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

Originally Posted by kingwilly

Not a complete waste of time, I read his posts with interest, because prior to this thread I knew nothing about the topic.

Thanks for your time!

Oh yeah, me too. That's definitely not wasted, fascinating stuff.

But trying to get sense out of ENT or to have him admit that he's wrong... Emptying oceans with teaspoons springs to mind. This is a guy that for the longest time insisted that I was an Auckland-based designer after all and no amount of objective fact could dissuade him from that.

'just what the fock are they teaching about Moriori (or not teaching as the case may be) in NZ schools these days?!'

Lots of progress there. In consultation with Moriori the ministry of education has developed some texts for teachers to use telling the real story of that people. Rewriting the history of Moriori - national | Stuff.co.nz

The whole strange story of the Moriori myth is unpacked by Jacinta Blank in her marvellous Masters thesis on the subject, which is online at: http://ir.canterbury.ac.nz/bitstream...=1&isAllowed=y

Originally Posted by SHamilton

On a different note, though: you guys are in Thailand, aren't you? I was really curious about the Mani/Maniq people: do you know about them? Has anyone met them?

Yep correct, in Thailand.

Honestly you've got me on the Mani/Maniq thing though. Yours is actually the first reference I've ever seen despite living here - that's a factor of my own lack of knowledge but also Thailand in general has a pretty spotty record when it comes to acknowledging or dealing with ethnic groups here.

Originally Posted by SHamilton

It's a shame isn't it Ant. The silly thing about the whole effort to engage in a) politics via prehistory and prove that whites were here before Maori is that even if whites had been here in vast numbers thousands of years ago that'd make no difference to the treaty of Waitangi and related pieces of legislation.

The Treaty was between Maori and the Crown, (b) and doesn't rely upon Maori being indigenous.

a)What the hell are you waffling on about?

Whites here before Maori?

Go on tell us more, I don't think that's been discussed yet.

(b)Nice neo-Maori side-step.

Originally Posted by SHamilton

'just what the fock are they teaching about Moriori (or not teaching as the case may be) in NZ schools these days?!'

Lots of progress there. In consultation with Moriori the ministry of education has developed some texts for teachers to use telling the real story of that people. Rewriting the history of Moriori - national | Stuff.co.nz

The whole strange story of the Moriori myth is unpacked by Jacinta Blank in her marvellous Masters thesis on the subject, which is online at: http://ir.canterbury.ac.nz/bitstream...=1&isAllowed=y

Well that's good to know.

I'm still kinda amazed-slash-disappointed that it's even still an 'issue' all these years later though.

'What the hell are you waffling on about? Whites here before Maori? Go on tell us more, I don't think that's been discussed yet.'

You've just been citing advocates of that theory like Noel Hilliam, ENT. The Waipoua city was, they believe, built by whites. Hilliam thinks Vikings and Phoenicians came here thousands of years ago.

Originally Posted by ENT

Yup you insisted that Moriori are Maori.
Of course Moriori were pre-Maori, or are you gonna shift the goalposts and say they arrived the same time?

But you're never wrong, are you Aunty?

ENT, this habit of yours of taking what has been said to you and turning it around... It doesn't really aid your case like you obviously think it does.

It just makes you seem even more puerile and unstable than you already do.

'Of course Moriori were pre-Maori'

I think I began my comments on this thread by urging you to find out about what Moriori themselves say, and about what scholars say, and by observing that Moriori do not and have never claimed to be pre-Maori inhabitants of NZ. The Moriori position is very clear: they are the tchakat henu (tangata whenua) of Rekohu (the Chathams), who arrived from tropical Eastern Polynesia, developed their unique culture in isolation on the Chathams, and only visited mainland NZ briefly to trade and intermarry with Maori.

Apparently you know something that they don't know, and that scholars would deny.

The idea that Moriori and Tuhoe were Melanesians who lived on NZ before Maori hasn't been held by scholars since the 1920s. I picked out HD Skinner's classic refutation of that theory recently when I made a list of NZ's best works of non-fiction: Reading the Maps: Great non-fiction: another spinoff

I was just interested in the Mani/q because they seem to be one of the dark-skinned peoples who came out of Africa early and still exist in places like the Andamans. It's great that they've been able to survive in the midst of modern Thailand. This seemed an interesting article: Mani people : Ethnic ?negrito? tribe of Thailand

Originally Posted by SHamilton

I was just interested in the Mani/q because they seem to be one of the dark-skinned peoples who came out of Africa early and still exist in places like the Andamans. It's great that they've been able to survive in the midst of modern Thailand. This seemed an interesting article: Mani people : Ethnic ?negrito? tribe of Thailand

That does look interesting, cheers, I'll check it out.

I'm based in Northern Thailand so relatively close (geographically speaking) to some of the hill tribe people here: Karen, Lahu, Lisu etc. They are more on the tourist beat/radar though so more is known about them.

As I alluded to earlier the history of the Thai government dealing with minorities hasn't exactly been stellar so that makes the Mani/q thing even more interesting.

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Originally Posted by kingwilly

Not a complete waste of time, I read his posts with interest, because prior to this thread I knew nothing about the topic.

Thanks for your time!

Oh yeah, me too. That's definitely not wasted, fascinating stuff.

But trying to get sense out of ENT or to have him admit that he's wrong... Emptying oceans with teaspoons springs to mind. This is a guy that for the longest time insisted that I was an Auckland-based designer after all and no amount of objective fact could dissuade him from that.

Liar.

I admitted my mistake re, Waitaha iwi of N Island.

Originally Posted by ENT

I admitted my mistake re, Waitaha iwi of N Island.

Good for you.

That only leaves your error over the whole origins and history of the Moriori thing then.

Originally Posted by SHamilton

'Of course Moriori were pre-Maori'

I think I began my comments on this thread by urging you to find out about what Moriori themselves say, and about what scholars say, and by observing that Moriori do not and have never claimed to be pre-Maori inhabitants of NZ. The Moriori position is very clear: they are the tchakat henu (tangata whenua) of Rekohu (the Chathams), who arrived from tropical Eastern Polynesia, developed their unique culture in isolation on the Chathams, and only visited mainland NZ briefly to trade and intermarry with Maori.

Apparently you know something that they don't know, and that scholars would deny.

The idea that Moriori and Tuhoe were Melanesians who lived on NZ before Maori hasn't been held by scholars since the 1920s. I picked out HD Skinner's classic refutation of that theory recently when I made a list of NZ's best works of non-fiction: Reading the Maps: Great non-fiction: another spinoff

!500 AD is the peg date for Moriori arrival on the Chathams, and 1625AD is the peg date for current Classsical Maori arrival in NZ, arriving a hundred years or more after Moriori reached the Chathams.
3. ? When was New Zealand first settled? ? Te Ara Encyclopedia of New Zealand

Originally Posted by SHamilton

'What the hell are you waffling on about? Whites here before Maori? Go on tell us more, I don't think that's been discussed yet.'

You've just been citing advocates of that theory like Noel Hilliam, ENT. The Waipoua city was, they believe, built by whites. Hilliam thinks Vikings and Phoenicians came here thousands of years ago.

So, if my daddy sucks lemons, does it make my mouth pucker, or if you eat rocks, does that crack my teeth?

Neither does what another say come from my mouth, twister.

Originally Posted by SHamilton

' no human artefacts or skeletons before at least a thousand years ago, then an Eastern Polynesian culture for many hundreds of years.

So what about this lovely piece, a Maori carving?






Korotangi
The origins of the Korotangi remain a mystery, although it is now almost 100 years since it was found by a Maori imbedded in the roots of an upturned manuka tree, between Aotea harbour and Raglan. All that is definitely known is that it was discovered in 1878, that it weighs 4 Ib 10 oz, is 10 inches long and is finely carved from a dark green serpentine.

The Korotangi bird at first glance resembled a prion or whalebird, until it was noted that instead of having a united nasal tube, the Korotangi had lateral nostrils at the base of the beak, rather like a ducks. No-one knew how long it had been under the tree, but one thing was clear, it bore no resemblance to any known carving.

The Korotangi was first aquired by Albert Walker, who left it for a short time with Major Drummond Hay of Cambridge, and it was during it's stay in Major Drummonds home that the first clue came to Korotangi's identity.

An old chieftainess, seeing the stone bird, immediately bowed before it and began to sing a lament to the Korotangi. The news of the find soon spread amongst the Maori and all who saw it, claimed it was the sacred talisman, Korotangi, brought to NZ in the Tainui waka.Korotangi - Sacred Bird of Tainui

Originally Posted by ENT

So what about this lovely piece, a Maori carving?

What about it?

Let's just say for arguments sake that it was 100% conclusively proven to be of non-Maori origin, what would that then say to you ENT?

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Originally Posted by ENT

So what about this lovely piece, a Maori carving?

What about it?

Let's just say for arguments sake that it was 100% conclusively proven to be of non-Maori origin, what would that then say to you ENT?

Check the stone's composition with a mass spectrometer or by thin section analysis under a cross polarized microscope to determine its origin.

Originally Posted by ENT

Check the stone's composition with a mass spectrometer or by thin section analysis under a cross polarized microscope to determine its origin.

OK, so I ask again then, if it was 100% conclusively proven to be of non-Maori origin what would that then say to you?

Originally Posted by ENT

The Tamil bell

Ring the bell.

Class is starting and Ent is getting schooled!

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Originally Posted by ENT

Check the stone's composition with a mass spectrometer or by thin section analysis under a cross polarized microscope to determine its origin.

OK, so I ask again then, if it was 100% conclusively proven to be of non-Maori origin what would that then say to you?

Just as I said, it says to me that the provenance of the serpentine needs establishing by either of the methods I've indicated.

The serpentine compares favourably with that from Indonesia or China according to some, suggesting it was brought to NZ from Asia, before colonization began, likely during the late archaic or early classical period.

It isn't a Maori carving, though.

Originally Posted by ENT

The serpentine compares favourably with that from Indonesia or China according to some, suggesting it was brought to NZ from Asia, before colonization began, likely during the late archaic or early classical period.

And what exactly suggests that?

It seems that the only thing that is certain from its confused origin stories is that it was discovered in NZ some 138 years ago, colonization began in the 1800's, so why the assumption that it was brought to NZ much earlier than that? Why could it not have been just prior or just after for example.

Didn't this start as Kiwis pick new flag.

Originally Posted by bobo746

Didn't this start as Kiwis pick new flag

Yep. But then, well, you know... TD!

Prolly nicked it from a sailor and claimed he found it under a tree.

'1625AD is the peg date for current Classsical Maori arrival in NZ'

1625: seventeen years before Tasman turned up! Where do you get these ideas about the consensus amongst scholars of NZ prehistory? There are scores of radiocarbon dates which give us dates earlier than 1625. But there's nothing earlier than the twelfth century, and there are no artefacts under even the most recent layer of Taupo eruption tephra. There's no evidence of deforestation before then, either, in the form of rat-gnawed forest spores. It's reasonable to say there was no substantial population in NZ a thousand years ago.