American ponders the feasibility of buying one of New Zealand's larger islands, /r/newzealand responds: "You can't just fucking bowl up and buy up land that has meaning and value beyond money, you fucking asshole entitled arrogant wank. " (np.reddit.com)
SubredditDrama
342 ups - 103 downs = 239 votes
365 comments submitted at 05:01:53 on Nov 11, 2013 by thestarsaredown
A bit of context. The island he wanted to buy is protected land, owned by a Maori iwi, or tribe, Maori being the native people of New Zealand. Americans buying land is a touchy enough subject in New Zealand without that land being Maori land of national significance, and the land buyer being a delusional Brony.
>Americans buying land is a touchy enough subject in New Zealand without that land being Maori land of national significance
Why is it touchy? Shouldn't all these things be priced in upfront? If not, seems like you should be mad at your government and not landbuyers.
I mean, yeah this is all fanciful and whatnot but a lot of good ideas (ie, charter cities) get derailed by local populist pressures like this. Not blaming any party in particular, but the whole "what about the natives" point is not a debate-ender.
Nope, there's a government agency with the unimaginative name of the Overseas Investment Office which is tasked with regulating foreign purchases of NZ land. An overseas investor who wants to purchase land which meets particular criteria (size, value, type, historical significance, etc) needs to get permission before they could consider buying land.
If the land has particular significance to Maori, the likelihood of the OIO granting consent is practically zero. No permission, no purchase.
It is when their land rights are protected under the treaty of waitangi
Yeah, well, then the land isn't for sale (presumably) and it's a non-issue?
You're the one who asked why land rights were touchy. I was merely answering your question
> Why is it touchy?
Just another kiwi touching in with an opinion straight from the gut (I generally like your contributions around the place btw). New Zealand is a very small and beautiful country, and as such we are vulnerable to wealth and power. American's represent that, they represent the homogenizing of kiwi culture into one pile of grey daytime TV sludge. Once we sell ourselves we that part of New Zealand is gone, we're just another employee of a machine we have no control over.
You think it's just selling some land, maybe a bit of culture. But it's really we see it as fucking over the country for your own benefit. It's taboo because we're all trying to hold the fort.
I mean, you just wait until you see what happens to sports people that swap countries. Jesus... I still... there was so much blood....
Seems like you and Marie Le Pen would have a lot to talk about.
Beware of white people bearing gifts. Land has cultural significance in New Zealand that I wouldn't expect anyone outside to understand, as most New Zealanders don't fully understand it either.
Since I have spent the last year studying the history of land in New Zealand I am more than happy to discuss it with anyone who doesn't run away, but your comment shows a discouraging lack of open mindedness to our ways.
It's amusing that you're being downvoted considering white people killed off the natives of three whole continents just to settle there.
Aye, what ever happened to "White Pride" in our murderous achievements?
No doubt that the liberals are responsible.
I'm guessing it's by people pretending it didn't happen. You would think they would want to be proud of what white people did, I mean morality aside it was fairly impressive.
Well in two of the three continents disease did most of the work, not quite sure about Australia and NZ but the lack of large populations probably didn't help things.
A lot of reddit seems to hate the idea that colonialism and colonisation was a bad thing that continues to do harm to people today. It's a pretty common topic on /r/badhistory.
We gotta watch out, them whities never changed right?
Nah I'm always looking out for new lands to colonise, new people to enslave. It's in my genes.
Yeah. The Irish have totally been History's biggest land-thieves.
You joke (Irish aren't white obviously), but the Irish are the greatest threat to freedom and democracy in the world.
Is that top picture from the Magic: The Gathering card Oath of Druids?
Yes. Yes it is.
Plus they made Jedward
Was their halloween costume twin towers?
No, they're more Twin Peaks than Twin Towers.
Nah, that was these two charmers.
I really hope that you're joking.
Joking? The Hiberian conspiracy has taken hold of the world of finance, has control of mass media, even has their Gaelic tendrils in the White House.
Dude. Seriously, is this Poe's Law, or is this a new leaf for /r/conspiracy?
The Hiberian conspiracy is no laughing matter.
This is my new favourite bullshit crackpot theory.
See what I have this guy tagged as
He's an original, a hark back to the true days of trolling, before 12 year olds got on it.
Those infographics... Man.
Its a parody of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
Begorrah, our secret's out lads!!
Your picture says Irish but I always though both Bushes and Ronald Reagan were American.
It's part of the reason for our strict anti-catholic policies.
Mmm. Dat oppression.
I don't why people bring up the Irish. No shit, they got oppressed by the English, but they got their sovereignty back, the Maori didn't. I'm happy as a settler that we get to use the land, but come on. It may have been the way back in the day, but we are all supposed to have consciences now.
People bring up the Irish when people say "All white people are fascist oppressors who conquer everyone."
I was just white baiting, a popular sport in New Zealand that recently came into season. I find the most succulent ones are the freshest.
God damn you've got some people angry in this thread.
You jest about us. But what some don't realise is that we've already made solid inroads into taking over the USA, Canada and the UK. We just move in slowly over the course of 1 or 2 hundred years. Australia is next.
We'll have 3/4 of the English-speaking world by the year 2350, all according to our plan. And all that without being able to afford a rock to throw in anger.
We may end up being the most effective land-stealing whites in history! Hah!!
Yes, but the Irish aren't even white people. They are white negroes.
I think the part that is escaping you is that New Zealand isn't just Maori people. That Whites are the ones who took the land that had nothing to do with Americans.
That still today you are part of the Common Wealth that oppressed the Maori People while the American People freed themselves from that oppression.
Apparently the Kiwi thinks I'm off my rocker. So, a little history lesson that I have bad habit of thinking most people already know. Many of the crucial framers of the Constitution and founders of the USA were actually abolitionists (e.g., Franklin, Jefferson, Washington, Adams, Madison). Now keep in mind what are abolitionists today vs back then is quite different (i.e., they were very racist to you and me). These men were of the Federalist Party which was the primary party that became of the North in the Civil War.
To prove to you how much passion there was against the crown regarding oppression I give you Jefferson's "original draft" to the King -- The Declaration of Independence. This version has a long list of transgressions that includes the following:
Now to be fair to history King G had rumored to drum up revolt of the slaves, and that may have had some impact on the extra rhetoric. However, Adam's reported to love it, and the reality is that the Southern Colonies of course would not go along with this premise. For fragile nation to have any hope the colonies had to remain united to have any hope so slavery, unfortunately, had to remain.
Now USA does not have a perfect track record, but certainly a better one than the UK who did try to enslave Native Americans.
Edit: to add an important historical backdrop between the lines
> That still today you are part of the Common Wealth that oppressed the Maori People while the American People freed themselves from that oppression.
Jesus Christ, good lord above, you cannot be serious. God give me strength in this, my time of need. Though you may test us, I know it is only because you love us, and that even the bitterest of trials is always a blessing in disguise. Amen.
This thread is the gift that keeps on giving. The beauty of all this is I can talk about what's happening right here under our noses and there'll still be people with no clue at all. Critical thinking is a hard thing to teach.
Yep, full escape of the point and blames Americans ◔_◔
Heading: The British Empire is Never Sorry
> Yet the Queen herself had established an earlier British precedent on this matter. Whilst she would not apologise personally, In November 1995, Queen Elizabeth who is also New Zealand's queen and head of state approved a parliamentary bill which "apologizes unreservedly" to the New Zealand Maori in an attempt to atone for treaty violations and the invasion of its lands in 1863. The legislation which included reparations amounted to a payment of $112 million and the return of 39,000 acres to the Tainui people. The legislation states that "the Crown expresses its profound regret and apologizes unreservedly for the loss of lives because of the hostilities arising from its invasion, and at the devastation of property and social life which resulted". In New Zealand political parlance, the term "the Crown" denotes the Government, not the monarchy. (p.28 of PDF)
More general information.
However, you probably already know this. So, why all the anti-Americanism when it's just a person making an offer and you masking like your ancestors (i.e., waging war and coercion)?
The British empire were the first to end slavery and actively policed waters stopping slave shapes whilst it took a full blown civil war to end it in the US. Now the British empire was still an abhorrent organisation you cannot say that the US was a shining beacon of freedom when it came to slavery. You were one of the last countries in the world to legally end it.
> The British empire were the first to end slavery
Oh Really?
ctrl + F united kingdom and Britain
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolitionofslavery_timeline
edit: oh and the farther down you go the better it gets
Whoosh.
People in my village would be very unhappy if a Maori tried to buy a cottage here, so I fully understand your insular racism.
lolololol
Your sense of self awareness is staggering.
> Land has cultural significance
This is true in a lot of places. It should be factored into the price. If it is, then there's nothing to complain about. If it isn't, then this is a policy issue that's I have no reason to believe is fundamentally dissimilar to the sorts of complaints that normally arise regarding zoning and development.
What price do you put on culture?
Whatever price you want. If you feel your culture is invaluable then don't sell.
Whatever price leaves you better off selling it than keeping it.
Fucking americans. Shaking my head at this answer.
Capitalism. Fuck yeah!
fuck yea! its why you are in a warm room with a full stomach typing on an invention as amazing as the personal computer. maybe later you can go take a nice comfortable shit using your amazing indoor plumbing and water supply. Fuck capitalism for raising the standard of living beyond anything recorded in human history. fucking idiot.
You sound angry.
Also I'm pretty sure those poor countries that we exploit in our capitalistic system wouldn't quite agree with you there.
Capitalism isn't a fucking religion. Stop proselytizing.
mic drop
What? If they don't like the price, they can tell the interested buyer to fuck off in as rude a manner as they see fit. If they like the price, they can take the money. No one is being forced into anything.
Yep. This is just the usual sort of cultural fetishization that acts like it's a bad thing when native descendents do things like learn English and get office jobs. People "sell" their culture all the time in this fashion, and pretty much everyone is better off for it. I'm not saying that it has to be done, but if people have land and want to sell it, then presumptively the cultural costs aren't really very prohibitive.
Exactly. I'm not passing judgement one way or another.
And if the New Zealand people/government don't want anyone to sell their land, they can offer something in compensation to keep them from selling.
This is really just basic trade on a larger scale, not some radical new concept invented by dastardly Americans eager to swindle the natives and take all their worldly possessions.
Why is a future culture worth less than a past culture? I'm all for preservation of history, but time moves forward and we can't stop it. History has its own place.
That said, there are very good reasons that Great Barrier Island should remain exactly the way it is, it really doesn't yet need to yield to the passage of time as far as I can tell.
fucking stupid people that have no understanding of the relationship between money and value. shaking my head at your ignorance.
Nah, I think it's a good point -- OP gave a pretty... "undeveloped" answer basically saying that the land has sentimental value. Which I'm sure is probably true for most of the land that's ever been purchased anywhere throughout history.
But ComedicSans gave a more specific answer -- a governing body basically controls the price, and will also keep the "sentimental value" in mind when considering a sale.
OP made it sound like nobody could purchase land in NZ, because "culture," but you could make that same argument for basically every country in the world.
I did not say that nobody could purchase land in New Zealand. The specifics don't really matter, because he was asking the equivalent of "why can't I just buy Yellowstone park or the Grand Canyon?"
For sure, I'm just saying that -- theoretically -- the US would probably be willing to sell Yellowstone for a few trillion dollars (and probably much, much less -- it's just that most people don't have the money, and the few who do aren't interested in the first place).
And his point (even though he phrased it pretty poorly) was basically that "everything's negotiable."
Just as a hypothetical -- let's say I'm an eccentric trillionaire who wants to "buy" that maori piece of land, but only so I can build a single house for myself (on a 1-acre plot of land), and I'd continue to let the government have full control over the rest of the land, because I'm a nice guy -- and also very eccentric. And kinda stupid.
You can bet your sweet ass the government would take that deal, regardless of the area's rich history or whatever else it's got going for it.
For what it's worth, I completely agree with both of you. You just made it sound like an impossibility based on "culture" alone, but then another guy mentioned that there's a governing body who decides these kinds of things (who will also take "culture/history/whatever-else" into account when making the decision).
Do you have ignorant, bigoted opinions of all nationalities, or just Americans?
White America: The REAL victims of bigotry.
I said nothing of race. Statements of dislike about entire groups of people is bigotry. What is so objectionable about that concept?
To answer your original question, it's touchy precisely because we don't want it to just be a business transaction where you buy land, and come here every few years or something.
The additional touchiness is because Maori land, and particularly nature reserves, should not be sold to anyone. It should be kept for the mokopuna. The land is their rangatiratanga, their sovereignty. You cannot put a price on the destruction of a people, as the people are tied to the land, they are tangata whenua. Or at least, that's what I've heard of it.
However, you're obviously not worth explaining to, since you don't want to hear it.
Sorry to detract from the conversation you were having, but I just have to ask, do you happen to realize I went and made that post precisely because I did want to hear about this? I know I should just move on, but I just really can't understand what wasn't clear to so many people about the way I approached the situation. I started by saying I had a question, right? Why is it so hard to believe I was... you know... questioning?
It was a ridiculous question, the kind of naive question we get every single day, but more so. If you were the first to ask ridiculous questions, I'm sure people would have answered seriously if they weren't so bored of the constant onslaught of potential tourists.
I don't particularly blame you, but ask yourself how would the average American respond if a Chinese guy showed up asking if he could buy a national monument because he was going to be wealthy beyond their wildest dreams some day?
Meh... I just wish you weren't all missing exactly how careful I really am to be as objectively realistic as possible, though of course I make errors as a member of our finnicky little species. I mean, honestly, anyone who knows me (not that y'all are supposed to magically know me) will tell you that asking me to imagine the inverse of something I've done (such as your Chinese dude example)... it's never ever going to be what makes me think I was wrong, because I'm always thinking my actions and beliefs through to the most logical extent I'm capable of, so a logical analog isn't going to make me reach a different conclusion. I hope that's not too abstract of a concept to come across properly in text; but I'm sort of not considering any of my actions from a subjective enough viewpoint for that little trick to work.
I don't particularly blame you either though, now that you put it that way. I didn't consider how many other stupid questions you get in a week, because, try as I might, being human makes a full objective viewpoint impossible. (But Chinese people don't show up asking to buy our monuments every day either, you see?) I just also kind of think the way I asked the question probably (probably) had more potential for real, intellectual discussion than most of the other questions you guys (probably) get. It disappoints me that instead I was just verbally abused.
>how careful I really am to be as objectively realistic as possible
I'm going to make billions and found my own country which will be a utopian paradise! Realistic should have no place in your vocabulary.
That you think abstract concepts cannot be communicated through text makes me suspect you've never read, or tried to read, continental philosophy. It's interesting that you understand your weak points, but you knowing how poorly you've thought things through actually makes your actions more crazy, not less.
Shakespeare said keep it short, so to live what I preach the best relateable example I can give is Charlie from Always Sunny in Philly. He's a dumbass, but likeable, until in S09 E08 he takes a placebo that makes him think he's intelligent. He gets very arrogant, and talks in complicated gibberish because he thinks it makes him sound smart. That is what you appear to be doing now, pretentious nonsense and arrogant ranting. It may be trolling, but if it is then that's just sad.
Eh. I know abstract concepts can be communicated through text, it was really a roundabout way of saying I hope you're capable of interpreting my description.
I'm sorry you see me that way, but you're just wrong. I've got an insurmountable bunch of evidence against your claims sitting in my perspective and I really wish human communication would allow me to share it with you in a conclusive way. Instead you'd disregard whatever you don't want to believe as lies or miraculous lapses in judgment. Long story short, some people are actually incredibly smart but have absolute zero desire to use proper tact. Hello. If only you had the perspective or objectivity needed to understand me.
You're so ignorant it hurts to read.
Yeah okay.
121 children. wow the drama came right to our doorstep.