…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-without-end/the-native-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.
I’m not arguing anything.
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.
…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.
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.
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.
But the crux of the argument is that not all empires are based on theft, e.g how about the Holy Roman Empire?
No, you’re acting immature, there was no need for a tangent like that.
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.
Yes I am, hence the hypotheticals and *asking of questions.
*
Again, like MrDibble, you’re ascribing intentions of mine around your own preconceptions of me, probably as a result of me and MrDibble arguing.
…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.
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?
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?
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.
Yes, you should start repeating your personal attacks in this thread. Because repeating your questions has been working so well for you.
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
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 ]
But I didn’t intentionally ignore it. You could have asked if that was my intention.
Because there seems to be differing hues of Imperialism in different era which are different from the one practicsed in North America or Oceania.
Citing different circumstances is not repeating the question.
Thanks Tamerlane for the explanation.
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.
…it was ignored. Intentionally or not: if you choose not to elaborate that isn’t my problem.
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?
It wasn’t ignored deliberately and I didn’t choose to not elaborate
Because alot of it seems to be based on moral relativism, and doesn’t give room for law to evolve.
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.
Yes it was. I asked you about a scenario where europeans and natives were in a state of war.
So why couldn’t you have explained it this way instead of trying to embarrass me for even asking the question?
…thanks for conceding I didn’t do anything wrong.
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?
So it doesn’t square up with the OP at all. Have you abandoned the OP? What you said:
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?
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
That would be to assume I had anything to concede in the first place.
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.
…concession accepted.
They were set up to steal land from Maori.
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.
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.
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.
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: “…”