| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 56679 | 2005-04-12 09:50:00 | Blatantly racist | Peterj116 (6762) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 344203 | 2005-04-15 09:50:00 | But you realise we'd have to go back to Scotland, Wales, Dalmatia etc and give them back all of the land and sea. What about the Morioiri? Weren't they here first? |
14_with_black_bean_sauce (7493) | ||
| 344204 | 2005-04-15 11:52:00 | I'm lost on this. Maybe someone could enighten me. Dictionary.com defines a treaty as: 1. A formal agreement between two or more states, as in reference to terms of peace or trade. 2. The document in which such an agreement is set down. 3. A contract or agreement. Synonyms: accord, alliance, arrangement, bargain, bond, cartel, charter, compact, concord, concordat, contract, convention, covenant, deal, entente, league, negotiation, pact, reconciliation, sanction, settlement, understanding. So given all of that, isn't the term "treaty negotiations" redundant? If a Treaty was signed in 1840, doesn't that suggest that an "agreement" was reached? That is, all negotiations have finished & the parties have come to an understanding? If that's the case, why do we have a Minister of Treaty Negotiations and why are we paying compensation when an agreement was already reached between the two parties? I'm no History student, so I'm probably way off the mark here If you check carefully, you will see that a lot of the chiefs didn't sign the Treaty; especially from the South Island - Ng(K)ai Tahu were one such iwi. One of the other main points of contention is the understanding of what was written in the Treaty (for example.... signing the treaty according to the british, gave them complete sovereignty over the land; however according to Maori, the treaty would give Maori governorship over the land). There are other things as well, but I'm no expert on Treaty of Waitangi issues, so I may not be 100% correct with those issues. |
Myth (110) | ||
| 344205 | 2005-04-15 22:36:00 | If the Maori feel that they were given a raw deal, then return all of the modern benefits that they have received & they can go back to their old way of life. As for other indignations, consider this: European settlers, over time, have given the Maori race: electricity, running water, sewerage systems, modern cooking facilities, road transport, modern housing, social welfare.. the list goes on. I don't really mean this comment literally, but it's too early in the morning to express it better, but if European settlers didn't come here, modern Maoris would still be living in grass huts. (ducks the bullets)This is one argument I see come up often in the Maori vs Pakeha racism debates... Just because Europeans settled in NZ does not mean that the Maori would have not received any modern advances if the Europeans never settled here. There are many countries around the world that have modern advances that have not been settled by Europeans. And some of these modern advances were not discovered or invented by Europeans anyway, yet us Europeans somehow managed to get hold of them too. Communication and travel etc. make modern advances available to almost all people, regardless of race or location. It has nothing to do with whether you're European or not. If the Maori had slowly developed this country (we don't know that they wouldn't have), they just possibly might have made contact with other countries and gained these advances for themselves. Or perhaps the Maori people may have made some discoveries of their own that they could have sold to the "Europeans" (I don't know - maybe they've done that anyway?). I'm just sick of that argument. People progress over time - regardless of whether they're European or Maori. Saying that they'd still be living in grass-huts just fits right in with a lot of other generalisations us Europeans make about the Maori people. M. |
Midavalo (7253) | ||
| 344206 | 2005-04-16 01:30:00 | Interesting argument. Perhaps you could give some examples of a native population progressing to the level we have today. The ones that come to mind,that don't seem to progress are the African native,New Guinea,South American Indians and the rest.Those that have moved forward,it seems to me have embraced the European culture. What were the discoveries that have come from what might be described as the savage races? |
Cicero (40) | ||
| 344207 | 2005-04-16 01:32:00 | Samoa,Tonga both discovered Auckland..... :D | Metla (12) | ||
| 344208 | 2005-04-16 02:06:00 | Samoa,Tonga both discovered Auckland..... :D Via a 747 I believe,made in rather a large grass hut. :) |
Cicero (40) | ||
| 344209 | 2005-04-16 02:43:00 | Interesting argument. Perhaps you could give some examples of a native population progressing to the level we have today. The ones that come to mind,that don't seem to progress are the African native,New Guinea,South American Indians and the rest.Those that have moved forward,it seems to me have embraced the European culture. What were the discoveries that have come from what might be described as the savage races?You've hit it on the head there Cicero. If the Europeans hadn't settled in New Zealand, it does not mean that the Maori people would not have embraced the European culture (or even elements of it). The Japanese were a "savage race" who have embraced elements of the European culture, and have definitely had a part to play in "modern advances". The Japanese have not been "settled" by Europeans, nor have the Chinese or other northern Asian countries, yet they have played a big part in the modernisation of the world. Who is to say that the Maori people would not have followed the same path and embraced elements of the European Culture? Many of the so called "savage races" around the world (I'm thinking Africa and the Pacific) have actually been settled and often abandoned (through many different reasons and means) by European nations, so the settling of these countries by Europeans have often not had the modernising effect one might expect. M. |
Midavalo (7253) | ||
| 344210 | 2005-04-16 02:45:00 | What were the discoveries that have come from what might be described as the savage races? Curare, peyote, hashish, polygamy. :D |
Winston001 (3612) | ||
| 344211 | 2005-04-16 03:20:00 | Curare, peyote, hashish, polygamy. :D This not a confessional 001,so no need to tell us what you have taken from the savage. The stubborn savage living within each of us feels desperately out of place when we become, "a stranger and afraid, in a world we never made." Don't think the Japanese were eating people 200 years ago. |
Cicero (40) | ||
| 344212 | 2005-04-16 07:51:00 | Returning to the original post (Tama Hairy only talking to Maori media), some of you will recall Robert Muldoon. As Prime Minister in the early 1980s he took a set against Tom Scott. Not liking something Scott wrote, he banned him from press conferences. That was an extraordinarily high handed and arrogant move. I was shocked and incensed at the time. Even worse, other journalists instead of boycotting Muldoon, continued to turn up. But now our liberal perceptions are so attuned not to criticise anything Maori that we shrug when a Maori MP elects to effectively ban a section of the media. Even worse, the decision is based on race. Which is Peter's point. I'm very uncomfortable with this. A Member of the New Zealand Parliament is answerable to all citizens. He should not be able to pick and choose on the basis of race. |
Winston001 (3612) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 | |||||