I’m talking about modern times. Owned land is stolen land.
I don’t know enough about Māori to say much about their land management practices prior to colonization. But I know Māori have nobility so it’s entirely possible and perhaps likely that it was stolen from other Māori.
So after the British settled, some Māori went to a small island far to the east?
Doesn’t change the fact that they were the first people to arrive in NZ. Which was what I was getting at, but I will concede they did invade someone else’s land too.
I mean… if the claim is “all”, it’s not really an outlier. It’s refuting the claim. An outlier is statistical; claiming “all” is either true or false. Not really interchangeable, without changing context
Who did the Māori steal land from?
…Kiwi birds? 🤷
I’m talking about modern times. Owned land is stolen land.
I don’t know enough about Māori to say much about their land management practices prior to colonization. But I know Māori have nobility so it’s entirely possible and perhaps likely that it was stolen from other Māori.
Good point. I think “all land is stolen land” is a good framework. As long as it doesn’t minimise colonisation obviously.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moriori_genocide
So after the British settled, some Māori went to a small island far to the east?
Doesn’t change the fact that they were the first people to arrive in NZ. Which was what I was getting at, but I will concede they did invade someone else’s land too.
Who ever was there before them.
No one was there before they arrived there 700 years ago.
Ok. Finding an outlier as an example isn’t impressive.
I mean… if the claim is “all”, it’s not really an outlier. It’s refuting the claim. An outlier is statistical; claiming “all” is either true or false. Not really interchangeable, without changing context
But providing the existence of a counter example is the foundational detraction to all-encompassing claims like “all land is stolen”, in logic.