Quantcast
  

Saturday, April 19, 2014         

ELECTIONS 2012


 Print   Email   Comment | View 67 Comments   Most Popular   Save   Post   Retweet

Leading Senate candidates commit to Akaka Bill

Case, Hirono and Lingle pledge to pursue federal recognition for Hawaiians

By Derrick DePledge

POSTED:


U.S. Sen. Daniel Akaka may not achieve federal recognition for Native Hawaiians before he retires next year, leaving his successor to inherit a cause that has been frustrated in the Senate for more than a decade.

Akaka and U.S. Sen. Daniel Ino­uye will make a last run at federal recognition — which would treat Hawaiians as indigenous people with the right to self-government — before Akaka's term expires in January.

The Hawaii Democrats will likely look to attach language to a federal spending bill, which would sidestep a stand-alone vote in the Senate, a tactic that failed last year and may have even poorer odds in an election year when political control of the Senate is in the balance.

U.S. Rep. Mazie Hirono and former congressman Ed Case, the Democratic candidates in the primary to replace Akaka, are committed to federal recognition for Native Hawaiians. Former Gov. Linda Lingle, the leading Republican contender, said federal recognition is consistent with the nation's "core values of justice and fairness." But John Carroll, a former state lawmaker and attorney challenging Lingle in the GOP primary, contends it is race-based discrimination.

Federal recognition for Hawaiians, known as the Akaka Bill, has been the dominant public-policy goal for Hawaii in Congress since Akaka introduced the legislation in 2000 to help protect Hawaiian-only programs from legal challenges. Versions of the Akaka Bill have passed the House three times but the legislation has never had an up-or-down vote in the Senate because of Republican opposition.

The strategy behind the Akaka Bill has been in transition as the 87-year-old senator, the first with Hawaiian ancestry, prepares to leave office. Gov. Neil Abercrombie signed a state bill into law last year that recognized Hawaiians as an indigenous people and created a process for establishing a roll of Hawaiians eligible to participate in a new government that could oversee land use and cultural issues. The federal government could recognize the Hawaiians eventually identified through the state law.

"The goal is very clear to me," Hirono said by telephone from Washington, D.C. "And that goal is to attain federal recognition for Native Hawaiians as a native, sovereign people with the right to self-governance.

"And this is how we treat Alaska Natives and American Indians."

Hirono said she would be creative as a senator and would work with the Native Hawaiian community and the delegation on a strategy. The congresswoman said she is not discouraged that the Akaka Bill has failed to pass for more than a decade. "There are a lot of public-policy changes that didn't happen overnight," she said.

Hirono said she does not believe additional public hearings or some type of vote on federal recognition is needed in Hawaii, as some of the bill's supporters and critics have suggested.

"There have been a lot of expressions of support for this goal," she said, the last being the state law approved overwhelmingly by the Legislature.

Case, who unsuccessfully challenged Akaka in the primary in 2006, said Native Hawaiians are entitled to the same rights and benefits as other indigenous people. He said he would pursue a three-track strategy: federal recognition from Congress, executive branch action through the White House, and assisting the state's effort to establish a roll of Hawaiians.

"I would pursue it as U.S. senator, both because I believe it's the right thing for Native Hawaiians and Hawaii, and because I would view it as a personal obligation to Senator Akaka to carry forward his effort," he said.

Case, like Lingle, broke with Akaka and the delegation over a version of the bill at a critical moment in 2010 when Democrats held majorities in Congress and Hawaii-born President Barack Obama had pledged to sign it into law. Akaka later agreed to amend the bill to win back Lingle's support, but the bill still stalled in the Senate.

Case stated his position while running for the U.S. House seat eventually won by Colleen Hanabusa. He and Lingle had objected to the version because Hawaiians would have had the inherent power to govern prior to — not after — negotiations with the state and federal governments.

Case wants a new round of discussions on federal recognition in Hawaii. Akaka led often acrimonious hearings in Hawaii in 2000 that were interrupted by protests from Hawaiian sovereignty activists who see federal recognition as a threat to Hawaii ever regaining independence from the United States.

"I believe that great decisions need to be considered publicly. They need to be discussed, and it's been a long time since we've had that discussion in Hawaii," Case said. "I don't believe that anybody should want to oppose that discussion. Yes, it's going to be a difficult discussion. But that's OK. We still need to have it."

Lingle has supported the Akaka Bill despite opposition from within her party. But she was unable as governor to get Senate Republicans to relax procedural roadblocks or persuade the U.S. Department of Justice under President George W. Bush to remain neutral.

Lingle said the next senator should work quickly with the delegation — and Akaka — to examine the reasons why federal recognition has not become law.

"We know already from history that it is not enough for Hawaii's congressional delegation alone to support the Akaka Bill. Its passage will require bipartisan support from a majority of members of both houses of Congress," she said.

"No version of the Akaka Bill has ever passed both houses of Congress and made it to the desk of any president. This is true even though the Akaka Bill has been under consideration during times when Demo­crats controlled both houses of Congress, Republicans controlled both houses of Congress, and control was divided.

"I believe this was due in part because many members of Congress as well as the broader public did not understand the history of Hawaii and its people, and did not understand the content of the legislation itself. It is clear that Hawaii's next U.S. senator will need to spend time talking with their fellow senators as well as the public about Native Hawaiian federal recognition — both what it means and what it doesn't mean."

Carroll, a conservative Republican, described Akaka as "one of the finest persons I have ever known." But he said the Akaka Bill would divide Hawaii into two sovereign entities.

"Citizenship will be based strictly on proving possession of a single drop of Hawaiian blood," he said. "Such a sovereign entity, as is the case with the current tribal designations, would therefore, like Islamic law, not be subject to criticism, or accountable to any law other than group interest."






 Print   Email   Comment | View 67 Comments   Most Popular   Save   Post   Retweet

COMMENTS
(67)
You must be subscribed to participate in discussions
By participating in online discussions you acknowledge that you have agreed to the TERMS OF SERVICE. An insightful discussion of ideas and viewpoints is encouraged, but comments must be civil and in good taste, with no personal attacks. Because only subscribers are allowed to comment, we have your personal information and are able to contact you. If your comments are inappropriate, you may receive a warning, and if you persist with such comments you may be banned from posting. To report comments that you believe do not follow our guidelines, email commentfeedback@staradvertiser.com.
Leave a comment

Please login to leave a comment.
MalamaKaAina wrote:
“God hath made of one blood all nations of men to dwell on the earth in unity.”
on May 20,2012 | 02:18AM
what wrote:
I think I am 1/100th Hawaiian. Where do I sign up for the free stuff?
on May 20,2012 | 03:23AM
DiverDave wrote:
This comment has been deleted.
on May 20,2012 | 03:54AM
false wrote:
You don't get it. There is no free stuff. Just organizations that funnel dollars to programs for the selected few just like the other guys do. Wake up. Hawaiians are just looking for relief from being over thrown and exponentially second class in our homeland. Go home if you don't get it. If don't get it, you don't come from here.
on May 20,2012 | 06:44AM
holokanaka wrote:
Ditto!!
on May 20,2012 | 07:47AM
DiverDave wrote:
This comment has been deleted.
on May 20,2012 | 10:52AM
holokanaka wrote:
Diver Dave is your letter some how legally justifying the illegal stealing of the Hawaiian Kingdom?
on May 20,2012 | 12:40PM
what wrote:
No, he appears to be morally justifying the overthrow, saying that Hawaiians were no longer the majority representation of the population at the time.
on May 20,2012 | 01:02PM
Ronin006 wrote:
holokanaka, Kamehameha I from Hawaii stole land from the people of Kauai, Maui, Oahu, Molokai, Lanai and Niihau and subjugated their people to form his kingdom. How to you justify that?
on May 20,2012 | 02:02PM
Ronin006 wrote:
Wake up, false. Who overthrew who? Why is the focus always on the so called overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii in 1893, a kingdom that had been in existence for only 83 years? Why do we not hear complaints from locals whose ancestors were natives of Kauai, Maui, Oahu, Molokai, Lanai and Niihau that, like Hawaii, were independent chiefdoms for hundreds of years before being overthrown by Kamehameha? Oh, wait. That was Polynesians overthrowing other Polynesians. I suppose it is an overthrow when done by haoles only.
on May 20,2012 | 01:56PM
NanakuliBoss wrote:
So much haters. This story is about the Akaka bill and the support from both sides of the aisles. This is not about the overthrow. That's a done deal. The Apology Bill prove the wrong. Right now it's about the Kamaka Maoli.
on May 20,2012 | 03:40PM
holokanaka wrote:
Maybe not hate but arrogance. I know Hawaiian history because I read something somewhere.
on May 20,2012 | 08:48PM
holokanaka wrote:
Ronin I cannot justify Kamehameha 1 for his actions no more than you can justify the crusades,aparthied, slaughtering of indians in the united states, slaughtering of the original peoples of south america, atrocities in the Philipines by america, etc. So I ask you Ronin how do you justify the stealing of a world recognized neutral sovereign nation which was the first non ha*li/non european nation to be accepted into the family of nations by france, england, united states in the 1840's with treaties with 20 countries throughout europe, the united states, and Japan and with about 4 or 5 treaties with the united states one of which was a treaty of friendship(amity).
on May 20,2012 | 06:59PM
Ronin006 wrote:
The world adjusts to changing situations. New nations are recognized as they are formed and new nations are recognized as nations disintegrate, like the former Soviet Union did. When these events occur, people accept the new reality and move on. It is time for Native Hawaiians to accept reality and move on.
on May 20,2012 | 07:32PM
lee1957 wrote:
What a bunch of hokum. By the way, I post this from home.
on May 20,2012 | 03:48PM
holokanaka wrote:
Roonin 006, has the middle east adjusted to the crusades, the indians to having their lands stolen, the blacks to their ancesters being brought to america chained together in the holds of ships like animals and sold as slaves, voluntarily accepted this or were they FORCED to accept this. It is easy for you to say what you say since you are probably not one of these people but a beneficiary of the so called "changing situation".
on May 20,2012 | 09:45PM
Ronin006 wrote:
Looking back at the terrible things that occurred a hundred or more years ago and venting now about it serves no useful purpose. Time to move on.
on May 20,2012 | 10:43PM
fbiguy wrote:
Thank goodness the overthrow was by America, or we would all be speaking Russian right now. Don't think you would like to be under the thumb of Putin and his ilk. Be thankful for what you have and stop thinking you would have this wonderful little paradise unfettered by external influence.
on May 20,2012 | 07:53AM
what wrote:
Just to be clear, the overthrow was not by America. The overthrow of the Kingdom was lead by local Hawaii business and political leaders.
on May 20,2012 | 01:04PM
kuewa wrote:
With the support of the then-President of the US and some key members of Congress.
on May 20,2012 | 01:28PM
what wrote:
The overthrow was an act of local Hawaii leaders, it was not an act of the US Government. The local Hawaii leaders conspired acted to overthrow the Kingdom. The Germans supported Japan in WW2, does that mean the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? (Belushi aside)
on May 20,2012 | 01:39PM
holokanaka wrote:
The illegal overthrow was by a small group of ha*li mostly american bussinesmen in conspiracy with the then representive of the united states "stevens"and the us navy.
on May 20,2012 | 02:21PM
Notawannabe wrote:
Hawaiian only school...created by the Will of a Hawaiian chiefess; DHHL...created by the US congress; OHA...created by Hawaii State constitutional amendment; Kapiolani and Queen's hospitals...created by Hawaiian ali'i. If you don't like it DiverDave...go back where you came from.
on May 20,2012 | 09:35AM
holokanaka wrote:
Spoken like a true beneficiary of the wrongs comitted in these islands.
on May 20,2012 | 10:52AM
Notawannabe wrote:
I'm 75% Hawaiian and I've never gotten any of this "free stuff" that some always mention.
on May 20,2012 | 09:32AM
waikiicapt wrote:
When both houses of congress were "owned" by liberal democrats and you had the anointed one in the white house, they still couldn't pass this bill. Forget the reasoning or justification or whether you are for or against the bill. Pure politics; it's a monumental waste of time and energy and effort and distracts from more important things that would "really" benefit Hawaiians. Like improving the economy, making jobs, getting a paycheck, and taking care of yourself instead of waiting for the government to do it for you. As a Hawaiian, I gave up on Akaka's futile effort a long time ago. Nothing serves politicians better, than a whole race of people (That's you bruddah) that truly believe we will never be anything without the government's help. I teach me kids to NOT believe that shibai and to stand proud and take care of themselves and not spend a lifetime looking for a handout or restitution for something wrong that happened generations ago. It's over. Get over it. Make your life better without these people who spend their lives trying to make you feel like nothing, in an effort to enrich their lives over yours. The truth hurts.
on May 20,2012 | 10:36AM
frontman wrote:
Of course they will say they support a bad bill..they want the democrat vote in Hawaii.
on May 20,2012 | 11:20PM
Oakie wrote:
This legislation is very disvisive and partisan.
on May 20,2012 | 03:15AM
ShibaiDakine wrote:
“…Lingle said the next senator should work quickly with the delegation — and Akaka — to examine the reasons why federal recognition has not become law.” -→ It would be to the benefit of all concerned if she had a sudden, intuitive perception of or insight into the reality or essential meaning of the Akaka Bill. By doing so, she could distinguish herself from the two democrats. She could initiate this perception by some simple, homely, or commonplace occurrence or experience like reading the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. This would give the voters a real choice in the forthcoming election.
on May 20,2012 | 04:16AM
false wrote:
Chuckle.
on May 20,2012 | 08:00AM
Kawipoo wrote:
Forget the Akaka bill. There are many more items on the congress backlog such as balancing the budget.
on May 20,2012 | 05:22AM
Ioela wrote:
The Akaka bill is a failure...time to scrap it and try a new bill if anything at all. This is a divisive bad piece of legislation....I pray it fails again.
on May 20,2012 | 05:28AM
Ken_Conklin wrote:
Although I’m politically conservative, I’m hoping people will vote Democrat in November against both Lingle and Djou. The reason is the Akaka bill. I believe the Akaka bill would be such a disaster for Hawaii that opposing it is more important than all other issues combined. Read my book in the library: “Hawaiian Apartheid: Racial Separatism and Ethnic Nationalism in the Aloha State” or read parts of it for free on the internet at http://tinyurl.com/2a9fqa All the Dem and all the Repub candidates for U.S. House and Senate, except John Carroll, favor the Akaka bill. So why vote Dem? Because the only reason the Akaka bill has not been passed is because for 12 years Republicans have blocked it. Lingle and Djou have repeatedly said that as Republicans they will be able to persuade their fellow Republicans to stop blocking it. I believe they’re correct about that. Therefore I urge all who oppose the Akaka bill to vote for the Dem nominee for U.S. Senate and House in November. Because the Republicans in Congress will never pay attention to what any Democrat from Hawaii tells them about the Akaka bill. Especially a far-left Democrat like crazy Mazie will be ignored. It’s important for Hawaii Republicans to punish Lingle and Djou this fall for supporting the Akaka bill, so that in future years the Republicans might actually nominate real Republicans instead of a mealy-mouth “bipartisan” Democrat-lite RINO. Republicans need to do in Hawaii what they did a few days ago in Indiana, and get rid of the RINO to make way for a genuine conservative.
on May 20,2012 | 05:32AM
ShibaiDakine wrote:
I would add just one thing to your well articulated analysis. The Akaka Bill would also be a disaster for the entire country as it would set a precedent for all other racial groups to seek autonomy and self determination therein leading to a country of divided races and territories.  
on May 20,2012 | 07:15AM
Changalang wrote:
A blue dog Democrat is the best any Conservative voter from Hawaii could ever hope for, realistically.
on May 20,2012 | 03:43PM
NanakuliBoss wrote:
Oh,Coach K.Conklin,we calling the "double reverse" this time. If your a conservative, but want to vote Democrat because they got no bite in House? This way the Akaka bill fails? Ah....nice try.
on May 20,2012 | 04:02PM
bender wrote:
All those candidates who said they will pursue passage of the Akaka Bill are only demonstrating that politicians will say anything to get elected.
on May 20,2012 | 05:48AM
bender wrote:
Let this bill die already, it hasn't been able to pass on it's own merits in over a decade, demonstrating that it is a faulty bill. Instead I'd like to hear which of the candidates will work to repeal the Jones Act.
on May 20,2012 | 05:49AM
allie wrote:
This comment has been deleted.
on May 20,2012 | 08:01AM
cojef wrote:
Never happens so long as the Unions have say in it. The Jones Act is against free trade, and was enacted to protect the shipping industry way bacb when, I do not like to recall, that's how far back.
on May 20,2012 | 09:20AM
NanakuliBoss wrote:
It's wasn't passed because of fault merits, it didn't pass because of faulty politics.
on May 20,2012 | 04:04PM
NanakuliBoss wrote:
Let's hear what they have to say about rail! I mean we want it,it's the future,we will all benefit! What does Mazie have to say about her ex running mate Ben Cayetano. I mean this guy is over the hill but still thinks he can run government. The democratic party, his former backers see this as an embarrassment! What allie, true or false? Is this bad?
on May 20,2012 | 04:19PM
Kalaheo1 wrote:
C'mon dude. You want to push for rail and trash-talk Ben Cayetano in this thread?! Give it a rest.
on May 20,2012 | 10:55PM
false wrote:
Seems to me that what it says is that some, maybe most voters will believe anything.
on May 20,2012 | 08:07AM
Keith_Rollman wrote:
John Carroll's complete statement on the Akaka Bill to the Star Advertiser: If the Akaka Bill should become law, Hawaii will be divided into two sovereign entities. Citizenship will be based strictly on proving possession of a single drop of Hawaiian blood. Such a sovereign entity, as is the case with the current tribal designations, would therefore, like Islamic law, not be subject to criticism, or accountable to any law other than group interest. Said tribe would be empowered to rule according to whatever laws this separate sovereign government saw fit to enact. Senator Akaka is one of the finest persons I have ever known. His intentions, as well as those of most proponents of the Bill, are worthy and humane. Nonetheless, any attempt to create a race-based, sovereign nation within the eleven thousand square miles of these islands, quite frankly, will inevitably be dystopian. It defies logic! It is alarming that Republican leadership in this State has not been able realistically to assess the damage to individuals and society at large that this Bill would wreak should it ever become law. If elected to the US Senate, I intend to assure that the portions the Akaka Bill, seeking tribal recognition and sovereignty, will be amended into oblivion. Because of my respect for Dan and Abraham Akaka, I intend to amend that same Bill (continuing to call it the Akaka Bill), with the following general provisions: All current Hawaiian Homestead Lease holders will receive fee simple ownership of the currently held lease. Each qualified person of Fifty Percent Hawaiian Blood Quantum shall be awarded an Hawaiian Homestead parcel in fee. (If land such is that held by the US Government alongside the Waianae Mountain Range and that land is not necessary to National Security interests, that land may be utilized to fulfill this purpose.) The ultimate purpose of this Bill is to insure that all qualified Native Hawaiians shall receive a homestead parcel for their and their families use. If a Homesteader decides to sell that land there will be a covenant that requires that it be sold to a person who has some quantum of Hawaiian Blood.
on May 20,2012 | 08:33AM
Maneki_Neko wrote:
Carroll is politically irrelevant. A familiar position, no doubt.
on May 20,2012 | 09:10AM
NanakuliBoss wrote:
Another distortion is Ben running for mayor. All on the promise of NO. When he was governor, it was a mess. When he left ,it was a mess. So allie, what does it sound with Ben running on NO?
on May 20,2012 | 04:08PM
jkjones wrote:
Lol. Mazie will say anything to win an election.
on May 20,2012 | 09:24AM
tim5fl wrote:
Those three are just pandering for votes.Carroll is correct,tha Akaka bill is just race based.Besides, the Hawaiians arn'i indigenous they too came from someplace else like everyone else.
on May 20,2012 | 10:10AM
holokanaka wrote:
And was a sovereign neutral nation recognized through out the world as such. So tell me how did this nation (Kingdom of Hawaii) legally became property of the united states.
on May 20,2012 | 11:35AM
what wrote:
The Kingdom of Hawaii was not overthrown by the United States. It was overthrown by Honolulu business men.
on May 20,2012 | 12:00PM
holokanaka wrote:
You need to do more research and not just read ken conklin. I would suggest some books: 1. Nation Within by Tom Coffman 2. Aloha Betrayed by Noenoe Silva 3. Hawaiian Blood by Kehaulani Kauanui 4. Honor Killing by David Stannard Also on the internet-Hawaiian Kingdom Government and Hawaiian Kingdom Independance.
on May 20,2012 | 12:31PM
what wrote:
You need to stop interpreting history the way you want. The Kingdom of Hawaii was overthrown by "The Committee of Safety", lead by Hawaii business mean and politicians.
on May 20,2012 | 12:57PM
holokanaka wrote:
I do not interpret history the way I want. I read books written by authors who do a lot of research and use a lot of source documents. If anyone can deny what the books I recommended above are not a true and accurate picture the of legal history of these islands than show me. I do not get my history from the uninformed bloggers here as it seems a lot of people do. But then I guess it is too much effort and/or work to do your own research and maybe not as much fun/entertainment as just blogging as if you know what you are talking. I am now waiting for some smart a*s reply to this letter as I am sure I will get.
on May 20,2012 | 02:10PM
what wrote:
You did not deny that the Kingdom of Hawaii was overthrown by The Committee of Safety. You did not deny that the overthrow was lead by Honolulu business leaders and politicians. All you do is tell me to do more research when I am present FACTS that you do not dispute.
on May 20,2012 | 02:17PM
Changalang wrote:
The Honolulu Rifles were the real muscle prompting Queen Dominis's surrender. They were about 2,000 strong and became the Hawaii National Guard. She saved a lot of lives, but did abdicate the throne; thus rendering the Monarchy void. The Great One would have never lost control of the Kingdom. Too bad he was followed by sell outs. The Great One watched Captain Cook killed on the beach as War Chief and did nothing to intervene. Ships just sailed by for years after.
on May 20,2012 | 03:51PM
Changalang wrote:
" The Honolulu Rifle Company (also known as the Honolulu Rifles or more plainly the Rifles) was a paramilitary force loyal to the Missionary Party and the later Reform Party. It was created in 1854 as a militia to deal with internal conflict, 24 Rifles were deployed during the 1873 Barracks Revolt. In 1887 they secretly allied with the Missionary Party and was the armed force in the 1887 Rebellion that made King David Kalākaua of Hawaii sign the Bayonet Constitution at gun point (with fixed bayonets, hence the name of the constitution). The following elections brought the missionary party to power and the Rifles filled the role of protecting the legislature. They defended the constitution in the Wilcox rebellion and were the mainforce in the Overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom. After the overthrow, on January 27, 1893 the Provisional Government created a military. The Honolulu Rifles became the army’s D Company under commanded by Captain John Good and the national guard’s B Company commanded by Captain Hugh Gunn. The two companies were active under the Provisional Government of Hawaii and the Republic of Hawaii. After Hawaii was annexed becoming the Territory of Hawaii in 1898 the Rifles entered the Army National Guard system and became part of the present Hawaii Army National Guard. " (Wikipedia) . . . . Educate yourself.
on May 20,2012 | 08:38PM
allie wrote:
This comment has been deleted.
on May 20,2012 | 01:00PM
holokanaka wrote:
So allie you have read all those books?
on May 20,2012 | 02:16PM
tim5fl wrote:
I think your sources fall under the category of "feel good History" , not necessarily the truth.
on May 20,2012 | 07:10PM
allie wrote:
This comment has been deleted.
on May 20,2012 | 01:00PM
holokanaka wrote:
If allie,what, and changalang are so sure of their knowledge of the true history in these islands I know of some united states attorneys in a washington dc court who could use your expert advise. If you do not know the case it is Sai V Hillary-case #10-0899. I have read all the filings in that proceeding but do nol remember reading any of your arguments-the Kingdom was overthrown by Honolulu businessmen, by the committee of safety, by the Honolulu rifles. Furthermore if the united states did not assist in the overthrow of the Kingdom why did the united states admit to it. (1993 Apology Resolution) Out of curiosity allie where did you learn your Hawaiian History. From your post I don't think you learned it in Hawaiian Studies and who was your teacher. Was it ken conklin.
on May 20,2012 | 05:27PM
what wrote:
The Committee of Safety and the Navy landing party were not acting under the order of the United States of America. They were acting under the orders of local Honolulu leaders. The overthrow was not lead by the United States. The Apology of 1993 was a just a fashionable expression of "blame the white man for all the evils of the world because they are strong and powerful", and did not really address specific issues of the overthrow.
on May 20,2012 | 09:10PM
Dan_Douglass wrote:
When is an overthrow ever legal? Kingdoms, nations, and empires rise and fall in influence or existence throughout history. The Kingdom of Hawaii was already in steady decline from previous monarchs and the Queen, not wanting bloodshed, abdicated the her throne and the kingdom. She could have, but did not fight. That's a pretty significant part of the history many try to overlook or dismiss.
on May 24,2012 | 02:11PM
kuewa wrote:
The time and place for Federal recognition of Hawaiian self-governance rights was one hundred years ago. Imposing this type of recognition now would be anachronistic; and comparing this to the Native American treatment is inappropriate. The Native Americans were usually at the raw end of the deal in terms of land rights and payments, and their subsequent self-governance has perpetuated their existence as second-class citizens within a more powerful country, which is now obligated to continue this system. On the other hand, the Hawaiians have benefited from the former royal lands and estates; something which would probably never have been allowed under the Native American-style treaties, and native Hawaiians have always had considerable political and social influence. Our efforts would be much better spent on optimal utilization of the currently dedicated resources rather than aiming for symbolic political gestures.
on May 20,2012 | 01:41PM
MalamaKaAina wrote:
ANYBODY BUT MAZIE AND MUFI
on May 20,2012 | 03:31PM
holokanaka wrote:
Question-why do some post have an opportunity to reply and some don't.
on May 20,2012 | 06:01PM
MalamaKaAina wrote:
is that you mufi
on May 20,2012 | 06:08PM
holokanaka wrote:
Funny.My question was legit. Why can't you reply to some posts,
on May 20,2012 | 09:01PM
Changalang wrote:
My direct family bloodline was one of the few who stood as Royal Guard with the Queen that day. Revisionist history never trumps reality. If you wish to read a relatively accurate account, read The Betrayal of Liliuokalani by Helena G. Allen. Focus on the facts and not on the bias to get an informed account of events from that publication.
on May 20,2012 | 08:36PM
holokanaka wrote:
Thank you Changalang for your above history lesson but what does it have to do with the illegal overthrow of a recognized sovereign government?
on May 20,2012 | 09:54PM
Changalang wrote:
The facts of the surrender by the Queen and the lack of restoration of the crown means that Hawaiians lost for not fighting and winning, and the others in Hawaii won Hawaii from the Monarchy. The Queen married Dominis and tried to position to hang on, but Dole and the Provisional Gov't ran Hawaii from then on out until U.S. annexation. When the Monarchs refused to fight the French before; and the Honolulu Rifles installed the bayonet Constitution under point of those mounted bayonets by Kam 3, The Great One's kingdom was lost. The spoils of war do not go to the losers, and those who choose to surrender rather than lose a war have only history revisionists to defend their false legacy. Take the land in Kakaako and be thankful OHA exists. That is much more than was earned by the Kamehameha lineage that lost the Kingdom and shamed the line. The chance for the Akaka Bill has long past. Beggars cannot be choosers.
on May 20,2012 | 10:29PM
MalamaKaAina wrote:
Changalang....another excellent observation as expected.
on May 21,2012 | 12:22AM
NanakuliBoss wrote:
Only beggar here is changie. Begging for attention by blogging like he's a pro? A legend in his mind. Like the rest of us with a computer googling to look like were something,eh,changy..
on May 21,2012 | 07:03PM
GorillaSmith wrote:
Being "in favor of" the ridiculous Akaka Bill is like being favor of changing the hunting season for unicorns. It is an absolutely risk-free position since this absurd bill will never become law. Carroll is the only one with the integrity - or maybe the naivete - to answer this silly question honestly. The only purpose of the "bill" in Hawaiian politics is for politicians to placate the semiliterate mouth-breathing race hustlers who drone on about the overthrow of their imaginary race-based kingdom. Can we possibly focus on one or more of the serious problems that actually require a solution?
on May 21,2012 | 07:31PM
IN OTHER NEWS