‘‘Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2010’’
...which again passed the House yesterday, is available here. I would quibble with the title. It wasn't really a Native Hawaiian government that was overthrown. It was more of a late modern-era monarchy governing a multi-racial society.
5
comments:
Ken Conklin
said...
Here's a major new webpage your readers might be interested in:
Tenth anniversary of U.S. Supreme Court decision in Rice v. Cayetano. The February 23, 2000 decision in Hawaii's most important civil rights lawsuit spurred a decade of additional civil rights lawsuits against government and private race-based programs, and prompted racial separatists to seek protection for those programs through the Hawaiian Government Reorganization bill (Akaka bill) now pending in Congress. http://tinyurl.com/y8jaahg
See also the book "Hawaiian Apartheid: Racial Separatism and Ethnic Nationalism in the Aloha State" http://tinyurl.com/2a9fqa
It's funny how the bill proclaims the Hawaiians are a "distinctly native community" without offering any argument or evidence to support the claim. I believe the reality is that, with the exception of Niihau, there are only a relative handful of purely ethnic "Hawaiians" (Tahitians) living today and these Hawaiians live entirely interspersed amongst other mixed-raced peoples and have adopted multi-cultural living habits. So, at least to my understanding, the basic premise of the bill is false.
This is the time when artificial barriers such as race preference need to give way to the vision of a peaceful planetary society filled with diversity.
Anonymous: nice thought, but what do you do when one race-based society takes over another? And my preference is for the Hawaiian society, which was much less race-based before the overthrow. Under the American empire, the Hawaiians only recourse has been to seek racial preference--that's how the American system has been set up.
As for Charley's quibble, I find it totally unsupported. The monarchy was a direct result of the native Hawaiian political structure (grosso modo), with adoption of western elements (guns for Kamehameha, parliamentary reforms for others). I find such underhanded dismissal of the Hawaiians morally disgusting. What I think you're afraid of is the fact that the title essentially recognizes a legitimate native Hawaiian government, but it gives them much less than they're asking for in return--thus opening the door for future (and legitimate) claims.
5 comments:
Here's a major new webpage your readers might be interested in:
Tenth anniversary of U.S. Supreme Court decision in Rice v. Cayetano. The February 23, 2000 decision in Hawaii's most important civil rights lawsuit spurred a decade of additional civil rights lawsuits against government and private race-based programs, and prompted racial separatists to seek protection for those programs through the Hawaiian Government Reorganization bill (Akaka bill) now pending in Congress.
http://tinyurl.com/y8jaahg
See also the book
"Hawaiian Apartheid: Racial Separatism and Ethnic Nationalism in the Aloha State"
http://tinyurl.com/2a9fqa
Lots of new commissions, councils and boards. Lots of new jobs for political hacks. It's a jobs creation bill!
It's funny how the bill proclaims the Hawaiians are a "distinctly native community" without offering any argument or evidence to support the claim. I believe the reality is that, with the exception of Niihau, there are only a relative handful of purely ethnic "Hawaiians" (Tahitians) living today and these Hawaiians live entirely interspersed amongst other mixed-raced peoples and have adopted multi-cultural living habits. So, at least to my understanding, the basic premise of the bill is false.
This is the time when artificial barriers such as race preference need to give way to the vision of a peaceful planetary society filled with diversity.
Anonymous: nice thought, but what do you do when one race-based society takes over another? And my preference is for the Hawaiian society, which was much less race-based before the overthrow. Under the American empire, the Hawaiians only recourse has been to seek racial preference--that's how the American system has been set up.
As for Charley's quibble, I find it totally unsupported. The monarchy was a direct result of the native Hawaiian political structure (grosso modo), with adoption of western elements (guns for Kamehameha, parliamentary reforms for others). I find such underhanded dismissal of the Hawaiians morally disgusting. What I think you're afraid of is the fact that the title essentially recognizes a legitimate native Hawaiian government, but it gives them much less than they're asking for in return--thus opening the door for future (and legitimate) claims.
Post a Comment