1) The population of hawaii in 1890 included 15.6% pure haole (non-kanaka maoli) nationals. When looking at resident aliens, the number of non-kanaka maoli goes up to 54%. Returning the government of the monarchy to only one racial group that existed at the time of the overthrow is unjust on it’s face. This would be akin to returning the government of the monarchy only to kanaka maoli ali’i, and disenfranchising all the kanaka maoli who hail from “common” stock.
2) The claims that “native hawaiian” should be a racial category describing the “indigenous” people of hawaii are specious. Historical evidence shows that the Hawaiian Islands were colonized by Tahitians or Marquesans around 400AD. Although kanaka maoli can claim that their ancestors have lived in the Hawaiian Islands for a longer period of time than other “racial” groups, there seems to be no clear definition as to the amount of time a colonist to the island has to live there before they can be “indigenous”. Just as other immigrants to these islands came from other lands, so did the kanaka maoli. The fact is, we are all indigenous to earth in general, and to a small roaming band of primates in africa to be specific. The “indigenous” labels used to divide us are poison.
3) Another justification used by kanaka maoli is the “we’ve been opprressed because of the color of our skin” argument. This clearly argues for a system of benefits targeted at anyone who is darker than a brown paper bag, rather than one of racial origin. Both are arguably poor ideas.
4) Given the pervasive mixing of kanaka maoli families with haole families, it is unfair to create a 1 drop rule by which two people who only differ in 1% of their blood quantum get different rights. To all apperances, both cultural and physical, they may be the same, but because one has the right “blood” they get superior rights. People who are 50% kanaka maoli and 50% haole who ask for consideration just because of their kanaka side, but refuse to take responsibility for their haole side are hypocrites.