Split Thread Maori Creationism in Science lessons

Was there really a traditional Maori view of humans as part of the natural world? I ask because that sounds a lot like the sentimental hooey made up about First Peoples here in N. America (yes, ALL of them, Iroquois and Diggers, Hopi and Blackfeet, Algonquins and Apaches and oh god lay me down!). It's a viewpoint that I'd attribute more to modern-day Western environmental disciplines than to Neolithic gardeners and fishermen.

When the people of lesser societies encounter more capable ways of life, they can't help feeling resentful, and their reaction almost always takes a destructively nativist direction. We see this right here in the USA, and not with FPs, but with white rural proletarians.

"Give me ignorance or give me death!" sounds like parody. But it isn't.
 
sackett said:
Was there really a traditional Maori view of humans as part of the natural world? I ask because that sounds a lot like the sentimental hooey made up about First Peoples here in N. America (yes, ALL of them, Iroquois and Diggers, Hopi and Blackfeet, Algonquins and Apaches and oh god lay me down!). It's a viewpoint that I'd attribute more to modern-day Western environmental disciplines than to Neolithic gardeners and fishermen.

When the people of lesser societies encounter more capable ways of life, they can't help feeling resentful, and their reaction almost always takes a destructively nativist direction. We see this right here in the USA, and not with FPs, but with white rural proletarians.

"Give me ignorance or give me death!" sounds like parody. But it isn't.
Click to expand...

So it is the fault of the pakeha!
 
angrysoba said:
So it is the fault of the pakeha!
Click to expand...

I see your point. Of course the pre- or non- or (in the US instance) anti-literate groups must borrow their lore from the imaginings of the larger society, especially after their last purely oral traditionalists have died out. (I think that the larger societies don't fall into that floofy Noble Savage pot o' crap until well after the real savages are pacified.)

But I think that the Maoris and Sioux and others, being now, willy-nilly, literate peoples, can be called to account for the stuff they profess. My challenge to their assertions would be less scholarly than blunt: "Where in hell do you get all that?"

The honest answer would be that they read it in a book. The answer that they'll blare is "From our traditional wisdom that our ancestors give us in our tradition! Bleah!" And b'god there'll be plenty of besotted pakeha and wisichu to blare it after them.

And it's been building up for generations.
 
sackett said:
I see your point. Of course the pre- or non- or (in the US instance) anti-literate groups must borrow their lore from the imaginings of the larger society, especially after their last purely oral traditionalists have died out. (I think that the larger societies don't fall into that floofy Noble Savage pot o' crap until well after the real savages are pacified.)

But I think that the Maoris and Sioux and others, being now, willy-nilly, literate peoples, can be called to account for the stuff they profess. My challenge to their assertions would be less scholarly than blunt: "Where in hell do you get all that?"

The honest answer would be that they read it in a book. The answer that they'll blare is "From our traditional wisdom that our ancestors give us in our tradition! Bleah!" And b'god there'll be plenty of besotted pakeha and wisichu to blare it after them.

And it's been building up for generations.
Click to expand...
Yes. The crazies here have been given control of all water, in and out of the infrastructure. Equal control Maori and colonists, with complete veto rights by Maori.
All water executives are equal but some are more equal than others.
They claim they understand water better because they were here sooner.
The result is incredibly highly paid jobs for Maori consultants and spiritual advisors, most of whom are 25% or less Maori by DNA.
 
Last edited:
sackett said:
I see your point. Of course the pre- or non- or (in the US instance) anti-literate groups must borrow their lore from the imaginings of the larger society, especially after their last purely oral traditionalists have died out. (I think that the larger societies don't fall into that floofy Noble Savage pot o' crap until well after the real savages are pacified.)

But I think that the Maoris and Sioux and others, being now, willy-nilly, literate peoples, can be called to account for the stuff they profess. My challenge to their assertions would be less scholarly than blunt: "Where in hell do you get all that?"

The honest answer would be that they read it in a book. The answer that they'll blare is "From our traditional wisdom that our ancestors give us in our tradition! Bleah!" And b'god there'll be plenty of besotted pakeha and wisichu to blare it after them.

And it's been building up for generations.
Click to expand...

Here's the thing, I have no idea what traditional Maori views are of mankind's relationship with nature. It is possible that there is a genuine oral tradition that has been passed down, and it is also possible that this is a modern reinvention.

But, it is almost certainly true that there was a tradition in the West for seeing humanity as above nature. The idea is religious, that God gave Man dominion over the animals etc... Modern science has, over time, challenged that view which is one of the reasons why Darwinian evolution was considered so controversial, and of course later with things like the Big Bang, etc..

I have no problem with a textbook looking at ways different societies have conceptualized the place of mankind in nature, if it is accurate, of course.

My first thought about Maori Creationism in schools was "No thanks!" but in this case I don't see that being used here. In fact, it seems only to be a minor foray into the history and philosophy of science which I find a perfectly normal thing for a textbook to include.

Is there anything in this textbook that is particularly objectionable?
 
Lplus said:
They'll no doubt just blame the remaining paheka.
Click to expand...

:dl:

No doubt on that.

sackett said:
Was there really a traditional Maori view of humans as part of the natural world?
Click to expand...

Unknown.

What we do know is they didn't have any other words for people. "Maori" was all they knew. Everything else is an invention.

How they saw themselves in terms of nature, I'm not sure. They happily hunted moa to extinction, and burned off so much bush the ash is still visible in cross sections of Antarctic ice.
 
The Atheist said:
:dl:

No doubt on that.



Unknown.

What we do know is they didn't have any other words for people. "Maori" was all they knew. Everything else is an invention.

How they saw themselves in terms of nature, I'm not sure. They happily hunted moa to extinction, and burned off so much bush the ash is still visible in cross sections of Antarctic ice.
Click to expand...

Indeed. And this is also similar to the hunting of megafauna all over the world suggesting that Māori probably do not have any uniquely blessed way of living with the environment.
 
angrysoba said:
Indeed. And this is also similar to the hunting of megafauna all over the world suggesting that Māori probably do not have any uniquely blessed way of living with the environment.
Click to expand...
Yes, let's keep pushing that angle. I mean, Pakeha wasted no time replacing the rest of the fauna with introduced species, and destroying the 70% of forest that was left. Soon after which we discovered coal and then oil, with which we are now destroying the entire planet's environment.

And now some Maori pretend the environment matters to them, as if it did to any of their ancestors. I say drag them down into the gutter so when the **** hits the fan nobody can claim they are better than us.
 
angrysoba said:
Is there anything in this textbook that is particularly objectionable?
Click to expand...

On the one page recently posted, it contrasts the Maori worldview with "the Traditional" worldview in which "humans are superior to the environment".

I think, and I may be overthinking, that this is setting up a strawman. I don't think it's helpful to accuse all non-Maori of being anti-environmental.
 
angrysoba said:
Here's the thing, I have no idea what traditional Maori views are of mankind's relationship with nature. It is possible that there is a genuine oral tradition that has been passed down, and it is also possible that this is a modern reinvention.

But, it is almost certainly true that there was a tradition in the West for seeing humanity as above nature. The idea is religious, that God gave Man dominion over the animals etc... Modern science has, over time, challenged that view which is one of the reasons why Darwinian evolution was considered so controversial, and of course later with things like the Big Bang, etc..

I have no problem with a textbook looking at ways different societies have conceptualized the place of mankind in nature, if it is accurate, of course.

My first thought about Maori Creationism in schools was "No thanks!" but in this case I don't see that being used here. In fact, it seems only to be a minor foray into the history and philosophy of science which I find a perfectly normal thing for a textbook to include.

Is there anything in this textbook that is particularly objectionable?
Click to expand...

The mauri and mana concepts in the textbook on p. 124 look to be not scientific, so to that extent it's objectionable to have that in a science textbook.
 
It would be nice if there were a science textbook that conceptualized the place of mankind in nature on a rational, scientific basis.

You don't have to appeal to primitive superstition, in order to teach conservation, ecosystems, etc.
 
Come to that,

1) All superstition is primitive. It's inadequate thinking that ignores evidence.

2) We're all descended from hunting savages, and at no great distance in time. To be sure, it takes all the wits you've got to be a hunter-forager, and I doubt that the oldest ones let daft beliefs get between them and dinner. But

3) We're also descended from Neolithic farmers, all but a damn tiny minority of us, and I think that superstition, i.e., religionism, really took off with the advent of agriculture, simply because it's such a chancy, scary, uncertain way of life.

The Maoris are no longer subsistence farmers, and the futility of their supposedly traditional beliefs obviously applies to them just as much as to everybody else.

Oh, how's that? Nativist officials paying themselves big salaries out of public funds? Gee, I thought that went out in the early 70s when I was living in Colorado and La Raza was hiring 23-year-old nondegree "systems analysts" for $40,000 a year. That's in 70s dollars.

Not that I blamed them much, because I supposed that it wouldn't last.
 
angrysoba said:
Go to page 1. It is called SciPad. It is "The essential workbook for New Zealand science students"

Then look at the contents page.

Then flip through it.

It is a science textbook.
Click to expand...
It is, in fact, one page in a series of 60 science textbooks.

I'm not seeing the destruction of NZ's science curriculum here.
 
Paul2 said:
The mauri and mana concepts in the textbook on p. 124 look to be not scientific, so to that extent it's objectionable to have that in a science textbook.
Click to expand...

True. Yeah, that really is garbage.

Yeah, that should definitely not have made the edit.
 
Paul2 said:
The mauri and mana concepts in the textbook on p. 124 look to be not scientific, so to that extent it's objectionable to have that in a science textbook.
Click to expand...

They should be teaching that *that* is the "traditional worldview".
 
sackett said:
3) We're also descended from Neolithic farmers...
Click to expand...

Just a small aside: if you refer to pre-European Maori as neolithic - a perfectly accurate term - it's a hanging offence.

arthwollipot said:
It is, in fact, one page in a series of 60 science textbooks.

I'm not seeing the destruction of NZ's science curriculum here.
Click to expand...

Maori have employed the thin edge of the wedge for half a century. They've already successfully had traditional Maori medicine removed from the need to have evidential backing, and what you see in that science curriculum is just the start.
 
The Atheist said:
Just a small aside: if you refer to pre-European Maori as neolithic - a perfectly accurate term - it's a hanging offence.
Click to expand...

While this punishment is not literally true, what are the sanctions against making a perfectly reasonable comment like this?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom