Comments on the Akaka Bill?

[Miulang]

Re: Comments on the Akaka Bill?

An interesting statistic on tribal casinos: in 2004, 367 tribal casinos and gambling outlets grossed $19.4 BILLION. This was a 16%+ increase over 2003. If the kanaka maoli were allowed to build their own tribal casinos on ceded land (assuming that all other gambling was illegal in Hawai'i), they could be raking in some bigtime kala for their people.

Miulang

[shaveice]

Re: Comments on the Akaka Bill?

i'm going to risk serious burns for this naive question but i really want to hear your opinions. the question is, if the akaka bill is as bad as most here have said, why is oha--the supposed gardian angels of all things hawaiian--backing it? i can imagine that some might argue that the akaka bill gives the hawaiians the best they'll ever get under the circumstances but do you believe that oha believes that? or is there something worse going on, like favors being exchanged or money or whatever?

(on a side note, when i was kid growing up, i couldn't understand why the hawaiians weren't the smartest, best educated, healthiest, etc. residents since bishop estate had sooooooo much money. so you can burn me on two counts cuz i don't know anything about the folks who used to run the bishop estate. i mean, i know about the scandles and stuff but with so much money--and since money talks--i would have thought that they could be buttholes all they wanted and still have enough money to help out every single hawaiian.)

okay, i've said enough to get burned 10x over but i just wanted to hear some opinions on this one. thanks.

[Glen Miyashiro]

Re: Comments on the Akaka Bill?

A simple answer? People are greedy. Just because someone is Hawaiian doesn't mean that he has the best interests of all Hawaiians at heart. The old ali'i families, the ones who sold the islands' sandalwood to the Chinese, the ones who intermarried with the missionaries and the planters, the ones who sold their lands to the haole after the Great Mahele, never had all that much in common with the common folk. They didn't then, and they still don't now.

[shaveice]

Re: Comments on the Akaka Bill?

hi glen (wasn't that your 1,001st post?!?) and thanks for your comment. yeah, that makes sense and that's believeable. still, what then do you think the main motive is for selling out? i mean, it's not as though they're gonna get paid tons of money in exchange for supporting this bill. see what i mean? or do you think they're secretly gonna get compensated for this?

[Miulang]

Re: Comments on the Akaka Bill?

Sometimes it's not just about money...it's also about power and control. OHA is the group recognized by the Federal Govt to act as an agent for the kanaka maoli. They truly don't speak for all the kanaka maoli, because the kanaka maoli right now are too disorganized...too many different factions wanting separate things. They need to learn from their Indian brothers and sisters...if they want their movement to be pono, they all need to try to agree on some common things and work together for what's best for all the kanaka maoli, and not just a subset of the kanaka maoli.

Miulang

[makiki444]

Re: Comments on the Akaka Bill?

I also agree the Akaka Bill is not the answer for Hawai’i for reasons stated by Miulang. But if the Kanaka Maoli are so "disorganized," how come they are still fighting to restore sovereignty? I understand they are still affected by what happened (who wouldn’t!?) and should receive some sort of retribution, but is it such a good idea or is just me who could see serious problems arise if Hawai’i were to become a free nation?

[shaveice]

Re: Comments on the Akaka Bill?

i don't mean to direct the discussion to a different area so please take the following as a related thought, not as an attempt to start a new thread. it has to do with christianity and the hawaiian people. i guess i'd classify myself as an agnostic and what i wanted to suggest--as politely as possible--is that those who call themselves christians consider their failure to act christ-like in this situation. let me explain. i understand that hawaiian affairs is not the primary mission of christians. however, i would think that those who call themselves christians would exhibit their professed faith by acting christ-like in this situation. to further clarify: i would be impressed and respect christians much more if they spoke out as christ did against injustices. in our context, that would mean speaking out against injustices against the hawaiian people. instead, what i see is that christianity is very mainstream, very middle class, and very much a supporter of the status quo. to me, that's very unchrist-like. even a casual reading of the new testament will make it clear that christ was a rocker; that is, he rubbed those in the mainstream the wrong way because of his radical ideas, his outspokenness. so as an outsider, i'm disappointed that the majority of those who call themselves christians are not living as their master/lord did. as an outsider, i see churches like central union and kawaiahao as wedding factories and am puzzled. (wait, don't shoot me down just yet, please.) as an outsider, i would assume that christians would be outspoken for their call for justice and fairness regardless of who it might upset.

that kind of faith in action would impress me; even if i don't call myself a christian, that kind of faith strikes me as being real, alive, and meaningful. so i guess this post is partly an expression of my disappointment and also a kind of challenge to those who call themselves christians.

finally--and you can shoot me down after this--i'll be more than happy to take back everything i've said if i'm wrong. i'm not taking any cheap shots. i'm trying to thoughtfully understand why christians--who are supposed to be the soldiers of christ--are not widely recognized by the general public as being serious fighters for peace, justice, and reconciliation as they are called to be. as christians, those are not optional things to do, if they like. it's their duty. it's the cross they chose to bear when they declared themselves christians.

so if there are any christians out there, i would humbly say that every day is a new day and you and your congregation can make quite an impact if you were to decide to follow in the footsteps of your lord.

[kimo55]

Re: Comments on the Akaka Bill?

>i understand that hawaiian affairs is not the primary mission of christians.

no, but starting with the missionaries, they made it their objective to destroy much of Hawaiian culture. Does that count?

>those who call themselves christians would exhibit their professed faith by acting christ-like in this situation. i would be impressed and respect christians much more if they spoke out as christ did against injustices.

Why would they start doing this NOW!?
and what makes you think they want to impress you and have your respect? Especially if it requires going down a path they haven't traversed?

> speaking out against injustices against the hawaiian people. i would assume that christians would be outspoken for their call for justice and fairness regardless of who it might upset.

christians see this not as their chore or their responsibility. never have, never will... beside, this would help them lose dominion and control.


> i'm trying to thoughtfully understand why christians--who are supposed to be the soldiers of christ--are not widely recognized by the general public as being serious fighters for peace, justice, and reconciliation as they are called to be. as christians, those are not optional things to do, it's their duty. it's the cross they chose to bear when they declared themselves christians.

wow. what fantasy writer sold you this scenario?

[Miulang]

Re: Comments on the Akaka Bill?

The pending Senate vote on the Akaka Bill made it into the NYTimes today, too. I still think the kanaka maoli should fight against the Justice Dept.'s desire to prohibit the establishment of casinos on ceded land. Gambling revenues would be one way to give back the kanaka maoli a way to make their own money instead of being beholden to the State and the Feds. Allowing the kanaka maoli to raise their own funding would allow the State and Feds to decrease the amount of taxpayer dollars that are needed to support the current OHA programs.

Another part of the NYT article (which you can't get to unless you register) talks about polls that have been conducted to determine the public's acceptance of the Akaka Bill. I think the results of 2 polls are telling, since they are diametrically opposed to each other. Makes you wonder which groups of people were polled for each of the 2 polls:
"A survey conducted on behalf of the State Office of Hawaiian Affairs showed strong public support for the bill, while a poll released by the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, a nonprofit group critical of the bill, showed that two out of three residents were against it..."

Miulang

[Miulang]

Re: Comments on the Akaka Bill?

And here's a sarcastic Libertarian take on why the Akaka Bill should be voted down. The author also mentions the potential revenues to be derived from gambling...

Miulang

[shaveice]

Re: Comments on the Akaka Bill?

hey kimo, yup, it's the old "supposed to be" vs "the way it is" contrast again.

[mapen]

Re: Comments on the Akaka Bill?

I think the government should divest itself of all racist legislation and bureaucracy. The Akaka Bill is a big step in the wrong direction.

[Linkmeister]

Re: Comments on the Akaka Bill?

Knee-jerk response. If Haunani Kay-Trask is for it, I'm agin it. So which side is she on?

[Glen Miyashiro]

Re: Comments on the Akaka Bill?

Knee-jerk response. If Haunani Kay-Trask is for it, I'm agin it. So which side is she on?

She doesn't like it.

[Linkmeister]

Re: Comments on the Akaka Bill?

She doesn't like it.

Oh, hell. I'm glad I put that smiley face there. I don't agree with her reasons for not liking it, but I don't think much of it either. There's way too much that's vague about it.

What about all of us non-Hawaiians who've lived here over 30 years? The houses and land we've bought (legally, under US and State law)? Etc., etc.

Do you know how much it pains me to be on the same side as that woman?