The Māori monarchy dates back to the 19th Century, when different Māori tribes decided to create a unifying figure similar to that of a European monarch in order to try to prevent the widespread loss of land to New Zealand’s British colonisers and to preserve Māori culture. The role is largely ceremonial.
I don’t see any sign of such inference. He only said that Maori felt the need to create a symbolic figurehead to counter the threat that British colonialism did put on their culture.
I don’t know much on that topic, but I can confidently say that your answer is really far fetched.
I think you misunderstand the conversation chain here. The person I was responding to and I are in agreement about the original poster. I was just saying that you can infer a pro-colonialist sentiment from their ‘fuck their monarchy’ attitude.
Well then reply to them, not the other person replying to them. You’re causing the confusion here. You don’t always need to reply to the latest post in a thread.
The movement arose among a group of central North Island iwi in the 1850s as a means of attaining Māori unity to halt the alienation of land at a time of rapid population growth by European colonists. The movement sought to establish a monarch who could claim status similar to that of Queen Victoria and thus provide a way for Māori to deal with Pākehā (Europeans) on equal footing. It took on the appearance of an alternative government with its own flag, newspaper, bank, councillors, magistrates and law enforcement. But it was viewed by the colonial government as a challenge to the supremacy of the British monarchy, leading in turn to the 1863 invasion of Waikato, which was partly motivated by a drive to neutralise the Kīngitanga’s power and influence. Following their defeat at Ōrākau in 1864, Kīngitanga forces withdrew into the Ngāti Maniapoto tribal region of the North Island that became known as the King Country.
I’m really not. The monarchy was a response to British colonialism. You are saying it was a bad thing because monarchies are bad. Therefore the British colonialism that the bad thing was fighting and got rid of the bad thing and replaced it with democracy must be the better alternative.
I’m really not. The monarchy was a response to British colonialism. You are saying it was a bad thing because monarchies are bad. Therefore the British colonialism that the bad thing was fighting and got rid of the bad thing and replaced it with democracy must be the better alternative.
She’s an elected leader for the unified Maori tribes, a largely ceremonial role whose primary purpose is to protect Maori interests against government overreach.
Also it’s largely ceremonial but also primary serves a purpose. How odd, is it ceremony or function.
What it is, is a functionally hereditary title being passed down 8 generations of a family. And it’s not even representing all Māori because not everyone was stupid enough to want a monarch.
Hundreds of millions fought and died for thousands of years against monarchs all over the globe. And here’s you lot coming along championing the birth of a new one because it’s not as powerful today.
She can get fucked, as can any other king or queen.
Than she can largely ceremoniously get fucked. I don’t care why anyone deigns themselves a monarch.
They never felt the need to have a monarch. Now they only symbolically have one, and the aim of that was to prevent the loss of their culture.
It’s not an actual ruling position, so your anti-monarchy sentiment really doesn’t apply here.
What you should be mad at is that their culture was put under such a threat that they saw the need to emulate even the tiniest bit of monarchies.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Māori_King_movement
Really, what you can infer from their statement is that the British gave the Maori a gift by bringing them democracy.
Sounds familiar, doesn’t it?
I don’t see any sign of such inference. He only said that Maori felt the need to create a symbolic figurehead to counter the threat that British colonialism did put on their culture.
I don’t know much on that topic, but I can confidently say that your answer is really far fetched.
I think you misunderstand the conversation chain here. The person I was responding to and I are in agreement about the original poster. I was just saying that you can infer a pro-colonialist sentiment from their ‘fuck their monarchy’ attitude.
If it was the case, the chain is for sure confusing 😆
Well then reply to them, not the other person replying to them. You’re causing the confusion here. You don’t always need to reply to the latest post in a thread.
Cool, I’ll just get in my time machine…
God damn you’re reaching hard to make up bullshit.
Is he?
I’m really not. The monarchy was a response to British colonialism. You are saying it was a bad thing because monarchies are bad. Therefore the British colonialism that the bad thing was fighting and got rid of the bad thing and replaced it with democracy must be the better alternative.
I cannot parse this.
Not my problem.
You might as well just say colonialism in New Zealand was a good thing.
🙄
She’s an elected leader for the unified Maori tribes, a largely ceremonial role whose primary purpose is to protect Maori interests against government overreach.
But go ahead and latch onto the name I guess.
I will gladly latch onto the name.
Also it’s largely ceremonial but also primary serves a purpose. How odd, is it ceremony or function.
What it is, is a functionally hereditary title being passed down 8 generations of a family. And it’s not even representing all Māori because not everyone was stupid enough to want a monarch.
Hundreds of millions fought and died for thousands of years against monarchs all over the globe. And here’s you lot coming along championing the birth of a new one because it’s not as powerful today.
Ironically, that’s very imperialist of you.
Ironically, it’s not. It’s very ideologically consistent of me however.
It’s not ironic coming from you, it’s ironic in general.
LMAOri