Hard News: Right This Time?
378 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 5 6 7 8 9 … 16 Newer→ Last
-
It's like watching the social contract get thrown out the window.
Not only is it like that, it is that. Must dig up my social contract and give it a ritual window throwing...now where is the pesky thing?
How Lindsay Perigo.
So it's on me to pick someone uncool who believes in social contracts now? Shouldn't be hard...how about Locke? Check out his retro metal-hairdo. Tell me he isn't living in the past :-).
-
Actually, no. It's attitudes like yours that attempt to timefreeze Maori at 1840. Look, we'll define ourselves, 'k thx.
doesnt seem like it. the treaty defined maori as one people and fixed your tribal borders leaving you to argue the details and you been stuck with it ever since. but with specific regards to ngai tahu. its their whakapapa and therefore claim to tangata whenua i find suspect, but whatever. they look after their own as i do. its the white way isnt it ?
and whenever i see anyone in a suit regardless of ethnicity, i think they represent corporate capitalist consumer culture.
The waitaha thing is bollocks, and that's being polite
and which specific waitaha thing would that be ? the thing that pissed brailsford off was how ngai tahu wanted to skew his findings to suit their indigenous agenda cos they were paying him but the archaeological record didnt match.
Just talk to him first, and take a photo if he is uncooperative. Maybe he doesn't have any idea about your perspective, and will be glad to find out that he's offending, so he can change his ways. Then you could make a friend rather than an enemy.
i took a photo of him out in the estuary, left a message on his windscreen, and took his license plate number but yeah i will let his tyres down if i catch him again:)
-
but yeah i will let his tyres down if i catch him again:)
Speak softly, but carry a matchstick :-)
-
and which specific waitaha thing would that be ?
The Celtic "real indigenous people" thing, which, as Joe pointed out, follows in a fine tradition of white people mucking with indigenous history to suit their own crackpot theories.
Brailsford's research is not taken seriously by any actual historians, and believe me, these include people who are quite happy to point out failings in Ngai Tahu's version of history. The question of to what extent what we know about pre-European Maori history is accurate is fascinating and has attracted a lot of scholarship, it's just unfortunate it's attracted other things.
-
The question of to what extent what we know about pre-European Maori history is accurate is fascinating and has attracted a lot of scholarship, it's just unfortunate it's attracted other things.
Pre-history does invite a lot of speculation. Hell, just about the only evidence left is speculation, in the form of oral traditions. It's really amazing just how much our ability to "know what happened" jumps at the discovery of writing, and that's the reason everything before is (perhaps unfairly) generally called prehistory. There's only so much you can read out of archeological remains.
Telling fantastic stories about such times is fairly natural.
-
Telling fantastic stories about such times is fairly natural.
Maybe. Perhaps misappropriating the culture of others for such dark motives as a sense of guilt about one's own race-based privilege, or to build a self-deluding false reputation, might be described as unfairly natural.
-
I'd be more inclined to just call them wrong.
-
I'd be more inclined to just call them wrong.
What *motivates* them to be wrong *in this particular way* is really the key issue, though. Joe and Lucy are totally right to point that out.
-
Thanks for the heads up Lucy, of course I'll have to read it now.
-
I haven't looked at Barry Brailsford book The Tattooed Land, do you recommend it or are there questions about its varacity (which just makes it all the more interesting).
The early edition(s) of The Tattooed Land is/are fairly straightforward. It's the later revised editions, after Brailsford accorded himself a mystically purloined whakapapa and took to preening himself as a new age guru, that are a completely different kettle of bananas.
-
What *motivates* them to be wrong *in this particular way* is really the key issue, though. Joe and Lucy are totally right to point that out.
Indeed. They're modern myths and shed more light on the authors than the subjects.
-
I'm gonna relish this now Joe, but I'll have to read it twice, buggar.
-
The Celtic "real indigenous people" thing, which, as Joe pointed out, follows in a fine tradition of white people mucking with indigenous history to suit their own crackpot theories.
Brailsford's research is not taken seriously by any actual historians, and believe me, these include people who are quite happy to point out failings in Ngai Tahu's version of history. The question of to what extent what we know about pre-European Maori history is accurate is fascinating and has attracted a lot of scholarship, it's just unfortunate it's attracted other things.
pffft...lets not get distracted by the celtic guff
perhaps then you could cite a few actual historians and some scholarly research papers regarding waitaha and in particular the rock paintings which litter the sth island? even better would be some ngai tahu tohunga capable of reinterpreting 'their' histories with 'the magic jawbone' ?
what oral traditions did remain after waitaha were assimilated would probably have been lost to the invaders because its traditional in any conquering culture to eliminate the previous histories/ historians and replace them with your own. not only that, but the traditions would have been coded only for those who were meant to know, to the rest they were just fantastical stories easily dismissed by the great unwashed.
personally i dont find it inconcievable that early polynesians not only traded jade with the ancient chinese and meso americans but interbred with them as well. the trick would be to trace the genetic evidence thru mitochondria. only you'd have to look for it in the royal breeding lines of relatively pure polynesian females who did continue the bloodlines not the muggles we have these days. the proto-polynesian language of asian origins suggest some evidence of pre euro asian contact as does the arrival of sth american kumara to suggest more than meets the eye in that direction also. i mean, just what are we supposed to make of those persistent myths of the long ears in rapanui with the ginga top knots captured so mystically in stone?
back to the treaty though. did it only cover a cessation of hostilities between the colonists and the maori ?
so theres nothing to stop a marauding band of nth island maori coming down sth, kicking ngai tahu arse, killing their menfolk, assimilating their women, confiscating their histories and stealing the land as they did ?
actually do they even have to be maori. how about a new wave of polynesian settlers ?...:)
-
only you'd have to look for it in the royal breeding lines of relatively pure polynesian females who did continue the bloodlines not the muggles we have these days.
Muggles? Surely you mean mudbloods. As you seem to be taking something of a Harry Potter approach to these things you'll be on the right track with Mr. Brailsford. He does seem to have cultivated something of an Albus Percival Wulfric Brian Dumbledore persona.
-
heh...mudbloods seems a bit harsh cos i'm a bit of a mongrel myself, but coming from polynesian royalty i'd like to think theres still a bit of magic left in us and not much in the rest.
so anyway, about this bi-cultural thing. who exactly are these cultures ? i mean if we're talking euro by way of the UK and lump the welsh, irish, scots and english together under one culture then why do we isolate maori outside of their wider polynesian cultural context ? or are we also to think of individual iwi as being distinctive peoples having their own specific culture as of the irish, scots, english and welsh ?
finally, can someone please school me up on "kiwi" culture ?cos apart from assimilating aspects of polynesian culture, like getting tattoed a lot and co opting particular values like respect and humility it doesnt seem to be that different from the brits except now we're chucking in bits of american by way of hiphop.
-
the traditions would have been coded only for those who were meant to know, to the rest they were just fantastical stories easily dismissed by the great unwashed.
Right. Secret traditions handed down from the ancients. That's not implausible at *all*.
the proto-polynesian language of asian origins suggest some evidence of pre euro asian contact
It's very well-established that the Polynesian islands were settled in a radiation out from South-East Asia, if that's what you're getting at - but there's no evidence of post-radiation contact.
The thing is - all of this is based on "ifs" and "maybes" and stuff which is, basically, liberally interpreted from oral tradition (and try checking out how many Maori oral traditions can be traced back to the Bible, for instance) or just made up, hung together with the things we genuinely don't know (e.g. how and when precisely the kumara did cross the ocean) and pretty much ignores the bulk of evidence. It's a nice piece of imaginative interpretation but as history it's useless, on a par with Gareth Menzies' giant sloths in Fiordland.
-
Some interesting questions there dubmugga.
Re. "kiwi" culture - only in NZ could this happen. If it doesn't bring a lump to your throat then, like me, you're probably tired of life. Or something. -
finally, can someone please school me up on "kiwi" culture ?cos apart from assimilating aspects of polynesian culture, like getting tattoed a lot and co opting particular values like respect and humility it doesnt seem to be that different from the brits except now we're chucking in bits of american by way of hiphop.
Would calling it "Kiwiana" make you happier, then? Things like Buzzy Bees, going camping at the beach for summer holidays, a BBQ being a perfectly acceptable way to hold a dinner party...
Those are no less aspects of culture, to my mind, than language and styles of music. None of those things are in any way adopted from Mother England, they've all evolved out of combinations of our climate, our people, and the heritage mixture that brings Polynesian outdoor cooking to the party, as it were.
Culture evolves. Kiwi culture is the mixture of influences that all the strands have brought together. You can get all high-brow and isolationist if you want, but it comes across as very narrow-minded and a little bitchy to claim that Kiwi culture is nothing more than a slightly-diluted-by-Polynesia version of the UK. We're an outdoor culture. We hunt, and fish, and swim. We consider beaches to be an iconic touchstone, and sure as hell we didn't get that from the Brits. We also do good coffee, which is not something that we got from the UK. We like our beer cold, not warm, too. -
The thing is - all of this is based on "ifs" and "maybes" and stuff which is, basically, liberally interpreted from oral tradition (and try checking out how many Maori oral traditions can be traced back to the Bible, for instance) or just made up, hung together with the things we genuinely don't know (e.g. how and when precisely the kumara did cross the ocean) and pretty much ignores the bulk of evidence. It's a nice piece of imaginative interpretation but as history it's useless, on a par with Gareth Menzies' giant sloths in Fiordland.
maori oral traditions are based on older polynesian ones of which no one has bothered attempting revisionist methodology on, that i know of. so cut the patronising dismissive bulllshit and cite me some actual historians, provide me with some bulk of evidence to support any theory you might hold of polynesian migrations and cultures.
interpret legend and myth with the magic jawbone if you will. tell me of panspermia, with life in a sky father like comet resembling sperm crashing into the fertile egg like planet of mother earth or of the separation of earth and sky as when the dust settles after an asteroid crash. tell me of harnessing fire from volcanoes as though visiting demons from the underworld. tell me even of wars in heaven between maui and his brothers as planetary alignments and polar shifts, when the sun stands still while the earth finds its equilibrium and the seas swirl in catastrophic proportions throwing up new lands and sinking others, or how it might appear as though the sun were snared and the days got longer. tell me of tracking stars at their zenith like mauis hook to locate lands and spirits/behaviour of animals revealing clues to lifes mysteries
dismiss the myths/traditions as though they didnt/don't hold natural truths encoded for easy transmission across generations, the secret translations of which weren't meant for everyone and wonder what happens when the story tellers die without ever having passed them on and the true meaning gets lost.
who loses out ? we all do cos we are the people of this land/planet and those are our sciences our art and our culture for which we as polynesians dont make distinctions between.
yeah go on shed a tear and have a drink for this old timer as well
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-me-claude-levi-strauss4-2009nov04,0,890035.story
-
coffee as indicator of kiwi culture...tooo funny and gimme a break with your wide eyed misty accounts of kiwiana bullshit with your totems of imported bees and outdoor cooking by the beach as though brits never roasted meat in the outdoors or sat around and grilled fish on a campfire at the beach... is that all you got as representative of kiwi culture ?...oh yeah language and music sung in umm what language was that again ???...errr english wasnt it ?...
me, narrow minded and bitchy?...how about you cut your apron strings to mother england, lose the union jack on the flag, accept that euro subjugation, elimination and assimilation policies have failed then let us assimilate you into polynesian culture and identify yourselves as representative of just exactly where you are in the world. thats hardly isolationist, its actually quite embracing and liberating if you think about it.
you can either come over of your own free will or as is shown by the patience of polynesians, we will in time breed it out of you and passively force you to evolve your precious culture. the other option is your culture dies out hopefully quietly and with dignity but i doubt it.
it's plain to see that some of you really have no idea whats going on do you?...:)
-
the other option is your culture dies out hopefully quietly and with dignity but i doubt it.
How....generous.
-
Ah, so if it ain't Polynesian it can't possibly be "Kiwi culture", is that about the sum of it?
-
So... this thread keeps on finding new, discrete ways to be annoying, doesn't it?
-
dismiss the myths/traditions as though they didnt/don't hold natural truths encoded for easy transmission across generations, the secret translations of which weren't meant for everyone and wonder what happens when the story tellers die without ever having passed them on and the true meaning gets lost.
I'm not saying that myths/traditions weren't used to pass on useful information. I'm saying that asserting that they are evidence for the existence of Waitaha as Brailsford imagines them, aside from any other actual evidence, is just an assertion. Myth changes. Tradition changes. Just look at how flood stories and a creator-deity were absorbed into Maori tradition in the nineteenth century, though they're absent in other Polynesian myths; syncretism at its finest.
Oral traditions as history are tricky. Sometimes they're borne out; sometimes they're not. But they're not a static method of information transmission, or a direct representation of history, even "secret" history. Sometimes they're just stories; cultural truths, rather than historical ones.
Check out G S Kirk's "The Nature of Myth" for myth theory, or Margaret Orbell and David Simmons for analysis of Maori traditions as history. Sir Peter Buck's not bad either, though a bit dated. My notes refer to someone called "Sorrenson" as a easier read than Orbell or Simmons, but I can't find the full reference.
-
How....generous.
why thank you, cos we all know how poms like to whinge...seriously though. do you have any actual history recommendations worth reading ?
if it ain't Polynesian it can't possibly be "Kiwi culture"
'kiwi culture' is what some small indigenous flightless nocturnal bird does to give its life meaning and substance. i'm not a kiwi but if you are and can speak their lingo then possibly you could share the good oil eh:)
what im saying is you've had your 2 hundred years of utopianist colonial tinkering thanks very much and we've now learnt enough to control our destiny again and from now on we'll do the assimilating so eventually we'll once again write the histories and laws to suit.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.