Identity loss and suicide rates in Maoris

Here's an interesting case study of migrant cultures not integrating with native cultures.

This one culminated in a couple of military coups in 1987, that irrevocably changed the country in question.

The Coup erupted because although the migrants and the natives were in equal proportions (approximately), the perception was that the parliment of this country was dominated by the migrants (yes, we're dealing with a commonwealth, or former commonwealth country, but the british aren't the migrants, they merely facilitated the migration). And racial tension had been brewing for nearly 20 years by this point (the country in question was granted/declared independence from Britain in 1970). So a new constitution was put in place, which reserved the majority of seats for the natives (hey, it's their right, right?) however that was replaced a few years later as it was regarded as racist.

Of course, as always, it's a little more complicated then straight out racial tensions, however, as I understand it, it's pretty widely accepted that whichever of the possible explanations you go with, the racial tensions were at least exploited.

The country I am referring to is, of course, Fiji, and the Migrants were Indian, 1987 Coups of Fiji on Wiki.
Colour, Class, and Custom the literature of the Fijian Coup.
1996 Demographics of Fiji.

Apparently, Europeans aren't the only ones that have trouble integrating.

There's an Irony in here somewhere that I've alluded to, the Maori (as migrants) had trouble integrating with the Moriori (as natives).

 

14.6% and apparently I'm in a smaller minority :3
11.1% identified themselves as New Zealanders (as at 2006).

Ask a native Fijian.

So the Europeans (well, some of them anyway, don't forget it wasn't even neccessarily a majority of Europeans responsible for what you're tarring them all with) screwed up.
New Zealanders are (in general) trying to move past it, and get on with getting ont, why can't you?

 

Pure.
Unadulterated.
Bullshit.

 

The boundary of the Neolithic Era--the Late Stone Age--was not the Industrial Revolution (which is probably not what you really meant to imply), nor was it the Dawn of Civilization, which is what most people assume. It was the technology of metallurgy. The Stone Age ended when the Bronze Age began, or in a few places the Chalcolithic Era, copper metallurgy without alloying it with tin.

Generally this occurred after the technology of city-building (the literal meaning of "civilization"), and for good reason. Copper and tin ore are seldom found in close proximity, so draft animals and trade routes were needed to bring them together. In some places pre-civilized tribes traded with the nearest civilizations and acquired both the knowledge and the raw materials to launch their own Bronze Age while still living in small farming villages. This happened in northern and western Europe as Etruscan and Greek traders went exploring.

But the six first independently arising civilizations--Mesopotamia, Egypt, India, China, Olmec and Inca--had to invent metallurgy for themselves, so in their early centuries they were still in the Neolithic Era: the Stone Age. Smelting ore requires fires much hotter than any farmer is likely to consider building, never having imagined that stone can melt.

The reason that the Paradigm Shift model is key to understanding the evolution of human culture is that Paradigm Shifts, by definition, completely reshape a people's world view.

• The Agricultural Revolution encouraged and required people to stop regarding other tribes as enemies, to learn to get along with people who had not been lifelong companions, and to stop migrating and attach themselves to a fixed location. Those of you who focus on people's attachment to the land should recognize this as a key development. It's one thing to feel a sense of belonging to a vaguely defined hunting and gathering region that you pass through on foot covering as much as twenty miles in a day. It's quite another to belong to a structure that you built with your own hands that sits in a fixed location and contains all of your family's tools, food, furnishings and keepsakes. A new world view.
• I'm not going to reiterate the entire list of Paradigms but let's look at the Bronze Age. Until now, combat had been personal and reasonably well-matched. Everybody had a club, a spear and a knife for hunting. The bow and arrow was the only weapon that could kill at a distance, and it required great skill to be effective; if an archer on the other side of the river was aiming at you the odds were balanced. The invention of metal swords, spears and armor suddenly gave an advantage to the side with a rich enough economy that it could afford to make war into an occupation, train the largest army and craft the biggest arsenal. This completely changed the way cities regarded each other and presented every citizen with a qualitatively new kind of threat to live with. A new world view.
• And last, let's go to the Industrial Revolution. Until now very nearly every human being had to work in the food production and distribution industry, in order to keep everybody fed. Only the nobility could dream of doing anything else for a living, much less being professional artists or traveling to distand lands for recreation. In a few hundred years agriculture was mechanized and automated, and now in the West something like 98% of the population is free to choose another career. The reason we Westerners don't identify with the land is that we are no longer tied to it by our jobs. A new world view.

Maybe 120. That's when a major percentage of the U.S. population was engaged in occupations other than food production and distribution, and were no longer tied to the land. Because of the growth of industry (production powered by chemical energy rather than human and animal energy), this is when our country changed from a scarcity-driven economy to surplus-driven. This changed our world view in myriad details. A simple example: Christmas became a time of gift giving rather than pious celebration, because people had significant surplus wealth to spend on frivolity.

You're being unfair to the Europeans and uncharacteristically charitable to my people. It is the Americans who are doing this. European armies participate only in order to stay on our good side, and even then many of them are thinking twice about continuing.

They certainly did that in Latin America. The majority of the people in Mexico are proud of their Indian roots.

You mean next to America's high-tech warrior culture?

Kissing the land. The Irish do that too: the Blarney Stone.

Blame the Abrahamic religions for that. They only have room for one god and he happens to be male. I prefer the term "phallocracy."

When I was in Eastern Europe 35 years ago virtually everyone over 35 could speak German. They had all learned it at gunpoint during the Nazi occupation, so it had become a lingua franca. Younger people had studied Russian, but it was not by any means universal.

You don't have to argue that point with the Linguistics Moderator.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I think it's primarily monotheistic religion, with its pathetic one-dimensional model of the human spirit. I know other religions have had their militant periods, but Christianity and Islam are practically defined by their need for conquest, driven by their god's mandate to evanglize the rest of us in order to save our souls from hell. I don't mean to absolve the Jews, who have engaged in plenty of warfare, but the lack of evangelism in their religion at least keeps their population small and minimizes their power to do harm. Imagine what a world with a billion Jews would be like, in addition to a billion and a half Muslims and two billion Christians!

Isn't it apostasy for a Muslim to embrace part of another faith's spirituality?

 

Quite, however with the arrival of the Europeans, the Maori went very quickly from killing each other with Patu and Taiaha, to killing each other with guns and cannon.

 

That doesn't seem to be the way all Muslim leaders see it. Are those just the Islamic equivalent of our Religious Redneck Retards?