Sometimes I read ATS and it's like I fell facefirst into Stormfront.
Originally posted by Headhurts
Well the Celtic types of people would have had to be from Europe. Ireland has a lot of rock carvings with swirling designs that look like the designs
on the cheeks of tattooed Maori men.
The Celts did not invent the sworl/ It's a pretty simple design, you know, anyone with a stick and a little bit of dirt can make one easy enough.
Besides that, moko designs are quite different from the swirls of the Celts - certainly vastly more complicated. Also they're actually inked facial
carvings, not tattoos. They used a chisel for the things. Think about that for a moment. Ouch.
The can of worms would be the huge upheaval of NZ society when the status quo is challenged.
Currently, because it is thought Maori were in NZ before Whites, there is racially based legislated discrimination 200 years later even if the white
people were born in NZ. This loony left racism would mean that if it were shown that Celts were in NZ before Maori, the Whites should have more rights
than the Maori.
I think you're confused. Well, okay, I know
you are confused. Plain fact is, even if there were people there prior to the Maori, and even if
they were white (HUGE stretch, by the way) they were not the ancestors of modern white NZ'ers
. Every white face in New Zealand is the
descendant of Europeans who moved in after 1769. If there were a bunch of white people living on the islands before the Maori, they certainly weren't
there by the time Europeans showed up.
The fact that you're grasping for racial entitlement based off people who, even if they even existed have absolutely no biological or cultural
relation to you says an awful lot about you.
Sound silly? Well to people like me who object to left-wing racism it is just as silly to suggest that a white baby born today owes the Maori
baby born today in the next crib something. Try telling that to a left-wing dimwit though.
Imagine white people having exclusive seats in parliament, or exclusive fishing rights. It would never happen, but the rights contemporary Maori have
would be in jeopardy if it were shown they were not here before the whites.
They were most definitely there before Europeans. I'm completely certain that you have absolutely no ancestral claims to New Zealand that are older
than two hundred years, if that. So far the only racism out here is your own, since you think you deserve entitlements because you're white.
So, rather than tell the truth about NZ archaeology, the government chooses to destroy and lie about history.
Of course. Lack of evidence to support your whackadoo claims is in and of itself evidence. Are all white new Zealanders this paranoid and bizarre, or
is it just you?
Incidentally, there were some mummified remains found in China recently that had blonde and red hair and were tall. These findings have also
[edit on 26-1-2007 by Headhurts]
No they certainly weren't suppressed. Those folks were Tocharians. We have plenty of contemporary accounts of them from the Persians and Chinese. We
have chunks of their writings, and examples of culture, clothing, and appearance, both from their own hands and from the records of their
contemporaries. They were a Turkic people, likely with strong Persian connections.
Since you are clearly unaware, blonde or red hair is not exclusive to Europe. Not by far. Red hair is quite common among Polynesians, while lots of
Australian Aboriginal children (And even older men and women) are blondes. Both shades of hair are pretty common in central Asia. There are even a few
African populations that have blonde or red hair.
Also worth mentioning is that dark hair (such as that found in East Asians and Native Americans) oxidizes to red after a while of being dead, while
really old hair will develop a very fine texture and pale color.
[edit on 30-5-2009 by TheWalkingFox]