Nobody lost their land to a bloodthirsty colonialist. These indigenous families opted to sell their land and were compensated at some point. So please elaborate on what you mean by Zuckerberg's boundless "greed"?
Were I indigenous, I think I'd actually find this kind of Western academic white-knighting slightly offensive. You'd be essentially questioning the agency, sovereignty, and decision-making capacity of my people's ability manage resources.
The partial land-owners with lineage to the original 14 parcels of land on the North Island are being compensated for something then never knew they had, and are not being evicted from the land. Those that sold their land also initially knew what they were doing. So it's unfair to hold Zuckerberg solely accountable for the market forces that dispossess the indigenous of their land.
I hope you are trolling, because just about everything you said is false. Further, what do you have to gain by defending Zuckerberg? Anyway, let's break it down:
> These indigenous families opted to sell their land and were compensated at some point. So please elaborate on what you mean by Zuckerberg's boundless "greed"?
Yet the linked article states "complicated history of land ownership in Hawaii and can result in owners being forced to sell their land at auction. In some cases, defendants are even required to pay the legal fees of the plaintiff – in this case, the world’s fifth richest man."
Now, the article may not be the most unbiased source, but I certainly trust it more than some armchair colonial apologist on HN.
> Were I indigenous, I think I'd actually find this kind of Western academic white-knighting slightly offensive. You'd be essentially questioning the agency, sovereignty, and decision-making capacity of my people's ability manage resources.
An interesting (if emotionally baited) spin on it, possibly an appeal to incredulity. Zuckerberg can easily afford the best Hawaiian property lawyers on the planet. It doesn't seem like a fair fight to me.
> The partial land-owners with lineage to the original 14 parcels of land on the North Island are being compensated for something then never knew they had, and are not being evicted from the land. Those that sold their land also initially knew what they were doing. So it's unfair to hold Zuckerberg solely accountable for the market forces that dispossess the indigenous of their land.
Poor old Zuckerberg is just an innocent free-market agent? He's just drifting with the tide of capitalism? Bullshit. A guy like this only sees the world in terms of opportunity. He has no morals (show me evidence of the existence of these morals). He just weighed up the cost of dealing with the indigenous population vs bullying the locals with better lawyers.
As far as I know, he could have just bought the land from the local governmental body, but he decided to pay for investigation of the family trees just to find the current land-owners and make sure they get their money. Don't see how that is bad. Also, they aren't paying him anything in any kind of lawsuit. There was another article recently posted that explained the whole process better.
If you do some more research you will find that some people will indeed be forced off their land if he gets his way. They will be compensated but they will be forced off their land. There is a major difference as these people aren't interested in revenue, some of them haven't even been made aware they need to appear in court.
Mark is greedy because it's just a holiday house that he doesn't really need to own. He is just causing a bunch of people grief so he can have his own way and his own playground. Ironically he wants privacy (haha). He is bullying people with lawyers and money.
If he wants to be Gordon Gecko type figure, be Gordon Gecko. But this generous philanthropist angle is a hoax when he is behaving like this.
Were I indigenous, I think I'd actually find this kind of Western academic white-knighting slightly offensive. You'd be essentially questioning the agency, sovereignty, and decision-making capacity of my people's ability manage resources.
The partial land-owners with lineage to the original 14 parcels of land on the North Island are being compensated for something then never knew they had, and are not being evicted from the land. Those that sold their land also initially knew what they were doing. So it's unfair to hold Zuckerberg solely accountable for the market forces that dispossess the indigenous of their land.