sovereignty squatters arrested

[Kaimana]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Punatic007

Your own OHA is who screwed you over and over. That's right, your own brown skinned relatives not the caucasians or anyone with a telescope. The projection is showing the depravity of character which sustains this pathetic movement. Grow up people.

---

https://youtu.be/Nqv9k3jbtYU

You may need to watch this.

[TomK]

I know little about Elliott, but I know less about a link that has no explanation. I don't have time to watch a video that lasts 3/4 of an hour, especially when the poster is too lazy to point out which bits to read, so I took the time to look it up on wikipedia. No doubt there are better sources of information:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Elliott

"Academic research into Elliott's exercise shows moderate results in reducing long-term prejudice[13][14] but is inconclusive on the question of whether the possible psychological harm outweighs the potential benefits.[15][16] She has been accused of scaring people, breaking the school rules, humiliating children, being domineering, angry, and brainwashing. Two professors of education in England, Ivor F. Goodson and Pat Sikes, argue that what Elliott did was unethical, calling the exercise psychologically and emotionally damaging. They also stated ethical concerns pertaining to the fact that the children were not told of the purpose of the exercise beforehand.[3]

Measured results of the diversity training for adults are moderate. The outcomes of a 1990 research study by the Utah State University were that virtually all the subjects reported that the experience was meaningful for them. However, the statistical evidence supporting the effectiveness of the activity for prejudice reduction was moderate; and virtually all the participants, as well as the simulation facilitator, reported stress from the simulation.[14]

Another program evaluation in 2003, held by Georgia University professor Tracie Stewart, showed that white students got significantly more positive attitudes toward Asian American and Latino/Latina individuals but only marginally more positive attitudes toward African American individuals.[13] In some courses, participants can feel frustrated about "their inability to change" and instead begin to feel anger against the very groups to which they are supposed to be more sensitive. It can also lead to anxiety because people become hyper-sensitive about being offensive or being offended.[12][13][14] There are no good long-term outcome measures of effects, if any, of these training initiatives.[12]

As a result of the 1990 research, Murdoch University did not include the "Blue eyes-Brown eyes" method in their list of successful strategies to reduce racism.[17]"

Incidentally, the abuse children got when being taught which hands to use when writing, eating or anything else, was common in the UK and many European countries many decades ago. It's how things worked in those days, but it doesn't happen that much these days, if at all. You can't hold the current generation responsible for behavior that has nothing to do with them.

[PunaMauka2]

Food for thought: Using the term "brown people" is understandably viewed as crass and rather racist in tone (or for that matter, "yellow people" as well). So why is it perfectly acceptable to use the terms "black people" and "white people"?

[bystander]

quote:

---

Originally posted by PunaMauka2

Food for thought: Using the term "brown people" is understandably viewed as crass and rather racist in tone (or for that matter, "yellow people" as well). So why is it perfectly acceptable to use the terms "black people" and "white people"?

---

Is it because african and caucasian Americans refer to themselves with those colors? It's also in many government forms: black and white but never yellow, brown or red.

[HereOnThePrimalEdge]

So why is it perfectly acceptable to use the terms "black people" and "white people"?

Black people used "black people" to describe themselves with a sense of pride (black power, etc) and as an alternative to the term negro.

White people called themselves "white people" probably for as long as anyone can remember.

I think brown people and yellow people are descriptions used by white people, most likely not the way those groups prefer to describe themselves.

We're White Guys, We Take No Crap:
http://www.hulu.com/watch/274077

[PunaMauka2]

Hmm... that could be a decent starting point, but that reasoning does seem rather circular in a way. Kind of like saying it is the norm because...well...that's just the way it is. I agree that perhaps self-identification plays a part in the discrepancy, but the real question is why and how that came to be, and why such a stark double standard is not perceived as being more awkward than it is as we move further away from the institutionalized racism which was more prevalent in the past.

Just to be clear, my question does not come from so much a "politically correct" angle but rather curiosity about what I find to be one of those peculiar double standards that we are so used to that we may not even notice.

Thanks for the responses.

[Kaimana]

I think context and the overall conversation has a lot to do with it as well. The fact that he went with brown skin instead of Hawaiian while using Caucasian instead of White skin says a lot.

[PunaMauka2]

Could be... but to be fair, as a matter of course I see the converse of your statement quoted below all the time.

"The fact that he went with brown skin instead of Hawaiian while using Caucasian instead of White skin says a lot."

People very commonly use the term "white" in combination with some other categorization which does not reference skin pigmentation. Does that not also say a lot? And if not, why is that?


Yes, I found Punatic007's use of the term brown-skinned to be abrasive and pretty much offensive. As distasteful as I found it to be, in the overall context I leaned towards assuming Punatic007 was expressing frustration at, and perhaps illustrating, a prevalent double standard. In any case, it made me notice and think.



-----------------------------------------------

"Locals have been criminally vicious to caucasians for decades, violent racial hate crimes."

Whether one agrees with Punatic's above statement verbatim or not, there is no denying there is some sort of real truth in it. In addition to observing the usual range of aggression, unfortunately I have personally witnessed at least a few very violent, spontaneous, completely unprovoked attacks involving adults which were most clearly racially motivated, resulting in some pretty serious injury to the victim. It's something we need to acknowledge has been a real problem within the local culture.

[shockwave rider]

MTViewDude: "The kings and queens modeled themselves after european royalty. Kamehameha III opened english language schools and made english a preference. " Opening language schools so your citizens can do business with foreigners is not the same thing as changing the language of government and education to English, effectively disenfranchising Hawaiian speakers and cutting them off from all home of meaningful participation in government. Conflating the two is beyond disingenuous, it is fundamentally dishonest.

Just think about this scenario: you live in X country your whole life, your family has lived there as far back as anyone can remember, you family speaks the language of X and are all literate in this language, this language is the language of business and government. The language is an important part of your culture, and society, there are many newspapers, books, songs and religious tracts published in this language. Then newcomers from Y overthrow your government, make the language of Y the official language, and ban the use of language X in the schools and government. Your children and grandchildren are physically punished for speaking their own language in school and become so disillusioned, hurt and angry by their mistreatment in school that they reject education for the next several generations, only to have the descendants of the Y tribe tell them they are just a bunch of ignorant loser welfare bums who should just move to Las Yegas to be maids and busboys, and leave their beautiful island home to the Y tribe, who clearly deserve it since they are so hardworking and educated compared to the X tribe, for whom this is the only home they have ever known. How would that feel?

Conquered people have a particularly difficult time with education systems that are imposed on them by their conquerors. The education system is inherently steeped in the values, language and culture of the conquerors, and embracing education in that context feels like a betrayal of their own culture. The inequities of the post overthrow education system, and the Native American boarding schools, both have cast very long shadows on multiple generations of students. Both the Native Hawaiians and the Native Americans finally wrested a degree of control over their children's education in the recent past, and have seen a real upturn in educational participation at all levels.

I don't understand why so many of you can live here, claim to love Hawaii, and yet are so dismissive and insulting about the Native Hawaiians and their pain at being disenfranchised and displaced here in their own place. The attitude seems to be: tough luck, you lost, just get over it. They are Hawaiians, trying to live in Hawaii, no one else is entitled to tell them that their feelings of anger and pain aren't real, and certainly not someone who chose move here from somewhere else and now wants to dismiss the concerns of the Native Hawaiians because those concerns are inconvenient for the new transplant.

[PunaMauka2]

Shockwave rider, ironically you seem to be relying on an awful lot of stereotypes in your reasoning there yourself.

Just curious, what is your definition of "the Hawaiians"? ...in the contemporary sense.