Tel-Chai Nation

So here's a writer at the Federalist who's raising the issue of Maori members of New Zealand's parliament who caused a ruckus over a bill they didn't like, and arguing this is why native cultures must be assimilated, yet even this argument is not without flaws. What is vital for consideration from a historical viewpoint is the following:

Before the arrival of the British, the Maori routinely engaged in ritual cannibalism and human sacrifice, mostly related to warfare. A tribe’s warriors would perform the haka, go off to fight, and then consume the flesh of slain enemies afterward.

In fact, the very haka performed by the House members on Thursday (the title of which translates to “It is death”) was created by a Maori chief who had escaped capture and consumption by an enemy tribe.

Though the Maori and leftist scholars have tried to downplay (and still do) the frequency and significance of cannibalism in Maori culture for decades, New Zealand historian Paul Moon extensively documented instances of cannibalism in his book This Horrid Practice, drawing on European accounts going back to the legendary Captain James Cook in the 1770s.

Moon also noted that the Maori practiced infanticide. Their warrior culture prized male babies, so mothers would sometimes smother female infants or push their fingers through the soft part of their skulls.

As they did elsewhere in the world, the British extirpated cannibalism and human sacrifice in New Zealand after the Treaty of Waitangi to such an extent that many historians doubted that the practices had taken place at all.

Maori revisionists have claimed that the haka can represent a greeting or a “celebration of life,” but any rational observer can conclude that the Te Pāti Māori members did not intend their Thursday haka as a greeting or celebration.

To be sure, this is disturbingly reminiscent of how in modern times, huge efforts are made by apologists for Islam to obscure every form of barbarism that was ever performed in the name of the Religion of Peace. And obscuring/erasing specific histories is wrong. But there's a decided flaw in this item that needs to be pondered:

And it’s not impossible to assimilate foreign cultures. The United States did it very successfully up until a few decades ago — when we made the conscious decision to stop trying. European history has seen dozens if not hundreds of cultures assimilated (see any culture that fell under Roman hegemony). All it takes is the confidence that your culture is more moral and more dedicated to the improvement of human life. When the culture you’re trying to assimilate is engaging in or glorifying cannibalism and human sacrifice, that shouldn’t be a hard stance to take.

As it so happens, the Romans weren't much better, seeing as they waged wars for the sake of violence, conducted slavery, forced some subjects into becoming gladiators, and Jews were also victimized by their nasty side. What's so "moral" about all that? Also, consider that Islam is eating up Europe now, along with north America, and if something isn't done soon, European culture will be assimilated with a most barbaric belief system you'd think the columnist wanted to oppose. But the way this is written, focusing so superficially on serious issues, one can't help but wonder if he's so desperate to make a point, he's willing to obscure history in his own way for the sake of sloppy virtue-signaling.

Of course it's vital to develop assimilation into more civilized beliefs. But whitewashing history of Romans, in example, won't acheieve that goal at all. As a result, one can only wonder if the writer's even interested in opposing Islam convincingly?

Labels: Asia, communications, dhimmitude, islam, jihad, misogyny, political corruption, racism, sexual violence