Comments on the Akaka Bill?

[Konaguy]

Re: Comments on the Akaka Bill?

I'll have to disagree. The real problem is ignorance.

Could you elaborate a bit more on that ?

[Keanu]

Re: Comments on the Akaka Bill?

Could you elaborate a bit more on that ?

Aaron, the Akaka Bill will not lead to secession.There is no language within the Bill that allows Hawai'i to secede from the Union.That is what I was eluding to.

[Miulang]

Re: Comments on the Akaka Bill?

That is the million dollar question. Queen Liliuokalani 's monarchy could not prevent the overthrow. I highly doubt an independent Hawaii would have the military might to prevent a Russia, Japan, etc from scooping us up. Unless the independent Hawaiian government had self defense agreement with the US.

And there would be nothing wrong with that. Tit for tat, quid pro quo (we let you, the military, stay in Hawai'i, you help protect us from other invaders). It could be a very symbiotic relationship, a win-win proposition.

Liliuokalani COULD have prevented the overthrow. She could have ordered her guards to overpower the Caucasians. But instead she did not want to bring bloodshed and hardship to her people (she was a visionary in that sense) and told the maka'ainana not to physically oppose the United States. Some historians have noted that with her abdication, Hawai'i was the only monarchy that was overthrown without a major bloody coup in the history of the Western world.

Miulang

[Konaguy]

Re: Comments on the Akaka Bill?

Aaron, the Akaka Bill will not lead to secession.There is no language within the Bill that allows Hawai'i to secede from the Union.That is what I was eluding to.

I was perusing through this thread and came upon Kamuleakea's rant that real Hawaiians should use violence to spur a separation from the United States.That was the basis of my comments.

I know certain Hawaiian entitlements should be protected. But there is at least one instance that things went a bit too far. That was when Sandwich Isles Communications got 400 million in federal money to wire DHHL lands with fiber-optic cables. Worse yet, only DHHL lessee's will be able to use it. To me that is not fair at all. Especially when all taxpayers are paying for it.

Bottom line is it doesn't sit well with me that DHHL homesteaders will get fiber-optic connections to the home when non-DHHL areas get zippo.

Hence why I'm not very supportive of the Akaka bill.

[Miulang]

Re: Comments on the Akaka Bill?

I was perusing through this thread and came upon Kamuleakea's rant that real Hawaiians should use violence to spur a separation from the United States.That was the basis of my comments.

I don't think Kam speaks for the majority of kanaka maoli who are smart enough to know that violence only leads to more violence. There are some very very well educated kanaka maoli (a few who visit here ), who would make damn fine leaders in a new nation because they can see what works and what doesn't work and could start with a clean slate, and it doesn't necessarily have to involve violence.

Miulang

[Pua'i Mana'o]

Re: Comments on the Akaka Bill?

I was perusing through this thread and came upon Kamuleakea's rant that real Hawaiians should use violence to spur a separation from the United States.That was the basis of my comments.

Aaron, did you happen to read any of my comments on this subject, or at least on this thread?

I know certain Hawaiian entitlements should be protected. But there is at least one instance that things went a bit too far. That was when Sandwich Isles Communications got 400 million in federal money to wire DHHL lands with fiber-optic cables. Worse yet, only DHHL lessee's will be able to use it. To me that is not fair at all. Especially when all taxpayers are paying for it.

Bottom line is it doesn't sit well with me that DHHL homesteaders will get fiber-optic connections to the home when non-DHHL areas get zippo.

Interesting note about that: farm lot leasees like me haven't had this luxury of spiffy new fiber optic cables. But the houselots, and the industrial areas that are located on DHHL lands do.

Hence why I'm not very supportive of the Akaka bill.

The Akaka bill has *nothing* to do with any of your fears as you have articulated them, nor their solutions. It doesn't have anything to do with DHHL, KS, OHA, SIC, etc. It will provide some status in law, give us kanaks an office in D.C., a few hired positions, and their job description would include "complaints" and "buck stop/bottleneck/wastebasket". Trust me.

[Konaguy]

Re: Comments on the Akaka Bill?

Aaron, did you happen to read any of my comments on this subject, or at least on this thread?

I tried to backtrack a little to find those comments you mentioned.But to avoid any misunderstandings, I would appreciate you pointing me in correct direction.

The Akaka bill has *nothing* to do with any of your fears as you have articulated them, nor their solutions. It doesn't have anything to do with DHHL, KS, OHA, SIC, etc. It will provide some status in law, give us kanaks an office in D.C., a few hired positions, and their job description would include "complaints" and "buck stop/bottleneck/wastebasket". Trust me.

It was my understanding that the Akaka bill was going to legitimize OHA,DHHL etc. As far as I recall there was a huge concern after the Rice vs. Cayetano
decision that these other race based entitlements were going to be legally threatened.Thus the Akaka bill was born back in 2000 to protect these entitlements.

I have no problem with these entitlements, EXCEPT in the case of Sandwich Isles Communications.

[TuNnL]

Re: Comments on the Akaka Bill?

Yes the Hawaiians have been wronged. During my life living here, I have seen that up close and personal. But like I said, I don't believe breaking away from the United States is the answer, nor is the Akaka bill.

It’s easy to shoot from the hip, Konaguy, so I would ask that if you would dismiss both answers currently on the table to right the wrongs against the native Hawaiian people, culture, and nation... what would be an amicable solution for all, in your opinion?

That would be far more valuable then simply regurgitating Timkona’s ignorant “F-- native Hawaiian entitlements” rant, minus the condescending ethnocentric rationale.

[joshuatree]

Re: Comments on the Akaka Bill?

And there would be nothing wrong with that. Tit for tat, quid pro quo (we let you, the military, stay in Hawai'i, you help protect us from other invaders). It could be a very symbiotic relationship, a win-win proposition.

Liliuokalani COULD have prevented the overthrow. She could have ordered her guards to overpower the Caucasians. But instead she did not want to bring bloodshed and hardship to her people (she was a visionary in that sense) and told the maka'ainana not to physically oppose the United States. Some historians have noted that with her abdication, Hawai'i was the only monarchy that was overthrown without a major bloody coup in the history of the Western world.

Miulang

Isn't that a step on the slippery slope? It was US Marines stationed in Hawaii that helped with the overthrowing of the Hawaiian Monarchy.

As for if Liliuokalani could have prevented the end result if violence was involved, it's pure speculation. It's possible her guards could overpower the Caucasians. But then, what would play out? The Caucasians simply retreat? More reinforcements? US declaring war on Kingdom of Hawaii?

[Konaguy]

Re: Comments on the Akaka Bill?

It’s easy to shoot from the hip, Konaguy, so I would ask that if you would dismiss both answers currently on the table to right the wrongs against the native Hawaiian people, culture, and nation... what would be an amicable solution for all, in your opinion?

I really don't know what the solution is. All I do know is neither option doesn't really sit well with me. If you really pushed me for answer, I would go the Akaka
bill route. It is the lesser of two evils. As I would not like to see Hawaii break from the United States (and I wouldn't want to see Hawaii turn into another Fiji).

[timkona]

Re: Comments on the Akaka Bill?

Wow, TuNnL. Such venom.

You assume that Hawaiian entitlements are the only ethnic or racial entitlements that I oppose. Just another bit of evidence to bolster the ego-mania argument.

Believe me, it's not JUST about Hawaiians. I oppose Aff. Action, and the Japanese Chamber of Commerce, and the Black Firefighters League, and the Ku Klux Klan, and everything Hitler stood for.

Don't judge a book by the cover. It's one of the simplest, and yet misunderstood, of all the Ten Commandments.

[anapuni808]

Re: Comments on the Akaka Bill?

It is very easy for a white person to say they oppose affirmative action - after all, a white person comes genetically programmed with affirmative action built in. Have you ever noticed how many white folks say they oppose affirmative action? Could it be because that one program helps to level the playing field so that people of color can be allowed the same privileges that those born with white skin are awarded without having to do anything but appear (in their white skin)?

[TuNnL]

Re: Comments on the Akaka Bill?

You assume that Hawaiian entitlements are the only ethnic or racial entitlements that I oppose.

No, I don’t. Please stop posting utter fiction — the main reason why so few people consider any value in responding to your posts. (Hint: you usually fail to quote the post that supports your assertion in these cases)

[Miulang]

Re: Comments on the Akaka Bill?

Isn't that a step on the slippery slope? It was US Marines stationed in Hawaii that helped with the overthrowing of the Hawaiian Monarchy.

As for if Liliuokalani could have prevented the end result if violence was involved, it's pure speculation. It's possible her guards could overpower the Caucasians. But then, what would play out? The Caucasians simply retreat? More reinforcements? US declaring war on Kingdom of Hawaii?

Ahhh...but this time if negotiated correctly, it would be a symbiotic, not saprophytic, relationship. The US needs a strategic outpost in the Pacific to defend itself from "invaders" from the East, while Hawai'i's interests would be exactly the same. The win-win would be that both get the defensive mechanisms that they need, but Hawai'i would determine where and how the US military could use the land and other resources, instead of the other way around. The Navy could remain in Hawai'i as invited guests, rather than as occupiers and interlopers. One reason why the concept of a sovereign nation is appealing is because it might allow the government to control development in a way that made more sense (i.e., benefitted the most number of people rather than corporations or a few wealthy individuals).

As for what Liliuokalani should or should not have done when thrown into that room at Iolani Palace, of course that is open to speculation, but I think you answered your own question: she was a very intelligent woman and realized that even if she won the battle, she would probably lose the war because the US would have retaliated and caused bloodshed among the maka'ainana, and from all the writings that we have from her, we know that her heart truly was filled with love for her people, and you don't love your people by willingly causing them to die for what probably looked to her like a hopeless cause. She had been educated in the Western ways, so she already understood the effect of standing up against the US government. She probably read or heard about what was going on in Cuba between the US and the Spaniards at approximately the same time and read about Teddy Roosevelt and the war in the Caribbean.

I think if it had been Kamehameha 1 who was thrown into prison at the time of Capt. Cook, he would have incited the maka'ainana to revolt, because he was not exposed previously to Western "civilization".

Miulang

[joshuatree]

Re: Comments on the Akaka Bill?

Ahhh...but this time if negotiated correctly, it would be a symbiotic, not saprophytic, relationship. The US needs a strategic outpost in the Pacific to defend itself from "invaders" from the East, while Hawai'i's interests would be exactly the same. The win-win would be that both get the defensive mechanisms that they need, but Hawai'i would determine where and how the US military could use the land and other resources, instead of the other way around. The Navy could remain in Hawai'i as invited guests, rather than as occupiers and interlopers. One reason why the concept of a sovereign nation is appealing is because it might allow the government to control development in a way that made more sense (i.e., benefitted the most number of people rather than corporations or a few wealthy individuals).

Actually, if Hawaii was a sovereign nation today, the smart thing would be to NOT have any alliances or symbiotic relations with any major powers. Instead, one has to play the diplomatic whore and court all of them. Have Russian, Chinese, American warships come and go at Pearl. I'm not so sure how interested American military might have for Hawaii these days since their threat is from Asia and Guam is the new island fortress stronghold for American interests. China and Russia on the other hand might want a foothold in Hawaii to bring their forward presence closer to the US.