Is this for real?

[98tls]

yep, and they ate the people who owned it before them

When they finished eating them they actually started eating each other for awhile,when living in Wellington i took the trip over to some Ilse (Kapiti maybe) forgotton the name as it was yonks ago but anyway i remember the Maori bloke taking us round it telling of a huge battle there in which they feasted on the losers afterwards.

[Steam]

Seems so,bit of red shit being flung my wayreally devastated :laugh.

That's dumb, people should argue instead of giving reds. Wasn't me!

[98tls]

That's very nice.
None of which changes the fact that a treaty was signed, a treaty was broken, and land which was stolen hasn't been returned to the original owners.

It's so profoundly simple. It's as simple as Hone getting his car stolen;
"Hey, you stole my car! Give it back!" says Hone.
No matter how many people have the opinion that bygones should be bygones, and we should all forgive and forget and be "one people, one nation", Hone's car is still stolen, someone else is still driving it, and it is crystal clear from the legal documents and history that it is Hone's car.

Yea but think of all the weight hes managed to lose walking all these years.

[Naki Rat]

Cool, well if you want home-grown terrorist groups and another hundred years of upset and controversy, that's the right attitude.

Good on ya kiwis! Stumbling heedlessly toward disaster, as ever.

And yours is exactly the attitude that is seeing good, honest, ambitious Maori head across the Tasman, and further afield, in droves to somewhere they aren't tarred with the same brush as those of their race that have a serious chip on their shoulder and a snout in the public trough!

This is the twenty first century so look forward not back, and try to keep up with the rest of us.

[Slyer]

So the Europeans fucked the Maoris over, you talk about it like it's the first time that's ever happened!
Would it make a sense to give random people all over Europe free land because what the Romans took? No it wouldn't make sense because firstly the Romans are all fucking dead and secondly because they don't owe anyone shit even if they were immortal.
Ever heard of that thing called War? It's always fair and never fair at the same time, invasions of other countries is never fun for the country that gets invaded but that's what you get for being weak.

The Romans that took their land are all dead and no longer own the land, the EXACT same thing goes for the Europeans that took land from the Maoris.
Lets assume that the Romans signed a treaty saying that they wouldn't take any land from the other Europeans, but they do it anyway.
You'd say it's fair to give land back to the Maoris but wouldn't be fair to take land from random people in Europe, right? Because that was a long time ago and the current people living there have no connection to the Romans, right? Where do you make the distinction between the two invasions? The only difference is time, but where do you draw that line between where they should get their land back and tough shit it was a long time ago? 10 years? 100 years? 1000? years? Never? Tell me the logic for your decision.

Also the Maoris are lucky they weren't utterly destroyed, which they would have been eventually if it weren't for that treaty. Complete equality + some special treatment? I'd say they got a pretty fucking good deal.

[ajturbo]

Also the Maoris are lucky they weren't utterly destroyed, which they would have been eventually if it weren't for that treaty. Complete equality + some special treatment? I'd say they got a pretty fucking good deal.

and now go get a job like the rest of us..!!!( i can say that now as i have a job...)

[Sanx]

The Romans that took their land are all dead and no longer own the land, the EXACT same thing goes for the Europeans that took land from the Maoris.
Lets assume that the Romans signed a treaty saying that they wouldn't take any land from the other Europeans, but they do it anyway.
You'd say it's fair to give land back to the Maoris but wouldn't be fair to take land from random people in Europe, right? Because that was a long time ago and the current people living there have no connection to the Romans, right? Where do you make the distinction between the two invasions? The only difference is time, but where do you draw that line between where they should get their land back and tough shit it was a long time ago? 10 years? 100 years? 1000? years? Never? Tell me the logic for your decision.

My home town in the UK is a shithole called Colchester. Among the things the town's slightly well-known for (other than being the only place to be mentioned by name in George Orwell's 1984 as being the target of a nuclear strike. Obviously Mr Orwell had visited the town...) is the fact that it was the first Roman capital of England. At the time, the local Celtic tribe were the Iceni, based around 40km north on the banks of the river Orwell (hmm - odd coincidence!) roughly where Ipswich now is.

When the Romans landed, they signed a non-aggression / protection treaty with the Iceni promising Rome's friendship and protection in return for a yearly payment of slaves and food. All was fine until the Iceni king was thrown from his horse and died. His wife, Queen Boudicca (or Boudicea, if you prefer the Roman spelling and pronounciation) took over the throne but as the treaty had been signed by the king, the Romans assumed the agreement to be null and void.

During a feast following a meeting between the Queen and the local Roman Tribune, a fight broke out between the Roman soldiers and some of the Iceni tribesmen, resulting the Romans having their arses soundly kicked. So they came back a few days later with slightly greater numbers, ransacked the Iceni's town, salted the lands (rendering them infertile), hung the Queen up by her ankles from a convenient tree, stripped her then whipped her, and then raped her two daughters (estimated to be aged about 14 and 10 at the time) for good measure.

Unsurprisingly, the Queen was just a little miffed at this and sent out a cran-tara, a stick charred on one end and dipped in goat's blood on the other. It was a call to war to the other Celtic tribes in the region. The powerful Norfolk-based tribe, the Trinovantes (sp?) responded first, given that the former Iceni King was one of them. Other tribes joined together and they went on a bit of a killing spree. They burned Colchester to the ground, killing most of the inhabitants (around 30,000 at the time) before herding the survivors into the temple the Emperor Claudius had had built to honour himself, then piled pitch-soaked brushwood around the place and set fire to it.

They then headed to Londinium, already Roman Britain's centre of trade and commerce, and ransacked that. That, of course, was after they'd ambushed an under-strength 9th Legion and virtually wiped them out to the last man. Next target was Verulamium (St Albans) which suffered the same fate, though by now the Roman inhabitants had fair warning and many of them had already fled.

By now, the Roman governor of Britain, Suetonius, had begun to get a handle on things and force-marched the 2nd Legion from Isca Dumnoniorum (near Exeter) to meet the Celtic army in the forests near St Albans. Not helped by the desertion of half her army (they'd given the Romans a pasting and wanted to go home, by all accounts), the Celtic army came up against a well-ordered, but much smaller, force who had used the local geography to their advantage. In the resulting battle, some 80,000 Celts died for the loss of just 400 Roman soldiers. (The report comes from Tacitus, a Roman chronicler, so figures are likely to be highly innaccurate.) Following the defeat, Boudicca took her own life, and if her daughters survived, they too disappeared from history at this point. The Romans' revenge was pretty terrible. Iceni and other tribes who took part were slaughtered and the remainder sold into slavery. Though it would take another generation, Boudicca's death led the way to the complete Romanisation of the province.

So what's the point in this rather extended history lesson? Well, there was a treaty. It too was dishonoured by the dominant power at the time.

Does this mean I, as a native of Iceni lands, can now seek compensation from the Romans? I wasn't around at the time, sure, but that doesn't seem to stop any current-day Maori from demanding money, land and extra privilege.

Of course it doesn't. And there is fuck-all justification in historical terms for 90% of the settlements now being handed out to every Iwi that demands them. They're kiwis, pure and simple, and should be treated no differently to any other kiwi of whatever racial background.

[Sanx]

Weren't the Moriori here first???????? "Invaded" by Maori, who came 2nd, then white man comes along 3rd? And who pays whom??????

What have the Moriori got now? Ummmmm

Here we go - another race thread.....

The issue of whether or not the Moriori were here first, or devolved from the Maori population as a whole, is unknown. The commonly-held belief that they were here prior to Maori and were wiped out or displaced by Maori, thus negating any tangata whenua-based claims, has since been revised with the common thinking that Moriori settled just the Chatham Islands at the same time as the Maori settled New Zealand. Their physical and genetic simlarity to Maori makes analysis of bones very difficult, so no-one actually knows. What is absolutely certain is that the virtual extinction of the Moriori was primarily caused by Maori invasions of the Chathams. Although the population declined once whitey turned up with their exotic diseases and started hunting the seals that formed a large part of the Moriori's diet, the biggest decline came from massacre at the hands of Taranaki Maori. In 1835, two ships carrying 900 armed Maori arrived in the Chathams. The Moriori were enslaved or slaughtered. Moriori were forbidden to marry or breed with other Moriori. Between 1835 (whitey arrived in 1791) and 1862, the population declined from 2000 to only 101 full-blooded individuals. The last full-blooded Moriori died in 1933.

The confiscation of the Chathams and the slaughter and enslavement of its inhabitants was acceptable according to Maori culture at the time. They saw nothing wrong with it. To my knowledge the Iwi responsible for the Chatham invasion (Ngāti Mutunga and Ngāti Tama) have never apologised for their actions, let alone paid out compensation. Should such acts have been carried out by whitey on Maori, you can be certain there'd be numerous claims for substantial compensation.

[Steam]

...where do you draw that line between where they should get their land back and tough shit it was a long time ago? 10 years? 100 years? 1000? years? Never?

I dunno. I reckon at least 150 years is a good number. How about you? 10 years? 100 years? 1000 years? Never?

[Sanx]

I dunno. I reckon at least 150 years is a good number. How about you? 10 years? 100 years? 1000 years? Never?

What a convenient number. Plucked out of thin air, was it?

Surely "lifetime of the complainants" would be a little fairer to all concerned.

[Slyer]

Depending on the situation I'd say immediately or never.

[PirateJafa]

What a convenient number. Plucked out of thin air, was it?

Surely "lifetime of the complainants" would be a little fairer to all concerned.

I can imagine it now. In 148 years time, suddenly the headlines will read:

"Great-great-great-grandchildren of Louise Nicholas are now demanding $40mil from the great-great-great-grandchildren of Clint Rickards for a rape that happened 150 years ago. More at 11."

[Patrick]

Unfortunately Patrick, the "Moriori were wiped out out by the savage Maori" story is almost certainly just a popular urban legend.

Funny claim that you make there, since it is a claim I retell from Moriori descendants... Depends who one speaks to ay?

Nah, people used to think the Moriori were a completely different race, but archaeological stuff and research and shit showed they were just another tribe of Maoris.
Certain sectors of the European population like to keep the myth going that the Moriori were another race, in order to make themselves feel better about fucking over the Maori.
"Ah the Maori kicked the Moriori's arses, so what's wrong with us doing it to the Maori, eh?"

Again - Moriori descendants think otherwise. When does the loser in any battle get any real say in the headlines? When I last looked, the Moriori weren't a part of the "European population" making shit up to make themselves feel better, although they remain adamant that they were first here....

As for your last sentence - another way to look at it, perhaps, is what is good for the goose, should be good for the gander?

Move on... The Moriori did, but it appears they too might have their hand out now....

Just how many "pure blooded" Maori are there? Most seem to have a British ancestry which is now denied nowadays - like Ken MAIR, Joe HAWKE, just to name a few... Denied why? Could money have something to do with it??? Dunno - just putting it out there -

[peasea]

Weren't the Moriori here first???????? "Invaded" by Maori, who came 2nd, then white man comes along 3rd? And who pays whom??????

What have the Moriori got now? Ummmmm

Here we go - another race thread.....

And what about the Dutch? Or even the Spanish? Where are the aliens? I think we should wind up the economy, pay out everything we have, declare NZ bankrupt and start over.....on an even keel. See who survives in the REAL world, a world without handouts, benefits and dodgey grants.

[PirateJafa]

Funny claim that you make there, since it is a claim I retell from Moriori descendants... Depends who one speaks to ay?

Please note my quantifier!