Hawaiian "Politics" & The Rebuttal

[opihikao]

Now that the season of political posturing is upon us, in reflection, there are several moments that define our history, as Hawaiians. The overthrow of our Kingdom/Monarcy/"Government" (January 17, 1893) obviously is the starting point to where we are today, under US law.

This is a short explanation of how many, many Hawaiians today perceive our history, and where we are today. (FWIW):

Professor Haunani K. Trask responds:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HDQcCqFecr4


Now, try and get Hawaiians to vote in the US system. Quite a "tall order", given the (dictated, to some) circumstances.

I vote, my ohana votes, yet, we also agree with the position of Haunani K. Trask. No question.


JMO.

[HiloPuna]

ophikao

Your post deserves a reply, even though this issue is "the 3rd rail" to politics in Hawaii. With all due respect....

Ms Trask was young when this occurred. She painted a picture of the Hawaiians that was a "Madge Tennent", broad strokes, extremely evocative, two dimensional. She knows, as do you, that the history of the Hawaiians did not begin (or end) with the Queens abdication. The previous 100 years of unification under a common government was one of constant change, with multiple occasions where individual Hawaiians, both common and Royal , made decisions that shouldn't be lumped under "the Overthrow". Indeed, many of these decisions led directly and indirectly to that event, which was like all revolutions tragic and controversial. But a revolution it was, like the American and the French, and it stood. However this events "history" did not reside solely with the victors, as we note the survival of many of the trusts and institutions that were part of the Kingdom. The state is finally (slowly) coming to a reckoning, no doubt partly because of the stridency of voices like Ms Trasks

However it does not do any good for the uninformed to rely on a single sound bite, especially that one where you essentially had a naïf arguing with a politician. Talk about a soft floater that was easy to hit out of the park! That question/ opinion from the haole/newbie was the "hanging curve" of 3/2 pitches...

If I may extend that point to a current common concern , what's going on at Mauna Kea. One could argue that Ms Trasks argument is the one being carried forward now by the "the Protectors" who can be viewed essentially as sovereignists, cloaking themselves in environmental and religious cover to gain standing. Do you share that perspective as well ?

[opihikao]

quote:

---

Originally posted by HiloPuna

ophikao

Your post deserves a reply, even though this issue is "the 3rd rail" to politics in Hawaii. With all due respect....

Ms Trask was young when this occurred. She painted a picture of the Hawaiians that was a "Madge Tennent", broad strokes, extremely evocative, two dimensional. She knows, as do you, that the history of the Hawaiians did not begin (or end) with the Queens abdication. The previous 100 years of unification under a common government was one of constant change, with multiple occasions where individual Hawaiians, both common and Royal , made decisions that shouldn't be lumped under "the Overthrow". Indeed, many of these decisions led directly and indirectly to that event, which was like all revolutions tragic and controversial. But a revolution it was, like the American and the French, and it stood. However this events "history" did not reside solely with the victors, as we note the survival of many of the trusts and institutions that were part of the Kingdom. The state is finally (slowly) coming to a reckoning, no doubt partly because of the stridency of voices like Ms Trasks

However it does not do any good for the uninformed to rely on a single sound bite, especially that one where you essentially had a naïf arguing with a politician. Talk about a soft floater that was easy to hit out of the park! That question/ opinion from the haole/newbie was the "hanging curve" of 3/2 pitches...

If I may extend that point to a current common concern , what's going on at Mauna Kea. One could argue that Ms Trasks argument is the one being carried forward now by the "the Protectors" who can be viewed essentially as sovereignists, cloaking themselves in environmental and religious cover to gain standing. Do you share that perspective as well ?

---

(BBM) Aloha mai, and mahalo, HiloPuna, for your (again) well stated opinion. Always enjoy reading your posts that prompt deep consideration.

Yes, (to address to bold portion) it is the "Western law" (and "ways") that dictate our legal rights (as Hawaiians). Some of us understand the current situation we find ourselves in (legal, and otherwise). Thus, I do, in answer to your question, agree that I share that perspective.

Our "rights", as Hawaiians, following the US laws, tend to force this kind of reaction, and exert opinion, in order to make a point. Unfortunately (or, fortunately, whichever applies), "religious rights" afford the opportunity to express one's "practitional beliefs", under the US law. That's the basis of the argument, given there is nothing else to "hang your hat" on. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the "argument" (re: TMT, and probably other cases, past, and to come...).

We have always had "standing". There is no question. Yet, the laws (USofA) that dictate our "standing" tend to dismiss anything but the "religious" rights. Therefore, that is the premise of the "protesters/protectors" stance (utilizing the laws set before us). The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the "protestors", and the legal arguments put forth. What a profound moment. It is indeed, a challenge; all of it. Once TMT is resolved, there will be another issue to arise, as in the past, and we will deal with it; all of us.

I appreciate your engaging in this topic, and your continued (obviously) educated/well informed opinion. If there is some sort of "balance" to be found, it seems people like yourself, will "get it", or they won't. Nevertheless, we forge on. Yes, I agree with your statement.

I leave you with this testimony at the DOI meeting re: "Federal recognition", which defines our position as a people. Haunani Trask's sister, Mililani Trask, who also speaks on behalf of our people (not all, by any means, but some of us. Of which, I say, EO!...FWIW)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6wy4hv-Mf4


Mahalo again, for your well reasoned statement. IMUA kakou.

JMO.

P.S. There are so many "soundbites" (from the 50's, 60's,and 70's) that warrant being posted, however, boring to some, and/or not relevant to today's challenges, I won't post them. We must move forward, not backwards. Hiki no?

[PunaMauka2]

omg, opihikao still going on around here with the sappy self-important pseudo native narrative? Note to newcomers and the uninitiated to the sort of circles attempting to pass off what is essentially a racist sense of entitlement and exclusive hereditary status as some kind of esoteric nativist wisdom wrapped in self-aggrandizing faux graciousness. Don't buy into it. It typically ends up in the same sort of unsavory territory as the other brands of nativism making the rounds in the political landscape at large these days.... Or at least learn to recognize the phony and self-serving varieties.

Aloha

[HiloPuna]

Wow PM2, both barrells !!! Is this personal?

[dakine]

WTF! Why are personal attacks tolerated here Rob?

[Rob Tucker]

They are tolerated (to a degree) for a few reasons:

1. I don't sit at the computer all hours of the days reading this stuff and some slips by,
2. A "personal attack" can be hard to define and, for me, requires some repetition to attract my attention.
3. Opihikao is quite sophisticated and generally knows who and what deserves a response. "Don't feed the trolls" applies to everyone.
4. Punaweb is intended to represent Puna. That includes the good, bad and ugly.


In this case PM2 could learn more from listening to Opihikao, not so much the other way around.

Assume the best and ask questions.

Punaweb moderator

[Punatic007]

I recently listened to a rant from a respected local gay man here in Puna, he was very upset and let loose about the Orlando shootings. Saying he was sick and tired of the concept and the fostering of different communities, it's divisive and does no good even though superficially appears to be politically correct. Such as:

Gay, Hawaiian and Micronesian communities. The Japanese, Filipino, Portuguese Chambers of Commerce in Hilo etc..

He got me thinking and I will no longer say this or that community on the Big Island.

Aloha begins with humility and knows no separation.