# When in human history should reasonable people find a "cut-off" of the right of title by conquering? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 8, 2010, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-in-human-history-should-reasonable-people-find-a-cut-off-of-the-right-of-title-by-conquering/542464 "2010-06-08T19:58:09Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2010, 8:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-in-human-history-should-reasonable-people-find-a-cut-off-of-the-right-of-title-by-conquering/542464/81 "2010-06-11T08:52:40Z")
There’s nothing unusual in history about warring tribes settling their differences and eventually joining together. The thing is, eventually they split into new warring tribes, or a fight starts with some outside tribe, or both. ---
**Author:** ![bengangmo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/50afbb/32.png) [@bengangmo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bengangmo)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2010, 9:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-in-human-history-should-reasonable-people-find-a-cut-off-of-the-right-of-title-by-conquering/542464/82 "2010-06-11T09:06:26Z")
> [@Alessan](#): > > There’s nothing unusual in history about warring tribes settling their differences and eventually joining together. The thing is, eventually they split into new warring tribes, or a fight starts with some outside tribe, or both. Well a war with an outside tribe is irrelevant to the issue at hand isn’t it? If Palestine and Israel were to join, and then 80 years later go to war against Canada, what would that mean? How does it add to your argument? And what exactly are you trying to imply? That in some unspecified time frame there is going to be a civil war in New Zealand? And yes, in time “warring tribes” do SETTLE THEIR DIFFERENCES so why can’t this be done in the ME instead of one tribe being subjugated by the other? ---
**Author:** ![IClaudius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c37758/32.png) [@IClaudius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IClaudius)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2010, 10:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-in-human-history-should-reasonable-people-find-a-cut-off-of-the-right-of-title-by-conquering/542464/83 "2010-06-11T10:40:36Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > The best way to put it is that the new Israeli gov’t gained some legitimacy from official recognition. Were it not for force, i.e. winning the resulting War of Independance, the Israeli state would not now exist. Isn’t that a rather pointless addition when the whole point of the thread is to ask at what point the status quo crystallises and becomes settled over and above aggrieved historical rights-claims. Empirical power is obviously a necessary condition for whether the question of legitimacy is ever raised, but nobody was contesting any antecedent facts of Israel’s existence. The whole point is that the UN’s creation of Israel is the proper nexus of its legitimacy as a state. Indeed, as anybody who has studied international law will testify, modern states can only exist with recognition. Most of the settled criteria are contained in the Montevideo Convention, at least as far as declarative theory is concerned. ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2010, 11:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-in-human-history-should-reasonable-people-find-a-cut-off-of-the-right-of-title-by-conquering/542464/84 "2010-06-11T11:19:15Z")
> [@Alessan](#): > > There’s nothing unusual in history about warring tribes settling their differences and eventually joining together. The thing is, eventually they split into new warring tribes, or a fight starts with some outside tribe, or both. This is what bothers me deeply about the EU. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2010, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-in-human-history-should-reasonable-people-find-a-cut-off-of-the-right-of-title-by-conquering/542464/85 "2010-06-11T14:23:01Z")
> [@Strassia](#): > > The reason Vietnam and Taiwan are different is that both sides considered them part of the same country (although that is starting to fade out in young Taiwanese today). The disagreement was only in which government should be in charge. If the tanks of North Korea were to roll over the south tomorrow - would that be a “conquest” or an “internal matter”? I think of this more as a _continuum_ issue than some sort of blackline either-or. Usually, conquorers have some sort of historical validation for their conquest. The issue is whether other can be made to 'buy it". ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2010, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-in-human-history-should-reasonable-people-find-a-cut-off-of-the-right-of-title-by-conquering/542464/86 "2010-06-11T14:24:10Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > A true world sovereign would have to _replace_ the sovereign nation-states that exist today. Today’s democracies are either former monarchies or dictatorships that reformed, or federal governments like the United States or Switzerland where formerly independent states agreed to cede at least some of their sovereignty and band together in the face of overwhelming external threat. A world government would have to emulate how the monarchies of sixteenth-century Europe abolished feudalism, bringing the local dukes to heel and making sure they knew who was boss. I’m not saying the legitimacy you speak of couldn’t somehow arise, although I don’t envision how. What overwhelming external threat did the EU face? ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2010, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-in-human-history-should-reasonable-people-find-a-cut-off-of-the-right-of-title-by-conquering/542464/87 "2010-06-11T14:31:12Z")
> [@IClaudius](#): > > Isn’t that a rather pointless addition when the whole point of the thread is to ask at what point the status quo crystallises and becomes settled over and above aggrieved historical rights-claims. Empirical power is obviously a necessary condition for whether the question of legitimacy is ever raised, but nobody was contesting any antecedent facts of Israel’s existence. The whole point is that the UN’s creation of Israel is the proper nexus of its legitimacy as a state. > > Indeed, as anybody who has studied international law will testify, modern states can only exist with recognition. Most of the settled criteria are contained in the Montevideo Convention, at least as far as declarative theory is concerned. Why “pointless”? My whole thesis is that the statement “the UN’s creation of Israel is the proper nexus of its legitimacy as a state”, is wrong. The “proper nexus” is its success in keeping and holding power, over a long period of time. UN recognition was not _sufficient_ to gain legitimacy as a state (many contest Israel’s legitimacy even now) and was not _necessary_ to gain legitimacy as a state - power plus longevity does that. It certainly was a factor, but neither a necessary nor sufficient factor. The notion that “modern states can only exist with recognition” is simply incorrect. Look for example at Taiwan. It appears to “exist” without recognition. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2010, 2:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-in-human-history-should-reasonable-people-find-a-cut-off-of-the-right-of-title-by-conquering/542464/88 "2010-06-11T14:34:38Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I think it’s pretty much undeniable to acknowledge that we cannot now unwind the clock and undo the results of every known conquest. > > At the same time, it seems clear that today, we stand pretty squarely against the idea that a nation-state may expand its territory by right of conquest. > > So … if both of these are true, then the question is obvious: where do we draw the line? WWII seems like a pretty watershed moment. ---
**Author:** ![bengangmo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/50afbb/32.png) [@bengangmo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bengangmo)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2010, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-in-human-history-should-reasonable-people-find-a-cut-off-of-the-right-of-title-by-conquering/542464/89 "2010-06-11T14:38:27Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > Why “pointless”? My whole thesis is that the statement “the UN’s creation of Israel is the proper nexus of its legitimacy as a state”, is wrong. The “proper nexus” is its success in keeping and holding power, over a long period of time. > > UN recognition was not _sufficient_ to gain legitimacy as a state (many contest Israel’s legitimacy even now) and was not _necessary_ to gain legitimacy as a state - power plus longevity does that. It certainly was a factor, but neither a necessary nor sufficient factor. > > The notion that “modern states can only exist with recognition” is simply incorrect. Look for example at Taiwan. It appears to “exist” without recognition. That may well be a fair point. But let me ask you, if not for the support of the rest of the world in terms of things like arms sales, embargoes, political support, aid etc etc, how long would Israel have been able to last do you think? IF not for US support, how long would Taiwan last? So while “force” might be the ultimate test of statehood, what was it that enabled and supported that force? ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2010, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-in-human-history-should-reasonable-people-find-a-cut-off-of-the-right-of-title-by-conquering/542464/90 "2010-06-11T14:38:29Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > What overwhelming external threat did the EU face? No idea! (wanders off, playing Stars and Stripes Forever. Loudly. Out of tune. Stepping on a human face. Forever.) ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2010, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-in-human-history-should-reasonable-people-find-a-cut-off-of-the-right-of-title-by-conquering/542464/91 "2010-06-11T14:38:50Z")
> [@bengangmo](#): > > What point are you trying to make here? > > Yes, NZ fully took part in both WW, in WWI, our per capita casulties were very very high, we even lost some brave soldiers in the Boer war. SO? What does that mean, other than New Zealanders took responsibility for what they (as a nation) thought was right? > > As to the future? Things are suddenly going to start going backwards? > > The point to be made, is that tribes that had extreme amounts of enmity for each other, and then the “white man” who hated them and who every tribe was hated in return came to make things worse. > > These have all now been overcome. They all live in harmony (no it’s not Nirvana, but “race crimes” between Maori / Caucasian are very rare - except for uber skinhead type groups). If this can happen, why is it that one day Isreali / Palestinian can’t share a country? What makes them so unique that they can’t ever live together? In the case of New Zealand, the Maori were made to accept European domination by being throrougly conquored, much or their land taken away, and being demographically swamped, on an isolated set of islands far from any possible Maori allies who could intervene (whereas the White New Zealanders could count, on the last resort, on the power of the greatest maritime empire on earth for their support). Israel simply is not in a position to do the same to its Palestinian neighbours, even if it wanted to. The “New Zealand solution” of beating the Palestinians so throughly that they give up any hope of reconquest and are forced to live in a societal structure created by the Israelis is not open to them, because unlike New Zealand, they are located in the middle of the middle east, surrounded by neighbours who far outnumber them and who are all without exception potential Palestinian allies - if not now, in the future. That is not to say that they cannot live in harmony some day, only that they cannot do so using the same mechanism as New Zealand. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2010, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-in-human-history-should-reasonable-people-find-a-cut-off-of-the-right-of-title-by-conquering/542464/92 "2010-06-11T14:44:52Z")
> [@bengangmo](#): > > That may well be a fair point. > > But let me ask you, if not for the support of the rest of the world in terms of things like arms sales, embargoes, political support, aid etc etc, how long would Israel have been able to last do you think? > > IF not for US support, how long would Taiwan last? > > So while “force” might be the ultimate test of statehood, what was it that enabled and supported that force? Looking back on the past, I’d say it could easily survive without outside help at all, at least in the foreseeable future, Its most dangerous moment was 1948 - invaded by all its neighbours - and it survived that, at a time when it lacked any outside help by major powers. In 1967, it smashed the Egyptians, Syrians and Jordainians, at a time when the US quite positively declined its help (Israel had asked it for a token naval force to break the Egyptian blockade; the US turned Israel down). Now, Egypt has no appetite for foreign adventures of this sort; Jordan is in no condition to do so; and Lebanon is split. The only nation that borders Israel that is at all interested in conflict is Syria - and Israel could easily handle Syria, if the ROTW gave Israel no support. Edit: that is of course assuming that Israel does nothing to re-unite some sort of grand ME alliance against it. An actual massacre of Palestinians might have the potential to do just that - as in attempting the ‘New Zealand Solution’. ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2010, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-in-human-history-should-reasonable-people-find-a-cut-off-of-the-right-of-title-by-conquering/542464/93 "2010-06-11T15:23:05Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > In the case of New Zealand, the Maori were made to accept European domination by being throrougly conquored, much or their land taken away, and being demographically swamped, on an isolated set of islands far from any possible Maori allies who could intervene (whereas the White New Zealanders could count, on the last resort, on the power of the greatest maritime empire on earth for their support). > > Israel simply is not in a position to do the same to its Palestinian neighbours, even if it wanted to. The “New Zealand solution” of beating the Palestinians so throughly that they give up any hope of reconquest and are forced to live in a societal structure created by the Israelis is not open to them, because unlike New Zealand, they are located in the middle of the middle east, surrounded by neighbours who far outnumber them and who are all without exception potential Palestinian allies - if not now, in the future. > > That is not to say that they cannot live in harmony some day, only that they cannot do so using the same mechanism as New Zealand. …dude. Don’t forget the Treaty of Waitangi. If you want to talk about the history of New Zealand and race relations you cannot do that without discussing the Treaty. The New Zealand solution was getting the “two” sides together to sort out an agreement. Compared to what happened in other colonial countries this was pretty unique. I won’t pretend there were no problems or any disputes regarding the treaty. I won’t pretend that this was the perfect solution. But it could have been a hell of a lot worse. I am surprised that you regard the New Zealand solution of sorting out an agreement or a treaty as not doable between the Palestinians and the Isrealis. Can you explain why you find this difficult to do? My dad is Samoan and his father suffered under the hand of New Zealand occupation as a member of the Mau. My mum is Maori of Nga Puhi: hailing from Ahipara in the north. And you know what? I don’t hate my Pakeha brothers and I love living in this country. And I don’t dwell on the mistakes of the past and I look forward to the future. I’m reminded of something the late Maori Queen Dame Te Atairangikaahu said in a television interview many years ago. The interviewer asked her something and she replied repeating the question: “How do you get rid of the Pakeha?” The camera zoomed in. The interview leaned forward. “Marry them.” She responded. Find some common ground. Sit down and talk. Draw up a treaty. Stop demonizing each other. Then have lots of babies. _ **This** _ would be an example of the “New Zealand solution”, not your ridiculous portrayal of massacre. ---
**Author:** ![bengangmo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/50afbb/32.png) [@bengangmo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bengangmo)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2010, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-in-human-history-should-reasonable-people-find-a-cut-off-of-the-right-of-title-by-conquering/542464/94 "2010-06-11T15:30:21Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > In the case of New Zealand, the Maori were made to accept European domination by being throrougly conquored, much or their land taken away, and being demographically swamped, on an isolated set of islands far from any possible Maori allies who could intervene (whereas the White New Zealanders could count, on the last resort, on the power of the greatest maritime empire on earth for their support). > > Israel simply is not in a position to do the same to its Palestinian neighbours, even if it wanted to. The “New Zealand solution” of beating the Palestinians so throughly that they give up any hope of reconquest and are forced to live in a societal structure created by the Israelis is not open to them, because unlike New Zealand, they are located in the middle of the middle east, surrounded by neighbours who far outnumber them and who are all without exception potential Palestinian allies - if not now, in the future. > > That is not to say that they cannot live in harmony some day, only that they cannot do so using the same mechanism as New Zealand. Actually that’s wrong, prior to the treaty of Waitangi, the Maori were never “thoroughly conquered”. It simply didn’t happen. Where did you pull that nugget from? Just look at the name of the founding document. TREATY. not surrender, or secession, but treaty. It was in both languages, and real efforts were made to get the “buy in” of the entire native population. Well if Israel is surrounded by friends of Palestine, why not make an effort to make Palestine your friend, you on the theory of “a friend of them is a friend of me”? If this level of hate and justification goes on, you will never get anywhere. And the more you justify like this the more apparent it becomes that you don’t really want peace, you just want reasons to continue the subjugation. Where you should be looking for reasons to make friends, you are out there looking for reasons why they are out to get you, and quite naturally that is what you are finding. Th ---
**Author:** ![bengangmo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/50afbb/32.png) [@bengangmo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bengangmo)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2010, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-in-human-history-should-reasonable-people-find-a-cut-off-of-the-right-of-title-by-conquering/542464/95 "2010-06-11T15:32:39Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > …dude. Don’t forget the Treaty of Waitangi. If you want to talk about the history of New Zealand and race relations you cannot do that without discussing the Treaty. > > The New Zealand solution was getting the “two” sides together to sort out an agreement. Compared to what happened in other colonial countries this was pretty unique. I won’t pretend there were no problems or any disputes regarding the treaty. I won’t pretend that this was the perfect solution. But it could have been a hell of a lot worse. > > I am surprised that you regard the New Zealand solution of sorting out an agreement or a treaty as not doable between the Palestinians and the Isrealis. Can you explain why you find this difficult to do? > > My dad is Samoan and his father suffered under the hand of New Zealand occupation as a member of the Mau. My mum is Maori of Nga Puhi: hailing from Ahipara in the north. And you know what? I don’t hate my Pakeha brothers and I love living in this country. And I don’t dwell on the mistakes of the past and I look forward to the future. > > I’m reminded of something the late Maori Queen Dame Te Atairangikaahu said in a television interview many years ago. The interviewer asked her something and she replied repeating the question: > > “How do you get rid of the Pakeha?” > > The camera zoomed in. The interview leaned forward. > > “Marry them.” She responded. > > Find some common ground. Sit down and talk. Draw up a treaty. Stop demonizing each other. Then have lots of babies. _ **This** _ would be an example of the “New Zealand solution”, not your ridiculous portrayal of massacre. Thanks Banquet, you have said it better than me, but you did remind me of something. Wasn’t the concept of “marry them” a very traditional way of building alliances in Europe? ---
**Author:** ![bengangmo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/50afbb/32.png) [@bengangmo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bengangmo)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2010, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-in-human-history-should-reasonable-people-find-a-cut-off-of-the-right-of-title-by-conquering/542464/96 "2010-06-11T15:35:46Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > Looking back on the past, I’d say it could easily survive without outside help at all, at least in the foreseeable future, Its most dangerous moment was 1948 - invaded by all its neighbours - and it survived that, at a time when it lacked any outside help by major powers. In 1967, it smashed the Egyptians, Syrians and Jordainians, at a time when the US quite positively declined its help (Israel had asked it for a token naval force to break the Egyptian blockade; the US turned Israel down). > > Now, Egypt has no appetite for foreign adventures of this sort; Jordan is in no condition to do so; and Lebanon is split. The only nation that borders Israel that is at all interested in conflict is Syria - and Israel could easily handle Syria, if the ROTW gave Israel no support. > > Edit: that is of course assuming that Israel does nothing to re-unite some sort of grand ME alliance against it. An actual massacre of Palestinians might have the potential to do just that - as in attempting the ‘New Zealand Solution’. Oh come on, how long would Israel last of the rest of world wouldn’t trade with it? How much aide does Israel get per year from the US? Is Israel really self sufficient in terms of oil and food? Please take the blinkers off. If Israel didn’t have the acknowledgement of the rest of the world it would be no-where. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2010, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-in-human-history-should-reasonable-people-find-a-cut-off-of-the-right-of-title-by-conquering/542464/97 "2010-06-11T15:45:12Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > …dude. Don’t forget the Treaty of Waitangi. If you want to talk about the history of New Zealand and race relations you cannot do that without discussing the Treaty. > > The New Zealand solution was getting the “two” sides together to sort out an agreement. Compared to what happened in other colonial countries this was pretty unique. I won’t pretend there were no problems or any disputes regarding the treaty. I won’t pretend that this was the perfect solution. But it could have been a hell of a lot worse. > > I am surprised that you regard the New Zealand solution of sorting out an agreement or a treaty as not doable between the Palestinians and the Isrealis. Can you explain why you find this difficult to do? > > My dad is Samoan and his father suffered under the hand of New Zealand occupation as a member of the Mau. My mum is Maori of Nga Puhi: hailing from Ahipara in the north. And you know what? I don’t hate my Pakeha brothers and I love living in this country. And I don’t dwell on the mistakes of the past and I look forward to the future. > > I’m reminded of something the late Maori Queen Dame Te Atairangikaahu said in a television interview many years ago. The interviewer asked her something and she replied repeating the question: > > “How do you get rid of the Pakeha?” > > The camera zoomed in. The interview leaned forward. > > “Marry them.” She responded. > > Find some common ground. Sit down and talk. Draw up a treaty. Stop demonizing each other. Then have lots of babies. _ **This** _ would be an example of the “New Zealand solution”, not your ridiculous portrayal of massacre. Dude, if you are claiming that the treaty of Treaty of Waitangi ended the conflict between the Maoiri and settlers over land, you are wrong. Note that the so-called “New Zealand Land Wars” [note title] happened _after_ the signing of the Treaty: > **[New Zealand Wars](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_Land_Wars)** > > The New Zealand Wars (Māori: Ngā pakanga o Aotearoa) took place from 1845 to 1872 between the New Zealand colonial government and allied Māori on one side, and Māori and Māori-allied settlers on the other. Though the wars were initially localised conflicts triggered by tensions over disputed land purchases (by European settlers from Māori), they escalated dramatically from 1860 as the government became convinced it was facing united Māori resistance to further land sales and a refusal to ackno... Note that the effect of the treaty was not to help the Maori at initially: > **[Treaty of Waitangi](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Waitangi)** > > The Treaty of Waitangi (Māori: Te Tiriti o Waitangi), sometimes referred to as Te Tiriti (lit. 'The Treaty'), is a document of central importance to the history of New Zealand, its constitution, and its national mythos. It has played a major role in the treatment of the Māori people in New Zealand by successive governments and the wider population, something that has been especially prominent from the late 20th century. Although the Treaty of Waitangi is not incorporated as a binding internati... > [@](#): > > The treaty was never ratified by Britain and carried no legal force in New Zealand for over a century, finally receiving limited recognition in 1975 with the passage of the Treaty of Waitangi Act. The Colonial Office and early New Zealand governors were initially fairly supportive of the Treaty as it gave them authority over both New Zealand Company settlers and Māori. As the settlers were granted representative and responsible government with the New Zealand Constitution Act 1852, the Treaty became less effective, although it was used to justify the idea that Waikato and Taranaki were rebels against the Crown in the wars of the 1860s. Court cases later in the 19th century, especially Wi Parata v Bishop of Wellington (1877), established the principle that the Treaty was a ‘legal nullity’ which could be ignored by the courts and the government. This argument was supported by the claim that New Zealand had become a colony when annexed by proclamation in January 1840, before the treaty was signed. Furthermore, Hobson only claimed to have taken possession of the North Island by Treaty. The South Island he claimed for Britain by right of discovery, by observing that Māori were so sparse in the South Island, that it could be considered uninhabited. > > Despite this, Maori frequently used the Treaty to argue for a range of issues, including greater independence and return of confiscated and unfairly purchased land. This was especially the case from the mid 19th century, when they lost numerical superiority and generally lost control of most of the country. Is this the “solution” you want for the Palestinians? If I were a Palestinain, it wouldn’t be for me. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2010, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-in-human-history-should-reasonable-people-find-a-cut-off-of-the-right-of-title-by-conquering/542464/98 "2010-06-11T15:47:06Z")
> [@bengangmo](#): > > Actually that’s wrong, prior to the treaty of Waitangi, the Maori were never “thoroughly conquered”. It simply didn’t happen. Where did you pull that nugget from? Yeah, that happened mostly AFTER the Treaty was signed. Your point being? ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2010, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-in-human-history-should-reasonable-people-find-a-cut-off-of-the-right-of-title-by-conquering/542464/99 "2010-06-11T15:50:49Z")
> [@bengangmo](#): > > Oh come on, how long would Israel last of the rest of world wouldn’t trade with it? > > How much aide does Israel get per year from the US? > > Is Israel really self sufficient in terms of oil and food? > > Please take the blinkers off. If Israel didn’t have the acknowledgement of the rest of the world it would be no-where. What’s your claim - that (a) Israel would probably not survive complete embargo, or (b) Israel would not survive a cut-off of military support and subsidy? As for (a) you may be correct, but it is hardly likely. As for (b), you are not correct - history demonstrates that. ---
**Author:** ![bengangmo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/50afbb/32.png) [@bengangmo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bengangmo)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2010, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-in-human-history-should-reasonable-people-find-a-cut-off-of-the-right-of-title-by-conquering/542464/100 "2010-06-11T15:55:46Z")
Malthus, you have heard from a Maori and a Pakeha (although I don’t like the term, much preferring New Zealander) in this thread telling you that race relations are pretty damn good in New Zealand. You have also heard that very real attempts were made for a settlement at the time of the treaty. Which is very much borne out by the facts. Yes, as Banquet rightfully notes, not everything was a bed of roses - however in comparison to other stuff that was happening at the same time it was a pretty damn good solution. Even with the land wars. To look at how quickly the cultures integrated, just look at how far back the Haka goes as a cornerstone of our prematch sporting preparations (is pretty much given as much prominence as the National Anthem). So, the treaty wasn’t ratified by London, it is still what is seen as important in our land and to us. To try and argue with you war tinged glasses and put down New Zealand is showing up just how nasty you really are. And if you want to accuse me of having a Pollyanna complex, I would actually take that as a compliment. I would much rather live this way than with your black as coal, nasty and perverse view of the world and the people in it,. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-in-human-history-should-reasonable-people-find-a-cut-off-of-the-right-of-title-by-conquering/542464.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-in-human-history-should-reasonable-people-find-a-cut-off-of-the-right-of-title-by-conquering/542464.md?page=6)