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.
Uhmm viper don't comment on stuff you don't know about ok. First my tribe and others owned land given to us by treaties with your government. But then taken back by the government when they discovered valuable minerals or oil ok. So ya twice we have givenup lands. My father owns small acreage on our rez. We is the natives on this tread!
interesting.......
in a similar fact finding..... Iraq has oil and.... and Afghanistan has the mother load of lithium..
"WASHINGTON — The United States has discovered nearly $1 trillion in untapped mineral deposits in Afghanistan, far beyond any previously known reserves and enough to fundamentally alter the Afghan economy and perhaps the Afghan war itself, according to senior American government officials."
wait...... the afghans are there first.... does it matter? nope hey, Hawaiian lets just go and get it!!! We will be rich!!! lets check if we have a treaty with them..... do they have a deed?? wait.... I live in Hawaii I don't own or have any right to Afghanistan, Do I? For that matter... does the United States have the right to their resources? Hmmm.....
Kawena is Kanaka Maoli and im Native American, we both gave at the office and given up our birthrights, lands, culture etc for your ancestors so you can enjoy now. So don't ask us to give more when you haven't given one thing.
I'm kanaka maoli as well and while many of my ancestors received the "short end of the stick" throughout history, some of them did okay for themselves. If the U.S. Government or State of Hawaiʻi wants to give me something for having Hawaiian ancestry, that's fine. As long as I'm not discriminated against for having a "permanent suntan" and possessing Hawaiian ancestry, I'm perfectly capable of making my own way in the world -- earning a living, purchasing land, and passing the culture and language of my ancestors down to my children and others.
[quote=McFrostyJ;31573558]Hawaiian By Heart, in your profile under Ethnicity you say you are "White" & "Native American". So, it was really YOUR government that did this to YOUR people.
Hawaiian By Heart, my wife is Blackfoot Indian. When are you going to give her back the land that half of your ancestors stole from her.
Uhm im Blackfoot indian too and you have good taste lol. My friend, my white ancestry can be traced to europe not Hawai'i at the time of the overthrow or the U.S. during the moving west ok? Nice try. Also
I understand your argument, why should we be held accountable or responsible for the actions of our forbearers? You shouldn't, but the problem Mcfrosty is today the natives of both Hawai'i and mainland are still being held accountable for the actions of others ancestry and feeling the effects of it. Further, Me personally i stand to gain nothing if the Kingdom of Hawai'i is restored. I have no Native Hawai'ian blood. I just love the ppl, culture and lan
I'm kanaka maoli as well and while many of my ancestors received the "short end of the stick" throughout history, some of them did okay for themselves. If the U.S. Government or State of Hawaiʻi wants to give me something for having Hawaiian ancestry, that's fine. As long as I'm not discriminated against for having a "permanent suntan" and possessing Hawaiian ancestry, I'm perfectly capable of making my own way in the world -- earning a living, purchasing land, and passing the culture and language of my ancestors down to my children and others.
@Kawena,Jonah K
We all are and have proved that with our current standings, ohanas, jobs, homes etc.
Personally as a native person, i think what gets my goat most of the time is just the attitude of no one is responsible for the crimes that happened to native peoples all over the world. And the selfrightous attitude that the principles of whats right and moral apply to everyone except the U.S government.
I suspected you where Jonah because you know to much history etc to not be. So guys my hope is that someday justice and more education will happen. And forgive me if i overstepped my grounds in representing you. Im Native American not Kanaka Maoli but i believe as distant family we share common experiences that can bridge the gap of difference between us
Last edited by hawaiian by heart; 09-27-2013 at 11:21 AM..
you got to be.. smoking sumtin.... to think the election was fare.........
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawaiian by heart
I'm embarassed for you both that you lowered yourselves to thinking a personal attack is an appropriate response to what I posted. I don't do drugs and there's nothing wrong with my thinking; I just don't agree with you. And I've treated you with respect. You both owe me an apology.
This has been a reasonably civil discourse so far. I'd like to see it stay that way. Please stick to the issues, rather than personal comments. "Attack the argument, not the person," per the TOS.
In looking at the fairness of the 1959 plebiscite I have been digging around in the demographics of the election, and a few of the facts I've found are in stark opposition to the broad assumptions that seem to float around this topic, especially in the native nationalist writings .
It's been claimed that native Hawaiians, to use the terminology of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, were somehow unfairly represented or disenfranchised in this election. But 75% of the eligible voters in 1959 were Native Hawaiians, that is to say, citizens who born in the islands. The rest were US citizens who had not been born in Hawai'i, but who had moved there later. Non-citizens and the military did not vote in Hawaiian elections. Only a small minority of the residents were native Hawaiians. If every single adult of Hawaiian blood had voted against becoming a state, it would not have changed the outcome of the election. So it's a moot point whether they got sufficient notice, or outreach to register. None of that was material to how the vote ended, at 94% approval.
Another common assumption is that rich white people all voted for statehood. In fact there is demographic evidence that the reverse was true, and that many of the wealthy opposed statehood. It's not hard to think of reasons for that.
Another assertion I've run across, both here and in other places, is that most of the people who did not vote were probably people of Hawaiian blood, when in fact it is documented that it was the Japanese who stayed away in droves.
Yet another overlooked statistic is that 17% of the ballots cast did not vote Yes or No on the statehood issue. They voted for the offices that were up for election, but skipped the plebiscite referendum question on the same document. That has been spun by some to indicate a protest against the plebiscite, but it is at least as reasonable to interpret that inaction as an indication of a lack of preference. And reading some of the accounts of the day, the unmarked "Column C"... I don't really care either way... was a surprisingly common attitude, as it is today in even the most hotly contested Presidential elections.
Consider that The Center for the Study of the American Electorate put the national 2012 voter turnout at 57.5% of all eligible voters, compared to 62.3% who voted in 2008, 60.4% in 2004, and 54.2% in 2000. Elections get decided by people who choose to vote, not by people who abstain. But roughly 40% of the national electorate doesn't vote, so why should Hawai'i be any different? 38% of Hawaiians voted in the 1959 election, and they decided for everybody. That's just how democracy works.
And once again im more into just returning the lands to the Hawai'ian people then having a monarchy ok. I think if we are going to set right the wrongs we need to restore the kingdom to where we took it over, thus the monarchy.
And you have said several times that rulership should be restored to Queen L's blood relatives...
Have you considered how unfair the Hawaiian system of government was at that time, and how fundamentally awful it had been leading up to 1893? The "Democratic Monarchy" in place at that time was a mashup of Hawaiian tribal society and English parliamentary form, with a House of Nobles and a House of Commoners passing laws that a monarch, elected by the Nobles, could accept or overrule. And the overall wisdom or stupidity of the government essentially rested under the crown of a single individual, who could be a drunkard or a fool, as several were. And as they were for life, with no term limits.
But even with the veneer of having a Lower House of Commoners elected from the populace at large, the real power was with the Nobles, and power in that Upper House was all about race and class. If you were born into the common class you could never become a chief, and never have access to their power and wealth. And even if you were born into a lower level of the Ali'i, you could never be a top chief, because that was determined by birth. It was all about the family you were born into, and we see that today as fundamentally unfair to human rights and dignity. This is what you want to restore? Seriously?
In the early 1800s, when the sandlewood trade was in full force, the tax for commoners was to be paid in sandlewood, and the rate hit 50%. If someone did not pay, the penalty was that his house would be burned down. Then if he rebuilt but still didn't pay the tax, his house would be burnt down and his family dispersed. And who benefited from this? The chiefs and the king, who were the recipients. Want to sign up for that?
And let's not forget the brutal tabu system (kapu was merely how the missionaries heard the word, and wrote it down, but the Polynesian word was actually tabu), which had been imposed on the REAL native Hawaiians by the Tahitians when they invaded the islands around 1300 CE, and which did not end until Kamehameha III sat down to eat with a group of women. Up until then a man could be killed for eating with women. Care to return to those days?
And out of those primitive tribal conditions, the better royalty of the day coaxed their societies towards a European model of government that provided a veneer of fairness down at ground level, but still kept the power and wealth at the top, divvied up by family and rank. This is the sovereignty that you say should be restored, with all its built in unfairness?
I can see why someone is was from one of the traditional bloodlines of wealth and power would want to bring that system back, but for ordinary people I really don't see the appeal. It was not a great system if you were not royalty.
Personally as a native person, i think what gets my goat most of the time is just the attitude of no one is responsible for the crimes that happened to native peoples all over the world. And the selfrightous attitude that the principles of whats right and moral apply to everyone except the U.S government.
You are half "White" and an American born citizen. Please, by all means, take responsibility for what your "White" American ancestors did to your "Native American" ancestors and pay yourself back. I support you 100% on that!
Personally as a native person, i think what gets my goat most of the time is just the attitude of no one is responsible for the crimes that happened to native peoples all over the world.
Who the heck do you want to be responsible???? All the responsible parties are long DEAD!
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.
im Blackfoot indian too and you have good taste
lol. My friend, my white ancestry can be traced to europe not Hawai'i at the time of the overthrow or the U.S. during the moving west ok? Nice try. Also
