Apology to the Maories

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/british-envoy-to-new-zealand-weeps-as-she-voices-regret-for-captain-cooks-crew-killing-native-maoris-when-they-landed-250-years-ago/ar-AAIcZpT?ocid=spartanntp

Why would our own envoy cry about an event 250 years ago?

Personally I cant feel guilt about the event that happened. Yet another of the of Britains of our past who I grew up being taught at school about is now being piloried.

Nodoubt there will be lawyers looking to get compensation.

Perhaps the ancestors of the Boyd should go and look for apologies?

Why not admit to it if it happened and why not regret how they were treated? Seems an odd attitude. There have been years of crowing about the British Empire, should we pretend we don't know how it was achieved? I think it gives us more to be proud of if we recognise what happened. We did massacre them. It happened, wasn't really a good thing to do and their own crew thought it was a regrettable thing. I like it when we can show a bit of honour about our past.

If it brings some comfort to descendants of persecuted people then I’m all for it. And massacres should be pilloried surely??

It’s not a question of guilt, but there is much of Britain’s past that is shameful. However we are no different to pretty much any country in this regard.

Different era. The whole world was fighting each other for land, resources etc at the time. I acknowledge it was wrong but I feel no guilt over it.

Different era. The whole world was fighting each other for land, resources etc at the time. I acknowledge it was wrong but I feel no guilt over it.

The Maori Empire certainly needed bringing down a peg or two.

You're right though - I don’t personally feel guilt as it was nothing to do with me. In just the same way it’s idiotic to be proud of what your grandparents did in the war, for example.

This is not about what happened in the past but about what will happen in the future.

We wouldn't like it if Germans talked proudly about once ruling Poland without recognising how that came about or if they didn't feel regret (not guilt) that the holocaust ever happened. Recognising what actually happened in the past is only a good thing. It's not week or taking blame for it personally.

Went to the National Museum of the American Indian in Manhattan recently. I was surprised at how little regret or apology seemed to be on offer in the place. Yes there was some acknowledgement of Wounded Knee massacre for example, some historical information regarding the colonisation and treatment of the natives but most of it was artwork and costumes and things. Thought the Americans missed an opportunity there.

May I take this opportunity to apologise to all New Zealanders for the fact that my sister-in-law emigrated there.

We wouldn't like it if Germans talked proudly about once ruling Poland without recognising how that came about or if they didn't feel regret (not guilt) that the holocaust ever happened. Recognising what actually happened in the past is only a good thing. It's not week or taking blame for it personally.

It's a bit different if people who where involved are still alive like in your Germany example. As opposed to an event that happened over 200 years ago. I find it very hard to believe anyone is really suffering mental anguish over a event that happened so long ago and no one could have known anyone involved today.

It's a bit different if people who where involved are still alive like in your Germany example. As opposed to an event that happened over 200 years ago. I find it very hard to believe anyone is really suffering mental anguish over a event that happened so long ago and no one could have known anyone involved today.

exactly. When is Norway saint going to apologise for what the Vikings did, in fact im so upset I think he should cough up some compensation

Are you comparing a group of raiders attached to no particular state, especially not one in existence today, with the actions of a crew commissioned by the British state, the same British state that just apologised for it's part in the massacre? Doesn't really work, does it? I'm British, by the way, and proud that my country isn't afraid to look honestly at it's past.

Are you comparing a group of raiders attached to no particular state, especially not one in existence today, with the actions of a crew commissioned by the British state, the same British state that just apologised for it's part in the massacre? Doesn't really work, does it? I'm British, by the way, and proud that my country isn't afraid to look honestly at it's past.

Sent from my moto g(6) using Tapatalk

You're comparing the war between the Vikings, who were already resident in Britain, engaging in a war with the Saxons over a disputed claim to the throne, from a Norwegian state which is not the same as the one now, with a fleet sent by the British government just arriving on a newly discovered land and massacring the local population, whom they had no standing war with and who were utterly unprepared? Yes, I think one of those governments should recognise what it did and the other doesn't exist.

You're comparing the war between the Vikings, who were already resident in Britain, engaging in a war with the Saxons over a disputed claim to the throne, from a Norwegian state which is not the same as the one now, with a fleet sent by the British government just arriving on a newly discovered land and massacring the local population, whom they had no standing war with and who were utterly unprepared? Yes, I think one of those governments should recognise what it did and the other doesn't exist.

Anyway back to the Maoris, they were massacred and that was a shame, but to apologise 250 years later about something done in a different attitude in society. Reading about their keenness for cannibalism of Europeans and missionaries, perhaps it was seen as the correct thing to do at the time or if it was part of their culture its alright? ps I did know your were from the UK

Well, we clearly aren't going to agree or change each others minds, but I'm glad that the people that matter agree with me and it makes me proud of my country.

If people want to cry about historical events that didn't affect them then that's up to them. It's a modern thing to tack on modern morality to a situation that happened years ago and I find the whole thing really odd.

Are you comparing a group of raiders attached to no particular state, especially not one in existence today, with the actions of a crew commissioned by the British state, the same British state that just apologised for it's part in the massacre? Doesn't really work, does it? I'm British, by the way, and proud that my country isn't afraid to look honestly at it's past.

I don’t see anything wrong in a politically expedient apology. It wasn’t that long ago in historical terms and we did consider ourselves to be more than a bunch of murdering raiders. I was never taught about that at school so it is good that there is a greater awareness of what actually happened. We can’t turn back time but we can recognise that our predecessors acted badly. Better to shown contribution than to just dismiss it as something that happened years ago so just get over it.

Getting sad about it is individual to that person and only they know why.

I don't feel this is applying new ethics, as it said even in the ship's log of the time that they knew it was wrong and regretted it. All this is, is the government that sanctioned a massacre saying yes it happened and we agree it was a pretty bad thing to do. I find it more odd that people dislike us being strong enough to say it. Do we have to pretend everything we did as a nation was righteous. Some of the things that happened in the name of Britain were crappy, but we've moved on a long way and it shouldn't be a big deal to talk openly about our own history. Not doing it just makes us look weak and ashamed. Be proud of what we've become, not over defensive of what we did.

Like I said though, nobody's going to see things differently because of what someone on the internet says. I can see what you're saying, but it's not my point of view.

Shock horror: history is full of bad things that happened a long time ago. If the human race showed the capacity to learn from it's prior mistakes, then perhaps we could all live a happier co-existence.

Shock horror: history is full of bad things that happened a long time ago. If the human race showed the capacity to learn from it's prior mistakes, then perhaps we could all live a happier co-existence.

If? Do you not think it does?

If? Do you not think it does?

There is very little evidence of it.

If? Do you not think it does?

Are you being serious? Given the number of times that humans repeat their mistakes clearly we are a species that do not learn from our mistakes.

Are you being serious? Given the number of times that humans repeat their mistakes clearly we are a species that do not learn from our mistakes.

Not always. Geoff Boycott only beat a woman once. Unless you know something we don't soggy...

Not always. Geoff Boycott only beat a woman once. Unless you know something we don't soggy...

Did he? How do you know? He might never have beaten a woman or he may have beaten one or several.

Fail.

Are you being serious? Given the number of times that humans repeat their mistakes clearly we are a species that do not learn from our mistakes.

No, you are right

Society today is exactly the same as it was 200 years ago.

It has not moved on an inch

Good point, well made

No, you are right

 

Society today is exactly the same as it was 200 years ago.

It has not moved on an inch

 

 

Good point, well made

Your sarcasm is not necessary. How many civil wars, persecutions, examples of religious intolerance, oppressive governments, do we see today ? How much of what we see on the International political stage is driven by greed or "defending our national interests". Military posturing and d1ck measuring contests abound, although outright imperial expansion by intervention and invasion may have been replaced by covert interference in domestic governance or just plain and simple financial and trade domination.

No, you are right

 

Society today is exactly the same as it was 200 years ago.

It has not moved on an

 

Good point, well made

Not for the first time, you have completely missed the point.

Your sarcasm is not necessary. How many civil wars, persecutions, examples of religious intolerance, oppressive governments, do we see today ? How much of what we see on the International political stage is driven by greed or "defending our national interests". Military posturing and d1ck measuring contests abound, although outright imperial expansion by intervention and invasion may have been replaced by covert interference in domestic governance or just plain and simple financial and trade domination.

And compare that to 100 years ago

Not for the first time, you have completely missed the point.

The point is, the world, society/human race have moved on and will move on

Sorry that it does not fit your soppy narrative

And compare that to 100 years ago

When we were just starting to recover from the Great War; brought about by greed, military posturing and d1ck waving,and defending our national interests. Even after WW2 Britain and France were busy trying to simply restore their imperial domains, and today we have politicians promising to take us back to those heady days. The stock answer to regimes we don't like is to threaten intervention, and religion is used to justify mob violence, exactly as has happened throughout recorded history.

So, all the evidence suggests that we haven't learnt the lessons of history.

The point is, the world, society/human race have moved on and will move on

 

Sorry that it does not fit your soppy narrative

As I said, you have completely missed the point and don’t seem to understand how we constantly make the same mistakes but often on different ways. The issues we have about blinkered nationalism for example, are rearing their ugly heads again. Being a supported of the far right you should be aware of that. You only have to look at the way that Brexiteers act to see how little has changed when you scratch the surface. British people of colour are still being told to “go home” as they were in the 50’s. We still have supposedly intelligent people kicking off about sovereignty. We are still murdering our own people on our own streets at a frightening rate. You really think that we have moved on that much? Perhaps you are just thinking about the lack of powdered wigs and stockings for men?

As I said, you have completely missed the point and don’t seem to understand how we constantly make the same mistakes but often on different ways. The issues we have about blinkered nationalism for example, are rearing their ugly heads again. Being a supported of the far right you should be aware of that. You only have to look at the way that Brexiteers act to see how little has changed when you scratch the surface. British people of colour are still being told to “go home” as they were in the 50’s. We still have supposedly intelligent people kicking off about sovereignty. We are still murdering our own people on our own streets at a frightening rate. You really think that we have moved on that much? Perhaps you are just thinking about the lack of powdered wigs and stockings for men?

far right? dear god

is our society more liberal, safe, tolerant, rich, fair than it was 100 or 50 years ago?

yes on all counts

is our society more liberal, safe, tolerant, rich, fair than it was 100 or 50 years ago?

 

yes on all counts

And all around the world people are still being murdered by the thousand in the name of God, we are constantly trying to find more detached and "smarter" ways to slaughter foreigners we disagree with, and we are destroying habitat at an alarming rate. Global rates of poverty constantly increase, and political leaders get more and stridently nationalistic whilst claiming that their country is more deserving of some or other resource than everybody else.

The important and critical issues we face are global, and reverting to petty self interest is not a long, or even medium term, solution. So yes 'our society' may well be more liberal, safe, tolerant, rich, and fair than it was 100 or 50 years ago, from some blinkered perspectives, but, to get back to the point, we are still, on the broader stage, repeating the errors of history.

Getting sad about it is individual to that person and only they know why.

 

I don't feel this is applying new ethics, as it said even in the ship's log of the time that they knew it was wrong and regretted it. All this is, is the government that sanctioned a massacre saying yes it happened and we agree it was a pretty bad thing to do. I find it more odd that people dislike us being strong enough to say it. Do we have to pretend everything we did as a nation was righteous. Some of the things that happened in the name of Britain were crappy, but we've moved on a long way and it shouldn't be a big deal to talk openly about our own history. Not doing it just makes us look weak and ashamed. Be proud of what we've become, not over defensive of what we did.

 

Like I said though, nobody's going to see things differently because of what someone on the internet says. I can see what you're saying, but it's not my point of view.

far right? dear god

 

is our society more liberal, safe, tolerant, rich, fair than it was 100 or 50 years ago?

 

yes on all counts

I would recommend reading Douglas Murray's latest book the madness of crowds which has a whole chapter on this sort of delusion.

I don’t see anything wrong in a politically expedient apology. It wasn’t that long ago in historical terms and we did consider ourselves to be more than a bunch of murdering raiders. I was never taught about that at school so it is good that there is a greater awareness of what actually happened. We can’t turn back time but we can recognise that our predecessors acted badly. Better to shown contribution than to just dismiss it as something that happened years ago so just get over it.

Agree with this. We should all be big enough to admit when we have done wrong regardless of how long ago it happened.

I think it's more that a certain breed of lefty now encourages so called white guilt and denigration of all British history and historical figures as evil. See the recent campaigns against Churchill and Kipling for example.

This has nothing to do with guilt and nothing to do with left or right wing. Nobody in this case needs to feel any guilt, instead they can take pride in talking openly and honestly about history. Why should we be too weak and timid to do that. Let's stand up Andrew take pride in who we are now rather than hide away from our past or try to put spin on it, like we are ashamed and embarrassed. There's no harm in admitting what really happened. Churchill did sanction some terrible things, it doesnt mean he didn't do great things too. If we have to lie about parts of his career, it makes it look like we are ashamed of him. We don't need to be, we can weigh the poor choices against the great and still love him, rather than only liking a pretend version where we airbrush out bits of his career. I like being British and I take pride in a lot of what that means. I couldn't take the same pride if I had to sneakily pretend certain events in the past weren't poorly judged. Take pride in our journey and our country, don't act ashamed and deceptive about our history. We've done loads wrong, leading to lots of death and suffering, but so have many countries. The only way to be a proud country afterwards is to be strong enough to say yes, we did that and we regret it, but this is who we are NOW. Patriotism is not being too ashamed of your own country to be able to look at its history.

This has nothing to do with guilt and nothing to do with left or right wing. Nobody in this case needs to feel any guilt, instead they can take pride in talking openly and honestly about history. Why should we be too weak and timid to do that. Let's stand up Andrew take pride in who we are now rather than hide away from our past or try to put spin on it, like we are ashamed and embarrassed. There's no harm in admitting what really happened. Churchill did sanction some terrible things, it doesnt mean he didn't do great things too. If we have to lie about parts of his career, it makes it look like we are ashamed of him. We don't need to be, we can weigh the poor choices against the great and still love him, rather than only liking a pretend version where we airbrush out bits of his career. I like being British and I take pride in a lot of what that means. I couldn't take the same pride if I had to sneakily pretend certain events in the past weren't poorly judged. Take pride in our journey and our country, don't act ashamed and deceptive about our history. We've done loads wrong, leading to lots of death and suffering, but so have many countries. The only way to be a proud country afterwards is to be strong enough to say yes, we did that and we regret it, but this is who we are NOW. Patriotism is not being too ashamed of your own country to be able to look at its history.

I don't think anyone should lie, I just don't think great men and women of history should be castigated for views they held or actions they took that are normally criticised by applying today's morality on them. Every single country in the history of the world has done some bad things but the way a certain type of people go on, they don't want to recognise any of the great and good stuff they simply want to self flagellate and cry about the sins of their distant ancestors.

Agree with this. We should all be big enough to admit when we have done wrong regardless of how long ago it happened.

This has nothing to do with guilt and nothing to do with left or right wing. Nobody in this case needs to feel any guilt, instead they can take pride in talking openly and honestly about history. Why should we be too weak and timid to do that. Let's stand up Andrew take pride in who we are now rather than hide away from our past or try to put spin on it, like we are ashamed and embarrassed. There's no harm in admitting what really happened. Churchill did sanction some terrible things, it doesnt mean he didn't do great things too. If we have to lie about parts of his career, it makes it look like we are ashamed of him. We don't need to be, we can weigh the poor choices against the great and still love him, rather than only liking a pretend version where we airbrush out bits of his career. I like being British and I take pride in a lot of what that means. I couldn't take the same pride if I had to sneakily pretend certain events in the past weren't poorly judged. Take pride in our journey and our country, don't act ashamed and deceptive about our history. We've done loads wrong, leading to lots of death and suffering, but so have many countries. The only way to be a proud country afterwards is to be strong enough to say yes, we did that and we regret it, but this is who we are NOW. Patriotism is not being too ashamed of your own country to be able to look at its history.

Well said.

I don't think anyone should lie, I just don't think great men and women of history should be castigated for views they held or actions they took that are normally criticised by applying today's morality on them. Every single country in the history of the world has done some bad things but the way a certain type of people go on, they don't want to recognise any of the great and good stuff they simply want to self flagellate and cry about the sins of their distant ancestors.

Agreed. We just need to be honest. Where Churchill sanctioned a massacre, we can say that, rather just pretend these things never happened. Judging him can be down to the individual, but there's no reason to present a sanitised version of who he was. That's an act of people who are ashamed of him. We don't have to pretend everything we did was good. History is a dark and bloody place. We can tell it like it was and come out looking stronger for it, or we can hide from it and mistepresent it and come out looking embarrassed, weasely and weak. I dislike a lot of what happened and would like to stand up and say yes it happened and it was a terrible thing. However, I take no guilt and feel no shame about what Britain is now as a result.

Agreed. We just need to be honest. Where Churchill sanctioned a massacre, we can say that, rather just pretend these things never happened. Judging him can be down to the individual, but there's no reason to present a sanitised version of who he was. That's an act of people who are ashamed of him. We don't have to pretend everything we did was good. History is a dark and bloody place. We can tell it like it was and come out looking stronger for it, or we can hide from it and mistepresent it and come out looking embarrassed, weasely and weak. I dislike a lot of what happened and would like to stand up and say yes it happened and it was a terrible thing. However, I take no guilt and feel no shame about what Britain is now as a result.

I don't think there are many people pretending that bad things didn't happen. In todays society its much more likely to be the other way round as I already said, where an unpleasant act or word is emphasised above everything else and it simply gives the impression that you hate everything your country has done.

I think that's more a case of balance of a very uneven education. I grew up being made to feel proud of the British empire history and didn't hear a thing about massacres, genocide and cruelty until I was in my twenties. I always heard great things about Churchill, but only discovered the darker events in about the last five years. I grew up understanding that Irish Catholics were evil people attacking innocent British people for no real reason without ever knowing what had actually been happening over there. Misdeeds by the British were hidden from me for most of my life. I don't hate my country now I've learned more about its history, but I do want a more rounded understanding. People, including me, don't enjoy hearing that side and it feels uncomfortable, but the other side never disappeared.

I will be discussing this event when my classes cover New Zealand. I'll ask their opinions and discussion about limits on recognising wrongs of the past, about Norway's darker history, about what it took to build an empire and why countries did it and about the situation of controlling the world now. I won't feel shame or guilt, but I might have, if I had to tell them that Britain refused to recognise this happened, despite it being officially recorded.

Bottom line, I find it hard to understand why anyone would have a problem with our Government expressing regret over what happened with the Maoris.

I think that's more a case of balance of a very uneven education. I grew up being made to feel proud of the British empire history and didn't hear a thing about massacres, genocide and cruelty until I was in my twenties. I always heard great things about Churchill, but only discovered the darker events in about the last five years. I grew up understanding that Irish Catholics were evil people attacking innocent British people for no real reason without ever knowing what had actually been happening over there. Misdeeds by the British were hidden from me for most of my life. I don't hate my country now I've learned more about its history, but I do want a more rounded understanding. People, including me, don't enjoy hearing that side and it feels uncomfortable, but the other side never disappeared.

I will be discussing this event when my classes cover New Zealand. I'll ask their opinions and discussion about limits on recognising wrongs of the past, about Norway's darker history, about what it took to build an empire and why countries did it and about the situation of controlling the world now. I won't feel shame or guilt, but I might have, if I had to tell them that Britain refused to recognise this happened, despite it being officially recorded.

That view would have more validity if the people who go on about this "more rounded" view of history weren't the same ones screaming for statues to be torn down, Kipling quotes to be scrubbed from walls etc etc.

I don't have a problem with learning about past atrocities alongside accomplishments but it never stops at that, identitarians want to attempt to airbrush anyone who ever said anything controversial out of any positive history.

I've seen a few of the ones about statues and actually used the articles for discussion in spoken exams. The complaints have generally been about colonial leaders who were responsible for a lot of cruelty and suffering of indigenous people. Those people are often still living with the impact this had on their culture and lifestyle. Now that society has given them a voice (something quute recent) they are unsurprisingly unhappy about statues that celebrate foreigners who were responsible for the death or abuse of their families. I think it's okay for them to have a say in that. Nobody is saying we have to feel shame or take personal responsibility for someone who acted in a way that was of a different time. They are just asking for a bit of respect and consideration for their own history. We admit, generally, that what happened was cruel and of its time. We can take down a few statues celebrating it now. The world has moved on. It's not rewriting history, it's recognising history and showing a bit of sensitivity to those who lived on the side that suffered.

I've seen a few of the ones about statues and actually used the articles for discussion in spoken exams. The complaints have generally been about colonial leaders who were responsible for a lot of cruelty and suffering of indigenous people. Those people are often still living with the impact this had on their culture and lifestyle. Now that society has given them a voice (something quute recent) they are unsurprisingly unhappy about statues that celebrate foreigners who were responsible for the death or abuse of their families. I think it's okay for them to have a say in that. Nobody is saying we have to feel shame or take personal responsibility for someone who acted in a way that was of a different time. They are just asking for a bit of respect and consideration for their own history. We admit, generally, that what happened was cruel and of its time. We can take down a few statues celebrating it now. The world has moved on. It's not rewriting history, it's recognising history and showing a bit of sensitivity to those who lived on the side that suffered.

"One letter writer to the Daily Telegraph argued: "The trouble… is that almost every person of that era held opinions that were commonplace at the time but are at odds with modern thinking. Taken to its extreme, this approach would lead to the eradication of almost every building and statue commemorating notable figures of the past, including the Albert Memorial and Nelson's Column."

That's reactionary nonsense. What we are talking about here isn't statues of Nelson in Britain. We are talking about statues celebrating slavery in areas where people were enslaved. We are talking about former colonies where the people were treated brutally, wanting to remove a statue of a colonial ruler who oppressed the local people. I think the population of a country should have a voice in these things. The British people, as a majority, don't want to remove British icons, so that's just muddying the issue. Of course there is a case for removing some statues.

Greta will probably be stripped of her Nobel Peace Prize in 100 years, with the very same process happening.