How much do we really know about our history? [Archive]

Paul in NZ

5th July 2018, 08:26

It's an interesting read but what makes the history he has portrayed any more accurate than that done by other researchers?

If you read any of the well researched histories the facts, battles and dates are supported. However writers don't write books that will never be published so some unsavoury social topics like eating victims is likely is largely ignored. Its just too controversial to sell books.

KB is an excellent example of how if 10 people read the same post they will come up with 15 different interpretations of the 'facts' based on their own personal lived life experiences. Its no great surprise that this version differs from others and even if you took 10 people back to the early 1800's in a time machine you would still get multiple interpretations.

In my mind there is no doubt that Maori 'culture' and likely history evolves and gets re invented. If said time machine could bring a tribe from 1750 to a modern Kapa Haka festival they would wonder wtf is this all about?? Much like Victorians reinvented a classical 'chivalrous' age of King Arthur. Theres no doubt that the better organised groups are going to do better in treaty settlements than smaller disorganised ones and indeed even establishing rights over a parcel of land at a certain time isn't always possible for small groups.

However IMHO the process has been more of a wealth redistribution scheme than it ever was a settlement scheme. Sadly it appears that the trickle down theory has not worked and most Maori are as badly off as they ever were...

Paul in NZ

5th July 2018, 08:27

Thanks for your valued input there Murray.

Oh come on - it was pretty funny... Touche Murray

Katman

5th July 2018, 08:47

Oh come on - it was pretty funny... Touche Murray

Not really Paul.

I'm normally presenting a side to a story that hasn't already been thoroughly presented by the MSM.

All in the name of balance like.

TheDemonLord

5th July 2018, 08:52

and most Maori are as badly off as they ever were...

Really?

Compared to what? Back in the days of Tribal Warfare, ritualistic cannibalism and disease?

Paul in NZ

5th July 2018, 09:26

Really?

Compared to what? Back in the days of Tribal Warfare, ritualistic cannibalism and disease?

Relative to the rest of the population

Paul in NZ

5th July 2018, 09:27

Not really Paul.

I'm normally presenting a side to a story that hasn't already been thoroughly presented by the MSM.

All in the name of balance like.

And good on you but you have to keep your sense of humour

Katman

5th July 2018, 09:52

And good on you but you have to keep your sense of humour

I'm sorry you misread my reply to Murray as being said in anger.

And my reply to you was more to point out that his comment wasn't really applicable.

Hope that clears up that little misunderstanding.

HenryDorsetCase

5th July 2018, 10:24

Really?

Compared to what? Back in the days of Tribal Warfare, ritualistic cannibalism and disease?

Look at any stats: poor people at the bottom and poor brown people at the bottom of the bottom

TheDemonLord

5th July 2018, 10:53

Relative to the rest of the population

Which population? The NZ population? or the Global Population?

And then there is the question (which I'll also ask to HenryDorsetCase):

Why is that?

I'm sure you'll give an answer along the lines of Systemic racism etc. And for sure - I'm not going to deny that there are some historic hangovers and passed injustices, but how long does that last? 100 years? 400 years?

HenryDorsetCase

5th July 2018, 11:11

Which population? The NZ population? or the Global Population?

And then there is the question (which I'll also ask to HenryDorsetCase):

Why is that?

I'm sure you'll give an answer along the lines of Systemic racism etc. And for sure - I'm not going to deny that there are some historic hangovers and passed injustices, but how long does that last? 100 years? 400 years?

LOL begging the question much?

my point of view is this: it doesnt much matter why or how, what matters is how we respond now and in the future. Just one topical example: Do you consider that the full resources of one of the most powerful departments of the bureaucracy should be bought to bear on someone who borrowed money to stay afloat ? bear in mind the 8 year journey of litigation in the face of already decided caselaw which the MSD lost.

is that what we want ? or can we do better?

Katman

5th July 2018, 11:16

it doesnt much matter why or how, what matters is how we respond now and in the future.

Well I'd like to think that if reparations are being offered then they're being offered for genuine grievances.

jellywrestler

5th July 2018, 11:19

http://www.kiwifrontline.com/blogs/bruce-moon

it's like giving away an old fucked vintage car from the back paddock, then once it's restored back to original claiming it back for free. As was stated they want current developed values not untouched bush etc that was supposedly stolen from them....
it also mentions the whalers getting their womb Brooms into the local mud people, while it improved the health etc what did it do to the race.
imagine if all your sires were the the freezing workers of nowadays etc

Katman

5th July 2018, 11:20

For a long time now I've felt that the Waitangi Disputes process has been a gravy train for a great many people. (But as Paul said, not for the people who most need it).

I don't deny that offences occurred in the past that deserve recognition and reparation but as I said, they have to be based on facts rather than semi-facts that have been distorted to push forward someone's agenda.

Katman

5th July 2018, 11:45

And to link this thread tenuously to the Tommy Robinson thread (and a few others), those facts need to be examined dispassionately and honestly - without fear of being automatically accused of racism.

TheDemonLord

5th July 2018, 12:03

LOL begging the question much?

my point of view is this: it doesnt much matter why or how, what matters is how we respond now and in the future. Just one topical example: Do you consider that the full resources of one of the most powerful departments of the bureaucracy should be bought to bear on someone who borrowed money to stay afloat ? bear in mind the 8 year journey of litigation in the face of already decided caselaw which the MSD lost.

is that what we want ? or can we do better?

I don't know the specific example you are referring to, so I can't comment on it - I disagree that the How or why isn't important - if you want to know where you are going, you need to know where you've come from and where you are.

Let's agree that there is inequality and it disproportionately affects Maori and Pacific island communities.

There are 2 basic approaches to it:

1: The individualistic approach (which is what I tend to favour) which is that we give the individuals the tools they need to elevate themselves out of their current situation
2: The Collectivist approach (which I'm really not a fan of) which loosely speaking determines that as a member of the group, you are incapable of taking care of yourself without government intervention.

Despite that statement however, I can concede that there are times when it is right and proper for my Tax money to go to those disaffected and yet - I keep coming back to this axiom:

Give a man a fish - he eats for a day, Teach a man to fish - he eats for the rest of his life.

I don't know where the balance is, but it seems to me that there is an individual component that isn't being accounted for - which is why alot of the positive interventions aren't having the desired Effect.

Paul in NZ

5th July 2018, 12:58

Give a man a fish - he eats for a day, Teach a man to fish - he eats for the rest of his life..

Don't need to teach them how to fish - they own half of Sealord... teaching them to fish sustainably - ah now theres a problem

Katman

5th July 2018, 13:18

teaching them to fish sustainably - ah now theres a problem

(Channeling Mashman)...

I bet a Resource Based Economy would do it.

Ulsterkiwi

5th July 2018, 14:22

Let’s assume both sides of a treaty settlement process have the most honourable of intentions. We are still faced with a European solution to a problem caused by differences between European and Polynesian thinking.

Paul in NZ makes his point well and clearly. That said, It will be difficult for some to follow that way of thinking and hence utilise that approach because it requires an individualist world view. Whether original or evolved, te ao or the Maori world view is a collective one, not individualistic.

I can have all the empathy I like, I can work really hard at being open minded and I can choose to try and be fair. I still cannot fully fathom what life is like for anyone who comes from a different ethnicity or life experience. Any more than they can for me. In short it’s hard to genuinely see things as others do and we definitely see things through the lens of our ethnicity and our experience.

That being the case when we add imperfect people subject to the mix we end up with the cluster fuck which is the treaty tribunal process. If Maori were truly happy with it would we see repeat claims? It’s pretty clear pakeha have reservations, no matter how invested they are in the process.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Katman

5th July 2018, 14:28

If Maori were truly happy with it would we see repeat claims?

I remember about 20 years ago an enormous figure was offered as a full and final settlement.

It was turned down on the basis that while the recipients might have been happy with it, they couldn't speak for how their future generations might view it.

That, to me, smacks of a process that is never likely to be settled.

Ulsterkiwi

5th July 2018, 14:30

Tend to agree. I think it is fair to redress past wrongs. I am not convinced the mechanism in place is the correct one. Certainly what little I have observed is that it’s the few at the top of the pile that derive any benefit. There is a limit to the healing and growth our society can expect while that model persists.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

TheDemonLord

5th July 2018, 15:06

Certainly what little I have observed is that it’s the few at the top of the pile that derive any benefit. There is a limit to the healing and growth our society can expect while that model persists.

I take umbrage with that statement - the Pareto distribution isn't a model that we have implemented and maintained - it's near universal - and not just in economic terms - everything from Sports, to Music, to the abundance of Elements in the Universe.

Whilst there's an element of truth that some of those who appear to have everything may have got it via dubious means consider this statement:

You've got a potentially fatal brain injury and you have to choose a Doctor to help you:

Doctor 1: A recently graduated Med student with no real world experience
Doctor 2: A recently graduated Med student with little real world experience
Doctor 3: A recently graduated Med student also with no real world experience
Doctor 4: A family GP Doctor with a few years experience
Doctor 5: A surgeon with less than 5 years Surgical experience
Doctor 6: A world leading Bran specialist with 20+ years experience

Who do you choose? Because this is at the heart of the matter - most people have no medical experience, a small number have some and an even smaller number have a LOT of Skills and experience - and when we are making choices - we tend to choose those who are successful - which results in them getting more skills and experience which means they get a greater number of opportunities.

I don't think this is something that can be fixed.

Katman

5th July 2018, 15:21

I take umbrage with that statement - the Pareto distribution isn't a model that we have implemented and maintained - it's near universal - and not just in economic terms - everything from Sports, to Music, to the abundance of Elements in the Universe.

Whilst there's an element of truth that some of those who appear to have everything may have got it via dubious means consider this statement:

You've got a potentially fatal brain injury and you have to choose a Doctor to help you:

Doctor 1: A recently graduated Med student with no real world experience
Doctor 2: A recently graduated Med student with little real world experience
Doctor 3: A recently graduated Med student also with no real world experience
Doctor 4: A family GP Doctor with a few years experience
Doctor 5: A surgeon with less than 5 years Surgical experience
Doctor 6: A world leading Bran specialist with 20+ years experience

Who do you choose? Because this is at the heart of the matter - most people have no medical experience, a small number have some and an even smaller number have a LOT of Skills and experience - and when we are making choices - we tend to choose those who are successful - which results in them getting more skills and experience which means they get a greater number of opportunities.

I don't think this is something that can be fixed.

At the risk of this turning into some sort of Graystone/TDL fallacy saga, circumstances will often dictate that many people are forced to simply choose the doctor that they can afford.

imac

5th July 2018, 16:23

jellywrestler

5th July 2018, 18:04

Doctor 1: A recently graduated Med student with no real world experience
Doctor 2: A recently graduated Med student with little real world experience
Doctor 3: A recently graduated Med student also with no real world experience
Doctor 4: A family GP Doctor with a few years experience
Doctor 5: A surgeon with less than 5 years Surgical experience
Doctor 6: A world leading Bran specialist with 20+ years experience

Who do you choose?
the one with the biggest tits of course...

pritch

5th July 2018, 18:16

Doctor 1: A recently graduated Med student with no real world experience
Doctor 2: A recently graduated Med student with little real world experience
Doctor 3: A recently graduated Med student also with no real world experience
Doctor 4: A family GP Doctor with a few years experience
Doctor 5: A surgeon with less than 5 years Surgical experience
Doctor 6: A world leading Bran specialist with 20+ years experience

Maybe I need to clean my glasses. There must be a very subtle distinction between Doctors #1 and #3. I could understand a bran specialist curing constipation, but brain surgery? :innocent:

Ocean1

5th July 2018, 19:22

If you read any of the well researched histories the facts, battles and dates are supported.

Correct. What's more his general history of the south matches what I heard almost 60 years ago from possibly the most authoritative Ngai Tahu source available. As does his observation that the deep south Maori language was more or less unintelligible to northern Maori.

Ocean1

5th July 2018, 19:29

Don't need to teach them how to fish - they own half of Sealord... teaching them to fish sustainably - ah now theres a problem

Fuck, you're on a roll today, that whole industry is crooked as fuck, the truth ain't in 'em.

We should pull all of the fucking quota until they can demonstrate they've got their shit together.

Graystone

5th July 2018, 19:36

I take umbrage with that statement - the Pareto distribution isn't a model that we have implemented and maintained - it's near universal - and not just in economic terms - everything from Sports, to Music, to the abundance of Elements in the Universe.

Whilst there's an element of truth that some of those who appear to have everything may have got it via dubious means consider this statement:

You've got a potentially fatal brain injury and you have to choose a Doctor to help you:

Doctor 1: A recently graduated Med student with no real world experience
Doctor 2: A recently graduated Med student with little real world experience
Doctor 3: A recently graduated Med student also with no real world experience
Doctor 4: A family GP Doctor with a few years experience
Doctor 5: A surgeon with less than 5 years Surgical experience
Doctor 6: A world leading Bran specialist with 20+ years experience

Who do you choose? Because this is at the heart of the matter - most people have no medical experience, a small number have some and an even smaller number have a LOT of Skills and experience - and when we are making choices - we tend to choose those who are successful - which results in them getting more skills and experience which means they get a greater number of opportunities.

I don't think this is something that can be fixed.

If one has a brain injury, shouldn't someone else make the decision? :blink:

At the risk of this turning into some sort of Graystone/TDL fallacy saga, circumstances will often dictate that many people are forced to simply choose the doctor that they can afford.

Sounds a bit like an incendiary breeches fallacy.

pritch

5th July 2018, 21:14

Correct. What's more his general history of the south matches what I heard almost 60 years ago from possibly the most authoritative Ngai Tahu source available. As does his observation that the deep south Maori language was more or less unintelligible to northern Maori.

I was wondering about that as I read the piece. His references to "kaik" which appears to relate to kainga, similarly to the way that Aoraki relates to Aorangi. I'm not sure if the southern dialect was unintelligible to northern Maori, but you can certainly hear the difference.

Ocean1

5th July 2018, 21:46

I was wondering about that as I read the piece. His references to "kaik" which appears to relate to kainga, similarly to the way that Aoraki relates to Aorangi. I'm not sure if the southern dialect was unintelligible to northern Maori, but you can certainly hear the difference.

As a 4 or 5 year old I used to chat for hours to an ancient Maori neighbor. My mother would listen, not understanding a word, and she once had the local dairy owner, a Maori woman from up Kaipara try to have a conversation with me. Neither of us could understand the other at all. I don't remember much of that, certainly none of the actual words, and Charlie's been dead for 55 years.

It's possible that both Charlie and I invented a lot of the language we used, as a lot of grandads/kids do. Whatever it was, it didn't work at all with contemporary te reo. Occasionally Charlie crops up in a dream, and we talk much as we used to. I still can't remember a word.

husaberg

5th July 2018, 21:53

Maybe I need to clean my glasses. There must be a very subtle distinction between Doctors #1 and #3. I could understand a bran specialist curing constipation, but brain surgery? :innocent:
IMO Bran surgeons are just regular doctors

Paul in NZ

6th July 2018, 10:10

Well its actually good to see that this conversation has not dissolved into a slanging match and that there are well observed points being made.

Our kids started school in ChCh where the local school had a 3% Maori role yet it supported a fantastic Kapa Haka group. One of the girls was really interested and became a fantastic performer. Of course when we moved North there was not much room for a skinny white new kid in the local Kapa Haka group LOL. OK why is that important?

Even back in the 1880’s Maori sang and dance groups were entertaining tourists but they were pretty darn thin on the ground. In the 60’s it was recognised that there was a danger that these traditional songs and dances would just be heard at the start of an All Blacks test and nowhere else. AND bear in mind that Ka Mate was supposedly composed in 1810 and NOT back in the mists of time. In the late 60’s and early 70’s there was an organised revitalisation of Maori language and culture that quickly became almost a renaissance and IMHO not much of the original ‘genuine’ culture survived unchanged. To be fair that ALL cultures get modernised and adapted over the ages and that’s not all bad. After all if we were being 100% authentic the Maori All Blacks would slay and eat their vanquished foes on the field… (I’d probably pay to see that although I’d definitely pack my own lunch)

ALL Maori culture and protocols have evolved. Half of the ‘customs’ we are fed are part remembered constructs and part genuine.

Much like traditional property rights that the Waitangi tribunal is trying to unpick.

But that’s not the whole story – the Tribunal has plenty of 20th century injustices to resolve as well… Land taken during WW2 and never returned etc.

In short – its complicated

Madness

6th July 2018, 10:18

IMO Bran surgeons are just regular doctors

That's a bit roughage.

Kickaha

6th July 2018, 10:20

Our kids started school in ChCh where the local school had a 3% Maori role yet it supported a fantastic Kapa Haka group.

We were taught, the stick games, poi, haka etc at Cheviot school in the 70s and they were done on stage at school shows

TheDemonLord

6th July 2018, 10:23

At the risk of this turning into some sort of Graystone/TDL fallacy saga, circumstances will often dictate that many people are forced to simply choose the doctor that they can afford.

You are correct - And this where it gets interesting:

We have a hierarchy of Values - obviously it's no point in spending all of your money on a Doctor, if you can't afford to eat and live - but the method we use is to look at factors we place value on (Cost, Skills etc. etc.) and then judge accordingly.

This isn't something that has been created by the west or is imposed by capitalism (as per the implied claim) it's something far deeper.

Katman

6th July 2018, 10:26

But that’s not the whole story – the Tribunal has plenty of 20th century injustices to resolve as well… Land taken during WW2 and never returned etc.

That's a good point.

The land that the Papakura Army Camp stood on was taken from the McLennan family at the start of WW2.

They were told about 20 years ago that if they wanted to lay any claim to the land now that they would be expected to pay what it was valued at with all the amenities that it has today.

Unfortunately for the McLennan family there wasn't a Disputes process that would allow them to demand the land back for the pittance they were probably paid at the time.

Paul in NZ

6th July 2018, 12:11

We were taught, the stick games, poi, haka etc at Cheviot school in the 70s and they were done on stage at school shows

same here but modern Kapa Haka is very different...

Think how much its all changed over 100's of years

jellywrestler

6th July 2018, 13:15

Paul in NZ

6th July 2018, 13:44

so whay do we have to keep on paying out for this nearly 200 years after it's happened, where else in the world is this still happening, many many people have been moved on from their land over time, what is the time limit on claims for them?

To the best of my knowledge there isn't one.

Various people have suggested that there should be a time limit but I guess the gravy train is so big now and there are so many specialists depending on it for a very good income that it will just roll on forever... You do realise that when a claim is accepted it is subject to legal aid right?

Not withstanding that a part of the original intent was to protect Maori from exploitation by private settlement companies and individuals and was reluctantly OK'd in principle by the British Foreign Office I suspect if they knew then what we know now they wouldn't have bothered.

The un funny thing is that despite all the settlements and the $$ the outcomes for poor Maori people are as bad if not worse than ever. In particular if you don't have a tribal / group connection you have no way of accessing any $$...

While good intentioned its just not working is it...

Paul in NZ

6th July 2018, 14:02

As a 4 or 5 year old I used to chat for hours to an ancient Maori neighbor. My mother would listen, not understanding a word, and she once had the local dairy owner, a Maori woman from up Kaipara try to have a conversation with me. Neither of us could understand the other at all. I don't remember much of that, certainly none of the actual words, and Charlie's been dead for 55 years.

It's possible that both Charlie and I invented a lot of the language we used, as a lot of grandads/kids do. Whatever it was, it didn't work at all with contemporary te reo. Occasionally Charlie crops up in a dream, and we talk much as we used to. I still can't remember a word.

OK a little history as I remember it… No while I’m old I’m not that old so mostly from reading the popular histories.

When Maori first arrived here (lets say 900 years ago) they possessed open ocean voyaging technology. Relatively quickly in say 100 years or so, they had located most of the valuable resources they required. Namely sources of minerals for tools, protein (seals and Moa) and suitable land for gardening. Unfortunately its rare to never that all 3 things were present at any 1 site so there was a considerable amount of travelling. Indeed its highly likely that return trips were made to the points of origin as well. In this era everyone likely spoke the same dialect.

Eventually people sort of specialised. They would build more permanent camps where a certain resource existed and trade for what they didn’t have. That was the start of the tribal era. Since gardening was only really suited for warmer places the populations centred to the north.
Eventually open ocean voyaging technology was lost and coastal voyages were the norm. Local dialects appeared BUT norther tribes could still understand enough to get by with southern ones..

Some resources dried up (Moa) and as the populations increased demands / contests for resources produced conflict and tribal wars began. Given the weaponry these didn’t really impact population numbers much.

Europeans arrived and Maori figured out pretty fast that access to new technology from muskets, metal tools, clothing and boats/ships gave one group a massive advantage. Pre treaty chiefs competed to encourage settles to get access to these things. Education was highly valued…

Once muskets appeared in numbers it was all on. Muskets coupled with European diseases decimated the populations and muskets in particular meant long held grudges we dragged up, had an UTU sticker plastered over it and used as an excuse to butcher.

Increasing settler number started to pressure local population and eventually we had the treaty

jellywrestler

6th July 2018, 14:13

When Maori first arrived here (lets say 900 years ago)

so it was never their land in the first fucking place?

Katman

6th July 2018, 14:27

so it was never their land in the first fucking place?

Dude, get with the program - they fished it out of the sea.

Swoop

6th July 2018, 15:27

That's a good point.

The land that the Papakura Army Camp stood on was taken from the McLennan family at the start of WW2.

They were told about 20 years ago that if they wanted to lay any claim to the land now that they would be expected to pay what it was valued at with all the amenities that it has today.

Unfortunately for the McLennan family there wasn't a Disputes process that would allow them to demand the land back for the pittance they were probably paid at the time.

There are more instances of governmental land acquisitions which were never returned to the rightful owners.
Out in West Auckland there was a proposal to move the port into an entirely unsuitable area, which sensibly never went ahead, but land owners were not respected.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11526447

Certainly there is an aspect of the Gravy Train not being stopped, however there needs to be a line drawn in the sand, however unlikely in our modern societal ways of "not offending anyone".

Ocean1

6th July 2018, 21:03

OK a little history as I remember it… No while I’m old I’m not that old so mostly from reading the popular histories.

When Maori first arrived here (lets say 900 years ago) they possessed open ocean voyaging technology. Relatively quickly in say 100 years or so, they had located most of the valuable resources they required. Namely sources of minerals for tools, protein (seals and Moa) and suitable land for gardening. Unfortunately its rare to never that all 3 things were present at any 1 site so there was a considerable amount of travelling. Indeed its highly likely that return trips were made to the points of origin as well. In this era everyone likely spoke the same dialect.

Eventually people sort of specialised. They would build more permanent camps where a certain resource existed and trade for what they didn’t have. That was the start of the tribal era. Since gardening was only really suited for warmer places the populations centred to the north.
Eventually open ocean voyaging technology was lost and coastal voyages were the norm. Local dialects appeared BUT norther tribes could still understand enough to get by with southern ones..

Some resources dried up (Moa) and as the populations increased demands / contests for resources produced conflict and tribal wars began. Given the weaponry these didn’t really impact population numbers much.

Europeans arrived and Maori figured out pretty fast that access to new technology from muskets, metal tools, clothing and boats/ships gave one group a massive advantage. Pre treaty chiefs competed to encourage settles to get access to these things. Education was highly valued…

Once muskets appeared in numbers it was all on. Muskets coupled with European diseases decimated the populations and muskets in particular meant long held grudges we dragged up, had an UTU sticker plastered over it and used as an excuse to butcher.

Increasing settler number started to pressure local population and eventually we had the treaty

Sounds about right. I don't think there's much doubt there was several waves of Polynesian colonists dating from about 700 years ago. Earliest dated artifacts from about then are similar to known tropical Polynesian work. I've seen less evidence of return voyages. Some, but not enough to indicate likely regular traffic, especially given that later artifacts show continuing divergence from the original work, (so no trade). Tribal coastal migration was observed by the first European visitors.

All Polynesians carry genetic markers from Korean stock, some via the Philippines, cultural anthropologists can identify a few Maori language elements from there hundreds of generations old. They can for all of the Polynesian languages. But even if the original NZ colonists were of the same immediate Polynesian source, (unlikely) several hundred years is plenty of time for even neighboring tribes's language to diverge substantially.

Charlie's family taught him he was Maoriori. He did have that look about him, and he was full of stories about "his people". I was taught at school that remnants existed in the deep south, and that was generally accepted down there. Which isn't current history. I guess it's easier to justify slaughtering a whole culture if they're just another Maori tribe. The truth might be somewhere in the middle, there, and he was certainly, like the rest of us somewhat of a mongrel, but there's little doubt Charlie was culturally significantly different.

Swoop

7th July 2018, 20:02

All Polynesians carry genetic markers from Korean stock, some via the Philippines, cultural anthropologists can identify a few Maori language elements from there hundreds of generations old.

There is a solid link with the wood carving techniques which would indicate a connection with Taiwan.

Paul in NZ

7th July 2018, 21:20

so it was never their land in the first fucking place?

Well lets just say there was nobody else here to dispute it?

Dont ignore it was some feat to land here and I seriously doubt they just fucked off with wives and families into the great unknowwn without knowing... opps - sorry bit pissed

98tls

7th July 2018, 22:11

We were taught, the stick games, poi, haka etc at Cheviot school in the 70s and they were done on stage at school shows

Thankfully just a few miles up the road i managed to avoid the Cheviot school:shifty:

98tls

7th July 2018, 22:19

Correct. What's more his general history of the south matches what I heard almost 60 years ago from possibly the most authoritative Ngai Tahu source available. As does his observation that the deep south Maori language was more or less unintelligible to northern Maori.

Thankfully then every night when we watch the weather forecast we get to hear the correct version both North n South:wacko:

Kickaha

8th July 2018, 09:02

Thankfully just a few miles up the road i managed to avoid the Cheviot school:shifty:

Well if you went to Parnassus I couldn't see it being any better

sidecar bob

8th July 2018, 09:37

Well lets just say there was nobody else here to dispute it?

I think there was & they may have been delicious & easy to hunt.
http://www.everythingiselectric.com/new-zealand/waipoua-forest-stone-city.html
Why are Maori actively destroying this historically significant site with zero intervention.

george formby

8th July 2018, 10:19

I think there was & they may have been delicious & easy to hunt.
http://www.everythingiselectric.com/new-zealand/waipoua-forest-stone-city.html
Why are Maori actively destroying this historically significant site with zero intervention.

That's a can of worms.

A local lady "found" an area of possible stone structures in Puketi forest, just like those in the Waipoua forest. She informed DoC who promptly bull dozed the area.

She has photos, drawings and artifacts from the site but refuses to make them public for some reason. Among her broader collection of artifacts, gathered from years of amateur archaeology, are quite a few which look nothing like Maori work.

Definitely summit being swept under the rug up here IMHO.

Proof of pre Maori settlement would change a lot of things.