On 2005-08-07 15:34, christiki295 wrote:
Now that this is thread in Beyond Tiki, I no longer have to measure my Post:
The decision is a travesty and merely the latest in a long line of situations in which the federal government has, and continues to, subjugate Hawaiians.
The Court provided a strict scrutiny legal rational to justify overlooking the basic underlying premises:
- Hawaii is, even more than Native Americans, a separate political entity. The imprisoned queen, Liliuokalani, was ruler of all of Hawaii, until imprisoned in her own palace and then forcefully made the 50th state.
**Tough issue. I find it interesting that, in general, aggrieved groups are actually just the last group of oppressors who were in charge of a place before the current aggressors took over. I don't think people realize that all of history is civilization through conquest - it's not like Hawaii was an idyllic utopia of democratic sharing and loving. The kingdom had been forcibly united through long standing internecine violence, with the installation of a totalitarian regime called "royalty."
Why no concern for the poor unfortunate natives who the royal family had executed or suppressed?
Remember, it was nearly 1,000 years before King Kamehameha the Great "united" the kingdom.
Stolen from an Hawaiian history site:
Kamehameha I (the Great) of the Island of Hawaii first consolidated his power there. *He then conquered Maui and Oahu. There were bloody battles, particularly on Oahu, and his conquest was vigorously opposed by the rulers of the other islands and their warriors. Kamehameha then attempted to invade Kauai, but his fleet was turned back by a storm. *Following several years, the ruler of Kauai decided to pledge his allegiance to Kamehameha, and the unification of the Hawaiian islands was complete. Kamehameha used some European advisers and weapons in his fight to conquer the island chain.
Kamehameha and his predecessors were hereditary monarchs. They ruled by divine right and the right of birth, with the support of the religion and the priesthood (kâhuna). All land belonged to the monarch and passed to their heir. The nobility (ali) got their grants of land from the King. The commoners (maka'âinana) had certain understood rights to use the land, and obligations to provide support to the `i and the King.
Hawaii in 1778 in many ways resembled feudal Europe. The major difference, other than religion, was the absence of writing and metal. Hawaii was isolated and had no continuous contact with other civilizations. The absence of iron, tin, or copper limited how far technology could advance.
Tell me how that's a more enlightened culture than what is in place now.
**
- Hawaii is the land of Hawaiians - the US merely came and successfully occupied it, initially through force, and then by oligarchy and ultimately by deposing their own rulers.
Again, how would you classify the ruling regime at the time? Certainly not a benign meritocracy.
Even the Court had to acknowledge the role the US government has played in subjecting Hawaiians and the how Hawaiians score the highest on the negative socioeconomic indicators: (1) lower education, (2) incarceration (3) homelessness, etc.
**What was the education level of the average native before the arrival of the new evil overlords?
How would you classify the royalty pressing their fellow natives into servitude for the policies of undemocratically chosen policies and warfare?
What were the wages of defeat at the hands of royal aggressors in the native culture - low incarceration due to execution, eh?
I think the fact that our society has so many "oppressed natives" is actually a good sign - it shows we did not undertake genocide to the extent of the cultures who lack any residual indigenous people to be alive to be able to claim to be oppressed.**
The KS schools are possible the last and best way to enable Hawaiians to help themselves, "by their own bootstraps," by the Hawaiian schools.
