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?
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.
…Kiwi birds? 🤷
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.