ACT's David Seymour - i like his style.

[Logen Ninefingers]

Prior to the arrival of Europeans, Maoris had a Stone Age culture. Put simply, their most sophisticated tools were made of stone, wood and bone but not pottery. It was not easy to warm water! They had no metallurgy. They had not discovered the wheel or its uses – transport was by foot or afloat. (Do not imagine endless magnificent war canoes; more often humble makeshift rafts). Food was what could be gathered from nature, albeit there was some cultivation of the sweet potato that had arrived with them, in places where it was warm enough to grow. Thus, the menu: dogs, rats, fish, birds, maybe and fern roots, native plants and berries and of course, human flesh: a handy slave girl casually slaughtered if sufficient captives from the last raid on a weaker neighbouring tribe were not available. No mutton, beef, pork, potatoes or corn.


For some reason, it is considered a racial insult to describe their culture as “Stone Age”. However that does not change the facts.
https://breakingviewsnz.blogspot.com...nd-bigger.html

I think a guy like davflaws has probably gone to University and been force-fed for multiple years a narrative that conforms with his confirmation biases. He cannot take any alternate narrative and must deploy this hackneyed term ‘racist’ at the earliest possible opportunity as a standard left wing tactic of cancelling (out) anyone on the other side of the debate.

The extraordinary this is that the genuine racists amongst us are people like Rawiri Waititi who believe that people with maori ethnicity are ‘genetically superior’ to others. I find Waititi to be stupid. I find Waititi to be ignorant. I find Waititi to be racist. People like davflaws and Chipkins can’t - or won’t - see that though.

[justakiwi]

I suspect the vast majority of those who disapproval of the term "Stone Age" being used in this context, disapprove purely because it is incorrect to use it this way

The Stone Age was a specific period of time in history. It ended around 3,300BC - so it most certainly does not apply to Maori.

"The Stone Age began about 2.6 million years ago, when researchers found the earliest evidence of humans using stone tools, and lasted until about 3,300 B.C. when the Bronze Age began. It is typically broken into three distinct periods: the Paleolithic Period, Mesolithic Period and Neolithic Period"

Prior to the arrival of Europeans, Maoris had a Stone Age culture. Put simply, their most sophisticated tools were made of stone, wood and bone but not pottery. It was not easy to warm water! They had no metallurgy. They had not discovered the wheel or its uses – transport was by foot or afloat. (Do not imagine endless magnificent war canoes; more often humble makeshift rafts). Food was what could be gathered from nature, albeit there was some cultivation of the sweet potato that had arrived with them, in places where it was warm enough to grow. Thus, the menu: dogs, rats, fish, birds, maybe and fern roots, native plants and berries and of course, human flesh: a handy slave girl casually slaughtered if sufficient captives from the last raid on a weaker neighbouring tribe were not available. No mutton, beef, pork, potatoes or corn.


For some reason, it is considered a racial insult to describe their culture as “Stone Age”. However that does not change the facts.
https://breakingviewsnz.blogspot.com...nd-bigger.html

[Logen Ninefingers]

I suspect the vast majority of those who disapproval of the term "Stone Age" being used in this context, disapprove purely because it is incorrect to use it this way

The Stone Age was a specific period of time in history. It ended around 3,300BC - so it most certainly does not apply to Maori.

"The Stone Age began about 2.6 million years ago, when researchers found the earliest evidence of humans using stone tools, and lasted until about 3,300 B.C. when the Bronze Age began. It is typically broken into three distinct periods: the Paleolithic Period, Mesolithic Period and Neolithic Period"

While agreeing with you on the historical truth of your point re when the ‘stone age’ was, nobody ever contended that maori were living in the actual ‘stone age’. Unless European ships were travelling through a portal in time, there would be no way to get back from recent centuries to the ‘stone age’.
The intention was to describe the pre-contact way of life with its closest historical parallels: a society of people using stone tools and living a rudimentary and fairly brief existence.

[davflaws]

While agreeing with you on the historical truth of your point re when the ‘stone age’ was, nobody ever contended that maori were living in the actual ‘stone age’. Unless European ships were travelling through a portal in time, there would be no way to get back from recent centuries to the ‘stone age’.
The intention was to describe the pre-contact way of life with its closest historical parallels: a society of people using stone tools and living a rudimentary and fairly brief existence.

There is no problem with describing Maori at the time of first contact as "stone age culture".

The problem arises when you conflate first contact with colonisation. If as you claim, "Colonisation’ begins when new tools, weapons, foodstuffs, methods etc are introduced to new areas, the whole world is colonised and the term has been broadened beyond any useful meaaning

I plead guilty to arrogant prtickery on occassion, so I am unashamed to advise you: Drop your fantasies about my educational history and political background, and do some reading about the difference between a process by which European tools, weapons, food stuffs, methods etc began to be introduced to and adopted by the Maori world, and the loss of land, political, social and military hegemony as a result of deliberate policy decisions by a foreign power which constitute "colonisation".

From a Maori viewpoint, the former process had almost exclusively good results, but the latter had quite mixed results. Both parties benefitted from the former process, Maori aguably more than the small number of Europeans involved. Settlers and their descendants benefitted from the latter markedly and significantly more than Maori. That difference is reflected in the current socioeconomic status of the two groups.

I am plaeased that you are now conceding (albeit grudgingly), that colonisation did have some ongoing deletorious effects. Does this concession extend to Maori health and life expectancy?

[Balance]

Hope ACT makes getting rid of all the special BS & Ardern introduced privileges accorded to Maori and co-governance a bottom line policy to be in coalition with National - because National is too soft to be so upfront about this need.

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political...-co-governance

Meanwhile, note how the coverage of ACT’s campaign launch by the Herald & Stuff is all about the hecklers rather than ACT’s policies?

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/pol...istent-heckler

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politi...LBKXYISAFJROU/



Trust all NZers notice the bias because it is high time that the leftist msm gets their comeuppance - so addicted are they to woke and Ardern’s bribes via the media fund. A curse on them and their future.

[Logen Ninefingers]

There is no problem with describing Maori at the time of first contact as "stone age culture".

The problem arises when you conflate first contact with colonisation. If as you claim, "Colonisation’ begins when new tools, weapons, foodstuffs, methods etc are introduced to new areas, the whole world is colonised and the term has been broadened beyond any useful meaaning

I plead guilty to arrogant prtickery on occassion, so I am unashamed to advise you: Drop your fantasies about my educational history and political background, and do some reading about the difference between a process by which European tools, weapons, food stuffs, methods etc began to be introduced to and adopted by the Maori world, and the loss of land, political, social and military hegemony as a result of deliberate policy decisions by a foreign power which constitute "colonisation".

From a Maori viewpoint, the former process had almost exclusively good results, but the latter had quite mixed results. Both parties benefitted from the former process, Maori aguably more than the small number of Europeans involved. Settlers and their descendants benefitted from the latter markedly and significantly more than Maori. That difference is reflected in the current socioeconomic status of the two groups.

I am plaeased that you are now conceding (albeit grudgingly), that colonisation did have some ongoing deletorious effects. Does this concession extend to Maori health and life expectancy?

'If as you claim, "Colonisation’ begins when new tools, weapons, foodstuffs, methods etc are introduced to new areas, the whole world is colonised and the term has been broadened beyond any useful meaaning'

If you genuinely wish to have an intelligent debate (or even a discussion) on this point, then I am perfectly willing to do so.

If we broaden 'colonisation' to perhaps include 'the point at which alien peoples come to live amongst as' (and this occurs from the point of 'contact' onwards), then I would contend that 'colonisation' is a global phenomenon. I do think 'cultural colonisation' is as much a matter of historical fact as any of the other events we agree occured in human history.

We may look at a country like Japan and say that colonisation has not been a 'thing' that has happened there. But then if we look at the 'granular spread sheets' of the matter, we find that General Douglas MacArthur was at one time the virtual dictator of Japan, and that under his guiding hand 'modern Japan' was created:

'He was a general’s general, tough, unrelenting, a man who embraced the role history thrust on him. He was also haughty and controversial, traits that would lead to his eventual downfall. General Douglas MacArthur, Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers (SCAP), arrived in Japan on August 30, 1945 to oversee the ceremony formally marking its surrender. His mission was to organize a postwar Japanese government, with two primary goals: eliminating Japan’s war potential, and turning it into a Western-style nation with a pro-American orientation.

MacArthur had full authority, almost unlimited power, to accomplish these tasks. As interim leader of Japan from Japan from 1945-48, he was responsible for confirming and enforcing sentences for Japan’s war criminals and oversaw the rebuilding of the country, including drafting the country’s new constitution and implementing a major land reform initiative.'

You can say that a country retains all of it's traditions and culture from the point of contact onwards, unless what you describe as 'colonisation' (using your definition of the term) occurs, but again - in Japan this is not evidently the case when we 'drill down'. We may consider Ramen to be that 'most Japanese' of culinary delights but:

'The origin of ramen is traced back to Yokohama Chinatown in the early 20th century. The word "ramen" is a Japanese borrowing of the Chinese word 拉麵 (lāmiàn), meaning 'pulled noodles'. The dish evolved from southern Chinese noodle dishes, reflecting the demographics of Chinese settlers in Yokohama. Ramen gained popularity in Japan, especially during food shortages following World War II. In 1958, instant noodles were invented by Momofuku Ando, further popularizing the dish. Today, ramen is a cultural icon in Japan, with many regional varieties and a wide range of toppings.'

What about the Japanese and their ongoing eating of whale meat? That is a cultural practice that may have declined and then died out, if not for the intervention of MacArthur:

General Douglas MacArthur encouraged the surrendered Japan to continue whaling in order to provide a cheap source of meat to starving people (and millions of dollars in oil for the US and Europe). The Japanese whaling industry quickly recovered as MacArthur authorized two tankers to be converted into factory ships, the Hashidate Maru and the Nisshin Maru. Whale catchers once again took blue whales, fins, humpbacks and sperm whales in the Antarctic and elsewhere

Other cultural changes & 'colonisations' in Japan have much deeper roots:

Buddhism entered Japan some time during the 6th century CE from the Korean peninsula and China. The transmission of Buddhism through Northeast Asia is generally known as Mahāyāna Buddhism. Over subsequent centuries, the movement of Mahāyāna Buddhism in Japan developed into its own set of distinctive traditions and schools, many of which prevail today both in the country and worldwide. Alongside Shintō, Buddhist thought continues to influence Japanese societal values and attitudes.

---

It seems that in the world we live in, 'colonisation' is defined as a process that the British Empire 'inflicted' on other peoples.
And slavery is treated as something that was invented by Europeans and broke out spontaneously in America as well.

How many people have a real grasp of human history, and just how common (and prolonged) things that are judged to be 'evil' have been with us?

---

As regards the effects of colonisation on health and longevity, I've written previous posts on how I believe Maori would have fared under other scenarios, of which there are three.
1/ Maori continued to exist in their traditional tribal groupings, in isolation. We know this to be an impossibility as contact would have eventually occured even if early European explorers had not found New Zealand.
2/ 'Contact' occured, but Maori were somehow co-operate and co-ordinate between the various Iwi groupings to strictly contain and control how this contact was regulated*, to the point that all their laws and customs applied in this land and any 'alien people who came to live amongst them' were limited in number and had to abide by said Maori laws. This would be an alternate reality where Maori Iwi continued to live as their own individual 'nation states', and perhaps internicine war between the various tribes would continue on until Maori were able to 'unite' (how would this have been achieved though? One group conquering all others would have laid the groundwork for future internal conflict) and form some sort of homogenous - perhaps federated - state. Or New Zealand remained splintered as various small 'countries' split on tribal lines.
3/ Events occured as they have.**

I cannot honestly & intellectually say to you that Maori health and longevity would be much, much better under either of the first two scenarios. The only concession I can make to you is that there appears to often be good and bad in any human process.



*Maori were already admitting in 1840, at the time of the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi, that they had lost control of the process of 'alien peoples coming to live amongst us':

Tāmati Wāka Nene said to the chiefs:

"Some of you tell Hobson to go. But that's not going to solve our difficulties. We have already sold so much land here in the north. We have no way of controlling the Europeans who have settled on it. I'm amazed to hear you telling him to go! Why didn't you tell the traders and grog-sellers to go years ago? There are too many Europeans here now and there are children that unite our races."


**There is an alternate reality where France is the 'physical' coloniser:

Hōne Heke said (to Hobson):

"Governor, you should stay with us and be like a father. If you go away then the French or the rum sellers will take us Maori over. How can we know what the future will bring? If you stay, we can be 'all as one' with you and the missionaries."

[moka]

There is no problem with describing Maori at the time of first contact as "stone age culture".

The problem arises when you conflate first contact with colonisation. If as you claim, "Colonisation’ begins when new tools, weapons, foodstuffs, methods etc are introduced to new areas, the whole world is colonised and the term has been broadened beyond any useful meaaning

I plead guilty to arrogant prtickery on occassion, so I am unashamed to advise you: Drop your fantasies about my educational history and political background, and do some reading about the difference between a process by which European tools, weapons, food stuffs, methods etc began to be introduced to and adopted by the Maori world, and the loss of land, political, social and military hegemony as a result of deliberate policy decisions by a foreign power which constitute "colonisation".

From a Maori viewpoint, the former process had almost exclusively good results, but the latter had quite mixed results. Both parties benefitted from the former process, Maori aguably more than the small number of Europeans involved. Settlers and their descendants benefitted from the latter markedly and significantly more than Maori. That difference is reflected in the current socioeconomic status of the two groups.

I am plaeased that you are now conceding (albeit grudgingly), that colonisation did have some ongoing deletorious effects. Does this concession extend to Maori health and life expectancy?

Davflaws, thanks for the clear definition of colonisation - the loss of land, political, social and military hegemony as a result of deliberate policy decisions by a foreign power which constitute "colonisation".

[moka]

'
---

It seems that in the world we live in, 'colonisation' is defined as a process that the British Empire 'inflicted' on other peoples.

Colonisation is an ongoing process in the world and now it is being done by corporations rather than countries to impose western values and capitalism on other countries though globalisation and corporatism. Western countries especially Britain support this because it creates wealth for them. It does create poverty for the indigenous people in countries like El Salvador and Honduras.

This is detailed in the book Silent Coup: How Corporations Overthrew Democracy by Claire Provost and Matt Kennard.

As European empires crumbled in the 20th century, the power structures that had dominated the world for centuries were up for renegotiation. Yet instead of a rebirth for democracy, what emerged was a silent coup against its very core – namely, the unstoppable rise of global corporate power.
The book provides an explosive guide to the rise of a corporate empire that now dictates how resources are allocated, how territories are governed, and how justice is defined.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Silent-Coup-Corporations-Overthrew-Democracy/dp/1350269980

When Silent Coup’s findings are situated within a broader political analysis, it becomes evident how these international networks give rise to a twenty-first-century imperialism or neo-colonialism: developing nations are exploited by private organisations operating within the international political framework.

https://www.bilaterals.org/?silent-coup-how-corporations

Colonisation - the loss of land, political, social and military hegemony as a result of deliberate policy decisions by a foreign power which constitute "colonisation".

Now it is also known as neoliberalism which is a political and economic philosophy that emphasizes free trade, deregulation, globalization. Neoliberalism is related to laissez-faire economics, which prescribes a minimal amount of government interference in the economic issues of individuals and society.

[Logen Ninefingers]

Davflaws, thanks for the clear definition of colonisation - the loss of land, political, social and military hegemony as a result of deliberate policy decisions by a foreign power which constitute "colonisation".

Well that definition is very interesting indeed. Exactly how far away does the ‘foreign power’ have to be? On the other side of a mountain range? Across a body of water between two islands? 1,000 kms of distance?

Another definition here:
‘The act of taking control of an area or a country that is not your own, especially using force, and sending people from your own country to live there.’

And again, in a New Zealand context different Iwi functioned as their own nation states. Once we get past a notion of Maori as a being homogenous politically and socially - a completely artificial construct - and start looking at them as individual groupings competing with each other for land and resources, then we arrive at a true understanding about the nature of human affairs. There is something universal about the way humans have conducted themselves throughout history. Life itself is a story of struggle for survival.

[Logen Ninefingers]

Colonisation is an ongoing process in the world and now it is being done by corporations rather than countries to impose western values and capitalism on other countries though globalisation and corporatism. Western countries especially Britain support this because it creates wealth for them. It does create poverty for the indigenous people in countries like El Salvador and Honduras.

This is detailed in the book Silent Coup: How Corporations Overthrew Democracy by Claire Provost and Matt Kennard.

As European empires crumbled in the 20th century, the power structures that had dominated the world for centuries were up for renegotiation. Yet instead of a rebirth for democracy, what emerged was a silent coup against its very core – namely, the unstoppable rise of global corporate power.
The book provides an explosive guide to the rise of a corporate empire that now dictates how resources are allocated, how territories are governed, and how justice is defined.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Silent-Coup-Corporations-Overthrew-Democracy/dp/1350269980

When Silent Coup’s findings are situated within a broader political analysis, it becomes evident how these international networks give rise to a twenty-first-century imperialism or neo-colonialism: developing nations are exploited by private organisations operating within the international political framework.

https://www.bilaterals.org/?silent-coup-how-corporations

Colonisation - the loss of land, political, social and military hegemony as a result of deliberate policy decisions by a foreign power which constitute "colonisation".

Now it is also known as neoliberalism which is a political and economic philosophy that emphasizes free trade, deregulation, globalization. Neoliberalism is related to laissez-faire economics, which prescribes a minimal amount of government interference in the economic issues of individuals and society.

No, I don’t agree that ‘colonialism’ and ‘neoliberalism’ are the same things, with only the terminology changing over time.
When I gave the definition of neoliberalism as simply meaning less government regulation & more private ownership, some wag came back with an even simpler definition: ‘rich people doing whatever they want’.

Yet that definition doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. You can regulate businesses less, but they are still regulated. They cannot do whatever they want. Businesses must pay tax, they must collect GST on behalf of the government, they must abide by health and safety laws. If they wish to manufacture and store hazardous chemicals they must adhere to certain regulations and submit to mandatory inspections. They have to pay duties and taxes and clear their goods with the NZ Customs Service if they are an importer and / or exporter. I am using examples from my personal experience, but I am only scratching the surface.

The Left-wing mind just over-simplifies real life, stripping out complexity and reducing everything to a childs tale of good vs evil.

Free trade has been around since the dawn of time. It is not something that was recently cooked up by ‘neoliberals’. This word ‘neoliberal’ is just a hugely loaded term now. If you look at the pure definition of what it means, it is utterly unremarkable. But there is some power about this word that has Leftists in its thrall: they throw it into a conversation like a hand grenade. I wonder if it’s the ‘neo’ part, maybe they hope to invoke - or invoke in their own minds - ‘neo-nazi’.