5 ms·

Talk of the Moriori has historically been used as a cudgel to beat Māori with when seeking redress from the evils of European colonization. It’s not that it’s t

Talk of the Moriori has historically been used as a cudgel to beat Māori with when seeking redress from the evils of European colonization. It’s not that it’s taboo or no one cares, it’s that we’re weary of the motivations of people bringing it up and how they frame this history. https://thespinoff.co.nz/atea/03-08-2018/the-moriori-myth-and-why-its-still-with-us https://thespinoff.co.nz/atea/03-08-2018/the-moriori-myth-an...

silenced_trope 3y ago
> It’s not that it’s taboo or no one cares, it’s that we’re weary of the motivations of people bringing it up and how they frame this history. The same thing is true in the United States and Canada of Native Americans. Nobody brings it up of course but tribes extinguishing other tribes completely was a fact of life. It isn't unique to Europeans.
- soperj 3y ago
  In South America a lot of tribes were just absorbed without warfare, they joined together because it made financial sense. The Inca were well known for it.
  - arcticbull 3y ago
    There sure was a lot of ritual human sacrifice for being a peaceful peoples. Specifically child sacrifice in the case of the Incas. [1] And the Aztecs, boy oh boy lol [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacocha https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacocha
    - gatlin 3y ago
      Mayans would go to war because they hadn't had one in a while according to my guide at Mayapan. At their peak Aztecs were sacrificing 80k+ people a year, usually war prisoners. This behavior is how the conquistadors were able to rally their enemies and topple them.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- Swizec 3y ago
  Oh worse than not being unique to Europeans, still happening today. Here’s an example from Darfur in June this year: https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/16/africa/darfur-sudan-geneina-massacre-account-cmd-intl/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/16/africa/darfur-sudan-geneina-m...
- krapp 3y ago
  What native tribes did to one another was still nothing compared to the scale of what Europeans did to them. And one doesn't justify the other. If I break into your house, kill your family and steal everything not nailed down, including your youngest kid who I raise as my own, and the bones of your dead aunt that I put in a window display, I can't justify that by pointing out that you got into a fight with a kid in high school one time and once stole a pair of sunglasses from the Wal-Mart.
  - pneumic 3y ago
    This analogy is naïve. There is plenty of evidence of extermination behavior among early native Americans. In more recent times, the Anasazi were especially feared by their neighbors for the horrors they'd inflict.
    - krapp 3y ago
      Did the Anasazi exterminate nearly everyone on an entire continent, then march the remainder into reservations where it remained illegal for them to openly practice their religion until 40 years ago, and did they kidnap people's children and send them to boarding schools to be indoctrinated against their own culture, abuse and torture them, and bury them in mass graves? No. It's not even in the same ballpark.
- dools 3y ago
  I think what IS unique to Europeans is: 1) Colonised the globe 2) Started a system of global resource extraction and slavery 3) Built an entire system of economic development based on this extraction which vastly enriched said Europeans and disadvantaged the colonised peoples 4) Deliberately nobbled attempts by those from which the wealth is being extracted to share in the economic gains through shady business, military and political tactics 5) Refusal to acknowledge the role of that extraction in their continued success (those [INSERT PEJORATIVE NAME FOR THE COLONISED HERE] just need to do better!) I mean, I don't know if it's unique in all history but it's certainly unique when comparing local conflict pre-colonisation with European colonisation.
  - the_third_wave 3y ago
    What is unique to Europeans and their descendants is to lambast their own history and portray themselves as uniquely evil. I am no aware of any other culture which has done the same, possibly/probably because cultures which show this behaviour end up extinct.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - zizee 3y ago
    What you have described doesn't sound that unique to Europeans. The article this discussion was spawned from describes behaviour by Maori against the Moriori that mirrors most of your described points. I would argue that throughout history, people have been acting like shits to each other, regardless of their point of origin, race, religion, or culture. We're just finally enlightened enough to be examining this behaviour through a critical eye.
  - Eggsellence 3y ago
    This is not unique to Europeans to the extent that the suggestion is borderline racist. It might be more accurate to say that every people engage(d) in this nature to the extent that they are capable, and that, in relatively modern recorded history, Europeans have proven themselves to be by far the most capable in that regard. So capable that they are perhaps the first people ever to police themselves in moderation of this behaviour, often explicitly and deliberately acting in the interests of alien people to their own detriment. That is unique.
- gatlin 3y ago
  Whoever is the second-to-last foreign colonizer is forever to be considered a victim not responsible for any similar crimes committed on their part. This shouldn't be a reason to not care at all about the Maori, or other indigenous groups. Rather, perhaps there are others we should give attention and money to besides the most politically expedient groups.
soperj 3y ago
There's been other research that suggests that the Moriori were actually Māori. At which point is it genocide or just in fighting?
user982 3y ago
I've come across this article before, and like all the other ones I've found that talk about a "Moriori myth" they seem to be creating and attacking a strawman: principally, the idea that the Moriori were the first inhabitants of New Zealand proper, rather than the Chatham Islands. That (incorrect) claim is nowhere in the original post here, or the Wikipedia page on the Moriori, but by knocking it down vigorously and then quickly eliding over the details of the genocide ("...yes, some Māori did kill some Moriori...but to attribute this to all Māori is wrong, and if you find yourself wanting to do it you should question your motives in doing so", which reads as another strawman: who is blaming ALL Maori?) the impression is given to casual readers that the historiography is wrong and the genocide never happened.
- p1necone 3y ago
  That might be a strawman in the context of actual historians, but in the context of your racist uncle spewing horseshit at the family barbecue the idea that "actually the Moriori were here first and the Maori killed them therefore European colonists did absolutely nothing wrong" is an extremely common take that does need to be debunked.
  - user982 3y ago
    I'm sure that may be true among ignorant Kiwis, but your racist uncle didn't write the OP's article or the history sources, which don't make that claim. So them posting the Spinoff article in response doesn't address the actual events.
fallingknife 3y ago
You are arguing with a straw man. Your link is specifically addressing a myth that the moriori were pre-maori inhabitants of New Zealand. But the link in this post makes no such claim, and, in fact, clearly states that there were no known human inhabitants prior to the maori.
- totetsu 3y ago
  You're right the focus of the two articles is different. But some of the early comments on this thread did not seem to be making that distinction, so I added that link (to an article from one of nz most respected media companies, written by a PHD holding policy researcher at a national university) just try and add some context for the many people who might be hearing about this part of nz history for the first time.

silenced_trope 3y ago

> It’s not that it’s taboo or no one cares, it’s that we’re weary of the motivations of people bringing it up and how they frame this history. The same thing is true in the United States and Canada of Native Americans. Nobody brings it up of course but tribes extinguishing other tribes completely was a fact of life. It isn't unique to Europeans.

soperj 3y ago
In South America a lot of tribes were just absorbed without warfare, they joined together because it made financial sense. The Inca were well known for it.
- arcticbull 3y ago
  There sure was a lot of ritual human sacrifice for being a peaceful peoples. Specifically child sacrifice in the case of the Incas. [1] And the Aztecs, boy oh boy lol [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacocha https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacocha
  - gatlin 3y ago
    Mayans would go to war because they hadn't had one in a while according to my guide at Mayapan. At their peak Aztecs were sacrificing 80k+ people a year, usually war prisoners. This behavior is how the conquistadors were able to rally their enemies and topple them.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
Swizec 3y ago
Oh worse than not being unique to Europeans, still happening today. Here’s an example from Darfur in June this year: https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/16/africa/darfur-sudan-geneina-massacre-account-cmd-intl/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/16/africa/darfur-sudan-geneina-m...
krapp 3y ago
What native tribes did to one another was still nothing compared to the scale of what Europeans did to them. And one doesn't justify the other. If I break into your house, kill your family and steal everything not nailed down, including your youngest kid who I raise as my own, and the bones of your dead aunt that I put in a window display, I can't justify that by pointing out that you got into a fight with a kid in high school one time and once stole a pair of sunglasses from the Wal-Mart.
- pneumic 3y ago
  This analogy is naïve. There is plenty of evidence of extermination behavior among early native Americans. In more recent times, the Anasazi were especially feared by their neighbors for the horrors they'd inflict.
  - krapp 3y ago
    Did the Anasazi exterminate nearly everyone on an entire continent, then march the remainder into reservations where it remained illegal for them to openly practice their religion until 40 years ago, and did they kidnap people's children and send them to boarding schools to be indoctrinated against their own culture, abuse and torture them, and bury them in mass graves? No. It's not even in the same ballpark.
dools 3y ago
I think what IS unique to Europeans is: 1) Colonised the globe 2) Started a system of global resource extraction and slavery 3) Built an entire system of economic development based on this extraction which vastly enriched said Europeans and disadvantaged the colonised peoples 4) Deliberately nobbled attempts by those from which the wealth is being extracted to share in the economic gains through shady business, military and political tactics 5) Refusal to acknowledge the role of that extraction in their continued success (those [INSERT PEJORATIVE NAME FOR THE COLONISED HERE] just need to do better!) I mean, I don't know if it's unique in all history but it's certainly unique when comparing local conflict pre-colonisation with European colonisation.
- the_third_wave 3y ago
  What is unique to Europeans and their descendants is to lambast their own history and portray themselves as uniquely evil. I am no aware of any other culture which has done the same, possibly/probably because cultures which show this behaviour end up extinct.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- zizee 3y ago
  What you have described doesn't sound that unique to Europeans. The article this discussion was spawned from describes behaviour by Maori against the Moriori that mirrors most of your described points. I would argue that throughout history, people have been acting like shits to each other, regardless of their point of origin, race, religion, or culture. We're just finally enlightened enough to be examining this behaviour through a critical eye.
- Eggsellence 3y ago
  This is not unique to Europeans to the extent that the suggestion is borderline racist. It might be more accurate to say that every people engage(d) in this nature to the extent that they are capable, and that, in relatively modern recorded history, Europeans have proven themselves to be by far the most capable in that regard. So capable that they are perhaps the first people ever to police themselves in moderation of this behaviour, often explicitly and deliberately acting in the interests of alien people to their own detriment. That is unique.
gatlin 3y ago
Whoever is the second-to-last foreign colonizer is forever to be considered a victim not responsible for any similar crimes committed on their part. This shouldn't be a reason to not care at all about the Maori, or other indigenous groups. Rather, perhaps there are others we should give attention and money to besides the most politically expedient groups.

soperj 3y ago

There's been other research that suggests that the Moriori were actually Māori. At which point is it genocide or just in fighting?

user982 3y ago

I've come across this article before, and like all the other ones I've found that talk about a "Moriori myth" they seem to be creating and attacking a strawman: principally, the idea that the Moriori were the first inhabitants of New Zealand proper, rather than the Chatham Islands. That (incorrect) claim is nowhere in the original post here, or the Wikipedia page on the Moriori, but by knocking it down vigorously and then quickly eliding over the details of the genocide ("...yes, some Māori did kill some Moriori...but to attribute this to all Māori is wrong, and if you find yourself wanting to do it you should question your motives in doing so", which reads as another strawman: who is blaming ALL Maori?) the impression is given to casual readers that the historiography is wrong and the genocide never happened.

p1necone 3y ago
That might be a strawman in the context of actual historians, but in the context of your racist uncle spewing horseshit at the family barbecue the idea that "actually the Moriori were here first and the Maori killed them therefore European colonists did absolutely nothing wrong" is an extremely common take that does need to be debunked.
- user982 3y ago
  I'm sure that may be true among ignorant Kiwis, but your racist uncle didn't write the OP's article or the history sources, which don't make that claim. So them posting the Spinoff article in response doesn't address the actual events.

fallingknife 3y ago

You are arguing with a straw man. Your link is specifically addressing a myth that the moriori were pre-maori inhabitants of New Zealand. But the link in this post makes no such claim, and, in fact, clearly states that there were no known human inhabitants prior to the maori.

totetsu 3y ago
You're right the focus of the two articles is different. But some of the early comments on this thread did not seem to be making that distinction, so I added that link (to an article from one of nz most respected media companies, written by a PHD holding policy researcher at a national university) just try and add some context for the many people who might be hearing about this part of nz history for the first time.