Comments on: We Took Possession According To Our Customs http://www.ocellated.com/2006/02/20/we-took-possession-according-to-our-customs/ A blog on my latest adventures, pictures, and travels Sun, 15 Jan 2012 00:23:05 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Mary Riedel http://www.ocellated.com/2006/02/20/we-took-possession-according-to-our-customs/comment-page-1/#comment-327 Mary Riedel Thu, 16 Mar 2006 17:51:46 +0000 http://www.ocellated.com/?p=146#comment-327 Jay, kind of off the subject but from an emerging historian's point of view, the incident with Pizarro "conquering" the Incans in Diamond's book is rather one-sided. He only uses one source, and a biased one at that: the account written by Pizarro's brother, who was also on the expedition. Numbers are distorted (it wasn't really 80,000 against 200 or whatever they want you to believe), accounts are skewed, and of course the Spaniards are made to look like the "victors." Sorry, I know that this is not what you were really writing about, but just the fact that he only used one biased account of the story is reason for me not to believe a lot of what Diamond says later in his book, which is sad, because a lot of what he says seems to make sense in a way. True, he is a scientist, and from what I understand scientists don't really get into the objectivity of a source, but it really discredits him in this case (at least for historians). Jay, kind of off the subject but from an emerging historian’s point of view, the incident with Pizarro “conquering” the Incans in Diamond’s book is rather one-sided. He only uses one source, and a biased one at that: the account written by Pizarro’s brother, who was also on the expedition. Numbers are distorted (it wasn’t really 80,000 against 200 or whatever they want you to believe), accounts are skewed, and of course the Spaniards are made to look like the “victors.”

Sorry, I know that this is not what you were really writing about, but just the fact that he only used one biased account of the story is reason for me not to believe a lot of what Diamond says later in his book, which is sad, because a lot of what he says seems to make sense in a way. True, he is a scientist, and from what I understand scientists don’t really get into the objectivity of a source, but it really discredits him in this case (at least for historians).

]]> By: JM O'Donnell http://www.ocellated.com/2006/02/20/we-took-possession-according-to-our-customs/comment-page-1/#comment-263 JM O'Donnell Tue, 21 Feb 2006 07:11:24 +0000 http://www.ocellated.com/?p=146#comment-263 It's partly because of lingering 'colonial guilt', where basically we came along (By 'we' I mean Europeans) and then massacred the Maori with both weapons and diseases. Their population fell from millions to a few thousand and much of their land was unfairly taken. Later, a treaty was signed that basically gave a form of guarantee to uphold Maori rights and the like. It's this particular treaty that makes it fairly hard to discuss things like the original Maori (Moriori) who first came here being massacred by the second wave that arrived. It's all just politics, where certain activists like to go on about how horrible Europeans are to the environment, the Maori in the past (One Maori politician described colonial times as a "Maori holocaust") and such forth. Unfortunately, the Maori get very upset when its pointed out they were responsible for destroying several New Zealand species (the Moa for example) and for their own massacre of the original settlers here. It's basically all politics but the book is basically correct. Though the Moriori are basically the same people, so it's not really a genocide but rather two tribes killing one another. It’s partly because of lingering ‘colonial guilt’, where basically we came along (By ‘we’ I mean Europeans) and then massacred the Maori with both weapons and diseases. Their population fell from millions to a few thousand and much of their land was unfairly taken. Later, a treaty was signed that basically gave a form of guarantee to uphold Maori rights and the like. It’s this particular treaty that makes it fairly hard to discuss things like the original Maori (Moriori) who first came here being massacred by the second wave that arrived.

It’s all just politics, where certain activists like to go on about how horrible Europeans are to the environment, the Maori in the past (One Maori politician described colonial times as a “Maori holocaust”) and such forth. Unfortunately, the Maori get very upset when its pointed out they were responsible for destroying several New Zealand species (the Moa for example) and for their own massacre of the original settlers here.

It’s basically all politics but the book is basically correct. Though the Moriori are basically the same people, so it’s not really a genocide but rather two tribes killing one another.

]]> By: Jay http://www.ocellated.com/2006/02/20/we-took-possession-according-to-our-customs/comment-page-1/#comment-262 Jay Tue, 21 Feb 2006 06:41:40 +0000 http://www.ocellated.com/?p=146#comment-262 So why is it considered highly racist? And why are people so sensitive? I'm interested in knowing from the perspective of one that lives there. Also, as you probably understood, I just took these quotes straight from the book, unaware that any controversy existed. So why is it considered highly racist? And why are people so sensitive? I’m interested in knowing from the perspective of one that lives there.

Also, as you probably understood, I just took these quotes straight from the book, unaware that any controversy existed.

]]> By: JM O'Donnell http://www.ocellated.com/2006/02/20/we-took-possession-according-to-our-customs/comment-page-1/#comment-261 JM O'Donnell Tue, 21 Feb 2006 06:36:07 +0000 http://www.ocellated.com/?p=146#comment-261 You probably wouldn't realise this, but what you've written there in New Zealand would be considered highly 'racist' and people would call for your head. There are quite a few people over in New Zealand who get rather sensitive about that particular issue. Also, it's worth noting that the Moriori and the Maori are actually the same people (genetically anyway), but that the Moriori were just the 'initial' settlers who happened here first. They were killed when the second lot of travellers arrived and drove them off (who later became the Maori). You probably wouldn’t realise this, but what you’ve written there in New Zealand would be considered highly ‘racist’ and people would call for your head. There are quite a few people over in New Zealand who get rather sensitive about that particular issue. Also, it’s worth noting that the Moriori and the Maori are actually the same people (genetically anyway), but that the Moriori were just the ‘initial’ settlers who happened here first. They were killed when the second lot of travellers arrived and drove them off (who later became the Maori).

]]>