Thread: New Zealanders presented with 40 flag options to vote for new national standard

And I'd also add that there's a certain amount of irony in claiming that the proven settlement history of NZ is the 'sanitized' or 'PC' version because it's actually the complete opposite.

The notion of Moriori (or others) as pre-dating Maori came about during the colonial period in order to justify and legitimise colonization.

In other words: if it was accepted 'fact' that the Maori had displaced another race / group of people through subjugation / war / genocide / etc. then that was a ready-made excuse and rationale to do the same to them.

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

It doesn't though. And as to your link / 'proof' you may want to check your source on that one. Suffice to say that One New Zealand Foundation Inc. have what you might call a certain vested interest and agenda.

You could well be right... who are we to believe then?

We were taught in school that Christopher Columbus discovered America... this has since been proven incorrect, as Viking explorers were there well before CC.

I can't find any absolute proof beyond a shadow of a doubt who inhabited NZ first... I think there are vested interests on both sides of the fence. Of course, Maori would love to think they were the first and only indigenous people of NZ... I doubt it... but they could of been... mai roo jing jing..

I reckon we should all try to live in harmony as one country, embrace our multicultural heritage and move forward in unity and strength.

Ohh say can you see... by the dawns early light.. what so proudly we... OOPSS!
wrong song... hehe..

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

a) And I'd also add that there's a certain amount of irony in claiming that the proven settlement history of NZ is the 'sanitized' or 'PC' version because it's actually the complete opposite.

b) The notion of Moriori (or others) as pre-dating Maori came about during the colonial period in order to justify and legitimise colonization.

c) In other words: if it was accepted 'fact' that the Maori had displaced another race / group of people through subjugation / war / genocide / etc. then that was a ready-made excuse and rationale to do the same to them.

a) The proven and accepted historical facts as to the existence of pre-Maori in NZ is published in NZ gov. documents ratifying Waitaha's claims. (refs already supplied in my previous posts.)

b) Moriori and Waitaha claims have existed ever since Europeans landed in NZ. They were never used as an excuse to colonize NZ, those tribes were recognized and named by Maori as tangata whenua. NZ was already colonized before the Waitaha and Moriori made their claims, nearly 150 years after the signing of the treaty of Waitangi in 1840, after Nga Pui/Ngai Tahu murdered the Chatham Island Waitaha/Moriori.

c) So called Maori did indeed displace, wipe out, murder and cannibalize any other tribe as they saw fit, just read the history books, and they continued to do so after colonization, as in the case of Te Rauparaha and Rangihaeata who wiped out or decimated all the South Island tribes they could find.

Colonization of Aotearoa as was brought about by request of Maori for a treaty of accord, the Treaty of Waitangi. English crown agreed to it as both England and Maori wanted the Spanish and French colonies out of NZ.

There were very few so-called Maori left in NZ by the time Cook arrived, around 90 < 100, 000 only.

They had very little food left, existing on roots, berries, birds and sea foods, as the seal colonies were reduced to near zero and moa had been wiped out through hunting.

Wandering groups of raiders attacked any villages not related to their particular tribes in search of meat, cannibalizing whole villages at a time.

Without Cook's release of wild boar into NZ, Maori had no other easily available protein source other than through cannibalism.

Are you now gonna try and further sanitize Maori history by claiming that they were never cannibals?

Originally Posted by NZdick1983

You could well be right... who are we to believe then?

Honestly it's not that difficult: just check the legitimate and objective sources on the matter.

Originally Posted by ENT

a) The proven and accepted historical facts as to the existence of pre-Maori in NZ is published in NZ gov. documents ratifying Waitaha's claims. (refs already supplied in my previous posts.)

b) Moriori and Waitaha claims have existed ever since Europeans landed in NZ. They were never used as an excuse to colonize NZ, those tribes were recognized and named by Maori as tangata whenua. NZ was already colonized before the Waitaha and Moriori made their claims, nearly 150 years after the signing of the treaty of Waitangi in 1840, after Nga Pui/Ngai Tahu murdered the Chatham Island Waitaha/Moriori.

c) So called Maori did indeed displace, wipe out, murder and cannibalize any other tribe as they saw fit, just read the history books, and they continued to do so after colonization, as in the case of Te Rauparaha and Rangihaeata who wiped out or decimated all the South Island tribes they could find.

Colonization of Aotearoa as was brought about by request of Maori for a treaty of accord, the Treaty of Waitangi. English crown agreed to it as both England and Maori wanted the Spanish and French colonies out of NZ.

There were very few so-called Maori left in NZ by the time Cook arrived, around 90 < 100, 000 only.

They had very little food left, existing on roots, berries, birds and sea foods, as the seal colonies were reduced to near zero and moa had been wiped out through hunting.

Wandering groups of raiders attacked any villages not related to their particular tribes in search of meat, cannibalizing whole villages at a time.

Without Cook's release of wild boar into NZ, Maori had no other easily available protein source other than through cannibalism.

Are you now gonna try and further sanitize Maori history by claiming that they were never cannibals?

You're talking utter shite, ENT.

Your Googled drivel might impress the likes of xanax who want to believe it but it's not even superficially correct. It's a transparent and ham-fisted attempt to obfuscate, muddy the waters, and shift the posts/burden of proof.

Here is what I originally posted:

The whole Moriori as pre-Maori settlers thing is a post-colonial invention that was used to justify colonization itself. It has been completely and utterly discredited.

Here's what you yourself posted in response:

Originally Posted by ENT

...

Generations of New Zealanders have grown up believing Moriori were an inferior, pre-Maori race driven from New Zealand to seek refuge in the Chatham Islands.

[...]

The mythological history was perpetuated by the School Journal, a magazine-style series used in all New Zealand primary schools....

Your own source substantiates what I said.

Everything subsequent to that is you trying to back-pedal by spamming and turn everything into another one of your whackjob conspiracy theories.

Time to send out the unmarked scout cars, bENT!

b) The notion of Moriori (or others) as pre-dating Maori came about during the colonial period in order to justify and legitimise colonization.

Why would we have needed to do that just in the case of NZ? We did not need to justify colonizing a sparsely populated land at the other end of the world inhabited by spear chuckers already fighting each other. We were bringing them civilization, Christianity and inside toilets, such was seen as legitimate at the time, but not by pc clowns such as yourself today.

Lets hope Tony's employer has some Maori sympathies, looks like time wasting on a massive scale today

Originally Posted by Dragonfly94

Why would we have needed to do that just in the case of NZ? We did not need to justify colonizing a sparsely populated land at the other end of the world inhabited by spear chuckers already fighting each other. We were bringing them civilization, Christianity and inside toilets, such was seen as legitimate at the time, but not by pc clowns such as yourself today.

"We", xanax?

Just how old are you!?

Where are the objective sources and which information is legitimate?

ENT's recount of history is exactly what our Maori history teacher told us in school... why would he lie? he painted a dark picture... he seemed almost proud as he re-called his ancestors ate other defeated tribes..

I remember he took a Taiaha (Maori spear) and Wahaika (Maori war axe) to class.. he gleefully showed us how his great grandfather used it to strike the skull of his enemy. Seemed like a quite legitimate source to me..

"Nothing sounds like the truth, quite like the truth".

Originally Posted by NZdick1983

Where are the objective sources and which information is legitimate?

FFS Dick, leading a fucking horse to water an all that.

Here's a hint: a website linked to right-wing racists... Probably not a legitimate fucking source.

Originally Posted by NZdick1983

why would he lie?

Who said he was lying.

If he taught you that the Moriori were a race of pre-Maori settlers then he was simply repeating a myth.

A persistent and enduring myth (obviously), but a resoundingly discredited myth all the same.

Originally Posted by NZdick1983

ENT's recount of history is...

... based on fallacies and a lack of logic and fact.

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Originally Posted by ENT

a) The proven and accepted historical facts as to the existence of pre-Maori in NZ is published in NZ gov. documents ratifying Waitaha's claims. (refs already supplied in my previous posts.)

b) Moriori and Waitaha claims have existed ever since Europeans landed in NZ. They were never used as an excuse to colonize NZ, those tribes were recognized and named by Maori as tangata whenua. NZ was already colonized before the Waitaha and Moriori made their claims, nearly 150 years after the signing of the treaty of Waitangi in 1840, after Nga Pui/Ngai Tahu murdered the Chatham Island Waitaha/Moriori.

c) So called Maori did indeed displace, wipe out, murder and cannibalize any other tribe as they saw fit, just read the history books, and they continued to do so after colonization, as in the case of Te Rauparaha and Rangihaeata who wiped out or decimated all the South Island tribes they could find.

Colonization of Aotearoa as was brought about by request of Maori for a treaty of accord, the Treaty of Waitangi. English crown agreed to it as both England and Maori wanted the Spanish and French colonies out of NZ.

There were very few so-called Maori left in NZ by the time Cook arrived, around 90 < 100, 000 only.

They had very little food left, existing on roots, berries, birds and sea foods, as the seal colonies were reduced to near zero and moa had been wiped out through hunting.

Wandering groups of raiders attacked any villages not related to their particular tribes in search of meat, cannibalizing whole villages at a time.

Without Cook's release of wild boar into NZ, Maori had no other easily available protein source other than through cannibalism.

Are you now gonna try and further sanitize Maori history by claiming that they were never cannibals?

"Generations of New Zealanders have grown up believing Moriori were an inferior, pre-Maori race driven from New Zealand to seek refuge in the Chatham Islands.

You're clutching at straws, the Moriori and Waitaha have now been recognized by the NZ government, in their belated wisdom.

References already given in my posts on this thread.

Generations of New Zealanders have grown up believing Moriori were an inferior, pre-Maori race driven from New Zealand to seek refuge in the Chatham Islands.,....meaning that they were not an inferior pre-Maori race driven from NZ to the Chathams, they planned their migration.

They were a superior tribe (not race) who settled on the Chathams circa 1175 AD, long before Ngai Tahu arrived.

Here's a more independent bit of research on the topic.
The Moriori of the Chatham Islands | NZETC

Oh, another thing Ants, your arguments and claims have no basis in fact nor are at all reliable nor reputable, otherwise you'd have supplied some references/links to your claims.

All we've got to go by is your word on the whole heap of sanitized garbage you've claimed as 'fact',....no proof offered at all.

Got anything to say about cannibalism among Maori?

Originally Posted by ENT

References already given in my posts on this thread.

Those references are to Treaty claims... A Treaty between the Crown and Maori.

They do not say anything even close to what you think they do.

Originally Posted by ENT

All we've got to go by is your word

And your own cut 'n pastes and links which substantiate exactly what I said.

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Originally Posted by NZdick1983

Where are the objective sources and which information is legitimate?

FFS Dick, leading a fucking horse to water an all that.

Here's a hint: a website linked to right-wing racists... Probably not a legitimate fucking source.

Originally Posted by NZdick1983

why would he lie?

Who said he was lying.

If he taught you that the Moriori were a race of pre-Maori settlers then he was simply repeating a myth.

A persistent and enduring myth (obviously), but a resoundingly discredited myth all the same.

Originally Posted by NZdick1983

ENT's recount of history is...

... based on fallacies and a lack of logic and fact.

Sez the man who can't give a single valid reference to back up his mouth.

Originally Posted by ENT

B]Generations of New Zealanders have grown up believing Moriori were an inferior, pre-Maori race driven from New Zealand to seek refuge in the Chatham Islands.[/b],....meaning that they were not an inferior pre-Maori race driven from NZ to the Chathams, they planned their migration.

They were a superior tribe (not race) who settled on the Chathams circa 1175 AD, long before Ngai Tahu arrived.

So now you're arguing against your own post!!

Originally Posted by ENT

Sez the man who can't give a single valid reference to back up his mouth.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moriori_people

The Moriori ? Te Ara Encyclopedia of New Zealand

Reading the Maps: The myth that won't go away

Moriori myth corrected | Stuff.co.nz

Moriori, a pride reborn

https://ourarchive.otago.ac.nz/handle/10523/349

...

I guess I made the mistake of grossly underestimating the ability of certain posters to use fucking Google.

Anyone disagreeing with Ants PC view of NZ history will be branded a- racist, 'quelle surprise' hey Anty.

Originally Posted by ENT

If you're so certain about Waitaha being a Ngai Tahu sub-tribe, post a link or references to the claim, somebody might believe you then.

...

Waitaha is an early historical Māori iwi (tribe or nation). Inhabitants of the South Island of New Zealand, they were largely absorbed via marriage and conquest first by the Kāti Mamoe and then Ngāi Tahu from the 16th century onward. Today those of Waitaha descent are represented by the Ngāi Tahu iwi.

4. ? Ng?i Tahu ? Te Ara Encyclopedia of New Zealand

Originally Posted by ENT

Waitaha never claimed to be Maori and refused to sign the Treaty of Waitangi, ever.

...

The Crown acknowledges its actions arising from interaction with Waitaha whereby it breached the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles.

The Crown apologises to Waitaha for its acts and omissions which have breached the Crown’s obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi.

Our Treaty Settlement (the Waitaha iwi website)

Originally Posted by ENT

All we've got is your continual born again Maori mantra of supremacism,......special people.......

I haven't posted anything even remotely close to suggesting that.

Liar.

Your grasp of NZ history in general - and the inter-relationship between iwi and hapu specifically - is appalling, ENT.

Originally Posted by ENT

Apparently you can't use Google effectively to your benefit

Strange words from someone who cuts 'n pastes something that discredited his own claim and then ends up arguing against his own post.

Apparently you can't read either. Those links make it explicit: Moriori are not pre-Maori settlers of NZ.

Next attempt to obfuscate / shift the posts...

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Originally Posted by ENT

Sez the man who can't give a single valid reference to back up his mouth.

a)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moriori_people

b) The Moriori ? Te Ara Encyclopedia of New Zealand

c)Reading the Maps: The myth that won't go away

d) Moriori myth corrected | Stuff.co.nz

e) Moriori, a pride reborn

f) https://ourarchive.otago.ac.nz/handle/10523/349

I guess I made the mistake of grossly underestimating the ability of certain posters to use fucking Google.

Apparently you can't use Google effectively to your benefit, as;

Link a)
"By the late 20th century the hypothesis that the Moriori were different from the Māori had fallen out of favour amongst archeologists, who believed that the Moriori were Māori who settled on the Chatham Islands in the 16th century. The earlier hypothesis was discredited in the 1960s and 1970s"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moriori_people"]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moriori_people

This article's since been discredited by NZ government recognition of Moriori and Waitaha whakapapa and rights to Aotearoa, independent of Ngai Tahu.

Link]b)
This ref points out that Maori are distinct from Moriori. who lived in the S. Island and the Chathams prior to being invaded by so-called Maori.

HISTORY, MYTHS IN NEW ZEALAND
The Moriori
Not all the errors in the interpretation of the past can be related to the evolution of myths: only the interesting and significant ones. They may be made simply by mistaking the nature and the tendency of evidence. Generations of New Zealanders have learned (and perhaps still learn) to distinguish sharply between the so-called “Moriori” and the Maori, the first and the second wave of pre-European inhabitants. The term Moriori should, in fact, be limited to the inhabitants of the Chatham Islands, people who were largely killed and assimilated by Maori invaders early in the nineteenth century. It should never be employed to identify a very dark-skinned, primitive non-Polynesian (perhaps Melanesian) race of New Zealanders, an inferior people wiped out by the superior, subsequent, and conquering Maoris.
The Moriori ? Te Ara Encyclopedia of New Zealand

[LinkCOLOR="yellow"](c)[/COLOR]
Nothing in that blog spot.

Link (d)
This link is the one I gave re. the recognition of Moriori, Paul Solomons etc.
Moriori myth corrected | Stuff.co.nz

Link(e)

Moriori, a pride reborn
In spite of a widespread belief that their race and culture are extinct, Moriori people have survived on the Chatham Islands and are undergoing a cultural revival similar to that of their mainland cousins, the New Zealand Maori.
Moriori, a pride reborn

Link ((f)
This link doesn't come even remotely close to topic, no refs to Waitaha/Moriori or Ngai Tahu claims.
Reading the Maps: The myth that won't go away


Great stuff Ants, you've proven me right!

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Originally Posted by ENT

B]Generations of New Zealanders have grown up believing Moriori were an inferior, pre-Maori race driven from New Zealand to seek refuge in the Chatham Islands.[/b],....meaning that they were not an inferior pre-Maori race driven from NZ to the Chathams, they planned their migration.

They were a superior tribe (not race) who settled on the Chathams circa 1175 AD, long before Ngai Tahu arrived.

So now you're arguing against your own post!!

Not at all, as I said and history states, the Moriori and Waitaha were in the S Island and on the Chathams before N Island tribes arrived there.

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Originally Posted by Dragonfly94

Why would we have needed to do that just in the case of NZ? We did not need to justify colonizing a sparsely populated land at the other end of the world inhabited by spear chuckers already fighting each other. We were bringing them civilization, Christianity and inside toilets, such was seen as legitimate at the time, but not by pc clowns such as yourself today.

"We", xanax?

Just how old are you!?

Your gerontophobia's showing again, boy.

And around and around you go in your never-ending circle of lies, obfuscation, post-shifting and irrelevant tangents.

Meanwhile...

Originally Posted by ENT

Read the article again.

Goodo.

From the article you posted yourself:

Originally Posted by ENT

...

Generations of New Zealanders have grown up believing Moriori were an inferior, pre-Maori race driven from New Zealand to seek refuge in the Chatham Islands.

[...]

The mythological history was perpetuated by the School Journal, a magazine-style series used in all New Zealand primary schools....

So like I said, it's a myth.

The Moriori are not a seperate race nor a pre-Maori people. They are in fact Maori.

Next.