Empire equals theft, how?

[Ryan_Liam]

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.

Banquet Bear
…concession accepted.

Repeating the same thing doesn’t make it true, I’ve not conceeded anything.

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.

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.

**
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]

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.

[Banquet_Bear]

@Ryan_Liam

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.

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?

[tomndebb]

**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]