Talk:Hawaiian sovereignty movement/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.

This archive page covers approximately the dates between 22 Jul 2004 and 19 Aug 2005.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying the section you are replying to if necessary. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.)

Please add new archivals to Talk:Hawaiian_sovereignty_movement/Archive02. Thank you. IslandGyrl 20:47, 19 August 2005 (UTC)


  • Does anyone have information about the Aloha Aina Party? I would also love some information about the criticisms of the Hawaiian sovereignty movement. I'm not quite familiar with the specific objections. --Jerry Farinas 22:15, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Contents

Anti-sovereignty positions (Conklin, Twigg-Smith)

For detailed analysis and rebuttal of claims by the hawaiian sovereignty movement, check out some writings by Conklin.

Many of the impressions people have about hawaiian sovereignty are based on fairly skewed interpretations of history, and Conklin goes into detail on many of these points. Conklin is definitely trying to press a point of course, but if you want someone who is critical, he's the place to go. My suggestion is to read everything you can from both sides. Another interesting link with a more academic historical critique is Hawaiian Sovereignty - Do the facts matter?. His whole book can be downloaded for free.

--JereKrischel

As diligent and fair Wikipedians, though, we ought to mention that the author of Hawaiian Sovereignty—Do the facts matter? is Thurston Twigg-Smith, the grandson of Lorrin A. Thurston, a leader of the overthrow. That would have a bearing on whether his perspective on the matter can be taken as purely historical and academic. The book's plaintive title suggests exasperation, a sense of being victimized even. For many years, in the post-war heyday of the Big Five, Twigg-Smith as owner of the Honolulu Advertiser was one of the most influential people in the Islands. Interesting slant, but know where it's coming from.
--IslandGyrl
IslandGyrl has an excellent point on the geneaology on Thurston Twigg-Smith (which he clearly acknowledges in his book), but I would venture to say that he does a fair job of clearly presenting that which he has historical evidence to call fact, and that which is clearly in the realm of supposition (on both sides). I'm also sure that the family histories of some of the pro-sovereignty movement activists also call into question their objectivity. Also interesting to note that despite Twigg-Smith's ownership of the Honolulu Advertiser, the newspaper's editorial board has been very pro-sovereignty. I would see that as evidence that despite his ancestry, he works hard to be fair. Have you read his book?
--JereKrischel
Accordin' ta this here Wikipedia thing (click on the "owner" link), the Advertiser was sold to Gannett in 1992, so I'd think that the paper's policies and Mr Twigg-Smith's would have been unrelated since then.
--IslandGyrl
Another excellent point IslandGyrl. Unfortunately the Honolulu Advertiser only has articles from 1999 on available online, so we can't state one way or the other what the editorial opinion pages held when Twigg-Smith owned the paper without looking at hardcopies. The Wikipedia article does mention that under Twigg-Smith the Honolulu Advertiser became less conservative (pro Big-5) and more progressive though...quote from the article:
With the coupling of Chaplin and Twigg-Smith, the Honolulu Advertiser shifted its political slant from a staunchly conservative pro-Big Five newspaper to become a more moderate, racially progressive newspaper.
...it would be interesting to look at the op-eds from before he sold the paper, and see if we could find an influence one way or another. That being said, have you had a chance to read his book? It seems clear that you don't agree with him on some of the issues, but I would guess that you might appreciate his tone in his book. My shallow impression of his motivation is that he feels defensive, and isn't trying to oppress anyone. He seems genuinely hurt by the allegations that his grandfather "stole" something from the native hawaiians (I believe he mentions an anecdote about some young part-hawaiian child confronting him with that accusation). Since the crown lands were ceded to the U.S. and given back to the State Of Hawaii once we got statehood, not appropriated by his grandfather for his own personal benefit, I give some credence to his point of view. Perhaps there is some other evidence of greed and ill-gotten gain I'm not aware of though.
--JereKrischel
Excuse me if I don't answer your question about having read the book or not. It's a legitimate question, but I feel it's important we avoid personalizing disagreement in any way.
It is part of our calling as Wikipedians to cultivate the ability to approach all the different sides and personages of a subject sympathetically, so to the extent I come across as being somehow personally hostile to Mr Twigg-Smith, to that extent I fall off the surfboard into the drink.
In the context of the Hawaiian Renaissance, variations in the Advertiser's slant are a very minor sidelight. For decades the discourse was in terms of two players, "haole and status-quo Hawaiian / Big Five / Republican" versus "Asian / 442nd regiment / Democrat". The Hawaiian revival sees itself as the reappearance of the third (and actually the first, the original) player. In an action movie, they'd be the guy who was beat up and left for dead in the swamp staggering back into the cabin—his cabin—where the two "buddies" who were supposed to be "protecting" him are divvying up the loot.
It's not about Mr Twigg-Smith or any of the Hawaiian activists personally. It's about how the whole Hawaiian language and history thing was made invisible, except as a decorative factor for tourism or for furthering North American missionary ends (e.g. the Polynesian Cultural Center is owned and operated by the Mormon church). I myself didn't know any of this stuff about Hawaiʻi, in spite of having grown up there. As a child I was taught the Hawaiian people welcomed the overthrow and annexation. When statehood was proposed, they didn't say, "You get to vote whether you want to be a state or whether you want to be an independent country." It was, "Become a state (come up on deck with the passengers) or stay a territory (stay in the hold as military cargo)." Little was said about the Hawaiians wanting to get off the boat entirely and go back to having a ship of state of their own.
When I heard about the discovery of the petitions showing over 90 percent opposition to annexation, I thought: "The people were against it? Well, heck, now just how did the schools, media, church, military, all the institutions manage to minimize awareness of that key fact? It's like not knowing that when the Dalai Lama was deposed in 1959, Tibetans were like, not pleased. Did I grow up in East Germany or what?"
--IslandGyrl 12:28, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
Aloha IslandGyrl, and thank you for your comments. As a side note, I've taken to reading some of the discussion boards on the Honolulu Advertiser website, and they are terribly poisoned by vitriol, and this infinitely more civilized exchange here gives me hope for the future.
I apologize if it appeared I was trying to personalize our disagreement in any negative way. I am interested in your personal point of view - both the anecdotes you describe about your experiences learning about hawaiian culture as well as your reactions, as one more sympathetic to the pro-royalists, to Thurston's prose, style and tone in his attempt at collecting history. I truly believe that it is only by putting ourselves in the shoes of others that we can hope to understand their perspectives, and your personal perspective is one I would like to better understand.
My anecdote about learning hawaiian history is similar to yours, but goes in the opposite direction. When I was growing up, I was constantly told about how bad the haoles were, and how bad the missionaries were, and how great Kalakaua and Liliuokalani were, and how tragic it was that the monarchy was overthrown. We would sing songs about King Kamehameha the great in gradeschool, celebrating his bloody conquest of the islands without giving much thought to the feelings of the men, women and children thrown off the pali (or the part the haoles played in providing kamehameha with weaponry). It was not until much later in life that I learned that haoles were close advisors and members of the kingdom from the very beginning, that Queen Kaahumanu herself destroyed the ancient hawaiian religion and replaced with christianity, and that both Kalakaua and Liliuokalani spent vast sums of money on the trappings of european royalty, driving the Kingdom into millions of dollars of debt (which was taken on by the U.S. after annexation). The shock of discovering that there was another side to the story seems similar to your reaction to the 90% opposition to annexation - although I found a reference you might find interesting on that:
According to the kingdom’s 1890 census, there were 48,107 citizens, including 40,622 being pure or part aboriginal Hawaiian. The petition opposing annexation had 21,269 signatures. Another petition supporting restoration of the monarchy had over 17,000 signatures, but this one has not been recovered so how much overlap there may have been is unknown.
--excerpted from [1]
Not quite 90%, but certainly a strong sentiment against annexation. Claims and counter claims of how valid the petition was fly back and forth, and I've heard arguments both ways about the popular sentiment at the time. As with all history, much is left to interpretation.
Personally, the hardest thing for me to understand about the hawaiian sovereignty movements is the racial exclusivity. As a mixed breed myself, I've always been very proud of hawaii's long history of integration. The fact that the Kingdom of Hawaii was only 20% kanaka maoli in 1893 leads me to believe that any restoration should keep the same racial proportions. And once I get to that point, and realize that today we have about the same proportions, I can't make the leap to say that what has happened to us since then in Hawaii wasn't for the best. If we went back to the constitution in place during 1893, and restored the monarchy, our people of asian descent wouldn't be allowed to vote. And only males would be allowed to vote. And Bumpy would be King. I know people feel strongly about the issue, but I don't understand why these issues don't seem to bother them the way they bother me.
Anyway, thank you again for your discussion IslandGyrl. I am fairly new to this wikipedia thing, and if you are any indication of the average wikipedian, I'm very impressed.
--JereKrischel
You're very welcome, JereKrischel. I'm sure anyone who has delved into web forums would know what you mean about vitriol. And whatever else we may disagree about, I think you were right to cut "few current Hawaiian residents would argue that the overthrow of the monarchy was just" at this point in time; after all, "few" is pretty strong unless proof is forthcoming.
Above, you write, "The fact that the Kingdom of Hawaii was only 20% kanaka maoli in 1893 …". Seeing that, I ask,"But is that actually a fact?" For instance, the chart on page 113 of my old water-stained Atlas of Hawaii (2nd ed. 1983), Univ. of Hawaiʻi Press, shows around 40% "Hawaiian" (presumably meaning full-blood) with an additional 10% "Part-Hawaiian" in 1893.
But as I've been trying to point out here and elsewhere, that's going to be the dilemma with all Hawaiʻi-related historical topics: one quickly finds out that folks with different perspectives don't even agree on a basic set of facts. How to proceed without nickel-and-diming ourselves to death over every detail?
This is a very good point...I've noticed a tendency during the argument to throw factual discrepancies around without regard to whether or not the discrepancy alters the argument. For example, although Queen Kaahumanu officially destroyed the native hawaiian religion, does that fact change anything about the argument that the missionaries destroyed hawaiian culture? Can they still be held culpable, even if their path to victory was through one very powerful alii instead of force of arms? And in the case of 20% versus 40% (or 50%) hawaiian, does that change anything about the claim that the kingdom of hawaii was multi-ethnic and multi-cultural at the time of the overthrow?
I think more than agreeing on a basic set of facts, we should also be discussing how those disputed facts may or may not have a bearing on the dispute. I think we need to identify those crucial disputed facts where a different fact leads to a different conclusion (e.g., my opinion of the kalakauas as being spendthrifts rests on the financial facts cited by Twigg-Smith, and if they were in fact thrifty monarchs I would have to alter my conclusions). Maybe then we can discover the core differences between the positions and have some hope of addressing them.
I guess maybe the question could be put this way - what would make you change your mind? If you learned that the administrators of the republic killed the children of the opposition, would you become more pro-sovereignty? If you learned that the leaders of the revolution had hawaiian blood, would you become more anti-sovereignty? My local npr station (kpcc.org) actually has a really neat section where they challenge your point of view on a given topic with 5 facts. They challenge both points of view, so if you identify yourself as pro-X, they'll ask, "What if you knew this anti-X fact? Would it change your mind?". It's quite an amazing exercise.
Thank you again for the discussion. --JereKrischel
No amount of detail adjustments at the level of fact is likely to budge folks unless something addresses the problem that fundamental legal and moral principles appear to have been violated. The Apology Resolution did address that, if it accomplished nothing else.
--IslandGyrl 02:12, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
It seems arguable that the Apology Resolution has been thoroughly discredited by Bruce Fein and others, and only served to muddy the waters with a very limited view of the historical record (PDF file (592 KB): Hawaii Divided Against Itself Cannot Stand). The very sad fact is that the Apology Resolution is now being hailed as unvarnished truth by pro-sovereignty folks, and with their strong reliance on such a shaky set of assertions they risk losing all of their credibility. By focusing on a legalistic argument, we arrive at the point of tossing 'facts' back and forth to undermine the other side without addressing their real greivances.
I guess it may help if we can identify the legal and moral principles in question. I've always felt by attaching themselves to 1893, the hawaiian-activists to themselves disfavor. By 1893, things had already gone terribly wrong. And arguing for a monarchy when you already have democracy seems anachronistic. Perhaps the Great Mahele would be a good place to see great legal and moral fault. Or perhaps Kamehameha the Great's reliance on haole advisors and weaponry, and the generous gifts of land handed out by the monarchy to outsiders. Of course, once we start blaming the native-hawaiian monarchy, there are few people still around we can hold accountable. But even then, if we had some sort of Truth Commission, and acknowledged the economic damage done to kanaka maoli by the alii, perhaps we could find some healing.
But I have a question - are we really motivated by legal and moral principles, or is that a facade for the true motivation of economics? If native hawaiians had kept hold of their lands during the Great Mahele, and in this day and age were amongst the richest people living in Hawaii, would this still be an issue? Would rich hawaiians want a return to monarchy? Would rich hawaiians want a return to racial purity and isolation? It seems that hawaiian sovereignty is the flag around which people who are 'have-nots' have gathered. And the fatal flaw I see there is that native hawaiians do not have a monopoly on poverty. My aunt in waianae is as local as they come, and as poor as they come, but she's pure portuguese. She deserves good health care, affordable housing and decent wages just as much as the 95% haole 5% hawaiian guy living in kahala with kids in Kamehameha school.
And there I think we have work to do. Ancient Hawaii was a place of haves and have-nots. Modern Hawaii, although now multi-racial and lacking the strict kapu laws of the past, still has the same problem. It is not an invention of the white man, and it does not victimize only the native. But it is an incredibly important issue, and one that must be ultimately addressed without regard to ancestry.
--JereKrischel

Wholesale change?

Aloha all, I notice there's a wholesale change in the article on or around 8/16/04. Can someone shed some light as to why that is? KeithH 06:20, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Um, that was me. Should I have put something up on the talk page about it? I left messages for Gerald Farinas, who wrote the original article, and he never replied.

His page was extremely abstract, said little about current people, movements, events, and gave the impression that Native Hawaiians were solidly united in a disciplined pro-sovereignty movement that wanted actual independence for Hawai'i. That may be what Gerald believes, but it's not a valid presentation of the welter of viewpoints among Native Hawaiians. (Which I've been observing, in some cases from the inside, for twenty years.)

I also strongly objected to his treatment of Wilcox (whom I regard as a self-seeking demagogue) and to the inclusion of Wilcox and the Home Rule party in a article on the current political situation. That's another attempt to give a historical pedigree and an impression of unity.

I spun those articles off, set up a link to them, and have been meaning to give another view of Wilcox, when I get a round tuit.

Gerald is a good writer and a great Wikipedian, but he has a strong POV when it comes to Hawaiian issues. I'm trying to open things up and give a little nuance and detail. Zora 08:03, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hi Zora, thanks for the explanation (and yes, I think such a major rewrite would have warranted a more detailed explanation here, but that's water under the bridge now). One thing I do notice is that Gerald's version read more like a history article, and your version focuses more on the present. I honestly think there's room for a historical and present-day view, with corrections for factual accuracy. After all, the movement wouldn't be where it is today if it weren't for the efforts of those that came before. The Hawaiian sovereignty movement may be all the over the map as you say, but one common thread is that it seeks self-determination in some form for Native Hawaiians(not necessarily full independence). At least that's the way I see it, correct me if I'm wrong as you're probably better versed in the "movement" than I am.
After all, what's not in dispute is, if Queen Liliuokalani hadn't been deposed, there'd be no sovereignty movement, whether it seeks independence, nation-within-nation, or what have you. And a discussion of the history of regaining sovereignty is certainly germane.
In any case, I think it's worth it to reach some common understanding. You both are very good writers and editors, and I'd hate to see bad feelings over this. I'll gladly help in anyway I can. KeithH 01:58, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I question the legitimacy of taking Wilcox or the Home Rule Party as part of the Hawaiian sovereignty movement. The term came into use only in the 1980s, I believe. How can someone be said to "belong" to something that came into existence after he/she was born? That's why I categorized the historical parts of the article as "a history of resistance to Western domination", or whatever the words were that I used. If you asked the Home Rule party if they were resisting outside domination, they would have said YES.

I find it fascinating yet pernicious that people identify so closely with their biological or ideological ancestors that they completely lose sight of historical differences. Native Hawaiians who feel any injury to people 200 years dead as a personal insult, or assume that their ancestors would have felt exactly the same way about things as they do. I imagine that if you actually could use a time machine to plunk such a person down in a Hawaiian village of 300 years ago, that person would be as disoriented by cultural differences as if you'd dumped him/her into a English village of 300 years ago. It might be even worse because unexpected and ideologically unwelcome.

Anyway ... if you have anything to contribute to the page, please do. I never DID answer the request for more info re the Aloha Aina party. And I realize that as I type this that there's no info about the Hawaiian renaissance, or a link to that, and nothing about Kahana valley, "no can eat golf balls", and other popular resistance movements of the recent past.

As for ho'oponopono with Gerald: Gerald has good reason to be mad at me, I think. When I first read the sovereignty page, I remembered the Native Hawaiian page I'd read recently and thought, wrongly, that THAT was the sovereignty page and that Gerald had completely wiped it out. I left a stiff note for him, to which he replied that he would NEVER do such a thing. I discovered my error and apologized abjectly, but I think I hurt him deeply. He might also be upset that I reacted so strongly to wossername, Lilikea?, and edited her inaccuracies out of existence, at which point she left in a huff. He had been welcoming her, as another Hawaiian voice, and might have thought I was too hard on her.

If you can achieve a meeting of the minds, that would be nice, but I don't expect it, and I can't really blame Gerald for feeling distant. Zora 07:02, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been meaning to reply but with it being election season, I've been busy staffing the campaign I'm administering.
(1) I am not upset about the changes made to the Hawaiian sovereignty movement page. I think many of the criticisms made were valid. Though I wish the historical topics I wrote about weren't just totally wiped out but instead revised in such a way as to accomodate the nuances you felt were needed. Keith pointed out something of my Wikipedia writing style that I didn't think anyone actually noticed. I do have a tendency to write somewhat abstractly, like most encyclopedic articles I've encountered, and not focus so much on analyses — not to say that there isn't room for any. Your version tends to read like a collegiate thesis, not so much an encylopedic article — especially in the introductory paragraph. I have to admit there was information lacking of the present-day sovereignty positions but I was hoping someone would add those in instead of having the entire article gutted and stripped just as I had hoped that someone would edit the sections I had already to weed out POV and mistakes, etc.
(2) I was never upset at you over the Ilikea episodes. In fact I had a lot of concerns and frustrations over the edits she made to articles. --Gerald Farinas 18:21, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hawaiian Kingdom

I'm surprised that Zora hasn't done anything to include Keanu Sai and his expertise in international law. There was nothing said about Prof. Boyle's criticism regarding Public Law 103-150 either.

http://hawaiiankingdom.org

Keanu Sai's page

I'm really impressed at whoever did a whole paragraph section on Keanu's page. That's not what I expected, but really am impressed by the details. Maika'!

Problems with accuracy

"Thanks to efforts by the Hawaiian sovereignty movement to raise awareness, few current Hawaiian residents would argue that the overthrow of the monarchy was just."

I think one of the larger problems with the sovereignty movement is that it makes claims and generalizations without regard to details.

For an alternate view of the overthrow (much more detailed, and perhaps more accurate), see this site:

http://www.hawaiimatters.com/book.html

Many current Hawaiian residents I know, of all races including native hawaiian (kanaka maoli), do argue that the overthrow of the monarchy was just, that Liliuokalani and Kalakaua were spendthrift despots, and that the right of a people to move from a monarchy to a republic was inherent. Unless it can be shown with real data that a majority of Hawaiians, after being exposed to both views of history (pro and anti-sovereignty) feel that the overthrow was unjust, I think the above statement prejudges the issue, and should be removed.

--JereKrischel

Thank you Thurston. I've heard another 'Oiwi say that your book makes you really think about it. But to be honest, I guess you are in the crowd that seems to be the group of people who luckily sees it your way. I know of others who are not from Hawai'i who have learned about the facts and were very surprised and do not agree with your take on the illegal actions your grandfather and the others have done. We all understand why they did it, but that does not make it "just". --66.214.138.3 13:02, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't sign my earlier post...and I'm not Thurston. I've found that the "facts" learned by people not from Hawai'i are often skewed in the direction of whoever was doing the telling. I think it's particularly divisive and insulting to members of a mixed race family to expect one set of kids to have certain rights, but their cousins who might not have the right kind of blood are supposed to have a lesser claim to justice. All that being said, I think the sovereignty movement loses sympathy when it focuses on 1893...the reign of all the Kamehamehas was terribly devastating to the kanaka maoli population (although we celebrate his victory over his enemies at the Pali, throwing people over a cliff is pretty brutal - not to mention the Great Mahele fiasco), and much sympathy for the plight of the commoners versus the ali'i can be made, but the movement from a monarchy to a republic to a territory to a state of the union seems to be a foward progression. It is "just" to overthrow a despot. It was not "just" (although perhaps inevitable) for disease to ravage an entire population group. It was "just" for missionaries to help preserve culture by developing an alphabet for hawaiian. I was not "just" for missionaries to force christianity upon any native population. The story of hawaii is a mixed bag to be sure, but to think that the suffering of the kanaka maoli gives them a right to racial exclusivity is antithetical to the aloha spirit that they shared with the world.

--JereKrischel

Religion and spirituality play a big role in the sovereignty movement. Think old Hawaii = Judea 2000+ years ago, with the United States as Rome, think Diaspora, and wandering in the wilderness, and now there's a dream called Israel. Or maybe think Lord of the Rings / Return of the King (and Kingdom). "All was lost, but now a generation is come that shall right the wrongs and reclaim the roots for all their kids and great-great-...-grand-kids." A touch of Hawaiian Zionism is in the air, as it were.

I think what tendency toward exclusion does exist comes from a perception somewhat like Israeli attitudes, in 1948 and now... "When the chips are down, who can we trust besides ourselves to really fight for our survival as a people? Gentiles / non-Hawaiians all have a proven record of being perfectly willing to sit on their hands while we disappear."

Folks see their proud and sacred lineage as on the brink of demographic extinction—(mutter mutter facing genocide mutter mutter). They're being pushed into the sea, all the health statistics are bad, homeless folks are being thrown off beaches (mutter mutter in their own country mutter mutter)... It's seen as a matter of absolute life and death (both physical and spiritual) for their community.

Also, how much bigger can a double standard be than we Americans denigrating the Hawaiian monarchy while being economically and politically joined at the waist with the truly despotic House of Saud?

--IslandGyrl

Excellent point on the House of Saud. I don't think I've ever understood the devil's bargains we've made in the middle east, and the legacy of the British Mandate plagues us to this day. Although I must say comparing the monarchy of Liliuokalani (aspiring despot, spendthrift) to the house of Saud (actual despot, spendthrift and active oppressor) is probably unfair to Liliuokalani.
That being said, I have to say, being a gen-Xer, I have never understood the moral rationale behind Zionism. Especially after being born and raised in Hawaii, the entire idea of racial purity or racial destiny seems quaint to me. Although I certainly have family living in waianae that are being pushed into the sea, with bad health statistics, being thrown off beaches, they're all pure portuguese. And truth be told, if we were to use weighted measures (1/8 hawaiian blood, 7/8 chinese blood in poverty counts more as an impoverished chinese than hawaiian), I'm not sure if the statistics would be as dire. That seems to be a problem when collecting demographic statistics in a multi-racial society like hawaii - everybody wants you to count only for the bucket that proves their point.
I think although they have used the imagery of Zionism, most of the complaint is economic rather than religous. Most people would find the indigenous kapu laws barbaric (I wonder how many female hawaiian-activists avoid eating coconuts and bananas, or eating with the opposite sex). And although outside influence can be argued, Queen Kaahumanu herself was the primary force in the destruction of the old heeiaus and kapu laws.
Another quite ironic point is that the Hawaiian Renaissance instigated by Hokulea in the '70s was actually founded by a haole Ben Finney. Most of the religion and spirituality now being embraced as "native" hawaiian is actually of modern invention, and has only a token similarity to the ancient laws and customs. Seen from that perspective (i.e., that their "traditions" are mostly modern inventions), it seems even less like the biblical claims of the jews. It would be akin to New Age Wiccans claiming rights to Salem, Massachusetts. Or 'Jews for Jesus' claiming rights to Bethlehem.
It seems to me that the biggest success of native hawaiians has been the fact that they refused to isolate themselves from the big scary world that "discovered" them. They are in my estimation the most truly color-blind society ever in the history of the planet. Although their contact with westerners had its share of negatives, their blood now runs through the veins of hundreds of thousands of others, mixed in harmony. They never saw themselves as superior to anyone else, and it seems they never saw themselves as different than anyone else. So for us now, a hundred years after an era when hawaiian royalty regularly married haoles, to advocate for racial purity, for racial 'preservation'...it seems like a giant step backward.
Thank you again for the interesting and challenging thoughts. It is my hope that I've been able to express a differing POV without being disrepectful. Any 'facts' I'm using to butress my points may be debatable, but I hope that my vision of a mixed-race future for hawaii (and the world for that matter) stands on it's own.
--JereKrischel

Hey, I found what must be your website, Once upon a krischel? So all this stuff is old hat to you, actually, at least from a certain perspective. There needs to be articles on Bruce Fein and folks on his side of the sovereignty issue. --IslandGyrl 11:33, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I save my emotional rants for my own blog...:) Originally it was for ultrasound pictures, then when Terry Schiavo came along I ranted about that. My interest in the sovereignty movements all really started for me on 7/19, when I read some CNN article on the Akaka Bill. I had always dismissed the sovereignty movements as fringe when I was growing up in hawaii (a typical response by many I think, the unspoken question being who gets to be the commoner and who gets to be the alii), but it seems that in the blink of an eye they've become quite powerful and influential. It frightens me quite a bit actually, and I think that's what drove me to the wikipedia - we can't hope to make a positive difference unless we understand what motivates the sovereignty movements. It's sort of like the response many democrats have had to the meteoric rise of the far right religous conservatives - 20 years ago, nobody cared about the folk who wanted to keep gays in the closet and evolution out of the schools - but now they've gotten to pick the president and both houses of congress for two terms...and it looks like they're also about to corner the market on the supreme court. I can hardly imagine what it would be like for my family still in hawaii when they start having people blood tested for who is hawaiian, when the cousins on one side of my family live under one set of laws, and the cousins on the other side live under another. What will it be like for married couples, where one is part hawaiian, and the other one isn't? Will the kapu laws come back? Will taxes go up? Will property be 'stolen' back? Will the orientals lose all their rights again? Since nobody has really put forward any straw man scenarios for us to debate, I'm very wary when it's claimed that I shouldn't worry and that nothing important will change.
--JereKrischel
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../h/a/w/Talk%7EHawaiian_sovereignty_movement_Archive_1_0d63.html"