, 19:57

Right then, thats constitution wrapped up. Spose you wanna talk shit now.

well, if you insist...

oneofsix

25th June 2013, 20:23

go on.
What is 'common law'??

Go on what. Never said I understood it, even said I was possibly wrong :nya:

As I understand it it is law made up from court cases rather than that dictated from Parliament but it is only useful as long as judges and courts are separate from government. It also incorporates historical elements because it is developed over time so not as troubled by the here and now. A constitution can be amended with relative easy compared to history.

:bs:

Akzle

25th June 2013, 20:34

Go on what. Never said I understood it, even said I was possibly wrong :nya:

As I understand it it is law made up from court cases rather than that dictated from Parliament but it is only useful as long as judges and courts are separate from government. It also incorporates historical elements because it is developed over time so not as troubled by the here and now. A constitution can be amended with relative easy compared to history.

funny enough. Thats CASE law.
Common law is 'the imemorable practice of the people'
by LEGISLATION common=universal (universal=everyone, like, not a democratic majority, but EVERYONE)
anyway, case law is ruled under legislation.
If your person is charged with an infringement, and theres proof, your person is guilty.
Steal a loaf of bread to feed the family, ie.
They cant rule against legislation.

Smifffy

25th June 2013, 20:40

They cant rule against legislation.

...because that would be unconstitutional.....

oneofsix

25th June 2013, 20:45

funny enough. Thats CASE law.
Common law is 'the imemorable practice of the people'
by LEGISLATION common=universal (universal=everyone, like, not a democratic majority, but EVERYONE)
anyway, case law is ruled under legislation.
If your person is charged with an infringement, and theres proof, your person is guilty.
Steal a loaf of bread to feed the family, ie.
They cant rule against legislation.

:laugh: Luckily I got the main point I was going for in that not under rule of TPTB but got the rest totally fucked up.
BTW they often rule against parliament if not against legislation. Courts rule differently on legislation than politicians intended.

BMWST?

25th June 2013, 20:47

funny enough. Thats CASE law.
Common law is 'the imemorable practice of the people'
by LEGISLATION common=universal (universal=everyone, like, not a democratic majority, but EVERYONE)
anyway, case law is ruled under legislation.
If your person is charged with an infringement, and theres proof, your person is guilty.
Steal a loaf of bread to feed the family, ie.
They cant rule against legislation.

case law is the testing of law,its not a specific seperate branch of law...ie there might be a case where you were accused of dangerous driving because you were lane splitting...in this case a judge found that akzle did not break the law,so from now on us bikers quote akzle vs the police for our case law re lane splitting.The government cant overturn that,they have to try to create new laws if they want to stop bikers splitting.But in the meantime we are safe cos of that specific case.

oneofsix

25th June 2013, 21:05

case law is the testing of law,its not a specific seperate branch of law...ie there might be a case where you were accused of dangerous driving because you were lane splitting...in this case a judge found that akzle did not break the law,so from now on us bikers quote akzle vs the police for our case law re lane splitting.The government cant overturn that,they have to try to create new laws if they want to stop bikers splitting.But in the meantime we are safe cos of that specific case.

I see a cross over between case and common law.

Akzle

25th June 2013, 21:06

...because that would be unconstitutional.....
no, illegal.

:laugh: Luckily I got the main point I was going for in that not under rule of TPTB but got the rest totally fucked up.
BTW they often rule against parliament if not against legislation. Courts rule differently on legislation than politicians intended.the letter of the law

case law is the testing of law,its not a specific seperate branch of law...ie there might be a case where you were accused of dangerous driving because you were lane splitting...in this case a judge found that akzle did not break the law,so from now on us bikers quote akzle vs the police for our case law re lane splitting.The government cant overturn that,they have to try to create new laws if they want to stop bikers splitting.But in the meantime we are safe cos of that specific case.

no, it would be found that akzles lane splitting did not constitute dangerous driving.
While the next case, bmwsts lane splitting on the rear wheel while flipping the bird, is dangerous.
Precedent is the word. But we're off topic.

Akzle

25th June 2013, 21:09

I see a cross over between case and common law.

in modern white parlance theyre interchangable.

Common law SHOULDNT have its precedent under legislation.
Smoking dope, ie.
By COMMON law, is lawful. Under crown, is illegal.

Winston001

25th June 2013, 21:11

As I understand it it is law made up from court cases rather than that dictated from Parliament but it is only useful as long as judges and courts are separate from government. It also incorporates historical elements because it is developed over time so not as troubled by the here and now. A constitution can be amended with relative ease compared to history.

That's a pretty good explanation.

Our laws are derived from two stems: Acts of Parliament and Common Law.

The Westminster Parliament has existed for 600 years and passed countless Acts = laws. Those Acts up til 1840 are adopted in NZ but we have our own Acts since then. For example The Statute of Elizabeth 1601 encodes the law of charities. Magna Carta 1215 is where we get the right of habeas corpus.

The Common Law is older, deeper, and richer because it grows from decisions of the Courts over a similar period, decisions settling the infinite variety of arguments people get into. These decisions provide precedents so future arguments can be resolved knowing the law is settled in such and such a direction. Every now and then the Common Law branches out in a new way - the categories are never closed.

Basically Parliament looks after the big policy stuff - general rules, and the Courts look after the common everyday civil (not criminal) legal disputes.

BMWST?

25th June 2013, 21:45

That's a pretty good explanation.

Our laws are derived from two stems: Acts of Parliament and Common Law.

The Westminster Parliament has existed for 600 years and passed countless Acts = laws. Those Acts up til 1840 are adopted in NZ but we have our own Acts since then. For example The Statute of Elizabeth 1601 encodes the law of charities. Magna Carta 1215 is where we get the right of habeas corpus.

The Common Law is older, deeper, and richer because it grows from decisions of the Courts over a similar period, decisions settling the infinite variety of arguments people get into. These decisions provide precedents so future arguments can be resolved knowing the law is settled in such and such a direction. Every now and then the Common Law branches out in a new way - the categories are never closed.

Basically Parliament looks after the big policy stuff - general rules, and the Courts look after the common everyday civil (not criminal) legal disputes.
and case law sets the precedents

Akzle

25th June 2013, 22:06

Berries

25th June 2013, 23:23

i hear it a lot and it irks me.
Concerning nz. 'its uncostitutional', 'constitutional review' etc.

What the fuck do people believe to be the nz constitution?!
Farrrk. You seem to be starting random threads these days like a couple of the women who frequent the forum. Has someone stolen your horse or something and you can't get out?

Akzle

26th June 2013, 06:55

Farrrk. You seem to be starting random threads these days like a couple of the women who frequent the forum. Has someone stolen your horse or something and you can't get out?

no. My horses cam chain snapped. No cunt will pay me to leave. The mods seem to have given up on me. Ed seems to be on holiday.

...and i was genuinely interested in what happens in sheeples brains when they hear 'constitution'

Banditbandit

26th June 2013, 10:55

Have you seen the resultant shit from those pies :shifty:

Yeah .. used to float off Moa Point ...

OR
The govt wasnt constitutionally formed so that legislation is unlawful.

Yes ... that's right ... The Treaty says the country belongs to us - not you white fellows .. and we hold sovereignty ..

I was more wondering what the average joe THOUGHT not googld. It seems to be a catchphrase accepted/taken in ignorance.

Jeez .. you don't ask for much do you ... the average joe is taught NOT to think ..

Banditbandit

26th June 2013, 10:59

Our laws are derived from two stems: Acts of Parliament and Common Law.

The Westminster Parliament has existed for 600 years and passed countless Acts = laws.

Our laws have existed here for 2,000 years ... and we are still here ... and we still follow them (and sometimes we follow your laws too.)

Akzle

26th June 2013, 11:43

Yes ... that's right ... The Treaty says the country belongs to us - not you white fellows .. and we hold sovereignty ..

haha. Treaty. So you need the queen to aknowledge your 'right' (as a 'native') to sovereignty...?

And who you calling a white fallow?

Some fuckn evidence. You havnt done a very good job of defending the cuntry from crackerism.

Hitcher

26th June 2013, 12:03

I was wondering how long it would be until the T word was mentioned.

Big Dave

26th June 2013, 12:24

unstuck

26th June 2013, 12:35

haha. Treaty. So you need the queen to aknowledge your 'right' (as a 'native') to sovereignty...?

And who you calling a white fallow?

Some fuckn evidence. You havnt done a very good job of defending the cuntry from crackerism.

Have not seen a white fallow for a couple of years, Real nice palmation he had too.:yes: My mate shot one a while back, but I suspect it was somebodys pet, didnt look like a Feral one.:oi-grr:

scumdog

26th June 2013, 13:29

i hear it a lot and it irks me.
Concerning nz. 'its uncostitutional', 'constitutional review' etc.

What the fuck do people believe to be the nz constitution?!

You worry too much...

Berries

26th June 2013, 19:27

...and i was genuinely interested in what happens in sheeples brains when they hear 'constitution'
I turn off if that helps.

What you need is a poll.

Akzle

26th June 2013, 19:30

I turn off if that helps.

What you need is a poll.

by implication, that infers you're ever 'on'

had a pull this morning, hasnt made anything clearer

scissorhands

26th June 2013, 19:55

...and i was genuinely interested in what happens in sheeples brains when they hear 'constitution'

I went to constitutional health, as in a peep with a 'good constitution'

I have little interest in legal and political shit that higher ups with armies, which have firmly absconded with, or weasel about with the arrangement of 'words' for their own benefit, and pertaining to the enduring continuance of original settlers such as east indian company burger franchise's, now diversifying from original activities of seal and whale harvesting, todays market focused now on chimpanzee meat as being more valuable, inasmuch as broad attentions assigned to secure market share for future business activities:yawn:

mashman

26th June 2013, 19:58

When I hear constitution, I believe nothing trumps law and the constitution (if it existed) should be turned into loo paper for all the good it will do.

Big Dave

26th June 2013, 20:01

'It's the vibe. It's Mabo.....it's the constitution....it's the vibe.' - Denuto, D.

Berries

26th June 2013, 20:07

It's the fucking photocopier.

Akzle

26th June 2013, 20:43

'It's the vibe. It's Mabo.....it's the constitution....it's the vibe.' - Denuto, D.

i have friend come to your house, put bomb under car, blow you to fucking sky...

Winston001

26th June 2013, 21:45

Our laws have existed here for 2,000 years ... and we are still here ... and we still follow them (and sometimes we follow your laws too.)

Assuming "we" means Maori can't you see a problem here? In signing the Treaty, Maori accepted the Sovereignty of Queen Victoria and all of the laws which flowed from her (under a constitutional monarchy). In current times the Treaty is being upheld and reparations made - all flowing from laws enacted under the Crown. If Maori indigenous law still existed in any legal sense, there would be no Treaty Tribunal and no settlements.

In a nutshell Maori cannot take the advantages of New Zealand laws and at the same time insist they have separate laws which entitle Maori to pick and choose which they follow. Its either one system or the other.

avgas

26th June 2013, 23:53

Our laws have existed here for 2,000 years
Where you write it down?

Sounds like Chinese whispers to me.....

Akzle

27th June 2013, 06:49

In a nutshell Maori cannot take the advantages of New Zealand laws and at the same time insist they have separate laws which entitle Maori to pick and choose which they follow. Its either one system or the other.

ooh, ooh, i pick the other!

Now, err, how do i get the police to enforce it?
More importantly, how do i stop them from forcing crown law against me?

Akzle

27th June 2013, 06:51

Where you write it down?

Sounds like Chinese whispers to me.....

writing shit down is so cracker...

(the chilese written language is sofa king ghey)

unstuck

27th June 2013, 07:20

We shoulda just eaten all you native buggers from the getgo, like ya did to the Morioris.:whistle:

Funnily enough, some shearers dont have much of a sense of humour about that.:wacko:

oneofsix

27th June 2013, 07:52

Where you write it down?

Sounds like Chinese whispers to me.....

Aren't Chinese whispers racist?

Oscar

27th June 2013, 09:04

Our laws have existed here for 2,000 years ... and we are still here ... and we still follow them (and sometimes we follow your laws too.)

2,000 years?

Really?

Banditbandit

27th June 2013, 12:57

haha. Treaty. So you need the queen to aknowledge your 'right' (as a 'native') to sovereignty...?

And who you calling a white fallow?

Some fuckn evidence. You havnt done a very good job of defending the cuntry from crackerism.

No .. the Declaration of Independence is the basis for our internationally recognised sovereignty - the treaty references that declaration ...

Jeez ... we don't need to - enough of our own peopl eare like that - even if their ethnicity is not ...

Banditbandit

27th June 2013, 13:04

Assuming "we" means Maori can't you see a problem here? In signing the Treaty, Maori accepted the Sovereignty of Queen Victoria and all of the laws which flowed from her (under a constitutional monarchy).

No sorry .. Our ancestors signed the version in te reo Maori - which places tino rangatiratanga (sovereignty) with Maori ... Under New Zealand (and British law) an agreement , like a treaty or contractual agreement, has to be understood by both parties - or it is not enforcable. The white fellows who signed it understood both the Maori version and the English version (they wrote both) Maori understood the reo Maori version - but not the English version .. therefore the actual treaty is the Maori version - (see Appeal Court Decisdion of 1986) - and we have sovereigty and your Government has no legal basis ..

In current times the Treaty is being upheld and reparations made - all flowing from laws enacted under the Crown. If Maori indigenous law still existed in any legal sense, there would be no Treaty Tribunal and no settlements.

Yes, no and maybe ... We have put aside the queastion of the legality of the New Zealand Government under International Law ... maybe now is the tiem to raise it again ... and not al Maori buy into the settlement process ... Some people have claimed to represent al their iwi - others dispute that claim ..

In a nutshell Maori cannot take the advantages of New Zealand laws and at the same time insist they have separate laws which entitle Maori to pick and choose which they follow. Its either one system or the other.

Yes - it should have been ours ...

But yes, I agree. The reality is one system for all ... Why has that been denied to us ???

Banditbandit

27th June 2013, 13:05

2,000 years?

Really?

Yeah mate ... Moa bones cooked 2,000 years ago have been found in the hills of Hawke's Bay ... who do you think cooked them ???

Banditbandit

27th June 2013, 13:06

ooh, ooh, i pick the other!

Now, err, how do i get the police to enforce it?
More importantly, how do i stop them from forcing crown law against me?

YEAH !!!! Me too ... much more humane way to live as a society !!!

Banditbandit

27th June 2013, 13:08

Where you write it down?

Sounds like Chinese whispers to me.....

You're showing your cultural bias .. what privileges writing over oral sources ???

We shoulda just eaten all you native buggers from the getgo, like ya did to the Morioris.:whistle:

Funnily enough, some shearers dont have much of a sense of humour about that.:wacko:

Maybe because it's a myth that Māori ate the Moriori ...

oneofsix

27th June 2013, 13:08

Yeah mate ... Moa bones cooked 2,000 years ago have been found in the hills of Hawke's Bay ... who do you think cooked them ???

The Chinese, that was one hell of a chicken fried rice.

Drew

27th June 2013, 13:57

No sorry .. Our ancestors signed the version in te reo Maori - which places tino rangatiratanga (sovereignty) with Maori ... Under New Zealand (and British law) an agreement , like a treaty or contractual agreement, has to be understood by both parties - or it is not enforcable. The white fellows who signed it understood both the Maori version and the English version (they wrote both) Maori understood the reo Maori version - but not the English version .. therefore the actual treaty is the Maori version - (see Appeal Court Decisdion of 1986) - and we have sovereigty and your Government has no legal basis ..

Yes, no and maybe ... We have put aside the queastion of the legality of the New Zealand Government under International Law ... maybe now is the tiem to raise it again ... and not al Maori buy into the settlement process ... Some people have claimed to represent al their iwi - others dispute that claim ..

Yes - it should have been ours ...

But yes, I agree. The reality is one system for all ... Why has that been denied to us ???

You realise I hope, that making sense and being informed, is grounds to be burnt at the stake around here aye!

Oscar

27th June 2013, 14:14

Drew

27th June 2013, 14:18

Yeah mate ... Moa bones cooked 2,000 years ago have been found in the hills of Hawke's Bay ... who do you think cooked them ???

The Irish?

The generally accepted date for Maori settlement is 1200-1300.
Moa's hit by lightning don't count...

This is quite interesting.

I really shouldn't be so lazy when it comes to educating myself about things...Ah fuck it. The more I know, the more confused I'll become!

Oscar

27th June 2013, 14:24

This is quite interesting.

I really shouldn't be so lazy when it comes to educating myself about things...Ah fuck it. The more I know, the more confused I'll become!

From the Te Ara website:

New Zealand has a shorter human history than any other country. The precise date of settlement is a matter of debate, but current understanding is that the first arrivals came from East Polynesia in the 13th century. It was not until 1642 that Europeans became aware the country existed.

http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/history/page-1

From Wikipedia:

The history of New Zealand dates back at least 700 years to when it was discovered and settled by Polynesians, who developed a distinct Māori culture centred on kinship links and land.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_New_Zealand

Herindoors works in a Museum, so I get to see quite a bit of this info...

Big Dave

27th June 2013, 16:31

Herindoors works in a Museum, so I get to see quite a bit of this info...

....as an exhibit.

Banditbandit

27th June 2013, 16:43

You realise I hope, that making sense and being informed, is grounds to be burnt at the stake around here aye!

Absolutely !!! That's what's fun about it ...

Banditbandit

27th June 2013, 16:45

The Irish?

The generally accepted date for Maori settlement is 1200-1300.
Moa's hit by lightning don't count...

"Generally accepted" is not proof .. it was once generally accepted that the earth was flat .. and that human beings could not travel at speeds greateer that 30mph .. because they would never get enough oxygen adn would die ... and so on ...

The bones werre found in caves with evidence of cooking fires ... and cooking marks on the bones.

Road kill

27th June 2013, 17:00

The Irish?

The generally accepted date for Maori settlement is 1200-1300.
Moa's hit by lightning don't count...

Hit by lightning:killingme:2thumbsup

Anyway,there were several small groups of people around NZ before the arrival of Maori.
In Northland there is legend of them and bones ect have been found in other areas.

Where history goes further back with some Maori is that they are desended from the old people due to the assimilation that went on.

My great grandfather was a full blooded Ngapuhi paramount chief around Whangarei and he was said to be desended from the old people.

He would of seen his history as being longer than 1000 years.

Just saying.

RDJ

27th June 2013, 17:04

"Generally accepted" is not proof .. it was once generally accepted that the earth was flat .. and that human beings could not travel at speeds greateer that 30mph .. because they would never get enough oxygen adn would die ... and so on ...

The bones werre found in caves with evidence of cooking fires ... and cooking marks on the bones.

It's frequently said that people who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat its mistakes.

It's less frequently said, but maybe it should be more often pointed out, that people who dwell in the past do not progress in the present.

oneofsix

27th June 2013, 17:06

It's frequently said that people who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat its mistakes.

It's less frequently said, but maybe it should be more often pointed out, that people who dwell in the past do not progress in the present.

Then there is Henry Ford's position; All history is bunk. :laugh:

Oscar

27th June 2013, 17:08

"Generally accepted" is not proof .. it was once generally accepted that the earth was flat .. and that human beings could not travel at speeds greateer that 30mph .. because they would never get enough oxygen adn would die ... and so on ...

The bones werre found in caves with evidence of cooking fires ... and cooking marks on the bones.

I have no problem with the concept of earlier visitors.
It's just that they weren't settlers (which blows your 2,000 year legal system away), and they may not have been "Maori".

Banditbandit

27th June 2013, 17:08

From the Te Ara website:

New Zealand has a shorter human history than any other country. The precise date of settlement is a matter of debate, but current understanding is that the first arrivals came from East Polynesia in the 13th century. It was not until 1642 that Europeans became aware the country existed.

I'll see what I can find for you .. but start here .. this article says that there is evidence of human occupation below the ash deposits left by the Kaharoa Eruption in 1050 .. an that gthe evidence above this ash layer shows a decrease in population .. that's certain prior to the 13th century .. http://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/bitstream/handle/10125/16636/AP-v3n1-91-94.pdf?sequence=1

It also says that there is no evidence of human occupation below the Taupo ash layer, and that eruption was 200 AD ... not quite 2,000 years ago ...

The pacific rat (kiore) spread with voyaging humans; therefore, its earliest presence in New Zealand indicates initial human contact. Radiocarbon dating of kiore bones suggests they were introduced to New Zealand c. ad 100 (Holdaway, 1996 Nature). http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz/science/plants-animals-fungi/ecosystems/prehistoric-settlement/human-arrival

SlIghtly older ... so the kiore arrived here (on waka ) in 100 AD ... with the people paddling the waka .. so that would be 1913 years ago ..

Akzle

27th June 2013, 18:05

My great grandfather was a full blooded Ngapuhi paramount chief around Whangarei and he was said to be desended from the old people.

holy fuck we're cousins.

i'm not sure who that should be scarier for...

Oscar

27th June 2013, 22:14

I'll see what I can find for you .. but start here .. this article says that there is evidence of human occupation below the ash deposits left by the Kaharoa Eruption in 1050 .. an that gthe evidence above this ash layer shows a decrease in population .. that's certain prior to the 13th century .. http://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/bitstream/handle/10125/16636/AP-v3n1-91-94.pdf?sequence=1

It also says that there is no evidence of human occupation below the Taupo ash layer, and that eruption was 200 AD ... not quite 2,000 years ago ...

SlIghtly older ... so the kiore arrived here (on waka ) in 100 AD ... with the people paddling the waka .. so that would be 1913 years ago ..

So they dropped their rats off when visiting.
Show me settlement, and we'll talk about your 2,000 year old legal system..

Winston001

28th June 2013, 00:13

I'll see what I can find for you .. but start here .. this article says that there is evidence of human occupation below the ash deposits left by the Kaharoa Eruption in 1050 ..

It also says that there is no evidence of human occupation below the Taupo ash layer, and that eruption was 200 AD ... not quite 2,000 years ago ...

SlIghtly older ... so the kiore arrived here (on waka ) in 100 AD ... with the people paddling the waka .. so that would be 1913 years ago ..

Well that is interesting but to date the most recent archaeological evidence of Maori living in NZ comes from the Wairau Bar near Blenheim which dates about AD1300.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/795434/Archaeologists-uncover-700-year-old-Maori-home

Really I'm not bothered if ancient Pacific voyagers discovered Aotearoa much earlier as you suggest. Humans have explored for 200,000 years and its always possible a group stumbled across these remote islands earlier than 1300. However that begs the question as to why such explorers didn't occupy Australia multiple times yet the DNA evidence shows the Aboriginals came from Indonesia.

Coolz

28th June 2013, 01:30

Banditbandit

28th June 2013, 09:40

My great grandfather was a full blooded Ngapuhi paramount chief around Whangarei and he was said to be desended from the old people.

He would of seen his history as being longer than 1000 years.

Just saying.

Yes. Exactly. Many places have stories of the peope who lived here before the waka arrived .. and yes, there was intermarriage .. heaps of it .. just as there has been with the more recent arrivals - Europeans, Chinese, Indian ... other Pacific Islandrs ...

I have no problem with the concept of earlier visitors.
It's just that they weren't settlers (which blows your 2,000 year legal system away), and they may not have been "Maori".

It's too far to come for a "visit" anyone who arrived here was basically stuck ... Were these people "Māori" .. Hmm .. As I have said before, and as can be found if you look .. the people who arrived here pre-European settlement were Pacific Islanders - the cultural that developed here was Māori .. No Māori arrived here .. they develooped here as Māori ... these people are our ancestors ...

Your question is actually quite hard to answer because say 30 people arriving here on a waka 2,000 years ago had 66 million acres to roam around - and would leave a very minimal archeological footprint - if any at all - and therefore hard to find.

The world is NOT a giant storage shed with stuff lying around just waiting for us to find it. The world is a giant recycling machine - and a wood or stone-based economy leaves a minimal archeological footprint. There are areas in North America where recorded European history writes about a 100,000 Indians living there .. but today there is no archeological footprint of those people (talk about environmentally friendly - 100,000 leaving no marks on the environment) .. and that is only after 500 years ..

The presence of the kiore proves humans got here (kiore can't swim for shit .. have to have come on waka) ... do you seriously think that after sailing al this way they were just on holiday ???

Oscar

28th June 2013, 09:53

It's too far to come for a "visit" anyone who arrived here was basically stuck ... Were these people "Māori" .. Hmm .. As I have said before, and as can be found if you look .. the people who arrived here pre-European settlement were Pacific Islanders - the cultural that developed here was Māori .. No Māori arrived here .. they develooped here as Māori ... these people are our ancestors ...

Your question is actually quite hard to answer because say 30 people arriving here on a waka 2,000 years ago had 66 million acres to roam around - and would leave a very minimal archeological footprint - if any at all - and therefore hard to find.

The world is NOT a giant storage shed with stuff lying around just waiting for us to find it. The world is a giant recycling machine - and a wood or stone-based economy leaves a minimal archeological footprint. There are areas in North America where recorded European history writes about a 100,000 Indians living there .. but today there is no archeological footprint of those people (talk about environmentally friendly - 100,000 leaving no marks on the environment) .. and that is only after 500 years ..

The presence of the kiore proves humans got here (kiore can't swim for shit .. have to have come on waka) ... do you seriously think that after sailing al this way they were just on holiday ???

I'm not disputing the presence of people here 2,000 years ago, or the possiblity of visitors who settled and probably died out (like early Eurpean settlers in North America).

I am disputing your claim that "Our laws have existed here for 2,000 years ...", as it infers that Maori have been settled here for that long and it flies in the face of all research.
Notwithstanding that, the length of time a legal system has been in place does not guarantee quality, equity or anything much at all. By that logic, Sharia Law would be OK as it’s been around for 12 centuries.

Akzle

28th June 2013, 13:47

Notwithstanding that, the length of time a legal system has been in place does not guarantee quality, equity or anything much at all. By that logic, Sharia Law would be OK as it’s been around for 12 centuries.

it'd be a league ahead of white crown "law"

scissorhands

28th June 2013, 14:52

Well, as you have opened this can of worms...off the top of my head;
The Kaimanawa wall
The stone village in the Waipoua forrest
The tamil bell discovered by Colenso in Whangarei
The spanish helmet found in the Wellington Harbour
400 year old Pohutakawa tree in Spain
The tons of bones found in caves near Warkworth that the Maori claimed were not of their people and subsequnetly got destroyed at the Onehunga limeworks
Maurice Tyson's discovery of a 7 foot tall skeleton in Tuakau
The carving found in the Kaipara dunes, now in the Dargaville marine museum
Ancient stone houses in Southland
and many more mysterious finds that the goverment and the Maori are closed mouthed about

Evidence would suggest that other races of people have visited our shores and possibly dined on Moa.

Alternative archaeology is an interest fro me too, and a sleeper political issue.

Yet, little traction could be obtained from any possible early settler claims, and only novelty could be obtained, when referencing the impact of these early settlers upon any constitutional document.

Deep excavation under 4-5meters in volcanic zones are bringing up infrequent finds from 10,000yrs ago even

Maybe NZ was abandoned but not likely. Maybe it never took off, but more likely Maori just dealt to them.

Its a winning evolutionary trait, so might becomes right

Coldrider

28th June 2013, 20:43

it'd be a league ahead of 15/16th white crown "law"fixed it for you.

Akzle

28th June 2013, 22:16

disregard that, i suck cocks

fixed it for you.

Coldrider

28th June 2013, 22:19

I don't swallow my 1/16th.fixed that for you.

Banditbandit

1st July 2013, 09:06

I am disputing your claim that "Our laws have existed here for 2,000 years ...", as it infers that Maori have been settled here for that long and it flies in the face of all research.

No - it only flies int eh face of some conclusions ...

Notwithstanding that, the length of time a legal system has been in place does not guarantee quality, equity or anything much at all. By that logic, Sharia Law would be OK as it’s been around for 12 centuries.

This is true ... length of time does not gaurantee quality. But then British law cannot claim the priviliged position it has held inthis country for about 150 years ... what made them think they had the right ???

ducatilover

1st July 2013, 10:41

Well, as you have opened this can of worms...off the top of my head;
The Kaimanawa wall
The stone village in the Waipoua forrest
The tamil bell discovered by Colenso in Whangarei
The spanish helmet found in the Wellington Harbour
400 year old Pohutakawa tree in Spain
The tons of bones found in caves near Warkworth that the Maori claimed were not of their people and subsequnetly got destroyed at the Onehunga limeworks
Maurice Tyson's discovery of a 7 foot tall skeleton in Tuakau
The carving found in the Kaipara dunes, now in the Dargaville marine museum
Ancient stone houses in Southland
and many more mysterious finds that the goverment and the Maori are closed mouthed about

Evidence would suggest that other races of people have visited our shores and possibly dined on Moa. Don't be silly, only men in lttle tree boats can discover NZ. Nobody else, especially nobody with actual technology, superior boats, sea skills and gay cabin boys!

2000 year old Moa bones would have to be eaten/cooked by Maori because they said they were first.

Next year they'll tell us where they came from too!

ducatilover

1st July 2013, 10:45

No - it only flies int eh face of some conclusions ...

This is true ... length of time does not gaurantee quality. But then British law cannot claim the priviliged position it has held inthis country for about 150 years ... what made them think they had the right ???

At least the froggies didn't come and wipe the place clean, or the Japs. The Brutish Empire could have easily sailed a few proper boats with many men over and run riot, but they didn't.

http://polkadotpastasauce.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/roses.jpeg might pay to smell these things once in a while and be thankful there wasn't a real war.

Oscar

1st July 2013, 12:08

This is true ... length of time does not gaurantee quality. But then British law cannot claim the priviliged position it has held inthis country for about 150 years ... what made them think they had the right ???

Perhaps the fact that it is the basis for the legal system in half the world?
Do you have a better alternative?

Banditbandit

1st July 2013, 13:44

Perhaps the fact that it is the basis for the legal system in half the world?
Do you have a better alternative?

Only half the world ???

Of course - there's always alternatives ... and always better ones ... 'cept, of course, you're not going to like it ...

Oscar

1st July 2013, 14:11

Only half the world ???

Of course - there's always alternatives ... and always better ones ... 'cept, of course, you're not going to like it ...

How do you know I won't like it?

It'd have to be good, though, to beat the likes of habeas corpus, innocent until proven innocent and the Magna Carta..

Banditbandit

1st July 2013, 14:13

How do you know I won't like it?

It'd have to be good, though, to beat the likes of habeas corpus, innocent until proven innocent and the Magna Carta..

Jeez .. Latin and Ancient England .. all in one ... I certainly can't beat that one .. Not even Plato, Aristotle or Malatesta are that heavy ..

(Haven't you discovered it's the 21st Centiry Oscar ??? Who is living in the past?

Oscar

1st July 2013, 14:16

Jeez .. Latin and Ancient England .. all in one ... I certainly can't beat that one .. Not even Plato, Aristotle or Malatesta are that heavy ..

(Haven't you discovered it's the 21st Centiry Oscar ??? Who is living in the past?

As I say - have you got anything better?
Start with the principal of habeas corpus (bring the body) - is there a better safeguard for liberty?

Banditbandit

1st July 2013, 14:34

As I say - have you got anything better?
Start with the principal of habeas corpus (bring the body) - is there a better safeguard for liberty?

Huh ?? Yeah .. my AK47 .. "bring the body" .. sheeeut when did that work with the state ??? They disappear people if they want to ...

Akzle

1st July 2013, 14:35

meanwhile in the us. independence day will be interesting this year.
i think i'll call it, countdown to greece.

Oscar

1st July 2013, 14:36

Huh ?? Yeah .. my AK47 .. "bring the body" .. sheeeut when did that work with the state ??? They disappear people if they want to ...

It protects the individual from the state.
It guarantees a trial.

Banditbandit

1st July 2013, 14:39

It protects the individual from the state.
It guarantees a trial.

What ????? ... My AK47 ... sure ... that's exactly the idea ... and why the NRA does not want gun control in 'Merika ...

I dunno about "trial" .. it'll certainly be a trial to get me the day they come for me ...

Oscar

1st July 2013, 15:21

What ????? ... My AK47 ... sure ... that's exactly the idea ... and why the NRA does not want gun control in 'Merika ...

I dunno about "trial" .. it'll certainly be a trial to get me the day they come for me ...

We were speaking of justice systems, not your wet dreams.

Scuba_Steve

1st July 2013, 15:39

We were speaking of justice systems

:eek5: They exist??? where???

mashman

1st July 2013, 15:49

meanwhile in the us. independence day will be interesting this year.
i think i'll call it, countdown to greece.

As much as I hope that's not going to be the case, I kinda do... although tis likely that anyone considering such a thing will have been locked up in Guantanamo by now.

Banditbandit

1st July 2013, 16:22

We were speaking of justice systems, not your wet dreams.

Bwhahaha .. I was speaking of my AK47 and how it protects the individual from the state ... which is what I thought you were talking about ...

:innocent:

Oscar

1st July 2013, 16:31

Bwhahaha .. I was speaking of my AK47 and how it protects the individual from the state ... which is what I thought you were talking about ...

:innocent:

How does it protect you from the State?
Examples, please.

avgas

1st July 2013, 17:54

You're showing your cultural bias .. what privileges writing over oral sources ???
Evidence

Unless you speak Portuguese, which case we can put this down to a slightly older history.

avgas

1st July 2013, 18:00

Aren't Chinese whispers racist?
It was a pun as to historical lineage...... considering certain people knew how to write 10,000 years ago - but somehow lost the ability 2000 (or whatever the Moa bone claim is) years ago.

Drew

1st July 2013, 18:34

It was a pun as to historical lineage...... considering certain people knew how to write 10,000 years ago - but somehow lost the ability 2000 (or whatever the Moa bone claim is) years ago.
This is another interesting phenominon I won't look up for fear of cranial implosion.

Maori and other Pacific Island peoples, are descended from Asia. How come they couldn't fuckin write?

ducatilover

1st July 2013, 19:03

avgas

1st July 2013, 19:06

Akzle

1st July 2013, 19:21

Maori and other Pacific Island peoples, are descended from Asia. How come they couldn't fuckin write?

sais who?
. .

Banditbandit

2nd July 2013, 13:28

This is another interesting phenominon I won't look up for fear of cranial implosion.

Maori and other Pacific Island peoples, are descended from Asia. How come they couldn't fuckin write?

Maybe the left mainland Asia before writing was invented there .. the older groups who settled the pacific certainly left Asia a very very long time ago ...

Banditbandit

2nd July 2013, 13:29

It was a pun as to historical lineage...... considering certain people knew how to write 10,000 years ago - but somehow lost the ability 2000 (or whatever the Moa bone claim is) years ago.

Say what ??? Who claimed they could write 10,000 years ago but somehow lost the ability ???

ducatilover

2nd July 2013, 14:02

Maybe the left mainland Asia before writing was invented there .. the older groups who settled the pacific certainly left Asia a very very long time ago ...

That's a possibility for sure.
But, why was no written language developed with them? People claim there was no need, but if that was the case none of us would be typing speculative rubbish at each other on ze interwebbz.

Drew

2nd July 2013, 15:59

sais who?
. .Geneticists. I don't doubt that you're a clever cunt....But those gene mapping mother fuckers, got some big brains on 'em I tells ya.

That's a possibility for sure.
But, why was no written language developed with them? People claim there was no need, but if that was the case none of us would be typing speculative rubbish at each other on ze interwebbz.I am not completely sure, but I think they used carvings and the way they were done to assist with 'story time'.

ducatilover

2nd July 2013, 16:36

I am not completely sure, but I think they used carvings and the way they were done to assist with 'story time'.

Yeah that'd make sense :yes: bit like them fullas when they left their caves?

Drew

2nd July 2013, 16:44

Yeah that'd make sense :yes: bit like them fullas when they left their caves?

More detail...But again, we'd need some darkies to confirm. BANDIT, wea yo at mah nigga?

duckonin

2nd July 2013, 17:16

This is another interesting phenominon I won't look up for fear of cranial implosion.

Maori and other Pacific Island peoples, are descended from Asia. How come they couldn't fuckin write?

Simple the thick fucken Hori's had not invented the 'pen' and did not have a written language..:msn-wink: Each wanker tribe could not understand what the other was saying . I mean common, they are thick cunts !

Drew

2nd July 2013, 17:39

Simple the thick fucken Hori's had not invented the 'pen' and did not have a written language..:msn-wink: Each wanker tribe could not understand what the other was saying . I mean common, they are thick cunts !

Unevolved is the correct term I think. Still, they didn't have any exposure to any other races to draw on and incorporate, to their own.

Thick? Lets look at what the people have adapted to in a VERY short 200 odd years. Pretty bloody good going really. OK, it was kinda forced on their people, but they master the same machines and principals our 'smart' people do.

BANDIT, I'm no good at this crap. You're the edgamicatered one with all the knowledge, you fuckin do it!

Akzle

2nd July 2013, 18:26

Unevolved is the correct term I think. Still, they didn't have any exposure to any other races to draw on and incorporate, to their own.

Thick? Lets look at what the people have adapted to in a VERY short 200 odd years. Pretty bloody good going really. OK, it was kinda forced on their people, but they master the same machines and principals our 'smart' people do.

BANDIT, I'm no good at this crap. You're the edgamicatered one with all the knowledge, you fuckin do it!

you need more black in ya.

...bend over sweetheart

Drew

2nd July 2013, 18:53

you need more black in ya.

...bend over sweetheartDinner and a movie first hippy!

Ocean1

2nd July 2013, 19:43

Madness

2nd July 2013, 19:49

Maori and other Pacific Island peoples, are descended from Asia. How come they couldn't fuckin write?

I'm gong to run with the likelihood that 10,000 years ago there were a small number of skilled writers in many societies, a trade if you like. If your trade was that of ocean explorer and you were heading to undiscovered lands in a hollowed out log, would you take the village geek who could write but fuck all else?

Banditbandit

3rd July 2013, 09:35

That's a possibility for sure.
But, why was no written language developed with them? People claim there was no need, but if that was the case none of us would be typing speculative rubbish at each other on ze interwebbz.

Hmm .. there are only three known sites where writing originated - Sumer, MesoAmerica and China ... Egypt may have created a heiroglyphics style of writing - but evidence suggests that the idea was derived from Sumerian Cuneform ...

All other written languages are derived from these ..

Simple the thick fucken Hori's had not invented the 'pen' and did not have a written language..:msn-wink: Each wanker tribe could not understand what the other was saying . I mean common, they are thick cunts !

As above ... Sumer is Middle Eastern, MesoAmerica is Mexican and China is Asian .. how come you dumb white cunts did not invent any writing ???

Oscar

3rd July 2013, 09:44

As above ... Sumer is Middle Eastern, MesoAmerica is Mexican and China is Asian .. how come you dumb white cunts did not invent any writing ???

Since you bring it up - Maori may be one of the few cultures in the world not have any knowledge of machines.
The definition of a machine is one or more moving parts that modifies mechanical energy and transmits it in more useful form.
The simplest machine is probably something like a woomera or spear thrower, which was known to Aboringines 50,000 years ago.

Banditbandit

3rd July 2013, 09:49

That's a possibility for sure.
But, why was no written language developed with them? People claim there was no need, but if that was the case none of us would be typing speculative rubbish at each other on ze interwebbz.

Hmmm .. given that there are only three places which it can be proven that writing developed independently of any other culture ... the better question is not why did some groups NOT invent writing (which includes what people call Caucasian ... that writing is all developed from Sumerian Cuneiform ... and brought to the British Isles by the Romans - as the Celtic tribes (from whom many people here are descended) did not write - and had a variety of languages and did not understand each other) is: Why did some groups invent writing?

That is not an easy question to answer at all .. and never has been answered convincingly .. it takes a major conceptual leap by someone to independently invent writing - and clearly no white man has ever achieved it .. so don't crap on us for the same thing ...

BANDIT, wea yo at mah nigga?

I'm here now .. just not then ..

Still, they didn't have any exposure to any other races to draw on and incorporate, to their own.

Yes - that's true .. and that is the way the White, western world developed writing .. nicking the idea from Sumerians and using basically an Arabic alphabet ...

Thick? Lets look at what the people have adapted to in a VERY short 200 odd years. Pretty bloody good going really. OK, it was kinda forced on their people, but they master the same machines and principals our 'smart' people do.

BANDIT, I'm no good at this crap. You're the edgamicatered one with all the knowledge, you fuckin do it!

Yeah OK .. Māori between 1800 and 1860 became literate - zero literacy in in 1800 - 90% literacy in 1860 - that's the fastest rate of literacy acquisition by an oral culture in the world ... (and yeah - some of us can't spell .. just like some white people can't spell)

Cook records that he left seeds for plants on his first trip to New ZEaland - when he returned Māori had cultivated gardens and surplus food to trade with Cook's ships .. they jumped into the new world and capitalist with both feet .. and do very well at it ..

In 1860 there werer something like 60 trading ships in New Zealand registered to Māori owners - not white people - Māori owners ... they were trading around the coast of GodZone as well as trading with Austra'ia - carrying Māori grown and milled flour (milled in Māori owned flour mills), vegetables, seal skins, etc ... there was a thriving international trade based in the Māori economy ..

It was lost because of the greedy white settlers who wanted the land - forced a war and then dropped our people into the lower socioeconomic group as workers .. in our own land .. consigned to be workers ... set up Native Schools to train Māori boys to be farm workers and Māori girls to be domestic servents .. basically slaves in our own land ..

But that entrepreneurship is still evident .. Māori are one of the most entrepreneurial ethnic group in the world ... a higher percetange of our people are entrepreneurs than white people ..

http://www.unitec.ac.nz/creative-industries-business/management-marketing/research_management/research_maori-third-most-entrepreneurial-people_busi.cfm

a higher percetange of our people are in tertiary education than white people ...

And now I get to listen to the sort of racist shit many of you propogate ...

Banditbandit

3rd July 2013, 10:00

Ocean1

3rd July 2013, 11:10

Hmm .. there are only three known sites where writing originated - Sumer, MesoAmerica and China ... Egypt may have created a heiroglyphics style of writing - but evidence suggests that the idea was derived from Sumerian Cuneform .

Pretty narrow definition of writing, dude. There were pictographic recordings used throughout many cultures, and I'm sure you know our alphabet has recognised pictorial roots.

Also... I've seen a knotted cord no longer than 18" that recorded the annual crop and herd details for a large Inca village. You can't write small enough to translate that into english on paper of the same size. That particular cord was 300 years old, but the technique in that culture is much older.

Ocean1

3rd July 2013, 11:11

I am not so sure that is a down-side idea ... given what machines are doing to our world I'd prefer the older culture ...

Well, you would if you survived to your current age. Which you wouldn't have, you'd probably have died in pain many years ago.

Banditbandit

3rd July 2013, 11:24

Pretty narrow definition of writing, dude. There were pictographic recordings used throughout many cultures,

Including Māori ... I'm sure that if you go to any marae you will see pictographic recordings of important events ... The MezoAmerican writing I mentioned above is pictorial .. as is the Chinese ...

But Duckonin mentioned "pens" .. whch set up that definitionm of writing .. and I would argue that it is a generally accepted definition ..

and I'm sure you know our alphabet has recognised pictorial roots.

Absolutely - Cuneiform is a little pictorial .. And an alphabet has only arisen once in human history - in the area we know call Sinai ..from the Semetic languages ... which is the ancestor of all the modern alphabets

Also... I've seen a knotted cord no longer than 18" that recorded the annual crop and herd details for a large Inca village. You can't write small enough to translate that into english on paper of the same size. That particular cord was 300 years old, but the technique in that culture is much older.

Yes - a similar technique was used by Māori - knots in a cord to convey a message ... these were called aho ponapona ..

But this is not writing ...

What's at the core of your objections ???? Don't like the idea that the Caucasian races did not invent writing ??? That Ragheads, Chinks and Chicanos did ??? Feelin' a little racially inferior and stupid ???

Banditbandit

3rd July 2013, 11:30

Since you bring it up - Maori may be one of the few cultures in the world not have any knowledge of machines.
The definition of a machine is one or more moving parts that modifies mechanical energy and transmits it in more useful form.
The simplest machine is probably something like a woomera or spear thrower, which was known to Aboringines 50,000 years ago.

OK .. here you go ... not quite completely machineless ..

Māori machine for lifting ridgepoles into new houses

http://nzetc.victoria.ac.nz/tm/scholarly/Bes02Maor-fig-Bes02Maor194a.html

Māori machine for drilling holes in wood and stone (you hold the upright and pull the string to twist the drill ...)

http://nzetc.victoria.ac.nz/etexts/Bes02Maor/Bes02Maor196a(h280).jpg

Māori machine for felling trees (the head and point I is a sharpened ax .. so the action is like a bow - increasing the striking power of the ax-head into the tree) ... When the Eurpoeans got here they just swung axes .. a little primitive ...

http://nzetc.victoria.ac.nz/tm/scholarly/Bes02Maor-fig-Bes02Maor199a.html

(If you can see the pictures - go here .. they are all here ... http://nzetc.victoria.ac.nz/tm/scholarly/tei-Bes02Maor-t1-body-d5.html)

Banditbandit

3rd July 2013, 11:47

Well, you would if you survived to your current age. Which you wouldn't have, you'd probably have died in pain many years ago.

Yeah maybe .. as opposed to sitting in a corner not knowing which way is up and being hand fed by nurses ???

http://www.nursece.com/images/1010_img_1_278_228.jpg

Or slowly dying of lung cancer caused by air pollution ???

http://wodumedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Cancer-sufferer-Mr.-Wang-is-one-of-many-cancer-victims-from-his-village-near-Wuxi-city-in-Jiangsu-Province.-While-the-exact-causes-are-unknown-he-believes-his-illness-was-caused-by-using-water-polluted-by-local-industries.-In-Fe-960x639.jpg

Or how about Ebola/Meningitus/AIDS/ .. and any of the hundreds of modern ways to die ???

We may live longer ... but are we any better off ???

Oscar

3rd July 2013, 12:21

OK .. here you go ... not quite completely machineless ..

I stand corrected.
Jolly interesting, too.

They never managed the wheel though - did they?

Banditbandit

3rd July 2013, 12:47

I stand corrected.
Jolly interesting, too.

They never managed the wheel though - did they?

No .. no wheels ...

Road kill

3rd July 2013, 13:04

Maori were the only race not to have used bows and arrows but they did use other machines on a small scale.

Bald Eagle

3rd July 2013, 13:30

Yes - it should have been ours ...

But yes, I agree. The reality is one system for all ... Why has that been denied to us ???

If Maori had won the wars it would have been. They did'nt so it isn't, simple really.

Sent from here

SPman

3rd July 2013, 15:25

i hear it a lot and it irks me.
Concerning nz. 'its uncostitutional', 'constitutional review' etc.

What the fuck do people believe to be the nz constitution?!

They don't - it's because they watch to much 'mer'can TV. They probably dial 911 for emergencies as well!

Ocean1

3rd July 2013, 15:27

Including Māori ... I'm sure that if you go to any marae you will see pictographic recordings of important events ... The MezoAmerican writing I mentioned above is pictorial .. as is the Chinese ...

Most alphabets started out as wee pictures, it’s a pretty obvious evolution to formalise and simplify them.

But Duckonin mentioned "pens" .. whch set up that definitionm of writing .. and I would argue that it is a generally accepted definition ..

Fair enough. I was simply pointing out that other methods of recording stuff have been around for as long or longer and are in no way functionally inferior.

an alphabet has only arisen once in human history - in the area we know call Sinai ..from the Semetic languages ... which is the ancestor of all the modern alphabets

This is a (incomplete) list of languages: http://www.omniglot.com/writing/index.htm

This is a (incomplete) list of alphabets: http://www.omniglot.com/writing/alphabets.htm

Care to tell me about the antecedence of this one?

284557

What's at the core of your objections ???? Don't like the idea that the Caucasian races did not invent writing ??? That Ragheads, Chinks and Chicanos did ??? Feelin' a little racially inferior and stupid ???

How do you get there from my observation about the superior recording methods of a South American culture?

I’m inferior to a bunch of people, across a wide range of skills. I’m nowhere near stupid by the generally accepted definition, and it seems to me that only one feeling a little racially inferior would make such a link as you have, there.

Me? Nobody that wasn’t there at his parents conception knows his genetic antecedence, although I’d say that given the above I’m in a better position to make a guess about yours than you are about mine.

Ocean1

3rd July 2013, 15:31

We may live longer ... but are we any better off ???

Yes.

I'm one of very few people of my acquaintance that would be alive now without antibiotics.

And when the time comes I’ll be the one who decides I’ve had enough, not some insignificant parasitic wee beastie.

Banditbandit

3rd July 2013, 15:32

Maori were the only race not to have used bows and arrows but they did use other machines on a small scale.

Yes .. the bows and arrows is interesting - especially as the tree felling machine uses that technology to drive the axe head into the tree ... it's also interersting that while the tipuna used a string to spin a drill they never used the same idea for making fire ..

I have heard a story about an atua using a bow and arrow to kill ... and the weapon was consequently banned ... I will try to pull the story out of my memory ... (but don't hold your breath ...)

If Maori had won the wars it would have been. They did'nt so it isn't, simple really.

Sent from here

Yeah .. no-one won the wars here .. as Belich said the two sides fought each other to a standstill ... but lots of other things did happen and we wound up on the lossing side ...

Oscar

3rd July 2013, 15:37

Yes.

I'm one of very few people of my acquaintance that would be alive now without antibiotics.

And when the time comes I’ll be the one who decides I’ve had enough, not some insignificant parasitic wee beastie.

I was a rhesus negative baby (hemolytic disease where the mothers blood is incompatible with the fetus).
In days of yore, my life expectancy was about 24 hours.

So not only did I live longer (by a factor of 18,000 so far), I'm a lot better off...

Banditbandit

3rd July 2013, 15:44

This is a (incomplete) list of alphabets: http://www.omniglot.com/writing/alphabets.htm

Yes .. that's about it ..

Care to tell me about the antecedence of this one?

pic dumped

I am not sure what that one is ...

How do you get there from my observation about the superior recording methods of a South American culture?

What irked me is exactly that concept - "superior recording methods" of another culture ... Is it really necessary to put down Māori culture in the way that you do (and others do to)? especially as a knotted string was a technique used here (tho' you might not have known that ...)

Oscar

3rd July 2013, 15:44

Yeah .. no-one won the wars here .. as Belich said the two sides fought each other to a standstill ... but lots of other things did happen and we wound up on the lossing side ...

Belich is an idiot.
He crapped on about Maori "..defying the might of the British Empire" like they stood up to ten divisions of crack infantry.
Now the Maori did put up a great fight, but the colonial side consisted of armed constabulary and some Sydney Militia.

The British attitude to NZ was ambigious - it was really only part of the Empire to stop the French and Whitehall was annoyed at the settlers who caused the problems in the first place - which was reflected in the resources that were allocated to these skirmishes.

Banditbandit

3rd July 2013, 15:45

I was a rhesus negative baby (hemolytic disease where the mothers blood is incompatible with the fetus).
In days of yore, my life expectancy was about 24 hours.

So not only did I live longer (by a factor of 18,000 so far), I'm a lot better off...

Bwhahahaha ... some of us might suggest (tongue in cheek of course) that the world is NOT a better place with you in it ... :bleh:

Oscar

3rd July 2013, 15:45

Yes .. that's about it ..

I am not sure what that one is ...

What irked me is exactly that concept - "superior recording methods" of another culture ... Is it really necessary to put down Māori culture in the way that you do (and others do to)? especially as a knotted string was a technique used here (tho' you might not have known that ...)

Er - are these not your words?

how come you dumb white cunts did not invent any writing ???

Oscar

3rd July 2013, 15:48

Bwhahahaha ... some of us might sugegst (tongue in cheek of course) that the world is NOT a better place with you in it ... :bleh:

Ah, that's your reality - my reality is that it's a much better place with me in it!

Banditbandit

3rd July 2013, 16:04

Belich is an idiot.
He crapped on about Maori "..defying the might of the British Empire" like they stood up to ten divisions of crack infantry.
Now the Maori did put up a great fight, but the colonial side consisted of armed constabulary and some Sydney Militia.

You're so wrong .. (all from Wikipedia ... )

"The British Army were professional soldiers who had experience fighting in various parts of the Empire, many from India and Afghanistan, although front-line units were never sent (in contrast to, say, South Africa or other parts of the Empire). They were led by officers who were themselves trained by men who fought at Waterloo"

Northern War (Hone Heke)
"The colonial government attempted to re-establish its authority in the Bay of Islands on 28 March 1845 with the arrival of troops from the 58th, 96th and 99th Regiments with Royal Marines and a Congreve rocket unit, under the command of Lieutenant-Colonel William Hulme."

At Ohaeawai
"Although it was now the middle of the southern winter, Lieutenant Colonel Despard insisted on resuming the campaign immediately with troops from the 58th and 99th Regiments, Royal Marines and a detachment of artillery "

The First Taranaki War
"The war was fought by more than 3,500 imperial troops brought in from Australia, as well as volunteer soldiers and militia"

Waikato War
"the Colonial Office in London to send more than 10,000 Imperial troops to New Zealand and General Sir Duncan Cameron was appointed to lead the campaign. Cameron used soldiers to build the 18km-long Great South Road to the border of Kingite territory (Total troop numbers reached 10,000 in January 1864 before peaking at about 14,000 in March 1864—9000 Imperial troops, more than 4000 colonial and a few hundred kūpapa, or pro-British Māori"

"Cameron arrived at Rangiriri with about 850 men, chiefly of the 65th, 14th and 12th Regiments, to make the frontal assault. A second division of 320 men of the 40th Regiment under Lieut-Colonel Arthur Leslie with additional naval backup, were transported by barge further south with the aim of gaining possession of a ridge 500 metres behind the main entrenchment and cutting off any escape"

The Second Taranaki War
The buildup increased rapidly under Grey's term as Governor: when the second round of hostilities broke out in Taranaki in May 1863 he applied to the Secretary of State in London for the immediate dispatch of three more regiments and also wrote to the Australian Governors asking for whatever British troops that could be made available.[26] Lieutenant-General Duncan Cameron, the Commander-in-Chief of the British troops in New Zealand, began the Waikato invasion in July with fewer than 4000 effective troops in Auckland at his disposal, but the continuous arrival of regiments from overseas rapidly swelled the force."

Enough! .. that's enough to show how wrong you are .. it is certainly trrue that latter battlesd and zskirmishes were with homegrown troops .. but up to 10,000 Imperial forces were snet here and fought here ..

Banditbandit

3rd July 2013, 16:08

Er - are these not your words?

Yeah .. I was making a slightly different point - the point being that white people (who did not invent writing) can hardly feel superior to Māori who did not invent writing ... and paraphrasing Duckonin .. if you follow the trail backwards you will see it ...

Banditbandit

3rd July 2013, 16:14

Hey .. I need to go somewhere else ... be back tomorow ...

Akzle

3rd July 2013, 16:19

So not only did I live longer (by a factor of 18,000 so far), I'm a lot better off...

no one else is...

Oscar

3rd July 2013, 16:30

no one else is...

Feh. My dog disagrees with you.

Ocean1

3rd July 2013, 17:39

I am not sure what that one is ...

It's Ethiopian, and like many other languages it’s written form bears not the slightest relationship to anything out of Iraq.

What irked me is exactly that concept - "superior recording methods" of another culture ... Is it really necessary to put down Māori culture in the way that you do (and others do to)? especially as a knotted string was a technique used here (tho' you might not have known that ...)

You’re going to have to point out where I put down Maori culture, because I can’t see anything remotely close in anything I’ve written, on this keyboard or any bit of string.

I think you’re well out of order.

Drew

4th July 2013, 09:52

I think you’re well out of order.You educated men, fight like bitches!

Hehehehe.

scissorhands

4th July 2013, 10:22

You educated men, fight like bitches!

Hehehehe.

probably why Maori did not use bows and arrows..

Maha

4th July 2013, 10:31

probably why Maori did not use bows and arrows..

In 1885 there was a gang of natives called Bro's with Arrows ...maybe they did:rolleyes:

Banditbandit

4th July 2013, 10:34

It's Ethiopian, and like many other languages it’s written form bears not the slightest relationship to anything out of Iraq.

Interesting - it's called Ge'ez or sometimes fidal ...(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ge'ez_script)

It's a development of the Arabic script (which incidentally had a major impact on the alphabet we use today.

It's origins seems to be 900BC, but really developed by 600-500BC and is well after the Sumerian script developed in 3000BC and the Egyptian hieroglyphics of around 2000BC.

While the development of Ge'ez is a significant achievement, Ethiopia would have had plenty of contact with the literate world to the North - Egypt, Phonecia, Babylon .. as well as to the writing methods of the rest of the Arabic/Islamic world ... so the concept of writing was not new to them. The fact that they developed their own system is a big achievement ... it might be possible to trace origins back to what we now call Iraq ... it might not ... but that is not the important point I was trying to make.

The point I was making was that there have only been three provable independent originis of writing - coming up with the concept is incomparibly more dificult that borrowing, adapting or creating your own once you know it is possible ... It's the getting to know it is possible that is the huge conceptual leap ..

You’re going to have to point out where I put down Maori culture, because I can’t see anything remotely close in anything I’ve written, on this keyboard or any bit of string.

I think you’re well out of order.

Yes, I have to apologise for that. I read stuff into your words that were not there. My fault.

Ocean1

4th July 2013, 11:24

You educated men, fight like bitches!

Hehehehe.

One of my ancestors was a graduate of the royal college of physicians in Edinborough. Just. He was killed in a duel.

Apparently it was common for gentlemen of the college to be called out several times a year, and they weren't using the Marquess of Queensberry rules.

Ocean1

4th July 2013, 11:31

The point I was making was that there have only been three provable independent originis of writing - coming up with the concept is incomparibly more dificult that borrowing, adapting or creating your own once you know it is possible ... It's the getting to know it is possible that is the huge conceptual leap ..

As you're keen to point out, it's difficult to prove what happened that long ago. And I' think you'll find the uptake or death of any given language has more to do with wars of conquest than any difficulty in developing what is, in essence a simple enough tool. Children have been known to invent tollerably complex and relatively effective languages amongst themselves, it lasts roughly as long as it takes for them to confront the need to communicate with a larger group.

Yes, I have to apologise for that. I read stuff into your words that were not there. My fault.

De nada, dude.

MisterD

4th July 2013, 11:51

I' think you'll find the uptake or death of any given language has more to do with wars of conquest than any difficulty in developing what is, in essence a simple enough tool.

Not entirely, English seems to have evolved a curiously ability to absorb elements from other languages and become a preferred form of communication.

It could have been replaced by both Norse and French by invading forces, but just got bigger and stronger each time.

Banditbandit

4th July 2013, 12:08

As you're keen to point out, it's difficult to prove what happened that long ago. And I' think you'll find the uptake or death of any given language has more to do with wars of conquest than any difficulty in developing what is, in essence a simple enough tool. Children have been known to invent tollerably complex and relatively effective languages amongst themselves, it lasts roughly as long as it takes for them to confront the need to communicate with a larger group.

No issues there ... but we were talking abiout the development of writing, not language development. The conceptual thinking involved in linking marks on a surface with words and sounds is quite a leap in itself - simple enough once you see it, but like all obvious ideas, they are only obvious once they have been first thought of ..