this post was submitted on 13 Aug 2024
131 points (97.8% liked)

World News

38977 readers
2153 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

People are leaving New Zealand in record numbers as unemployment rises, interest rates remain high and economic growth is anaemic, government statistics show.

Data released by Statistics New Zealand on Tuesday showed that 131,200 people departed New Zealand in the year ended June 2024, provisionally the highest on record for an annual period. Around a third of these were headed to Australia.

While net migration, the number of those arriving minus those leaving, remains at high levels, economists also expect this to wane as the number of foreign nationals wanting to move to New Zealand falls due to the softer economy.

The data showed of those departing 80,174 were citizens, which was almost double the numbers seen leaving prior to the COVID-19 pandemic.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] FarraigePlaisteach@lemmy.world -1 points 2 months ago (2 children)

When I see headlines like this about colonised places I like to dream that the indigenous people get their land back and eventually wave goodbye to the last settler/colonizer.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 8 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I understand and, in principle, agree with the sentiment, but I feel like "indigenous" implies people who've been there since prehistory and Aotearoa was uninhabited by humans until about 1320 CE. The "indigenous" Maori only beat the Europeans there by a few hundred years.

Like Vin Diesel said, "winning is winning," but still, we're not exactly talking about the kind of margin people like the Aboriginal Australians or the Native Americans had.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world -5 points 2 months ago (1 children)

The Aztec Empire was founded in 1428 by people who migrated from the north to the Valley of Mexico.

By your reasoning, the Aztecs should not be counted as the indigenous people of the Valley of Mexico. They certainly are considered as such.

Similarly, the Inuit in Greenland only got there after the Vikings. The Vikings died out, the Inuit stayed. Again, they are considered indigenous.

In all three cases- the Aztecs, the Inuit and the Maori, they had developed unique cultures. In the case of the Aztecs and the Maori, Europeans then arrived and destroyed those cultures.

I mean if you really want to be technical, the only place humans are indigenous is the East African Rift Valley.

I would also suggest you look at the second definition here:

[–] grue@lemmy.world 8 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

The Aztec Empire was founded in 1428 by people who migrated from the north to the Valley of Mexico.

By your reasoning, the Aztecs should not be counted as the indigenous people of the Valley of Mexico. They certainly are considered as such.

There are two ways of looking at your argument:

  1. Consider the Aztecs narrowly as a fully separate and distinct people. In that case, no, they don't count as "indigenous" because there were other peoples (e.g. Teotihuacan people and Toltecs) there before them.

  2. Consider the Aztecs broadly, meaning you're really talking about the Nahua people as a whole. Then yes, they do count as "indigenous," but were also there way before 1428.

You don't get to have it both ways, with Schrödinger's "indigenous" being simultaneously the first and not arriving until 1428.

Your argument is like claiming that the Romans were the "indigenous" people of central Italy and have been there since 753 BCE and not a minute before, because (for some reason) the Latins and Sabines (and the Italic tribes they descended from) don't count.


Here's a question for you: who are the "indigenous" people of the Falkland Islands? Is it Europeans, or nobody?

[–] Wanderer@lemm.ee 2 points 2 months ago

I don't think anyone alive is a coloniser.

The only people that live in new Zealand are locals and immigrants. Even if you removed all the immigrants it would still be full of full blooded white kiwis that have never lived anywhere else and potentially never even met a relative that has lived anywhere else. They are a New Zealander.