Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > General History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

General History General History Forum - General history questions and discussions


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old November 29th, 2016, 01:32 AM   #41
Citizen
 
Joined: Sep 2013
From: New Zealand
Posts: 36

In NZ today there no full blooded Maori left, however about 15% of the population consider themselves Maori. There were a few skirmishes early on where some maori were killed, but not many, as for a while they were by far the bigger population. There were some wars in the 1860s, where Maoris were killed, but very minor compared to other countries. In 1840 a treaty was signed with all the Maori chiefs, where they signed over to the crown, the exact meaning of this treaty though is of much debate. One of the key reasons for them signing up, was because they were fighting amongst themselves, which was more lethal with the introduction of guns. The other reason was that the colonisation of NZ was later than other countries, and at that point British society was becoming more liberal, and were keen to try better ways. There were large numbers of maoris who died from introduced diseases.
Mikester is offline  
Remove Ads
Old November 29th, 2016, 09:17 AM   #42
Academician
 
Joined: Nov 2016
From: Prussia
Posts: 69

It's the only four British colonies in which whites settled en masse, and consequently it's also the only four British colonies that are successful
British colonies where the locals werent replaced by whites are awful hellholes (Sudan, Zimbabwe, Iraq, Afghanistan, Burma, Bengladesh, India, Guyana, Nigeria...etc)
I'll let y'all draw your own conclusions
Vliiope is offline  
Old December 5th, 2016, 08:25 PM   #43
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2013
From: San Antonio, Tx
Posts: 8,220

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrsocko View Post
Good website. I am from Canada so am north America centric. Your site states.

"North America didn't see potatoes until Irish immigrants introduced them in the 1700s"

Getting enough calories to sustain a large population was an issue in North America.

Wonder how the population of Peru compared with to other precolumbian native populations.
Interesting points...
royal744 is offline  
Old December 6th, 2016, 03:01 AM   #44
Citizen
 
Joined: Nov 2015
From: United States
Posts: 30

Mostly disease. And the Mongols understood that better than anyone else. Europeans just stepped there and blam, they died.

Well...that's a gross simplification anyways.

Germ theory hadn't been discovered. Even if it was, how'd they be able to contain and immunize the local population from diseases their bodies have never built an immunity to. Have you ever drank water from somewhere else and threw up? It's because the microorganisms in the water contain elements that you're not immune to. Now imagine this on a larger scale.

You come in contact with pigs and other creatures you've never seen. They and the rats that came across on ships carry all sorts of diseases. Namely, had the settlers been Jewish and strictly adhered, there's a chance many of the diseases that did wipe a huge part of the population wouldn't even be an issue. Then again, the factors which caused the plagues in Europe wouldn't be as much of an issue either had they followed sanitary laws from the Jews, either.The same reason why Europeans died. They knew a little bit about keeping clean and whatever, and despite the popular belief that Europeans were a very dirty people during the Middle Ages being incorrect, they were still dirtier by comparison to the Jews.

This is why they have policies in South America as how to deal with non-contacted tribes because just one thing getting in would kill them. And it's also why you don't drink the local water when you travel unless you plan on staying there for an extended period. Otherwise, you'll get used to that, then puke it all up again once you go back home. And most other times like if you're in India, you'll probably die.

Another would be warfare, but warfare wasn't that big of a reason, as the same factor of disease applied equally to the English,and later to the Americans who by Andrew Jackson's hand gave people infected blankets for the Trail of Tears.

Anyone who hadn't immunity were on borrowed time, but had there not been killings as well, there'd be a chance for the population to recover.

But as far as Vliiope is saying? No. The issue with those former colonies is because most got the stupid of making themselves communist nations instead of staying close and or falling apart due to the same reasons that Yugoslavia and the Balkans were and are still messed up. This is the case with India, which contained several ethnicities and beliefs which clashed with each other. They'd be better as either separate smaller nations or if the Hindu majority asserted a single language and law instead of this hodge-podge of several different peoples in ludicrous multiculturalism.

Another issue is more cultural. Not because they're darker skinned. I feel like I'm doing this.
ConstantiQin is offline  
Old December 6th, 2016, 04:12 PM   #45

Slavon's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Jan 2014
From: Rus
Posts: 747

I wouldnt say that natives in New Zeland are "few".
Slavon is offline  
Old December 6th, 2016, 07:15 PM   #46
Scholar
 
Joined: Oct 2016
From: Australia
Posts: 652

Its a 'full-blood thing '. Like the situation with the Tasmanian Aboriginals .
specul8 is offline  
Old December 6th, 2016, 10:22 PM   #47

Kahu's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: May 2015
From: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 729
Blog Entries: 1
The racial purity train left 200 years ago


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikester View Post
In NZ today there no full blooded Maori left, however about 15% of the population consider themselves Maori.
Mixed race sexual relations have been a part of New Zealand life since Captain Cook. Well before the Treaty was signed in 1840, Pakeha whalers, sealers and traders had established liaisons with Maori women resulting in mixed race children.
The rush of mostly British settlers after 1840, boosted by gold rush immigrants in the 1860s, and Vogel's immigrants in the 1870s, brought to our shores huge numbers of settlers, many of them unattached young males.
A big factor in the so-called dying out of the Maori race in the late 19th century was the fact that more and more people of Maori ancestry no longer qualified for the then strict definition of who was a Maori for census purposes.
The four great early 20th century Maori leaders, Sir James Carroll, Sir Apirana Ngata, Sir Maui Pomare and Sir Peter Buck all had non- Maori blood in their veins.
At the time of the Treaty, Maori were not numerous in the South Island. It is widely believed that by 1900 the last full-blooded Maori had gone from there.
The racial purity train left 200 years ago | Stuff.co.nz

Obituary: Dame Whina Cooper ... Whaea O Te Motu (Mother of the Nation)

Whina (Josephine) Te Wake, campaigner: born Te Karaka, New Zealand 9 December 1895; MBE 1953, CBE 1974, DBE 1980; Founding president Maori Women's Welfare League 1951-57; New Zealand President, Maori Land Rights 1975-94; ONZ 1991; married 1916 Richard Gilbert (died 1935; one one daughter, and one son deceased), 1941 William Cooper (died 1949; two sons, two daughters); died Panguru, 26 March 1994.
...

Dedicated to racial harmony until the end, Cooper told an interviewer on her 98th birthday that her last wish was, 'Before I close my eyes, to see our Maori people understand the two races in New Zealand will love . . . that's what you want, that love between two people.'
Obituary: Dame Whina Cooper | The Independent

Last edited by Kahu; December 6th, 2016 at 10:27 PM.
Kahu is offline  
Old December 9th, 2016, 07:25 AM   #48
Historian
 
Joined: Mar 2011
From: Florida
Posts: 2,058
Blog Entries: 1

While the volume of Native Americans is small in comparison to the overall U.S. population, there are more Native American sovereign nations than states.

Check out these two maps:
Native American Lands 2005
Native American Settlements in Alaska
PragmaticStatistic is offline  
Old December 9th, 2016, 07:40 AM   #49

David Vagamundo's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2010
From: Atlanta, Georgia USA
Posts: 3,002

Quote:
Originally Posted by robto View Post
In Brazil, the Caribbean, Venezuela and Argentina there's also very few natives, specially when you compared to other countries in the Americas. It simply stems from the fact that the Natives of those lands were very few in numbers and could be rapidly killed off by diseases or disappear as an identity by integration and miscigenation with the European settlers and African slaves.

By the way, isn't the Native population in New Zealand one-third of the total population of the country? They don't look like "few"...
In the case of Argentina, the government waged war against the natives to drive them off the pampas and out of Patagonia for the purpose of massive cattle and sheep farming. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conquest_of_the_Desert.
David Vagamundo is offline  
Old February 16th, 2017, 11:54 AM   #50
Lecturer
 
Joined: Dec 2014
From: United States
Posts: 427

Quote:
Originally Posted by Copperknickers View Post
That is absolute nonsense. Latin America was subject to the casta system, where Amerindians were to all intents and purposes enslaved under the encomienda system, and mestizos were considered second class citizens. To this day, the elites of most Latin American countries are little different to white Europeans in appearance because they never intermarried with mestizos.

In the USA, slaves from Africa were brought in because there weren't enough natives to enslave. In Latin America, they simply enslaved their large native populations. And then the elites interbred with the slaves in both areas, albeit usually the white migrant workers rather than the actual slave owners. The USA has a reasonably large population of mixed black/white people, most of whom are simply treated as 'black' because of the hangover from the one-drop rule: in Africa someone who is half-African half-European is often treated as white by local people, but in the USA, people say that Barack Obama, born to and raised by a white single mother, is black.

America has few mestizos because there were so few natives and also such a large amount of immigration from Europe continuing throughout the 20th century, whereas in Latin America there was little migration from Europe after the start of the 20th century. In fact, the Amerindian population as a proportion of the total in the USA has actually doubled since the late 1800s. That is how few natives there were back then: even if every native had married a white person it would still have produced a tiny amount of mestizos.



That is an absolute travesty. The Catholic view on native Americans was that they were under the influence of the Devil and had to be enslaved and forced to convert to Christianity in order to save their souls, and the Spanish often flat-out rejected the wishes of the Pope that they be treated as human beings and protected from robbery and killing.

King Ferdinand of Spain, in a message to the Aztecs who refused to convert to Christianity -

“with the help of God we shall use force against you, declaring war upon you from all sides and with all possible means, and we shall bind you to the yoke of the Church and Their Highnesses; we shall enslave your persons, wives, and sons, sell you or dispose of you as the King sees fit; we shall seize your possessions and harm you as much as we can as disobedient and resisting vassals.”

Tomas Ortiz, Spanish official in Dominica -

“It may therefore affirm that God has never created a race more full of vice and composed without the least mixture of kindness or culture.”
Is mestizo the proper term for a native from a non spanish country like Canada or America?
HowlingWolf500 is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > General History

Tags
australia, canada, natives, zealand



Search tags for this page
Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Why didn't New Zealand and Fiji join Australia? WeisSaul Asian History 42 February 27th, 2017 07:30 AM
Historic sites in Australia and New Zealand weezer17 Asian History 0 April 29th, 2015 06:34 PM
Canada vs Australia Toltec Speculative History 33 November 13th, 2009 09:15 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.