Comments on the Akaka Bill?

[kamuelakea]

Re: Comments on the Akaka Bill?

Look, you can argue about whether the language had enough alternatives all you want, but on June 27, 1959 there was indeed a referendum taken of all Hawai'i voters. It passed by roughly a 17:1 margin in favor of statehood, according to several different sources.

Certified results image here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Hawaiivotesinset.JPG

I can import immigrants to any country so that they outnumber the native people 5 to 1 and then say, hey, lets have a vote.

Who do you think will win?

Asian immigrants wanted statehood because they knew they had the numbers to take over the state "democratically". Without statehood, the governor and other top positions would continue to go to Mainland appointed Haoles who would no doubt continue to represent the plantation owners.

1959 has nothing to do with what happened in 1893.

[kamuelakea]

Re: Comments on the Akaka Bill?

Take it up with the people who wrote the question in 1959.

I mean, seriously, people could have stayed away if they didn't like the question, right? They voted for what they got to vote on.

Spilt milk.

1959 was irrelevant.

Please review the only "vote" that was conducted by Hawaiians regarding the Nation of Hawaii.

http://libweb.hawaii.edu/digicoll/an.../petition.html

[Miulang]

Re: Comments on the Akaka Bill?

In 1950, Hawai'i was comprised of 499,794 individuals, an increase of 14% over the 1940 census: 17% Hawaiian, 25% Caucasian, 6% Chinese, 37% Japanese, 12% Filipino.

The 1960 Hawai'i census showed the following ethnic composition:
632,772 people, a 20% increase over the 1950 census. By ethnicity, there were 16% Hawaiian, 32% Caucasian, 32% Japanese, 6% Chinese, 11% Filipino, 2% Korean.

I think Kamuela may have a point about a "fight" between the Caucasians and the Japanese for power since their populations were approximately the same around the time that the statehood vote was taken.

Miulang

[Linkmeister]

Re: Comments on the Akaka Bill?

That's as may be, Miulang, but I'd expect the number of Hawaiians voting in favor of statehood roughly approximated the same ratio as every other group.

Think about it. There was a heckuva lot more to be gained through statehood (for everybody here) than to remain a territory. And Hawaiian sovereignty wasn't even a gleam in anyone's eye back in 1959, as far as I know.

[Konaguy]

Re: Comments on the Akaka Bill?

I think the key thing to consider now is, where do we go from here ? It seems
the Akaka bill is at best on life support, at the worst dead ? I don't have all
the answers, I'm just throwing that question out there ?

[Miulang]

Re: Comments on the Akaka Bill?

That's as may be, Miulang, but I'd expect the number of Hawaiians voting in favor of statehood roughly approximated the same ratio as every other group.

Think about it. There was a heckuva lot more to be gained through statehood (for everybody here) than to remain a territory. And Hawaiian sovereignty wasn't even a gleam in anyone's eye back in 1959, as far as I know.

There were some people who dreamed of a sovereign Hawai'i in that 1959 referendum...the visionary kanaka maoli who resided on Ni'ihau! Ni'ihau was the only island that voted against the referendum

Miulang

[Linkmeister]

Re: Comments on the Akaka Bill?

There were some people who dreamed of a sovereign Hawai'i in that 1959 referendum...the visionary kanaka maoli who resided on Ni'ihau! Ni'ihau was the only island that voted against the referendum

Miulang

Is Niihau part of the state?

Actually, I do wonder how free and fair that island's vote might have been, given the ownership of the island and the employment of its occupants. (Note: that's pure speculation on my part, thought of just now for the first time in all the years I've lived here. I have no evidence of any possible vote-rigging on Niihau.)

[kamuelakea]

Re: Comments on the Akaka Bill?

There were some people who dreamed of a sovereign Hawai'i in that 1959 referendum...the visionary kanaka maoli who resided on Ni'ihau! Ni'ihau was the only island that voted against the referendum

Miulang

That small yet ideal sample (because it was ONLY HAWAIIANS) suggests that Linkmeister's assumption regarding what HE thinks Hawaiians were thinking and voting in 1959 might be a bit presumptuous.

My grandparents voted NO and made a point of reminding their grandkids that they voted no. My gut feeling is that Hawaiians mostly didn't vote because they knew they had no power. Geeve Up. Statehood was about plantation workers versus plantation owners. Hawaiians, as always, were irrelevant.

[Linkmeister]

Re: Comments on the Akaka Bill?

There's a distinction between speculation and assumption.

[Miulang]

Re: Comments on the Akaka Bill?

Here's another bit of census data (from 1900) that's also very telling of how politics in the islands evolved:

Of 154,000 people counted, 24% were Hawaiian, 19% were Caucasian, 17% were Chinese, 40% were Japanese (the Japanese immigration period had just peaked). There were only 4,284 Americans in Hawai'i (3% of the population). Now imagine what the outcome had been if there had been a referendum on whether or not to allow Hawai'i to be annexed to the United States!

Miulang

[kamuelakea]

Re: Comments on the Akaka Bill?

There's a distinction between speculation and assumption.

Speculation is to ponder the questions.
Assumption is to ponder the answers.

Neither is truth without the facts.

[haole_pupule]

Re: Comments on the Akaka Bill?

What happened in 1898 was very wrong. I don’t think that anyone in their right mind would deny that. I would actually be for the Akaka Bill if I felt that it wasn’t going to further legitimize racial discrimination in Hawaii, and it actually helped people. When are they going to stop building nice sidewalks for tourists in Waikiki and start help some of the people on the west side?

There are a lot of people here from many different backgrounds that have been busting their asses to make a way of life for themselves. Are you saying that because someone came here after you who is probably related to you in some way be they Japanese, Portuguese, Korean, Chinese, Samoan, Micronesian, Tahitian, or (do I dare say) one of the white races that they are not entitled to the same benefits. Do you look back through you family tree and ignore all of your other ancestor that are not pure Hawaiian. If you are pure Hawaiian, do you look at the half breeds as less worthy of Hawaiian heritage?


By the way, how does one determine the classification of Native Hawaiian? What I mean by this is if two guys are walking down the street and they both look the same color how do you determine which ones family was really here before western contact. Are you going to check their names. Because I could go change my last name tomorrow to Kamehameha or Kuhio. I am kind of partial to Kalanianaole. Are you going to run blood tests on everyone to make sure there is a match in DNA? Then I guess you could make a list of all of those people who are and a list of all of those people who are not so that you knew. Then you could check the list to make sure they weren’t one of those scabs of society, but then it would be too difficult to carry around a list. You would also have the problem of people saying they are someone else who is Native Hawaiian. Maybe, you could force everyone to get tattoos and where little symbols on their clothing so that there was no confusion as to what race they really came from. Yeh, that’s it. Lets do that. That way all of the Supremacist Pure Native Hawaiian Elite know who the people infesting their society are. Then you could coral all of them into little camps so that they are all concentrated that way you could make sure that they don’t pollute your gene pool. Then you could focus on creating your master race of Native Hawaiian Super Humans. Eventually, you are going to run out of land or food, so then you could build huge incinerators and start burning the inferior people you forced into the camps so as to get rid of them for good. What happens if someone is part of what is classified as Native Hawaiian is there a distinguishing percentage like 40/60 or 50/50? Would you look at someone’s family tree and say all these people on this branch are disqualified, but all of these people are okay. Would it be an inclusive classification or an exclusive classification? You would also have the problem of keeping new people out. You would have to kill off any half breed babies that are born so they do not pollute your gene pool. You could build a wall, but then you are on an island so being surrounded by water would probably suffice. However, people do have boats, so you will want to form a defense pact with the neighboring islands so that you have an Axis of power with which to repel any outsiders. You could also boster your troop numbers by offering all of your Native Hawaiians who left a chance to return to help defend the Fatherland. Now that you have isolated yourselves, how will you determine who gets what? Will people from Lanai or Hawaii get a different amount than people from Oahu? Will you form a socialist government in which everyone is equally treated? You will need to keep the future generations from having access to material that may make them lean toward forming western thoughts, so you will have to burn all of the books that do not conform to your idea of what is cultural.

I guess you couldn’t really isolate yourselves, because the US Military and tourism are your number one industries. I guess you could put restrictions on the movements of these people and not let them speak or fraternize with the native Hawaiians. I guess this is where your walls could be used.

You have all ready put up mental walls with which you use to form illogical and irrational opinions about people based on the color of their skin. Why not build physical ones?

[waioli kai]

race-obsessive delusions and fallacies, Re:Akaka Bill opposition

.

haole_pupule= --"I would actually be for the Akaka Bill if I felt that it wasn’t going to further legitimize racial discrimination in Hawaii. " --

"Further legitimize racial discrimination in Hawaii."? That is preposterous. What legitimization of racial discrimination in Hawaii is so impacting your existence in Hawaii that you are deprived of rights, liberty and security that are otherwise available to you in California, New York, Texas or Arkansas?

-- "You have all ready put up mental walls with which you use to form illogical and irrational opinions about people based on the color of their skin. " --

Interesting that you should make such a claim about me, following your admission that you have not a single clue as to my ethnicity, my race or my family. And, because of such bigoted, twisted, maliciously misconstruing inquiries as emanates from keyboards such as yours, you will remain in the darkness of your delusions with regard to what is my racial composition, my gender, my citizenship.

You want to proclaim your haoleness, your victimization in "race-based Hawaii"? Go for it! You are not on my ignore list. I'll be most interested in reading of your enlightenment, or your self-inflicted demise.

[kamuelakea]

Re: Comments on the Akaka Bill?

What happened in 1898 was very wrong. .................................................. ............................ You have all ready put up mental walls with which you use to form illogical and irrational opinions about people based on the color of their skin. Why not build physical ones?

I have a simple answer.

Limit the beneficiaries of the Akaka Bill to Native Hawaiians. My definition being 50% or more. Those individuals would decide who, if anyone, they would allow to be subjects of their nation. They would be allowed to incorporate institutions such as Kamehameha Schools and Liliuokalani Trust under their national umbrella so that American laws cannot destroy them.

Then the rest of Hawaii, regardless of where they immigrated from, could get on with their lives.

PS, Hawaiian Homes has as complete a list as one could expect of Native Hawaiians with 50% or greater blood.

[waioli kai]

inclusiveness, fatal flaw?

.

kamuelakea= -- "I have a simple answer.

Limit the beneficiaries of the Akaka Bill to Native Hawaiians. My definition being 50% or more. Those individuals would decide who, if anyone, they would allow to be subjects of their nation. They would be allowed to incorporate institutions such as Kamehameha Schools and Liliuokalani Trust under their national umbrella so that American laws cannot destroy them.

Then the rest of Hawaii, regardless of where they immigrated from, could get on with their lives.

PS, Hawaiian Homes has as complete a list as one could expect of Native Hawaiians with 50% or greater blood." --

That's a good place to start. Start with existing definitions. Despite race-baiting fears to the contrary, the peoples of Hawai'i are a loving, very inclusive people. So much are Hawai'ians that way, that one could even be tempted to surmise that that has been/is Hawai'ians fatal flaw in this world of militarUSt, corporatUSt, imperialUSi$m.