Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 01-30-2020, 03:30 PM
Ryan_Liam is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Manchester, England
Posts: 4,300
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
Yes, I do know it. That's why I'm saying you're wrong. There were no areas anywhere in the Americas or in Australia or in New Zealand that were devoid of native populations when the Europeans arrived. So anyone claiming otherwise is wrong.

There were some islands that were uninhabited when Europeans arrived. Places like Bermuda, Cape Verde, and Mauritius. I have no problem with the discoverers claiming ownership of these places. They were uninhabited and therefore not stolen.
So what happens then when a particular tribe contracts a disease by accident from contact from Europeans and the strain depletes the population to below replacement level?
__________________
If you can read this signature, you've scrubbed too hard.
  #102  
Old 01-30-2020, 03:32 PM
Ryan_Liam is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Manchester, England
Posts: 4,300
Quote:
Melbourne
I am not a historian: I don't know why you think that posting the observation that the English ruling class used such language is an extraordinary claim.
Well because I'm English and I don't really believe what you're saying. So there's that.

Quote:
What kind of citation? In the 18th century, the population doubled: the area under cultivation did not. Do all such observations require citations? We aren't in GC: is there a particular reason to require a citation for this point?
Yeah, because there was something called the British agricultural revolution which happened at the same time.
__________________
If you can read this signature, you've scrubbed too hard.
  #103  
Old 01-30-2020, 06:00 PM
Melbourne is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 6,031
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan_Liam View Post
Yeah, because there was something called the British agricultural revolution which happened at the same time.
In which the poor were deprived of land, gleaning, and the right to collect scrap wood from forests, milk and pork disappeared from their diet, and poor-houses tried to maintain a diet of 300 calories a day.

Please sir, may I have some more?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilbert
Oh, 'tis a glorious thing, I ween,
To be a regular Royal Queen!
No half-and-half affair, I mean,
No half-and-half affair,
But a right-down regular,
Regular, regular,
Regular Royal Queen!

She'll drive about in a carriage and pair,
With the King on her left-hand side,
And a milk-white horse,
As a matter of course,
Whenever she wants to ride!
With beautiful silver shoes to wear
Upon her dainty feet;
With endless stocks
Of beautiful frocks
And as much as she wants to eat!
The 17 and 18 hundreds were a tough time to be poor in England.

Last edited by Melbourne; 01-30-2020 at 06:04 PM.
  #104  
Old 01-30-2020, 11:21 PM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 27,596
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan_Liam View Post
How about we start with the 'Rah rah imperialism'
That's not a moral judgement, it's an assessment of the tone of your threads. They're not anti-Imperialist, that's for damn sure. They're defenses of Imperialism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan_Liam View Post
I've not denied that happened.
So your answer to your own OP is "Yes, it was theft", then? Because that's what rapine literally means.
Quote:
Nope, it's an example of how an empire didn't do theft, and the crux of my discussion was 'is all empire based on theft'
How is that not "based on theft"? You're arguing as though the Spanish and English empires were completely unrelated phenomena.
Quote:
We're discussing all
"Some" is a subset of "all". If you allege something about all, it being untrue for some means it's untrue for all. Like America not being depopulated.
Quote:
Well, enlighten me. Which 'Argument' Was demolished?
"British Imperialism was great for India", "America isn't built on stolen land" and over all, "Imperialism isn't always a bad thing"
Quote:
I do have facts on my side. You're getting all upset obviously because you're from South Africa and have experienced the taking away of land from Black South Africans and its manifesting itself in this thread. I can appreciate that. I don't need to ad hominem anything but I'll always respond to someone personally attacking me.
Now look who's "trying to ascribe my intentions to fit your position"

Firstly, I'm not "upset", was it my use of the technical term bullshit that made you think that?

Secondly, I've been characterising your threads and posts, not your character or moral motivations. That's not "personal attacks".

Unless you do, in fact, know Imperialism is always a bad thing, so think "You're in favour of Imperialism" is a personal insult. Because it would be bloody stupid of me to insult you with something you don't even consider an insult.

And even if I had personally insulted you, "tu quoque" is still bad debating and no justification for making fallacious ad hominem arguments like "You're too close to this argument, it's making you upset". Because of course I can't be both South African and a student of history.
  #105  
Old 01-30-2020, 11:40 PM
Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 85,219
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan_Liam View Post
So what happens then when a particular tribe contracts a disease by accident from contact from Europeans and the strain depletes the population to below replacement level?
1. That didn't happen. You should make it clear when you're talking history and when you're talking hypotheticals.

2. Even if it had happened, it wouldn't have changed anything about the topic of this thread. Remember? We're talking about empires and theft.

It doesn't matter if you take land that has a million inhabitants or land that has a thousand inhabitants. Either way you're taking something that belongs to somebody else. And when you take something that belongs to somebody else, it's theft.
  #106  
Old 01-31-2020, 10:00 AM
Ryan_Liam is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Manchester, England
Posts: 4,300
Quote:
MrDibble
That's not a moral judgement, it's an assessment of the tone of your threads. They're not anti-Imperialist, that's for damn sure. They're defenses of Imperialism.
Which is a judgement of my moral stance on imperialism

Quote:
So your answer to your own OP is "Yes, it was theft", then? Because that's what rapine literally means.
That's not the question I'm asking though if you bothered to check.

Quote:
How is that not "based on theft"? You're arguing as though the Spanish and English empires were completely unrelated phenomena.
Because not all empire was based on theft? That's the point.

Quote:
"Some" is a subset of "all". If you allege something about all, it being untrue for some means it's untrue for all. Like America not being depopulated.
Some as a subset isn't a substitute for all

Quote:
"British Imperialism was great for India", "America isn't built on stolen land" and over all, "Imperialism isn't always a bad thing"
I didn't know much about American colonialism and the justifications of land ownership, so I started a debate to see where it would go, same with the Indias wealth one, same with the US empire one. All those threads were started after I had watched academics pitch their talking points.

Quote:
Now look who's "trying to ascribe my intentions to fit your position"
Ah so you are trying to do that. Got it.

Quote:
Firstly, I'm not "upset", was it my use of the technical term bullshit that made you think that?
Could have fooled me, you've been quite antagonistic all the way through this thread.

Quote:
Secondly, I've been characterising your threads and posts, not your character or moral motivations. That's not "personal attacks".
Yes it is. Yes you have.

Quote:
Unless you do, in fact, know Imperialism is always a bad thing, so think "You're in favour of Imperialism" is a personal insult. Because it would be bloody stupid of me to insult you with something you don't even consider an insult.
But I do consider it an insult, that's why I said you were making a moral judgement.

Quote:
And even if I had personally insulted you, "tu quoque" is still bad debating and no justification for making fallacious ad hominem arguments like "You're too close to this argument, it's making you upset". Because of course I can't be both South African and a student of history.
But who's said I'm debating with you? You gave that position up a while back. All you're 'contributing' Now is trying to make as much noise as possible because you don't like the topic being discussed, here's a tip, if you don't like it, don't read it. Everybody's happy.
__________________
If you can read this signature, you've scrubbed too hard.
  #107  
Old 01-31-2020, 12:01 PM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 27,596
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan_Liam View Post
Which is a judgement of my moral stance on imperialism
No, it isn't. I would still say your threads were "Rah, rah, Imperialism" even if I were in favour of Imperialism. Observing that you're expending a lot of effort defending it is not a moral judgement.
Quote:
That's not the question I'm asking though if you bothered to check.
"how is it theft if the empire in question was the government body and was responsible for the area it controlled?"

is answered by - "...because of all the rapine."
Quote:
Because not all empire was based on theft? That's the point.
Just repeating it doesn't make it true.
Quote:
Some as a subset isn't a substitute for all
It is if being untrue for the part means the whole is also untrue.

As it is in this case.
Quote:
I didn't know much about American colonialism and the justifications of land ownership, so I started a debate to see where it would go
...vigourously defending only the pro-Imperialist side in each thread.

Yeah, that sounds like a fact-finding thread, alright.
Quote:
Ah so you are trying to do that. Got it.
No, it doesn't mean I did it just because you clearly and overtly do it . Case in point:
Quote:
Could have fooled me, you've been quite antagonistic all the way through this thread.
Oh, please, point out the "antagonism" in posts 26, 27, 28, 31, 38, 44 or 46.

Disagreeing with you is not the same as being "antagonistic"
Quote:
Yes it is. Yes you have.
No it isn't, and no I haven't. Or you could cite more than the phrase "Rah, rah, Imperialism", which as I've said was a characterization of your repeated thread subject matter, not a moral judgement.
Quote:
But I do consider it an insult
So you admit Imperialism is bad? Well, that was easy...
Quote:
But who's said I'm debating with you?
I don't know, must be something about the way you , ya know, keep replying to my posts...
  #108  
Old 01-31-2020, 12:32 PM
Ryan_Liam is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Manchester, England
Posts: 4,300
Quote:
MrDibble
No, it isn't. I would still say your threads were "Rah, rah, Imperialism" even if I were in favour of Imperialism. Observing that you're expending a lot of effort defending it is not a moral judgement.
It is a moral judgement though that you made, that's the whole point.

Quote:
"how is it theft if the empire in question was the government body and was responsible for the area it controlled?"

is answered by - "...because of all the rapine."
And that's all you had to say, you didn't need to bring up my other threads to attack me personally.

Quote:
Just repeating it doesn't make it true.
Nope but Barbados is a true example.

Quote:
...vigourously defending only the pro-Imperialist side in each thread.

Yeah, that sounds like a fact-finding thread, alright.
It's called playing devils advocate. Nobody's asking you to participate if you're that butthurt over it.

Quote:
No, it doesn't mean I did it just because you clearly and overtly do it . Case in point:
It's still an antagonism, you came in this thread all angry and determined to point out how much of a 'rah rah imperialist' I am due to your own personal history of living in South Africa and your own history of experience. That isn't my fault or my problem.

Quote:
Oh, please, point out the "antagonism" in posts 26, 27, 28, 31, 38, 44 or 46.
Disagreeing with you is not the same as being "antagonistic"
You are capable of doing both. Those are examples of you doing so.

Quote:
No it isn't, and no I haven't. Or you could cite more than the phrase "Rah, rah, Imperialism", which as I've said was a characterization of your repeated thread subject matter, not a moral judgement.
It's a moral judgement because you've ascertained through your own determination that I must be a imperialist because I have started numerous threads exploring the topic.

Quote:
So you admit Imperialism is bad? Well, that was easy...
Maybe if you weren't so antagonistic you'd have realised that sooner.

Quote:
I don't know, must be something about the way you , ya know, keep replying to my posts...
I'm not debating with you, I'm just clarifying my position.
__________________
If you can read this signature, you've scrubbed too hard.
  #109  
Old 01-31-2020, 01:50 PM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 27,596
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan_Liam View Post
It is a moral judgement though that you made, that's the whole point.
a) No, it's just an observation. I may have made private moral judgements, but I have not articulated them in this thread (at least about you, rather than Kipling, O'Sullivan etc.). That's entirely on you.
b) it's irrelevant to any actual arguments I've made in this thread, of which I've made plenty.
Quote:
And that's all you had to say, you didn't need to bring up my other threads to attack me personally.
It's not a personal attack to point out that you've already had this very thread topic debated before (and didn't come out ahead there, either).
Quote:
Nope but Barbados is a true example.
A true example of how imperialism is literally theft? Yes, it is that.
Quote:
It's called playing devils advocate.
No, it's only devil's advocate if you say that's what you're doing very clearly right at the start.

Otherwise it's just covering your butt.
Quote:
Nobody's asking you to participate if you're that butthurt over it.

It's still an antagonism, you came in this thread all angry
The harder you try and make the argumentum ad passiones fallacy happen, the less and less it will.
Quote:
and determined to point out how much of a 'rah rah imperialist' I am due
Yep. That's why I waited 2 pages and 10 posts in to spring my antagonistic trap.

Muhahaha!!!!!


Quote:
to your own personal history of living in South Africa and your own history of experience.
Where have I cited South Africa or my personal experience in any response to you, other than to note being South African doesn't negate e.g. my geography and history university courses.? You're the one who keeps bringing it up.

As though somehow having lived experience of the effects of Imperialism in a colonized country gives me less standing to talk about it. Which is of course laughable.

But by all means, continue pushing your "angry Brown man" narrative. It's so fresh.

Quote:
Those are examples of you doing so.
Failure to actually cite any "antagonistic" quotes of mine from those posts duly noted.
Quote:
It's a moral judgement because you've ascertained through your own determination that I must be a imperialist because I have started numerous threads exploring the topic.
No, it's an observation that you start various threads on the subject "exploring" the topic through the exclusive medium of very vigorous defense.
Quote:
Maybe if you weren't so antagonistic you'd have realised that sooner.
It was hard to tell, what with all the defending you were doing...
Quote:
I'm not debating with you, I'm just clarifying my position.
I hate to break it to you, but ... that's debate, mate.
  #110  
Old 01-31-2020, 02:06 PM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 27,596
Having said that, it's clear it's just going to be a alternating parade of ad hominem attacks and bare assertions that "Obvious Theft isn't theft" from here on out, so I'm going to leave you to it, then. Have fun advocating those devils...
  #111  
Old 01-31-2020, 02:39 PM
Ryan_Liam is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Manchester, England
Posts: 4,300
Quote:
MrDibble
a) No, it's just an observation. I may have made private moral judgements, but I have not articulated them in this thread (at least about you, rather than Kipling, O'Sullivan etc.). That's entirely on you.
b) it's irrelevant to any actual arguments I've made in this thread, of which I've made plenty.
You've articulated them, doesn't take a genius to realise that, no matter how much you deflect it.

Quote:
It's not a personal attack to point out that you've already had this very thread topic debated before (and didn't come out ahead there, either).
No it wasn't, you did it to detract from the thread because you didn't like the subject matter being discussed.

Quote:
A true example of how imperialism is literally theft? Yes, it is that.
When the island had nobody on it when the English took it over? Your logic strikes again.

Quote:
No, it's only devil's advocate if you say that's what you're doing very clearly right at the start.
Otherwise it's just covering your butt.
Or its just devils advocate.

Quote:
The harder you try and make the argumentum ad passiones fallacy happen, the less and less it will.
That's contingent on me having a position on the subject matter. Which I don't and which you assumed I did.

Quote:
Yep. That's why I waited 2 pages and 10 posts in to spring my antagonistic trap.

Muhahaha!!!!!
Who said your antagonisms followed a pattern of rationality?

Quote:
>Where have I cited South Africa or my personal experience in any response to you, other than to note being South African doesn't negate e.g. my geography and history university courses.? You're the one who keeps bringing it up.
Because I know your family had problems with their land being stolen and I remember you talking about it in another thread. I'm talking about the concept of all Empire being based on theft and obviously it would hit a raw nerve. Doesn't take much to make that leap.

Quote:
As though somehow having lived experience of the effects of Imperialism in a colonized country gives me less standing to talk about it. Which is of course laughable.
Where have I implied or stated this, you're annoying me because you're coming at me as if I'm justifying theft.

Quote:
But by all means, continue pushing your "angry Brown man" narrative. It's so fresh.
It's more an 'angry Mr Dibble' narrative.

Quote:
Failure to actually cite any "antagonistic" quotes of mine from those posts duly noted.
I already did, Rah rah imperialism and then linking three different threads about my previous questions on the nature of imperialism land (Including one thread from ten years ago) etc to completely derail and break down the discussion before it had really got going.

Quote:
No, it's an observation that you start various threads on the subject "exploring" the topic through the exclusive medium of very vigorous defense.
It's called Great Debates, how is anyone supposed to change or see a differing opinion if they're derailed the minute someone poses a question like you're doing in my thread?

Quote:
It was hard to tell, what with all the defending you were doing...
You mean the preconcieved notions you had of me and then reinforced them by defecating all over my thread? You're doing a great job.

Quote:
I hate to break it to you, but ... that's debate, mate.
You're not debating anything, you're just here to spoil the thread, make ad hominem attacks "mate"

Quote:
Having said that, it's clear it's just going to be a alternating parade of ad hominem attacks and bare assertions that "Obvious Theft isn't theft" from here on out, so I'm going to leave you to it, then. Have fun advocating those devils...
Took you long enough.
__________________
If you can read this signature, you've scrubbed too hard.

Last edited by Ryan_Liam; 01-31-2020 at 02:40 PM.
  #112  
Old 01-31-2020, 02:45 PM
Ryan_Liam is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Manchester, England
Posts: 4,300
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
1. That didn't happen. You should make it clear when you're talking history and when you're talking hypotheticals.

2. Even if it had happened, it wouldn't have changed anything about the topic of this thread. Remember? We're talking about empires and theft.

It doesn't matter if you take land that has a million inhabitants or land that has a thousand inhabitants. Either way you're taking something that belongs to somebody else. And when you take something that belongs to somebody else, it's theft.
So how about then if a European army defeated the native army because they were at war? Is it theft then?
__________________
If you can read this signature, you've scrubbed too hard.
  #113  
Old 01-31-2020, 05:36 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 6,004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
You could ask the descendants of the native populations of Canada, Australia, and New Zealand if they feel they benefited from being part of the British Empire. They could tell you plenty about how empire equals theft.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan_Liam View Post
...New Zealand Maori here: and yes, Little Nemo can be sure about that.
  #114  
Old 01-31-2020, 06:28 PM
Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 85,219
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan_Liam View Post
So how about then if a European army defeated the native army because they were at war? Is it theft then?
Yes, it is theft.

How many times are you going to ask this same question? Are you expecting us to give you a different answer at some point?

If you take something that belongs to somebody else, is it theft?
Yes.

How about if you take something that belongs to somebody else and they took it from somebody else first, is it theft?
Yes.

What if you take something that belongs to somebody else and they were sick, is it theft?
Yes.

How about if you take something that belongs to somebody else and some other people died that week, is it theft?
Yes.

What if you take something that belongs to somebody else and you shot them first, is it theft?
Yes.

What if you take something that belongs to somebody else and it's a Tuesday, is it theft?
Yes.

What if you take something that belongs to somebody else and it's a Thursday, is it theft?
Yes.

What if you take something that belongs to somebody else and it's a Thursday and you had pizza for lunch, is it theft?
Yes.

What if you take something that belongs to somebody else and it's a Thursday and you had pizza for lunch and you own a dog named Spot, is it theft?
Yes.
  #115  
Old 01-31-2020, 08:42 PM
Ryan_Liam is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Manchester, England
Posts: 4,300
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
Yes, it is theft.

How many times are you going to ask this same question? Are you expecting us to give you a different answer at some point?

If you take something that belongs to somebody else, is it theft?
Yes.

How about if you take something that belongs to somebody else and they took it from somebody els etc etc etc...................
Why are you acting so immature to a simple question? It was the same question for different scenarios I wanted to explore the nuance.

Quote:
Banquet Bear
...New Zealand Maori here: and yes, Little Nemo can be sure about that.
How about the Maori Land Court which was established in 1865?
__________________
If you can read this signature, you've scrubbed too hard.
  #116  
Old 01-31-2020, 08:59 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 6,004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan_Liam View Post
How about the Maori Land Court which was established in 1865?
...what about it?
  #117  
Old 02-01-2020, 06:44 AM
msmith537 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 28,006
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan_Liam View Post
So how about then if a European army defeated the native army because they were at war? Is it theft then?

It sounds like you are trying to argue that through some "right of conquest", it's not technically "theft" because the conquering empire becomes the de facto law of the land for the nation in conquered.

Of course it's still "theft". Or at the very least it is "imperialism" which is essentially the same thing. Most of the colonies of the British Empire didn't ask to be part of the Empire. They were either islands or nations conquered by the British or newly formed settlements that displaced the indigenous population.
  #118  
Old 02-01-2020, 07:32 AM
Crane is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 1,226
Ryan Liam,

How is it not theft?

The Pope divided the world between Spain and Portugal. Did he own it?

The English and Spanish kings granted lands in the new world. Did they have title to them? By what authority did they grant title?
  #119  
Old 02-01-2020, 06:48 PM
Ryan_Liam is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Manchester, England
Posts: 4,300
Quote:
Originally Posted by msmith537 View Post
It sounds like you are trying to argue that through some "right of conquest", it's not technically "theft" because the conquering empire becomes the de facto law of the land for the nation in conquered.

Of course it's still "theft". Or at the very least it is "imperialism" which is essentially the same thing. Most of the colonies of the British Empire didn't ask to be part of the Empire. They were either islands or nations conquered by the British or newly formed settlements that displaced the indigenous population.
Then how do you explain polities such as Holy Roman Empire?

Quote:
Crane
Ryan Liam,

How is it not theft?

The Pope divided the world between Spain and Portugal. Did he own it?

The English and Spanish kings granted lands in the new world. Did they have title to them? By what authority did they grant title?
I didn't say it wasn't, and the treaty of Tordsellias was more to do with keeping the peace between two Catholic powers than anything really with the New World.

Quote:
By what authority did they grant title?
Quote:
The settlement at Jamestown, Virginia (May 1607) was within the territory of the powerful Chief Wahunsunacawh, known to the colonists as Chief Powhatan.[2] The area was quite swampy and ill-suited to farming, and Powhatan wanted Captain John Smith and the colonists to forsake the swamp and live in one of his satellite towns called Capahosick where they would make metal tools for him in exchange for full provision.[3]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Powhatan_Wars
__________________
If you can read this signature, you've scrubbed too hard.
  #120  
Old 02-01-2020, 09:31 PM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 37,166
Ryan, do you intend to keep arguing through non sequiturs?
__________________
*I'm experimenting with E, em, and es and emself as pronouns that do not indicate any specific gender nor exclude any specific gender.
  #121  
Old 02-02-2020, 03:13 AM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 6,004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan_Liam View Post
How about the Maori Land Court which was established in 1865?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
...what about it?
...I don't know if Ryan is planning on returning to this random question they asked me, so I thought I'd provide a bit more context.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The New Zealand Wars Website
As Māori throughout New Zealand returned to their villages and cultivations in order to once again secure themselves socially and, more critically, economically, the government embarked upon its vigorous legislative programme to change the nature of Māori land holdings.

After the battle in 1863, the land was confiscated.
Māori land was to be changed from communal title – owned by everyone – to individual title – owned by one person. ‘One-person’ ownership meant that land could be more readily sold, which was the government’s intention.

The change in title was made possible through legislation – the Native Lands Act 1862. This Act started the long process of converting Māori customary from communal title to individual title. Land could then be traded by Māori as if it were a commodity, or so the government said.

This Act was amended in 1865, three years later, by introducing a Native Land Court which would function for a century or more, earning the nickname ‘engine of destruction’. Māori generally resented the existence of the Court and tried hard to boycott its operations.
http://newzealandwars.co.nz/wars-wit...ve-land-court/

The Maori Land Court was originally used as an instrument by the Crown to literally steal land from Maori. Maori gave it the nickname "engine of destruction." So I'm not sure how Ryan thought that this was going to help his case.
  #122  
Old 02-02-2020, 08:19 AM
Ryan_Liam is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Manchester, England
Posts: 4,300
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
...I don't know if Ryan is planning on returning to this random question they asked me, so I thought I'd provide a bit more context.

http://newzealandwars.co.nz/wars-wit...ve-land-court/

The Maori Land Court was originally used as an instrument by the Crown to literally steal land from Maori. Maori gave it the nickname "engine of destruction." So I'm not sure how Ryan thought that this was going to help his case.
Ryan was asking a question because Ryan knew you were Maori and wanted your opinion on it. The reason I raised it was that there was conflict between the metropole and the periphery between rights for natives and the settlers wanting to remove or hinder those rights.

Quote:
Acsenray
Ryan, do you intend to keep arguing through non sequiturs?
I'm not arguing anything.
__________________
If you can read this signature, you've scrubbed too hard.
  #123  
Old 02-02-2020, 11:32 AM
Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 85,219
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan_Liam View Post
Why are you acting so immature to a simple question? It was the same question for different scenarios I wanted to explore the nuance.
I'm not acting immature and you're not asking a simple question.

You're asking the same simple question over and over and over again. You appear to be having difficulty understanding this answer, so I'm answering it in increasingly simplistic terms.

You are showing no evidence of wanting to explore the nuances of imperialism. Instead, you want to deny the central fact of imperialism. Until you are able to accept that central fact, there's no room for a discussion of the details around it.
  #124  
Old 02-02-2020, 01:15 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 6,004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan_Liam View Post
Ryan was asking a question because Ryan knew you were Maori and wanted your opinion on it.
...the question wasn't "whats your opinion on the Maori Land Court." The question was "How about the Maori Land Court which was established in 1865?" That question was in response to me assuring you that yes, we "could tell you plenty about how empire equals theft." I think its quite clear you were not asking me that question just to find out my opinion on it.

Quote:
The reason I raised it was that there was conflict between the metropole and the periphery between rights for natives and the settlers wanting to remove or hinder those rights.
Why I do believe you've cracked the case! There was conflict! I never knew! Thanks for explaining that to me. We can end the thread now.
  #125  
Old 02-02-2020, 05:00 PM
Ryan_Liam is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Manchester, England
Posts: 4,300
Quote:
Banquet Bear
...the question wasn't "whats your opinion on the Maori Land Court." The question was "How about the Maori Land Court which was established in 1865?" That question was in response to me assuring you that yes, we "could tell you plenty about how empire equals theft." I think its quite clear you were not asking me that question just to find out my opinion on it.
I didn't know you were a mind reader, in our vernacular, the phrasing is in the form of a question, not a statement of fact.

Quote:
Why I do believe you've cracked the case! There was conflict! I never knew! Thanks for explaining that to me. We can end the thread now.
But the crux of the argument is that not all empires are based on theft, e.g how about the Holy Roman Empire?

Quote:
Little Nemo
I'm not acting immature and you're not asking a simple question.
No, you're acting immature, there was no need for a tangent like that.

Quote:
You're asking the same simple question over and over and over again. You appear to be having difficulty understanding this answer, so I'm answering it in increasingly simplistic terms.
And I explained to you that I was asking a similar question for a different circumstance, thanks for the condescension towards the latter half of the paragraph.

Quote:
You are showing no evidence of wanting to explore the nuances of imperialism.
Yes I am, hence the hypotheticals and asking of questions.

Quote:
Instead, you want to deny the central fact of imperialism. Until you are able to accept that central fact, there's no room for a discussion of the details around it.
Again, like MrDibble, you're ascribing intentions of mine around your own preconceptions of me, probably as a result of me and MrDibble arguing.
__________________
If you can read this signature, you've scrubbed too hard.
  #126  
Old 02-02-2020, 05:39 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 6,004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan_Liam View Post
I didn't know you were a mind reader, in our vernacular, the phrasing is in the form of a question, not a statement of fact.
...no I'm not a mind reader. So when you ask a question like "How about the Maori Land Court which was established in 1865?" and I ask you for clarification then you ignored it don't be surprised if I make presumptions about your motives.

Quote:
But the crux of the argument is that not all empires are based on theft, e.g how about the Holy Roman Empire?
Another "how about it" question. You've done it again. This is your thread. You make the case. You answer the question. How about the Holy Roman Empire? How about the Maori Land Court? How do either of these questions make the case that "not all empires are based on theft?"

And how does the assertion "not all empires are based on theft" square up with your OP which was this?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan_Liam View Post
This motif crops up from time to time in discussions I read and it got me wondering, whilst there are instances of theft from native populations due to unequal treaties, how is it theft if the empire in question was the government body and was responsible for the area it controlled?
Also, it's not as if the resources of that area would not have been exploited by people in said country for the same purpose, so how is it any worse?
Can you make up your mind what it is that you want to debate? How is it wrong to characterise land confiscations that were sanctioned by the government body that was responsible for the area it controlled as theft?
  #127  
Old 02-02-2020, 06:23 PM
Tamerlane is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: SF Bay Area, California
Posts: 14,098
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan_Liam View Post
But the crux of the argument is that not all empires are based on theft, e.g how about the Holy Roman Empire?
Howabout the Holy Roman Empire?

Theft by the stronger over the weaker is inherent to pre-modern society generally and empire-building is just the most grandiose version. It's not much different than some armed thug demanding the local peasants bring him five turnips every day in return for "protection" and starting to assert fancy titles like 'Lord of Turnipville'. You cannot escape the concept. You can argue over relevance and impact to the modern world( I'd say there is quite a bit ). You can get all pedantic about different meanings of "theft." But you can't really argue the facts.

Empires were built substantially on theft, sometimes legalistic, sometimes through trickery, most often through simple violence. And water is wet.

Last edited by Tamerlane; 02-02-2020 at 06:26 PM.
  #128  
Old 02-02-2020, 07:18 PM
Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 85,219
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan_Liam View Post
No, you're acting immature, there was no need for a tangent like that.
Yes, you should start repeating your personal attacks in this thread. Because repeating your questions has been working so well for you.
  #129  
Old 02-03-2020, 04:11 PM
tomndebb is offline
Mod Rocker
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: N E Ohio
Posts: 40,986

Moderating


Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan_Liam View Post
Why are you acting so immature to a simple question?
On a hectic afternoon, seeing the fig leaf of "acting immature" (as if you were attacking the post) got a pass on a day with a lot of activity at my house, but doubling down on it
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan_Liam View Post
No, you're acting immature, there was no need for a tangent like that.
strips away the fig leaf, placing this post and the one that follows it into the realm of personal insult.
This is a Warning to avoid such actions in the future.

[ /Moderating ]
  #130  
Old 02-03-2020, 04:58 PM
Ryan_Liam is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Manchester, England
Posts: 4,300
Quote:
Banquet Bear
...no I'm not a mind reader. So when you ask a question like "How about the Maori Land Court which was established in 1865?" and I ask you for clarification then you ignored it don't be surprised if I make presumptions about your motives.
But I didn't intentionally ignore it. You could have asked if that was my intention.

Quote:
Another "how about it" question. You've done it again. This is your thread. You make the case. You answer the question. How about the Holy Roman Empire? How about the Maori Land Court? How do either of these questions make the case that "not all empires are based on theft?"

And how does the assertion "not all empires are based on theft" square up with your OP which was this?
Because there seems to be differing hues of Imperialism in different era which are different from the one practicsed in North America or Oceania.

Quote:
Little Nemo
Because repeating your questions has been working so well for you.
Citing different circumstances is not repeating the question.

Quote:
Tamerlane

How about the Holy Roman Empire?

Theft by the stronger over the weaker is inherent to pre-modern society generally and empire-building is just the most grandiose version. It's not much different than some armed thug demanding the local peasants bring him five turnips every day in return for "protection" and starting to assert fancy titles like 'Lord of Turnipville'. You cannot escape the concept. You can argue over relevance and impact to the modern world( I'd say there is quite a bit ). You can get all pedantic about different meanings of "theft." But you can't really argue the facts.
Thanks Tamerlane for the explanation.
__________________
If you can read this signature, you've scrubbed too hard.

Last edited by Ryan_Liam; 02-03-2020 at 04:58 PM.
  #131  
Old 02-03-2020, 05:46 PM
Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 85,219
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan_Liam View Post
Citing different circumstances is not repeating the question.
But you were not citing different circumstances. I made the point that in all of the circumstances you gave, the key factor of somebody taking something that belonged to somebody else was present and that's what made it theft. The various details which you added to that basic situation were irrelevant because the theft was in the basic situation and not in the details.

The only exception was when you mentioned taking over an uninhabited island and in that case, I agreed it was not theft.
  #132  
Old 02-03-2020, 05:51 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 6,004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan_Liam View Post
But I didn't intentionally ignore it. You could have asked if that was my intention.
...it was ignored. Intentionally or not: if you choose not to elaborate that isn't my problem.

Quote:
Because there seems to be differing hues of Imperialism in different era which are different from the one practicsed in North America or Oceania.
How do either of these questions make the case that "not all empires are based on theft?"

And how does the assertion "not all empires are based on theft" square up with your OP which was this?
  #133  
Old 02-04-2020, 03:18 AM
Ryan_Liam is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Manchester, England
Posts: 4,300
Quote:
Banquet Bear
...it was ignored. Intentionally or not: if you choose not to elaborate that isn't my problem.
It wasn't ignored deliberately and I didn't choose to not elaborate

Quote:
How do either of these questions make the case that "not all empires are based on theft?"
Because alot of it seems to be based on moral relativism, and doesn't give room for law to evolve.

Quote:
And how does the assertion "not all empires are based on theft" square up with your OP which was this?
I tend to think lines of communication were more precarious and therefore it was more of a pressing issue that there be ways to hold territory to guarantee the investment that the imperial government was making.

Quote:
Little Nemo
But you were not citing different circumstances.
Yes it was. I asked you about a scenario where europeans and natives were in a state of war.

Quote:
I made the point that in all of the circumstances you gave, the key factor of somebody taking something that belonged to somebody else was present and that's what made it theft. The various details which you added to that basic situation were irrelevant because the theft was in the basic situation and not in the details.
So why couldn't you have explained it this way instead of trying to embarrass me for even asking the question?
__________________
If you can read this signature, you've scrubbed too hard.
  #134  
Old 02-04-2020, 03:49 AM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 6,004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan_Liam View Post
It wasn't ignored deliberately and I didn't choose to not elaborate
...thanks for conceding I didn't do anything wrong.

Quote:
Because alot of it seems to be based on moral relativism, and doesn't give room for law to evolve.
A lot of what? The Maori Land Courts have evolved. They are a very different thing than what they were over 100 years ago. But what they evolved into doesn't matter. The Courts were an instrument used by the Crown to facilitate theft of Maori Land. Do you disagree with that statement?

Quote:
I tend to think lines of communication were more precarious and therefore it was more of a pressing issue that there be ways to hold territory to guarantee the investment that the imperial government was making.
So it doesn't square up with the OP at all. Have you abandoned the OP? What you said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan_Liam View Post
This motif crops up from time to time in discussions I read and it got me wondering, whilst there are instances of theft from native populations due to unequal treaties, how is it theft if the empire in question was the government body and was responsible for the area it controlled?
Also, it's not as if the resources of that area would not have been exploited by people in said country for the same purpose, so how is it any worse?
How is it wrong to characterise land confiscations that were sanctioned by the government body that was responsible for the area it controlled as theft?
  #135  
Old 02-04-2020, 12:15 PM
Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 85,219
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan_Liam View Post
So why couldn't you have explained it this way instead of trying to embarrass me for even asking the question?
We've tried explaining it to you a number of different ways. In this thread and in the previous threads where you keep asking the same question.
  #136  
Old 02-04-2020, 05:19 PM
Ryan_Liam is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Manchester, England
Posts: 4,300
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
We've tried explaining it to you a number of different ways. In this thread and in the previous threads where you keep asking the same question.
One of those previous threads was from 2009
__________________
If you can read this signature, you've scrubbed too hard.
  #137  
Old 02-04-2020, 05:29 PM
Ryan_Liam is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Manchester, England
Posts: 4,300
Quote:
Banquet Bear
...thanks for conceding I didn't do anything wrong.
That would be to assume I had anything to concede in the first place.

Quote:
A lot of what? The Maori Land Courts have evolved. They are a very different thing than what they were over 100 years ago. But what they evolved into doesn't matter. The Courts were an instrument used by the Crown to facilitate theft of Maori Land. Do you disagree with that statement?
On what basis were the Maori Land Courts set up? Didn't individual Maoris gain legal rights which were previously vested in their Chiefs?

>How is it wrong to characterise land confiscations that were sanctioned by the government body that was responsible for the area it controlled as theft?

It's not wrong, but it wasn't the defining characteristic or modus operandi of that government.
__________________
If you can read this signature, you've scrubbed too hard.
  #138  
Old 02-04-2020, 06:01 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 6,004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan_Liam View Post
That would be to assume I had anything to concede in the first place.
...concession accepted.

Quote:
On what basis were the Maori Land Courts set up?
They were set up to steal land from Maori.

Quote:
Didn't individual Maoris gain legal rights which were previously vested in their Chiefs?
I don't know what propaganda you are reading. But in general land rights (and I'm gonna assume you were talking about land rights and that this isn't just another non-sequitur) wasn't vested in the Chiefs. It was communal. That was taken away from Maori then used as a basis to confiscate the land.

Quote:
>How is it wrong to characterise land confiscations that were sanctioned by the government body that was responsible for the area it controlled as theft?

It's not wrong, but it wasn't the defining characteristic or modus operandi of that government.
If its "not wrong" then there is nothing left to debate. You didn't argue in the OP that it had to be the "defining characteristic or modus operandi of that government". You are just shifting the goalposts yet again. You asked in the OP "how is it theft if the empire in question was the government body and was responsible for the area it controlled?" You've just conceded that it was.
  #139  
Old 02-04-2020, 07:05 PM
Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 85,219
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
We've tried explaining it to you a number of different ways. In this thread and in the previous threads where you keep asking the same question.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan_Liam View Post
One of those previous threads was from 2009
Is that supposed to be an excuse? I point out you've asked the same question a lot and you say you've only been asking it for nine years? Because most people will tell you that asking the same question for nine years is a lot.

Last edited by Little Nemo; 02-04-2020 at 07:06 PM.
  #140  
Old 02-05-2020, 03:02 PM
Ryan_Liam is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Manchester, England
Posts: 4,300
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
Is that supposed to be an excuse? I point out you've asked the same question a lot and you say you've only been asking it for nine years? Because most people will tell you that asking the same question for nine years is a lot.
But I haven't been asking the same question for ten years. That's the point.
__________________
If you can read this signature, you've scrubbed too hard.
  #141  
Old 02-05-2020, 03:14 PM
Ryan_Liam is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Manchester, England
Posts: 4,300
Quote:
Banquet Bear
...concession accepted.
...there was no concession.

Quote:
They were set up to steal land from Maori.
If that was the case then why even bother with the pretense of legality, why did the Crown bother to grant Maoris status of British subjects?

Quote:
I don't know what propaganda you are reading. But in general land rights (and I'm gonna assume you were talking about land rights and that this isn't just another non-sequitur) wasn't vested in the Chiefs. It was communal. That was taken away from Maori then used as a basis to confiscate the land.
It's from wikipedia...

Quote:
The court caused major ructions within some iwi as the court gave a democratic power to ordinary Māori that previously had been the domain of chiefs only. Judges often heard weeks of oral evidence to prove a claim to the land. Judges were totally independent from the government and their decisions were binding on the government. Judges often made their own rules as points of law arose but the general principle was equity. One of the most dramatic cases was the claim of Ngati Mutanga for their previous land in North Taranaki in 1870. The entire iwi abandoned the Chatham Islands (which they had invaded in 1835) to come to the court hearing.[5]
Quote:
If its "not wrong" then there is nothing left to debate. You didn't argue in the OP that it had to be the "defining characteristic or modus operandi of that government". You are just shifting the goalposts yet again. You asked in the OP "how is it theft if the empire in question was the government body and was responsible for the area it controlled?" You've just conceded that it was.
Did you bother to read the OP, I put a caveat in it to address such circumstances.

Quote:
This motif crops up from time to time in discussions I read and it got me wondering, whilst there are instances of theft from native populations due to unequal treaties, how is it theft if the empire in question was the government body and was responsible for the area it controlled?
Also, it's not as if the resources of that area would not have been exploited by people in said country for the same purpose, so how is it any worse?
__________________
If you can read this signature, you've scrubbed too hard.
  #142  
Old 02-05-2020, 04:10 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 6,004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan_Liam View Post
...there was no concession.
...of course there was.

Quote:
If that was the case then why even bother with the pretense of legality,
Because of the Land Wars.

Quote:
why did the Crown bother to grant Maoris status of British subjects?
Because that was easier and cheaper and more convenient than a prolonged battle.

There is a huge amount of history and context that you are missing that you simply aren't going to get from a two-second google search. Can you tell me exactly what that democratic power was that was "previously had been the domain of chiefs only?" Be as specific as you can. Because context is important here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NZ History
Coming little more than a year after the Waikato War, this legislation was to achieve what many believed had not been accomplished on the battlefield – acquiring the land necessary to satisfy an insatiable settler appetite.

...

The Court was required to name no more than 10 owners, regardless of the size of a block. All other tribal members were effectively dispossessed. The newly designated owners held their lands individually, not communally as part of (or trustees for) a tribal group. They could manage it, and sell it, as individuals and for their own benefit.

The first chief judge of the Court, Francis Fenton, maintained that judgements could only be based on evidence before the Court – so all claimants had to attend, whether they wanted to or not. Many Māori racked up large legal bills as a consequence. Those coming from out of town also faced the costs of food and accommodation. Lawyers, shopkeepers, surveyors and the like granted Māori credit while they awaited the outcome of their case. These expenses forced many Māori to sell the land they had been defending in order to settle their debts.
https://nzhistory.govt.nz/page/nativ...-court-created

What were these new "legal rights?" These new legal rights were the removal of communal ownership and the transfer of those rights to individuals. Exactly as I said. Those rights weren't vested as a result of the Maori Land Courts but because of the 1865 Native Lands Act.

Quote:
Did you bother to read the OP, I put a caveat in it to address such circumstances.
That isn't a caveat: thats a concession. The question you asked was answered. If you accept that answer (and you have) then there is simply nothing left to debate. We've demonstrated how "it theft if the empire in question was the government body and was responsible for the area it controlled." "Empire equals theft" is an entirely legitimate characterization based on the criteria set out by your OP.
  #143  
Old 02-07-2020, 01:28 PM
Johanna's Avatar
Johanna is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Altered States of America
Posts: 13,774
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crane View Post
"how is it theft if the empire in question was the government body and was responsible for the area it controlled?"

Sorry to be repetitious, but by what authority did your 'empire' become responsible for the area?
That's exactly as in the Gandhi movie:
Clueless British twit: "My dear sir, India is British. We're hardly an alien power."
All the other British present: "..."
  #144  
Old 02-11-2020, 05:14 PM
Ryan_Liam is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Manchester, England
Posts: 4,300
Quote:
Little Nemo
Is that supposed to be an excuse? I point out you've asked the same question a lot and you say you've only been asking it for nine years? Because most people will tell you that asking the same question for nine years is a lot.
But I haven't been asking the same question for nine years. It just showed what lengths he was willing to go to completely steamroll my thread because he didn't like what I was talking about.

Quote:
Banquet Bear
...concession accepted.
Repeating the same thing doesn't make it true, I've not conceeded anything.

Quote:
They were set up to steal land from Maori.
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.

Quote:
I don't know what propaganda you are reading. But in general land rights (and I'm gonna assume you were talking about land rights and that this isn't just another non-sequitur) wasn't vested in the Chiefs. It was communal. That was taken away from Maori then used as a basis to confiscate the land.
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.

Quote:

The court caused major ructions within some iwi as the court gave a democratic power to ordinary Māori that previously had been the domain of chiefs only.
Judges often heard weeks of oral evidence to prove a claim to the land. Judges were totally independent from the government and their decisions were binding on the government. Judges often made their own rules as points of law arose but the general principle was equity. One of the most dramatic cases was the claim of Ngati Mutanga for their previous land in North Taranaki in 1870. The entire iwi abandoned the Chatham Islands (which they had invaded in 1835) to come to the court hearing.[5]
Quote:
If its "not wrong" then there is nothing left to debate. You didn't argue in the OP that it had to be the "defining characteristic or modus operandi of that government". You are just shifting the goalposts yet again. You asked in the OP "how is it theft if the empire in question was the government body and was responsible for the area it controlled?" You've just conceded that it was.
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.
__________________
If you can read this signature, you've scrubbed too hard.
  #145  
Old 02-12-2020, 01:51 AM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 6,004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan_Liam View Post
Repeating the same thing doesn't make it true, I've not conceeded anything.
...you don't need to actively concede. You ignored my question, chose not to elaborate and you continue to not elaborate. Thats a concession.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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?
  #146  
Old 02-12-2020, 10:58 AM
tomndebb is offline
Mod Rocker
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: N E Ohio
Posts: 40,986

Moderating


Enough bickering

When the thread descends from arguing points of fact or interpretation to arguing how one's opponent argues, it is nothing but bickering. I am closing it.

[ /Moderating]
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:42 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017