A good summary thanks. I’m almost finished the book but it can be tough going, especially if one chooses to review his plethoric references along the way. The debate over ‘western cultural superiority’ will remain deeply polarised as people are generally entrenched in their views, so Biggar’s balanced work won’t change much. I’m firmly on the ‘net good’ side as the evidence of Christian charity (a key element of colonisation) & technological advance shows obvious net gains in social & moral realms, as well as improved life quality & expectancy.
Or looking at it in simpler terms, those western colonising countries & those most effectively colonised by them just so happen to be the countries today that most people wish to live in.
Although I have not read Biggar's book even secondary school biology provides a wider and dare I say more useful perspective on the phenomena of colonisation that for the most part is intentionally overlooked. That is that all domains of life - Archaea, Bacteria, and Eukarya are subject to an imperative to grow and multiply. Those that cannot - die off and those that do - survive.
In the New Zealand context all humans are colonizers no matter what part of the world they travelled from, as are all rats, stoats, possums and tuataras. Some are better adapted to NZ conditions than others. Almost all of the debate about colonization in NZ is fixated on the British Colonial period - a brief time in history. The debate uses a curiously ironic blend of so-called Critical Theory mixed with a lingering Judeo-Christian morality to arrive at the conclusion that the Maori were swindled and that recompense is owed. As well understood from 800 years of pre-European inter-tribal warfare - the established Maori perspective at the time of European colonization had a winner takes all approach to resources and was completely untroubled by the plight of those unfortunate enough to be dispossessed of their territories and for those fortunate enough to survive to become slaves to their conquerors.
At the same time that the hand-wringers make their claims - they are completely blind to the multitude of ongoing processes of colonization by off-shore entities. Multi-national corporate entities including finance and lending institutions, insurance, media organisations to name a few, have insinuated themselves into NZ with our passive agreement in exactly the same way that the NZ Company did 200 years ago. I for one would be very interested to know how many of those most concerned with NZ "colonial" history were quite happy to roll up their sleeves and take an untested MRNA gene therapy and accept God only knows what into their own bodies.
Is not the colonization of the mind by foreign ideas at least as newsworthy as pakeha arrival in Aotearoa - or is the debate a Magician's trick to direct our attention to the colonial misdeeds of our ancestors, in order to prevent the audience from seeing the ongoing colonial misdeeds being perpetrated today by foreign powers?
Navel gazing and hand wringing come to mind. Colonialism is surely multi-hued, from benign to sadistic and oppressive. Think Taranaki Maori in Rekohu, Begians in the Congo contrasted with The Clapham Sect and the ToW in NZ.
Also read Biggar's book with similar conclusions...except for keeping in mind eating the cabin boy was only outlawwd in Britain circa 1870 and that U.K. Supreme Court 2012 made it legal for Big Pharma to utilise aborted foetuses in products. Colonial attitudes to weak or those seen as less worthy of human rights...prevail. As for S..E. her contempt for conservation pracrices is interestingly arrogant...a coloniser of whenua by kine.
Not to mention the Labour govt slipping through legislation allowing late-term abortion at the height of the covid scare, even given that a 24 week "foetus" is viable. But that's another subject!
A good summary thanks. I’m almost finished the book but it can be tough going, especially if one chooses to review his plethoric references along the way. The debate over ‘western cultural superiority’ will remain deeply polarised as people are generally entrenched in their views, so Biggar’s balanced work won’t change much. I’m firmly on the ‘net good’ side as the evidence of Christian charity (a key element of colonisation) & technological advance shows obvious net gains in social & moral realms, as well as improved life quality & expectancy.
Or looking at it in simpler terms, those western colonising countries & those most effectively colonised by them just so happen to be the countries today that most people wish to live in.
I found this post (and your summary of Biggar's Book) excellent. Thank you
Although I have not read Biggar's book even secondary school biology provides a wider and dare I say more useful perspective on the phenomena of colonisation that for the most part is intentionally overlooked. That is that all domains of life - Archaea, Bacteria, and Eukarya are subject to an imperative to grow and multiply. Those that cannot - die off and those that do - survive.
In the New Zealand context all humans are colonizers no matter what part of the world they travelled from, as are all rats, stoats, possums and tuataras. Some are better adapted to NZ conditions than others. Almost all of the debate about colonization in NZ is fixated on the British Colonial period - a brief time in history. The debate uses a curiously ironic blend of so-called Critical Theory mixed with a lingering Judeo-Christian morality to arrive at the conclusion that the Maori were swindled and that recompense is owed. As well understood from 800 years of pre-European inter-tribal warfare - the established Maori perspective at the time of European colonization had a winner takes all approach to resources and was completely untroubled by the plight of those unfortunate enough to be dispossessed of their territories and for those fortunate enough to survive to become slaves to their conquerors.
At the same time that the hand-wringers make their claims - they are completely blind to the multitude of ongoing processes of colonization by off-shore entities. Multi-national corporate entities including finance and lending institutions, insurance, media organisations to name a few, have insinuated themselves into NZ with our passive agreement in exactly the same way that the NZ Company did 200 years ago. I for one would be very interested to know how many of those most concerned with NZ "colonial" history were quite happy to roll up their sleeves and take an untested MRNA gene therapy and accept God only knows what into their own bodies.
Is not the colonization of the mind by foreign ideas at least as newsworthy as pakeha arrival in Aotearoa - or is the debate a Magician's trick to direct our attention to the colonial misdeeds of our ancestors, in order to prevent the audience from seeing the ongoing colonial misdeeds being perpetrated today by foreign powers?
Navel gazing and hand wringing come to mind. Colonialism is surely multi-hued, from benign to sadistic and oppressive. Think Taranaki Maori in Rekohu, Begians in the Congo contrasted with The Clapham Sect and the ToW in NZ.
Also read Biggar's book with similar conclusions...except for keeping in mind eating the cabin boy was only outlawwd in Britain circa 1870 and that U.K. Supreme Court 2012 made it legal for Big Pharma to utilise aborted foetuses in products. Colonial attitudes to weak or those seen as less worthy of human rights...prevail. As for S..E. her contempt for conservation pracrices is interestingly arrogant...a coloniser of whenua by kine.
The Judge referred to was Susan Glazebrook
Not to mention the Labour govt slipping through legislation allowing late-term abortion at the height of the covid scare, even given that a 24 week "foetus" is viable. But that's another subject!