10-04-2011, 09:53 AM
This topic didn't start out being about the Native Hawaiian history, but the inability of mainlanders and transplants to "get" that history has been brought up and I hope it is OK to speak to it.
First of all, I do respect the traditional hunting rights and those that are codified in the Constitution and laws. Although I would hope that the right and desire to hunt would be balanced with a sense of the overall greater good -- and I do not know enough about the situation as it stands to do anything but try to learn.
I moved here in 2002, but my husband had first moved to Hawai'i in 1972 or so, and he had worked side by side with locals doing surveys for Land Court on Maui and doing carpentry on the Big Island. He was always much more interested in hanging out with locals than fellow haoles, so I would say he learned a lot and I had the benefit of a jump start from him.
Still, I did not understand how the annexation of Hawai'i could be any more reversible than other acts of aggression in history.
After I moved here, I became interested enough to read more about the illegality of what occurred under international law. I wouldn't consider myself fully versed in the subject, but I do believe that the United States government committed a greedy and wrongful and illegal act.
I see how the programs put in place to help Native Hawaiians are mismanaged and slow.
I am sympathetic and I do not say "get over it." Rather when I run across tourists who come off with the "this is America, get over it" entitlement spiel, I talk to them as best I can about why Hawai'i is a special case and why they should respect its ways. I do try, for no other reward than I believe wrong was done.
Now to put forward a counter point of view to this idea that malihini shouldn't have any say or opinion about how to go forward --
There are many Hawaiians who have moved to Las Vegas, for example. They have bought property, they can vote, they can help shape their new community. Would you have people say to them -- "hey, you're not from here, if you don't like it, go back to Hawai'i." Do you think they should be disenfranchised because their families didn't come to Nevada six generations ago?
We live in a mobile society where people are free to move around the globe, and I think people who would want respect of their rights when they emigrate should be prepared to extend the same to immigrants.
That said, I can't stand it that people arrive here and try to run things without learning anything about history, tradition, how things are done. My own approach is to take part in community associations that are led by kupuna of the island and to listen to what they have to teach me, and to put forward any ideas of my own tentatively.
Back to the deer and sheep controversy, again I do thank you who have opened up the discussion to its larger context of a conflict that has been ongoing for decades. I did NOT understand that when this topic began.
My question that I believe is still unanswered -- can DLNR act freely in the matter of the sheep, as it was sued and lost the lawsuit? Does the court order not control what they can and can't do at this point?
First of all, I do respect the traditional hunting rights and those that are codified in the Constitution and laws. Although I would hope that the right and desire to hunt would be balanced with a sense of the overall greater good -- and I do not know enough about the situation as it stands to do anything but try to learn.
I moved here in 2002, but my husband had first moved to Hawai'i in 1972 or so, and he had worked side by side with locals doing surveys for Land Court on Maui and doing carpentry on the Big Island. He was always much more interested in hanging out with locals than fellow haoles, so I would say he learned a lot and I had the benefit of a jump start from him.
Still, I did not understand how the annexation of Hawai'i could be any more reversible than other acts of aggression in history.
After I moved here, I became interested enough to read more about the illegality of what occurred under international law. I wouldn't consider myself fully versed in the subject, but I do believe that the United States government committed a greedy and wrongful and illegal act.
I see how the programs put in place to help Native Hawaiians are mismanaged and slow.
I am sympathetic and I do not say "get over it." Rather when I run across tourists who come off with the "this is America, get over it" entitlement spiel, I talk to them as best I can about why Hawai'i is a special case and why they should respect its ways. I do try, for no other reward than I believe wrong was done.
Now to put forward a counter point of view to this idea that malihini shouldn't have any say or opinion about how to go forward --
There are many Hawaiians who have moved to Las Vegas, for example. They have bought property, they can vote, they can help shape their new community. Would you have people say to them -- "hey, you're not from here, if you don't like it, go back to Hawai'i." Do you think they should be disenfranchised because their families didn't come to Nevada six generations ago?
We live in a mobile society where people are free to move around the globe, and I think people who would want respect of their rights when they emigrate should be prepared to extend the same to immigrants.
That said, I can't stand it that people arrive here and try to run things without learning anything about history, tradition, how things are done. My own approach is to take part in community associations that are led by kupuna of the island and to listen to what they have to teach me, and to put forward any ideas of my own tentatively.
Back to the deer and sheep controversy, again I do thank you who have opened up the discussion to its larger context of a conflict that has been ongoing for decades. I did NOT understand that when this topic began.
My question that I believe is still unanswered -- can DLNR act freely in the matter of the sheep, as it was sued and lost the lawsuit? Does the court order not control what they can and can't do at this point?