As I said, all we've got is your word against both gov. of NZ history accounts and acknowledgements and current Waitaha and Moriori status and claims as separate tribes to Ngai Tahu.
Fail again, Ants.
Were Maori cannibals? You must know, eh, boy.
As I said, all we've got is your word against both gov. of NZ history accounts and acknowledgements and current Waitaha and Moriori status and claims as separate tribes to Ngai Tahu.
Fail again, Ants.
Were Maori cannibals? You must know, eh, boy.
Nope.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragonfly94
Waitaha did.
...Quote:
Originally Posted by ENT
:chitown:Quote:
Originally Posted by ENT
The government of NZ have not acknowledged either Waitaha or Moriori as being a seperate and distinct peoples from Maori. It has dealt with them under the Treaty of Waitangi between the Crown and Maori for the simple fact that they are Maori and claims and redress under the Treaty are not applicable to anyone who is not Maori. Because, you know, Crown and Maori. Not Crown, Maori, and other pre-Maori settlers of NZ because there is no such thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by ENT
Nor do claims as separate tribes to Ngai Tahu under the same Treaty between the Crown and Maori prove what you think it does. The only thing it illustrates is your inability to understand iwi and hapu and your inability to read and understand or even comprehend what you yourself are cut 'n pasting.
No amount of unmarked scout cars can intercept and change facts, ENT. You are a nutter that sees conspiracy theories in everything and resorts to ridiculous logic gymnastics and fallacies.
Is Ant claiming the waitaha were Maori?
Yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragonfly94
It goes like this;
When a tribe was conquered or dominated, their taonga (treasure) and whakapapa (genealogy) was taken by their conquerors, who ate the men and some kids, keeping a few as slaves along with the women to do all the hard work/carrying and breed with, producing a new generation of vasal halfees/mixed breed/ mongrel/multi-familial of lower status to the dominant tribe.
So the vasal tribe's history/whakapapa was passed on along with the taonga/treasures/knowledge/skills/food sources to the new generation and so on.
Their whakapapa and taonga (skills knowledge) came from their mothers, who were the only ones who knew for sure who's kid that was or who came from whom, and taught him everything they knew to survive into adulthood, the men mainly hunting and fighting until they died around 30yoa average.
This new whakapapa is also taken on by the conqueror, the genealogy, the history everything of the vassal tribes will the conqueror claim, as in the case of Ngai Tahu and other Maori claiming Waitaha's mana (status, power, authority) to exercise their own rights under the Treaty of Waitangi, which the Waitaha and several other tribes objected to signing.
And so it goes.
Their objections cost the Waitaha and Moriori all their taonga, but Ngai Tahu could not steal Waitaha's [I]whakapapa[I], their mana nor aroha ( good intentions, peace, love), the three essentials of being, past present and future.
Which is why the new ratification of Waitaha/Moriori rights and status implemented by the crown, legislated under the Treaty of Waitangi guidelines, even though Waitaha had never signed it, Ngai Tahu did for them against their will, a bit like a caregiver nicking the client's pension.
This from
Waitaha Claims Settlement Bill — First Reading
[Sitting date: 19 September 2012. Volume:684;Page:5449. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]
Wednesday, 19 September 2012
"Waitaha kuia Hunehunga McCausland has called Waitaha the lost iwi, referring to their loss of mana and the tendency for some to follow alternative tribal affiliations. In those words, one glimpses the harrowing grief of a people dispossessed of almost all of their traditional lands, to the point where the iwi nearly ceased to exist."
Present day Classical Maori took the name "Maori" on after the Treaty signing.
Te Maori was one tribe listed on the treaty, and described as the tangata whenua(original inhabitants) of the land. all other tribes came later, according to the treaty witnesses in including/signing for Te Maori and others.
Waitaha are grouped in with Archaic Maori, 1125 < 1625 or so, although earlier settlement dates evinced by archaeology proves much earlier occupation of NZ.
* Note Kuia = female elder, the granny who knows the lot! :)
I think the balding ginger bloke is wrong then, very interesting thanks.
Cheers.
Hi folks, I came to this forum because someone here linked to a post from my blog, and I'm a bit bewildered by some of the claims being made here about Moriori. If ENT wants to find out about Moriori history and how about how Moriori relate to the government of New Zealand and various iwi, then I'd advise him to find out what Moriori themselves have to say about these matters. The Hokotehi Trust, which is the elected representive of Moriori, runs a website with information about Moriori history, and helped to write the Moriori entry in Te Ara, the national NZ online encyclopedia.
Moriori were never and do not claim to have ever been pre-Maori inhabitants of the North and South Islands. They are the tchakat henu (indigenous people) of the Chatham Islands, or Rekohu as they call it. Moriori were never conquered by or pushed out of the South Island by Kai Tahu, and have never accused that iwi of doing those things. And Moriori have never signed a Treaty settlement with the government, though the Waitangi Tribunal has made a report on their case and negotiations are tipped to begin with the Crown soon.
Moriori argue that their ancestors came directly to the Chathams from tropical East Polynesia, the region that includes island groups like the Cooks and the Australs, settled the Chathams, and made expeditions to mainland New Zealand, where they traded with and intermarried with Maori. Some archaeologists and prehistorians believe that the ancestors of Moriori were very early Maori who sailed from the mainland. The archaeological record on the Chathams shows clearly that Moriori were out of contact with mainland New Zealand for hundreds of years, and developed into a separate people with a unique culture during this time. AntRobertson is thus wrong when he claims that Moriori are only another Maori iwi. Although Moriori are closely related to Maori, they regard themselves and are regarded by scholars as a separate people. An analogy might be made with the way groups within the Cooks, like the Rarotongans and the Pukapukans, are both closely related and separate.
In 1835 two Taranaki iwi, Ngati Mutunga and Ngati Tama, invaded the Chathams and enslaved Moriori, who had already been decimated by decades of incursions into their territory by whalers and sealers. Perhaps ENT has gotten confused and turned the well documented invasion of 1835 into a conflict on the mainland of New Zealand in the period before contact between Maori and Pakeha.
A good person to talk with about all this is Susan Thorpe, a Moriori scholar who works on the Chathams. She's on twitter at @humuana
I hope ENT will hope making claims about Moriori fighting with and being conquered by Kai Tahu, because nobody in either group recognises his version of history.
^ Kia Ora! and welcome aboard, SHamilton.
Very interesting read. I'm open minded to NZ history, I feel it's hard to find the truth, as its shrouded in a murky past.
It's ironic, that we can trace our beginnings back to the moment of the big bang, some 14.6 billion years ago, but have trouble agreeing on NZ's very recent history, of just a mere few hundred years.
I presume you mean the beginnings of the planet, rather than 'our' beginnings.Quote:
Originally Posted by NZdick1983
Great post, thanks for clearing things up.Quote:
Originally Posted by SHamilton
I'll certainly follow up on the references you gave.
I don't think I mentioned a fight between Kai (Ngai) Tahu and Moriori.
Keep posting. :)
Cheers. In all honesty I think that the prehistory of New Zealand is probably the least mysterious of any part of the world. That's partly because these islands were settled very late - only about a thousand years ago - and also because the archaeological record, which we can read in the earth with all the clarity of a book, shows that for many centuries only one culture was present here. There isn't a single bit of pottery or coin or sword to suggest anything but the Eastern Polynesian culture of Maori. Of course, there are still mysteries, but the overall picture is very clear.
AntRobertson talked earlier about the political motives of the folks who promote theories about Celts or Vikings or aliens being here before Maori, and it's absolutely true that most of the folks who push these ideas have connections to white supremacist movements, and also hold eccentric views about subjects like Jews, the Holocaust, and 9/11. The most high profile of the advocates of a pre-Maori white settlement of NZ was Alan Titford, who was sent to prison for 24 years in 2013 for rape and for an arson that he blamed on Maori. Others include Martin Doutre, a Holocaust denier and 9/11 Truther, and Kerry Bolton, New Zealand's best-known neo-Nazi. I wrote about all this stuff in a text called No to Nazi Pseudo-History, which was published on Scoop Review of Books a few years ago (I can't post the ink here).
The people who trade on the name Waitaha, which in reality belonged to an iwi assimilated by Kai Tahu centuries ago, are another odd crowd. They claim to come from outer space and make money teaching wealthy Americans to talk with dolphins: I wrote about them in a post at my Reading the Maps blog called New Zealand, Old Lemuria. It's an odd world...
It's an odd world...
And you're even odder mate.
Why have Waitaha been recognized as a separate iwi from Ngai Tahu and have had their claims redressed and ratified by NZ Gov.?
No, our planet is only around 4.3 billion years old... I meant the universe - the moment of creation (so to speak) or expansion...Quote:
Originally Posted by cyrille
+1Quote:
Originally Posted by SHamilton
Ah, so you've met ENT then!* :DQuote:
Originally Posted by SHamilton
*In-joke, check the 9/11 thread... Actually belay my last, don't bother, the sheer insanity of some of the theories espoused therein will cause you to lose faith in humanity as a species.
^^^^
I would have thought that to enslave, meant you lost and therefore were conquered?
Wank.Quote:
Originally Posted by AntRobertson
Ants just got his cuzzy bro and co sanitizer of history,shamilton to drop in with some much needed ammo,. A pity it's all dud eh, Ants?
Yer slippery little trick didn't work, as sham (I'll call him that) runs a sanitizing workshop, check his blog,....then come back and talk about it, it's full of born-again Maori treaty-boy wannabee claims, all sanitized to present Maori as the only tangata whenua of Aotearoa, without any acknowledgement of Waitaha's legitimate statatus as published by NZ gov.
No referencing to his claims, they're all there because he says so. :)
:smileylaughing:Quote:
Originally Posted by ENT
Holy fuck beans you are deluded!
There's literally nothing you can't see a conspiracy in is there.
No I'm not, Sham-ilton's shill web site was one of the references you gave in attempting to support your claims.Quote:
Originally Posted by AntRobertson
What's his iwi or hapu? Nga Pui or one of their N Island hapus?
He's as biased as they come about anything Waitaha, could even be Kai Tahu.
So, in other words, because he/she (contrary to your latest conspiracy theory I have no idea who it is) has also pointed out that you're wrong on the point of pre-Maori settlement of NZ then to you the most logical reason is that he/she is in cohorts with me and we are both part of some larger plot to sanitize / whitewash NZ history (though to what ends who fucking knows).
The same history that anyone who has seriously studied NZ history (and isn't a crackpot) is in agreement on.
Because it's not like the more prosaic explanation - that you're simply wrong - holds any water does it because you're never wrong about anything... Well, except for when you are.
But no, there always has to be an entirely contrived and convoluted explanation for everything with you doesn't there - no matter how patently absurd and far-fetched. Funny how that always happens where you're concerned, eh ENT you fucking mung bean crackpot!
:smileylaughing:
Rubbish.Quote:
Originally Posted by SHamilton
Waitaha claim nothing of the sort
Maori around Kaikoura do that talking with the dolphins and whales bit on whale-watching tourism.
Odd....
a) Where did he point out I was wrong?Quote:
Originally Posted by AntRobertson
b)The reason for the sanitizing of NZ Maori history is so that dominant iwi can grab the lions share of Treaty handouts, ignoring the claims of other claimants.
c)In other words, the word according to Nga Puhi et al.
Learn. To. Read.Quote:
Originally Posted by ENT
Seriously, you'll find it a great assistance in not being wrong all the time.
So the Waitangi Tribunal processes can be added along with 'NZ History' to the list of "Things ENT Doesn't Understand".Quote:
Originally Posted by ENT
You truly are a cautionary tale of a little knowledge (and access to Googled sources you don't even comprehend) being a dangerous thing.
All bullsh*t and red herrings chappy.
I don't need to know the Treaty Tribunal process, only what the treaty is and the results, I'm not a claimant from any iwi as you and your pal Sham-ilton are.
I doubt that many Maori know it either, judging by the number of 'full and final' payouts that have been made to various iwi..
Correct, you don't.Quote:
Originally Posted by ENT
You can just carry on making incorrect statements about a topic you are very clearly ill-informed - verging on completely ignorant - about.