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asserting that drinking alcohol is illegal today because of prohibition, and not acknowledging that the 22nd amendment repealed the 18th.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.
Jere LOL
I am not freaked out. I just do not like it as I AM HAWAIIAN. Therefore when Ken Conklin and Thurston Twigg-Smith discuss Hawaiians and only Hawaiians they ae targeting Hawaiians. Uh… they are targeting ME as well as other Hawaiian kids. Not freaked out though.
As for the Japanese… two points:
1. Hirabayashi v. United States (1943), and Korematsu v. United States (1944): The defendants argued their fifth amendment rights were violated by the U.S. government because of their ancestry. In both cases, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the U.S. government.
Similarly, attempts to dismantle Hawaiians’s OHA and DHHL are a violation of their fifth amendment rights. Again… as of November 7th a US appeals court has upheld the DHHL and refused to rehear the attackers case:
http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051108/NEWS23/511080342/1173/NEWS
2. The Japanese experience is different than the Hawaiian experience. Specifically President Roosevelt signed Declaration 9066 around 120,000 Japanese within the U.S. were relocated to internment camps along the west coast. Hawaiians were not interned and instead their government was illegally overthrown.
In addition in 1988, Congress passed Civil Liberties Act of 1988 also known as the Japanese American Redress Bill which awarded formal payments of $20,000 each to the surviving internees—60,000 in all. This same year, formal apologies were also issued by the government of Canada to Japanese Canadian survivors, who were each repaid the sum of $21,000 Canadian dollars.
Likewise, Hawaiians were awarded OHA and DHHL. However the similarities end there as the US did not illegally overthrow the Japanese government while the US helped to illegally overthrow the Kingdom of Hawaii and continues to illegally occupy Hawaii. Thats a major difference but they are both RACE based.
First of all, targeting racism in favor of one race is not targeting that race. Rosa Parks was not targeting whites when she was fighting white privilege. Neither are Conklin and Twigg-Smith targeting kanaka maoli when they are fighting kanaka maoli privilege.
Secondly, I already showed you that Ken Conklin does not solely discuss kanaka maoli:
http://kenconklin.org/mediawiki/index.php?title=Hawaiian_Nationalism%2C_Chicano_Nationalism%2C_Black_Nationalism%2C_Indian_Tribes%2C_and_Reparations
http://www.angelfire.com/hi5/bigfiles3/ConklinOtherTopics.html
So yes, you are freaked out, since you can’t understand that targeting your privileges is not the same as targeting your rights, and that even in the face of direct evidence that your assertions are incorrect, you refuse to apologize.
The Japanese experience is different than the Hawaiian experience. Specifically President Roosevelt signed Declaration 9066 around 120,000 Japanese within the U.S. were relocated to internment camps along the west coast. Hawaiians were not interned and instead their government was illegally overthrown.
Yup, the specific Japanese in question REALLY had a greivance. The Kanaka Maoli did not. No private land titles were transferred in 1893/1898, and the government lands which were transferred were FOR THE BENEFIT OF ALL RACES THEN, AND SHOULD CONTINUE TO BE SO TODAY! The Kingdom was not just the government of the kanaka maoli, and your implication that it was such is historical revisionism of the worst kind.
Again… as of November 7th a US appeals court has upheld the DHHL and refused to rehear the attackers case:
We can only hope that the Supreme Court makes a better decision. The US Appeals Court got it wrong this time, and with DUE PROCESS, taken to the Supreme Court, fairness should prevail.
Similarly, attempts to dismantle Hawaiians’s OHA and DHHL are a violation of their fifth amendment rights.
I’m sorry, let’s review the 5th amendment for a second:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Getting rid of OHA and DHHL through the due process of getting them repealed or declared unconstitutional is WITH DUE PROCESS OF LAW. And OHA and DHHL are NOT about private property, they are about PUBLIC property being reserved for the PRIVATE use of one racial group.
You need to keep reading.
Likewise, Hawaiians were awarded OHA and DHHL. However the similarities end there as the US did not illegally overthrow the Japanese government while the US helped to illegally overthrow the Kingdom of Hawaii and continues to illegally occupy Hawaii. Thats a major difference but they are both RACE based.
In order to qualify for reparations for internment, the Japanese in question had to show proof that they were in fact interned.
In order to qualify for OHA and DHHL, one must only had kanaka maoli blood, even if your parents had moved to Ireland in 1815, and lived as British citizens for generations, the only qualifcation is pre-1778 ancestry, not any sort of documented specific harm against an individual.
That’s the major difference – one is SOLELY race based, and the other is COINCIDENTALLY race based. Certainly you wouldn’t assert that a Japanese immigrant from Japan in 1975 deserved reparations, since they weren’t interned.
Now, how can you insist that a kanaka maoli deserves reparations, when they didn’t lose anything that wasn’t also lost by all the portuguese, chinese, japanese and caucasian subjects of the kingdom?
Keep reading this: http://kenconklin.org/mediawiki/images/0/0b/HanifinReparations1982.pdf