It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Akaka bill would create a race based state in Hawaii

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 07:20 PM
link   

The Akaka bill would create a race based state in Hawaii


online.wsj.com

President Obama speaks proudly of his childhood in Hawaii, so we wonder what the state's voters think of his support for a bill that would redistribute its wealth based on race. That's what would happen under the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act, which Congress is trying to sneak through in its final days this year.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 07:20 PM
link   
This is yet another move to create more minority support for a president who is losing the support of the mainstream. If you think the Native American tribal laws are abusive, which I do, these proposed laws makes them pale in comparison.


"Under the Akaka bill, someone will have to divine exactly who qualifies as a Native Hawaiian. In the bill's current version, the determination would be handled by a nine member commission staffed by experts in native Hawaiian genealogy. That, says the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, amounts to racial discrimination and would "subdivide the American People into discrete subgroups accorded varying degrees of privilege."

The Supreme Court has already ruled that elections based on a blood quota violate the Fifteenth Amendment's ban on restricting voting along racial lines. In its 2000 decision in Rice v. Cayetano, the Court held that the Office of Hawaiian Affairs could not hold elections limited to ethnic Hawaiians. "Ancestry can be a proxy for race," the court wrote, "and is that proxy here."

If my understanding of history is accurate it was not too long ago when American's were actively discriminated against when they were "1/24th Negro". Why anybody would think this is a good idea is beyond. Once you begin to categorize people based upon genetics to bestow upon them benefits, the same categorization can be used by a subsequent group to discriminate against those same people.

This is 100% unAmerican

online.wsj.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 07:38 PM
link   
Also, this bill is completely unconstitutional. The government does not have the power to redistribute wealth to certain sectors of societies more than others. They can only regulate commerce (according to the constitution, not whether I like it or not). I don't think the framers envisioned for the government to have such powers. Also... imagine what kind of eugenics experiments they could make with this. Not good really. Not a smart move by Obama.



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 07:44 PM
link   
No surprises here.

There are houses in Oahu that I couldn't buy. It's not the price; it's the fact I don't have a certain percentage of Native Hawaiian blood.

There's one of the smaller Hawaiian Islands that only full blooded Native Hawaiians are allowed on.


Doesn't matter how long you've lived there, if you ain't a Native Hawaiian, you're just a freakin' Haole to them.



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 08:19 PM
link   
Also, anyone who can prove having some Hawaiian blood can put their name on a waiting list to live in a nice house for the rest of their lives paying only $1 a month mortgage. That's a real steal in a place where the average house costs $700,000.



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 08:25 PM
link   
This subject is just as sticky, convoluted, and complex as the history of Hawai'i.

First of all, let's not make this a Partisan Issue or an Anti-Obama Issue. Yes, Obama is currently one of the supporters of this Bill, but this Bill has been on the Congressional Floor since 2000 (5 years before Obama was elected to the US Senate), and actually has roots in the Apology Resolution of 1993 (when Obama had just begun lecturing as a Constitutional Law professor at the University of Chicago Law School). Likewise, there are many supporters of this Bill that are Republican as well as Democrat and even those that are non-partisan.

* A Bi-partisan group of Congressional co-sponsors Senators Dorgan (D-ND), Cantwell (D-WA), Coleman (R-MN), Stevens (R-AK), Murkowski (R-AK), Smith (R-OR), and Dodd (D-CT).
* The National Congress of American Indians, the oldest and largest national Native American organization.
* The Alaska Federation of Natives, the largest organization representing the Native people of Alaska.
* The National Indian Education Association.
* The American Bar Association.
* The Japanese American Citizen League.

Just to name a few.

The premise of the Bill I can understand and am sympathetic with:

1.) The Constitutional Government of the Hawai'ian Kingdom was overthrown by Military Intervention by the United States that supported a Revolt for economic gain.

2.) Hawai'i was a sovereign Nation when it was annexed as a U.S. Territory, which, like Texas, grants them certain unique Rights that other States do not enjoy.

3.) This legislation would grant the Native people of Hawai'i very similiar rights as already enjoyed by the Alaska Federation of Natives.

4.) As the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 does not legally pertain to Tribes outside the Continental U.S. this is an attempt to remedy that (although I can also understand the counter-argument that it would be far easier and more fair to simply modify the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 to legally pertain to Native Tribes in all of the U.S. and it's protectorates).

5.) Most importantly, this is an alternative to Hawai'ian Secession from the United States. The Hawai'ian people have legal recourse to Secede and if denied, can petition the UN Committee on Decolonization for remediation.

Although many of the arguments against it are fear-mongering, there are some valid concerns as well, such as the vagueness of powers that it would grant the Native Hawaiian governing entity, or leaving the backdoor open to overseeing gaming rights.

American History is replete with examples where vague legislation came to be abused in time. For that reason alone this Bill should be sent back to the Drawing Board for yet another revision.

[edit on 17-12-2009 by fraterormus]



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by jerico65
No surprises here.

There are houses in Oahu that I couldn't buy. It's not the price; it's the fact I don't have a certain percentage of Native Hawaiian blood.

There's one of the smaller Hawaiian Islands that only full blooded Native Hawaiians are allowed on.


Doesn't matter how long you've lived there, if you ain't a Native Hawaiian, you're just a freakin' Haole to them.



Well I don't think they should be hateful to white man or any outsiders, but I do agree with the things you mention above. We Americans have done enough damage to this great nation of Hawaii. In 1900 we invaded and forced their king and sovereign peoples to give us a foothold so we could eventually take their whole nation and reduce it down to a state.. that the People did Not want.

We murdered a great nation and a proud people. Hawaiians today have lost almost off of their culture. If America really cared we would leave Hawaii and give the people back their nation.

Now that there are more white man there than Polynesians they cannot fight us. We had no right to be there in 1900 and we have no right to be there now.



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 08:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
Well I don't think they should be hateful to white man or any outsiders, but I do agree with the things you mention above. We Americans have done enough damage to this great nation of Hawaii. In 1900 we invaded and forced their king and sovereign peoples to give us a foothold so we could eventually take their whole nation and reduce it down to a state.. that the People did Not want.

We murdered a great nation and a proud people. Hawaiians today have lost almost off of their culture. If America really cared we would leave Hawaii and give the people back their nation.

Now that there are more white man there than Polynesians they cannot fight us. We had no right to be there in 1900 and we have no right to be there now.


Your freedom today was secured by men that violated human rights in the past. Deal with it.

Sure, we can leave Hawaii. I guess that means taking with us Pearl Harbor and ever freakin' hotel on the beach, right? You know, since they were built with "white man money" they don't want to be fouled by any such thing, right?

Trust me, the Hawaiians there are making a killing from whitey.



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 08:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
Well I don't think they should be hateful to white man or any outsiders, but I do agree with the things you mention above.


Oh, and I forgot this little time honored tradition:

en.wikipedia.org...

My niece got a little taste of that when she was living there. But since she is a blond haired white girl, I guess that's OK?



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 09:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix

We murdered a great nation and a proud people. Hawaiians today have lost almost off of their culture. If America really cared we would leave Hawaii and give the people back their nation.

Now that there are more white man there than Polynesians they cannot fight us. We had no right to be there in 1900 and we have no right to be there now.


I'm guesssing that you have not been to Hawaii. The Hawaiian culture is alive and well, thanks to the fact that it draws millions of tourists from around the world to come and experience it. You can still see it here every day. You are also mistaken in that the vast majority of permanent residents in the state are Polynesians and if the temporary residents (toursists and military) were gone, you'd have a hard time finding the "white man" here.



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 10:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
We murdered a great nation and a proud people. Hawaiians today have lost almost off of their culture. If America really cared we would leave Hawaii and give the people back their nation.

Now that there are more white man there than Polynesians they cannot fight us. We had no right to be there in 1900 and we have no right to be there now.


Sure. We start with Hawaii, then Alaska. After that we start clearing out of California and proceed to return the nation to the Natives moving west to east until everyone who isn't a native is loaded up onto ships and sails backwards back to the old countries.

But why stop there? Perhaps all the lands conquered by others throughout the history of man across the globe could be returned to their rightful heirs. Keep going back far enough and every man, woman and child on the globe (you and I included) will all be attending the party of the century in the Cradle of Life, and the rest of the globe will be barren.



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 10:32 PM
link   
Wow, 3 people bashing my post.

I Love it when a plan comes together.



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 10:42 PM
link   
reply to post by ch1ldofthe70s
 


I've always had a question about the definition of "native". Since the archelogical evidence pretty much confirms that man first made the scene in either Africa or Persia (Africa being the most prominant view) what constitutes a "Native"? If the current thought is right, are'nt the Hawaiians really Africans or Persians? Aren't we all Africans or Persians? I'm just asking.

I'm white. I guess I could call my "race" an "American African" which would be more accurate than the current popular "African American".

At what time do you become a "native"? Is it when you arrive somewhere and there is noone else there? In a place like Hawaii, how do you know that there was nobody on the islands at the time of your arrival?

Oh and by the way, if they want the United States to pay them money for the military bases on Hawaii, they should help pay for the military that keeps them free which in my mind is a pretty good deal for them.



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 11:14 PM
link   
The question that is not answered by the politicians should be, does the US need another protectorate and reservation for putting people on?
If you consider that there are over 300 different countries in the contential United States, (the different Native American Reservations), and then is the President and the Federal government ready for the lawsuits that would come from such an act, as there is still a good 210 Native American Tribes with no Reservations who could demand a bit of land for themselves, and use such a law as a door to have such. Then there will be the legal problems for those who are not native Hawiians who do own property, who is going to determine what is a fair vaule for that. Consider if you will, that there is a person who has lived and raised a family in a house, paid for and owned out right and then this law passes and it is on the land that the government is proposing to give back to the native Hawiians, how do you put a price on a memory? Or if say the family has been there, since say the late 1800's? There are too many questions that this law does not address, making it a bad idea, and the number one part would be what quantifies as a native Hawiian? Would those who are say a quarter, or an eighth qualify?



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 12:04 AM
link   
Well you people voted for change and now your getting it.

Alien Mind



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 12:15 AM
link   
Just to let everyone know, that kill haole thing is so true. Kinda of a funny story that I wanted to share. It was actually on a kill haole day that this happened. I was in Hawaii in my white friend's fancy car. I was in there with 3 white boys, and me, a hapa boy (mixed ethnic backgrounds). So some locals come over to the car, and are like "brah F-ing haoles, like die?!!" and my 3 white friends got mobbed and attacked by a group of about 6 locals. So there they are,my white friends getting punched in the face and attacked, and one of the locals runs to the back window where I am, and I'm like "I'm not a haole!" and they look and me and they decide to not hit or attack me! I thought it was slightly funny, but still pretty messed up.
White people catch a lot of flak on da islands.



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by jerico65

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
Well I don't think they should be hateful to white man or any outsiders, but I do agree with the things you mention above.


Oh, and I forgot this little time honored tradition:

en.wikipedia.org...

My niece got a little taste of that when she was living there. But since she is a blond haired white girl, I guess that's OK?


you sure act like you know a lot about hawaii. why did you move there? how long have you lived there for? what do you do there?

you do know the vast majority of the native hawaiians are strongly opposed to this bill.

and you make it sound like all haoles get abused, which is untrue. it's not hard to earn the respect of locals. unless you're a totally idiot.

have you tried to art-take in the culture at all? my mom did, and she's as white as can possibly be and had no problems fitting in.



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by f4rwest
you do know the vast majority of the native hawaiians are strongly opposed to this bill.


Nope, didn't know that.


Originally posted by f4rwest
and you make it sound like all haoles get abused, which is untrue. it's not hard to earn the respect of locals. unless you're a totally idiot.


My niece was 14 at the time. She said that her school was pretty rough, and it was ignored when the white kids got beat.


Originally posted by f4rwest
have you tried to art-take in the culture at all? my mom did, and she's as white as can possibly be and had no problems fitting in.


And yes, she did "art-take" in the culture, too.



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 04:30 PM
link   


In 1900 we invaded and forced their king

We dident invade anyone. The Hawaiian monarchy was overthrown in 1893 in a military coup by members of the Honolulu Rifles, a Hawaiian Army militia unit made up primarily of American sugarcane plantation owners and their employees who kicked out the queen and established a "republic". The Republic of Hawaii then voted to join the United States in 1895, and the US Congress approved their request in 1898 and Hawaii became a US territory and eventually becoming a state along with Alaska in 1959.

[edit on 18-12-2009 by ChrisF231]




top topics



 
3

log in

join