View Single Post
Old 02-12-2020, 01:51 AM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is online now
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 6,004
Originally Posted by Ryan_Liam View Post
Repeating the same thing doesn't make it true, I've not conceeded anything. don't need to actively concede. You ignored my question, chose not to elaborate and you continue to not elaborate. Thats a concession.

Again, why bother with the pretense of legality, and even giving Maori the rights of British subjects if they were just going to steal all the land.
Because it cost less money and because it would cost less lives. The Courts were set up in the aftermath of the Land Wars. They needed a mechanism to confiscate land and the Courts were one of the ways to do it. Why bother with the pretense of legality? Because it wasn't a pretense. They changed the laws to make confiscation legal. Why did Maori get the rights of British subjects? Because they fought for those rights.

So how do you explain the willingness of Maori to sell their land if it was all confiscated. The 'propaganda' Is a wikipedia article. Is a wikipedia article.
The propaganda was how you spun that quote. The additional cites I provided gave additional context. Nobody claimed it was "all confiscated." The fact that so much of it was confiscated is more than enough for "Empire equals theft" to be a fair and reasonable characterization.

I've not conceeded that, you're ignoring the fact I made it as a caveat in the OP and trying to frame it as a concession I made after the fact for some bizzare reason.
Oh for goodness sakes.

What is it you are wanting to debate? What is it? What is this thread all about? Is "Empire equals theft" a reasonable characterization of Empire based on what you wrote in the OP including all of your caveats? I think it is and you've agreed with me. So what else is there left to discuss? Why bump this and reply to my comment if you are going to bring absolutely nothing new to the discussion?