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.
Its obvious you dont know how very similar the native americans and native hawaiians history is regarding westerners etc.
This is the kind of thing you are saying now that leads me to say you are losing it. You KNOW I've studied all this extensively, and we've discussed it privately, and you've even acknowledged me for knowing more in certain areas than you do. But statements like this show you've forgotten who I am, or are confusing me with someone else. That's not a healthy sign.
Quote:
To say i dont have a stake is absurd.
Sorry, but it's a simple fact. You don't live in Hawai'i. You don't own property in Hawai'i. You are not kanaka maoli. Clearly you have intense interest in what happens, but nothing tangible at stake. In legal terms you're an interested party, not a principal.
Quote:
Further stop making everything a race thing. Everytime a local or native hawaiian issue is brought up that doesnt purpose maintaining the status quo, you, viper and etc etc are always putting 3x the effort in opposing it. I cant help but notice you all are Caucasian?
See, with that last sentence you just made that a race thing. You're the one who keeps doing that. And who knows if your assumption that we're all caucasians is correct?
Quote:
You call me a radical etc but whats funny is not any of our native community has said anything except support of the issues.
You want to hold a vote on the "self determination" of the islands, but not permit about 112 million people to vote on the issue? You want to disenfranchise 80% of the people who live in Hawai'i, own property in Hawai'i, maybe were born in Hawai'i and had kids in Hawai'i, and you don't realize this is an extreme, radical position?
Quote:
Im sick of this every wrong agsinst the native nations are always rationalised and justified minnimized or accidents by my cacausian bruddahs. I would prefer you would say sorry, we will kearn from it and move on.
President Clinton did that in 1993 on behalf of the entire country when he signed the apology resolution sponsored by Hawaiian Senators Inouye and Akaka, which Congress passed, acknowledging and apologizing for the US government's part in supporting the 1893 overthrow. It is you and people who support the separatist movement who aren't moving on.
And the ironic thing to me about all this is that at that same time there was apparently a deal afloat to recognize "indigenous" sovereignty on Native Hawaiian homelands, but it was rejected by by the kanaka maoli leaders. "All or nothing" was their attitude, so they got nothing... just as they had at a similar crossroads in the 1920s, and with the Akaka Bill in 2009, and with all other efforts over the years to resolve at least the key issues. But "All" is totally unrealistic, unworkable, unfair, and unreasonable, so the stalemate lives on... as it probably can indefinitely.
After all, the kanaka maoli leadership is fragmented and pulling in different directions, so who's going to approve a settlement? It's tragic, but at the same time it's kind of farcical, because they're all trying to grab what they can, and nobody is really looking at what would be best for everyone, in the long run.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawaiian by heart
See this is what im saying, your so focused on the monarchy that your ignoring the real issue, the real issue being able to have self determination which i feel from the evidence and information we have, we never really gave the kanaka maoli that right. We didn't vote for annexation, in the statehood vote all the native hawaiians or nation of hawaii citizens could of all votted no and it wouldn't have made any difference.
Yep, and you know who you can ultimately blame for that, don't you? Those pesky Kings who let the aliens in and sold them their people's property and let the aliens become naturalized citizens of the nation. If you want to point the finger, none of this would have happened without what the Kings did. Think about it.
But unfortunately you can't reverse the arrow of time, and you can't go back and give those 40,000 kanaka maoli from 1893 a delayed vote on independence by depriving 80% of the population today THEIR right to be involved in the democratic process of self government.
Quote:
At least a vote of self determination is in order. Even if our brothers the kanaka maoli do deside to just be americans i would be happy with that. At least we gave them self determination. I also believe we could in the future listen to what natives are saying. In the anti annexation petitions the majority of native hawaiians were saying no to america. The statehood vote 90% of kanaka maoli votted no in one votting district (to bad we don't have all the votting records) etc etc.
Sure, let them vote on self-determination... for them... on their designated homelands. I have no problem with that. But like 2/3 of the population of the state, I'm opposed to Hawaiian independence, and I hate wasting any more public money on an issue that clearly will not be resolved in that manner. It's just not going to happen.
The Obama administration is quietly moving again to bypass Congress on yet another policy issue, this time by enacting the much-disputed bill that would grant tribal sovereignty to Native Hawaiians.
The Interior Department issued a notice of proposed rule-making Friday, before the holiday weekend, to solicit comments on how to “facilitate the re-establishment of a government-to-government relationship with the Native Hawaiian community.”
“Neither Congress nor the president has to power to create an Indian tribe or any other entity with the attributes of sovereignty. Nor do they have the power to reconstitute a tribe or other sovereign entity that has ceased to exist as a polity in the past,” said the letter. “Tribes are ‘recognized,’ not created or reconstituted.”
Granting tribal status would allow the state’s Office of Hawaiian Affairs to provide race-based benefits for Native Hawaiians, a practice that was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 2000.
The Interior Department issued a notice of proposed rule-making Friday, before the holiday weekend, to solicit comments on how to “facilitate the re-establishment of a government-to-government relationship with the Native Hawaiian community.”
They issued the initial notice of this proposed rule making in 2012, and have been taking public comments ever since, so was anyone really very surprised by this announcement?
Personally, I would think all the native Hawaiians would be jumping for joy at this prospect, to have an explicit "government-to-government relationship" re-established between the US and Native Hawaiians.
But unless I've missed something, I don't notice any dancing in the streets over this news.
There were several more bits in your article I found quite interesting...
Quote:
Keli’i Akina, (Hawai'i) Grassroot Institute president, called the administration’s move an “end run around the democratic process [that] is a violation of everything that Native Hawaiian tradition and culture stand for.
“Moreover, it raises the question of who is truly being empowered by the nation-building efforts — the people or the politicians?” said Mr. Akina in a statement. “Enough with these unconstitutional efforts to build a government based on race. Let’s get back to the business of helping Native Hawaiians in real, tangible ways.”
On the face of it, that sounds like what I've been saying all along.
Quote:
Supporters of the Akaka bill, including Sen. Brian Schatz, Hawaii Democrat, say the special status is needed in order to ensure Native Hawaiians have “justice.”
“Native Hawaiians are the only federally recognized Native people without a government-to-government relationship with the United States, and they deserve access to the prevailing federal policy of self-determination,” said Mr. Schatz in a June 11 floor speech.
But of course proposals like this have been rejected by many Hawaiian people in the past, because they get hung up on the word "Indians," not understanding this is simply a term that gives access to a whole section of well-settled Federal law which generically refers to indiginous peoples as "Indians."
Quote:
The lawmaker (Schatz) also downplayed the argument that Native Hawaiians are not Indians.
“Opponents have argued that Native Hawaiians are not ‘Indians,’ as if the word applies to Native people of a certain racial or ethnic heritage or is limited to indigenous people from one part of the United States but not another. This is misguided,” he said.
So I don't know for sure, but based on the track record so far, I'd expect the various squabbling sovereignty groups to shoot this proposal down again, vastly preferring to hang on to their dream of getting "Everything" by insisting that if it's not "All they want," they will continue to choose "Nothing", and that's exactly what they'll wind up with.
And here's more to chew on from Hawai'i's Grassroots Institute...
Quote:
“The timing of the DOI announcement stretches coincidence to the limit–especially now that we know that this has been in the planning since at least 2012,” continued Dr. Akina. “The mad rush to create a Native Hawaiian government over the concerns and objections of legal scholars, the public, and the Native Hawaiian community itself makes one question OHA’s motivations. The Constitution is not on their side, whether they pursue a race-based election or attempt an end-run around Congress by trying to create a race-based nation via executive action. It is unlikely that either will withstand a legal challenge.
How do OHA’s beneficiaries benefit from the millions of dollars being spent in the effort, diverted from real needs such as housing, education, health, and jobs? OHA and the State of Hawaii must get out of the nation-building business before they do further harm to the unity of all people in our state and the unity of all Native Hawaiians.”
If this were to be enacted and "government to government" relations established under the same laws developed for Native American relations, I suspect we would quickly see Native Hawaiian groups form tribes, buy land, petition for "reservation status" and self rule on that land, quickly followed by the construction of Gambling Casinos on those self governed lands.
I think this is a highly possible and very likely long-term outcome.
Personally, I would think all the native Hawaiians would be jumping for joy at this prospect, to have an explicit "government-to-government relationship" re-established between the US and Native Hawaiians.
But unless I've missed something, I don't notice any dancing in the streets over this news. :roll eyes:
It's a little difficult to "jump for joy" when someone steals your house and magnanimously offers you a "slop jar" after you've complained about the theft for years.
Moreover, it's a little tricky to establish a "government-to-government relationship" when one of the parties doesn't exactly have a functional government. Collectively, Native Hawaiians haven't figured out if they want some sort of monarchy, a republic, a bunch of "chiefdoms" or "tribes," or some other form of governance yet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OpenD
But of course proposals like this have been rejected by many Hawaiian people in the past, because they get hung up on the word "Indians," not understanding this is simply a term that gives access to a whole section of well-settled Federal law which generically refers to indigenous peoples as "Indians."
Actually, these proposals have been rejected by many Hawaiian people because they happened to visit "Indian reservations" in various parts of the continental United States and didn't like what they saw.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OpenD
So I don't know for sure, but based on the track record so far, I'd expect the various squabbling sovereignty groups to shoot this proposal down again, vastly preferring to hang on to their dream of getting "Everything" by insisting that if it's not "All they want," they will continue to choose "Nothing", and that's exactly what they'll wind up with.
If the State of Hawaiʻi held a new "constitutional convention" that eliminated the "Office of Hawaiian Affairs," because it's a state-sponsored, "race-based" entity that violates the "equal protection clause" of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the responses of the various "sovereignty groups" would be interesting.
If the State of Hawaiʻi held a new "constitutional convention" that eliminated the "Office of Hawaiian Affairs," because it's a state-sponsored, "race-based" entity that violates the "equal protection clause" of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the responses of the various "sovereignty groups" would be interesting.
Also, a recent Federal court decision seems to eliminate, on constitutional grounds, any possibility of holding a public election which is limited to members of a particular race or ancestry. The decision was made regarding a strikingly similar situation in The Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI), a US territory.
Quote:
At issue was a CNMI law that prevented citizens from voting on a referendum on a Constitutional Amendment related to property rights if the citizen was not of “Northern Mariana descent.” The U.S. District Court in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands grated summary judgement in favor of the plaintiff, ruling that the CNMI law defining “Northern Marian descent” created a racial classification, and that, “under federal law it may not serve as the basis for preventing otherwise qualified voters from voting on proposed amendments.” The District Court also refused to see a distinction between ancestry and race where the effect so clearly favors a specific racial group.
The decision raises interesting questions regarding the legality of the proposed Constitutional Convention that the Office of Hawaiian Affairs has planned for 2014. Voting eligibility for that election is at present limited to those who have signed up for or been added to the Native Hawaiian Roll, the qualifications for which are also strongly weighted toward race and ancestry.
MAHALO for saying what you did Jonah K, i was thinking of saying the exact same things earlier but was worried about the racial backlash i would get.
I will also add that the Unitted States doesn't have a good track record of honoring treaties and agreements with native people, so with what Jonah K said and the above its no wonder its an all of nothing issue, my bruddahs in the native hawaiian communities have learned from our experiences as native americans when dealing with the US Goverment. True as it is.
@OpenD
This is also something of different thinking yes? Its not racism but experience. And these shared experiences is what we share together as native people even if we are Native Hawaiian, Native American or Alaskin Indian and even Canadian Indian.
Also, a recent Federal court decision seems to eliminate, on constitutional grounds, any possibility of holding a public election which is limited to members of a particular race or ancestry. The decision was made regarding a strikingly similar situation in The Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI), a US territory.
An example of political correctness going crazy. And attempts to rig the system again.
@OpenD your legal or issue shouldn't be with Native Hawaiians right to self deterioration or a vote? Your legal argument and suit should be with the US Goverment for it obvious willfull violation of the Native Hawaiian Kingdom and its peoples right to be a sovereign nation in the past, not race based voting which is absurd, its absurd because the intial damage of the perceived illegal action made by the US Goverment when it illegally annexed and overthrew the territory of Hawaii was unintentionally majorly race based to say otherwise is absurd.
Lets throw in a situation(the worst fear), lets say it was found that what the US Goverment did was illegal and Hawaii is to be restored to the native hawaiian people. You lose your land (in reality i doubt would happen because anyone would want to keep things as normal as possible). Now your issue wouldn't be with the native hawaiian nation who just protectted there legal rights? It would be your government who did something illegal and lied to you about it right? You would file a lawsuit against them for losses.
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.
