You you honestly think that when the migration starts - and it will happen quicker than you think - that Hawaii won’t start crying to the fed to help them out?
The state of Hawaii cannot support such a welfare system withour the fed giving them a huge helping hand. And those are MY tax dollars.
Look, I’ll respect anyone’s opinion as everyone’s entitled to it on any subject, but you’re obviously pulling that last one out of your ass. There will be no mass migration, that isn’t what the Akaka bill is about. I don’t want to entertain this “what if” as it isn’t plausible, but for the sake of argument, if given the option of struggling to feed themselves or living with the conveniences the US brings, I’m pretty sure they’d take their chances. Hawaii was a self-sustained, self governed country just over a hundred years ago, I think they’d be able to pull it off again.
I’m bowing out of this for the rest of the week as I’ve got exams and the temptation to look at this thread is getting to be too much, so maybe I’ll write on it after finals are done.
Okay, you can have your island back. But in order to keep our flag right, we’re gonna have to annex something else.
Hmmm…
NEW CANADA!!! Who’s with me? Vroom, you’re about to be an American again! I can’t wait until “O Canada” is just another US state anthem. Welcome to the fold, my Canadian (I mean fellow American) brothers and sisters!
Think of it as simple Manifest Destiny. Now our nation will be one contiguous land mass. Alaska all the way to Texas, And no more island in the middle of nowhere in the Pacific. I like this trade.
[quote]slimjim wrote:
…
How the author makes the claim that the Hawaiian affairs are not similar to Indians is beyond me. Because people have moved here and intermingled, the Hawaiians were not their own autonomous government? And therefore did not have the right to self-governance?
[/quote]
Yes, that’s precisely the claim. And the key is because the alleged cure is based on the idea that native Hawaiians are a separate and unique racial group. If they aren’t, because of excessive intermingling, then the whole thing becomes very murky both in terms of its standards of application and its reparations logic (to the extent one believes in reparations logic anyway).
Insulting to whom? To the Congressmen who are being accused of doing political horse trading? I really don’t see how its insulting to Hawaiians to speculate on how individual Congresspersons are choosing their positions.
[quote]
Zap Branigan wrote:
I think they should just kill all non-native Hawaiians.
I mean really, the white man is just an invader. He should have no rights at all.
slimjim wrote:
Alright this is fucking ridiculous. The original intent of the thread was to post an article giving details of the overthrow. Unfortunately a lot of you took it as an attack on the poor, abused white man who has spent all of his years being oppressed. I’m fucking white you dicks![/quote]
I don’t care if you’re plaid, the logic for race-based reparations paid by later generations to later generations cuts against a key concept upon which our entire system is based: namely, that only those actually at fault for a particular incident are punished for it under the law.
And that’s aside from all the problems of actually administering such a system.
[quote]slimjim wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
I think they should just kill all non-native Hawaiians.
I mean really, the white man is just an invader. He should have no rights at all.
Alright this is fucking ridiculous. The original intent of the thread was to post an article giving details of the overthrow. Unfortunately a lot of you took it as an attack on the poor, abused white man who has spent all of his years being oppressed. I’m fucking white you dicks![/quote]
Of course it is ridiculous.
It is also ridiculous to strip rights from people andgive specialo rights to others based on ethnic heritage.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
slimjim wrote:
Yes, that’s precisely the claim. And the key is because the alleged cure is based on the idea that native Hawaiians are a separate and unique racial group. If they aren’t, because of excessive intermingling, then the whole thing becomes very murky both in terms of its standards of application and its reparations logic (to the extent one believes in reparations logic anyway).[/quote]
So I guess the statute of limitations have run on the the Hawaiian’s getting a part of their country back.
It implies that somehow Hawaiians have received special treatment, when what they are seeking[their own country] isn’t even close to happening.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
slimjim wrote:
Alright this is fucking ridiculous. The original intent of the thread was to post an article giving details of the overthrow. Unfortunately a lot of you took it as an attack on the poor, abused white man who has spent all of his years being oppressed. I’m fucking white you dicks!
I don’t care if you’re plaid, the logic for race-based reparations paid by later generations to later generations cuts against a key concept upon which our entire system is based: namely, that only those actually at fault for a particular incident are punished for it under the law.
And that’s aside from all the problems of actually administering such a system.
[/quote]
So later generations can reap the benefits of their forefathers who in effect stole the land that is now making them millions, but cannot be held accountable. As a country inheritance and nepotism are near and dear to us, but the Hawaiians whose land was stolen never had the chance for that and this exchange happened just over a hundred years ago.
Are you defending Zap’s response? I’m not the one who made race an issue here, and I realize it was sarcasm, but I did not imply in any way that the “evil white invader” should be punished.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
slimjim wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
I think they should just kill all non-native Hawaiians.
I mean really, the white man is just an invader. He should have no rights at all.
Alright this is fucking ridiculous. The original intent of the thread was to post an article giving details of the overthrow. Unfortunately a lot of you took it as an attack on the poor, abused white man who has spent all of his years being oppressed. I’m fucking white you dicks!
Of course it is ridiculous.
It is also ridiculous to strip rights from people andgive specialo rights to others based on ethnic heritage.
[/quote]
No, it’s not about stripping rights and giving special rights to others, it’s about reinstating some form of the Hawaiian government that was wrongfully ousted. I’m not clear why it keeps coming back to violating others rights, when clearly the Hawaiian’s right to have their own government was violated by those that instituted the overthrow. Many of the corporations founded then are still here and benefitting from the overthrow due to lands acquired during that time. I don’t think it’s too much to ask of the decendants to give back lands that were effectively taken at gunpoint. Feel free to disagree.
It’s getting easy for you guys to say that no one should be held accountable for the actions of their forefathers. We can, however, right the wrongs done. Of course you don’t have to agree, or even do anything…but that is my opinion on the matter.
[quote]slimjim wrote:
So later generations can reap the benefits of their forefathers who in effect stole the land that is now making them millions, but cannot be held accountable. As a country inheritance and nepotism are near and dear to us, but the Hawaiians whose land was stolen never had the chance for that and this exchange happened just over a hundred years ago.
Are you defending Zap’s response? I’m not the one who made race an issue here, and I realize it was sarcasm, but I did not imply in any way that the “evil white invader” should be punished.[/quote]
It’s far too difficult to prove cause and effect in such cases. I cannot even begin to comprehend how speculative such an endeavor would be, especially when it comes down to assigning a present value to property that has been so changed over a century (and that’s just land). For example: Do you assume the value of improvements should be added or subtracted? How about the value from having U.S. currency and access to U.S. markets for 100 years?
And this does not even get in to just how you go about figuring who actually benefited versus who actually was hurt. Just as a hypothetical example, what about a guy who is 4th generation, half white half native Hawaiian – half the guy’s native Hawaiian family were (whatever the term is for people who were plebians in that society) and criminals in 1898, and half were from the upper eschelon of native Hawaiian society. Of his white half, half was from some family of sugar barons who benefited greatly, while the other half was dirt-poor Holocost refugees who migrated to the U.S. after WWII.
Or the much simpler example of why anyone who is a refugee from Viet Nam who lives in Hawaii now should find himself discriminated against based on some racially based reparations system to help full and partial descendants of people he never harmed.
These reasons, among many others and aside from the general Constitutional provisions, are why we shouldn’t effectuate such generation-skipping and fault-ignoring reparation programs.
[quote]slimjim wrote:
It’s getting easy for you guys to say that no one should be held accountable for the actions of their forefathers. We can, however, right the wrongs done. Of course you don’t have to agree, or even do anything…but that is my opinion on the matter. [/quote]
That’s just utter reparationist bullshit.
They are not entitled to a thing. And in my book. the ones crying the loudest for this are the ones with their hands stuck out the furthest for a free handout.
Someday when you are older, and wiser, maybe you will understand the stupidity of this idea.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
slimjim wrote:
It’s getting easy for you guys to say that no one should be held accountable for the actions of their forefathers. We can, however, right the wrongs done. Of course you don’t have to agree, or even do anything…but that is my opinion on the matter.
That’s just utter reparationist bullshit.
They are not entitled to a thing. And in my book. the ones crying the loudest for this are the ones with their hands stuck out the furthest for a free handout.
Someday when you are older, and wiser, maybe you will understand the stupidity of this idea.[/quote]
I sure fucking hope not.
I just realized that this whole thing would screw Dawg The Bounty Hunter.
Therefore, it is wrong.
Slimjim,
You seem to want to give land back to indigenous folks whose land was ‘wrongfully taken.’
A question: who else should we give land back to? And what happened when we find out that the people who - in your view - rightfully owned the land actually took it from someone else?
Being selective in your imperial history will get you in trouble.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Slimjim,
You seem to want to give land back to indigenous folks whose land was ‘wrongfully taken.’
A question: who else should we give land back to? And what happened when we find out that the people who - in your view - rightfully owned the land actually took it from someone else?
Being selective in your imperial history will get you in trouble.[/quote]
That point was already brought up, thunder. He has yet to address it. Probably because it kinda gets in the way of his ‘feel good’ punitive politics.
The Hawaiian monarchy owned all the land, and Hawaiians were no strangers to war and violence long before the coming of Europeans. Executions entailed being clubbed to death, and the club was the punishment for other crimes as well. Merely being so unlucky as to have the King’s shadow fall upon one of his subjects was taken as an enormous insult to the king, and was punishable by death. Again, by clubbing.
Hawaiian-only schools in the present day are supported by taxpayer dollars and extremely well funded by taxpayers of other races who cannot attend them. Much more per student is expended than in any public schools in the rest of the islands in this surprisingly populous state. (Honolulu is one of the most populous American cities.)
Taking the islands was an exploitive scam, but Hawaiians now are better off than they were.
Further, racism is tremendously popular and completely open among the native populace. It’s never far from the surface when it isn’t outright in your face. I went to high school and college there and lived through plenty of it. This is quite common in islander populations toward other races and ethnicities, so Hawaii is unfortunately not exceptional that way, but, well, there it is, and it’s not cute. The threat of violence from locals was real and constant. Large areas were so violent to outsiders that they were virtually off-limits, attacks on outsiders most everywhere were common and vicious, and the corrupt local police were not a solution, but were an important component in making possible the problem.
Honestly, the resentment and racism of the local population was tiresome, cruel, foolish, and wasteful. Whatever happened in the past to the Hawaiians, doing as little as possible with it and behaving as poorly as possible about it even into the present day is endemic in those lands to this day.
More social and political indulgence and favortism in the face of inexhaustible petulance and racism is not something that would do Hawaii or its native peoples any good; it’s already ruined a lot of what Hawaii has going for it.
But at least now, the government doesn’t club people to death for disagreeing.
[quote]It’s far too difficult to prove cause and effect in such cases. I cannot even begin to comprehend how speculative such an endeavor would be, especially when it comes down to assigning a present value to property that has been so changed over a century (and that’s just land). For example: Do you assume the value of improvements should be added or subtracted? How about the value from having U.S. currency and access to U.S. markets for 100 years?
And this does not even get in to just how you go about figuring who actually benefited versus who actually was hurt. Just as a hypothetical example, what about a guy who is 4th generation, half white half native Hawaiian – half the guy’s native Hawaiian family were (whatever the term is for people who were plebians in that society) and criminals in 1898, and half were from the upper eschelon of native Hawaiian society. Of his white half, half was from some family of sugar barons who benefited greatly, while the other half was dirt-poor Holocost refugees who migrated to the U.S. after WWII.
Or the much simpler example of why anyone who is a refugee from Viet Nam who lives in Hawaii now should find himself discriminated against based on some racially based reparations system to help full and partial descendants of people he never harmed.
These reasons, among many others and aside from the general Constitutional provisions, are why we shouldn’t effectuate such generation-skipping and fault-ignoring reparation programs.[/quote]
Some very good points here. Especially the second to last paragraph. I can relate it to my background as what I hope is an interesting example.
I, as a white guy, have gotten verbal crap and hostile stares and bad attitudes from American blacks related to American’s historical bad treatment and slavery of Africans.
I’m German.
Now, blaming me for whatever Americans did to blacks over a hundred years ago is pretty ridiculous. That would be like blaming the Chinese for the Holocaust in World War II – you just picked the wrong guy, sorry.
Here’s more: I was born in 1961 and never even lived in the continental U.S. until the early 80’s. If anyone could possibly have had nothing to do with American slavery, I’d say I qualify pretty clearly. I don’t want to hear about the guilt I’m supposed to have. I wasn’t involved. I’m not saying I’m not sympathetic. I’m just saying it’s assinine to judge me and blame me on sight.
And another twist on it that’s more parallel to white Americans of the present day and slavery: My mom was a baby in WWII. I wasn’t born until a decade and a half after. No, I don’t feel guilt about the Holocaust. I WASN’T EVEN BORN YET. Talk to the people who were there and had some responsibility if you want to keep on about the such things. I’m not ready to accept guilt or a brow-beating for things that had nothing to do with me.
Here’s another: people are individuals, not monolithic. There is no such thing as group guilt or obligations handed down through the generations among a race or ethnic group. We don’t inherit them along with our genes. And frankly, nobody wants to hear about it. Especially in America, a land of immigrants, where NO skin color necessarily means anything about your culture or background at all.
[quote]slimjim wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
slimjim wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
I think they should just kill all non-native Hawaiians.
I mean really, the white man is just an invader. He should have no rights at all.
Alright this is fucking ridiculous. The original intent of the thread was to post an article giving details of the overthrow. Unfortunately a lot of you took it as an attack on the poor, abused white man who has spent all of his years being oppressed. I’m fucking white you dicks!
Of course it is ridiculous.
It is also ridiculous to strip rights from people and give special rights to others based on ethnic heritage.
No, it’s not about stripping rights and giving special rights to others, it’s about reinstating some form of the Hawaiian government that was wrongfully ousted. I’m not clear why it keeps coming back to violating others rights, when clearly the Hawaiian’s right to have their own government was violated by those that instituted the overthrow. Many of the corporations founded then are still here and benefitting from the overthrow due to lands acquired during that time. I don’t think it’s too much to ask of the decendants to give back lands that were effectively taken at gunpoint. Feel free to disagree.
It’s getting easy for you guys to say that no one should be held accountable for the actions of their forefathers. We can, however, right the wrongs done. Of course you don’t have to agree, or even do anything…but that is my opinion on the matter. [/quote]
Changing the form of government to exclude non-Hawaiians is indeed discrimination. How you can think otherwise is beyond me.
[quote]Kablooey wrote:
The Hawaiian monarchy owned all the land, and Hawaiians were no strangers to war and violence long before the coming of Europeans. Executions entailed being clubbed to death, and the club was the punishment for other crimes as well. Merely being so unlucky as to have the King’s shadow fall upon one of his subjects was taken as an enormous insult to the king, and was punishable by death. Again, by clubbing.
[/quote]
How many societies in the world were not strangers to violence? The Hawaiian culture was no different, but they had changed overtime, and by now they probably would have had a democracy.[quote]
Hawaiian-only schools in the present day are supported by taxpayer dollars and extremely well funded by taxpayers of other races who cannot attend them. Much more per student is expended than in any public schools in the rest of the islands in this surprisingly populous state. (Honolulu is one of the most populous American cities.)
[/quote]
BULLSHIT BULLSHIT BULLSHIT. Taxpayer dollars do not go to the funding of Kamehameha schools. They don’t even enjoy the tax-exempt status of nonprofit organizations. Everything is funded by Bishop Estate who makes their money thru business holdings. Also, as a state, Hawaii routinely rounds out the bottom of the pack in public education.
[quote]
Taking the islands was an exploitive scam, but Hawaiians now are better off than they were.
[/quote] Says you, I’m sure they’re so thankful for your running water and electricity masta. Even though there was electricity in the islands a full fifteen years before the white house had it, and where the fishing was once plentiful it is no longer. Where there were once farm plots and fish ponds there is now concrete and skyrises. Honolulu is terribly overcrowded and this is spreading to the outer islands as well. They’re unsure how long the water tables for Maui and the island of Hawaii will be able to sustain the populations. Better off? The cost of living is so high now, that there are more Hawaiians living out of the state than in it.
[quote]
Further, racism is tremendously popular and completely open among the native populace. It’s never far from the surface when it isn’t outright in your face. I went to high school and college there and lived through plenty of it. This is quite common in islander populations toward other races and ethnicities, so Hawaii is unfortunately not exceptional that way, but, well, there it is, and it’s not cute. The threat of violence from locals was real and constant. Large areas were so violent to outsiders that they were virtually off-limits, attacks on outsiders most everywhere were common and vicious, and the corrupt local police were not a solution, but were an important component in making possible the problem.
Honestly, the resentment and racism of the local population was tiresome, cruel, foolish, and wasteful. Whatever happened in the past to the Hawaiians, doing as little as possible with it and behaving as poorly as possible about it even into the present day is endemic in those lands to this day.
More social and political indulgence and favortism in the face of inexhaustible petulance and racism is not something that would do Hawaii or its native peoples any good; it’s already ruined a lot of what Hawaii has going for it.
But at least now, the government doesn’t club people to death for disagreeing.[/quote]
I don’t know why you use this to back up your statements. Many cultures had cruel/ridiculous laws that were repealed over time, Hawaiians abolished the “kapu” system(the laws I’m assuming you were referring to, also the part about being killed if you got into the king’s shadow was gone over a hundred years prior to that) 50 years before the overthrow occured.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
Slimjim,
You seem to want to give land back to indigenous folks whose land was ‘wrongfully taken.’
A question: who else should we give land back to? And what happened when we find out that the people who - in your view - rightfully owned the land actually took it from someone else?
Being selective in your imperial history will get you in trouble.
That point was already brought up, thunder. He has yet to address it. Probably because it kinda gets in the way of his ‘feel good’ punitive politics.[/quote]
This case is fairly clear in who the land was taken from, and who took it.