 These results should make it obvious that the supersession argument cannot nullify claims for reparations for historic injustices. To consider the example of New Zealand, perhaps restitution of the land mass of New Zealand to the Maori is out of the question. Perhaps justice cannot demand that Europeans leave New Zealand to the Maori. But it does not follow that justice does not demand that the Europeans make reparations to the Maori for violating their rights and injuring them when New Zealand belonged to them. Theft injures the victim by depriving him of the thing that was stolen from him; but it also injures him by depriving him of the benefits that he was going to earn and enjoy because of his possession of that thing. For the reasons we have surveyed, he may lose his rights to restitution; the thing for example may be lost or destroyed. But it does not follow that he therefore also loses his rights to reparations. Arguments for those rights have to deal with the various objections to historic reparations reviewed in this entry and elsewhere, but they are not undone by the supersession argument.