Settling Maori claims. Someone explain.

[scracha]

it seems we have found another word Mr Taylor doesn't understand.

FYI: To advise that one will attack propaganda is not authoritarianism

Can you pair draw up a treaty?

[idleidolidyll]

Can you pair draw up a treaty?

sure: If Mr Taylor promises not to post his right wing propaganda at every opportunity, I'll promise not to attack it with fact and definition.

What say you Bob?

[mossy1200]

The Moriori are a Maori tribe. There were no inhabitants in NZ prior to those we now term the 'Maori'. That there was a pre-Maori race called the Moriori is one of a group of stories which can be termed 'Great New Zealand Myths'.
Chris Hughes, 23 July 2000

There are two schools of thought about the Moriori. The more widely accepted is that the Moriori were an earlier wave of migration from the Pacific Islands. They lived peacefully on the Chatham Islands until they were overrun by a later wave of migration, the Maori, who had settled on the mainland of New Zealand.
The minority opinion is that the Moriori were simply a separate iwi (clan) of Maori. This view is widely discredited, although it lingers on in some quarters, and there is truth to the fact that in the Maori language, the repetition of the last syllable of a word often implies ownership (so "Maori" would mean 'people', but "Maori-ori" would mean 'our people'), and this has often been taken as evidence that the Chatham Islanders were simly distinguising themselves from mainland Maori. It is far more likely, however, that the denial of the Moriori as a separate people is simply an attempt at political correctness - an attempt to deny the massacre of the Moriori by invading Maori. The view is most commonly held by Maori and by a small proportion of academics. Certainly you wouldn't get far on the Chathams if you suggested that the Moriori were simply an iwi of Maori! The language, art and customs of the people were different from those on the mainland, and traditional stories put their migration earlier than those of the great migration fleet.

I seem to recall that the Moriori settled in New Zealand first but were eaten by the Maori and hence no Moriori treaty or settlements required with the Moriori.Did the Europeons make a mistake by not eating the Maori people.I also recall it was quite common for a tribe to appear on a beach and sell his neighbours land.LOL

No offence ment or intended.
What you think I said may not be what I intended to say.(Disclaimer)
Food for thought

[Bonez]

They lived peacefully on the Chatham Islands until they were overrun by a later wave of migration, the Maori, who had settled on the mainland of New Zealand.

Good post. The reason the morori became peacefull was that they'd come to the realisation if they kept fighting each other they'd be wiped out in short order. The Maori commisioned colonial ships to go to the Chathams(ok hijacked the first one), pumbled the Moriori and took them as slaves. It's a historical fact. I believe the Waitangi Tribunial turned down maori claims to the Chatham Is for that reason back in 2000. There's a 1920s thesis on the History of the Chatham Is- http://ir.canterbury.ac.nz/handle/10092/1628 for those interested.

As mention earier in the thread "maori" ment normal and refered to themselves as "tangata maori"- normal people.
"Tangata whenua" also had a different meaning in the past to what it has now as well.

[idleidolidyll]

Good points and the Moriori are a huge thorn in the Tangata Whenua claim by Maori.

BTW: They didn't just settle in the Chathams, they also lived on the mainland. They survived on the Chathams after they. a very peaceful people, were driven out or killed by Maori (at least that's what Moriori claim).

If Maori claim the settlers from the 1800's on owe them for theft of their lands etc; why not carry that one more step backward and allow Moriori to claim against Maori?

[Mr Merde]

.......
If Maori claim the settlers from the 1800's on owe them for theft of their lands etc; why not carry that one more step backward and allow Moriori to claim against Maori?

This will never happen because of the very fact that there are non left.

A race\tribe wipped out. The last full blood died in the 1920's (if my memory serves me).

This is a practice that has served a conquering civilisation very well throughout history.

The Romans did this to Carthage, the Greeks to the Trojans. The Mongols did this to all those who opposed them, the Normans completely, over many years, wiped out the earlier British nobility. If you read history there are lots of examples.

Maybe the Europeans biggest mistake was not folloowing the example of history. After all they are responsible for the only recorded sucessful case of genocide in modern history, the destruction of the Tasmanian aborigine, in the mid 19th century.

This may be a lesson for our current politicians. Compassion doesnt pay in the long run. Ruthlessness is the only way to ensure stability. Not necessarily violence but a political ruthlessness. The will to say that enough is enough and make a definite finish to this farce.

b

[mossy1200]

This will never happen because of the very fact that there are non left.

A race\tribe wipped out. The last full blood died in the 1920's (if my memory serves me).

This is a practice that has served a conquering civilisation very well throughout history.

The Romans did this to Carthage, the Greeks to the Trojans. The Mongols did this to all those who opposed them, the Normans completely, over many years, wiped out the earlier British nobility. If you read history there are lots of examples.

Maybe the Europeans biggest mistake was not folloowing the example of history. After all they are responsible for the only recorded sucessful case of genocide in modern history, the destruction of the Tasmanian aborigine, in the mid 19th century.

This may be a lesson for our current politicians. Compassion doesnt pay in the long run. Ruthlessness is the only way to ensure stability. Not necessarily violence but a political ruthlessness. The will to say that enough is enough and make a definite finish to this farce.

b

The Chatham Islands are renowned for being the last home of the Moriori, their peaceful existence coming to an end in the 1820’s and 1830’s as European and American whalers and sealers began to arrive, not to mention Maori tribes from the mainland. The Moriori are believed to be Polynesians who sailed to the islands from New Zealand between 900AD and 1500AD and since the first arrival of a European in 1791 the population of Moriori dwindled from around 2000 to only 100 by the 1860’s. By the beginning of the 20th century, there were just 12 full-blooded Moriori left, a result of killing, enslavement and interbreeding with the Maori tribes who took over the islands. There are now believed to be over 300 Moriori descendants and today Moriori, Maori and Pakeha (Europeans) live together as Chatham Islanders

Does this mean that these now recognised Moriori descendants now have more claim within the treaty than todays Maori people who are also descendants.

It just seems unbalanced to place the financial load of an injustice onto the NZ Public(alot of which are not descendants of early europeons)to pay another descendant of yester year.

Its seems the same as having to do 15years in prison because your great grandpa killed someone in a bar fight 80years ago.

[peasea]

and since the first arrival of a European in 1791.

There is much evidence to suggest the Europeans were here long before then. Don't tell the grievance industry that though.

[Winston001]

I don't have any answers, I don't pretend to know or pontificate a point of view. All I have learnt from a few years in this life is that whatever party is in "power", we get screwed. They all suck up to us at election time promising us what they think we want and then once in power they just ignore those people who elected them and push their own agendas. Any of which has the ultimate objective of keeping them in a position where we are subservient to them.

Probably many people feel the same but politics is more complex than most of us realise. Members of Parliament are not the powerful people we like to think they are. The real power lies with career public servants who can run rings around an MP.

Politicians sometimes have to break their promises because cold hard reality requires that. Actually I want polis who can take hard decisions. Most are far too sensitive to voter noise.

And any committed politician wants to be re-elected so they can continue to work for what they believe in. So they take soft options to keep voters happy. I despise - but understand it.

We want a health system that works, a lifestyle that allows us to enjoy what time we have, an education system that allows us and our descendants to develop and a safe and stable family life that we can be relaxed with.

We are the silent majority and I'm tired of being ignored.

I will vote for anyone or any party that will give me these.

Of course - but what's missing from your wish list is the source of all this public welfare. Where does the money come from? I'd vote for a party that talked straight to our nation, laid it on the line, and encouraged financial leadership.

[Bonez]

The interesting things you get given while on the internet. I've just been handed a book "Soldering in New Zealand" by Major F.J.W. Gascoyne.

On the interwabbything here:- http://www.nzetc.org/tm/scholarly/tei-Cow02NewZ.html

[Robert Taylor]

Can you pair draw up a treaty?

Ive offered like opinions at times and they have been ignored, so my response is ''when hell freezes over''.

[Ixion]

Speaking as resident Communist, I would not consider Mr Taylor a capitalist. He relies for his income on the labour of his own hands and mind, not on the income from capital, and seeks no protection from the state . If people think his works and products good and worthwhile, they will buy them , and good on them. A merchantilist , maybe, but not a capitalist.

And I rather liked Maggie. The only British Prime Minister in the last centruy (or this) with balls (perhaps excepting Mr Churchill) . No matter what one's political believes , one must admire and respect guts and intelligence.

[scracha]

Ive offered like opinions at times and they have been ignored, so my response is ''when hell freezes over''.

We need to start a process of reconciliation. Since you're an evil rich capitalist, perhaps give him some compensation (sic).

[idleidolidyll]

There is much evidence to suggest the Europeans were here long before then. Don't tell the grievance industry that though.

that's possibly true too; sealers and whalers may have been visiting NZ for 100+ years before the arrival of Cook. After all, Abel Tasman stumbled on NZ 130 years before Cook.

The other contentious issue is the archaeological remains in the East Cape supposedly showing European settlement 1000+ years ago: http://www.celticnz.co.nz/

Who knows, if Maori allowed scientists access to the sites it may disprove the Maori claim: I wonder why they don't get that access................maybe spending a few hundred million exploring those remains could save us billion$ down the track?

NAH! The Treaty is a legal document even if Maori are NOT the original inhabitants.
It might just mean the red haired Maori can claim off the black haired Maori.........

[Robert Taylor]

that's possibly true too; sealers and whalers may have been visiting NZ for 100+ years before the arrival of Cook. After all, Abel Tasman stumbled on NZ 130 years before Cook.

The other contentious issue is the archaeological remains in the East Cape supposedly showing European settlement 1000+ years ago: http://www.celticnz.co.nz/

Who knows, if Maori allowed scientists access to the sites it may disprove the Maori claim: I wonder why they don't get that access................maybe spending a few hundred million exploring those remains could save us billion$ down the track?

NAH! The Treaty is a legal document even if Maori are NOT the original inhabitants.
It might just mean the red haired Maori can claim off the black haired Maori.........

That link is very interesting and begs the question why more people are not questioning the validity of maori claims. I particularly like a sentence that ends ''selective yesteryear concepts''.