quote:
Originally posted by PunaMauka2
"If you have an ancestor who was a Hawaiian National you should automatically be able to be a Hawaiian National. Anyone could also become a national if they applied like any other country."
Kaimana likes to talk as if the reinstated kingdom is right around the corner. Serious and dignified stuff. This answer is nothing new. You can find it and the answer to many others in other threads, particularly the older thread about the state judge ruling that the Hawaiian Kingdom still exists. You can read all about how the transition from state back to kingdom might unfold, including the possibility of "mass deportations" from the kingdom of those who can't name one of those Hawaiian National ancestors.
"If you have an ancestor who was a Hawaiian National..."
As soon as this statement was made, it became about ethnicity. Ancestry involves bloodlines which comes down to race. No way around that.
While Kaimana attempted to, the question of what makes a Hawaiian National was never answered.
As I understand it, everyone on the planet is considered a "national" of the country in which they were born. Someone correct me if I am wrong, but if one is born in France, they are considered a French national. Born in the US, an American national. Korea, a Korean national.
My point? Where does all this leave my wife; 3rd generation Filipino born in Kalihi, (not a Kalihi national[
]), in 1955 while Hawaii was a territory? If, as those in the sovereignty movement claim, annexation/statehood were done illegally, it stands to reason that my wife was born in the Kingdom/country of Hawaii and therefore is a "Hawaiian national". Where do we line up for her share of the reparations?
Any counter-arguments to my point would seem to have only one direction in which to proceed; ancestry/bloodlines. And that boils down to race. For one to try and state that the issue is not about race/ethnicity is disingenuous, at best. Of course, as a prominent educator at UH said back in the early 90s, "Only white people can be racists."
Additionally, disingenuous is the word that I think best describes the sovereignty movement in general. The movement(s), in my opinion, are about money and land, not the general welfare of the "Hawaiian" people. I think one reason there are so many factions of the sovereignty movement because they all have different ideas of how the "pie" should be sliced up. One thing I have noticed over the years is that the most vocal of all the factions are all "descendants of royalty". Not once have I heard the phrase "my ancestors were peasants". There's royalty coming out of the woodwork! It would seem to me that there would be only one reason to claim royal lineage; the right to money and power. Which is another reason why there are so many different factions. I guess the "royals" are gonna have to fight it out.
A suggestion I have is that the descendants of the peasants or commoners, if there are any, really scrutinize the bill of goods the different factions are trying to sell.
RB Byrd
Flower Mound, TX
