06-30-2016, 03:20 PM
quote:(BBM) Aloha mai, and mahalo, HiloPuna, for your (again) well stated opinion. Always enjoy reading your posts that prompt deep consideration.
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 ?
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?