Post #93973 by aquarj on Tue, Jun 1, 2004 7:10 PM

So; Let's back up a bit and look at the facts:

White man came to Hawaii, stole the land and destroyed the monarchy, took it over, called it their own, imposed their own form of government and laws on these people. (Some may counter; "everyone's better off now," but the Hawaiian people did not ask for nor did they want this.) This is what white man has been doing for many years; Ask any "American" Indian or "African American."

The discussion so far on this topic has been interesting, but if it will continue I hope we can avoid degenerating into more of this flavor of racial rhetoric. It is irrational and patently NON-factual to suggest that brutality toward other cultures is a characteristic unique to the "white man". The fact that historical examples of brutality within and between cultures can be cited for any particular race (as is the case for ALL races mentioned above, including "native" Hawaiians) does NOT make a case for any one race being uniquely culpable in the history books. Specific individuals or groups in specific events yes, races in general no. And even if someone does have an axe to grind about a specific race, I suggest that TC is not the place for it.

Still, the original topic is interesting, and I think there are still many difficult dilemmas it raises. For example, in questions of rights and ownership what qualifies as a native Hawaiian, and are their subgroups? Before the islands were "unified" under Kamehameha, there were distinct groups on the different islands. So, if an artifact is associated with one of these distinct groups, should the right of ownership go only to native Hawaiians with lineage that traces to that group, or should it go to the broader melting pot of native Hawaiians that resulted from Kamehameha's unification, whether descended from the conquerors or the conquered? Wouldn't the latter be unfair if the artifact dates from a time before Kamehameha?

-Randy