So here's a question - if even someone with just one kanaka maoli ancestor seven generations ago can get all the benefits of a pure, true kanaka maoli, how come someone with just one haole ancestor seven generations ago isn't forced to pay up just like all the pure haoles?
I mean, it all revolves around the idea of credit and blame - but it seems unfair to give 100% credit to someone when their family is 95% to blame for the state of native Hawaiians. People talk about being "Hawaiian" even though if you judged them by one drop of something else, they're really "Chinese" or "Japanese" or "Caucasian".
Is it fair to keep the benefits cutoff at 50%, since that's the break even point for credit and blame? How else would you define a cutoff, without making it so that native Hawaiians go effectively extinct by diluted koko?
You need to be a member of maoliworld to add comments!
Replies