10-23-2015, 03:29 AM
leilanidude: What year are you desiring that those "rights" be restored to?
dakine: Now. To the rights afforded any independent sovereign people today. But for reals, I think the answer is a bit more involved than that. If you are really interested I would suggest visiting the faq page at the Nai Aupuni website
The link says nothing in answer to leilanidude's question, and neither does your reply.
dakine: According to PM2 I am a racist because I believe that a group of people that have been harmed and had their rights violated should have those rights reinstated.
By saying "I believe the right for the Hawaiian people to be the stewards of lands..." you become racist according to your pasted dictionary definition. You believe the "Hawaiians" to be superior to people living in Hawaii, such that only these "Hawaiians" should decide who builds what where. You reason that these "Hawaiians" have been harmed (historically, I assume, and not by telescopes) so it is OK to for them to be superior in this sense.
There are folks who share your belief in a fundamental justice in reparations. And others who see pros and cons to Hawaii having become a US state and believe the "harm" is relative to the benefits. That the "harm" is not excuse enough to create a superior class of "Hawaiians" that can decide who builds what where.
I put "Hawaiians" in quotes because it is another question never really answered: What is the criteria for deciding who is a True "Hawaiian". Nai Aupuni has their answer, appearing completely arbitrary, and besides, who died and made Nai Aupuni taxi driver anyway? Not only deciding how we should all get somewhere, but where we go as well. But only their definition of True "Hawaiians" have a voice. That's as racist as Kamehameha Schools are, but for a haole to say so, s/he will be accused of racism.
The "movement" will always struggle with the issue of legitimacy, since by many accounts it is illegitimate.
Cheers,
Kirt
dakine: Now. To the rights afforded any independent sovereign people today. But for reals, I think the answer is a bit more involved than that. If you are really interested I would suggest visiting the faq page at the Nai Aupuni website
The link says nothing in answer to leilanidude's question, and neither does your reply.
dakine: According to PM2 I am a racist because I believe that a group of people that have been harmed and had their rights violated should have those rights reinstated.
By saying "I believe the right for the Hawaiian people to be the stewards of lands..." you become racist according to your pasted dictionary definition. You believe the "Hawaiians" to be superior to people living in Hawaii, such that only these "Hawaiians" should decide who builds what where. You reason that these "Hawaiians" have been harmed (historically, I assume, and not by telescopes) so it is OK to for them to be superior in this sense.
There are folks who share your belief in a fundamental justice in reparations. And others who see pros and cons to Hawaii having become a US state and believe the "harm" is relative to the benefits. That the "harm" is not excuse enough to create a superior class of "Hawaiians" that can decide who builds what where.
I put "Hawaiians" in quotes because it is another question never really answered: What is the criteria for deciding who is a True "Hawaiian". Nai Aupuni has their answer, appearing completely arbitrary, and besides, who died and made Nai Aupuni taxi driver anyway? Not only deciding how we should all get somewhere, but where we go as well. But only their definition of True "Hawaiians" have a voice. That's as racist as Kamehameha Schools are, but for a haole to say so, s/he will be accused of racism.
The "movement" will always struggle with the issue of legitimacy, since by many accounts it is illegitimate.
Cheers,
Kirt