vto Btw, I recall last week some coughing and spluttering from yourself when I referred to the military machinations of Ngai Tahu. In the last week I have had cause to visit various tourist sites around the South Island, several of which had informations available regarding Maori history at the particular sites. I was quite appalled at the lack of reference to those who existed prior to Ngai Tahu’s invasions and the dominance of recent history (last 200 years i.e. Ngai Tahu) over longer history. I guess that some things never change – the victor writes the history books.and on we go, please note many of these quotes are taken from long comments
6.1.1
vto Fact: Histories at tourist sites around the South Island are excessively slanted in favour of Ngai Tahu, the victors.
me you keep raising the same point in a snide way, such as – “when I referred to the military machinations of Ngai Tahu” and “I was quite appalled at the lack of reference to those who existed prior to Ngai Tahu’s invasions and the(ir) dominance of recent history.” Those statements are ignorant – sorry if that offends you. Just who are you talking about vto? Ngāti Mamoe? Waitaha? Guess what, most Ngāi Tahu whānui, like me, whakapapa to all three iwi – that’s what it means to be part of the iwi – it’s on the front page of their website, not hard to find. Perhaps you are talking about other peoples who inhabited the island – please tell me who you are talking about. Hopefully you don’t bring up some brailsford bullshit.
vto marty mars, this issue began when you raised yourself to some higher moral ground to look down on the european colonists and their military ways, forgetting your own past and its own military ways. The basis of the issue was hypocrisy and it was that which I was pointing out.
vto “… and through inter-marriage and conquest these migrants merged with the resident Waitaha and took over authority of Te Waipounamu.” Ngai Tahu website. LOL, this is exactly what I was referring to. A painting of history at odds with the reality. For example, why write “…through inter-marriage and conquest … took over authority” which implies inter-marriage was somehow equal at the time to conquest? I tell you why – because it makes for a better looking history when compared to writing “though military conquest the Waitaha were conquered and authority assumed by mamoe at the end of a taiaha. … ” As for inter-marriage, how long after the “conquest” was that? Or was it a result of the rape by soldiers?
vto face it marty mars, the history as written is not settled. Why else would it get raised in conversation when in certain parts of the South Island?And as for your moral high ground when referencing european military escapades as compared your own, sheesh, your own website blows that one out of the water. Wake up fulla.
me “at odds with the reality” – your distorted reality vto, “which implies” – only in your head vto, “better looking history” – so you say vto, the knowledge is there vto of what happened in detail the fact is you aren’t ready for it and couldn’t handle it – it not yours and not for you. your bigotry shows through loud and clear with your final ‘fulla’ – you show yourself.
vto to Hateatea I am questioning marty’s point some couple weeks ago that saw him clamber onto high moral ground and look down on the ways and means of the European as if they are / were somehow worse and more morally lacking than those of Maori at times of conquest or colonisation. His own history is the same, as you perfectly point out above. He chooses to ignore this and claim a superiority. That is what grates. An incorrect view of history and a hypocrisy. The line ‘the victor writes the history books’, so true through all of humanity, is entirely applicable.
vto to Hateatea That questioning by me of marty’s view then resurfaced through the example of Maori histories at tourist sites I happenned to come across some days ago, which also painted a view of their history seemingly at odds with other views. To further support this I copied just one part of Ngai Tahu’s website to indicate how the wording has been constructed to paint a more favourable picture than could otherwise have been written. He has not answered any of this except to say I am thick and no nothing. That is all he has said. Read it yourself, it is all there above and around.
me “He chooses to ignore this and claim a superiority.”, no I don’t – please provide reference. “An incorrect view of history and a hypocrisy” In your opinion or do you have backup for your ‘incorrect history’ story. “seemingly at odds with other views” Which other views – come on provide your sources, “to paint a more favourable picture” Once again in your view – favourable is subjective – my point to you is that you don’t know enough to understand the concept or content in relation to these matters, you are still looking through your blurred lense created by your own stuff.
me You started this deliberate attack on me because you know I am part of the iwi. You added comments to my unrelated comments to bring up the point that you strongly wished to say. Yet you still waffle on scared to tell your truth. Here you go – get it out – tell me the real story.
“I don’t like Ngai Tahu”
“I don’t like maori getting special treatment”
“I don’t like maori not fitting in to our country” and so on…
Frankly, if it is actually about indigenous historial narratives and their use in creating perceptions and positioning for marginalised groups, I’ll eat my hat.
