Видео

what

@@eeeaten when

@@mycgkk1236 you said “in which case yo is best avoided”. You didn’t want to make sense?

Okay wokie

@@Gypsygeekfreak17 dumb fvcks calling .... get your concepts right nuffa.

@@Gypsygeekfreak17 wtf does that mean? Do we now live in choice between 'wokie' or 'dopey'.

@@mycgkk1236 I’m sick and tired of the woke assholes acting like they haven’t done anything wrong

@@mycgkk1236 stop playing the victim I’m sick and tired of people like you acting you didn’t do anything

Or what scum

How do you know of what youv been told is the truth

@@Gypsygeekfreak17 Because our grandparents were a lot more trustworthy than any government. And because what they told us made complete sense when none of this does.

While it's true that grandparents can offer valuable wisdom, we shouldn't blindly trust their narratives over governments or modern realities. History shows that personal stories often omit uncomfortable truths due to bias or lack of knowledge. For example, Japanese textbooks have downplayed WWII atrocities like Unit 731 or the Nanking Massacre, and Irish narratives often emphasize victimhood while leaving out things like centuries of raids on neighboring countries or internal injustices like ostracizing Irish soldiers awarded British medals. This isn't to say governments are perfect-they're flawed, but at least they face checks and balances. Grandparents and family stories, on the other hand, can reflect a romanticized, selective view of history. Nostalgia can make the past seem simpler or better than it really was, ignoring issues like discrimination, lack of rights, or economic struggles. The truth is, every group has its share of wrongdoing, and stories passed down are shaped by what people know or choose to share. Critical thinking matters: question who benefits from a narrative, seek multiple perspectives, and acknowledge that history is rarely black and white. Just because something 'makes sense' doesn't make it true. We need to dig deeper and avoid the trap of believing comforting, one-sided versions of the past.

@@Gypsygeekfreak17 Yes, our Grandparents' wisdom warned us as children this was coming. "First they will come for the land. Then the language and finally the Wairua.'' They lived through it. Government confiscated their land. My parents lived through the school canings for speaking the language. You think they "romanticized'' that? We as kids were pushed into Christianity told to turn our backs on our gods for their bible and their god, yahweh. Selling our soul to the devil and being baptised in his sons Jesus name. After our souls. Just like our Grandparents said. Hardly blind narratives when you live through it. I am however overjoyed to read you are a brilliant student of critical thinking since I do struggle with the basics. As hard as I try, I cannot reconcile the well-known and documented fact that the Moriori language and their customs came from the Maori. Could it be they were really just Maori? And can you also help me to understand how a commoner like me can recite my genealogy back 10 generations and yet there is not one document to show that the last known full blooded Moriori, Tommy Solomon, even had grandparents? Why is that? Another question that has puzzled me for years, is why didn't the Moriori simply settle on the South Island? Instead, they decide to go live on a rock in the middle of the ocean. A wind blowing rock with no forest or game to hunt.

@@Gypsygeekfreak17 I guess RUclips sides with you too since it keeps deleting my replies. So, I'll just say it in short form. This story is a fairytale written to sooth and comfort the political landscape. It has so many holes in it and can so easily be disproven. Concocted to appease 3 parties. Maori, Govt and the Moriori.

wow none of this is true. there were no people in nz a thousand years ago. the eastern polynesian ancestors of maori began arriving from around 1250AD. maori are indigenous, because the definition of the word says indigenous people were the original inhabitants, before the colonists arrived. the treaty was signed for various reasons, mostly as an agreement for peace, to enable land sales, to extend citizens rights to all, and to protect maori sovereignty over their people and treasures.

it's quite likely that at least some of the ancestors of moriori came from mainland nz, and michael king believed this was true. regardless, there's no indication they were the first people of new zealand, displaced by maori. the point is they were the first people of the chatham islands, not attacked there until 1835. mainland maori didn't even know they were there until whalers/sealers told them.

@ 100% that's not what morori believe, nor what's in the Act. Just speculation.

@ and I never said they were the first people there. I don't believe either were. Māori were the long term inhabitants before the western world arrived that's for sure .

@@Chillnel moriori believe their ancestors came direct from hawaiki, although do not pinpoint where that hawaiki is. linguistic connections with ngai tahu suggest they have shared ancestry. human occupation of rekohu is dated a hundred years or so after arrival in mainland nz.

@ definitely. Although none of this is fact any way

no, that is made up fantasy nonsense.

no, that is actual rubbish. science shows maori were the first people of new zealand, the moa hunters were maori.

@eeeaten maori had no recollection of giant birds.

@@George-zi4iz there's no evidence of any other people. no legitimate scientist, archeologists, historians accept the idea there were people in nz before maori. it's the realm of loonies.

obviously that is mythology, not reality. there's no evidence of people in new zealand before about 1250AD.

that is 100% made up fantasy nonsense.

did you disagree with something in the video?

wacky

based on the evidence he probably wasn't gay. who cares if he was.

maybe you can add more information?

vague. do you have a point to make?

@@eeeaten yes the fact that you are white washing history.

@@fabiofernandes9122 even more vague. what a contribution.

@@eeeaten its not that vague, you just dont have a counter argument.

@@fabiofernandes9122 there's no argument to counter

the word maori is pronounced differently in different dialects around the country.

does he say there was no cannibalism?

No one ever said that

It's like saying there was no incest amongst the europeans 😂

@@eeeatenThe hikoi brought all the Māori haters to RUclips, can you believe it? 😅💀

@@Iamkararaina at least when people post their nonsense, it's easy to debunk them.

Don't do direct reparations then. Do targeted stimulus to suffering communities that have been historically oppressed.

no, you don't understand any of this.

Because yall were at fault please tell me when any indigenous nation was a superpower and started voyaging to others lands and bringing diseases to them along with invasive pest ill wait.

@@NUCLEARNIRVANA999 practically all of us have slaver (and slave) ancestors. not sure what you're saying here.

As long as we repel the repetition of such practices and help amend the consequences of this past, decreasing inequality, I'm good with what you propose. However, that's not what we see today. What we see it's the resurgence of racist discourse all over the world. Especially in rich and "developed" countries, which should be leading the banning of racism, inequality, famine, war and so on. Especially because for many years they declared themselves as civilized and advanced nations. Every advanced and civilized culture should understand that there should exist greater goals rather than tribal conflict and annihilation. Perhaps the Mariori were this advanced group of people, just too ahead of their time.

@@LeafarR1657 i'm not convinced that we say any resurgence in racism or racist discourse. what does that look like? in developed countries everyone knows race doesn't make people superior or inferior, and laws protect people against discrimination by ethnicity.

I think the difference between white people and Maori is that we didn't stay, also ngati mutunga and ngati tama were commissioned by the colonial govt - so it only came about bc of pakeha. Also there were two branches of moriori, the one brother went to te Urewera on the east coast of the north island. From there we branched out and intermingled W more recent waves of Maori. The other brother settled on rekohu the chatams and never left. The mainland moriori are still very much present and alive, and so are the rekohu moriori. So perhaps pakeha can get on a high horse about the moriori slaughter by nagti mutunga and ngati tama when they go back to where they come from. Then they can cast stones. Pakeha have stayed firm in the places they colonised, ngati mutunga and ngati tama were only commissioned by the govt of the time to explore if the chatams or rekohu were fit for European settlement. It wasn't. They decided to turn it into a prison for east coast Maori (at the time unbeknownst to pakeha, these people were actually moriori.) during the rebel wars, which really the intent of that was to take the interior (waikaremoana) so the east coast could be more open for European settlement.

of course we can blame the people who attacked moriori for their actions. we can also blame the government for their lack of action to stop slavery in the chathams.

Lol

Missed the whole part where we're not a monolith, huh? Try actually going after the Iwi that did it instead of just attacking us as a race

by your logic all europeans are also responsible for the actions of the nazis

​@@eeeatenby your logic, the maori must apologize for cannibalizing and genociding the mariori

@@rayenamarir5764 no, that's your logic, lumping all people of an ethnic group in together. by my logic dutch people are not responsible for the actions of the nazis, because even though they are ethnically much the same as germans, they had nothing to do with those actions. likewise by my logic, ngai tahu or other iwi maori had nothing to do with the actions of ngati mutunga/ngati tama warriors are therefore not responsible for those actions. so who do you think should apologise for events of nearly 200 years ago? who should apologise for the actions of the nazis? do you understand?

@@eeeaten well I have a question, should the government of NZ apologize to the maori people

Didn't watch the video, huh? Maybe do that first

@ what give you the idea I didn’t watch the video?

@@riknik05 science shows maori were the first people in nz, moriori were the first (and very similar) people of the chathams. they were not attacked there until 1835, after european arrival.

@ science also shows that is not true and depends on who you believe, how do you know they were never attacked where you there? Chances are they were attacked considering how aggressive Māori were. How do you know Moriori weren’t on the mainland first and chased away?

@@riknik05 To colonize, there needs to be a people for you to colonize. There have been no remains, pots, or any other man-made items found. They had no myths about Maori or any people's outside hawaiki. I believe THEM and the evidence, which hasn't had a single iota to support your idea.

Well you COULD petition the government to give what was stolen back. If you chose not to, why should they be the only citizens exempt from redress from criminal acts? They only get 3% when everyone else is entittled to 100% anyway

The channel where one of the owners were caught digging up bodies from local cemeteries in the 2010's by the police, and caught faking his uni degree with them having no record of them AND was also caught never actually getting his samples checked once someone asked at Yale? If you believe them, that's on you. That's like believing trump that tariff's reduce prices.