Politics 🗳️ NZ Politics

[Matiunz]

This is an interesting point of view.

Would Maori have developed without foreign capital investment and foreign economic and educational systems? We will never now but I would suggest NZ would be an isolated backwater like much of the pacific islands or Africa.

Would it have been better? All perspective but many currently leave for ‘western’ countries. 170,000 Maori have left for the bright lights of Australia which is a hugely significant 20% of the Maori population. The take away for me is Maori embrace western colonised society.

It’s an impossible argument unfortunately. Modern society means colonisation of some form would almost certainly of happened, other parties at the time would likely of had worse outcomes.
Bit of a genie out of the bottle scenario that there’s no going back nor is there anyway to ‘make it right’. Do empathise with anyone who has a negatively impacted life but the discussion needs to be around how do we improve outcomes for all and unify and grow together without playing the blame and victim games

 

[MrFrankWhite]

Moriori: Still setting the record straight | E-Tangata

“What happened to our people has been, and to a large extent remains, an inconvenient truth and stain on the history and conscience of our nation.” — Moriori leader Maui Solomon.

e-tangata.co.nz

Thats an amazing article. Thanks. I wasnt aware it wasnt in British interest to have the Moriori chapter reopened.

So did a waka miss NZ on the Pacific migration years back and land in the Chatham's instead?

 

[Worried2Death]

I’ve had a nagging paradoxical thought that keeps coming up.

There is a lot of argument about how colonialism in NZ did xyz, which caused people harm, and how the crown needs to make this right. And this colonialism debate is happening worldwide

Which, on the surface has merit and I actually understand and support this plight

However, the thought that keeps nagging is that, unless you are 100% Maori or Moriori, if colonialism never happened you actually wouldn’t have been born. Your ancestors would never have met and you wouldn’t have been created. You wouldn’t have had a different life because the genetics required to make you would never have been combined

So unless someone is Maori or Moriori, arguing against colonialism is arguing against your existence. The hypothetical of a better life cannot exist

So then we are left with, you owe your life to colonialism happening. Yes, colonists could have done things differently, making society better now. But it didn’t. And there is no way around doing it differently as it just is. There is no counterfactual because it is something that simply happened. It is like wondering things would have been different if xyz didn’t happen, like the time traveller paradox

If you aren’t indigenous, then not only are you arguing against your existence, you are also arguing for restitution between different parts of your own genetic makeup, debating your great-ancestor on one side and another great-ancestor on another.

So while making an enemy of the crown for how your people were treated is understandable, but looking at it from an individual’s standpoint is hypocritical, as the individual wouldn’t even be here to argue

Paradox of synchronicity, if not for Hitler we wouldn't exist. Keep going with this thought and let us know where you end up, enlightenment or the nuthouse.

 

[Teets]

Huh? Im not "going off" anything. A question was asked about co-governance and and answer was given that implied Maori have some sort of innate guardianship knowledge. I merely pointed out that doesn't appear to be the case looking at the record.

All i'm saying is if no race who ever drove animals to exctinction can stake a valid claim on environmental guardianship, then conservation efforts globally are fucked lol.

 

[roguei]

Of course they survived. Or there wouldn’t be African Americans today.

What he’s saying is the family unit survived the most horrific atrocities they had known, until the welfare state made it desirable to have multiple “baby daddies”

There’s not a deeper esoteric message here.

What I’m pointing out is that the concept of a stable family unit under slavery was pretty damn rare and short-lived. The harsh realities of slavery, such as the frequent death of family members due to brutal conditions or the constant threat of being sold off to another plantation. Meant that slavers had no incentive to maintain family this family unit at all. In fact, they often actively worked against it, as separating families was a common tool of control.

For instance, the legal principle of partus sequitur ventrem dictated that children inherited the status of their mothers, enabling enslavers to sell children and mothers separately without legal repercussions.

To suggest that the existence of african americans today is proof that family units "survived" slavery feels overly simplistic and dismissive.

The claim that "the family unit survived the most horrific atrocities they had known, until the welfare state made it desirable to have multiple ‘baby daddies’" is pretty logically disconnected to the dismissle of my statment above.

These two statements, taken together, don’t align logically or historically.

 

[Inruin]

‘Will see the wrath of te ao Māori’: Accusations, warnings in heated debate after hīkoi

It comes as standards in the House are up for debate.

www.nzherald.co.nz

 

[defensivebomb]

Paradox of synchronicity, if not for Hitler we wouldn't exist. Keep going with this thought and let us know where you end up, enlightenment or the nuthouse.

A bit of both to be honest.

I think possibly it is a symptom of thinking about the futility of the current situation

Yes there are problems, and yes society wants to solve them but realistically it isn’t quite that simple and a solution that might be fair for a collective group (Maori) is completely unfair for the individuals making up that group (Maori, who are almost entirely at the same time each a mix of Maori and Pakeha)

 

[Mr. Brownstone]

‘Will see the wrath of te ao Māori’: Accusations, warnings in heated debate after hīkoi

It comes as standards in the House are up for debate.

www.nzherald.co.nz

It’s a bit frightening how much sense Winnie is making at the moment.

 

[MrFrankWhite]

What I’m pointing out is that the concept of a stable family unit under slavery was pretty damn rare and short-lived. The harsh realities of slavery, such as the frequent death of family members due to brutal conditions or the constant threat of being sold off to another plantation. Meant that slavers had no incentive to maintain family this family unit at all. In fact, they often actively worked against it, as separating families was a common tool of control.

For instance, the legal principle of partus sequitur ventrem dictated that children inherited the status of their mothers, enabling enslavers to sell children and mothers separately without legal repercussions.

To suggest that the existence of african americans today is proof that family units "survived" slavery feels overly simplistic and dismissive.

The claim that "the family unit survived the most horrific atrocities they had known, until the welfare state made it desirable to have multiple ‘baby daddies’" is pretty logically disconnected to the dismissle of my statment above.

These two statements, taken together, don’t align logically or historically.

Cool argument but complete strawman. Your essay on the difficulties of maintaining a family unit in such conditions is irrelevant.

Nuclear African American families clearly existed for over a century between slavery and the Jim Crow era of the late 1950s.

Linking to random laws and regulations that existed to destroy the family unit furthers my point.

Family Breakdown and America’s Welfare System

Too many American children experience the hurt from broken bonds at an early age. About 35% of American adolescents live without one of their parents, and around 40% of American children are born outside of marriage. Although these kids’ parents are usually in a relationship or even cohabiting...

ifstudies.org

 

[MrFrankWhite]

What I’m pointing out is that the concept of a stable family unit under slavery was pretty damn rare and short-lived. The harsh realities of slavery, such as the frequent death of family members due to brutal conditions or the constant threat of being sold off to another plantation. Meant that slavers had no incentive to maintain family this family unit at all. In fact, they often actively worked against it, as separating families was a common tool of control.

For instance, the legal principle of partus sequitur ventrem dictated that children inherited the status of their mothers, enabling enslavers to sell children and mothers separately without legal repercussions.

To suggest that the existence of african americans today is proof that family units "survived" slavery feels overly simplistic and dismissive.

The claim that "the family unit survived the most horrific atrocities they had known, until the welfare state made it desirable to have multiple ‘baby daddies’" is pretty logically disconnected to the dismissle of my statment above.

These two statements, taken together, don’t align logically or historically.

II. Overview

Over the past 50 years, a quiet revolution has taken place in this country. Decades of demographic, economic and social change have transformed the

www.pewresearch.org