NationStates Jolt Archive

The Akaka Bill (see below for links)

Does this mean anything? Will the American Government finally recognize a long wronged group of people and give back their right? OR, will this only mean that the American Government is suffering from the same plague that torments other nations going through constant battles for separation and independence, as we divvy ourselves up into smaller and smaller groups, more and more separation and recognition of ethnicity?

Does this improve our condition, or makes matters worse?


* Hawaii Tribe Self Rule:
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050718/ap_on_re_us/hawaiian_recognition_2

It would grant Native Hawaiians the same rights of self-government enjoyed by American Indians and Native Alaskans, and would lead to U.S. recognition of a native governing entity.


* The Issue Being Discussed Today:
http://starbulletin.com/2005/07/18/news/index2.html

"It would fashion a governing entity outside the Constitution and laws of the United States and the state of Hawaii, it would make native Hawaiian ancestry decisive in destiny," says Bruce Fein, a former U.S. assistant attorney general who has been working with Grassroots Hawaii, a Honolulu think tank, to oppose the legislation.


* Debating the Issue:
http://starbulletin.com/2005/07/18/news/index1.html

Pro: Dee Jay Mailer, chief executive officer of Kamehameha Schools, said the $6 billion trust supports the Akaka Bill in part because it will "help protect government programs and lands that serve to enhance the well-being of the Hawaiian people, consistent with Kamehameha mission" to educate children of Hawaiian ancestry to make them "industrious" people.

Con: Some have called it "American Apartheid" and opposed it as a legal precedent that will allow different ethnic groups, such as Mexicans, to claim lands and sovereignty in states, such as California or New Mexico. In varying degrees, some opponents also view the Akaka Bill as a bold land and power grab by native Hawaiians to the detriment of the state and even private citizens.


*History of the Issue Report:
http://starbulletin.com/2000/05/30/news/story6.html

* Recognition of Hawaiians just the first step
* Tribes face lengthy process
* Issues concerning native Hawaiians


.

its a bad thing when the ethnic homeland of a people becomes too crowded and expensive for those people to live there.

as long as the idea comes from the native hawaiians and is supported by a good majority of them, then i say go ahead and work out some kind of fair plan for them.

Seems to me that the Hawaians are the argreived parties here. Didn't the US illegally occupy their territory in 18 something. The rest of the world has admitted their holding of foreign territories to be wrong for the most part and have given back their empires. The US has flooded Hawaii with non-native peoples in much the same way that China has flooded Tibet with Chinese.

If these laws give some power back to the original owners then that's a good start.

Seems to me that the Hawaians are the argreived parties here. Didn't the US illegally occupy their territory in 18 something. The rest of the world has admitted their holding of foreign territories to be wrong for the most part and have given back their empires. The US has flooded Hawaii with non-native peoples in much the same way that China has flooded Tibet with Chinese.

The US only occupied Hawaii because our citizens, who were allowed to move there by the Hawaiian government, started a revolt and reduced the islands to chaos. Also, Hawaii is not treated as a colony, it is a full member of the US. And about giving back their empires, that was a uniquely British thing, and they only did it for their colonies that became predominantly white. Spain lost its Empire through war and revolution, as did the Dutch and Portuguese. France has held on to every bit they can and are the only European power with a territory on the American Continent.

The US only occupied Hawaii because our citizens, who were allowed to move there by the Hawaiian government, started a revolt and reduced the islands to chaos. Also, Hawaii is not treated as a colony, it is a full member of the US. And about giving back their empires, that was a uniquely British thing, and they only did it for their colonies that became predominantly white. Spain lost its Empire through war and revolution, as did the Dutch and Portuguese. France has held on to every bit they can and are the only European power with a territory on the American Continent.

Ahhh, aren't we British lovely.
I bow to your greater historical knowledge but please explain why the US Army didn't leave after order was regained?
How was the Hawaian "Royalty" removed from power?

We've all done the "send in the aggitators then rescue the country" trick in the past. I realise that they are a full state but did the indiginous people sign up to that or were they co-opted?

I'm sure there are a few other indiginous people who would like their land back from the US but the Hawaiian case is a bit more clear cut. It is an island chain.

And about giving back their empires, that was a uniquely British thing, and they only did it for their colonies that became predominantly white.

Methinks you failed in world history. India, Malaysia, Singapore and a few other countries come to mind. None of them are what you could call predominantly white.

Methinks you failed in world history. India, Malaysia, Singapore and a few other countries come to mind. None of them are what you could call predominantly white.

And methinks without Mahatma Gandhi’s peaceful revolution, those countries would still be British colonies.

Ahhh, aren't we British lovely.
I bow to your greater historical knowledge but please explain why the US Army didn't leave after order was regained?
How was the Hawaian "Royalty" removed from power?

We've all done the "send in the aggitators then rescue the country" trick in the past. I realise that they are a full state but did the indiginous people sign up to that or were they co-opted?

I'm sure there are a few other indiginous people who would like their land back from the US but the Hawaiian case is a bit more clear cut. It is an island chain.

Well, you see American plantation owners eventually took over the government, even though a King continued to rule officially. The US sent in the marines to stop a full civil war from breaking out in a succession dispute, and the plantation owners got their man in. Theses plantation owners exploited the fact that Hawaii was a territory and reduced the natives and various immigrants from other islands to second class citizens. However, the children of the natives and immigrants were US citizens, and eventually there was enough of them to campaign for statehood. I believe Eisenhower was the one that finally gave it to them. So, you see, it was the Hawaiians who wanted statehood, to reduce the power of the plantations. It worked. After achieving statehood native Hawaiian culture flourished like it hadn’t since the plantations took over.

France has held on to every bit they can and are the only European power with a territory on the American Continent.
No, no. Technically the UK, Denmark and Holland still hold on to different bits and pieces of America, although with varying degrees of autonomy and certainly not as "colonish" as it once was.

And methinks without Mahatma Gandhi’s peaceful revolution, those countries would still be British colonies.
What about Belize, Barbados, Bahamas, and Jamaica?

France has held on to every bit they can and are the only European power with a territory on the American Continent.

St. Pierre & Miquelon is nothing to write home about, IMO.

No, no. Technically the UK, Denmark and Holland still hold on to different bits and pieces of America, although with varying degrees of autonomy and certainly not as "colonish" as it once was.

Unless you are saying Canada is still technically owned by Britain, I’m going to have to ask, where on mainland North America and South America do the mentioned countries have territory?

What about Belize, Barbados, Bahamas, and Jamaica?

Belize- George Price
Bahamas- I should have said English speaking, not white.
Jamaica- Some revolts and masterful political maneuvering.

St. Pierre & Miquelon is nothing to write home about, IMO.
Until you get into fishing rights. But they also have the French Guyana, a few islands in the Caribbean and Clipperton in the Pacific.

St. Pierre & Miquelon is nothing to write home about, IMO.

Yeah, but French Guyana is, or, as I like to call it, France’s nuclear playground.

Unless you are saying Canada is still technically owned by Britain, I’m going to have to ask, where on mainland North America and South America do the mentioned countries have territory?

Can't the queen dissolve Canada's government?

Unless you are saying Canada is still technically owned by Britain, I’m going to have to ask, where on mainland North America and South America do the mentioned countries have territory?
Oooh, mainland, you didn't say anything about mainland. The UK still holds on to a few islands in the Caribbean. Denmark has Greenland, and Holland has the Dutch Antilles, Aruba and Surinam. They all enjoy a very high degree of autonomy.

Belize- George Price
Bahamas- I should have said English speaking, not white.
Jamaica- Some revolts and masterful political maneuvering.
Well, you said predominantly white, not whether the PMs were white or spoke English or what. You should be more clear when trying to write what you mean.

Agreed on Jamaica, though.

Oooh, mainland, you didn't say anything about mainland.

I said the American Continent, though I suppose that was a bit ambiguous.

You should be more clear when trying to write what you mean.

Sorry, I’ve got a mondo headache right now.

... And about giving back their empires, that was a uniquely British thing, and they only did it for their colonies that became predominantly white. ...
The Britons gave independence to Ghana, Botswana, Sierra Leone, Zambia and several other African countries. No English-speaking people (I mean daily life), no riots (until after independence, these countries were unlike Kenya), no Gandhis. The Britons were simply shedding their Empire, bit after bit.

Yeah, but French Guyana is, or, as I like to call it, France’s nuclear playground.
What do you mean?

... Holland has the Dutch Antilles, Aruba and Surinam. They all enjoy a very high degree of autonomy.
...
Erm... Suriname is independent since 1975, IIRC.

I said the American Continent, though I suppose that was a bit ambiguous.
Well, yeah. A continent is usually thought of as including the surrounding islands, and, sometimes, not so surrounding. For example, Sicily, Iceland, Ireland, and Great Britain are considered part of the European continent; Japan and Sri Lanka are in Asia; and Madagascar is in Africa.

The Britons gave independence to Ghana, Botswans Sierra Leone, Zambia and severalother African countries. No English-speaking people (I mean daily life), no riots (until after independence, these countries were unlike Kenya), no Ghandis. The Britons were simoly shedding their Empire, bit after bit.

Hmm. Whatever.

What do you mean?

Years ago, France wanted to test their nuclear toys, they decided to do it off the coast of French Guyana. Naturally, the people were outraged. They protested. The police attacked them, but that just made the crowd angrier. To make a long story short: riots, fires, general chaos. Aren’t the French lovely. :D

Erm... Suriname is independent since 1975, IIRC.
Hey! What do you know? It really is!

...

Years ago, France wanted to test their nuclear toys, they decided to do it off the coast of French Guyana. Naturally, the people were outraged. They protested. The police attacked them, but that just made the crowd angrier. To make a long story short: riots, fires, general chaos. Aren’t the French lovely. :D
Interesting... It was after they stopped testing nukes in Algeria, but before Mururoa, I s'pose?

Interesting... It was after they stopped testing nukes in Algeria, but before Mururoa, I s'pose?

I guess. I thought they were pacifists. What’s with all the nukes? And why can’t they do it on islands out in the middle of nowhere like everybody else except the Russians.

I guess. I thought they were pacifists. What’s with all the nukes? And why can’t they do it on islands out in the middle of nowhere like everybody else except the Russians.
The French are pacifists? They aren't so 'pacific' in Africa. And the French set off their bombs on faraway islands, Mururoa and Fangataufa.

As for the Russians... I think that Novaya Zemlya is not in the middle of nowhere, it is as close as you can get to the nowhere itself. :)

There's not a whole lot of land that is useful in Hawai'i. So the property values are high because land is scarce to begin with

I'm vaguely familiar with the way things work in Hawai'i.
It's a stratified society and it all starts with how long you're family has been there. The Native Hawaiians have their own private schools, I think that's what the Kamehameha Foundation is about, and some of these schools are, shall we say, more selective than others. I'm unsure as to whether or not they must be full blooded Hawaiian or if they make distinctions like 1/2 or 1/32 Hawaiian, in order to attend these elite schools.

It's not like most places where the whites are on top and the natives on bottom. There are a few familial lines (Hawaiian, White and Asian) that have intermarried and they are wealthy mainly because they have huge land holdings.

It makes me wonder if these same families might be doing this as a land grab disguised as righting a historical wrong. (It's probably both.)

I am fully willing to admit that I am wrong. I need to find out more information but probably won't because I don't care to.

I guess. I thought they were pacifists. What’s with all the nukes? And why can’t they do it on islands out in the middle of nowhere like everybody else except the Russians.
The French? Pacifists? Where do you get that idea? They are probably one of Europe's more violent nations.

It makes me wonder if these same families might be doing this as a land grab disguised as righting a historical wrong. (It's probably both.)


Land Grab? Hmmm... Now that's a theory I can't quickly dismiss but can't confirm either.

My first instinct when reading this bill was to say sure, go ahead. But one of the arguments I heard after that was: This bill would take what is now all American Citizens of Hawaii and separate them, into different groups based solely on race, different rights for different class citizens. What civil rights activist could possibly be for this? And I was swayed by that. But I'm still swayable and open to more ideas.

The Land Grab idea is interesting because the Bill does not make an Hawaii government, it makes it possible for the Federal government to recognize, essentially, something that doesn't currently exist today, but needs to be formed. Shouldn't it be the other way around? They form a group to represent them, not tell a group tha they are now a 'them' and then tell 'them' to make something we can negotiate with.


Perhaps there should be less racial separation, not more, in government, it hopes that it encourages society to desegregate itself as well? Doesn't passing laws regarding different status of citizenship based on 'race' only seem to encourage more clicks, more classes, more tiers and more dehumanizing of us all?

The French? Pacifists? Where do you get that idea? They are probably one of Europe's more violent nations.

Then what the heck was their problem with Iraq?

Then what the heck was their problem with Iraq?
Russia also had a'problem with Iraq', and it is definitely not pacifist, I know that for sure. ;)

Do you think that only a pacifist nation can refrain from participating in ANY war that is brewing upon the surface of the Earth?

Do you think that only a pacifist nation can refrain from participating in ANY war that is brewing upon the surface of the Earth?

Of course I realize that. It just seems that their reasons giving were pacifistic. Unless they were misrepresenting themselves…

Of course I realize that. It just seems that their reasons giving were pacifistic. Unless they were misrepresenting themselves…
Pfft! All nations misrepresent themselves. France didn't go to Iraq because it wasn't convenient for them to go, they're going to give some excuse or other. The US is going to war because it's convenient for them to do so, and they'll give one excuse or other.

That's the way things are.

PH33RDOM-

It is my impression that there is already a 'them', it's not officially recognized yet. The Kamehameha Foundation is just for Hawaiians or, possibly, of Hawaiian extraction. They are a recognized race based group or tribe.

I just thought of another angle. These families control alot of land there. What if these families land holdings, PLUS whatever land is going to be ceded to them, become the 'reservation'? NO PROPERTY TAXES and they have title to most of it. I can't foresee the wealthy people just ceding the source of their fortunes over to 'the tribe'. Make no mistake, the wealthy land holders are going to have a lot to say about this. They aren't exactly socially oppressed dirt farmers fighting for survival.

In effect what they will be doing (since it will be a reservation where US & Hawaii state law doesn't apply) is setting up their own country on the cheap. Hawaii tax dollars have presumably already been spent to provide infrastructure and the Kamehameha Foundation has a $6 Billion endowment to run schools and provide health care. Sort of like a Pacific island version of Monaco or Andorra (I know this isn't a completely apt but close enough).

I am not saying this is what is going on. No flames please. Just thinking about the implications beyond the stated purpose of the legislation. Kind of curious as to why this is an issue all of a sudden.

Why is this the right time to try this? Who is really behind this? What other unstated benefits are there to doing this? Why not just keep things status quo?

Good Questions Southaustin...

I don't know the answers.


Does anyone know how the issue went in the House today? I do believe it was on the agenda, but I've been too busy to keep watch.

Its been over 100 years since we took hawaii. No one who even remembers hawaii before we took it over even exists. I do not think that we need to recognize them as a nation. Instead I think that we should simply try to get them to bring their culture to our society or something because we own hawaii now and they are our citizens.

Its been over 100 years since we took hawaii. No one who even remembers hawaii before we took it over even exists. I do not think that we need to recognize them as a nation. Instead I think that we should simply try to get them to bring their culture to our society or something because we own hawaii now and they are our citizens.

We don't need to make them lose their culture, they can keep their culture as Americans.

I recently heard comment that they themselves accepted via vote, to be American citizens in the fifties when statehood went though.

Why is this even an issue now? Apparently Clinton signed an 'apology' from the US to the native Hawaiians about what took place in the nineteenth century, and this apparently as fueled this attempt to now get retribution...

I'm finding myself more and more against the idea... But the articles I linked to say that they think they have the votes to get it to go through.




*Dwells on the thought, 'Clinton' :rolleyes: * :p

And methinks without Mahatma Gandhi’s peaceful revolution, those countries would still be British colonies.


And the other countries? It does not change the fact that many of the colonies that Britain gave up were not predominantly white as you stated earlier. Mahatma Gandhi's actions were solely for the benefit of India and India alone. The other nations were given their independence through post WWII agreements that were individually agreed to on a case by case basis. And much of the British Empire at that time was not predominantly white. Unless you can conclusively dispute that claim with some historical piece of evidence, your statement was incorrect in all forms.

Do not change the topic when refuting a statement. It is bad form and a sign of lack of ability or will to debate it in its original context.

What's the problem other than a certain degree of national chauvinism again?

Hawaii was an independent kingdom. Then Americans moved there and later started shit.
Then the Army and Navy moved in and annexed the place.

Now they want to get 100% share of all the money made there, and have a piece of paper saying their sovereign.

Same as Taiwan, no? Just that Taiwan was annexed some thousands of years ago...

the qoute un-qoute native Hawaiins are natives alright. From the South Pacific that is. They are settlers as much as the Asian or the White man is in Hawaii. From what I know of this culture they didnt migrate in masse until approx 1200 years ago. As late as 800 years ago shows direct Asian migration to Hawaii.
You could argue that the Native N and S American indians have been there up to 50k years. Making them a unique genetic varient. The Hawaiin people if you could possibly find them have a slight variation than there native cousine in the South Pacific. Therefore I would not recognize them as a distinct native group. They should not get special treatment. All they want is free money from the government. Thats what this is all about. They dont want to work and contribute to society. They want to live "Native" which means doing nothing that resembles work. Of course thats just my opinion. But I think its basically accurate.

And the other countries? It does not change the fact that many of the colonies that Britain gave up were not predominantly white as you stated earlier. Mahatma Gandhi's actions were solely for the benefit of India and India alone. The other nations were given their independence through post WWII agreements that were individually agreed to on a case by case basis. And much of the British Empire at that time was not predominantly white. Unless you can conclusively dispute that claim with some historical piece of evidence, your statement was incorrect in all forms.

Do not change the topic when refuting a statement. It is bad form and a sign of lack of ability or will to debate it in its original context.

O_o I believe I already ceded the point, and stated that I was not thinking clearly at the time.

All they want is free money from the government. Thats what this is all about. They dont want to work and contribute to society. They want to live "Native" which means doing nothing that resembles work. Of course thats just my opinion. But I think its basically accurate.
So nice to hear what you think of natives.

And by the way...this whole thing of yours with defining 'native' as an impossibility because everyone was originally an immigrant...

...we have nothing else to call ourselves. We ALL called ourselves "The People" in our own languages, because we did not have nation states to name ourselves with. And dismissing what has been done to us by Europeans with the argument that we were immigrants too is extremely offensive. As is your description of what living 'Native' is.