2 ms·

I'm a white NZer and feel no guilt whatsoever. I'm not responsible for the actions of my great great grandparents, and I don't think they were here in the 1840s

by tjpnz 3y ago

I'm a white NZer and feel no guilt whatsoever. I'm not responsible for the actions of my great great grandparents, and I don't think they were here in the 1840s regardless. Doesn't mean I deny what happened or think it was in any way good, but feeling guilt over something you had no part in rarely achieves genuine recompense.

glimshe 3y ago
And who would you return the land to? The original owners are no longer alive, and there is no guarantee that current descendants would be the ones actually owning the lands today. Tribe warfare and slavery weren't uncommon among Maori, so while some Maori would own the land today, they would likely have to gain that ownership through the same violent means used to take the land away from them.
- defrost 3y ago
  Bit like the Rockefeller fortune really, then? The original Rockefellers are no longer alive after all. > there is no guarantee that current descendants would be the ones actually owning the lands today. Say what now? Much the same time as John D. Rockefeller was born the Treaty of Waitangi was "signed" in 1840 (there's some conflict over versions and translations and genuine evidence some people signed an English language version after being shown another version in their own language etc.) and birth records and family histories from then until now are pretty solid. Again, why should anyone respect the legal agreements about the Rockefeller trust if no one can be bothered to respect the agreements made in the Treaty of Waitangi?
  - glimshe 3y ago
    The answer to your question is the answer to my question, and I actually have no stake or opinion on whether these lands should be returned. Maybe they should. But who should get these lands if we follow criteria resembling the laws of modern civilization (which is the one we'd have to apply here)? That's the problem with collective ownership - nobody and everybody "owns" the land, and you can say they still own it the same if they still live in New Zealand. And, based on my very limited understanding of their history, they themselves couldn't ensure any sort of ownership given that land changed hands based on frequent warfare and conquest initiated by their chieftains. About the Rockefeller foundation... You can check the laws that govern the continuation of his property, they are laws that apply to everybody and are codified in books of law.
- peterashford 3y ago
  Its not really an ownership issue, it's a redress issue. It's not about applying some letter of the law approach regarding land ownership, it's about restoring the mana of the Maori people - really just providing what was guaranteed under te tiriti o waitangi - ironically, very much in line with the co-governance approach being so maligned in NZ today. At least, that's my opinion as a pakeha who has read the treaty (both versions) and read some of the early history of Maori land theft. What redress really looks like can only be adequately expressed by Maori, IMO

by tjpnz 3y ago

glimshe 3y ago

And who would you return the land to? The original owners are no longer alive, and there is no guarantee that current descendants would be the ones actually owning the lands today. Tribe warfare and slavery weren't uncommon among Maori, so while some Maori would own the land today, they would likely have to gain that ownership through the same violent means used to take the land away from them.

defrost 3y ago
Bit like the Rockefeller fortune really, then? The original Rockefellers are no longer alive after all. > there is no guarantee that current descendants would be the ones actually owning the lands today. Say what now? Much the same time as John D. Rockefeller was born the Treaty of Waitangi was "signed" in 1840 (there's some conflict over versions and translations and genuine evidence some people signed an English language version after being shown another version in their own language etc.) and birth records and family histories from then until now are pretty solid. Again, why should anyone respect the legal agreements about the Rockefeller trust if no one can be bothered to respect the agreements made in the Treaty of Waitangi?
- glimshe 3y ago
  The answer to your question is the answer to my question, and I actually have no stake or opinion on whether these lands should be returned. Maybe they should. But who should get these lands if we follow criteria resembling the laws of modern civilization (which is the one we'd have to apply here)? That's the problem with collective ownership - nobody and everybody "owns" the land, and you can say they still own it the same if they still live in New Zealand. And, based on my very limited understanding of their history, they themselves couldn't ensure any sort of ownership given that land changed hands based on frequent warfare and conquest initiated by their chieftains. About the Rockefeller foundation... You can check the laws that govern the continuation of his property, they are laws that apply to everybody and are codified in books of law.
peterashford 3y ago
Its not really an ownership issue, it's a redress issue. It's not about applying some letter of the law approach regarding land ownership, it's about restoring the mana of the Maori people - really just providing what was guaranteed under te tiriti o waitangi - ironically, very much in line with the co-governance approach being so maligned in NZ today. At least, that's my opinion as a pakeha who has read the treaty (both versions) and read some of the early history of Maori land theft. What redress really looks like can only be adequately expressed by Maori, IMO