Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I know this will stir up some negative feelings but im very interested in opinions...
Lets me tell you a story of a family you tell me your feelings on the topic in the title.
Let's travel back through the generations not to the beginning of time but far enough back to establish my question the year is 1837 one of my ancesters by blood moved his family to Honolulu his son John married a beautiful hawaiian from a good family. Points if you guess who my family was... But that would be to easy because of my original question.
Next in the early 1900s a second part of my family also moved to Hawaii.
The kicker is both groups claimed citizenship to the Hawaiian kingdom, of course statehood killed that and in time they became not Hawaiians but haole's. although I can track family back to our citizenship of the kingdom we are not of true blood.
So to my question Local vs haole is it race based or do I have it wrong... Now I will say that my own opinion is simple but interested in others.
Now let the mud slinging begin but keep it respectfully please
I'm more curious about your family, if Hawaii was annexed, does that mean you get to claim Kauai as your rightful Kingdom?
Your question seems to have implied that my post has something to do with ancestral land rights??? If freedom was granted i would return to Hawaii as a rightful citizen of the kingdom. However I have no claim to property and I have no grudge against those who own land.
I do believe this to be another matter not of this thread.
The basic idea is this, as a ancestral citizen of the kingdom even know my ancesters are of Croation descent am I local or a haole or is it strictly race based
Is there really an issue here? You state "local vs haole" as if it is a real fact. I think there have been enough discussions on this forum already about that very issue and I thought it had been put to bed. In fact, there was a whole thread on the definition of "haole" and I suggest that you read through that to get another perspective.
I have lived here for almost three years and have never, ever experienced any "us vs them" problems or situations. There are some places that I don't go because there may be a "local vs outsider" issue, but I still don't see that as local vs haole. There are many "locals" who were born and raised here who are just as caucasian as I am.
Yes, there are some people who believe that the land was taken from them and yes there is a Hawaiian sovereignty movement. They do not impact my daily living, so I don't see that as a locals vs haole issue.
Is there really an issue here? You state "local vs haole" as if it is a real fact. I think there have been enough discussions on this forum already about that very issue and I thought it had been put to bed. In fact, there was a whole thread on the definition of "haole" and I suggest that you read through that to get another perspective.
I have lived here for almost three years and have never, ever experienced any "us vs them" problems or situations. There are some places that I don't go because there may be a "local vs outsider" issue, but I still don't see that as local vs haole. There are many "locals" who were born and raised here who are just as caucasian as I am.
Yes, there are some people who believe that the land was taken from them and yes there is a Hawaiian sovereignty movement. They do not impact my daily living, so I don't see that as a locals vs haole issue.
Your answer is about the effect of the us vs them mine is purely historical in nature.
But it appears that your basic premise is that there is an us vs them. My response is that I don't see an us vs them, so therefore I don't see any reason to discuss the history of a " non-issue". Of course, anyone who feels there is such an issue is free to jump right in.
I'm still just a newcomer on a neighbor island, so the dynamics might be different. But in my mind, haole vs. local has nothing to do with history, and only a little to do with ethnicity, it's more where you grew up. If you didn't grow up in the islands, or live there a significant amount of time, you're not really local. That doesn't make you haole, because as others have said, there really isn't a big distinction, and only a few are hanging on to the haole moniker. I think the only advantage to your history is that, if you're not local (ie not living here, which I assume because you asked this question), there are some ways you can play the ancestry card, and within certain circles (and NOT in others), to become accepted as local faster. Ancestry with Hawaiian blood would've given you a slight advantage (more circles), but even there, with so little, it would depend more on character (ie respectful) and interests (ie Hawaiian culture), than on the ancestry. Essentially, I would say your history gives you a foot in the door in some cases, up to you what comes next.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
