Were maoris more advanced than abbos? Were they based? Did they

>Were maoris more advanced than abbos?

It depends how you're defining "advanced". If it's in reference to animal tracking and desert survival, then no, if it's reference to weaponry, then yes.

>Were they based?

Meaningless question.

>Did they acept the British rule?

On the whole they did, with some resistance. There was a treaty signed at Waitangi accepting British rule.

>Were they hunted by the British settlers like the abbos?

Kind of. Maori's were a lot more autonomous under british rule compared to Australians.

>>3283991
It's much easier to track an animal in a barren desert than in a forest

>>3283929
They were a bunch of violent cannibal savages, but they were cunning and somewhat quick to adopt new warfare tech.
They definitely had better crafts than abbos.

They formally accepted British rule as subjects but, because of language issues the treaty was interpreted differently from English and Maori perspectives.

some were hunted down by some British settlers and there were some small scale dispute which could've lead to great disaster

>Boyd massacre

They had a series of conflicts called the New Zealand wars lasting nearly 3 decades with Maoris fighting the British army in their empire prime. The use of fortifications gave the Maori a vital attribute but they eventually lost.

>>3284040
Not really.

If you gauge advanced by one's ability to murder the fuck out of people, then yes.

>>3283929
Yes they were way more advanced since they had agriculture and they did accept british rule eventually. Infact they partially accepted it as a way to finally bring peace on the islands since contact with europeans had completely destabilised the whole region when introduction of guns and new crops like potatoes messed up the power balance between the tribes.
The british didnt hunt them or whatever they fought proper wars against them since maori were alot more organised and actually came up with sort of proto trench warfare tactics to negate the british superiority in guns and artillery.

>were they based

They're one of the only native groups that were granted real autonomy owing to the fact that the British found fighting them too tiresome to actually be worth it.

What was it that made them so much more violent and warfare driven than the rest of the Polynesians?

>>3284573
Autism and sweet potatoes

>>3284573
All coconut niggers are violent, not just the maori

The Maoris obtained European firearms and other goods from traders before settlement began. The British were keen to expedite their claims over New Zealand before other European powers while the Maori recognized the threat the Europeans posed and also partly the benefits of a mediator to prevent intertribal warfare which led to a treaty being signed.

Naturally the treaty was ignored in many cases and settlers pushed Maori out of some lands as happened to native Americans, though this largely ended in the late 19th century as civil liberties improved.