Jump to content

Talk:Māori people

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by OttomanJackson (talk | contribs) at 15:18, 30 July 2012. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Cannibalism?

This page makes a fleeting reference to cannibalism but does not elaborate. It leaves the impression that cannibalism in Maori culture (pre-European contact) might fall anywhere between a common, culturally ingrained practice through to a single exceptional incident (as mentioned in the one reference), an incident that might itself be no more than heresay.

The reason I raise it is that I have been told by a (white) New Zealander that it is "well known" (in N.Z.) that cannibalism was common in Maori cultural. In the context of the conversation though, I got the impression that this might be one of those well known 'facts' that, though indeed well known, is not actually true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.147.150.142 (talk) 09:00, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cannibalism was AFAIK a consistent part of Maori psychological warfare. Maori even cannibalized part of Cap'n Cook's crew; presumably the motivation was to instill terror, rather like mutilating the dead. Eating their words: cannibalism and the boundaries of cultural identity, which is partially viewable on Google Books, covers it in some depth. — kwami (talk) 09:11, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its interseting that according to nutritionists bone marrow and brains are the 2 most easily digestible foods in the neolithic cook book.In North America Indians ate these and fed musle to the dogs apparently.I note that in Nz little has been investigated along these lines.Is it a coincidense that every single skull found at the Wairau bar dig by Roger Duff had a large hole knocked in it? This is around 40-50 skulls.According to those who investigated ,this was in a society that had no weapons-at least none have been found-though they did make hundreds of heavy stone adze heads which are in the Canterbury museum.Were they brain eaters?Claudia Jan 2011 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.237.32.26 (talk) 09:36, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't the Maoris eat the Morioaoris? Sorry if I spelt the latter word incorrectly! ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:42, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if you're referring to the no longer believed Moriori-on-the-New-Zealand-mainland theory or the 19th Century Maori invasion of the Chatham Islands. See Moriori people for more information on both. Kahuroa (talk) 21:05, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kia ora tatau - as far as I'm aware there's a bit of ongoing controversy regarding the existence of Maori cannibalism and, if it did exist, how widespread it was (despite the work of Paul Moon). My good friend John Bevan-Smith has written extensively on the subject, and reviewed Moon's book in New Zealand Journal of History 44.2, p203-205. There's an article in Mana magazine too ("Making a Meal out of Mockery.", issue 95), with the controversy covered by the Listener here: http://www.listener.co.nz/commentary/close-to-the-bones/ and Alex Calder's piece "Augustus Earle and the Secret of Cannibalism," in Landfall 206 (2003): 123-38. I don't, unfortunately, have time to collate and evaluate everything, but I do hope that someone will be able to do so. Nga mihi, Ross.Brighton (talk) 04:45, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Māori in the United States

The article previously gave the numbers as approx 3,500, but following an anon edit Snori examined the source and changed it to 1,500. The source is the 2000 US Census figures for New Zealand born Americans. It gives a total of 20,895 people, the large majority of which are listed as "White". 1515 are listed as "Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander", and this is the figure Snori is using. However, there are also 1980 people of "Two or more races", and while some of these will be Asian/European, I suggest that most will be Māori/European (or Māori/European/Asian). The 1515 plus 1980 add up to the original 3500 (approx) in the article. This is explained in our ref 4.

I suggest we note the figure as 1,500 - 3,500, since there is no data provided to narrow it down more closely.-gadfium 00:42, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of the 1515 "Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander" respondents, how many of them would be NZ-born tāngata Pasifika? I'd guess that the vast majority would be Māori, but even taking into account the 1980 respondents of two or more races, a minimum figure of 1500 is still just a guess (certainly a reasonable one, though). Something like <3,500 would be more accurate, if imprecise and a bit awkward (okay, ≤3,505 would be more accurate) (CLEARLY I can't add). Honestly though, I wouldn't mind "1,500–3,500" either. Cheers. – Liveste (talk • edits) 01:20, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think "< 3,500" is probably best, at least until the figures from this year's US census come out. I can't see any good reason for showing the 1500 figure, even as part of a range. --Avenue (talk) 14:57, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed it to "< 3,500".-gadfium 18:36, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've just looked for more recent US Census figures, but discovered that they didn't ask about the foreign-born in the 2010 Census.[1] They suggest using results from two large surveys instead, but they're no use to us, because they only report the foreign-born by region of birth, not country (at least outside Latin America). Oh well. Maybe they will ask about it again in 2020. --Avenue (talk) 13:20, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ti Rakau

Is this at all a significant part of Maori culture? [2] this google book ref is a start. Ive added mention of this in the article on a childrens toy called Lummi sticks. I have no idea how the two are related, if at all.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:35, 13 March 2011 (UTC) Ti Rakau or the Maori stick game is a small part of Maori culture.There was a huge revival of this musical game in the 1950s when it was commonly taught to primary school age students in Nz.My elder sister and I practiced for hours on end in the hallway.The sticks we used were about 25mm dowel about 300mm long,unpainted .The standard song E papa has a nice rythme and part of the game is to use the sticks to give the beat by taping them on the ground alternatively tapping them together. Beating on the floor gives the drum like bass note and tapping together produces a sound like the Aboriginal tap sticks. Probably .5million kiwis know the words .It is a very good hand eye coordination exercise as well as being a lot of fun.It takes hours of practice to get it right without making mistakes. Originally alot of Maori games had serious, more utilitarian functions, such as making the men better at war with hand weapons.For women weaving was a key skill which required dexterous manipulation.The game was popular as it only needed simple sticks and a small patch of flat ground. Music was voice only. And besides in the 50s you just did what the teacher told you.It seemed to fall out of favour by the 1960s-you can probably blame Elvis and mass radio ,then TV for that.Like nearly all Maori culture there was a strong emphasis on getting it right as a group-if 1 person failed the performance fell apart.This was a critical lesson in the traditional early neolithic culture.Claudia March 2011 00:38, 14 March 2011 1User:22.58.186.243[reply]

THere are 2 You Tube videos -search- E Papa-The one showing the American's learning Ti Rakau is the same way Kiwis learnt it -a lot of laughs.Herbs is a Pacific Island group in Nz that has some Maori members.Claudia March 2011 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.58.186.243 (talk) 20:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Herbs was a Maori Reggae group consisting of Maori people. You will find that they all are maori. Some members came and went which indeed were pacific islanders, pakeha and maori. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.187.109 (talk) 06:55, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Historical eras

In discussion with a Maori curator at Te Papa I have been told that the term Te Tipunga that was cited as being the early period was a term first used by Prof Mead at Te Papa, to describe an early period of Maori art history style rather than an historical period. The term was invented to descibe an early style of artifacts that was being toured around the world. According to the curator the time period was modified later when the show went to Japan to take into consideration evidence of later dates. I believe that recent more reliable Carbon Dating methods have pinpointed the "early period" far more accurately than what was available in 1990 to Prof Mead. The Wairau bar seems to be a good bet for an initial or at least early landing point with teeth being currently examinded (overseas?)from that site using the latest technology to determine if the people had a kiwi diet or an East Polynesian diet or both.This will give really clear evidence as to starting point for the early period which is still, and normally, refered to as the Moahunter period in most texts I have seen. Certainly the term Te Tipunga was misused and inappropriate in the context of a development period and should be reserved for an early art style as was intended. The curator said Mead was more interested in the Maori artifacts than in the precision of dates with is not a typical focus of Maori tikanga.I would agree with that 100%. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.89.178.121 (talk) 21:54, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the relevant sources don't mention anything outside of cultural artefacts (I assume you were referring to Sidney Moko Mead, who is indeed an art/anthropological history expert). Which leaves the question of what how we should demarcate the different pre-European stages of Māori history (Archaic/Moahunter, Classical, Traditional, etc) and their approximate timeframes (or even if such demarcation is necessary). On another note, does anyone else think that the current History section has become way too large for an introductory article? By itself, the section would make a decent-sized (and long overdue) Māori history article, which we could summarise here, in the same way that we did for the main New Zealand article. Thoughts? – Liveste (talk • edits) 00:05, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Attacks on shipping

Someone reverted a small section on ship attacks -a much reduced version a section entered a few months back.The new section had deatials of other atatcks from Paul Moons new book.The regular attacks show an aspect of interaction between Maori and European that is not covered elsewhere. The attack on the Boyd is quite well known but the multitude of attacks on other ships is less well known. It was the major source or serious confrontion between Maori and Pakeha. About 300 Europeans were killed and many of them eaten. In addition to the 8 named ships -Maori prepared to attack other ships but the attacks were either driven off or friendly Maori warned the crew what was about to happen. It appears the main reason for the attacks was to gain muskets and other weapons or trade items. When European prisoners were taken they were sometimes exchanged for muskets and weapons. Cannibalism was a side issue from a Maori point of view.1%

I reverted the controversial material you added because you did not cite a reference for it. I suggest you go and look for references to these events in mainstream historical sources and cite references to them if you re-add them. See Wikipedia:Citing sources. Daveosaurus (talk) 09:19, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the section added earlier because it was far too detailed, with one paragraph per shipwreck. As I said in my edit summary, we do not add a paragraph on every battle in the "Musket Wars", many of which had far higher death tolls, so why should we do so for early shipwrecks?
I have no objection to the several sentences added more recently, although a suitable source is required. If you wish to give greater detail on each incident, you are welcome to write an article on each individual ship, or more ambitiously, on Early contact between Māori and Western peoples or similar.-gadfium 21:10, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Dave (again) I agreed with your original removal as it was far too long. My version was a synopsis. Clearly it is not a contraversial subject.The attacks on ships are all well documented (for early 19th C history). Professor Paul Moon is NZ's leading historian on that era in our history. He is the best authority by far.Savage Country is the 3rd book in a trilogy on the 1820s.It is his 21st book on NZ. The book has recently been praised for its depth of research-the bibliography is 14 pages long and there are 31 pages of notes. The information is very relevant to the Maori/settler relationship theme as it shows the warrior attitude of Maori in action over a 35ish year period.It high lights that Maori were truely driven the acquire muskets and other weapons during that period. I think you might be saying that no one has made that point before -you are right but that makes the section doubly important. This article is about Maori people and what they did in each time period.It would be misleading to leave out this newly researched info. I would like you to revert it please.I hope your definition of "mainstream" is not "books that agree with my point of view"??You cannot get more main stream than Prof Paul Moon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.58.189.177 (talk) 21:40, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested Move

Māori people → Maori people – By far the diacritic free version is more common in English so WP: UE OttomanJackson (talk) 03:52, 27 July 2012 (UTC) Also change all instances of Māori to Maori. Changed proposed title from Maori People to Maori people per WP:BOLD. Please revert if not warranted. —  AjaxSmack  02:03, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Past discussions about macron

Discussion

  • Oppose move. The macron is recommended by the Māori Language Commission, and is common in New Zealand English, which is the appropriate language for this article.-gadfium 06:12, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. "Māori" is the correct spelling; "Maori" is an incorrect spelling. There is already an automatic redirect in place for readers who are unwilling or unable to type the letter "ā". Daveosaurus (talk) 06:37, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Per MOS:TIES clause (strong national ties to a topic) of WP:ENGVAR, we should give considerable weight to New Zealand English usage. The proposer does not address this point. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 13:01, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
proves my point. http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Maori%2C+Maaori%2C+Māori&year_start=1800&year_end=2008&corpus=0&smoothing=3 OttomanJackson (talk) 15:11, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Not all of those sources come from New Zealand, though, and as per P.T. Aufrette common usage is invalid in this instance. Plus, changing it would ignore the Māori pronunciation, as well as be yet another example of this — Zaldax (talk) 19:45, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Is the proposed capitalization of "People" a typo? If not, it's a problem. Jojalozzo 20:11, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I changed the proposed title to reflect this concern. —  AjaxSmack  02:03, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Several editors above have commented that this is an issue of WP:ENGVAR and that the macron usage is "common in New Zealand English". I don't see this in the article's sources. Any evidence for this? —  AjaxSmack  02:00, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
8,350 Google Scholar results - probably includes cataloguing distortion, but still plenty of evidence in NZ govt sources etc since 1960s. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:11, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But that's less than 1⁄10 of the Google scholar sources using "Maori". Hardly common. Are there major NZ sources (e.g., new outlets and the like) using the macron? I'm trying to get an idea of usage vis-à-vis say Ireland where the fada is widely used in English-language sources on relevant proper names. —  AjaxSmack  02:49, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi AjaxSmack. No the Maori macron is nowhere near as commonly used in the North Island as the fada in Ireland. It is not liked, at all, by a large part of the British-descent Kiwi demographic (1). and presents software difficulties to universities like Te Kunenga ki Pūrehuroa (2). But the software difficulties have been squared away for printing (3). Majority isn't the issue here, but MOS:TIES. I'm not sure about whether WP:ENGVAR allows for Pakeha English and Maori English. In any case this is evidently a controversial move, not likely to encourage Maori editors to contribute to en.wp, I wouldn't have thought. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:20, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with MOS:TIES but, according to you, macron usage is both a small minority and is controversial within New Zealand. Wikipedia is not here to advocate a point or promote a particular point of view. —  AjaxSmack  15:44, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well. What can I tell you. Māori people are only 15% of the population, I'm sure that in terms of population whites who resent and dislike Maori macrons would be more than 15% of the population. But the rule on road signs has been in place since 2007, even down in relatively Maori-less bottom of the South Island (road signs). and "Kaka St" In ictu oculi (talk) 17:03, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose There is no sense in which the macronless version is more correct than the preferred version. It shows readers the preferred version without interfering with their ability to understand or find the article. μηδείς (talk) 03:03, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- If the NZ natives think the correct form has the diacritical, it should be there, but Maori people should exist as a redirect, as being convenient to the uninitiated and those without ready access to accented letters. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:41, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- I have several friends that are from this tribe and they insist on using the correct form rather than the much easier way to spell it. ViriiK (talk) 22:42, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- per PT Aufrette and IIO. EngVAR is relevant here. Feel free to create as many redirects as necessary to aid users.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:47, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support My dad (from NZ) saw Maori more frequently, plus macrons do not exist in English. As we do not have Cyrillic or Chinese characters in article titles, we should not have macrons. OttomanJackson posted an ngrams link that clearly favors Maori. I will repost it
http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Maori%2C+Maaori%2C+Māori&year_start=1800&year_end=2008&corpus=0&smoothing=3 
KaiserWilly (talk) 03:11, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
According to that ngram, the spelling Māori does not exist. That would appear to be a flaw in the ngram rather than an argument.-gadfium 04:36, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
comment Note, past discussions:

Pronunciation of Maori

I added the pronunciation meɪˈɔriː (may-OR-ee) commonly used in American English (only pronunciation I have ever heard). It was removed. I think it should be given as an alternate to the already present MOW-ree pronunciation. OttomanJackson (talk) 03:18, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you haven't yet seen the comment left on your talk page a couple of days ago, you could take a look. Basically it says "....Please note that when you changed the IPA pronounciation guide at Māori people, you changed it to a pronounciation which is not only incorrect, but also considered offensive in New Zealand English ...." Moriori (talk) 03:55, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a reference for that pronunciation? There are some sounds in the Māori language which are difficult for non-speakers to reproduce correctly. It may be that American English speakers have more trouble with these sounds than speakers of New Zealand English.-gadfium 04:36, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have heard this pronunciation from all Americans, including educated ones. I googled to see if it was offensive at could find no evidence that it was. Even if it is, that is irrelevant, as Wikipedia has a list of ethnic slurs. Wikipedia is not censored to remove profanities or offensive terms. Since there is no evidence that it is offensive, and since it is used by most, if not all Americans (the largest native Anglophone nation), it should be given as an alternate. It should not be marked as offensive unless a source can be found saying it is.

Thanks,

OttomanJackson (talk) 15:18, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Māori_people&oldid=504947187"