I think that the speakers did a very nice job in explaining the bill, both ighting for their respective sides. for me, it was difficult to listen to the second speaker, so adamantly against the bill, because I am native Hawaiian, and so identify witht his issue very personaly. Also, I was frustrated when I researched the article because I found so many Hawaiians against it, which I think is silly. I don't think that we have any chance of regaining our sovereignty, and I think we need to stand together to be heard.
I'm still a little unclear on the argument against the Akaka Bill...How are Native Hawaiians different than Native Americans or even Maoris?
(The Maori people fought this same fight in New Zealand, along witht the Aboriginals in Australia)
I'm sorry to hear that you're concerned that your voice can only be heard in terms of a racial block. I can only assume you are worried about the demographic problems faced by many native Hawaiians, but I'd suggest to you that native Hawaiians are not the only ones affected by poverty, health issues, or education issues, and that by addressing those needs of people, regardless of race, your concern for people who may share some of your ancestry will also be addressed.
That being said, native Hawaiians are very different from both Native Americans and Maoris - native Hawaiians created an internationally recognized nation, inclusive of all races, with equal rights enshrined into their very first constitution of 1840, over 100 years before the civil rights movement in the U.S. Native Hawaiians jumped from ethnic tribal organization to a multi-cultural constitutional monarchy in less than a generation. It was this multi-cultural government that endured until 1898, when it finally executed a treaty of annexation with the United States.
The Maori, on the other hand, were simply annexed by royal proclamation in 1840 by Queen Victoria, and the Native Americans were conquered, separated, and subjugated as the U.S. expanded westward across the continent.
Imagine if you will, if the Navajo nation, before its inclusion into the U.S., had over 100 years of multi-racial history, was internationally recognized, and was less than 50% ethnic Navajo with equal rights for all races. Would it be right and proper for us to separate them by some racial quantum?
in response to jazzy's "Also, I was frustrated when I researched the article because I found so many Hawaiians against it, which I think is silly." I think that this is because they feel that the annexation of Hawaii was justified and that if the Hawaiians regained their sovereignity, it would affect all of Hawaii's residents in most likely a negative way such as financial loss, breaks in social groups, and economical loss due to precious land space. The only positive I could think of would be that the Hawaiians would use the land to plant more native endangered species of plants. Other than that, I believe that the Hawaiians that are against the Akaka Bill because they know that the Hawaiian sovereignity, if restored, would one day be destroyed by another bill or law.
The road to annexation was certainly a rocky one, but it started as far back as Kamehameha III. (see http://hawaiimatters.com for a good book on the subject)
In a very simplistic way, Liliuokalani was fighting for more power for herself because she felt she would do good for her people, and the Reform Party who overthrew her were fighting for more power for the wealthy tax payers because they felt they would be the best people to ensure good government for the people. In both cases, they saw themselves as an elite to watch over the masses.
In what can only be considered poetic justice, annexation to the United States thwarted both impulses, by opening up suffrage to more people in Hawaii than ever before (with no property requirements, and effective racial barriers that vanished as Asians born after 1898 came of age).
All Hawaiians, of all races, have had increasingly more sovereignty since 1900. 94% of all Hawaiian voters voted for statehood in 1959, finally giving us a say in our governor, and real votes in congress. To return to an unprecedented ethnocratic society, run only by people of specific ancestry, seems less like "sovereignty" and more like apartheid and racial discrimination.
I'd like to ask a question regarding the fate of "native Hawaiians." While I am definitely all for the native people regaining what was so brusquely ripped away from them, I wonder if, in this day and age where pure-blooded Hawaiians are so rare, what makes native Hawaiians "native Hawaiians." I understand that having Hawaiian blood makes you native, but how much? And with the decreasing rate of pure-blooded Hawaiians or even half-blooded Hawaiians, how far will we go to define "native Hawaiians." And in a link to Jazzy's comment, do we follow the Native Americans and Maoris? Or do we deviate? And does the percent of Hawaiian blood you have, determine your status among other "native Hawaiians"?
From my understanding, the main purpose of the Akaka Bill is to give Native Hawaiians the same federal recognition and self-governance that a few Native American tribes possess. Or as Reece said, give the Hawaiians their own private land to do whatever they want with. Of course, I'm probably oversimplifying the bill, as the websites I have found haven't really given me a great understanding of it.
I agree with Reece's main idea that perhaps even ethnic Hawaiians are against the idea of their own private land because there wouldn't be a whole lot of things to do with the land that could honestly benefit the community. Sure, you could build a recreation center, or maybe plant some nice trees, but that's about it. I'm not saying that rec centers and scenery are useless, but that money could also be going to researching cures for various diseases or new technology instead.
Another thing to consider is that Hawaii is part of the United States, which is arguably one of the best places to live in the world, and the quality of life for U.S. citizens are on average much better than a citizen from a not so advanced country such as say, Somalia. If the natives are already happy with their current lives under the U.S. government, why change, and potentially make their own lives worse? If the risk is bigger than the reward, then maybe it isn't worth it to go through with this bill.
Regarding Jill's comment on things "brusquely ripped away", I'm wondering what is being referred to. What was "ripped away"? Pre-1778, only a very tiny elite in the islands of ali'i and kahuna really had anything. The kahuna were defeated by Kaahumanu after she ended the kapu, and even after the end of the monarchy and annexation, the only ali'i who had anything "ripped away" was Liliuokalani in regards to the crown lands (which were decided by the Court of Appeals as belonging to the office of the monarch, not the particular monarch at any given time).
Maybe if we could identify exactly what was "ripped away" and who did the "ripping" as it were, we could better address the issues. As it stands, the common misconception that the U.S. or its agents somehow "ripped away" something from all native Hawaiians seems without basis.
of course this is a hard question for all of us. As a hawaiian, i would like to say something: even if one has the hawaiian blood, should they automatically be called a native? What if they grew up else where? what if they feel no connection the the land?
I do agree with jazzy that "we need to stand together to be heard" however i do feel that there must be another way to do so. In a sense we should just build a community where we can emote our very characters as hawaiians. we can hold onto the thread of our breaking culture. who needs a bill to do so? who needs a complex document stating things that cannot even be said?
If Native Hawaiians are against the Akaka Bill, then maybe there should a vote pass the bill. Have the Native Hawaiians vote on the bill and have majority win. If the bill isn't going to be passed Native Hawaiians, then what is the point of the bill? The bill's purpose is to help the Native Hawaiians. If they don't want it then why pass it?
If the bill were to be passed, what are the Native Hawaiians going to do with public land that they recieve? They would be changing lives of Hawaii residents that aren't "Native Hawaiians." There should be some way for someone to be considered a Native Hawaiian if this bill is to be passed. People need to think about how this will affect everyone in Hawaii and not just Native Hawaiians.
I agree with matt. I think an excellent way to discover if the bill is right for the Hawaiians is to have a majority win vote on it. However it seems unplausible that this idea has not been discussed before. Has the Akaka bill been voted on by Native Hawaiians? I guess the idea to have the bill be voted on by Native Hawaiians brings up the issue of "Native Hawaiians." I know Lindsey talked about the definition of "What it means to be Hawaiian." That is a difficult question, and I am not sure what the answer is; if there is an answer. Maybe the bill hasn't been voted on my Native Hawaiians because that seems to be racially discriminatory. It seems that every choice presented has some kind of strong opposing side to it as well. It will be interesting to see the bill progress.
I agree with matt. I think an excellent way to discover if the bill is right for the Hawaiians is to have a majority win vote on it. However it seems unplausible that this idea has not been discussed before. Has the Akaka bill been voted on by Native Hawaiians? I guess the idea to have the bill be voted on by Native Hawaiians brings up the issue of "Native Hawaiians." I know Lindsey talked about the definition of "What it means to be Hawaiian." That is a difficult question, and I am not sure what the answer is; if there is an answer. Maybe the bill hasn't been voted on my Native Hawaiians because that seems to be racially discriminatory. It seems that every choice presented has some kind of strong opposing side to it as well. It will be interesting to see the bill progress.
I would like the native Hawaiians to be happy, and to regain their sovereignty. However, I also agree with Matt in regard to that in this day and age we have to think of how the Akaka Bill affects everyone in Hawaii, not only the native Hawaiians. I do not fear that once the Hawaiians attain their land back that they will do what they can to throw us off of their land. However, what i am most concered about is how they are planning on running a double government in Hawaii. I am not sure if I have the correct concept, my understanding is that the Bill allows the Hawaiians to rule through their monarchy, as it were before the overthrow. I don't understand how that would work. In any case, one thing that really gets to me about this subject is the fact that many people consider the Bill to be racist. I have to strongly disagree with that because we made promises to the Hawaiians. We are just following through with the promises we made (just as the first speaker pointed out).
From what I understand after listening to the first speaker is that the United States owes Native Hawaiians large sums of money (from occupying/running businesses on Hawaiian land?), but that money has no where to go. As the first speaker pointed out, the establishment of a Native Hawaiian Relations within the Office of the Secretary of the Interior, would establish a concrete place for these large sums of money due to the Hawaiian people to be stored and put to use (by the people, for the people). This money could be used to start various programs in order to benefit Hawaiian people.
However, I do agree with Lindsey, pertaining to the difficulty surrounding the question of "what it means to be a Native Hawaiian?" In order to create a Hawaiian government, there must be a strict definition of what it is to be a Native Hawaiian.
I strongly believe that like the Native Americans, the Native Hawaiian people should be able to create a government that is recognized by the US government, that has the best interest of the people at heart. The Hawaiian people have faced countless challenges and their plight remains grim despite recent advances in the rights of the indigenous people.
but at the same time... Isn't America the place where everyone is supposedly equal? Isn't America the place where anyone can work hard to excel and as a result reap the benefits? I can understand why people oppose the bill because it may seem like it gives the Native Hawaiian people and unfair advantage. But I believe it is what the indigenous people deserve, in my eyes it is not unfair at all.
I am all for the bill, but my main comcern is what would happen to our other problems in the state. Would the focus of Hawaii's government be shifted away from the homeless, the bad road conditions and our enviromental difficulties. Once native Hawaiians had more power and say in the government, it is only logical that they would fix their issues first. Where would that leave us?
I don't have a total comprehension of how the bill would function, but what I do understand is that even though there are some knots that need to be smoothed out, the bill has a chance of giving the Hawaiians a bit of what they are entitled to.
kbraden08 wrote, "I strongly believe that like the Native Americans, the Native Hawaiian people should be able to create a government that is recognized by the US government"
Do you believe, then, that anyone with any Native American ancestry, who is not part of an existing tribe, should be able to create a separate government for themselves?
All Hawaiians have the gift of self-government, and exercise it through their participation in the multi-racial State of Hawaii. All throughout Hawaii, people of all races suffer deprivations, and need help. Why should we build a race-based government to help just one race, when we could work on a government based on equality, that helps everyone in need?
kbraden08 also wrote, "But I believe it is what the indigenous people deserve, in my eyes it is not unfair at all."
Why do "indigenous" people deserve superior rights to others, and what makes them "indigenous" in your eyes?
When they were talking about using the term "tribes" as used in the constitution, and how it can't apply to Hawaiians, I thought that that was a weak argument. Tribes are a cultural thing. How can you apply an idea from one culture to another culture and expect it to fit or work? Hawaiians didn't have tribes, so it's unfair to use terminology that doesn't apply to them to make an argument against them.
I agree with Gabby that tribes are a cultural thing, and so should not be held against the Hawaiians.
Even though there was an all inclusive monarchy of Hawaii, was it not assumed that almost all of the members of the Hawaiian Nation had some Hawaiian blood? And, even if not, Isn't it the same concept as those white people who live with a Native American Tribe and can reap those benefits, even though they carry no blood?
America is based on an equal democracy, with equal rights for everyone. Why are we punishing the Hawaiian people for their rulers who believed the same thing, and put into place an equal voting system?
you see I am in a confused state right now. With the research that I have done, what I get a sense of is that the Hawaiians want to kind of be not apart of the United States and want Hawaii to be their land. Yet I did get a better understanding through the public speakers we had about what this bill really was about. What I think of this bill is that, not to offend anyone, but I don't think it really has a chance. The reason I say this is because many Hawaiians are against this bill and this bill is aimed directly at the Hawaiians. If at least fifty percent of Hawaiians are opposed to it in the future or now, what would make congress want to pass this bill?
I think the Akaka Bill should go into effect because it will help many Hawaiians who need it. It will give them back some things that were taken away more than 100 years ago, like their own goverment and statehood. Going back to the question, what does it mean to be native Hawaiian? I think you need to have Hawaiian blood and be born here and grow up here so you are able to relate to the land, like what Lindsey said. I was still wondering if the Bill helps any of people besides Hawaiians in any way.
um...this is linds. i am having trouble with technology.
can something so thin as a "bill" really preserve what has been lost?
Are many Hawaiians against it because the "bill" excludes how they really feel, what they really want, or what they need?
or are some hawaiians being stubborn in that they can't except that all cultures fall? Everyone can always ask for more, and want more. In this world we have limited supplies.
To respond to lindsey post I am also perplexed why so many native Hawaiian's are opposed to the Akaka Bill. After listening to the presentions feel as though it is not because the Native Hawaiiam's are "stubborn", although that would match the attitude of Queen Liliuokalani when President Cleveland tried to reinstate the monarchy back to Hawaii. However, I feel a that a more likely possiblilty is that the Hawaiian's and many other people including ourselves know enough about the bill, inorder to form a well-educated decision on it. For me personally I don't feel comfortable taking a side because I know that, even after online research and the presentations, I am not informed enough on the bill to understand all the little aspects that are adressed in the bill. So perhaps due to the complexity of the bill many people are forming un-attended or mistaken bias'?
In response to Mason's last question, I do believe that people make biased opinions. I know for me I have got my opinion based on my knowledge of Native American tribes. Knowing some of the things these people have done or do, I made my opinion that I do not want the Akaka Bill. However, this is only based on Native Amercans. Therefore, I have made biased opinion because I do not have much knowledge of the Akaka Bill. So, yes, people do make biased opinions.
I also am kinda shocked that not all Native Hawaiians are in favor of the Akaka Bill. From the speaker it seemed like every Native Hawaiian wanted this bill, but that is not the case. Is this because they want Hawaii to be sovereign nation? Or do they just like it the way it is?
In response to Shoj and mason, i believe that some native hawaiians are opposed to the akaka bill because they want to be a separate nation totally immune to the U.S. The akaka bill just gives them a native government within the U.S. boundaries. This is why some native hawaiians shoot down the idea of the akaka bill. ~e ola ka olelo Hawai'i~ (The Hawaiian language will live)
I am a Native Hawaiian. Some may think that just because i am a Native Hawaiian i am for the Akaka Bill. In reality i can't say i am. I am however for keeping the Hawaiian culture alive, and like Reid said, the Hawaiian language alive. I do want their spirituality to live. For some the Akaka Bill will help this to happen. For me, i don't really see how it will "help" the Hawaiians. I think that one can only help themself. Anf for the Hawaiians, they need to help themselves. Now, i do see that every culture diminishes. And i do see the Hawaiians diminishing as well. But, i am confused, how would having their own nation help solve this problem. Isn't it in fact inevitable?
25 comments:
I think that the speakers did a very nice job in explaining the bill, both ighting for their respective sides. for me, it was difficult to listen to the second speaker, so adamantly against the bill, because I am native Hawaiian, and so identify witht his issue very personaly. Also, I was frustrated when I researched the article because I found so many Hawaiians against it, which I think is silly. I don't think that we have any chance of regaining our sovereignty, and I think we need to stand together to be heard.
I'm still a little unclear on the argument against the Akaka Bill...How are Native Hawaiians different than Native Americans or even Maoris?
(The Maori people fought this same fight in New Zealand, along witht the Aboriginals in Australia)
I'm sorry to hear that you're concerned that your voice can only be heard in terms of a racial block. I can only assume you are worried about the demographic problems faced by many native Hawaiians, but I'd suggest to you that native Hawaiians are not the only ones affected by poverty, health issues, or education issues, and that by addressing those needs of people, regardless of race, your concern for people who may share some of your ancestry will also be addressed.
That being said, native Hawaiians are very different from both Native Americans and Maoris - native Hawaiians created an internationally recognized nation, inclusive of all races, with equal rights enshrined into their very first constitution of 1840, over 100 years before the civil rights movement in the U.S. Native Hawaiians jumped from ethnic tribal organization to a multi-cultural constitutional monarchy in less than a generation. It was this multi-cultural government that endured until 1898, when it finally executed a treaty of annexation with the United States.
The Maori, on the other hand, were simply annexed by royal proclamation in 1840 by Queen Victoria, and the Native Americans were conquered, separated, and subjugated as the U.S. expanded westward across the continent.
Imagine if you will, if the Navajo nation, before its inclusion into the U.S., had over 100 years of multi-racial history, was internationally recognized, and was less than 50% ethnic Navajo with equal rights for all races. Would it be right and proper for us to separate them by some racial quantum?
This, it seems, is the goal of the Akaka bill.
in response to jazzy's "Also, I was frustrated when I researched the article because I found so many Hawaiians against it, which I think is silly." I think that this is because they feel that the annexation of Hawaii was justified and that if the Hawaiians regained their sovereignity, it would affect all of Hawaii's residents in most likely a negative way such as financial loss, breaks in social groups, and economical loss due to precious land space. The only positive I could think of would be that the Hawaiians would use the land to plant more native endangered species of plants. Other than that, I believe that the Hawaiians that are against the Akaka Bill because they know that the Hawaiian sovereignity, if restored, would one day be destroyed by another bill or law.
The road to annexation was certainly a rocky one, but it started as far back as Kamehameha III. (see http://hawaiimatters.com for a good book on the subject)
In a very simplistic way, Liliuokalani was fighting for more power for herself because she felt she would do good for her people, and the Reform Party who overthrew her were fighting for more power for the wealthy tax payers because they felt they would be the best people to ensure good government for the people. In both cases, they saw themselves as an elite to watch over the masses.
In what can only be considered poetic justice, annexation to the United States thwarted both impulses, by opening up suffrage to more people in Hawaii than ever before (with no property requirements, and effective racial barriers that vanished as Asians born after 1898 came of age).
All Hawaiians, of all races, have had increasingly more sovereignty since 1900. 94% of all Hawaiian voters voted for statehood in 1959, finally giving us a say in our governor, and real votes in congress. To return to an unprecedented ethnocratic society, run only by people of specific ancestry, seems less like "sovereignty" and more like apartheid and racial discrimination.
I'd like to ask a question regarding the fate of "native Hawaiians." While I am definitely all for the native people regaining what was so brusquely ripped away from them, I wonder if, in this day and age where pure-blooded Hawaiians are so rare, what makes native Hawaiians "native Hawaiians." I understand that having Hawaiian blood makes you native, but how much? And with the decreasing rate of pure-blooded Hawaiians or even half-blooded Hawaiians, how far will we go to define "native Hawaiians." And in a link to Jazzy's comment, do we follow the Native Americans and Maoris? Or do we deviate? And does the percent of Hawaiian blood you have, determine your status among other "native Hawaiians"?
From my understanding, the main purpose of the Akaka Bill is to give Native Hawaiians the same federal recognition and self-governance that a few Native American tribes possess. Or as Reece said, give the Hawaiians their own private land to do whatever they want with. Of course, I'm probably oversimplifying the bill, as the websites I have found haven't really given me a great understanding of it.
I agree with Reece's main idea that perhaps even ethnic Hawaiians are against the idea of their own private land because there wouldn't be a whole lot of things to do with the land that could honestly benefit the community. Sure, you could build a recreation center, or maybe plant some nice trees, but that's about it. I'm not saying that rec centers and scenery are useless, but that money could also be going to researching cures for various diseases or new technology instead.
Another thing to consider is that Hawaii is part of the United States, which is arguably one of the best places to live in the world, and the quality of life for U.S. citizens are on average much better than a citizen from a not so advanced country such as say, Somalia. If the natives are already happy with their current lives under the U.S. government, why change, and potentially make their own lives worse? If the risk is bigger than the reward, then maybe it isn't worth it to go through with this bill.
Regarding Jill's comment on things "brusquely ripped away", I'm wondering what is being referred to. What was "ripped away"? Pre-1778, only a very tiny elite in the islands of ali'i and kahuna really had anything. The kahuna were defeated by Kaahumanu after she ended the kapu, and even after the end of the monarchy and annexation, the only ali'i who had anything "ripped away" was Liliuokalani in regards to the crown lands (which were decided by the Court of Appeals as belonging to the office of the monarch, not the particular monarch at any given time).
Maybe if we could identify exactly what was "ripped away" and who did the "ripping" as it were, we could better address the issues. As it stands, the common misconception that the U.S. or its agents somehow "ripped away" something from all native Hawaiians seems without basis.
what is a native hawaiian?
of course this is a hard question for all of us. As a hawaiian, i would like to say something: even if one has the hawaiian blood, should they automatically be called a native? What if they grew up else where? what if they feel no connection the the land?
I do agree with jazzy that "we need to stand together to be heard" however i do feel that there must be another way to do so. In a sense we should just build a community where we can emote our very characters as hawaiians. we can hold onto the thread of our breaking culture. who needs a bill to do so? who needs a complex document stating things that cannot even be said?
If Native Hawaiians are against the Akaka Bill, then maybe there should a vote pass the bill. Have the Native Hawaiians vote on the bill and have majority win. If the bill isn't going to be passed Native Hawaiians, then what is the point of the bill? The bill's purpose is to help the Native Hawaiians. If they don't want it then why pass it?
If the bill were to be passed, what are the Native Hawaiians going to do with public land that they recieve? They would be changing lives of Hawaii residents that aren't "Native Hawaiians." There should be some way for someone to be considered a Native Hawaiian if this bill is to be passed. People need to think about how this will affect everyone in Hawaii and not just Native Hawaiians.
Posting for Cady:
I agree with matt. I think an excellent way to discover if the bill is
right for the Hawaiians is to have a majority win vote on it. However
it seems unplausible that this idea has not been discussed before. Has
the Akaka bill been voted on by Native Hawaiians? I guess the idea to
have the bill be voted on by Native Hawaiians brings up the issue of
"Native Hawaiians." I know Lindsey talked about the definition of
"What it means to be Hawaiian." That is a difficult question, and I am
not sure what the answer is; if there is an answer. Maybe the bill
hasn't been voted on my Native Hawaiians because that seems to be
racially discriminatory. It seems that every choice presented has some
kind of strong opposing side to it as well. It will be interesting to
see the bill progress.
Posting for Cady:
I agree with matt. I think an excellent way to discover if the bill is
right for the Hawaiians is to have a majority win vote on it. However
it seems unplausible that this idea has not been discussed before. Has
the Akaka bill been voted on by Native Hawaiians? I guess the idea to
have the bill be voted on by Native Hawaiians brings up the issue of
"Native Hawaiians." I know Lindsey talked about the definition of
"What it means to be Hawaiian." That is a difficult question, and I am
not sure what the answer is; if there is an answer. Maybe the bill
hasn't been voted on my Native Hawaiians because that seems to be
racially discriminatory. It seems that every choice presented has some
kind of strong opposing side to it as well. It will be interesting to
see the bill progress.
I would like the native Hawaiians to be happy, and to regain their sovereignty. However, I also agree with Matt in regard to that in this day and age we have to think of how the Akaka Bill affects everyone in Hawaii, not only the native Hawaiians. I do not fear that once the Hawaiians attain their land back that they will do what they can to throw us off of their land. However, what i am most concered about is how they are planning on running a double government in Hawaii. I am not sure if I have the correct concept, my understanding is that the Bill allows the Hawaiians to rule through their monarchy, as it were before the overthrow. I don't understand how that would work. In any case, one thing that really gets to me about this subject is the fact that many people consider the Bill to be racist. I have to strongly disagree with that because we made promises to the Hawaiians. We are just following through with the promises we made (just as the first speaker pointed out).
From what I understand after listening to the first speaker is that the United States owes Native Hawaiians large sums of money (from occupying/running businesses on Hawaiian land?), but that money has no where to go. As the first speaker pointed out, the establishment of a Native Hawaiian Relations within the Office of the Secretary of the Interior, would establish a concrete place for these large sums of money due to the Hawaiian people to be stored and put to use (by the people, for the people). This money could be used to start various programs in order to benefit Hawaiian people.
However, I do agree with Lindsey, pertaining to the difficulty surrounding the question of "what it means to be a Native Hawaiian?" In order to create a Hawaiian government, there must be a strict definition of what it is to be a Native Hawaiian.
I strongly believe that like the Native Americans, the Native Hawaiian people should be able to create a government that is recognized by the US government, that has the best interest of the people at heart. The Hawaiian people have faced countless challenges and their plight remains grim despite recent advances in the rights of the indigenous people.
but at the same time...
Isn't America the place where everyone is supposedly equal? Isn't America the place where anyone can work hard to excel and as a result reap the benefits? I can understand why people oppose the bill because it may seem like it gives the Native Hawaiian people and unfair advantage. But I believe it is what the indigenous people deserve, in my eyes it is not unfair at all.
I am all for the bill, but my main comcern is what would happen to our other problems in the state. Would the focus of Hawaii's government be shifted away from the homeless, the bad road conditions and our enviromental difficulties. Once native Hawaiians had more power and say in the government, it is only logical that they would fix their issues first. Where would that leave us?
I don't have a total comprehension of how the bill would function, but what I do understand is that even though there are some knots that need to be smoothed out, the bill has a chance of giving the Hawaiians a bit of what they are entitled to.
kbraden08 wrote, "I strongly believe that like the Native Americans, the Native Hawaiian people should be able to create a government that is recognized by the US government"
Do you believe, then, that anyone with any Native American ancestry, who is not part of an existing tribe, should be able to create a separate government for themselves?
All Hawaiians have the gift of self-government, and exercise it through their participation in the multi-racial State of Hawaii. All throughout Hawaii, people of all races suffer deprivations, and need help. Why should we build a race-based government to help just one race, when we could work on a government based on equality, that helps everyone in need?
kbraden08 also wrote, "But I believe it is what the indigenous people deserve, in my eyes it is not unfair at all."
Why do "indigenous" people deserve superior rights to others, and what makes them "indigenous" in your eyes?
mlum08 wrote, "the bill has a chance of giving the Hawaiians a bit of what they are entitled to."
What do you think people who have just one drop of native Hawaiian blood are entitled to, and why?
When they were talking about using the term "tribes" as used in the constitution, and how it can't apply to Hawaiians, I thought that that was a weak argument. Tribes are a cultural thing. How can you apply an idea from one culture to another culture and expect it to fit or work? Hawaiians didn't have tribes, so it's unfair to use terminology that doesn't apply to them to make an argument against them.
I agree with Gabby that tribes are a cultural thing, and so should not be held against the Hawaiians.
Even though there was an all inclusive monarchy of Hawaii, was it not assumed that almost all of the members of the Hawaiian Nation had some Hawaiian blood? And, even if not, Isn't it the same concept as those white people who live with a Native American Tribe and can reap those benefits, even though they carry no blood?
America is based on an equal democracy, with equal rights for everyone. Why are we punishing the Hawaiian people for their rulers who believed the same thing, and put into place an equal voting system?
you see I am in a confused state right now. With the research that I have done, what I get a sense of is that the Hawaiians want to kind of be not apart of the United States and want Hawaii to be their land. Yet I did get a better understanding through the public speakers we had about what this bill really was about.
What I think of this bill is that, not to offend anyone, but I don't think it really has a chance. The reason I say this is because many Hawaiians are against this bill and this bill is aimed directly at the Hawaiians. If at least fifty percent of Hawaiians are opposed to it in the future or now, what would make congress want to pass this bill?
I think the Akaka Bill should go into effect because it will help many Hawaiians who need it. It will give them back some things that were taken away more than 100 years ago, like their own goverment and statehood. Going back to the question, what does it mean to be native Hawaiian? I think you need to have Hawaiian blood and be born here and grow up here so you are able to relate to the land, like what Lindsey said. I was still wondering if the Bill helps any of people besides Hawaiians in any way.
um...this is linds. i am having trouble with technology.
can something so thin as a "bill" really preserve what has been lost?
Are many Hawaiians against it because the "bill" excludes how they really feel, what they really want, or what they need?
or are some hawaiians being stubborn in that they can't except that all cultures fall? Everyone can always ask for more, and want more. In this world we have limited supplies.
To respond to lindsey post I am also perplexed why so many native Hawaiian's are opposed to the Akaka Bill. After listening to the presentions feel as though it is not because the Native Hawaiiam's are "stubborn", although that would match the attitude of Queen Liliuokalani when President Cleveland tried to reinstate the monarchy back to Hawaii. However, I feel a that a more likely possiblilty is that the Hawaiian's and many other people including ourselves know enough about the bill, inorder to form a well-educated decision on it. For me personally I don't feel comfortable taking a side because I know that, even after online research and the presentations, I am not informed enough on the bill to understand all the little aspects that are adressed in the bill.
So perhaps due to the complexity of the bill many people are forming un-attended or mistaken bias'?
In response to Mason's last question, I do believe that people make biased opinions. I know for me I have got my opinion based on my knowledge of Native American tribes. Knowing some of the things these people have done or do, I made my opinion that I do not want the Akaka Bill. However, this is only based on Native Amercans. Therefore, I have made biased opinion because I do not have much knowledge of the Akaka Bill. So, yes, people do make biased opinions.
I also am kinda shocked that not all Native Hawaiians are in favor of the Akaka Bill. From the speaker it seemed like every Native Hawaiian wanted this bill, but that is not the case. Is this because they want Hawaii to be sovereign nation? Or do they just like it the way it is?
In response to Shoj and mason, i believe that some native hawaiians are opposed to the akaka bill because they want to be a separate nation totally immune to the U.S. The akaka bill just gives them a native government within the U.S. boundaries. This is why some native hawaiians shoot down the idea of the akaka bill. ~e ola ka olelo Hawai'i~
(The Hawaiian language will live)
Responce to eric's comment:
I am a Native Hawaiian. Some may think that just because i am a Native Hawaiian i am for the Akaka Bill. In reality i can't say i am. I am however for keeping the Hawaiian culture alive, and like Reid said, the Hawaiian language alive. I do want their spirituality to live. For some the Akaka Bill will help this to happen. For me, i don't really see how it will "help" the Hawaiians. I think that one can only help themself. Anf for the Hawaiians, they need to help themselves. Now, i do see that every culture diminishes. And i do see the Hawaiians diminishing as well. But, i am confused, how would having their own nation help solve this problem. Isn't it in fact inevitable?
Post a Comment