There's been some more talk recently about the Akaka Bill, and I have to say that on the surface I think that the bill makes sense. We've given back certain rights to Native Americans because, well, we dicked them over pretty hard in the past. In Hawaii America helped to orchestrate a violent coup so that we could step in and take over. Before we we came in they were a sovereign kingdom, much like Native Americans were self-governing. To me it makes sense to give Native Hawaiians similar rights to what we've given Native Americans.
Some Hawaiians agree, but others disagree.
Any thoughts?
2 comments:
You are correct that Hawai'i was formerly a kingdom. But that kingdom was multiracial, with non-natives being both appointed and elected to the Legislature, holding positions in the King's cabinet, etc. The Akaka bill does NOT propose to restore that multiracial kingdom.
What the Akaka bill does is to set up a phony Indian tribe, racially exclusionary in a way the Hawaiian kingdom never was. In doing that, it also sets a precedent for allowing the U.S. government to select any group of so-called "indigenous people", like Mexican-Americans who have Aztec ancestry, and create a race-based government for them.
Very bad idea. See:
"http://tinyurl.com/5jp5r
">
http://tinyurl.com/5jp5r
Kind of like the Shi'ite in Iraq...oh I am sorry we are creating democracy at the tip of a sword.
Post a Comment