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.
History, as Churchill famously wrote, is written by the victors. And the claims for reparations are typically made by the most recently vanquished. But what of those who went before? How far back do we go to restore what was "wrongfully taken?" And how can ownership of land be restored to people who did not have the concept of ownership of land?
If you are a descendent of someone who lost a traditional property "claim" when the monarchy was overthrown, then of course you want to go back to that point in time. But what of the earlier kingdoms that were overthrown by Kamehameha? Don't they have valid claims? And what of the earliest Hawaiians, who some researchers believe were overthrown by later arrivals from the Marchesas? Don't they really have prior claim to everything? Or perhaps we should really do the right thing and kick all the people and pigs and dogs off the islands and restore the monk seals?
The problem is, the Arrow of Time is one-directional. No one can unwind the spilling of lava into the seas, nor the storms that blew the birds and animals we call "native" from other places in the world, nor the events that transformed ancient cultures and societies. So any talks of reparations or "restoration" involves making an arbitrary decision about what point in the past will be the official reference point. Who gets to make that decision?
At least with Hawai'i only about 1,500 years of occupied history has to be sorted out, but with "Native Americans" on the mainland, the question of which people you're talking about becomes much more complex. In the Midwest, for example, the tribes we're familiar with today, which were conquered and displaced by colonial expansion in the 18th and 19th centuries were preceded, according to some expert researchers, by the Mississipean culture from about 800 AD to the early 1700s, which overlapped the Adena/Hopewell culture of 700 BC to 600 AD, which also overlapped the Woodland Peoples of 1000 BC to 1600 AD, and were preceded by the Archaic Cultures of 8000 BC to 1000 BC, but hold on... they were late arrivals compared to the Clovis People, who were running around spearing hairy elephants in North America between 14,000 BC and 8,000 BC. So if the Supreme Court decides that Illinois, say, has to be given back because the natives were cheated out of it, which group of natives gets to claim it?
Do you see the problem?
And wait, looking in the other direction, what about the claims of the Mormons, whose property was burned, people were killed, and who were run out of the Midwest by armed mobs. Or back in the islands, how about the people of Japanese descent who lost homes and business and property and loved ones when they were sent to internment camps during WWII?
The problem with living in the past, as many great philosophers have told us in various ways, is that there is no life in the past. Life only occurs in the present moment. And the Arrow of Time is one-way. Clearly the Monarchy is not coming back. Those days are over. Time to move on!
Im not sure if you meant that as everyone has taken land from everyone?
Pretty much and in most cases they killed to do it. None of it was the right thing to do.
Here's a question for you. If you went back and corrected ALL the wrongs that have been done throughout time, around the world, in the end, who would own what?
Whats happening now is no different then what happened to native american indians lands etc. Even with treaties. When is the cycle going to change? I cry for everything that is lost. Even if we won and the states does what they did to native americans or returns Hawai'i back to the Kanaka Moali? How do you comp for an almost lost culture, language, land, ppls?
What's done is done and you can't change history. If the culture and land are important to you, get to work and start conserving it all. There is no reason that you can not work to preserve culture and language. There is no reason that you can not organize and buy back lands and donate them to the descendants of the first people.
Whining about it or letting the world know how bitter you are accomplishes nothing. All it does is end up making you unpleasant to be around.
There is a huge tract for sale on the Big Island right now, for a very reasonable price. Get off your butt, form a charity and raise the money to buy it, then donate it back to be used to preserve culture and way of life.
If you want it done, do it yourself instead of pointing it out to everyone else and waiting for someone else to do it for you. Pointing out the problem is accomplishing nothing. You want the problem solved, get busy.
Well gentleman some interesting points, but guess what? I bet some one in the late past said exactly the same thing you gentleman had right now as they went on to take another ppls land. Currently its Iraq.
Secound, guys if you have read the tread? This tread was about ceded lands held by the state in trust for the native hawaiians and ppl. The arguement is can you sell the land if your a trustee?
My comment of this is no different then what happened to native americans land, even with treaties. Another words "history is repeating itself?" And im sure we will have the same discussion in the future only with another ppls. And the same rationalizations will come up. When wil it end when the Unitted States gets conquered and then it will be you guys complaining?
As for work? well i do work to save both of my cultures etc, im involved with alot of native preservation projects. As for buying the land back? Why should we? It was left in trust?
The concept of individual ownership is not a native concept, its a westerners, we don't own the land everyone in our ppl does. When we where tribes or a nation.
I personally don't hate anyone, i hate racism, ignorance, jelousy. Thats what makes me angry.
A wise man once said " One group if they are strong enough self rightously imposes there will on another, and this goes all the way down to the individual. Whats the results of that? Less brotherhood and peace?" Might does not make right.
As for anger by natives its understanding, but anger pointed in the wrong direction(racism, violence etc) doesn't solve anything unless every last resort has been exaustted . Aloha
Last edited by hawaiian by heart; 07-02-2013 at 03:50 PM..
1893: Ceded lands (essentially government land and land held by the monarchy) public land when the monarchy ended. That seems to make sense to me.
1897: Annexation Treaty with US. Hawaii gives up the ceded land in exchange for debt forgiveness with the income from the lands to benefit the people of Hawaii (It is my understanding - that there were no distinctions that the income go to Native Hawaiians)
1959: Statehood Act returned ownership (title) to the State except national parks and the military bases. There were 5 ways income from the land had to be utilized - one of the five conditions was betterment of Native Hawaiian. Seems to be a good thing for Native Hawaiian - right?
1978: Office of Hawaiian Affairs is created - and formerly get 20% of ceded land revenue. Even better for Native Hawaiians - right?
2009: Supreme Court rules Hawaii has free and clear title to ceded lands. However, that doesn't change how the revenue from that ceded is to be applied.
2011: Governor Abercrombie signs a bill into law that settles the Office of Hawaiian Affairs’ claims to income from ceded lands by conveying ownership of land in Honolulu’s Kakaako neighborhood valued at $200 million.
Please note, the ceded lands are owned by the state, and the OHA is the state agency created to manage these lands, their income, and the uses to which the income is dedicated.
So this was largely an intramural dispute between two different parts of the state government as far as current legal decisions go.
And be clear, the reason the state was trying to sell off some of those lands was in order to finance the construction of low-income housing for native Hawiians, which it interpreted as the highest and best use of the resources consistent with the enumerated purposes of:
1. Support of public education
2. Betterment of the conditions of native Hawaiians as defined in the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act of 1920
3. Development of farm and home ownership
4. Public improvements
5. Provision of lands for public use
The interpretation that the Native Hawaiian people, not the state government, own this land and are entitled to the income is currently not supported by either legal precedent or legal decision. What the Supreme Court decision of 2009 established is that the state cannot not sell off any of the land until this question is settled.
But it is a moot point - in 2008, the Hawaii Supreme Court put a hold on the states ability to sell ceded land based on title of the land is in dispute based on the apology resolution therefore opening the door for Native Hawaiians. The State appealled to the Supreme Court who prevailed - basically the Supreme Court threw that out and sent it back to the Hawaii Supreme Court to reissue an opinion on the state's ownership on the land.
So the Hawaii Supreme Court had 2 options - drop the case or find another rule based on law to let plaintiffs prevail - plaintiffs being Office of Hawaiian Affairs asking Supreme Court to stop ceded land sales. The problem for the plaintiffs were the following: ceded lands title was given to the state of Hawaii based on Articles of Statehood - and, the issue of ownership of ceded land is also addressed in the state constitution and laws that defined the trust and the trusts ability to sell the land. Therefore, there is no legal justification for Native Hawaiians to prevail.
It all became moot when the Office of Hawaiian Affairs dropped the case when the legislature agreed that ceded lands could not be sold unless there was a 2/3 majority in the senate and house.
Or perhaps we should really do the right thing and kick all the people and pigs and dogs off the islands and restore the monk seals?
I'm guessing RobinRossi would have a major problem with that one
Quote:
Originally Posted by OpenD
And wait, looking in the other direction, what about the claims of the Mormons, whose property was burned, people were killed, and who were run out of the Midwest by armed mobs.
Good post, OpenD; I find myself begrudgingly agreeing with you yet again
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.
