Hawaii Senate passes civil-unions bill with veto-proof majority, 18-7
Well done. A good first step in the right direction.
Mahalo nui loa!
Hawaii Reporter: Welcome to Your New Home, USS Hawaii
Some great anecdotes about cheese eating surrender monkeys.
It seems that the matter is rather cut and dried -> in 1959 there was an election, 94% voted in favor of statehood, and the U.N. correctly recognized the plebiscite as binding and removed Hawaii from the non-self governing territories list. To imply some sort of conspiracy, however lightly the implication is made, is a disservice to the native Hawaiians who fought long and hard for Statehood. Prince Kuhio, who fought in the failed 1895 counter-revolution against the Republic of Hawaii, someone who could be truly called a patriotic subject of the Kingdom of Hawaii, someone who risked life and limb for his convictions, saw Statehood as a prime goal of his political career in the Territory of Hawaii. Although there were certainly fringe voices in the community in 1959 that decried statehood, the vast majority, as evidenced by the representative ballot (note, we don’t live in a direct democracy, we have a republic with some democratic traditions), were strongly in favor of statehood…and had been for over 60 years.
As a State of the Union, from 1959 on we have had universal suffrage for everyone 18 and over, and if there was any real political impulse on the part of the people of Hawaii to secede, it would have presented itself through the electorate. This is simply not the case, of course.
I guess the real question is this -> take the conspiracy at face value, let us imagine for a moment that there was some back door deal at the U.N. -> what possible remedy could anyone suggest? The people of the State of Hawaii are the same people who were a part of the Territory of Hawaii, and the same people who were part of the Republic of Hawaii, and the Kingdom of Hawaii before that. Would we have another referendum, to dot the legal i’s and cross the legal t’s? Or do the people framing these questions believe that the sovereignty of the multi-racial citizens of the State of Hawaii should be subject to the whims of radical royalists and race-based sovereignty activists?
Certainly interesting history, but I wonder what the ulterior motive is.
I wonder what Hitler had for lunch on January 20th, 1939. Was it cooked by a college graduate, or did that person only have trade skills? What price was paid for that lunch? Was it a fair price? What if some person of German ancestry wanted a refund for that lunch? What if the Statehood vote of 1959 was rigged and the UN was conned into taking Hawaii off the list of non-self-governing territories?
These are all interesting questions, but they really don’t lead to any answers.
It is patently evident that Hawaii is a self-governing State. We have our own judiciary, legislative and executive branches. The citizens of the State of Hawaii have universal suffrage for all people 18 and over, regardless of race, creed or color. Even when it comes to federal law, we have three congress critters, and now, the President himself. One might have made the case that the Territory of Hawaii was not self-governing, since the executive was appointed, and although we had a congressional representative they were non-voting. But upon Statehood? Clearly, we were a self-governing territory and no longer belonged on any UN list of non-self-governing territories.
The question as to whether or not the UN correctly removed Hawaii from the list of non-self-governing territories has a clear answer -> they correctly removed Hawaii, since it was in 1959, and has been ever since, self-governed. Nobody could plausibly make the claim that elections in Hawaii are rigged by mainland interests, or that somehow Hawaii does not have a voice in the federal government.
It may be that in 1959 someone had a drink with someone, and gave them a nudge in one direction or another. But any rational examination of the situation would have led to the proper conclusion that the people of Hawaii were determining their own destiny, and they chose to become a State of the Union. Statehood was a dream of even the most die-hard ex-royalists – Prince Kuhio, a member of the royal family of the Kingdom of Hawaii, and a warrior in the 1895 counter-revolution that failed against the Republic of Hawaii, was our second congressional representative of the Territory of Hawaii, and fought for Statehood during his entire tenure.
I suspect that this analysis has some end in mind, some unspoken consequence of the legal ambiguity they seek to impose upon a clear cut situation. I suspect that perhaps their answer to the question of relevance probably doesn’t involve a new referendum to clear the air, but some sort of “undo” that would place power into the hands of race-based sovereignty activists.
I also suspect that if a person of German ancestry tried to get a refund for an overcharged salad eaten by Hitler on January 20th, 1939, they’d find little satisfaction.
Ho’opunipuni: Myth of Statehood pt.1 –.
The Fact of Statehood is quite clear, and evidenced by an electorate which votes, pays taxes, obeys laws, and has organized and lived by this system of government for nearly 50 years now. Calling it a “myth” is wishful thinking at best, and cynical manipulation of the gullible at worst.
We could have the same detailed, legalistic discussion of the unification of the Hawaiian Islands in 1810. We could call it the “Myth of Kingdomhood.” We could analyze the various illegalities (as we claimed them, not adjudicated by anyone but ourselves), point out the poor treatment of the maka’ainana, and the imported slave labor from China, Japan, Portugal and the Philippines. We could delve into the corruption of Kalakaua and Liliuokalani, and rail against the injustice of it all. But then what?
My question to these panelists, and to anyone who truly believes that statehood is a myth, is what next? Do we ethnically cleanse Hawaii so that we can have a direct democracy that gives these people the voting results we want? It’s obvious that if a Statehood plebiscite was given today, it would be overwhelmingly in favor – but die-hard racial sovereignty activists will dispute the rights of suffrage to anyone who would not vote “properly.”
Hawaii is governed by the consent of the people, for the people, regardless of race, creed, color, or political history view of 1893. Unless someone can suggest a better form of government than being a highly influential part of the last remaining superpower on earth with a constitution that has lasted over 200 years, there really isn’t much substance to the argument.
My fear is that this kind of legalese is used to pursue political power on the basis of identity politics, and the poisonous politics of racial categorization. Hawaii is a place, not a race, and anyone who is telling you that on the basis of bloodline, you should have special privileges, is doing grave harm.
He Hawaii au; he mau Hawaii kakou a pau. I am Hawaiian. We are all Hawaiians.
World History Blog: Wacky American Separatists
I really couldn’t have said it better. Trying to replay history for pro-royalists in Hawai’i by claiming a military occupation is ludicrous on it’s face. Hawai’i functioned as an independent Republic from 1893-1898, and despite of any qualms about it’s inception, it’s legitimacy is unquestionable – it survived both a hostile U.S. president, as well as a violent attempt at counter-revolution. It legitimately petitioned for and recieved annexation by the United States, as was desired by King Kamehameha the III in 1854.
You could just as well claim that New York was still a sovereign colony of the Britain, and that it had been under illegal belligerent occupation by a puppet government (The U.S.) of France which aided and abetted the 1776 revolutionary war.
The really sad part about all of this is that while poverty and poor education continue to be problems in Hawai’i, these people are busy trying to replay 1893 and 1898.
Again, another interesting thread on hawaiiankingdom.info.
Of particular note is a seeming reluctance to acknowledge the Morgan Report.
Ignoring the Morgan Report is like asserting that drinking alcohol is illegal today because of prohibition, and not acknowledging that the 22nd amendment repealed the 18th.
Lana of course is still freaked out that anyone would talk JUST about kanaka maoli, and hasn’t figured out that fighting just one form of racism only means you’re limited in your capacity, not your intent.
Lana also tried to assert that the reparations for those interned Japanese during WWII was a race-based program – when in fact, not all Japanese were beneficiaries, only those who were interned. This was a targeted program based on actual harms to actual people, not a blanket entitlement given to an entire race like OHA and DHHL.
Okay, just to quickly recap some points on this hawaiiankingdom.info thread:
1) Kanaka maoli are not indigenous. I challenge someone to come up with a clear definition of “indigenous” if they want to assert that.
2) The Morgan Report was not written by Morgan alone. His racism, while reprehensible, does not invalidate the findings of fact of the committee that shared his name.
3) The ’93 Apology Resolution has a big fat disclaimer at the end, and is as reasonable as legislation declaring that humans have 3 arms and 1 leg. Simply put, it is a collection of lies and distortions.
Are kanaka maoli indigenous to Hawai’i?
Well, there’s no universal definition of “indigenous peoples”, but let’s try this one out:
Wikipedia Entry on Indigenous Peoples
Drawing on these, a contemporary working definition of “indigenous peoples” has criteria which would seek to include cultural groups (and their descendants) who have an historical continuity or association with a given region, or parts of a region, and who formerly or currently inhabit the region either:
* before its subsequent colonization or annexation; or
* alongside other cultural groups during the formation of a nation-state; or
* independently or largely isolated from the influence of the claimed governance by a nation-state,
and who furthermore
* have maintained at least in part their distinct linguistic, cultural and social / organizational characteristics, and in doing so remain differentiated in some degree from the surrounding populations and dominant culture of the nation-state.
Given the rampant interbreeding with other races, you can certainly not claim that modern day part-kanaka maoli “remain differentiated” from their peers, so on that item the answer is clearly NO.
United States – DP-1. Profile of General Demographic Characteristics: 2000
Looks like although kanaka maoli are < 0.1% of the population, there are three groups even worse off:
Other Pacific Islander
Samoan
Guamanian or Chamorro
I guess we need some special programs for them, since they’re really at the bottom of the list…
Justice for Hawaiians » More from the webmaster of www.HawaiianWannaBes.com
So apparently haolegirl thinks that she’s a real hawaiian because she’s got a few drops of kanaka maoli blood in her body – and that people who identify as native hawaiian (as others may identify as native californian) are somehow besmirching her birthright. The fact of the matter is that haolegirl is an American, and so has every other kanaka maoli born in the islands since 1898.
Read more…
Haolegirl attacks
Well haolegirl, let’s see if I can’t shed some light on your questions, and help explain logic a bit:
What I’m implying is that there is no difference between the races – 99% haole 1% kanaka is the same thing as 100% haole is the same thing as 100% filipino is the same thing as 100% japanese. These quantums, of any sort, are an artificial, arbitrary, unjust and capricious way of sorting people. By having 0% blood quantum requirements for everything, we level the playing field – we don’t eliminate people’s “blood”.
That was someone else’s description of me. I’m a native earthan.
Well, if I had been in charge of writing it, I would have perhaps worded it differently. I think the guys were trying to make it clear that they were all Californians, and I was a Hawaiian. Remember, it’s not my band, I just play with them 
.
Him: “Do you think it’s just for a rich 1% kanaka maoli, 99% haole living in kahala to have a spot at Kam Schools, while a poor 100% tongan living in waianae is denied?”
Me: No… I don’t think so.
So then why support race-based entitlement programs at all?
Really? Who was targeted because of their race during statehood? Didn’t every ethnicity get the right to vote upon becoming a territory?
And somehow you inherited land and have the terrible burden of property taxes…sounds a bit more than poor to me. Or was this inheritance from your husband’s family?
Do you think that you would be on welfare or drugs because of the hawaiian blood you have? Or the portuguese blood? That is to say, it’s great that you got a good education and did not fall through the cracks, but do you think you would’ve fallen because of the blood that got you into Kam Schools?
Do you think some other school might have also taught you to be a upstanding citizen? Do you think that you wouldn’t have these welfare or drug tendencies if you weren’t kanaka maoli?
Think about it for a second…maybe the reason you were going to go to welfare and drugs was because you were part-portuguese…and what we should have is a race-based policy for admitting only part-portuguese to Kam Schools, since they’re the ones really in trouble!
It’s fine to admit that you may have had drug problems and such in the past. But to ascribe it to a single small portion of your racial makeup, and to claim that it was only because of the racist policies of Kam Schools that you were saved, is ludicrous and insulting to those with kanaka maoli blood.
What does removing protesters from an airport have to do with being forcibly relocated by mysterious rich people? They would forcibly remove anyone who tried to stage a protest on an airport runway, don’t you think?
I look forward to your research. You may find truth if you keep your eyes open.
So, how did you manage to inherit property if you were indigent? Were your grandparents the ones that bequeathed it to you, and were they estranged from their children?
And why do you support kanaka-maoli only sovereignty in an island chain whose first united kingdom had both haoles and kanaka maoli? Isn’t that special treatment? Isn’t the tax exempt status enjoyed by Kam Schools, which you attended, a freebie from the government?
Why do you support race-based programs like OHA and DHHL? Isn’t that expecting special treatment based on race?
You seem to think that being a .1% minority gives a group the right to dominance over all others. The fact of the matter is that what you are calling “civil rights” for kanaka maoli are really special entitlements.
Okay, so here’s the deal – The Honolulu Advertiser discussion board doesn’t have a good search function, and limits posts to 2500 characters. A real bummer when you get rolling rhetorically, or if you want to find an earlier quote.
So I’ve invited copster (cop) to join me on this blog in the Debate Hall category, where we will match wits about Hawaiian Sovereignty and other social issues and ills.
Others from the Advertiser db are welcome to contact me if they’d like to post here too.
Aloha and let the games begin!
Justice Department still objects to Akaka bill – The Honolulu Advertiser
Hopefully the more light that shines on this bill, the more people will oppose it.