• Flying Squid@lemmy.worldM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      3 months ago

      I’m really not. The monarchy was a response to British colonialism. You are saying it was a bad thing because monarchies are bad. Therefore the British colonialism that the bad thing was fighting and got rid of the bad thing and replaced it with democracy must be the better alternative.

      • Deceptichum@quokk.au
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        3 months ago

        I’m really not. The monarchy was a response to British colonialism. You are saying it was a bad thing because monarchies are bad. Therefore the British colonialism that the bad thing was fighting and got rid of the bad thing and replaced it with democracy must be the better alternative.

        I cannot parse this.

    • Dasus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Is he?

      The movement arose among a group of central North Island iwi in the 1850s as a means of attaining Māori unity to halt the alienation of land at a time of rapid population growth by European colonists. The movement sought to establish a monarch who could claim status similar to that of Queen Victoria and thus provide a way for Māori to deal with Pākehā (Europeans) on equal footing. It took on the appearance of an alternative government with its own flag, newspaper, bank, councillors, magistrates and law enforcement. But it was viewed by the colonial government as a challenge to the supremacy of the British monarchy, leading in turn to the 1863 invasion of Waikato, which was partly motivated by a drive to neutralise the Kīngitanga’s power and influence. Following their defeat at Ōrākau in 1864, Kīngitanga forces withdrew into the Ngāti Maniapoto tribal region of the North Island that became known as the King Country.