Politics 🗳️ NZ Politics

Inruin said:
e-tangata.co.nz

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 e-tangata.co.nz
Click to expand...
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?
 

NZWarriors.com

Remove ads
defensivebomb said:
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% māori 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 💯 māori 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
Click to expand...
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.
 
MrFrankWhite said:
Huh? Im not "going off" anything. A question was asked about co-governance and and answer was given that implied māori have some sort of innate guardianship knowledge. I merely pointed out that doesn't appear to be the case looking at the record.
Click to expand...

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.
 
MrFrankWhite said:
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.
Click to expand...


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.
 
Worried2Death said:
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.
Click to expand...
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 (māori) is completely unfair for the individuals making up that group (māori, who are almost entirely at the same time each a mix of māori and Pakeha)
 
roguei said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.

ifstudies.org

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 ifstudies.org
 
roguei said:
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.
Click to expand...
IMG_0211.webp

www.pewresearch.org

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 www.pewresearch.org
 
Cces said:
TJ Perenara ruffling a few feathers with his rangatira moves.
Interesting to note the All Blacks shared footage of the haka but only from Ka Mate onwards

View: https://x.com/rugbyontnt/status/1860415978435203226?t=NOGMxBm06f_5-FFiJUbY2A&s=19
Click to expand...

Passionate karere of unity in response to the hikoi. Seems to have triggered a few ACT voters. I can hear Mike Hosking now, maybe if they spent less tiime eating woke sushi and coming up with politically charged lefty hakas, and more time bloody tackling, we wouldn't be going to hell in a handbasket. Happy days.
 
Last edited:
Worried2Death said:
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.
Click to expand...
If that little boy way back in Venezuela in 27bc had killed that huge spider he saw, the Germans would have developed a nuclear bomb by 1938, the Americans by 1941 and the Russians by 1942 and by 1950 or so it's Mushroom Clouds Everywhere so we either wouldn't exist and would exist and be in the most back of back-waters - no internet, no trade, NO "MARRIED AT FIRST SIGHT"! FFS!

As to TJ's thing. It's kind of like Lorde doing the te reo EP she did. Lose fans if you do something in te reo, lose fans if you don't. Except Lorde hasn't retired/said she's moving overseas and anyway by nature of what she does ie sell stuff like CDs/concert tickets/merch/etc she'll get more blowback than TJ. The cynic in me says he knew he wouldn't get any/any significant blowback ie it wouldn't affect his AB chances, he wouldn't get shit from fans at Hurricanes games etc going forward, so it made him think "oh what the hell" and do it - I hate pre-game stuff, whatever the sport /whoever the teams so missed it all - because he was leaving.

I think Luxon's revealed himself to be a complete idiot, Seymour to be a fairly decent poker player. Just look at how ACT are now going public and saying "The Treaty Principles Bill was a 'We'd Like To Have Please' policy, not a 'Agree To Introduce This Or We're OUT OF HERE!" policy". ACT and the Greens have nowhere to go except to signup with National and Labour respectively and the two major parties should always bear that in mind. Worse case scenario? Act and Te Pati māori HOG the media attention over the select comittee period. And get to make a song and dance when the Bill is brought back for Reading No 2, Seymour either gets shit for changing the bill or not changing the bill (the right will hate the former, the left the latter) and it will die like a dog. As it was always going to. Luxon watches as more right-wing National voters say "Screw you guys, I'm going to David's!" and go on to vote ACT in 2026. And maybe Luxon gets rolled in 2025....
 
Last edited:
mrblonde said:
If that little boy way back in Venezuela in 27bc had killed that huge spider he saw, the Germans would have developed a nuclear bomb by 1938, the Americans by 1941 and the Russians by 1942 and by 1950 or so it's Mushroom Clouds Everywhere so we either wouldn't exist and would exist and be in the most back of back-waters - no internet, no trade, NO "MARRIED AT FIRST SIGHT"! FFS!

As to TJ's thing. It's kind of like Lorde doing the te reo EP she did. Lose fans if you do something in te reo, lose fans if you don't. Except Lorde hasn't retired/said she's moving overseas and anyway by nature of what she does ie sell stuff like CDs/concert tickets/merch/etc she'll get more blowback than TJ. The cynic in me says he knew he wouldn't get any/any significant blowback ie it wouldn't affect his AB chances, he wouldn't get shit from fans at Hurricanes games etc going forward, so it made him think "oh what the hell" and do it - I hate pre-game stuff, whatever the sport /whoever the teams so missed it all - because he was leaving.

I think Luxon's revealed himself to be a complete idiot, Seymour to be a fairly decent poker player. Just look at how ACT are now going public and saying "The Treaty Principles Bill was a 'We'd Like To Have Please' policy, not a 'Agree To Introduce This Or We're OUT OF HERE!" policy". ACT and the Greens have nowhere to go except to signup with National and Labour respectively and the two major parties should always bear that in mind. Worse case scenario? Act and Te Pati māori HOG the media attention over the select comittee period. And get to make a song and dance when the Bill is brought back for Reading No 2, Seymour either gets shit for changing the bill or not changing the bill (the right will hate the former, the left the latter) and it will die like a dog. As it was always going to. Luxon watches as more right-wing National voters say "Screw you guys, I'm going to David's!" and go on to vote ACT in 2026. And maybe Luxon gets rolled in 2025....
Click to expand...
A chain of events triggered by a Venezuelan spider leading to Luxon getting rolled, makes you think.
 
Tragic said:
How can you unilaterally change a contract? Don't both parties need to agree changes?
Click to expand...
What if we all got DNA tests and anyone with a drop of māori blood gets to vote on it, and so does anyone with any English ancestry. The problem is, as @defensivebomb pointed out, most of them are the same people by the paradox of diminishing ancestry. What now grasshopper?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Shogun
Politics 🇺🇸 Joe Biden
Replies
3
Views
3K
Shogun
Shogun
Politics 🤡 Donald Trump
301 302 303
Replies
6K
Views
337K
Bobbysea
Bruce
Current Affairs 🗳️ Is this the twilight of democracy?
7 8 9
Replies
160
Views
30K
Worried2Death
Worried2Death
Buzz Killington
Current Affairs Fake News Stories in the NZ Herald!
Replies
3
Views
3K
wizard of Tauranga
wizard of Tauranga
Back
Top Bottom