I think the Akaka Bill is biased heavily in favor of the Hawaiian people. It seems like they want a lot of liberties for the Hawaiian people, as if they were a separate country, but with the privileges that come with being a part of the United States. If you didn't realize it from my first sentence, I'm biased against the Akaka Bill. It seems like Hawaiians use the argument that they only want the rights that Indians have, but I don't really think that that should be too important of an issue, if, as the pro-Akaka Bill speaker was saying, they believe that America is indeed a great nation. Obviously, this issue is somewhat contentious, and I have a relatively conservative view on many issues.
I agree that the bill if passed could be spun out of control to the degree where many differnet ethnic group could wish to have their own government inside of Hawaii. Most likly this wouldnt happen though. The 'Hawaiians'are having a hard enough time getting the bill passed now since when Hawaii was annexed it had non hawaiian people as citizens.
The Akaka Bill is also proposed in a way that it would help the hawaiian people come together and keep their culture. Why do they have to establish a government to to this? In America you see many other ethnicities that keep and establish their culture by clustering together. Places like China town are a link for many chinese people to their culture. What makes it so that the Hawaiians cant create a cultural enviornment of their own?
I believe that the akaka bill hopes to be able to establish an office in the dept. of interior. This office would then select a commitee to oversee the forming of a Native Hawaiian Governing Council. This council would then be recongnized by the Federal Government.
But I still don't see what the big deal is. I don't know why this is such an important thing. Why do the people supporting the bill support it? What do they expect to gain from this? Why don't they just leave things the way they are? Can someone please enlighten me?
Native Hawaiians are able to justify themselves from those who oppose the Akaka bill and say that the bill is unconstitutionally race based because of their indigenous rights. Indigenous people such as the Native Hawaiians have the right of self-governance and sovereignty. However, only indigenous peoples have this right. Racial and ethnic groups do not have this right. Native Hawaiians believe that passing the bill would somewhat compensate and would be a resolution for the illegal overthrow and annexation of the Hawaiian kingdom in 1903. Native Hawaiians feel that the least the United States can do is allow them the right to self governance after having their land stripped from them in the annexation. Native Hawaiians were deeply angered when the bill failed to pass and reach 60 votes. Dan Akaka is determined to push his bill and its purpose to congress and is confident that bill can reach 60 votes.
1) What is your definition of "indigenous"? Would the ancestors of tahitians who came and took over the Hawaiian islands from the marquesans around 1300 AD count as "indigenous" by this definition?
2) What land do you think was stripped during annexation? After the overthrow, the crown lands became government lands, which were for the benefit of all the people of the multi-racial Hawaiian Kingdom. Those lands were ceded to the U.S. federal government while Hawaii was a territory, and then returned to the State of Hawaii in 1959, once again for the benefit of all the people of the multi-racial Hawaiian State. Do you consider this land stripped? Can you provide an example of a single piece of land anywhere that you can identify as "stripped" during annexation?
3) Do you think any "indigenous" people is allowed to form a multi-racial government for over two centuries, and then decide to move to an ethnocratic government? Would it be proper, in your eyes, for the original inhabitants of England to demand "indigenous" rights to the land, and therefore deserving of superior rights to any people without ancestry to the English Isles before 100AD? If not, why not?
I'm going to address one of the topics that Jere Krishcel has come up with. He asked "Why not have a separate country of part-japanese people in Hawaii? Or part-portuguese people in Hawaii? Or part-chinese people in Hawaii?" My response to this is that alll 3 of those etnic groups have their own countries already. They can't complain about Hawaii not having a mini-country in when they can go to their own homelands, it will just take a few hundred dollars to do so. The Hawaiian people are slowly disappearing (seen the kau inoa commercials?) and we just can't let that happen. Having parts of Hawaii become seperate than the US would help preserve some of the Hawaiian culture that is slowly disappearing
In my article, it said Dennis Kanahele opposed it because he wants Hawaiians to determine their own future. He said "We can do this on our own without any intervention by our congressional representatives or state legislators". But can they?
He wants the Hawaiian people to be involved in it. I think this would be a good idea and it would be the best for the Hawaiian people, but it doesn't seem to me like they would get very far at the moment. The Akaka Bill seems to be making progress (it has gone to the US Senate, and there are people that feel very strongly about it) so I think it would be better to support it than oppose it. The Akaka Bill is getting somewhere, and I don't think that what Dennis Kanahele wants has gotten very far. It seems to me like they do need help to get something done, and even if it is not exactly what they want, at least it is progress.
i feel that if the akaka bill is passed then it would be unfair to all the other people in hawaii that arent hawaiian like the japanese, chinese, korean, etc.. i think there are other ways of recon.. what ever it was called, you know the thing that is like paying back? well any way, i think we can pay them back in other ways like with benefits, or something,
I think that the Akaka Bill is a good thing for the Hawaiian people and needs to be pushed through. The United States wronged the people of Hawaii, and the Native Hawaiians should recieve some form of compensation, and I think that the Akaka Bill is a good start. The US wronged the Native Americans, and they recived compensation. They now are able to promote their culture, and have an identity. I think that's where this bill could help the Native Hawaiians the most, in giving their ideas and culture a real identity that is legally recongized.
I agree with that E.broski. The Hawaiian culture and the race as a whole is disappearing and like the speaker said, Hawaiians have the lowest life expectance rate. If Hawaiians get a something that they can work together and try improve themselves, why not give it a chance. People can gather together and do incredible things and if Hawaiians get together really try to protect themselves from dying off, lets give them a chance. People have a fear that other racial groups might break off, but in order to do that, they can just go back to the country their ancestors immigranted from, and thats a place their race have control of. The issue for the Hawaiians, is that they don't have a place to call their homeland, its not called the Hawaii nation, its called America. PS sorry if this sounds retarded, im really tired
Like a few others mentioned above, I feel the bill is, as a whole, rather unnecessary. Recognition of the culture is great, and there should be retribution for the actions committed in the past, but to the extent of which the bill is asking for seems irrational. It may be a rather pragmatic viewpoint, but if the current government is substantial enough, simply improve on it instead of going so far as to create a seperate one.
However, during the rather informative discussion at Wo, it seemed like one of the major points against the Akaka bill was the technicality that denied Hawaiians the right to be considered a tribe. It's almost pitiful that the argument is based upon something like this technicality. Also, I'm wondering whether the definition of tribe is limited solely to the one presented.
Harry and Mr. Cheever both were saying how giving the Hawaiians something helps make up for the wrong done to them many years ago. I understand this pretty well, because it makes sense that positive actions promote more positive actions, and that it might help them reform. What I didn't understand was how this would stop poverty, crime, drug deals, etc. It just doesn't seem like it's very realistic for some Hawaiian drug dealer to just stop dealing because his people have their own government. I know that sounds so negative and I hope no one thinks I'm a Hawaiian hater because I'm not.
Before I actually researched the Akaka Bill I was heavily biased towards protecting the rights of the Hawaiian people, based on what I heard from my friends and watched on the news. As I gain more knowledge regarding the reasoning behind this bill, I think I'm changing my point of view.
I don't think that America can pass this bill, as much as I think it would be morally correct, because it is race based which is against the statements in the constitution. You can't argue with that. The line has to be drawn somewhere and I think it should be here. I agree with Jere and Katie, if this bill is passed it will bring an upset to many other racial groups such as the Chinese, Pilipino, and Japanese. People of these ethnicities were part of the Hawaiian Kingdom when it was overthrown, (oh and by the way Neel, you said Hawaii was overthrown illegally, but actually I don't think that is true. Legality, in situations like these, is all relative because there is no world constitution, or something that governs the entire earth, so actually the legal matter is irrelevant.... and pro-annexation won :0) in the trial) so shouldn't they be entitled to the same rights as Hawaiians? They were as much a part of the Hawaiian nation as David Kalakaua, they just don't share the same ethnicity or race, and therefore this bill isn't constitutional and cannot be passed.
Like other have mentioned, I think that the Akaka Bill is effective, but only to an extent. I also agree that it probably more effective to improve our current government than to create a whole new one.
Also, when people are talking about how it would be unfair to other ethnic groups such as chinese, portugese, philipinos, etc. But like Eric said, they have their own countries already. Hawaii is the only place left where the native Hawaiians can prosper.
Most of this stuff is really confusing to me. What I think though is that it would be great for the Akaka Bill to pass if you were Hawaiian. It is a good start to help the Hawaiian race from being gone to where there are none left. However, it doesn't do anything to people that aren't Hawaiian. Also, as Tahnee said, I think that it would be extremely hard for America to pass it, since it's race based.
Hopefully by reading this blog as it goes on I will get a better understanding of this. I'll be in Maui so I won't have access to a computer until Sunday (to let Cheevdich know).
surprisingly, i agree with eric, the native Hawaiians had their land stripped from them and as we mentioned in the class discussion have become outcasts in a land that is rightfully theirs. To me it seems incredibly immoral of Americans to deny the Hawaiians of a self-governance, when basically the only harm it does us is some of our tax money which can't even begin too pay off the damage we did to their people.
I see the Akaka bill as supporting segregation, in a fashion. What I mean by that is, it clearly favors one racial group over others. I see this as being a step backwards, after the hard work of everybody in the 1960s, such as Martin Luther King, Jr., who tried to banish segregation from the United States. I believe that the laws against racial preference should be upheld over what is morally right, because if our legislators don't follow what is in the law, who will? I personally believe that set laws that have been thought through with reason hold higher value than what might be considered more morally right. This shows a larger picutre argument, whether moral value or legal value should hold more weight within a society.
I'm coming in late to the blog because I couldn't really figure out how to sign in, but now i feel that I'm a little behind in the blog, but i still have questions. 1) How are the Hawaiians outcasts in their own land? I keep hearing people talk about how they are outcasts, but how so? Because they don't have their own government? I feel that they are just like any other race here in the islands. If anything they are glorified now with rewards for being hawaiian and not outcasted.
2)When I read the Akaka bill article I found out a lot of things I never knew. But one thing that I always wondered was why Hawaiians wanted this anyway? I know that they need recognition for the past and all, but i feel that they already have gotten it in many different ways, and are asking for this government to try to segregate themselves even more from other races on the island. They said that it was for recognition in class and not to start up new laws or anything right away, but i still don't understand the benefits of the new proposed government
I see what you are saying Austin, but although Hawaii is a race of people, so is ,Mexican, Chinese, Japanese, Indian, etc. and all of these racial groups have a homeland, a country of their own, thhough other races live in their countries it is still the place where they exist as a race. The Akaka Bill isn't so much of segregation but it is just an act of replacement of a nation that once belonged to Hawaiians. This situation is like the Native American's, they were once the people of America and their "Indian tribes" have been granted with self-governance, so despite the legality of the situation and the mess America has gotten Hawaii into, why not treat Hawaiian's like any other native "tribe"?
I kinda agree with marks questions and also would like to know the answeres to them. How will the Hawaiians benifit from this? Would they really take the Akaka bill and use it to its fullest. I dont understand exactly why they need it. Also why wont congress admit that this Bill will never get pass?
In a "legal" point of view, many feel that the Hawaiians were not part of a specific "tribe" because they were not being race-based when accepting citizens for their government. That means not just native Hawaiians were having their rights violated, and therefore, according to the constitution, they do not need to grant a Native Government to benefit only native Hawaiians. Why are Hawaiians being treated this way just because they were so open-minded in the 19th century. Just because these so-called Indian "tribes" never had the same level of tolerance to allow foreigners to become a part of they're government as did the Hawaiians, now the Hawaiians are being penalized. Our ancestors made the mistake of being kind and generous, allowing foreigners to infiltrate the government, and these foreigners were the same people who took down our government. I feel that native Hawaiians should be allowed this native government because the culture they had at one time, was destroyed by foreigners. Missionaries, from Boston, forced Hawaiians to no longer speak their native language or practice native customs. There are repirations due from America, they have acknowledged that. As for the Asians that were in Hawaii, all of them were brought in as workers, not by native Hawaiians, but by other foreigners. Native Hawaiians not only deserve, but need a native government.
i think that the akaka bill is bias. It is only for hawaiians and even though i like hawaiians i think that that is not fair. If it is passed then other races will start saying that they were tribes and want to make there own akaka bill. but at the same time it would be a good thing for the hawaiians and i like it when good things happen.
e.broski writes, "They can't complain about Hawaii not having a mini-country in when they can go to their own homelands, it will just take a few hundred dollars to do so."
Couldn't the same thing be said about the Marquesan and Tahitians immigrants to the Hawaiian islands who now call themselves "Hawaiian"? We all came from somewhere else. The demarcation of specific lines and dates is purely arbitrary, and you'd be just as proper to insist that "native Hawaiians" take a few hundred dollars and head back to Tahiti or the Marquesas...or even farther back if you'd like.
The Hawaiian islands are the homeland of many people, of many ancestries, and the mere fact of blood does not define that connection.
cwalker08 wrote, "The United States wronged the people of Hawaii, and the Native Hawaiians should recieve some form of compensation, and I think that the Akaka Bill is a good start. The US wronged the Native Americans, and they recived compensation."
How were native Hawaiians specifically wronged? The Hawaiian Kingdom that was overthrown was multi-racial.
And what compensation to Native Americans are you talking about? Do you know of some payment that has been made to anyone with native American ancestry?
Here's a question for you - do you think the descendants of the ali'i, and the trust fund of Pauahi Bishop, for example, should be given to the descendants of the kama'ainana, who were wronged and brutalized by their ali'i?
I think the idea of compensation, on a racial basis just doesn't work very well. In the case of reparations for Japanese interred during WWII, for example, it was only those who actually, demonstrably suffered harm, who received recompense.
Now, perhaps if you could identify even one person who lost title to their land on January 17, 1893, they would possibly be justified in seeking compensation - but I would assert that this would be true no matter what the racial background of that person was.
simone wrote, "The Akaka Bill isn't so much of segregation but it is just an act of replacement of a nation that once belonged to Hawaiians."
Simone, there never was a nation that belonged only to native Hawaiians. The Hawaiian islands were united not only by Kamehameha and his warriors, but John Young, a british sailor who helped him. The very first constitution of the Hawaiian Kingdom proclaimed equal rights for all races.
What makes you think that such an enlightened nation as the Kingdom of Hawaii belonged only to one race?
kanoa wrote, "As for the Asians that were in Hawaii, all of them were brought in as workers, not by native Hawaiians, but by other foreigners."
Actually, the monarchy both supported and encouraged Asian immigration to the islands.
kanoa also wrote, "Our ancestors made the mistake of being kind and generous, allowing foreigners to infiltrate the government, and these foreigners were the same people who took down our government."
Do you really think it was a mistake to declare equal rights in the Kingdom of Hawaii? Would Hawaii have been a better place today if they had imposed racial segregation upon unification of the islands?
If you're looking for foreigners who "took down our government", spend some time learning about Claus Spreckels, a great supporter of Kalakaua and Liliuokalani, who encouraged their corruption and wasteful spending. Or William Murray Gibson, who not only injected the first signs of racial identity politics into the Hawaiian Kingdom, but also ripped off the Mormons before becoming Kalakaua's right-hand man.
Say what you will about the Committee of Safety that overthrew Liliuokalani, but they were fighting against some pretty obvious corruption in the monarchy. Regardless of their racial background, thanks to their efforts, more people in Hawaii than ever before got the right to vote in 1900 with the Organic Act.
Jere Krischel wrote "We all came from somewhere else. The demarcation of specific lines and dates is purely arbitrary, and you'd be just as proper to insist that "native Hawaiians" take a few hundred dollars and head back to Tahiti or the Marquesas"
So what you are saying is that everyone can go as far back as they want and come from a different place. So why not have pure germans in America have a seperate country? why not have pure Kenyans have a seperate country? because they have their own country. There are no pure "Americans", the closest you get to are Native Americans, and even they didn't begin in America. You can go as far back as when the world only had one huge continent before it broke into 7 continents. Why not let the Native Hawaiians have a small sliver of land to call their own?
Jere, How can you say that there was never a nation that belonged to only Hawaiians when in actuality there was also never a nation that belonged to only "Americans". How is that justified? We didn't discover Hawaii and according to history we weren't the first to step onto the beautiful "Kingdom of America". Before this John Young character inhabited the islands who was their first? The Hawaiians, and other people who lived on their lands (just like early America). American's brought the idea of a nation, and the idea of constitution and completely reformed Hawaii into a modernized as you call it "Kingdom of Hawaii". This "Kingdom of Hawaii" was just fine on it's own and didn't require the invasion of America or their constitutions and complicated systems of government. Why couldn't we accept the difference of the Hawaiian people? Maybe the very first constitution proclaimed equal rights for all races, but doesn't ours as well? Then how come we offer Indian tribes self-governance, but not the Hawaiians? I do understand the complications and the worries of allowing the Akaka Bill to pass, but i don't understand how people like you can't see that we made the mistake and we need to do something to save the deminishing Hawaiian people.
Dear Jere, All I meant by saying that it was a "mistake" to allow foreigners to "infiltrate" the Hawaiian government was that the U.S. government is not giving us a native government, like the Native Americans, because of generous attitude. Don't you feel that Hawaiians should be given benefits for their forsight in the matter of equal rights, not denied our right to a native government. Also, for the Committee of Safety, you cannot deny that they were thinking for the benefit of the rich, white male, and not the government as a whole. Because McKinley took away the Reciprocity Treaty, these white males who owned sugar cane were losing LOADS of money. The only way they would be able to make profit in Hawaii with sugar cane is if they were annexed, therefore receiving the benefits as American agriculturals. I think that those who say the Committee was fighting corruption is a lie. They took over Hawaii for a personal agenda.
e.broski wrote, "Why not let the Native Hawaiians have a small sliver of land to call their own?"
The problem is that as you describe it, both countries and races are completely arbitrary. Why not let Hawaiian immigrants post-1778 have a small sliver of land to call their own, and hold it in perpetuity for their progeny regardless of what happens?
The idea of separating people by race in order to determine their worth or their rights is abominable, especially when you consider that most "native Hawaiians" are mostly not "native Hawaiian". Claiming special racial privilege based on a tiny fraction of ancestry is essentially the idea of hereditary title. Although some may still agree that a division between royalty and commoners is righteous, it doesn't fit in with common modern values.
simone wrote, "Before this John Young character inhabited the islands who was their first? The Hawaiians, and other people who lived on their lands (just like early America)."
Actually Simone, it was the Mauians, the Kauaians, the Molokaians, the Oahuans, and other chiefdoms. There was no unified "Hawaii" as we know it in the modern sense, until the conquest of Kamehameha and John Young.
simone also wrote, "This "Kingdom of Hawaii" was just fine on it's own and didn't require the invasion of America or their constitutions and complicated systems of government."
America did not invade the kingdom of Hawaii, nor did it impose the constitution given by Kamehameha III, nor did it devise its form of government. That being said, the monarchy of Hawaii, allying itself with missionaries, were heavily influenced by American values. In fact, Americans figured prominently in the Hawaiian Kingdom government from 1820 on.
simone also wrote, " Then how come we offer Indian tribes self-governance, but not the Hawaiians?"
You should make note that we don't offer anyone with any fractional native American ancestry self-governance, but only continuously existing tribes. If Kauai had not surrendered to Kamehameha, and existed until the annexation of the Hawaiian Kingdom as an autonomous and independent tribe, it would probably be eligible for similar treatment.
That being said, the real reason for offering self-governance to native Americans originally was to keep them from exercising citizenship in the United States. Keeping them separate was an act of xenophobia and racism...ironic that the victims of such policies now consider themselves "beneficiaries".
Kanoa wrote, "Don't you feel that Hawaiians should be given benefits for their forsight in the matter of equal rights, not denied our right to a native government"
I don't believe anyone has a right to build a government along racial lines. I believe that race is a convenient illusion to separate people, and to rationalize the poor treatment of others, and it has infected the common consciousness to the point of insanity.
kanoa also wrote, "Because McKinley took away the Reciprocity Treaty, these white males who owned sugar cane were losing LOADS of money. "
McKinley didn't take away the Reciprocity Treaty, although he did reduce its benefit by eliminating taxes otherwise avoided by Hawaii sugar. That being said, Claus Spreckels, the "Sugar King" who supported the corruption of Kalakaua and Liliuokalani, was a strong supporter of the monarchy.
Perhaps you could name a single member of the Committee of Safety who was a sugar planter, or losing money because of the McKinley Tariff Act?
Reading all the comments was taking to long, so i will just post my opinions on the Akaka Bill. I feel that the Akaka bill should be passed, but only to a certain extent. I feel that the Native Hawaiians do deserve to have a self-goverenment, but to a certain extent. There should bwe restrictions to certain things that could lead to an unbalance. If the Native Americans have these rights, what makes Native Hawaiians any different. To me race is not an issue here. We are not hurting anybody by giving Hawaiians power. It is a matter of perserving a culture, and giving them the freedom that they once had. Hawaii is already apart of the U.S and that is not and should not change. So what is the problem with giving the Hawaiiians some individuality in their own state. How will this effect any of us non-Hawaiian people.... It will not. Not saying that the U.S is bad, I'm just saying that the Hawaiians should get the freedom that they deserve. This is somewhat like the trial of the annexation of Hawaii. It is a matter of laws and morals.
I agree with Eric that Hawaiians deserve self-governance and freedom. Personally I feel that the Akaka Bill should be passed. I think that it could only benefit Hawaiians. However, the article that I read on the Akaka Bill brought up an interesting point. It was against the Akaka Bill, and was written by a Hawaiian activist. He outlined the deficiencies in the Akaka Bill from a Hawaiian perspective. What I thought was interesting was that he said the Akaka Bill would do nothing for Hawaiians advocating for sovereignty. The bill would only allow Hawaiians self-governance within the U.S. government. The Hawaiians would not be truly free. Though I support the Akaka Bill I think that sovereignty is an important issue that needs to be looked at.
41 comments:
I'm the first non-teacher who signed up.
I think the Akaka Bill is biased heavily in favor of the Hawaiian people. It seems like they want a lot of liberties for the Hawaiian people, as if they were a separate country, but with the privileges that come with being a part of the United States. If you didn't realize it from my first sentence, I'm biased against the Akaka Bill. It seems like Hawaiians use the argument that they only want the rights that Indians have, but I don't really think that that should be too important of an issue, if, as the pro-Akaka Bill speaker was saying, they believe that America is indeed a great nation. Obviously, this issue is somewhat contentious, and I have a relatively conservative view on many issues.
I think an important question to ask is, "why stop with native Hawaiians"?
Why not have a separate country of part-japanese people in Hawaii? Or part-portuguese people in Hawaii? Or part-chinese people in Hawaii?
All three ethnic groups were a part of the Hawaiian Kingdom...why not have separate nationhood for them?
The utility of separating people by race isn't obvious to me, especially in a place as kapakahi as Hawaii.
I agree that the bill if passed could be spun out of control to the degree where many differnet ethnic group could wish to have their own government inside of Hawaii. Most likly this wouldnt happen though. The 'Hawaiians'are having a hard enough time getting the bill passed now since when Hawaii was annexed it had non hawaiian people as citizens.
The Akaka Bill is also proposed in a way that it would help the hawaiian people come together and keep their culture. Why do they have to establish a government to to this? In America you see many other ethnicities that keep and establish their culture by clustering together. Places like China town are a link for many chinese people to their culture. What makes it so that the Hawaiians cant create a cultural enviornment of their own?
I believe that the akaka bill hopes to be able to establish an office in the dept. of interior. This office would then select a commitee to oversee the forming of a Native Hawaiian Governing Council. This council would then be recongnized by the Federal Government.
But I still don't see what the big deal is. I don't know why this is such an important thing. Why do the people supporting the bill support it? What do they expect to gain from this? Why don't they just leave things the way they are? Can someone please enlighten me?
Native Hawaiians are able to justify themselves from those who oppose the Akaka bill and say that the bill is unconstitutionally race based because of their indigenous rights. Indigenous people such as the Native Hawaiians have the right of self-governance and sovereignty. However, only indigenous peoples have this right. Racial and ethnic groups do not have this right. Native Hawaiians believe that passing the bill would somewhat compensate and would be a resolution for the illegal overthrow and annexation of the Hawaiian kingdom in 1903.
Native Hawaiians feel that the least the United States can do is allow them the right to self governance after having their land stripped from them in the annexation. Native Hawaiians were deeply angered when the bill failed to pass and reach 60 votes. Dan Akaka is determined to push his bill and its purpose to congress and is confident that bill can reach 60 votes.
Neel, a few questions:
1) What is your definition of "indigenous"? Would the ancestors of tahitians who came and took over the Hawaiian islands from the marquesans around 1300 AD count as "indigenous" by this definition?
2) What land do you think was stripped during annexation? After the overthrow, the crown lands became government lands, which were for the benefit of all the people of the multi-racial Hawaiian Kingdom. Those lands were ceded to the U.S. federal government while Hawaii was a territory, and then returned to the State of Hawaii in 1959, once again for the benefit of all the people of the multi-racial Hawaiian State. Do you consider this land stripped? Can you provide an example of a single piece of land anywhere that you can identify as "stripped" during annexation?
3) Do you think any "indigenous" people is allowed to form a multi-racial government for over two centuries, and then decide to move to an ethnocratic government? Would it be proper, in your eyes, for the original inhabitants of England to demand "indigenous" rights to the land, and therefore deserving of superior rights to any people without ancestry to the English Isles before 100AD? If not, why not?
I'm going to address one of the topics that Jere Krishcel has come up with. He asked "Why not have a separate country of part-japanese people in Hawaii? Or part-portuguese people in Hawaii? Or part-chinese people in Hawaii?"
My response to this is that alll 3 of those etnic groups have their own countries already. They can't complain about Hawaii not having a mini-country in when they can go to their own homelands, it will just take a few hundred dollars to do so.
The Hawaiian people are slowly disappearing (seen the kau inoa commercials?) and we just can't let that happen. Having parts of Hawaii become seperate than the US would help preserve some of the Hawaiian culture that is slowly disappearing
In my article, it said Dennis Kanahele opposed it because he wants Hawaiians to determine their own future. He said "We can do this on our own without any intervention by our congressional representatives or state legislators". But can they?
He wants the Hawaiian people to be involved in it. I think this would be a good idea and it would be the best for the Hawaiian people, but it doesn't seem to me like they would get very far at the moment. The Akaka Bill seems to be making progress (it has gone to the US Senate, and there are people that feel very strongly about it) so I think it would be better to support it than oppose it. The Akaka Bill is getting somewhere, and I don't think that what Dennis Kanahele wants has gotten very far. It seems to me like they do need help to get something done, and even if it is not exactly what they want, at least it is progress.
i feel that if the akaka bill is passed then it would be unfair to all the other people in hawaii that arent hawaiian like the japanese, chinese, korean, etc.. i think there are other ways of recon.. what ever it was called, you know the thing that is like paying back? well any way, i think we can pay them back in other ways like with benefits, or something,
I think that the Akaka Bill is a good thing for the Hawaiian people and needs to be pushed through. The United States wronged the people of Hawaii, and the Native Hawaiians should recieve some form of compensation, and I think that the Akaka Bill is a good start. The US wronged the Native Americans, and they recived compensation. They now are able to promote their culture, and have an identity. I think that's where this bill could help the Native Hawaiians the most, in giving their ideas and culture a real identity that is legally recongized.
I agree with that E.broski. The Hawaiian culture and the race as a whole is disappearing and like the speaker said, Hawaiians have the lowest life expectance rate.
If Hawaiians get a something that they can work together and try improve themselves, why not give it a chance. People can gather together and do incredible things and if Hawaiians get together really try to protect themselves from dying off, lets give them a chance. People have a fear that other racial groups might break off, but in order to do that, they can just go back to the country their ancestors immigranted from, and thats a place their race have control of. The issue for the Hawaiians, is that they don't have a place to call their homeland, its not called the Hawaii nation, its called America.
PS sorry if this sounds retarded, im really tired
Like a few others mentioned above, I feel the bill is, as a whole, rather unnecessary. Recognition of the culture is great, and there should be retribution for the actions committed in the past, but to the extent of which the bill is asking for seems irrational. It may be a rather pragmatic viewpoint, but if the current government is substantial enough, simply improve on it instead of going so far as to create a seperate one.
However, during the rather informative discussion at Wo, it seemed like one of the major points against the Akaka bill was the technicality that denied Hawaiians the right to be considered a tribe. It's almost pitiful that the argument is based upon something like this technicality. Also, I'm wondering whether the definition of tribe is limited solely to the one presented.
Harry and Mr. Cheever both were saying how giving the Hawaiians something helps make up for the wrong done to them many years ago. I understand this pretty well, because it makes sense that positive actions promote more positive actions, and that it might help them reform. What I didn't understand was how this would stop poverty, crime, drug deals, etc. It just doesn't seem like it's very realistic for some Hawaiian drug dealer to just stop dealing because his people have their own government. I know that sounds so negative and I hope no one thinks I'm a Hawaiian hater because I'm not.
Before I actually researched the Akaka Bill I was heavily biased towards protecting the rights of the Hawaiian people, based on what I heard from my friends and watched on the news. As I gain more knowledge regarding the reasoning behind this bill, I think I'm changing my point of view.
I don't think that America can pass this bill, as much as I think it would be morally correct, because it is race based which is against the statements in the constitution. You can't argue with that. The line has to be drawn somewhere and I think it should be here. I agree with Jere and Katie, if this bill is passed it will bring an upset to many other racial groups such as the Chinese, Pilipino, and Japanese. People of these ethnicities were part of the Hawaiian Kingdom when it was overthrown, (oh and by the way Neel, you said Hawaii was overthrown illegally, but actually I don't think that is true. Legality, in situations like these, is all relative because there is no world constitution, or something that governs the entire earth, so actually the legal matter is irrelevant.... and pro-annexation won :0) in the trial) so shouldn't they be entitled to the same rights as Hawaiians? They were as much a part of the Hawaiian nation as David Kalakaua, they just don't share the same ethnicity or race, and therefore this bill isn't constitutional and cannot be passed.
Like other have mentioned, I think that the Akaka Bill is effective, but only to an extent. I also agree that it probably more effective to improve our current government than to create a whole new one.
Also, when people are talking about how it would be unfair to other ethnic groups such as chinese, portugese, philipinos, etc. But like Eric said, they have their own countries already. Hawaii is the only place left where the native Hawaiians can prosper.
Most of this stuff is really confusing to me. What I think though is that it would be great for the Akaka Bill to pass if you were Hawaiian. It is a good start to help the Hawaiian race from being gone to where there are none left. However, it doesn't do anything to people that aren't Hawaiian. Also, as Tahnee said, I think that it would be extremely hard for America to pass it, since it's race based.
Hopefully by reading this blog as it goes on I will get a better understanding of this. I'll be in Maui so I won't have access to a computer until Sunday (to let Cheevdich know).
surprisingly, i agree with eric, the native Hawaiians had their land stripped from them and as we mentioned in the class discussion have become outcasts in a land that is rightfully theirs. To me it seems incredibly immoral of Americans to deny the Hawaiians of a self-governance, when basically the only harm it does us is some of our tax money which can't even begin too pay off the damage we did to their people.
I see the Akaka bill as supporting segregation, in a fashion. What I mean by that is, it clearly favors one racial group over others. I see this as being a step backwards, after the hard work of everybody in the 1960s, such as Martin Luther King, Jr., who tried to banish segregation from the United States. I believe that the laws against racial preference should be upheld over what is morally right, because if our legislators don't follow what is in the law, who will? I personally believe that set laws that have been thought through with reason hold higher value than what might be considered more morally right. This shows a larger picutre argument, whether moral value or legal value should hold more weight within a society.
I'm coming in late to the blog because I couldn't really figure out how to sign in, but now i feel that I'm a little behind in the blog, but i still have questions.
1) How are the Hawaiians outcasts in their own land? I keep hearing people talk about how they are outcasts, but how so? Because they don't have their own government? I feel that they are just like any other race here in the islands. If anything they are glorified now with rewards for being hawaiian and not outcasted.
2)When I read the Akaka bill article I found out a lot of things I never knew. But one thing that I always wondered was why Hawaiians wanted this anyway? I know that they need recognition for the past and all, but i feel that they already have gotten it in many different ways, and are asking for this government to try to segregate themselves even more from other races on the island. They said that it was for recognition in class and not to start up new laws or anything right away, but i still don't understand the benefits of the new proposed government
I see what you are saying Austin, but although Hawaii is a race of people, so is ,Mexican, Chinese, Japanese, Indian, etc. and all of these racial groups have a homeland, a country of their own, thhough other races live in their countries it is still the place where they exist as a race. The Akaka Bill isn't so much of segregation but it is just an act of replacement of a nation that once belonged to Hawaiians. This situation is like the Native American's, they were once the people of America and their "Indian tribes" have been granted with self-governance, so despite the legality of the situation and the mess America has gotten Hawaii into, why not treat Hawaiian's like any other native "tribe"?
I kinda agree with marks questions and also would like to know the answeres to them.
How will the Hawaiians benifit from this? Would they really take the Akaka bill and use it to its fullest. I dont understand exactly why they need it. Also why wont congress admit that this Bill will never get pass?
In a "legal" point of view, many feel that the Hawaiians were not part of a specific "tribe" because they were not being race-based when accepting citizens for their government. That means not just native Hawaiians were having their rights violated, and therefore, according to the constitution, they do not need to grant a Native Government to benefit only native Hawaiians. Why are Hawaiians being treated this way just because they were so open-minded in the 19th century. Just because these so-called Indian "tribes" never had the same level of tolerance to allow foreigners to become a part of they're government as did the Hawaiians, now the Hawaiians are being penalized. Our ancestors made the mistake of being kind and generous, allowing foreigners to infiltrate the government, and these foreigners were the same people who took down our government. I feel that native Hawaiians should be allowed this native government because the culture they had at one time, was destroyed by foreigners. Missionaries, from Boston, forced Hawaiians to no longer speak their native language or practice native customs. There are repirations due from America, they have acknowledged that. As for the Asians that were in Hawaii, all of them were brought in as workers, not by native Hawaiians, but by other foreigners. Native Hawaiians not only deserve, but need a native government.
i think that the akaka bill is bias. It is only for hawaiians and even though i like hawaiians i think that that is not fair. If it is passed then other races will start saying that they were tribes and want to make there own akaka bill. but at the same time it would be a good thing for the hawaiians and i like it when good things happen.
e.broski writes, "They can't complain about Hawaii not having a mini-country in when they can go to their own homelands, it will just take a few hundred dollars to do so."
Couldn't the same thing be said about the Marquesan and Tahitians immigrants to the Hawaiian islands who now call themselves "Hawaiian"? We all came from somewhere else. The demarcation of specific lines and dates is purely arbitrary, and you'd be just as proper to insist that "native Hawaiians" take a few hundred dollars and head back to Tahiti or the Marquesas...or even farther back if you'd like.
The Hawaiian islands are the homeland of many people, of many ancestries, and the mere fact of blood does not define that connection.
cwalker08 wrote, "The United States wronged the people of Hawaii, and the Native Hawaiians should recieve some form of compensation, and I think that the Akaka Bill is a good start. The US wronged the Native Americans, and they recived compensation."
How were native Hawaiians specifically wronged? The Hawaiian Kingdom that was overthrown was multi-racial.
And what compensation to Native Americans are you talking about? Do you know of some payment that has been made to anyone with native American ancestry?
Here's a question for you - do you think the descendants of the ali'i, and the trust fund of Pauahi Bishop, for example, should be given to the descendants of the kama'ainana, who were wronged and brutalized by their ali'i?
I think the idea of compensation, on a racial basis just doesn't work very well. In the case of reparations for Japanese interred during WWII, for example, it was only those who actually, demonstrably suffered harm, who received recompense.
Now, perhaps if you could identify even one person who lost title to their land on January 17, 1893, they would possibly be justified in seeking compensation - but I would assert that this would be true no matter what the racial background of that person was.
jamie wrote, "But like Eric said, they have their own countries already. Hawaii is the only place left where the native Hawaiians can prosper."
Actually, it seems that "native Hawaiians" prosper more when they don't have state-based entitlement programs:
http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070109/OPINION03/701090312/1110/OPINION
simone wrote, "The Akaka Bill isn't so much of segregation but it is just an act of replacement of a nation that once belonged to Hawaiians."
Simone, there never was a nation that belonged only to native Hawaiians. The Hawaiian islands were united not only by Kamehameha and his warriors, but John Young, a british sailor who helped him. The very first constitution of the Hawaiian Kingdom proclaimed equal rights for all races.
What makes you think that such an enlightened nation as the Kingdom of Hawaii belonged only to one race?
kanoa wrote, "As for the Asians that were in Hawaii, all of them were brought in as workers, not by native Hawaiians, but by other foreigners."
Actually, the monarchy both supported and encouraged Asian immigration to the islands.
kanoa also wrote, "Our ancestors made the mistake of being kind and generous, allowing foreigners to infiltrate the government, and these foreigners were the same people who took down our government."
Do you really think it was a mistake to declare equal rights in the Kingdom of Hawaii? Would Hawaii have been a better place today if they had imposed racial segregation upon unification of the islands?
If you're looking for foreigners who "took down our government", spend some time learning about Claus Spreckels, a great supporter of Kalakaua and Liliuokalani, who encouraged their corruption and wasteful spending. Or William Murray Gibson, who not only injected the first signs of racial identity politics into the Hawaiian Kingdom, but also ripped off the Mormons before becoming Kalakaua's right-hand man.
Say what you will about the Committee of Safety that overthrew Liliuokalani, but they were fighting against some pretty obvious corruption in the monarchy. Regardless of their racial background, thanks to their efforts, more people in Hawaii than ever before got the right to vote in 1900 with the Organic Act.
Jere Krischel wrote "We all came from somewhere else. The demarcation of specific lines and dates is purely arbitrary, and you'd be just as proper to insist that "native Hawaiians" take a few hundred dollars and head back to Tahiti or the Marquesas"
So what you are saying is that everyone can go as far back as they want and come from a different place. So why not have pure germans in America have a seperate country? why not have pure Kenyans have a seperate country? because they have their own country. There are no pure "Americans", the closest you get to are Native Americans, and even they didn't begin in America. You can go as far back as when the world only had one huge continent before it broke into 7 continents. Why not let the Native Hawaiians have a small sliver of land to call their own?
Jere,
How can you say that there was never a nation that belonged to only Hawaiians when in actuality there was also never a nation that belonged to only "Americans". How is that justified? We didn't discover Hawaii and according to history we weren't the first to step onto the beautiful "Kingdom of America". Before this John Young character inhabited the islands who was their first? The Hawaiians, and other people who lived on their lands (just like early America). American's brought the idea of a nation, and the idea of constitution and completely reformed Hawaii into a modernized as you call it "Kingdom of Hawaii". This "Kingdom of Hawaii" was just fine on it's own and didn't require the invasion of America or their constitutions and complicated systems of government. Why couldn't we accept the difference of the Hawaiian people? Maybe the very first constitution proclaimed equal rights for all races, but doesn't ours as well? Then how come we offer Indian tribes self-governance, but not the Hawaiians? I do understand the complications and the worries of allowing the Akaka Bill to pass, but i don't understand how people like you can't see that we made the mistake and we need to do something to save the deminishing Hawaiian people.
Dear Jere,
All I meant by saying that it was a "mistake" to allow foreigners to "infiltrate" the Hawaiian government was that the U.S. government is not giving us a native government, like the Native Americans, because of generous attitude. Don't you feel that Hawaiians should be given benefits for their forsight in the matter of equal rights, not denied our right to a native government.
Also, for the Committee of Safety, you cannot deny that they were thinking for the benefit of the rich, white male, and not the government as a whole. Because McKinley took away the Reciprocity Treaty, these white males who owned sugar cane were losing LOADS of money. The only way they would be able to make profit in Hawaii with sugar cane is if they were annexed, therefore receiving the benefits as American agriculturals. I think that those who say the Committee was fighting corruption is a lie. They took over Hawaii for a personal agenda.
e.broski wrote, "Why not let the Native Hawaiians have a small sliver of land to call their own?"
The problem is that as you describe it, both countries and races are completely arbitrary. Why not let Hawaiian immigrants post-1778 have a small sliver of land to call their own, and hold it in perpetuity for their progeny regardless of what happens?
The idea of separating people by race in order to determine their worth or their rights is abominable, especially when you consider that most "native Hawaiians" are mostly not "native Hawaiian". Claiming special racial privilege based on a tiny fraction of ancestry is essentially the idea of hereditary title. Although some may still agree that a division between royalty and commoners is righteous, it doesn't fit in with common modern values.
simone wrote, "Before this John Young character inhabited the islands who was their first? The Hawaiians, and other people who lived on their lands (just like early America)."
Actually Simone, it was the Mauians, the Kauaians, the Molokaians, the Oahuans, and other chiefdoms. There was no unified "Hawaii" as we know it in the modern sense, until the conquest of Kamehameha and John Young.
simone also wrote, "This "Kingdom of Hawaii" was just fine on it's own and didn't require the invasion of America or their constitutions and complicated systems of government."
America did not invade the kingdom of Hawaii, nor did it impose the constitution given by Kamehameha III, nor did it devise its form of government. That being said, the monarchy of Hawaii, allying itself with missionaries, were heavily influenced by American values. In fact, Americans figured prominently in the Hawaiian Kingdom government from 1820 on.
simone also wrote, " Then how come we offer Indian tribes self-governance, but not the Hawaiians?"
You should make note that we don't offer anyone with any fractional native American ancestry self-governance, but only continuously existing tribes. If Kauai had not surrendered to Kamehameha, and existed until the annexation of the Hawaiian Kingdom as an autonomous and independent tribe, it would probably be eligible for similar treatment.
That being said, the real reason for offering self-governance to native Americans originally was to keep them from exercising citizenship in the United States. Keeping them separate was an act of xenophobia and racism...ironic that the victims of such policies now consider themselves "beneficiaries".
Kanoa wrote, "Don't you feel that Hawaiians should be given benefits for their forsight in the matter of equal rights, not denied our right to a native government"
I don't believe anyone has a right to build a government along racial lines. I believe that race is a convenient illusion to separate people, and to rationalize the poor treatment of others, and it has infected the common consciousness to the point of insanity.
kanoa also wrote, "Because McKinley took away the Reciprocity Treaty, these white males who owned sugar cane were losing LOADS of money. "
McKinley didn't take away the Reciprocity Treaty, although he did reduce its benefit by eliminating taxes otherwise avoided by Hawaii sugar. That being said, Claus Spreckels, the "Sugar King" who supported the corruption of Kalakaua and Liliuokalani, was a strong supporter of the monarchy.
Perhaps you could name a single member of the Committee of Safety who was a sugar planter, or losing money because of the McKinley Tariff Act?
Reading all the comments was taking to long, so i will just post my opinions on the Akaka Bill. I feel that the Akaka bill should be passed, but only to a certain extent. I feel that the Native Hawaiians do deserve to have a self-goverenment, but to a certain extent. There should bwe restrictions to certain things that could lead to an unbalance. If the Native Americans have these rights, what makes Native Hawaiians any different. To me race is not an issue here. We are not hurting anybody by giving Hawaiians power. It is a matter of perserving a culture, and giving them the freedom that they once had. Hawaii is already apart of the U.S and that is not and should not change. So what is the problem with giving the Hawaiiians some individuality in their own state. How will this effect any of us non-Hawaiian people.... It will not. Not saying that the U.S is bad, I'm just saying that the Hawaiians should get the freedom that they deserve. This is somewhat like the trial of the annexation of Hawaii. It is a matter of laws and morals.
I agree with Eric that Hawaiians deserve self-governance and freedom. Personally I feel that the Akaka Bill should be passed. I think that it could only benefit Hawaiians. However, the article that I read on the Akaka Bill brought up an interesting point. It was against the Akaka Bill, and was written by a Hawaiian activist. He outlined the deficiencies in the Akaka Bill from a Hawaiian perspective. What I thought was interesting was that he said the Akaka Bill would do nothing for Hawaiians advocating for sovereignty. The bill would only allow Hawaiians self-governance within the U.S. government. The Hawaiians would not be truly free. Though I support the Akaka Bill I think that sovereignty is an important issue that needs to be looked at.
i have just one thing to say. that jere guy must enjoy irritating high school students...
I guess education can be irritating at times, simone :).
Post a Comment