Weren't the Maori also just invaders who killed the natives and brought invasive species with them? I feel kind.of ambiguous about this whole Maori fascination.
The Maori were Polynesian navigators who were the first humans to settle NZ around 1300 AD. New Zealand and Hawaii were two of the last places on Earth to be settled by humans.
Then some of the Maori left from NZ and colonized the Chatham Islands around 1500. Due to their geographic isolation, they diverged culturally from the Maori, adopted a pacifist way of life, and came to be known as the Moriori.
In the mid-1800s, some Maori tribes, armed with muskets obtained from trade with Europeans, invaded the Chatham Islands and committed a genocide for nearly 30 years against the Moriori, who did not fight back because of their belief in pacifism. This is known as the Moriori genocide.
In 1870, a Native Land Court was established to adjudicate competing land claims; by this time most MÄori had returned to Taranaki. The court ruled in favour of the MÄori, awarding them 97% of the land.The judge ruled that since the Moriori had been conquered by MÄori they did not have ownership rights of the land.
Pretty much every piece of NZ had been taken off someone by force at some point, before Europeans even landed. The Maori tribes had a number of wars between each other over territory.
The "full blooded X" argument is an attempt to disenfranchise MÄori from their whakapapa. If a person can and wants to trace their lineage (whakapapa) to any iwi or waka then they are MÄori.
I don't know, I have a not insignificant amount of indigenous blood (not Maori) and without any cultural ties I don't think it's significant as an individual. My family was raised and then raised me with no real connections to any of our hereditary cultures.
I don't really have an interest in submerging into a culture that is foreign to me, nor am I interested in attempting to benefit from any sort of reparations. I'm just a white girl with a large fraction of indigenous blood.
Yeah. I deliberately avoided using "genocide". It's a bit of a political hot topic right now (middle east) and I also wasn't entirely sure, so erred on the conservative side and just used "conquered".
I have a question about the fun fact. Trying to better understand it. If I were rich enough to buy an island and move to it, would that be the new last place to be settled by humans? If no, why not. And if yes, then surely there's at least one example of someone doing that since the 13th century.
It depends how big the island is, and whether it's supported by something else. NZ is a very large place, a country in it's own right, and is economically independent.
Your hypothetical island would likely be answerable to another government, and economically reliant on whatever your source of income is.
Fair enough. Yeah, I thought that maybe there were still small, unclaimed islands out there where you could have a small farm with solar power and shit and be self sufficient.
Kinda sorta. The Moriori settled in the Chatham Island (a few hundred km south of New Zealand) and were later victims of genocide at the hands of a Maori tribe during the musket wars. Previously it was assumed that the Moriori came to the Chathams in a separate wave of migration to the ones that brought the Maori, but more recent evidence seems to point to them arriving in New Zealand at about the same time, then moving south.
There were a few species that went extinct between the Maori arriving in NZ and the Europeans showing up, but expecting an ecosystem to not change when a new apex predator shows up is just "noble savage" BS.