Posted by Namaka'eha on January 28, 2009 at 3:02pm
What an 'okolehau response from my haole brother in-law. "What are you looking for, recognition?" His argument is based on U.S. has made Hawaii part of the fifty states and thats it! You aint getting nothing back! U.S. took lands from the Native Indians too!My response: U.S. has been consistent in stealing lands. Nothing new! We know what to expect when they enter foreign soil - a hidden agenda! I didn't waste my breath and know that other kanaka maoli comes across a statement like this! It pist me off and when I pinpointed the faults of U.S. and the illegal overthrow of the Hawaiiann monarchy, ohh, quietness in the house. The accepted their behavior as pono and I sure want my nephew to learn about his Hawaiian culture from his father that supports U.S. occupation. I want to know what you think? Did this happen to you? What was your response?
Hey, I was chuckling reading other post. His smug and arrogant attitude just increase his rent. The "American dream," worked hard to give my children a better life at what cost? When I accomplished all my personal and professional goals, I was happy but not satisfied. The "void," sarcasm, sterotyping seems to be everywhere! Give and take has its limits and for that okolehau and others, this is not the end. The problem exist when thing are pono, can the U.S. and other ethnic groups handle it! Thats a good reason for the AKAKA BILL to be blowing smoke is to stop us from from getting back what is ours! My girlfriend was laughing if I did that on purpose, I said no with a chuckle! He either hears it from me or husband will give him the boot! Just listen to this, I offered to watch my nephew when he works - no cost! He can use the monies earned and apply it to the rent. I'm saving him about $700 a month and only ask for $375.00 water, electric, telephone. Not bad for a family of three in my hale with my three daughters and workaholic husband. I prefer to work from home and waiting for a response from Misaki's and Friendly Market on Moloka'i. On O'ahu, I'm looking at Tamura's and Sam's Club. If blessed,commissary is ideal, but happy at least food products are in the store.
The next time we are face to face talking story, I'll donate somen salad dressing and sauces! E kala mai, it may bite ya! Now, how should I tell him?
absolutely right! i would bet my life that if left UN-OCCUPIED, the Hawaiian Kingdom would have been better off today then the US is. All of the resources we have have, resources that are being stolen and used to further our occupiers needs, are more then enough for us to live. The US way of life is to keep the vast majority of its citizens in a constant and never-ending state of "getting by". It's got me living from disconnection notice to disconnection notice..... I remember how much easier life was when I was living from paycheck to paycheck. What a life. So lucky are we to belong to a country that takes such good care of its people.
Great name btw...I'm on the same wavelength as you regarding material wealth. I believe this is what makes slaves of men. Toil, Toil, toil, and for what? Does live honor the hard worker? I can't help but think there is another way... but what...but how...
Sorry Tane, I didn't mean to come off as self defeating. In the context of an actual argument with Namaka'eha's relative, I was merely pointing out how the -- 'give and take', 'acceptance and concession',-- how the respect in conceding to my opponent on my own terms actually advances my own argument thrice as much without conceding hardly anything at all.
In regards to Russia, I respect your manao, but personally I don't think that may be an accurate example. I believe that the separation happened out of desolation. Even today, men in dark places plot to regain lost possessions. Unless, of course, you're suggesting that this economic depression could reach those depths...
Mahalo for your blunt criticism. I find that invaluable for personal insight.
advances...... all of which my 'ohana would GLADLY give up for FREEDOM. Capitalism is a RAT RACE. Happiness cannot and will not, ever be found in this RAT RACE. PERIOD. What is the sense anyway? We are so caught up in this race, that is forced upon us by the ILLEGAL OCCUPATION, that we spend our lives chasing this "american dream". The house on the hill.... the 2 cars.... the white picket fence..... all of which, we do not need. Imagine how much more happier we would be getting back to the 'aina. Thats my main goal in life. We as a people, were self sufficient. Always have been (and one day will be again). We had to be... and you know we were damn good at it. In my opinion, we only need three things. We need our 'aina back. We need the water back. And we need eachother back.
What advances were he referring to? Before the U.S. invasion and belligerent occupation, the Hawaiian Kingdom was a very advanced society/nation in its day; one of the most modern, enlightened, and prosperous. Much of the advances of today would not have gone past us as a nation. Tell him don't be smug and arrogant for his country started out similar to Hawai'i. We would have done just fine without being part of the U.S.A.
Yes, even with those words you shared didn' t stop him from pointing out the social, historical or cultural advances that has already taken place. So much greed! The U.S. had can never replace kanaka maoli lives they placed at risk when brought diseases to the Hawaiian islands. Funny, he married kanaka maoli and expected his wife to be passive, oh no! Sarcasm and a western attitude would have landed him a punch from our kanaka bradahs! It may be the wrong place and wrong time, with an insult like that....who knows!
Often people use vacuous arguments that are self-defeating. Seeing the U.S as never giving up any territory, one just has to look at Russia and the Baltic States. So it WILL happen to the U.S. and according to international laws established.
In 1826, U.S. President John Quincy Adams stated that the U.S. must have Hawai'i under its influence and control; if not, other countries would take Hawai'i; meaning Russia France, or Great Britain. Thus the argument that another country would take Hawai'i was coined and used till today. The problem with that is all the treatied countries with the Hawaiian Kingdom honored their treaties except for the U.S.A. and that should tell you something of great importance.
UN's Declaration of Indigenous Rights was supported and signed by all the member-nations except for the ANGLO countries: Great Britain (United Kingdom), U.S.A., Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. I hope this is a revelation most people don't overlook. Great Britain is the the European country that did most of its colonialization beyond its seas and expanded its manifest destiny doctrines and dogma throughout the entire globe. They control a vast amount of territory for a small country, control the world's wealth, financial institutions, and people especially the ANGLO countries of which the U.S.A. is a part of till this day.
In 1958, the UN worked on their Human Rights Mandate to be effective in 1960 (one of the reasons U.S. admitted Alaska and Hawai'i hastily in 1959). Thus Hawai'i was taken off the roll of NGO. The U.S. wanted to take the option of Independence off for Hawai'i and Alaska.
I would respectfully disagree and point out all the social advances indigenous peoples have made in just the past couple years. I would further enlighten him on the UN's Declaration of Indigenous Rights. I would point out that only a handful of nation-states refused to recognize the measure, of these I believe they were all nation-states that migrated to 'claim' a new homeland. As a matter of social justice specifically for Kanaka Maoli, the winds of change were already in motion. This new era of 'enlightenment' has worked to empower ALL displaced peoples in what seems like could be short order. A right to self determination is hope.
However, I would concede that unless some devastating event happened, I don't see the US giving up any territory, especially amidst this economic turmoil. For one, in the world 'court' it would be a sign weakness. Some of the US' enemies may react accordingly. And second, I don't think they would afford such a strategic location to fall in somebody elses hand. The best case scenario is that they would stay on as a protectorate.
Comments
The next time we are face to face talking story, I'll donate somen salad dressing and sauces! E kala mai, it may bite ya! Now, how should I tell him?
absolutely right! i would bet my life that if left UN-OCCUPIED, the Hawaiian Kingdom would have been better off today then the US is. All of the resources we have have, resources that are being stolen and used to further our occupiers needs, are more then enough for us to live. The US way of life is to keep the vast majority of its citizens in a constant and never-ending state of "getting by". It's got me living from disconnection notice to disconnection notice..... I remember how much easier life was when I was living from paycheck to paycheck. What a life. So lucky are we to belong to a country that takes such good care of its people.
Great name btw...I'm on the same wavelength as you regarding material wealth. I believe this is what makes slaves of men. Toil, Toil, toil, and for what? Does live honor the hard worker? I can't help but think there is another way... but what...but how...
In regards to Russia, I respect your manao, but personally I don't think that may be an accurate example. I believe that the separation happened out of desolation. Even today, men in dark places plot to regain lost possessions. Unless, of course, you're suggesting that this economic depression could reach those depths...
Mahalo for your blunt criticism. I find that invaluable for personal insight.
In 1826, U.S. President John Quincy Adams stated that the U.S. must have Hawai'i under its influence and control; if not, other countries would take Hawai'i; meaning Russia France, or Great Britain. Thus the argument that another country would take Hawai'i was coined and used till today. The problem with that is all the treatied countries with the Hawaiian Kingdom honored their treaties except for the U.S.A. and that should tell you something of great importance.
UN's Declaration of Indigenous Rights was supported and signed by all the member-nations except for the ANGLO countries: Great Britain (United Kingdom), U.S.A., Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. I hope this is a revelation most people don't overlook. Great Britain is the the European country that did most of its colonialization beyond its seas and expanded its manifest destiny doctrines and dogma throughout the entire globe. They control a vast amount of territory for a small country, control the world's wealth, financial institutions, and people especially the ANGLO countries of which the U.S.A. is a part of till this day.
In 1958, the UN worked on their Human Rights Mandate to be effective in 1960 (one of the reasons U.S. admitted Alaska and Hawai'i hastily in 1959). Thus Hawai'i was taken off the roll of NGO. The U.S. wanted to take the option of Independence off for Hawai'i and Alaska.
However, I would concede that unless some devastating event happened, I don't see the US giving up any territory, especially amidst this economic turmoil. For one, in the world 'court' it would be a sign weakness. Some of the US' enemies may react accordingly. And second, I don't think they would afford such a strategic location to fall in somebody elses hand. The best case scenario is that they would stay on as a protectorate.