Islamisation

[Oscar]

What we are challenging is the power relationships that operate. They operate in a Western-dereived cultural format and are very different from Māori cultural formats.

I would have to note that some Maori are quite adept at operating in both spheres.
And whereas the culture may be predominantly derived from western models, it has developed beyond that. It has a variety of unique indigenous facets - I don't see the Scots or the Cornish having their own seats in Westminster or the Lions doing a jig prior to each game for example.

[Banditbandit]

Wrong.
Firstly, the Anglo-Saxons were another invading culture.

Isn't that what I said? And the invaders were not Anglo-Saxons. One was Saxon ansd the other Angle ... In fact Aglo-Saxon" is another conglomerate.

They gave the place it's current name and were subsequently given a kicking by the Danes and the Normans. So the English have a lot of experience with oppression.

Did they really call it "England" or the "British Isles" or "Great Britain"? They might have used the term "Briton" but even that's a bit doubtful, and it probably included Brittany in what is now France as well.

Secondly, and as I've pointed out in another post, your beef is with the British, not the English.

Yeah, you're probably right there. But as I come from a family that remembers its history in Scotland, Ireland and Aotearoa, our beaf is with the Sassenach Oh come on .. laugh a little ... It's Friday .. and we all deserve a laugh ..

[oldrider]

You see, right there we disagree. I agree with most of what else you say ..
But we are NOT one people .. we are Becoming one people ... the question is On who's terms are we becoming one people ? And right now the answer is Pākehā New Zealanders' trerms .. that's stil colonization of a peoples ... Pākehā New Zealand has all the power and it's forcing others to adopt is ways of being.

Basically I agree with you and that is what I meant about the Maori Party and "Maori" participation in the affairs of running the country!

In simple terms following the treaty between the crown and the tribes (for whatever reason) Pakeha stepped up to the plate and Maori took a step back.

In recent years Maori have slowly stepped back up to the plate and become more assertive and with the evolution of the Maori political party are now taking a more active role in parliament.

The resurgence of Maori (albeit a somewhat mixed up modern version) seems to have had quite a disturbing influence on the previously Pakeha dominated society!

As "New Zealand culture" further evolves there will be mistakes but then again the adage, "The man who never made a mistake probably never made anything", springs to mind!

In keeping with the tenure of the thread, we all now have to consider the effects of the Islamic religious culture on our own very shaky situation!

It never rains but it pours!

[Banditbandit]

Why do you always refer to "English" colonisers?
They were British - Scots, Welsh and English mainly.

Let me chuck in a little Marzism as well ... The dominant ideology of any society is the ideology of the dominant class ... the dominant class uses the structures of the society to create the hegemonic power structures which are most to their benefit.

The Scots and others had all bought into the power structures created by the English ... forced at times .. but the idea's the same.

[Banditbandit]

They operate in a Western-dereived cultural format and are very different from Māori cultural formats.

That's because the country has been colonized. If Maori had won the land wars it would be a Maori derived cultural format wouldn't it.

Yes, that's almost certainly true. But it would be hard to make any statements about what that cultural format might look like. And the Land Wars were only a part of colonization.

[Edbear]

Who said that?
I have Scots and Irish blood and I would never say that.
The reason I get wound up is when people say, the English did this or that, when they mean the British, or more correctly - people from the United Kingdom.

There are as likely as many pure blood Anglo Saxons left as there are pure blood Maoris.

When asked, I say I'm a "pure bred Kiwi" - English, Scottish, Spanish and Danish with a touch of Irish, 5th Gen NZ'r.

[Oscar]

Isn't that what I said? And the invaders were not Anglo-Saxons. One was Saxon ansd the other Angle ... In fact Aglo-Saxon" is another conglomerate.



Did they really call it "England" or the "British Isles" or "Great Britain"? They might have used the term "Briton" but even that's a bit doubtful, and it probably included Brittany in what is now France as well.



Yeah, you're probably right there. But as I come from a family that remembers its history in Scotland, Ireland and Aotearoa, our beaf is with the Sassenach Oh come on .. laugh a little ... It's Friday .. and we all deserve a laugh ..

No, it isn't what you said.
You said that Anglo Saxon described the last invaders.

Anglo Saxon is a term describing three Germanic Tribes (Angles, Saxons and Jutes) who invaded England (or more correctly the four or so kingdoms that then existed) in the fifth century. The fact that the local Britons referred to them by the one name suggests that the Anglo Saxons were at that point more or less one people.

They stepped into the vacuum left by the departing Romans and conquered or displaced (mainly to Wales) the local Britons, and established the kingdoms of Wessex, East Anglia, Mercia and Northumbria (the latter containing a swath of modern Scotland).

They themselves were attacked and conquered by Vikings and Danes and eventually the Normans (who were probably originally Danish).

The term England (Angle-lands) was used by the Anglo Saxons to describe their new lands.

[Banditbandit]

Basically I agree with you and that is what I meant about the Maori Party and "Maori" participation in the affairs of running the country!

In simple terms following the treaty between the crown and the tribes (for whatever reason) Pakeha stepped up to the plate and Maori took a step back.

I completely disagree with you there. Pākehā never honoured the Treaty, Māori have always tried to. That;s a whole other argument, but the wards and violent conflict were attempts by Māori to force Pākehā to live by the Treaty.

In recent years Maori have slowly stepped back up to the plate and become more assertive and with the evolution of the Maori political party are now taking a more active role in parliament.

The resurgence of Maori (albeit a somewhat mixed up modern version) seems to have had quite a disturbing influence on the previously Pakeha dominated society!

As "New Zealand culture" further evolves there will be mistakes but then again the adage, "The man who never made a mistake probably never made anything", springs to mind!

In keeping with the tenure of the thread, we all now have to consider the effects of the Islamic religious culture on our own very shaky situation!

It never rains but it pours!

Yes. The conflict we are facing, and which has been eluded to previously, is that we live in a society which values difference and tolerance, and modern fundamentalist versions of Islam essentially do not - just as modern fundamentalist version of Christianity (Destiny Church for example) does not..

Of course, we can look back into history and see how similar conflicts were resolved.

On a small Melanesian Island lived a people who were tolerant of others. When the Christian missionaries arrived, the Islanders told the missionaries they were quite content the way they were. The missionaries were quite welcome to come and stay, and to practie their religion, but the Islanders themselves did not want anything to do with Christianity.

The missionaries, of course, told the Islanders that they were wrong, and that Christianity was the truth, and the Islanders had to adopted it.

The Islanders explained that they were happy for the missionaries to believe they knew the truth. The Islanders begged to differ, but in the spirit of tolerance, each should accept the difference and learn to live together.

The missonaries, of course, could not accept that position.

The Islanders, in the true spirit of tolerance, did not wish to impose their beliefs in tolerance of others on the missionaries, as such an imposition was against the spirit of tolerance, were faced with a moral dilemma. How to protect their tolerant culture from a culture that did not believe in, or practice, tolerance towards others?

Being very practical people, the islanders solved the dilemma by removing the problem - rather than forcing the missionaries to become tolerant they simply ate the missionaries.

[Oscar]

No, it isn't what you said.
You said that Anglo Saxon described the last invaders.

Anglo Saxon is a term describing three Germanic Tribes (Angles, Saxons and Jutes) who invaded England (or more correctly the four or so kingdoms that then existed) in the fifth century. The fact that the local Britons referred to them by the one name suggests that the Anglo Saxons were at that point more or less one people.

They stepped into the vacuum left by the departing Romans and conquered or displaced (mainly to Wales) the local Britons, and established the kingdoms of Wessex, East Anglia, Mercia and Northumbria (the latter containing a swath of modern Scotland).

They themselves were attacked and conquered by Vikings and Danes and eventually the Normans (who were probably originally Danish).

The term England (Angle-lands) was used by the Anglo Saxons to describe their new lands.

Think Arthurian Legends - Arthur was a Briton (or could have been Roman) - fighting the invading Saxons.

[avgas]

then you have been socialised with Anglo-Saxon world-views and cultural norms.

Nope I grew up with my parents world-views and cultural norms.
Much like my friends did at the local Pa
In fact, I have been fortunate enough to have been involved in a broad, heavily diversified cultural life. From preparing the local annual hangi to a complete chinese tea ceremony.
The reason for this - is I have respect for all.

Once again you have assumed that due to my tongue (or typed voice), you know the individual.
My family has not always been fluent in english through their history - but it seems they have held that language due to circmstances.

You need to shatter whatever blatant misconception you are holding on to. Otherwise no one will learn from you.

[Banditbandit]

Think Arthurian Legends - Arthur was a Briton (or could have been Roman) - fighting the invading Saxons.

Arthur was most likely a Romanized-Celt. The Romans had been there for 500 years and had interbred with the locals. He wasn't puire anythign by that stage.

[Banditbandit]

No, it isn't what you said.
You said that Anglo Saxon described the last invaders.

Anglo Saxon is a term describing three Germanic Tribes (Angles, Saxons and Jutes) who invaded England (or more correctly the four or so kingdoms that then existed) in the fifth century. The fact that the local Britons referred to them by the one name suggests that the Anglo Saxons were at that point more or less one people.

They stepped into the vacuum left by the departing Romans and conquered or displaced (mainly to Wales) the local Britons, and established the kingdoms of Wessex, East Anglia, Mercia and Northumbria (the latter containing a swath of modern Scotland).

They themselves were attacked and conquered by Vikings and Danes and eventually the Normans (who were probably originally Danish).

The term England (Angle-lands) was used by the Anglo Saxons to describe their new lands.

This conversation is happening so fast I think we are all getting little lost ... My understanding of British population history is much the same as yours, differing only in detail, and the fact that I'm sitting 27ks away from my library ... and I'm pretty careful with language .. and I would not agree with the statement you attribute to me .. so I would have never have made it ..

I don't believe we disagree that the history of the British Isles is mixed, and that it is a micro-cosm of what happens as populations move around the world, rub up against each other with conflict, culture change, growth and development ... which is the point I was trying to make around threre pages ago ..

[avgas]

But we are NOT one people .. we are Becoming one people ...

"You must be the change you want to see in the world." Mahatma Gandhi

[Banditbandit]

Hey .. I've caught up .. It's lunchtime . and I'm going for coffee and a smoke ...

And before you'll come back at me ... Post 248 is largely a joke .. but an illustrative one ..

[Banditbandit]

"You must be the change you want to see in the world." Mahatma Gandhi

Yes, exactly. The change I want to see int he world is a change in the economic and political circumstahces of my whanau .. and I'm workign towards that aim ...

Shit .. I was going for a smoke and coffee ...