Whites in New Zealand before Maori?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I don't know.... sounds and awful lot like some crackpot's conspiracy theory...
 
Quite an interesting notion. White New Zealanders have no reason to feel guilty in the first place; they should feel equally as proud of their heritage, culture and history as any other race, Maori or whatever.
 
Originally posted by Simon Darkshade
Quite an interesting notion. White New Zealanders have no reason to feel guilty in the first place; they should feel equally as proud of their heritage, culture and history as any other race, Maori or whatever.

I agree. We kick arse.:cool:
 
In the "this contradicts every scrap of archaeological evidence previously discovered" sort of way. I'm pretty open minded when it comes to anthropology, but this is absurd.

There may have been pre-maori inhabitants of New Zealand, but white celts/vikings? WTH? The Celts were hardly capable of such a journey, and no evidence suggests that they might have. Also the Vikings are a seperate and historical society. There are written records of viking travels, and I assure you they don't point to NZ. The fact that these conspiracy theorists are unsure as to which culture (viking or celtic) it is further indicates a fabrication.
 
Well is it so hard to imagine? So they did have to trave around half the globe to get there, and they were supersticious, but hey is it so hard to imagine?:rolleyes: :p

(YES!)
 
Originally posted by Caligastia
I agree. We kick arse.:cool:

Precisely. :goodjob: But, if you ever dare to express such sentiments, then the PC hordes jump up and down shouting "racist" and "white supremacist".:rolleyes: Which is not quite the case.
If being proud of your own people, your culture, your history and your heritage, and believing in them makes one a racist and a Nazi, then by George, that makes me one and glad of it! ;)

Luckily, not too many rational people have such extreme opinions; being proud of your own heritage does not necessarily mean that you hate or disparage that of any others. That simply is not the case, in my circumstance, or in that of many others. :yeah:
 
I've read this in Fortean Times before, there is apparently Standing Stones as well. The people are believed to be celts, but no one has the foggiest idea how they got there. It also doesn't state what period of celtic culture they are from.
 
From an architectural perspective, standing stones are not exactly a unique innovation of the Celtic peoples.
 
WOW :eek: How do you manage to double post 17 minutes apart Smaasnekje?
 
Originally posted by Sparrowhawk
In the "this contradicts every scrap of archaeological evidence previously discovered" sort of way. I'm pretty open minded when it comes to anthropology, but this is absurd.

There may have been pre-maori inhabitants of New Zealand, but white celts/vikings? WTH? The Celts were hardly capable of such a journey, and no evidence suggests that they might have. Also the Vikings are a seperate and historical society. There are written records of viking travels, and I assure you they don't point to NZ. The fact that these conspiracy theorists are unsure as to which culture (viking or celtic) it is further indicates a fabrication.

You are just assuming without looking at the evidence. Come back when you have read what this guy has to offer more thoroughly.
 
History topics belong in the history section...moved.
 
You are just assuming without looking at the evidence. Come back when you have read what this guy has to offer more thoroughly.
I had already read both main pages... Now I've read some of the 'supporting' evidence :lol: So not only were they Celtic, but they were also Midgets?

All I see for 'evidence' is unsubstantiated claims by two websites and one book. There are no links to recognized institutions anywhere, despite the fact that they would have the most material on the subject. There is no reason for me to think all of the 'proof' offered by those websites isn't concocted.

I also noticed the part where "god" makes this quest for 'truth' right... And how the theory depends on the whole rest of the world being in on a grand conspiracy.
 
So let me get this straight, ignoring the fact that the sea journey would be nearly impossible, we get pre-celtic europeans in NZ. Pre-celtic europe was say, 1000BCE and earlier? Except this quote from the webpage says:
(Taine Rory Mhor ) Taine Ruaridh Mhor (the big cattle farmer) was delivered by three seagoing longships (birlinns?) to NZ in the 12th Century, with 95 of his family and kinfolk and followers. And sons Rory and Ruaridh. It was deliberate but not by choice. Banishment was not an uncommon feature of the times and in this case the term was for seven generations after he had been incacerated in a dungeon for three years already by his friend King Alexander I of Scotland (reigned 1107-1124AD). Both Islands of New Zealand were chosen because one of the criteria was that the land for the banishment had to be uninhabited at the time (? this seems strange). After 160 years (7 + 1 generations), Scots/Vikings (there were three ships, two of whose captains were Johansen and Christiansen - though the names are Nordic Scandinavian they were probably based in the Firth of Forth) were requested by folk in Scotland to call and see if any of Taine's people had survived. This would have been probably just after the reign of King Alexander III of Scotland (reigned 1249-1286) and during the reign of Edward I of England. He invaded Scotland in 1296. This was a turbulent time in Scotland. It was the time of Wallace, of Bruce, the battles of Stirling Bridge and Falkirk. The execution of Wallace and eventually the Coronation of Robert the Bruce and leading up to the battle of Bannockburn in 1314. Times perhaps when no-one had the time or resources to maintain communication with kinfolk a world away.
That's definitely not pre-celtic. Maybe you should read your own information.
 
Maybe you should read it. Obviously this guy has found evidence of more than just pre-celtic peoples in New Zealand.

I find this evidence intriguing, whereas you just dismiss it instantly because it challenges what you already believe. You refuse to even speculate that the orthodox view of NZ history might be incorrect. Instead of exploring with your imagination what might be possible, you prefer to stick with a reality that makes you comfortable.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom