The Maori clearly did their damndest to exterminate the Moriori, though, so I'm not sure why the timeline of settlement would be the critical factor there?
The Maori clearly did their damndest to exterminate the Moriori, though, so I'm not sure why the timeline of settlement would be the critical factor there?
Yes, conquest and extermination were the goal of the Maori who invaded the Chathams. My point is that this piece of history was manipulated to create a crude parallel with (slightly later) European settler colonisation of mainland New Zealand. It was a way of justifying settler domination of the natives by a false retelling of pre-European history. And this Victorian justification is still used today.
This obscures the real history of the Moriori people. They are not stick figures to be used to justify settler mistreatment of mainland Maori.
Yes, but white settlers are also not stick figures to be used to justify the moral hypocrisy of indigenous rights activists. The basic point that white settlers were the first group to even have some kind of serious moral debate on this topic is worth remembering.
I’m not disagreeing but I don’t see how this changes anything. My original point was simply that the Maori vs Moriori story ignored an interesting point, namely that many people today still misunderstand and misrepresent history to justify crude and untrue narratives. Moriori were not a primitive group driven from mainland New Zealand. If we could put this nonsense to bed forever it would help with an honest accounting of what actually happened. The reality was bad enough.
My point was tangential. Just saying that in a NZ context this whole subject of oppression and blame is highly charged, so it’s worth clearing up any misinformation that often serves as a distraction.
The Maori clearly did their damndest to exterminate the Moriori, though, so I'm not sure why the timeline of settlement would be the critical factor there?
Yes, conquest and extermination were the goal of the Maori who invaded the Chathams. My point is that this piece of history was manipulated to create a crude parallel with (slightly later) European settler colonisation of mainland New Zealand. It was a way of justifying settler domination of the natives by a false retelling of pre-European history. And this Victorian justification is still used today.
This obscures the real history of the Moriori people. They are not stick figures to be used to justify settler mistreatment of mainland Maori.
Yes, but white settlers are also not stick figures to be used to justify the moral hypocrisy of indigenous rights activists. The basic point that white settlers were the first group to even have some kind of serious moral debate on this topic is worth remembering.
I’m not disagreeing but I don’t see how this changes anything. My original point was simply that the Maori vs Moriori story ignored an interesting point, namely that many people today still misunderstand and misrepresent history to justify crude and untrue narratives. Moriori were not a primitive group driven from mainland New Zealand. If we could put this nonsense to bed forever it would help with an honest accounting of what actually happened. The reality was bad enough.
Well, I’m not going to argue against a preference for accuracy, it’s just I doubt that inaccuracy was the real bone of contention here.
My point was tangential. Just saying that in a NZ context this whole subject of oppression and blame is highly charged, so it’s worth clearing up any misinformation that often serves as a distraction.