Bill to Grant Native Hawaiians Sovereignty Passes House

[Jeanfromfillmore]

Bill to Grant Native Hawaiians Sovereignty Passes House
By William Lajeunesse
- FOXNews.com
A bill that would give native Hawaiians the same right as Native Americans is halfway through the congressional process but opponents say the legislation is divisive and would turn over valuable land and resources out of U.S. hands.
A bill that would give native Hawaiians the same right as Native Americans is halfway through the congressional process but opponents say the legislation is divisive and would turn over valuable land and resources out of U.S. hands.
In an overwhelming win, the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization bill, also known as the Akaka bill for four-term Sen. Daniel Akaka, passed the House Tuesday with a 245-164 vote.
The fate of the legislation now rests in the hands of Senate leaders, where it has met challenges before.
The bill would grant federal recognition to Native Hawaiians, allowing them to form their own sovereign government similar to American Indians and Native Alaskans, giving them the power to negotiate over land use and cultural preservation. It would instantly create the second largest native "tribe" in the United States with almost 400,000 members -- including roughly 20 percent of Hawaii's residents based solely on their Polynesian heritage.
But many say the bill's biggest impact lies in the amount of 'ceded' lands the state and federal government may be required to transfer to the new Hawaiian nation. About 1.8 million acres were 'ceded' when Hawaii became a state. Some of those lands are expected to be returned to the native Hawaiians under the Akaka bill.
The other controversial element of the bill involves the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. It administers 160 programs worth tens of millions of dollars designed to benefit native Hawaiians.
However, thanks to the Supreme Court's decision in Rice v. Cayetano, these race-based programs are vulnerable to legal challenge and could be eliminated without protections of the Akaka bill.
This includes programs like ALU LIKE, Inc., an advocacy group for native Hawaiians, and Hui No Ke Ola Pono, one of five native Hawaiian health care systems.
Native Hawaiians would not be allowed to alter any federal or state law. However, they have the authority to govern prior to negotiations with the state.
Any new noncommercial government activities, services and programs run by Hawaiians would not be subject to state or county regulation -- a change from the bill's original version.
Congress has been debating the measure since 2000 and while it has easily cleared the House three times, it has yet to pass the Senate.
Supporters say America has a moral obligation to let Native Hawaiians govern themselves just like American Indians, since they claim U.S. troops illegally overthrew the Hawaiian monarchy in 1893, something President Clinton apologized for in 1993 under the Hawaiian Apology Resolution.
But opponents point to fears over transfers of valuable land belonging to the state and federal government to new sovereign nations.
Gov. Linda Lingle, a strong Republican supporter of the original measure, pulled her support for the legislation on Tuesday, saying that the bill has changed and the amendments will hurt Hawaii.
"Under the current bill, the native Hawaiian governing entity has almost complete sovereign immunity from lawsuits, including from ordinary tort and contract lawsuits, and I do not believe this makes sense for the people of Hawaii," Lingle said.
"My decision to not support the current version of the Akaka Bill is done with a heavy heart, because I so strongly believe in recognition for native Hawaiians."
Other opposing voices spoke out on the House floor. Rep. Tom McClintock, R-Calif., said if passed the bill would allow any other racial group to set up a separate government.
"There is no more effective way to destroy a nation than to divide its people by race and accord them different rights," McClintock said.
In a recent Zogby poll, only 34 percent of island residents said they support the Akaka bill.
Jere, a Native Hawaiian argued that the bill would unnecessarily divide the Aloha stat.
"I oppose the Akaka Bill because it is going to create a race-based government where there never existed one before."
In a statement issued after the vote, Akaka, who authored the bill, said he is certain "the bill protects the interests of all the people in Hawaii. The bill passed today specifically says 'members of the Native Hawaiian governing entity will continue to be subject to the civil and criminal jurisdiction of federal and state courts.'"
Retiring Rep. Neil Abercrombie, D-Hawaii, agreed, saying that the state and federal governments are "well protected" and in no danger of losing their own sovereignty or capacity to enforce the law.
With the legislation still awaiting Senate passage, many say that the Democrat majority gives the bill the greatest chance of passage than ever before. President Obama has already committed to signing the bill if brought to his desk.
"Hawaii has always acknowledged and celebrated diversity, and an important part of Hawaii's culture is the Native Hawaiian people." Obama, who was born in Hawaii, said in a statement. For this reason, I am proud to support Senators Daniel Akaka and Daniel Inouye in their efforts to extend the federal policy of self-governance and self-determination to Native Hawaiians."
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010...-passes-house/

[Don]

Vacationing in Hawaii several years ago, I was stunned to hear a native Hawaiian tour guide openly brag about how there were beaches in Hawaii whose use was restricted to ethnic Hawaiians. How can this kind of apartheid type of arrangement be legal in the USA under the Civil Rights Acts? It is legal because in under the prevailing racial caste system in the US, whites are on the bottom and occupy a status of citizenship that is subordinate to any non-white, that's how.

Hawaiians are quite open and unapologetic about their hatred of white people and their pleasure they take in humiliating them.

Another tour guide at an ancient village site bragged about how the villiage chief had the power of life and death over villagers and could summarily kill anyone who crossed the chief's shadow. Isn't this wonderful???

However, before white missionaries came, Hawaiians had no written language and the institutions of slavery, the slaughter of prisoners of war and summary execution by their leaders were well established parts of their "culture." They're also very proud of the warrior heritage and will regale white tourists with tales of how bravely rival Hawaiian tribes slaughtered and enslaved each other. A tour guide described one quaint little "cultural" ritual as follows: After capturing a prisoner from a rival tribe, they would throw him into an enclosed lagoon with couple of tiger sharks, and then kick back with some of their local home brew while the the poor devil flailed around as sharks tore him apart and devoured him. Dirty rotten white racists made them give up this quaint practice, as well as slavery and torture. (No wonder they hate us.)

These same third world primitives who bitch and moan about the burdens of American citizenship (free speech, jury trial, due process, equal rights for women, emancipation of slaves, etc.) are now demanding independence so they can return to their idyllic life of torturing, killing and eating each other.

I say let them have it.

[ilbegone]

Originally Posted by Don

Vacationing in Hawaii several years ago, I was stunned to hear a native Hawaiian tour guide openly brag about how there were beaches in Hawaii whose use was restricted to ethnic Hawaiians. How can this kind of apartheid type of arrangement be legal in the USA under the Civil Rights Acts? It is legal because in under the prevailing racial caste system in the US, whites are on the bottom and occupy a status of citizenship that is subordinate to any non-white, that's how.

Hawaiians are quite open and unapologetic about their hatred of white people and their pleasure they take in humiliating them.

Another tour guide at an ancient village site bragged about how the villiage chief had the power of life and death over villagers and could summarily kill anyone who crossed the chief's shadow. Isn't this wonderful???

However, before white missionaries came, Hawaiians had no written language and the institutions of slavery, the slaughter of prisoners of war and summary execution by their leaders were well established parts of their "culture." They're also very proud of the warrior heritage and will regale white tourists with tales of how bravely rival Hawaiian tribes slaughtered and enslaved each other. A tour guide described one quaint little "cultural" ritual as follows: After capturing a prisoner from a rival tribe, they would throw him into an enclosed lagoon with couple of tiger sharks, and then kick back with some of their local home brew while the the poor devil flailed around as sharks tore him apart and devoured him. Dirty rotten white racists made them give up this quaint practice, as well as slavery and torture. (No wonder they hate us.)

These same third world primitives who bitch and moan about the burdens of American citizenship (free speech, jury trial, due process, equal rights for women, emancipation of slaves, etc.) are now demanding independence so they can return to their idyllic life of torturing, killing and eating each other.

I say let them have it.

Closer to home, at least some casino Indians reserve the first few rows of a show for tribal members only - a sold out show with no tribal members attending would have at least the front three rows vacant.

It's the "home" which never was concerning those who were once under dogs.

Indians will imagine an aboriginal paradise, without counting in the inter tribal hatreds and inhuman warfare along with slavery and slaughter. The Europeans merely had better weapons and microbes.

It is said that, in Mexico, the angriest Diego Rivera can never go home - the sentimental pining for the Mexico which exists only in the imagination of intellectuals, the actual Indian empires the Spaniards conquered cannot keep up with what is in a wishful national consciousness.

In some ways too, what is the myth which came out of the reality of the growth of the United States? What versions are we to believe several generations after the fact and from which point of view?

[Twoller]

You can argue all day long about what the native Americans deserve based on their own culture. But in the end, you are up against the grim reality that native americans have had their land forced from them. It doesn't matter that native Americans have suffered the same inadequacies that cultures tend to suffer from. They deserved to own and be identified with the land they were found on. If anything is to be disputed, it is which native Americans are entitled to which land so far after the fact.

The Aztecs were a bloody, inhuman empire. Does that mean they deserved to be exterminated as a culture? Didn't they deserve a chance to see what the rest of the world was like and confront their own inadequacies in the face of new knowledge about their own and other human existance? Didn't they deserve their own land? Where else would they be expected to go?

[Don]

Originally Posted by Twoller

You can argue all day long about what the native Americans deserve based on their own culture. But in the end, you are up against the grim reality that native americans have had their land forced from them. It doesn't matter that native Americans have suffered the same inadequacies that cultures tend to suffer from. They deserved to own and be identified with the land they were found on. If anything is to be disputed, it is which native Americans are entitled to which land so far after the fact.

The Aztecs were a bloody, inhuman empire. Does that mean they deserved to be exterminated as a culture? Didn't they deserve a chance to see what the rest of the world was like and confront their own inadequacies in the face of new knowledge about their own and other human existance? Didn't they deserve their own land? Where else would they be expected to go?

The Aztecs were a bloody, inhuman empire. Does that mean they deserved to be exterminated as a culture?

Well yes, actually. That's precisely what it means.

The Aztecs were defeated by a coalition of Spanish adventurers and local Indian tribes that had been subjugated and enslaved by Aztec domination. The Spanish could never have defeated the Aztecs' teeming millions without the help of hundreds of thousands of Indians who jumped at the chance to resist Aztec tyranny.

The Aztec ruling class collected tribute from their subject tribes, including children to be used in religious rituals of human sacrifice and to be eaten as food. You think they had a "right" to do this?


Yes the native Americans were treated badly by conquering Spanards 500 years ago. None of us is responsible for that. None of that will change if what's left of the American people surrender.

You seem to have a problem with destroying bloody inhuman cultures. Why?

If it's wrong to destroy a bloody inhuman culture like the Aztecs, does not the same apply to the Mexicans' attempt to destroy American culture, with is not bloody and inhuman?

[Twoller]

Originally Posted by Don

The Aztecs were a bloody, inhuman empire. Does that mean they deserved to be exterminated as a culture?

Well yes, actually. That's precisely what it means.

The Aztecs were defeated by a coalition of Spanish adventurers and local Indian tribes that had been subjugated and enslaved by Aztec domination. The Spanish could never have defeated the Aztecs' teeming millions without the help of hundreds of thousands of Indians who jumped at the chance to resist Aztec tyranny.

The Aztec ruling class collected tribute from their subject tribes, including children to be used in religious rituals of human sacrifice and to be eaten as food. You think they had a "right" to do this?


Yes the native Americans were treated badly by conquering Spanards 500 years ago. None of us is responsible for that. None of that will change if what's left of the American people surrender.

You seem to have a problem with destroying bloody inhuman cultures. Why?

If it's wrong to destroy a bloody inhuman culture like the Aztecs, does not the same apply to the Mexicans' attempt to destroy American culture, with is not bloody and inhuman?

"If it's wrong to destroy a bloody inhuman culture like the Aztecs, does not the same apply to the Mexicans' attempt to destroy American culture, with is not bloody and inhuman?"

That is an absurd question. Perhaps you could rephrase it.

I don't think it is necessary to target cultures for extermination even if the values and practices of the culture are criminal in character. If it is possible to intercede to confront culture that is inhuman and criminal in character, then the first priority is to protect and isolate non-believers from believers. You cannot protect those who voluntarily accept degenerate beliefs and values. You can only protect yourself and the innocent bystanders who are likely to become victims. Then you can confront the culture and demand they account for themselves and their culture in the face of something we hope exists in universal human values. In the case of the Aztecs, it would have been easy enough to show them the world as it was becoming to be known and show them that their religious beliefs had little foundation. But who would the job have fallen to but the Catholics and the Catholic church who were manifestly unfit to do that and naturally uninterested in intellectual revolutions of that character. It was the case of one blood soaked monster exterminating another. Mexico is what we got as a consequence.

On the other hand, I don't believe that any culture deserves protection from extinction. If your values are unfit for human consumption, then your culture deserves extinction. There is a difference between declaring a culture worthy of extinction and declaring it the target of extermination. A culture worthy of extinction can hope to change. It can hope to evolve. If there is such a thing as a culture common to the United States of America, then clearly evolution and the capacity to change are expected and engineered into it. This is what makes the values that are the foundation of the US unworthy of extinction or extermination.

If you are willing to target other cultures for extermination, then you quite possibly fall in with those degenerate cultures worthy of extinction who target others for extermination. How are we to tell the difference? Should we trust you enough to ask you? Part of what make cultures worthy of extinction is their tendency to lie and pervert history in order to exalt themselves at the expense of innocent cultures. Certainly Mexico, reconquistas and their sympathizers in the US represent examples of such cultural values.

[ilbegone]

Originally Posted by Twoller

You can argue all day long about what the native Americans deserve based on their own culture. But in the end, you are up against the grim reality that native americans have had their land forced from them. It doesn't matter that native Americans have suffered the same inadequacies that cultures tend to suffer from. They deserved to own and be identified with the land they were found on. If anything is to be disputed, it is which native Americans are entitled to which land so far after the fact.

The Aztecs were a bloody, inhuman empire. Does that mean they deserved to be exterminated as a culture? Didn't they deserve a chance to see what the rest of the world was like and confront their own inadequacies in the face of new knowledge about their own and other human existance? Didn't they deserve their own land? Where else would they be expected to go?

I believe the problem lies with multiculturalism, separation by race and ethnicity pretending to be something other than racial division.

They believe it is somehow possible to have a slice each of Mexico, Vietnam, Korea, Indian country, Hawaii, ad infinatum, in their neat tidy packages in every American town, all untouched by one another and especially devoid of American influence.

The politically correct apartheid of mythical multiculturalism singing the old funk song, "thank you for letting me be myself", while forcing foreign cultures down American throats.

Instead of everyone becoming "US", the kids are being taught that everyone who is not a white American has a a racial and ethnic axe to grind and grievances to be addressed.

The casino Indians like to pretend they are "sovereign nations", while lubricating local, state and federal politicians with campaign contributions, use state ID for identification and have state license plates on their cars. Then some have tried to build casinos where their shifting ancestral lands didn't extend to. It's just a money making venture wrapped in just one more entitlement myth of modern oppression.

If it weren't for the myth of modern victimization, the "Latino" would be either just another of a long list of immigrants from everywhere else or the descendant of immigrants like anyone else, including Indians. That's how the mandate of brown supremacy is justified, allegation of victimization. The excuse for favor over others and special concessions for one's self.

The Aztecs? Ancient history, an arrogant people who understood better than Christian Spaniards the concept of a god sacrificing his own offspring for the "good" of mankind. Or the question of modern Mexican Catholicism, just who is really worshiped at Tepayac? Guadalupe the mother of Jesus, or Tonantzin the mother goddess? Or might it be an amalgamation?

I am not responsible responsible for anything which may have or not occurred before my birth, nor am I responsible for anything for which I didn't have a hand in during my lifetime.

[Don]

Originally Posted by Twoller

"If it's wrong to destroy a bloody inhuman culture like the Aztecs, does not the same apply to the Mexicans' attempt to destroy American culture, with is not bloody and inhuman?"

That is an absurd question. Perhaps you could rephrase it.

I don't think it is necessary to target cultures for extermination even if the values and practices of the culture are criminal in character. If it is possible to intercede to confront culture that is inhuman and criminal in character, then the first priority is to protect and isolate non-believers from believers. You cannot protect those who voluntarily accept degenerate beliefs and values. You can only protect yourself and the innocent bystanders who are likely to become victims. Then you can confront the culture and demand they account for themselves and their culture in the face of something we hope exists in universal human values. In the case of the Aztecs, it would have been easy enough to show them the world as it was becoming to be known and show them that their religious beliefs had little foundation. But who would the job have fallen to but the Catholics and the Catholic church who were manifestly unfit to do that and naturally uninterested in intellectual revolutions of that character. It was the case of one blood soaked monster exterminating another. Mexico is what we got as a consequence.

On the other hand, I don't believe that any culture deserves protection from extinction. If your values are unfit for human consumption, then your culture deserves extinction. There is a difference between declaring a culture worthy of extinction and declaring it the target of extermination. A culture worthy of extinction can hope to change. It can hope to evolve. If there is such a thing as a culture common to the United States of America, then clearly evolution and the capacity to change are expected and engineered into it. This is what makes the values that are the foundation of the US unworthy of extinction or extermination.

If you are willing to target other cultures for extermination, then you quite possibly fall in with those degenerate cultures worthy of extinction who target others for extermination. How are we to tell the difference? Should we trust you enough to ask you? Part of what make cultures worthy of extinction is their tendency to lie and pervert history in order to exalt themselves at the expense of innocent cultures. Certainly Mexico, reconquistas and their sympathizers in the US represent examples of such cultural values.

I haven't targeted any culture for extermination or anything else. I only ask that Mexicans respect my country as I respect theirs.

In the early 1800's the US promulgated the Monroe Doctrine, a proclamation to the world that the western hemisphere was no longer open to European colonization. The early American republic unwaveringly supported the independence and sovereignty of our Latin American neighbors. American nationalists like Henry Clay were indomitable in their support of Latin American indepedence and were revered as heros in Latin America.

The simmering resentment of European monarchs against the Monroe Doctrine and American foreign policy of supporting the sovereignty of our Latin American neighbors exploded during the American Civil War when the north and south were engaged in the struggle over slavery. Because the American government was temporarily powerless to repel foreign encroachment, the French invaded and occupied Mexico and installed Maximillian, the Hapsburg princeling, on the Mexican "throne."

Maximillian and his French supporters fared badly against their Mexican vassals and in an effort to bolster his sagging fortunes, proposed to cede several large northern Mexican states to the USA in exchange for formal diplomatic recognition of his government by the USA. At at time when Mexico was on its knees, occupied by a foreign power, the dirty rotten white racist imperialists in Washington could have received most of Northern Mexico on a silver platter in exchange for the stroke of a pen. The foreign policy of the Lincoln administration, and the Johnson Administration after Lincoln's assassination, however, was to support the Monroe Doctrine and to support Mexican sovereignty and the USA refused to recognize or to deal with Maximillian. The rest is history. The French ultimately were routed and Mexico regained its sovereignty and independence, and its pre-occupation borders.

(Ironically, the Confederate States of America sought recognition of Great Britain and France, even as the French puppet in Mexico was seeking recognition of the Northern Union Government.)

My position is that of James Monroe, Henry Clay, Abraham Lincoln, Andrew Johnson and a long line of American nationalists whose goals were sovereignty and independence for all American republics both north and south. I am not targeting any culture or anything else for "extermination," although Mexican citizens might very well desire to see the extermination of the Drug Lords who are challenging their government for control of that large and wealthy country.

I have already stated that if third world Historically Oppressed Races (i.e. "HORS") seek to revive their former cultures of slavery, slaughter and cannibalism, it is OK with me, as long as they keep it within their own borders. I am against foreign adventures and foreign wars.