| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 115028 | 2010-12-29 08:44:00 | New research on Maori genealogy | ubergeek85 (131) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 1165468 | 2010-12-29 18:41:00 | Interesting, but they were still here first. I hope there are no sad sacks who will try to kick the maori out of deals/treaties because they aren't indigenous. It may have some legal implications, someone is bound to find a loophole and exploit it. :thumbs: |
WalOne (4202) | ||
| 1165469 | 2010-12-29 19:06:00 | So they got here later than was first thought. So? | pctek (84) | ||
| 1165470 | 2010-12-29 19:08:00 | It's hard to figure how one way or the other it would effect Treaty claims, it doesn't really matter when peoples ancestors got here as to whether they do or do not have a valid treaty claim. | Twelvevolts (5457) | ||
| 1165471 | 2010-12-29 19:46:00 | Came across this article yesterday makes for some very interesting reading. I wonder who is covering up history & why?? www.elocal.co.nz _Siege_Part_5.html also: www.elocal.co.nz R_SIEGE_PART_3,_Hidden_Wonders_in_Waipoua_Forest.h tml |
Paul Ramon (11806) | ||
| 1165472 | 2010-12-29 20:08:00 | The new research changes nothing as far as Māori arrival here is concerned. The date of arrival is said (by the research) to be around 1250AD (when I was at school we were told 1350AD). That date is broadly in line with most reputable research. In recent years some people have tried to push the date further back, but there has been no archaeological evidence to support that, so nothing has changed as far as Māori are concerned. What has changed is the new knowledge about how quickly Polynesians spread out from their base in Samoa. Most people thought there was a succession of migrations north to Hawaii, east to the Tuamotu Archipelago and Easter Is, and south to NZ. Apparently the research shows that instead of a whole lot of voyages one after the other, this all happened in a very short period of time - discovery and colonisation of almost the whole of the Pacific in a short timeframe. |
John H (8) | ||
| 1165473 | 2010-12-29 20:11:00 | I hardly think you can call Maori indigenous now. 400 years is not very long when you consider that modern man has a history of about 10,000 years. Eg The (Red) Indians in India were there a LONG time before Europeans arrived. The Aborigines were there thousands of years before Europeans arrived. And I don't really like that definition of Indigenous that refers to western culture. (why just western ?) Don't forget the Chinese were great travelers and navigators (Junks) And the Arabs were great travelers and navigators as well (Dhows) |
Digby (677) | ||
| 1165474 | 2010-12-29 20:21:00 | I thought Indian Indians were in India and the Red Indians or First people as they like to be known were in America crossing over from Siberia and Mongolia | gary67 (56) | ||
| 1165475 | 2010-12-29 20:47:00 | Came across this article yesterday makes for some very interesting reading. I wonder who is covering up history & why?? www.elocal.co.nz _Siege_Part_5.html also: www.elocal.co.nz R_SIEGE_PART_3,_Hidden_Wonders_in_Waipoua_Forest.h tml Wow! Very interesting links! |
johcar (6283) | ||
| 1165476 | 2010-12-29 20:54:00 | Time to kick em out. | --Wolf-- (128) | ||
| 1165477 | 2010-12-29 21:22:00 | One way or another, everything will still be the same with "poor me" hand outs and millions gone to waste. There is nothing really stopping them or any minority really until those occupants of the beehive find out what having testicles is all about. |
rob_on_guitar (4196) | ||
| 1 2 3 | |||||