definatly not...gotta have hawaiian blood to be considered hawaiian. just because youre not hawaiian doesnt mean you cant support hawaiian culture though. a lot of Hs arent hawaiian but they can still support hawaiian culture.
Actually a very interesting question, complicated by the fact that pre-1778 (the typical cut-off year to determine whether immigrants are "native" or not), the only "Hawaiians" were people living on the Big Island. Mauians, Oahuans and Kauaians certainly wouldn't have identified with their rivals from a different island.
If you're being inclusive of all the Hawaiian Islands, your point of reference generally starts at 1810 (when Kauai finally surrendered to Kamehameha), and by then you had both a government and a populace that included people without blood ties to pre-1778 immigrants.
I like to assert that Hawaii is a place, not a race. Someone with pre-1778 immigrant blood in the Hawaiian Islands may be able to claim only they are "kanaka maoli", or "oiwi" (although the racial use of those terms wasn't their original meaning), but to say that one must have a specific bit of ancestry to be "Hawaiian" is a stretch.
I believe that if you are to be considered Hawaiian your must be of Hawaiian ancestry. Something that is confusing me is, do you have to be of native ancestry to be apart of the Native Government. I thought I heard that somewhere and I was just looking for some clarification. Thank you.
edeer08, I have a few questions, perhaps you may have opinions on:
1) was the first marquesan voyager who stepped foot on an island around 1000 AD in Hawaii of "Hawaiian Ancestry"?
2) was the first tahitian conqueror who came to the Hawaiian islands around 1300 AD and displaced the marquesans of "Hawaiian Ancestry"?
3) If not the first of either of those two people, how many generations or years do you think were required before the people were of "Hawaiian Ancestry"?
4) If someone else came to the Hawaiian islands, and lived there for that same number of generations or years, would they have "Hawaiian Ancestry" in your mind?
My direct descent goes back 3 generations and over 100 years in Hawaii. Some haoles go back 6 generations and nearly 200 years. How many more years do you think should pass before they are considered of "Hawaiian Ancestry"?
I agree with Jeeter and Eric. You must have Hawaiian blood to be Hawaiian. It's just like if you ask someone if they're African American, Filipino or Chinese. You automatically assume they're asking if you're part of that particular ethnicity, which usually refers to hair color, skin color or physical features, which all stem from blood lines. At the same time, just because you do stem from Hawaiian blood, doesn't mean you are better or more deserving of rights than anyone else.
After studying the overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy I believe that America needs to reconcile and compensate for the losses of the Hawaiian people. Yet, I think the Akaka bill is not the best form of reconciliation, because it would create too many complications and reinforce the already strong sentiment of superiority/hate that Hawaiians express to whites. Instead, I think money should be applied towards expanding Kamehameha schools, and improving/enlarging Hawaiian homesteads. Although decimated after being used as target practice, I think Koolawe should be used by Hawaiians to help preserve their disappearing traditions. I think Koolawe is the only remaining place in these islands that is truly separated from modern society and would therefore allow Hawaiians to “go back in time” and strengthen their knowledge/practice of their traditions. If Koolawe isn’t currently being used for anything, then there’s no reason to not give Hawaiians the right to use it for what they want, because after all, it is their land.
I look at all the comments, and for the most part... the question is "What does it mean to be Hawaiian?" And, "Does having Hawaiian blood make you Hawaiian?" In my perspective, one does need "Hawaiian blood" to be considered Hawaiian -under technicalities. However, not all people of Hawaiian blood are "true Hawaiians". It depends on how the individual sees themself -as an American, Native Hawaiian, both, etc. And, how they interact with their community and such, -perpetuating the culture of the past, etc. I realize there's a lot of grey in my response, but it seemingly makes sense.
Question: Should "Native Hawaiians" be given special rights, just because they are who they are?
According to The American Heritage Dictionary,a Hawaiian is a native or inhabitant of Hawaii or the Hawaiian Islands or a member or descendent of the indigenous Plunesian people of the Hawaiians Islands. So isn't the first definition basically saying that people liviing on Hawaii are Hawaiians? I disagree. A Hawaiians is what Jeter, Eric, and Nica said. To Brandon's question, I think Native Hawaiians should not be given special rights because eventually all ethnicities will become extinct due to intermarriages. Hawaiians are just quicker to this rule. However, I think its cool to have the Kau Inoa shirt because it shows you take pride in your culture. ok yeah.
I think that native hawaiians should be given special rights or at least some sort of compensation for everything that has happened to them. They need something that will allow them to preserve their culture, a culture which is slowly dying. The hawaiian culture is part of what makes hawaii, hawaii. Without it hawaii just wouldn't be the same.
I think it is pretty self-evident that the majority of the homeless living on the Waianae coast are Hawaiian. Isn't strange that (arguably) the people with the highest percentage of Native Hawaiian blood are the people with the highest unemployment and poverty rates, and lowest literacy rates? If the goal of the Hawaiian movement is to perpetuate the Hawaiian culture and to seek justice for the wrongdoings of the U.S., I feel that the most effective way to reconcile is to help the people who are in greatest need; needy Native Hawaiians. So how do we do this? First, we need to provide housing. I applaud the recent efforts to establish housing, such as the homes that have been designated for native Hawaiians near my home in Kalaeloa (Barbers Point).We need to continue to designate housing for native Hawaiians in need. I feel education is CRUTIAL to the perpetuation of the Native Hawaiians. The Hawaii Public School system is one of the worst in the nation. Our literacy rate is terrible. Every child has the right to a good education. We NEED to improve our education. Along the same lines, Kamehameha Schools (Bishop Estate trust) has an obligation to needy Native Hawaiians by the terms of the trust. I feel that the people who would benefit the greatest from a Kamehameha school education are the poor children living in rural areas, whom I feel were the true intended beneficiaries under the will of Princess Bernice Pauahi Bishop. Until all of these underprivaliged children have recieved a good education, we have not truly fufilled her dream. I feel that ALL Hawaii citizens, regardless of race, have an obligation to perpetuate the Hawaiian culture. We should continue to teach Hawaiian culture in public schools and should make an effort to learn the Hawaiian language, which is slowly dissapearing. I feel that creating an insular race-based state would be detremental to the perpetuation of Hawaiian culture. We should all embrace and celebrate the recognition of Hawaiian history, culture, tradition, and rights in the spirit of Aloha.
I read an artile written by two U.S. representatives named Slade Gorton and Hank Brown. In this article, they heavily put down the Akaka Bill, claiming it did not have a reliable source to justiy it. The one source they targetted was the Apology Resolution of 1993. They made statements that claimed the U.S. took no part in the overthrow of the Hawaiian kingdom, which is a very debatable argument. From my knowledge of the Hawaiian annexation, i felt that these men's arguments were not justified themselves, therefore, this argument cannot hold srong weight in this ongoing debate. I just want to know, do you feel that the Apology Resolution is a justified source that can be used to support the akaka bill?
I believe that a Hawaiian is someone who is born and raised in Hawaii. Someone who is brought up in the Hawaiian culture. You don't have to have Hawaiian blood to be Hawaiian. But if you have Hawaiian blood and you were not born and raised in the culture, you are still Hawaiian. I totally agree with jhogan that we all have a duty to perpetuate Hawaiian culture, regardless of your background.
vnordyke wrote, "You must have Hawaiian blood to be Hawaiian. It's just like if you ask someone if they're African American, Filipino or Chinese."
Is a Lybian immigrant "African American" in your eyes?
Is a chinese person from the Philippines "Filipino"? Or a spanish person from the Philippines? Within China, there's huge racial diversity - are Han the only "real" chinese, or are Cantonese also chinese?
Categories of race are arbitrary, and the imposition of them on such a diverse population as the Hawaiian islands seems futile and counterproductive.
jbiniski wrote, "I think that native hawaiians should be given special rights or at least some sort of compensation for everything that has happened to them."
Do you think that is true both for rich native Hawaiians, descendant from ali'i, and poor native Hawaiians, descendant from kama'ainana? Should a millionaire related to the earliest missionaries in Hawaii, who has 1/64th native Hawaiian blood, receive compensation?
We have all seen your argument regarding the illigitamacy of the "Hawaiian" race. Putting the whole idea of race aside, do you feel any PEOPLE of Hawaii were economically, legally, and/or morally wronged by the US? If so, what do you think should be done, as opposed to the Akaka Bill?
I feel that the people of Hawai'i was legally wronged. They were shunned from their rights as citizens of the Hawaiian nation just because they didn't "own" land. At the time where the Bayonet Constitution was established, majority of Hawaii (mostly Hawaiians) were stripped of their voting rights. That created an unfair bias opinion towards the government.
I believe that the US should give the Hawaiians the choice of self governance. The Hawaiians will be able to vote for their own affairs and be in control or if not in control, at least a say in government.
I'm just answering the question of what it means to be Hawaiian.
Well I think there are two different types of Hawaiians: those of native ancestry who can trace their family past pre-settlers and those who are immersed into the Hawaiian culture like those who are born here and not necessarily of Hawaiian blood.
The second type of Hawaiian is more of a concept than an actual race. Sometimes I call myself Hawaiian just because I was born and raised here, and also just because I love the Hawaiian culture. I love the food, language, and traditions in general. I would like to consider myself Hawaiian. =]
jhogan wrote, "Putting the whole idea of race aside, do you feel any PEOPLE of Hawaii were economically, legally, and/or morally wronged by the US?"
I think an argument can be made that the Asians of Hawaii, disenfranchised by the 1887 constitution of the Kingdom of Hawaii, were wronged by the U.S. when they were denied suffrage with the Organic Act of 1900. I also believe that the Massie case was an outrage. One might go so far as to assert that other acts of wrong have been committed, but in most cases the scope is very limited.
As to what we should do about wrongs, I think we need to limit our remedies to the specifics of the case.
I would turn it around this way - do you feel any PEOPLE of Hawaii were economically, legally, and/or morally wronged by the Hawaiian Monarchy? Specifically, how should we compensate the kama'ainana who were forced by the ali'i to destroy the sandalwood forests?
If you believe nothing should be done in that case, why should the U.S. pay any price to Asians stripped of voting rights by the Hawaiian Kingdom in 1887, or any other specific example of "wrong" you wish to assert?
In the end, I'm more than willing to admit the rocky road traveled by the people of Hawaii, but the U.S. has been a great boon more than anything else. Compare the living standards and human rights in Hawaii to Fiji, for example.
Although not perfect, even Liliuokalani, before her death, stated that annexation was the best thing that could have happened for Hawaii.
From Ken Conklin: (1) Shortly after annexation, ex-queen Liliuokalani confided to then Senator George Hoar (R. Mass.) that, "The best thing for [Native Hawaiians] that could have happened was to belong to the United States."
Senator Hoar wrote his own autobiography in 1903 (14 years before the ex-queen died) which included that quote. "Autobiography of Seventy Years" by George Frisbie Hoar (C. Scribner's Sons, 1903). To find that quote from Liliuokalani, look for "Lili'uokalani" in the index to Hoar's book. Hoar's book is not easy to get hold of. However, another book by a reputable historian, William Russ, also contains the quote as having been taken by Russ from Hoar's book. See: William Adam Russ, "The Hawaiian Republic" (1894-98) (Associated University Press, London and Toronto 1992). On page 331, Russ quotes Senator Hoar as quoting those words of Liliuokalani. Russ took his quote directly from Senator Hoar's own autobiography.
(2) Liliuokalani's diary entry for her birthday, September 2, 1900 includes this: "Tho' for a moment it [the overthrow] cost me a pang of pain for my people it was only momentary, for the present has a hope for the future of my people"
braddah ryan wrote, "At the time where the Bayonet Constitution was established, majority of Hawaii (mostly Hawaiians) were stripped of their voting rights. "
If you learn more about the history of voting in the Hawaiian Kingdom, you'll realize that for the most part, even before the 1887 constitution, the majority of people in Hawaii didn't really have many rights to control the government. Kamehameha III, who instituted the first form of constitutional monarchy in the islands in 1840, was a visionary (who actually negotiated an annexation treaty with the U.S., but died before he could finalize it), but it wasn't until Hawaii was part of the United States that suffrage was enjoyed by a significant share of the population.
How do you explain the Hawaiians having the highest poverty rate, the lowest literacy rate, the highest unimployment rate, and the highest percentage of crystal meth users in the state of Hawaii?
"Specifically, how should we compensate the kama'ainana who were forced by the ali'i to destroy the sandalwood forests?" I am aware that sandalwood was an export of the Hawaiian islands during the late 18th to mid 19th century, but could you please explain your referance and the signifigance of sandalwood?
"In the end, I'm more than willing to admit the rocky road traveled by the people of Hawaii, but the U.S. has been a great boon more than anything else. Compare the living standards and human rights in Hawaii to Fiji, for example."
The situation in Fiji is interesting, but hardly relevant. We are discussing the rights of an indiginous people, not comparing standards of living. Why don't you compare the living standards and human rights of people in Fiji to people in Sudan? The arguement is pointless and silly!
If you are going to compare ANY groups living conditions to people in the Sudan, you are obviously going to think the Hawaii-Fiji argument is silly. I think Mr. Krischel is trying to make that point exactly; Hawaiians have much superior rights, living conditions, and quality of life, here and now, than other indigenous groups. Also, we ARE discussing standard of living, as well as rights, of hawaiian people. (Definition by wikipedia, thank you, defines standard of living as measured by income and poverty etc.) Under the proposed Akaka Bill, wasnt there a push for more programs, resources and facilities... as well as other rights.
John wrote to Mr Krishel: "How do you explain the Hawaiians having the highest poverty rate, the lowest literacy rate, the highest unimployment rate, and the highest percentage of crystal meth users in the state of Hawaii? " How do you explain that anyway? Can one ever blame someone else that they are unemployed? And is it the governments fault that Hawaiians would have the highest percentage of ice users in the state? I dont think you can ask such a question because you cant put the blame on anyone else for those problems. Do you think that a new government will solve all of the poverty, obesity, unemployment problems, ever?
"If you are going to compare ANY groups living conditions to people in the Sudan, you are obviously going to think the Hawaii-Fiji argument is silly."
Kailey, you obviously don't comprehend the point i am trying to make. I am trying to say that simply because one indiginous people has it better than another doesnt legitimize the wrongdoings of another country.
John wrote to Mr Krishel: "How do you explain the Hawaiians having the highest poverty rate, the lowest literacy rate, the highest unimployment rate, and the highest percentage of crystal meth users in the state of Hawaii? "
Kailey said:
"How do you explain that anyway? Can one ever blame someone else that they are unemployed? And is it the governments fault that Hawaiians would have the highest percentage of ice users in the state? I dont think you can ask such a question because you cant put the blame on anyone else for those problems."
Kailey:
Do you beleve that these facts are simply coincedence? Do you honestly believe that it is simply coincedence that almost all indigenous people who have been either colonized or permanantly "occupied," (for lack of a better term) by an outside country are among the poorest, least educated group? If you dont believe that these facts are simply coincedence, then there must be an explaination, which was the question i directed to Jere, who seems to be eluding my question," Putting the whole idea of race aside, do you feel any PEOPLE of Hawaii were economically, legally, and/or morally wronged by the US?."
Kailey also said: "Do you think that a new government will solve all of the poverty, obesity, unemployment problems, ever?"
Kailey, when did I ever propose a new government? It is clearly evident that you are making invalid assumptions. Maybe you should read my posts and the corresponing post more carefully before posting...
Some of those conditions, ie; obesity, diabetes, heart disease, etc., are genetic. They aren't some great coincidence at all, they're genetics. Certain ethnicities have a hight disposition to diabetes, heart disease, and obesity. Its the same as inheriting genes that supply curly hair and brown eyes. The Hawaiian people are predisposed to such ailments, through no fault of anyone or anything but genetics.
The issues of literacy rate is not an issue of 'Hawaiians' specifically being left behind in schools, but rather its an issue of our public education system here. This is an issue that isn't specific to the Hawaiian people, but rather is specific to Hawaii's public educational shortcomings. What it calls for, then, is not an 'advantage' to be given only to students of Hawaiian blood, but a boost or a redirection in our public schools, and more money invested in the curriculum and quality of public schools in areas with a lower literacy rate.
"Some of those conditions, ie; obesity, diabetes, heart disease, etc., are genetic. They aren't some great coincidence at all, they're genetics. Certain ethnicities have a hight disposition to diabetes, heart disease, and obesity. Its the same as inheriting genes that supply curly hair and brown eyes."
Like the native americans, the native hawaiians had a diet very different from the common foods we all consume today. When a native people eats a specific diet over a long period of time and begins consuming food that wasn't normally consumed,the body sometimes doesn't adapt, resulting in a higher risk of the diseases you mentioned, espescially diabetes in both Native Americans and Hawaiians. Though genetics play a part in the problem, it is more an issue of diet than simply "genetics." If diet is changed, I feel that the rates of obesity, heart rate, and diabetes will dramatically decrease among the Hawaiian Community, along with every one else...
Emi Joy also Said:
"The issues of literacy rate is not an issue of 'Hawaiians' specifically being left behind in schools, but rather its an issue of our public education system here. This is an issue that isn't specific to the Hawaiian people, but rather is specific to Hawaii's public educational shortcomings. What it calls for, then, is not an 'advantage' to be given only to students of Hawaiian blood, but a boost or a redirection in our public schools, and more money invested in the curriculum and quality of public schools in areas with a lower literacy rate."
Emi, I TOTALLY agree with your statement regarding the status of Hawaii's education. As I stated in my previous post, "The Hawaii Public School system is one of the worst in the nation. Our literacy rate is terrible. Every child has the right to a good education. We NEED to improve our education." However, as I stated in my previous post, "Kamehameha Schools (Bishop Estate trust) has an obligation to needy Native Hawaiians by the terms of the trust. I feel that the people who would benefit the greatest from a Kamehameha school education are the poor children living in rural areas, whom I feel were the true intended beneficiaries under the will of Princess Bernice Pauahi Bishop. Until all of these underprivaliged children have recieved a good education, we have not truly fufilled her dream."
I find the whole legal/moral aspect quite intruiging-- particularly how it relates to the land ownership crisis going on. The areas that were 'legally' purchased with proper documentation from Hawaiians early on were immoral transactions if you consider the Hawaiian (and much more SECR) ideas about the Earth.
jhogan wrote, "How do you explain the Hawaiians having the highest poverty rate, the lowest literacy rate, the highest unimployment rate, and the highest percentage of crystal meth users in the state of Hawaii?"
Can I ask how you count "Hawaiians"? If someone is half-Portuguese, quarter-chinese, and quarter-native Hawaiian, do they count only as "native Hawaiian" in your statistics?
Perhaps if I understood better how you counted people, I could answer your question.
jhogan wrote, "I am aware that sandalwood was an export of the Hawaiian islands during the late 18th to mid 19th century, but could you please explain your referance and the signifigance of sandalwood?"
The denuding of the sandalwood forests was accomplished by the ali'i forcing the kama'ainana to work essentially as slave labor, and caused irreparable harm both the the environment, and to the people. Given that people seem to have the expectation that historical wrongs should be paid for, how would you suggest the descendants of those ali'i who did such evil to the people of Hawaii make restitution? Is it the same answer as you would have for those people who participated in the Hawaiian Revolution? If not, why not?
34 comments:
Hi guys, I was just wondering; What does it mean to be Hawaiian? I mean, can a person who doesn't have Hawaiian 'blood' still be considered Hawaiian?
definatly not...gotta have hawaiian blood to be considered hawaiian. just because youre not hawaiian doesnt mean you cant support hawaiian culture though. a lot of Hs arent hawaiian but they can still support hawaiian culture.
Actually a very interesting question, complicated by the fact that pre-1778 (the typical cut-off year to determine whether immigrants are "native" or not), the only "Hawaiians" were people living on the Big Island. Mauians, Oahuans and Kauaians certainly wouldn't have identified with their rivals from a different island.
If you're being inclusive of all the Hawaiian Islands, your point of reference generally starts at 1810 (when Kauai finally surrendered to Kamehameha), and by then you had both a government and a populace that included people without blood ties to pre-1778 immigrants.
I like to assert that Hawaii is a place, not a race. Someone with pre-1778 immigrant blood in the Hawaiian Islands may be able to claim only they are "kanaka maoli", or "oiwi" (although the racial use of those terms wasn't their original meaning), but to say that one must have a specific bit of ancestry to be "Hawaiian" is a stretch.
I believe that if you are to be considered Hawaiian your must be of Hawaiian ancestry. Something that is confusing me is, do you have to be of native ancestry to be apart of the Native Government. I thought I heard that somewhere and I was just looking for some clarification. Thank you.
edeer08, I have a few questions, perhaps you may have opinions on:
1) was the first marquesan voyager who stepped foot on an island around 1000 AD in Hawaii of "Hawaiian Ancestry"?
2) was the first tahitian conqueror who came to the Hawaiian islands around 1300 AD and displaced the marquesans of "Hawaiian Ancestry"?
3) If not the first of either of those two people, how many generations or years do you think were required before the people were of "Hawaiian Ancestry"?
4) If someone else came to the Hawaiian islands, and lived there for that same number of generations or years, would they have "Hawaiian Ancestry" in your mind?
My direct descent goes back 3 generations and over 100 years in Hawaii. Some haoles go back 6 generations and nearly 200 years. How many more years do you think should pass before they are considered of "Hawaiian Ancestry"?
I agree with Jeeter and Eric. You must have Hawaiian blood to be Hawaiian. It's just like if you ask someone if they're African American, Filipino or Chinese. You automatically assume they're asking if you're part of that particular ethnicity, which usually refers to hair color, skin color or physical features, which all stem from blood lines. At the same time, just because you do stem from Hawaiian blood, doesn't mean you are better or more deserving of rights than anyone else.
After studying the overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy I believe that America needs to reconcile and compensate for the losses of the Hawaiian people. Yet, I think the Akaka bill is not the best form of reconciliation, because it would create too many complications and reinforce the already strong sentiment of superiority/hate that Hawaiians express to whites. Instead, I think money should be applied towards expanding Kamehameha schools, and improving/enlarging Hawaiian homesteads. Although decimated after being used as target practice, I think Koolawe should be used by Hawaiians to help preserve their disappearing traditions. I think Koolawe is the only remaining place in these islands that is truly separated from modern society and would therefore allow Hawaiians to “go back in time” and strengthen their knowledge/practice of their traditions. If Koolawe isn’t currently being used for anything, then there’s no reason to not give Hawaiians the right to use it for what they want, because after all, it is their land.
I look at all the comments, and for the most part... the question is "What does it mean to be Hawaiian?" And, "Does having Hawaiian blood make you Hawaiian?" In my perspective, one does need "Hawaiian blood" to be considered Hawaiian -under technicalities. However, not all people of Hawaiian blood are "true Hawaiians". It depends on how the individual sees themself -as an American, Native Hawaiian, both, etc. And, how they interact with their community and such, -perpetuating the culture of the past, etc. I realize there's a lot of grey in my response, but it seemingly makes sense.
Question: Should "Native Hawaiians" be given special rights, just because they are who they are?
According to The American Heritage Dictionary,a Hawaiian is a native or inhabitant of Hawaii or the Hawaiian Islands or a member or descendent of the indigenous Plunesian people of the Hawaiians Islands. So isn't the first definition basically saying that people liviing on Hawaii are Hawaiians? I disagree. A Hawaiians is what Jeter, Eric, and Nica said. To Brandon's question, I think Native Hawaiians should not be given special rights because eventually all ethnicities will become extinct due to intermarriages. Hawaiians are just quicker to this rule. However, I think its cool to have the Kau Inoa shirt because it shows you take pride in your culture. ok yeah.
I think that native hawaiians should be given special rights or at least some sort of compensation for everything that has happened to them. They need something that will allow them to preserve their culture, a culture which is slowly dying. The hawaiian culture is part of what makes hawaii, hawaii. Without it hawaii just wouldn't be the same.
I think it is pretty self-evident that the majority of the homeless living on the Waianae coast are Hawaiian. Isn't strange that (arguably) the people with the highest percentage of Native Hawaiian blood are the people with the highest unemployment and poverty rates, and lowest literacy rates?
If the goal of the Hawaiian movement is to perpetuate the Hawaiian culture and to seek justice for the wrongdoings of the U.S., I feel that the most effective way to reconcile is to help the people who are in greatest need; needy Native Hawaiians.
So how do we do this? First, we need to provide housing. I applaud the recent efforts to establish housing, such as the homes that have been designated for native Hawaiians near my home in Kalaeloa (Barbers Point).We need to continue to designate housing for native Hawaiians in need.
I feel education is CRUTIAL to the perpetuation of the Native Hawaiians. The Hawaii Public School system is one of the worst in the nation. Our literacy rate is terrible. Every child has the right to a good education. We NEED to improve our education.
Along the same lines, Kamehameha Schools (Bishop Estate trust) has an obligation to needy Native Hawaiians by the terms of the trust. I feel that the people who would benefit the greatest from a Kamehameha school education are the poor children living in rural areas, whom I feel were the true intended beneficiaries under the will of Princess Bernice Pauahi Bishop. Until all of these underprivaliged children have recieved a good education, we have not truly fufilled her dream.
I feel that ALL Hawaii citizens, regardless of race, have an obligation to perpetuate the Hawaiian culture. We should continue to teach Hawaiian culture in public schools and should make an effort to learn the Hawaiian language, which is slowly dissapearing. I feel that creating an insular race-based state would be detremental to the perpetuation of Hawaiian culture. We should all embrace and celebrate the recognition of Hawaiian history, culture, tradition, and rights in the spirit of Aloha.
I read an artile written by two U.S. representatives named Slade Gorton and Hank Brown. In this article, they heavily put down the Akaka Bill, claiming it did not have a reliable source to justiy it. The one source they targetted was the Apology Resolution of 1993. They made statements that claimed the U.S. took no part in the overthrow of the Hawaiian kingdom, which is a very debatable argument. From my knowledge of the Hawaiian annexation, i felt that these men's arguments were not justified themselves, therefore, this argument cannot hold srong weight in this ongoing debate. I just want to know, do you feel that the Apology Resolution is a justified source that can be used to support the akaka bill?
I believe that a Hawaiian is someone who is born and raised in Hawaii. Someone who is brought up in the Hawaiian culture. You don't have to have Hawaiian blood to be Hawaiian. But if you have Hawaiian blood and you were not born and raised in the culture, you are still Hawaiian. I totally agree with jhogan that we all have a duty to perpetuate Hawaiian culture, regardless of your background.
vnordyke wrote, "You must have Hawaiian blood to be Hawaiian. It's just like if you ask someone if they're African American, Filipino or Chinese."
Is a Lybian immigrant "African American" in your eyes?
Is a chinese person from the Philippines "Filipino"? Or a spanish person from the Philippines? Within China, there's huge racial diversity - are Han the only "real" chinese, or are Cantonese also chinese?
Categories of race are arbitrary, and the imposition of them on such a diverse population as the Hawaiian islands seems futile and counterproductive.
jbiniski wrote, "I think that native hawaiians should be given special rights or at least some sort of compensation for everything that has happened to them."
Do you think that is true both for rich native Hawaiians, descendant from ali'i, and poor native Hawaiians, descendant from kama'ainana? Should a millionaire related to the earliest missionaries in Hawaii, who has 1/64th native Hawaiian blood, receive compensation?
dan96734 wrote, "I just want to know, do you feel that the Apology Resolution is a justified source that can be used to support the akaka bill?"
Read more about the apology resolution.
You'll find that it flies in the face of the historical record on a number of accounts.
You can also read this pdf Hawaii Divided against itself Cannot Stand, for more detailed arguments regarding the inaccuracies of PL-103-150
Jere Krischel:
We have all seen your argument regarding the illigitamacy of the "Hawaiian" race. Putting the whole idea of race aside, do you feel any PEOPLE of Hawaii were economically, legally, and/or morally wronged by the US? If so, what do you think should be done, as opposed to the Akaka Bill?
I feel that the people of Hawai'i was legally wronged. They were shunned from their rights as citizens of the Hawaiian nation just because they didn't "own" land. At the time where the Bayonet Constitution was established, majority of Hawaii (mostly Hawaiians) were stripped of their voting rights. That created an unfair bias opinion towards the government.
I believe that the US should give the Hawaiians the choice of self governance. The Hawaiians will be able to vote for their own affairs and be in control or if not in control, at least a say in government.
I'm just answering the question of what it means to be Hawaiian.
Well I think there are two different types of Hawaiians: those of native ancestry who can trace their family past pre-settlers and those who are immersed into the Hawaiian culture like those who are born here and not necessarily of Hawaiian blood.
The second type of Hawaiian is more of a concept than an actual race. Sometimes I call myself Hawaiian just because I was born and raised here, and also just because I love the Hawaiian culture. I love the food, language, and traditions in general. I would like to consider myself Hawaiian. =]
jhogan wrote, "Putting the whole idea of race aside, do you feel any PEOPLE of Hawaii were economically, legally, and/or morally wronged by the US?"
I think an argument can be made that the Asians of Hawaii, disenfranchised by the 1887 constitution of the Kingdom of Hawaii, were wronged by the U.S. when they were denied suffrage with the Organic Act of 1900. I also believe that the Massie case was an outrage. One might go so far as to assert that other acts of wrong have been committed, but in most cases the scope is very limited.
As to what we should do about wrongs, I think we need to limit our remedies to the specifics of the case.
I would turn it around this way - do you feel any PEOPLE of Hawaii were economically, legally, and/or morally wronged by the Hawaiian Monarchy? Specifically, how should we compensate the kama'ainana who were forced by the ali'i to destroy the sandalwood forests?
If you believe nothing should be done in that case, why should the U.S. pay any price to Asians stripped of voting rights by the Hawaiian Kingdom in 1887, or any other specific example of "wrong" you wish to assert?
In the end, I'm more than willing to admit the rocky road traveled by the people of Hawaii, but the U.S. has been a great boon more than anything else. Compare the living standards and human rights in Hawaii to Fiji, for example.
Although not perfect, even Liliuokalani, before her death, stated that annexation was the best thing that could have happened for Hawaii.
From Ken Conklin:
(1) Shortly after annexation, ex-queen Liliuokalani confided to then Senator George Hoar (R. Mass.) that, "The best thing for [Native Hawaiians] that could have happened was to belong to the United States."
Senator Hoar wrote his own autobiography in 1903 (14 years before the ex-queen died) which included that quote. "Autobiography of Seventy Years" by George Frisbie Hoar (C. Scribner's Sons, 1903). To find that quote from Liliuokalani, look for "Lili'uokalani" in the index to Hoar's book. Hoar's book is not easy to get hold of. However, another book by a reputable historian, William Russ, also contains the quote as having been taken by Russ from Hoar's book. See: William Adam Russ, "The Hawaiian Republic" (1894-98) (Associated University Press, London and Toronto 1992). On page 331, Russ quotes Senator Hoar as quoting those words of Liliuokalani. Russ took his quote directly from Senator Hoar's own autobiography.
(2) Liliuokalani's diary entry for her birthday, September 2, 1900 includes this: "Tho' for a moment it [the overthrow] cost me a pang of pain for my people it was only momentary, for the present has a hope for the future of my people"
braddah ryan wrote, "At the time where the Bayonet Constitution was established, majority of Hawaii (mostly Hawaiians) were stripped of their voting rights. "
If you learn more about the history of voting in the Hawaiian Kingdom, you'll realize that for the most part, even before the 1887 constitution, the majority of people in Hawaii didn't really have many rights to control the government. Kamehameha III, who instituted the first form of constitutional monarchy in the islands in 1840, was a visionary (who actually negotiated an annexation treaty with the U.S., but died before he could finalize it), but it wasn't until Hawaii was part of the United States that suffrage was enjoyed by a significant share of the population.
jere kriscel:
How do you explain the Hawaiians having the highest poverty rate, the lowest literacy rate, the highest unimployment rate, and the highest percentage of crystal meth users in the state of Hawaii?
Jere Krischel said:
"Specifically, how should we compensate the kama'ainana who were forced by the ali'i to destroy the sandalwood forests?"
I am aware that sandalwood was an export of the Hawaiian islands during the late 18th to mid 19th century, but could you please explain your referance and the signifigance of sandalwood?
Jere Krischel said:
"In the end, I'm more than willing to admit the rocky road traveled by the people of Hawaii, but the U.S. has been a great boon more than anything else. Compare the living standards and human rights in Hawaii to Fiji, for example."
The situation in Fiji is interesting, but hardly relevant. We are discussing the rights of an indiginous people, not comparing standards of living. Why don't you compare the living standards and human rights of people in Fiji to people in Sudan? The arguement is pointless and silly!
If you are going to compare ANY groups living conditions to people in the Sudan, you are obviously going to think the Hawaii-Fiji argument is silly. I think Mr. Krischel is trying to make that point exactly; Hawaiians have much superior rights, living conditions, and quality of life, here and now, than other indigenous groups.
Also, we ARE discussing standard of living, as well as rights, of hawaiian people. (Definition by wikipedia, thank you, defines standard of living as measured by income and poverty etc.) Under the proposed Akaka Bill, wasnt there a push for more programs, resources and facilities... as well as other rights.
John wrote to Mr Krishel: "How do you explain the Hawaiians having the highest poverty rate, the lowest literacy rate, the highest unimployment rate, and the highest percentage of crystal meth users in the state of Hawaii? "
How do you explain that anyway? Can one ever blame someone else that they are unemployed? And is it the governments fault that Hawaiians would have the highest percentage of ice users in the state? I dont think you can ask such a question because you cant put the blame on anyone else for those problems. Do you think that a new government will solve all of the poverty, obesity, unemployment problems, ever?
Kailey said:
"If you are going to compare ANY groups living conditions to people in the Sudan, you are obviously going to think the Hawaii-Fiji argument is silly."
Kailey, you obviously don't comprehend the point i am trying to make. I am trying to say that simply because one indiginous people has it better than another doesnt legitimize the wrongdoings of another country.
John wrote to Mr Krishel: "How do you explain the Hawaiians having the highest poverty rate, the lowest literacy rate, the highest unimployment rate, and the highest percentage of crystal meth users in the state of Hawaii? "
Kailey said:
"How do you explain that anyway? Can one ever blame someone else that they are unemployed? And is it the governments fault that Hawaiians would have the highest percentage of ice users in the state? I dont think you can ask such a question because you cant put the blame on anyone else for those problems."
Kailey:
Do you beleve that these facts are simply coincedence? Do you honestly believe that it is simply coincedence that almost all indigenous people who have been either colonized or permanantly "occupied," (for lack of a better term) by an outside country are among the poorest, least educated group?
If you dont believe that these facts are simply coincedence, then there must be an explaination, which was the question i directed to Jere, who seems to be eluding my question," Putting the whole idea of race aside, do you feel any PEOPLE of Hawaii were economically, legally, and/or morally wronged by the US?."
Kailey also said:
"Do you think that a new government will solve all of the poverty, obesity, unemployment problems, ever?"
Kailey, when did I ever propose a new government? It is clearly evident that you are making invalid assumptions. Maybe you should read my posts and the corresponing post more carefully before posting...
Some of those conditions, ie; obesity, diabetes, heart disease, etc., are genetic. They aren't some great coincidence at all, they're genetics. Certain ethnicities have a hight disposition to diabetes, heart disease, and obesity. Its the same as inheriting genes that supply curly hair and brown eyes. The Hawaiian people are predisposed to such ailments, through no fault of anyone or anything but genetics.
The issues of literacy rate is not an issue of 'Hawaiians' specifically being left behind in schools, but rather its an issue of our public education system here. This is an issue that isn't specific to the Hawaiian people, but rather is specific to Hawaii's public educational shortcomings. What it calls for, then, is not an 'advantage' to be given only to students of Hawaiian blood, but a boost or a redirection in our public schools, and more money invested in the curriculum and quality of public schools in areas with a lower literacy rate.
Emi Joy Said:
"Some of those conditions, ie; obesity, diabetes, heart disease, etc., are genetic. They aren't some great coincidence at all, they're genetics. Certain ethnicities have a hight disposition to diabetes, heart disease, and obesity. Its the same as inheriting genes that supply curly hair and brown eyes."
Like the native americans, the native hawaiians had a diet very different from the common foods we all consume today. When a native people eats a specific diet over a long period of time and begins consuming food that wasn't normally consumed,the body sometimes doesn't adapt, resulting in a higher risk of the diseases you mentioned, espescially diabetes in both Native Americans and Hawaiians. Though genetics play a part in the problem, it is more an issue of diet than simply "genetics." If diet is changed, I feel that the rates of obesity, heart rate, and diabetes will dramatically decrease among the Hawaiian Community, along with every one else...
Emi Joy also Said:
"The issues of literacy rate is not an issue of 'Hawaiians' specifically being left behind in schools, but rather its an issue of our public education system here. This is an issue that isn't specific to the Hawaiian people, but rather is specific to Hawaii's public educational shortcomings. What it calls for, then, is not an 'advantage' to be given only to students of Hawaiian blood, but a boost or a redirection in our public schools, and more money invested in the curriculum and quality of public schools in areas with a lower literacy rate."
Emi, I TOTALLY agree with your statement regarding the status of Hawaii's education. As I stated in my previous post, "The Hawaii Public School system is one of the worst in the nation. Our literacy rate is terrible. Every child has the right to a good education. We NEED to improve our education." However, as I stated in my previous post, "Kamehameha Schools (Bishop Estate trust) has an obligation to needy Native Hawaiians by the terms of the trust. I feel that the people who would benefit the greatest from a Kamehameha school education are the poor children living in rural areas, whom I feel were the true intended beneficiaries under the will of Princess Bernice Pauahi Bishop. Until all of these underprivaliged children have recieved a good education, we have not truly fufilled her dream."
I find the whole legal/moral aspect quite intruiging-- particularly how it relates to the land ownership crisis going on. The areas that were 'legally' purchased with proper documentation from Hawaiians early on were immoral transactions if you consider the Hawaiian (and much more SECR) ideas about the Earth.
jhogan wrote, "How do you explain the Hawaiians having the highest poverty rate, the lowest literacy rate, the highest unimployment rate, and the highest percentage of crystal meth users in the state of Hawaii?"
Can I ask how you count "Hawaiians"? If someone is half-Portuguese, quarter-chinese, and quarter-native Hawaiian, do they count only as "native Hawaiian" in your statistics?
Perhaps if I understood better how you counted people, I could answer your question.
jhogan wrote, "I am aware that sandalwood was an export of the Hawaiian islands during the late 18th to mid 19th century, but could you please explain your referance and the signifigance of sandalwood?"
The denuding of the sandalwood forests was accomplished by the ali'i forcing the kama'ainana to work essentially as slave labor, and caused irreparable harm both the the environment, and to the people. Given that people seem to have the expectation that historical wrongs should be paid for, how would you suggest the descendants of those ali'i who did such evil to the people of Hawaii make restitution? Is it the same answer as you would have for those people who participated in the Hawaiian Revolution? If not, why not?
Post a Comment