ADOS/Aboriginal Australians/Maori of NZ

HimmyHendrix

Port Au Pawg Prime Minister / Black Queen Lover
Bushed
Joined
Aug 3, 2015
Messages
4,490
Reputation
575
Daps
16,897
Reppin
The End
Sound familiar?

Screenshot-2022-01-17-at-17-32-35-Looking-at-the-Other-Chinese-and-Maori-Youth-Perspectives-Liangn.png
Wow
 

Sukairain

Shahenshah
Joined
Dec 20, 2015
Messages
4,772
Reputation
2,283
Daps
17,401
Reppin
Straiya
The reason the Maori have come through imperialism in a better position than Indigenous Australians is because they had a treaty with the British after the colonial wars ended, whereas Indigenous Australians never got that:

Treaty of Waitangi - Wikipedia

It guaranteed certain rights to the Maori which is why they weren't quite as badly oppressed as Indigenous Australians over the last two hundred years.

This article goes a little into explaining why that happened:

Why New Zealand's Maori got a treaty, and Australia's Indigenous peoples didn't

Basically Britain took possession of Australia a few decades before New Zealand, in which time international law had moved away from the doctrine of terra nullius. Under terra nullius Australia was legally declared uninhabited land, so the British could just unilaterally claim it as theirs without reaching any sort of agreement with the Indigenous Australians. They could not do the same in New Zealand, they had to reach a diplomatic agreement with the Maori.

So, whilst the Maori obtained legal recognition and protection for their ownership of parts of New Zealand in 1840, the Indigenous Australians did not do so until 1992. Terra nullius was only overturned more than 200 years after the British conquest of Australia, at the Australian Supreme Court in the case Mabo v Queensland:

Mabo v Queensland (No 2) - Wikipedia
 
Last edited:

Sukairain

Shahenshah
Joined
Dec 20, 2015
Messages
4,772
Reputation
2,283
Daps
17,401
Reppin
Straiya
On this subject I think it would be interesting and informative to compare how the British treated the Maori and the Indigenous Australians with how they treated Native North Americans in Canada and the US. And also compare that with how the Russians treated the Siberian and Alaskan tribes. All of these conquests happened more or less between about 1700 and 1850 or so, a little bit earlier than that with the British in North America. So it would be interesting to see if there were any changes or differences in how those respective conquests each went down, and how the people were treated after their military defeat.

Of course I don't know much at all about British imperialism in north America, so I hope some of you Coli folk can educate me on that. Probably none of us knows anything about the Russians however
 
Top