Posts: 319
Threads: 27
Joined: Jun 2011
Opihikao: Thankfully we have Punaweb, a place to voice our opinions about the events and affairs of present day Hawaii. We each have our own opinions and views and I am certainly willing to agree to disagree. In my post I tried to paint a picture of how "I" see the Hawaiian National movement and the have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too attitudes exhibited by its constituents. I won't apologize for what I said, it's how I feel when reading through all the pro-soverighnty propaganda posted here on Punaweb.
That being said...I actually support the sovereignty movement and hope an end comes that will allow the Hawaiian people to move forward with pride and hold their collective heads high. I very strongly disagree with the steps being taken (e.g. TMT) to build a platform for change.
Thanks for your comments Opihikao, I always enjoy reading your perspective on things here on Punaweb.
Edited for grammar.
Posts: 3,399
Threads: 109
Joined: May 2009
Originally posted by opihikao
The Na'i Aupuni document was a valiant effort to put forth a proposed response to the DOI request to work towards "Federal Recognition" (post USA official apology)...
The challenge is that it does not represent the majority, and is race based. The proposed document does not include ALL of Hawaiian nationals/citizens issues (ie. keiki, mo'opuna, etc.). Many were not Hawaiian by blood, but were loyal to the Kingdom, and also fought the overthrow.
I'm probably missing something here, but how does the proposed constitution not represent the majority? Isn't the proposed requirement for citizenship any descendent of the indigenous people who occupied Hawaii prior to 1778 and also includes equal representation for those who don't currently live in Hawaii? This appears to be far more inclusive than many (all?) other current Native Hawaiian programs.
Yes, it does not include descendants of the 8000 or so non-native Hawaiian Nationals listed on the 1890 census, but the DOI's is not trying to reestablish the Hawaiian Kingdom right? Why would they be included?
(PS welcome back 
Posts: 2,244
Threads: 396
Joined: Nov 2011
Aloha, ironyak. Mahalo to you, and others, who have genuine interest in this process.
As to your question, the Na'i Aupuni delegates were not "elected", due to the legal wrangling, thus, ALL candidates were allowed to participate. The "majority" spoke at the DOI hearings held across the islands, yet the proposed Federal recognition documents contain the same language offered by purported/self appointed "leaders" of the Hawaiian population. None of them speak for myself nor my ohana at this point. I remain skeptical, yet hopeful, that there will be a well reasoned outcome.
It (the Aha) was a very trying exercise to change the terms, conditions, etc., of which the new document (the "Constitution") provides. Yet, it is progress of sorts, and we shall see what comes of it, if anything.
As an aside, it was quite disturbing to see a couple OHA employees show up only for the day of the vote, to vote "yes", along with other participants who subscribe to the agenda, that some believe, was predetermined. Many left with heavy hearts, including those who felt compelled to vote "yes with reservation" (kanalua (to doubt) was not allowed; and Robert's Rules of Order were in place throughout).
It is all such a "gray area" at this point, I remain hopeful that clarity will eventually prevail.
Mahalo for your continued interest.
JMO.
Posts: 2,244
Threads: 396
Joined: Nov 2011
quote:
Originally posted by beejee
Opihikao: Thankfully we have Punaweb, a place to voice our opinions about the events and affairs of present day Hawaii. We each have our own opinions and views and I am certainly willing to agree to disagree. In my post I tried to paint a picture of how "I" see the Hawaiian National movement and the have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too attitudes exhibited by its constituents. I won't apologize for what I said, it's how I feel when reading through all the pro-soverighnty propaganda posted here on Punaweb.
That being said...I actually support the sovereignty movement and hope an end comes that will allow the Hawaiian people to move forward with pride and hold their collective heads high. I very strongly disagree with the steps being taken (e.g. TMT) to build a platform for change.
Thanks for your comments Opihikao, I always enjoy reading your perspective on things here on Punaweb.
Edited for grammar.
Mahalo for your response, however, please do not include ALL of us in your statement. Some of us Hawaiians are not given to what was opined in your post, nor guilty of the charge.
Further, your choice of words is what prompted my response. Again, it's not what you say, it's how you say it. I get your point and your opinion, quite clearly. The manner in which you stated the same is what continues to be extremely offensive. [  !]
So be it. We can agree to disagree.
JMO.
ETA: Perhaps it would behoove you to read other information available, not just Punaweb. There are many sites and documents to absorb, understand, and contemplate.
Posts: 1,930
Threads: 71
Joined: Jun 2012
The biggest opposition to Na'i Aupuni Aha was Aloha Aina. It was Aloha Aina that walked out of the aha. Now,
http://westhawaiitoday.com/news/local-ne...empt-fails
Aloha Aina Party attempt fails
Aloha Aina wants a Kingdom, Na'i Aupuni wants a Nation. Aloha Aina may be very vocal but if they can't get a majority of Native Hawaiians on their side, then the larger number of Na'i Aupuni is going to prevail by majority.
"Aloha also means goodbye. Aloha!"
*Japanese tourist on bus through Pahoa, "Is this still America?*
Posts: 2,244
Threads: 396
Joined: Nov 2011
Aloha, Pahoated. Mahalo for your post. The count for Na'i Aupuni is in descrepency due to several components:
1) Kau Inoa, Kanaioluwalu, etc., lists were added to Na'i Aupuni without permission from those transferred.
2) Some of the names are invalid due to duplication, and other mitigating factors (ie. my name was on there and I did not sign, my Aunt (and cousins, none of which signed up; live in Oregon) is on the list and did not sign any of the above referenced entities, my mo'opuna are on there and they are minors who never signed, etc.)
3) Some are dead.
The current count as published July 28, 2015 is: 95,690 (and ever changing)
*Snipped - More at link below
The Native Hawaiian Roll Commission has posted online a certified list of 95,690 people of Hawaiian ancestry who could form the voting base to create a native Hawaiian government.
The list will be used to elect delegates later this year to a governance ‘aha, or constitutional convention, which is expected to consider different options for Hawaiian self-determination. Na’i Aupuni, an independent organization led by a volunteer board, was formed in December to help manage that effort.
People can continue to register to be on the list, update their contact information, or ask to have their names removed. The version posted over the weekend is an alphabetized list of Hawaiians who had registered and whose ancestry had been verified by the commission by July 10.
"Additional names will be added to the final Certified List by the roll Commission between now and the date established by Nai Aupuni for delegate elections, as new registrations are processed and qualifications confirmed through documents and other information," the commission announced on its website.
To be eligible to participate, registrants must be descendants of the aboriginal people who lived in the Hawaiian islands prior to 1778. They must also affirm the "unrelinquished sovereignty of the Hawaiian people" and declare that they have a significant cultural, social or civic connection to the Native Hawaiian community.
For reference: http://www.staradvertiser.com/breaking-n...690-names/
I gather the "majority" will also be subject to change as this progresses. Hopefully, in the positive light, not with more convoluted politics injected into this process.
JMO.
Posts: 3,399
Threads: 109
Joined: May 2009
As I think Nai Aupuni made clear at the Aha, they did not represent anyone, much less a majority. As such they were not a constitutional convention in the usual sense, but rather a constitutional working group which has drafted some proposed documents. Only ratification through a popular vote will give those documents any real weight in the process. While 95000 people may have been pulled together to be able to vote in this process, this doesn't mean they all support the effort or documents, or that they will even participate.
While it was as clear at the DOI meetings that the vast majority of speakers were against federal recognition, it's unclear if that is the majority view of Native Hawaiians. Both sides (federal recognition vs independence) seem wary to get a full accounting of where the roughly 450,000 people claiming Hawaiian ancestry stand on this topic as it may not support their goals. Without a Ku'e Petition sized effort to make clear the wishes of this vast silent majority, the outcome will be decided by the small number who actually choose to participate.
IMHO
Posts: 2,151
Threads: 73
Joined: Mar 2007
What is the numerical threshold for legitimacy on a ratification measure? A majority of Hawaiians of legal age? A majority of those enrolled in one of the fragmented (and questionable) rolls or some combination thereof?
Who will pay for an election since the state has repeatedly been told it can't fund one, even through the back door?
Will the courts and/or congress recognize a tribal government when the last Hawaiian governing entity was not a tribe, but an internationally recognized multi-ethnic nation state? (The window for the Obama administration to pass this has pretty much passed. The next one may not be so keen on Hawaiian issues.)
I'm not posing these questions to troll or shoot down anyone's aspirations, but because they need to be answered.
And welcome back, Opihikao!
Posts: 3,399
Threads: 109
Joined: May 2009
My 2cents...
Originally posted by Chunkster
What is the numerical threshold for legitimacy on a ratification measure? A majority of Hawaiians of legal age? A majority of those enrolled in one of the fragmented (and questionable) rolls or some combination thereof?
In general, you have to be 18 years of age, maintained a connection to the Hawaiian community, and have proven Hawaiian ancestry back to 1778 (i.e. on the rolls). DOI has specific numbers it is looking for as a measure of "broad-based" support.
https://www.doi.gov/hawaiian/procedures
Frequently Asked Questions and Answers
https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.opengov.ib...281%29.pdf
"Congress uses two approaches to defining the Native Hawaiian community. The definition appearing in the HHCA requires at least 50 percent Native Hawaiian ancestry; in other statutes, Congress defines the term more broadly, to include any U.S. citizen who descends from the aboriginal people who, prior to 1778, occupied and exercised sovereignty in the area that now constitutes the State of Hawaii. Because Congress uses both definitions, the proposed rule requires that a majority of voters from each of these groups support the governing document in a ratification referendum. The proposed rule also considers the total number of affirmative votes cast in favor of the governing document to ensure that support is genuinely broad-based. The proposed rule creates a strong presumption of broad-based community support if the affirmative votes exceed 50,000, including affirmative votes from at least 15,000 Native Hawaiians who are within the HHCA definition of Native Hawaiian. At a minimum, the affirmative votes must exceed 30,000, including affirmative votes from at least 9,000 Native Hawaiians who are within the HHCA definition of Native Hawaiian.
Who will pay for an election since the state has repeatedly been told it can't fund one, even through the back door?
Na'i Aupuni talked about seeking private funding for the next steps of education, revisions, and ratification of the proposed constitution.
Will the courts and/or congress recognize a tribal government when the last Hawaiian governing entity was not a tribe, but an internationally recognized multi-ethnic nation state? (The window for the Obama administration to pass this has pretty much passed. The next one may not be so keen on Hawaiian issues.)
Again, the DOI is not trying to undo the overthrow or re-establish the Hawaiian Kingdom, but is building on the 150 statues established by Congress for Native Hawaiians (not Hawaiian Nationals) as a political group/tribe. There are several pages detailing these laws at:
NPRM
https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.opengov.ib...151001.pdf
This process is certainly being rushed given both the end of the Obama administration and the Supreme Court's increasing scrutiny of race-based programs (or those based on "ancestry as a proxy for race" as noted in 2000 in Rice v. Cayetano).
ETF: formatting, links
Posts: 2,244
Threads: 396
Joined: Nov 2011
quote:
Originally posted by Chunkster
What is the numerical threshold for legitimacy on a ratification measure? A majority of Hawaiians of legal age? A majority of those enrolled in one of the fragmented (and questionable) rolls or some combination thereof?
Who will pay for an election since the state has repeatedly been told it can't fund one, even through the back door?
Will the courts and/or congress recognize a tribal government when the last Hawaiian governing entity was not a tribe, but an internationally recognized multi-ethnic nation state? (The window for the Obama administration to pass this has pretty much passed. The next one may not be so keen on Hawaiian issues.)
I'm not posing these questions to troll or shoot down anyone's aspirations, but because they need to be answered.
And welcome back, Opihikao!
Aloha, Chunkster. Always appreciate your posts. You've never been a "troll" type, ever, IMO. Good questions, and ironyak (mahalo again) has provided great information.
Dakine, completely agree. 100%.
Enjoy the day all. Life is short.
JMO.
|
