User talk:Laualoha

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Laualoha, I reverted your edits to the Hawaiian sovereignty page. They seemed to be biased to me. Your edits supposed that some movements are "good" and others are "bad", as well as assuming that Native Hawaiians will reach consensus some day on the preferred form of self-government. Your comment that some of the wording was "offensive" was especially puzzling.

Please go to the talk page for the article and discuss the edits one by one. You may end up convincing the other editors :) Zora 09:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Welcome to Wikipedia!

Hey Laualoha, thank you for your contributions to the Hawaiian sovereignty stuff - I think we probably disagree on many issues, but together I'm sure we'll be able to help improve the article quality here. I've made a few changes to your edits, and if you have any questions please feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. Mahalo! --JereKrischel 17:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV wording for sovereignty article

I think you were right about the ethnic cleansing wording - it was a bit too strong. However, tiered citizenship classes are specifically mentioned in at least one of the "constitutions" put forward:

http://morganreport.org/mediawiki/index.php?title=Proposed_Reinstated_Kingdom_Constitution_of_January_16%2C_1995

Section 1. Citizenship.
a. Kanaka Maoli National.
A Kanaka Maoli is defined as any person who by birth or national origin and ancestry is a descendant of the original inhabitants who prior to 1778 exercised sovereignty over the Archipelago of Hawai'i.
b. Citizens, Naturalized.
The Legislative General Assembly shall provide by law a naturalization process for all persons who qualify and choose to become citizens of the Nation.
There are specific clauses as to what first class citizens can do, and what second class citizens can do, regarding participation in government, as well as other rights.
I worked things around a bit more, hopefully they capture what we're both trying to express. --JereKrischel 04:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I hear what youʻre saying, but I still think "tiered classes" sounds like a caste system, and nobodyʻs talking about that. This may not be your intention, but I donʻt want anybody misunderstansing whatʻs going on here, either. Aloha, Laualoha 23:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that's specifically spelled out in several of the constitutions - a caste system by which people of one race have certain rights to participate in government (judiciary, special councils, etc), and others don't. Although you may be right that people don't want to talk about that, because the idea of race-based privilege is generally frowned upon, that is still exactly what is being done and acted upon.

oh, wow, laulau -- first ethnic cleansing, now a caste system? I must be missing something...

It seems like youʻre saying what we have now is more fair. I donʻt want to misrepresent your position though --am I wrong? And if you do feel itʻs more fair, could you say that to my nihoʻole uncle who lives in a car on Kaupo beach with windows that donʻt roll up? Or should one just tell Uncle, "get a job"? Sovereignty groups (even ones I donʻt quite agree with) have generally done a lot of work (in both deed and paper) to address the problems faced by people at the bottom of the socioeconomic strata, both Kanaka Maoli and non-. If youʻre really that scared of what Kanaka Maoli would do if we had slightly more decision-making power in some areas, Iʻm concerned that you might be assuming that we would behave toward non-Kanaka as America has behaved toward the people whoʻve "stood in its way". But have no fear; weʻre not America. If thereʻs a caste system here, itʻs definitely not of our making. Laualoha 12:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that by any stretch of imagination, the *system* we have defined now is more fair than one that creates two classes of citizenship, but that does not address the issue of whether or not our implementation of either system would be fair to your uncle.

hmm, lemme stretch my imagination...Hey Jere, how many classes of citizenship do ya think we got now?Laualoha 00:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

For example, do you feel a 2 tiered citizenship system would be more fair to my destitute portuguese aunty in Waianae, living on the streets alongside your uncle?

Eh, I think I know her, too! And she doesnʻt vote, cuz she has no car. And it wouldnʻt really make a difference to her world if she did. If Kanaka maoli had a little more say and the rich power mongers who currently run the government here had a little less, I think Auntie would probably be better off, not worse.Laualoha 00:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC) p.s.B/T/W, itʻs funny you should mention Auntie...My band has a song about her! If you come see us Iʻll make sure we play it, just for you. Aloha, Laualoha 00:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, your assurances of a benign racially dominated government ring hollow in my ears. Rich kanaka maoli in power haven't had a track record any different than any other rich ethnicity. Think about who ordered the sandalwood forests denuded. --JereKrischel 00:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, Jere, ya got that one piece of history: The sandalwood thing was stuuuuuuuuupid. However, there were other factors involved, such as:1)the sudden appearance of foreigners with guns & cannons. People had already seen what they could do (e.g. the Olowalu Massacre[1], 1790) & kinda felt like theyʻd all be in a lotta trouble if they didnʻt get some with this new threat around; 2) the active involvement of American & European brokers pushing the issue, 3) the lack of prior exposure to a concept such as "environmental destruction", since they had always cared for the land very carefully, & 4)the protest of many, many makaʻainana & kahuna, who never stopped being pono.Laualoha 00:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Despite your assertions that if given superior powers, kanaka maoli would not abuse them, I am skeptical of any system that treats people differently on the basis of race. I simply assume that if you create a constitution with two classes of citizens, based on ancestry, with special privileges for a specific ethnic group, you are creating an explicit caste system, and though it may be argued that such a caste system might be more beneficial for society as a whole, there are no guarantees (and a bunch of historical examples that should drive fear into our hearts). --JereKrischel 15:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Um, Jere, Iʻd really like you to please look up caste system first. Itʻs a function of class, not "voting rights". Voting is only one part of power, and not the biggest one. Nobodyʻs seriously talking about kickinʻ Uncle Thurston out of his mansion, so you can tell him no worry. & Iʻm sure heʻd still be doing the same shifty schemes then as he is now; no one is gona stop his free expression of villainry, just like the Kingdom would not allow the royal police to stop the Committee of Safety from stockpiling weapons and holding treasonous meetings.Laualoha 00:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Differentiating people into two classes, where one class has certain governmental rights, and another class doesn't, is the definition of a caste system. And if voting isn't such a big part of power, why would it be so important to limit it to a preferred race? --JereKrischel 00:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
The difficulty, of course, is that the people doing these things believe that because their goal is noble, their means are justified. The fact that non-natives are relegated to 2nd class citizen status in the constitutions put forth is a very minor point to them, compared to the eventual idea of justice they desire. However, to those people not of the 1st class race, this minor point looms large.

"Second class citizens", huh? Is that what you call the "Big 5" and all those missionary descendants with gated communities for a living room? (Side note: my ex once did some work on a small house on the Castle estate. It turned out to be a "duck house" [yes, a house for the ducks]. He said 3 people coulda lived in it.)? Remember, these guys were very much around when we had sovereignty the first time. And these "second class citizens" had big mansions to stash their guns in then, too. Laualoha 12:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

First of all, you still have sovereignty - just like any other U.S. citizen, you can vote, participate in government, and participate in jury trials.

Lemme find the right words for you...oh yeah...been there, done that! And I can tell ya firsthand, it doesnʻt work. Granted, this may not be apparent to those for whom the system DOES work, because of its systemic bias toward people of that particular ethnicity, belief system, language, educational background, set of abilities, etc., but thatʻs where I think you gotta try to be a bit more objective, and make an effort to grasp the concept of institutional racism. Laualoha 00:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Seems to work very well for our Senator, several of our governors, a whole host of our legislature, and let's not forget our patently unconstitutional system of race-based programs being challenged now in court. I think I understand institutional racism very well, although perhaps you believe it can be leveraged for noble purposes. --JereKrischel 00:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
In fact, you, as a woman, have more sovereignty now than any woman in the Kingdom of Hawaii ever had.

More than the Queen or Princess Ruth, huh? Anyway, one of the "unacceptable" things about the Queenʻs 1893 constitution (leading to her overthrow & U.S. takeover) was the direct address of womenʻs rights, which had been taken away by the Bayonet guys and other Anglo/American settlers. And the usurpers actively campaigned for their cause on a sexist platform.Laualoha 00:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

So now that you've got suffrage for every woman, instead of power for royalty (male or female) you have a problem with that? There is no denying that the evolution of government in the Hawaiian Islands has vastly improved over the Kingdom of 1893, the Republic of 1898, and even the Territory of 1958. --JereKrischel 00:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Secondly, socio-economic differences between haves and have nots have occured in every society. The ali'i were not humble people of the land, they were the "Big 50" of their day and time. They had not only the trappings of excess you mention with missionary descendants (and ali'i descendants as well), but also the power of life and death over all in their domain.

To tell the truth, Iʻm not a huge aliʻi fan either. However, we need to look at what theyʻve done with their money, power, etc. as opposed to those same missionaries. While the missionary money still goes to the upkeep of their falling mansions and the psychiatric bills of their descendants, the aliʻi money has founded hospitals for the poor, care & education of orphan children, etc. Queen Liliʻuokalani walked the land, talked to the people personally, actively promoted literacy (which was much higher than in the U.S.)constantly helped the poor who would come to her in need, and did the best she could do to speak the voice of all her citizens, blood or not. These were the practices of most aliʻi of the time period, despite their overly-fancy clothes and whatnot, which they believed they needed in order to be respected by other nations. I donʻt personally agree with this (for one thing, I think they shoulda seen there was much too much racism for them to get real respect, no matter what they did) but then, I didnʻt live then.

As far as "the power of life & death" goes, itʻs one thing to have it, and quite another to use it. I can think of lots of people the late-1800ʻs aliʻi could have killed to make life a whole lot easier for them, but if anything, they were very anti-killing, and promoted peace constantly, even when this was extremely hard on them. I daresay George Bush would not have done the same. Laualoha 00:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Your comparision of a race based system that explicitly creates a 2nd class citizenry, and the struggles any society has in dealing with the haves and the have nots which create implicit 2nd class citizenry, is simply Tu quoque, or the "you too" fallacy. In either case, we should agree that such stratification of is undesirable, and that it should in no way be enshrined into law. --JereKrischel 15:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Ya know, Jere, this "equal voting power" you seem to think is so important basically means rule by the rich (who fund the candidates & campaigns), and it always has. I donʻt really think thatʻs ok. While I donʻt claim allegiance to any of the sovereign constitutions you mention, I can understand their reasoning, which is to give Kanaka Maoli greater power over certain areas in which they have a more intimate relationship. If someone wanted to give your whole town "equal voting power" over your grandmaʻs grave, you might have a few issues with that, too.Laualoha 00:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

No, equal voting power means equal rights. Assuming that a given ethnicity will somehow be immune to the corruption of riches and wealth is a red herring. If you're worried about the rich, why not write a constitution which only gives voting power to poor people, instead of targeting a preferred ethnicity? --JereKrischel 00:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


I think maybe we can put in some words to make clear the vastly differing viewpoints regarding the importance or significance of limited rights for non-natives, but we cannot deny the literal designs that call for them. I believe we both understand the issue, even though we place differing amounts of emphasis on it - if "with tiered citizenship based on native ancestry" seems to stilted to one side, perhaps "with special privileges reserved for those with native ancestry" or "with citizenship rights based on native ancestry"? I thought that "tiered citizenship" was rather neutral, but perhaps we can find different words. --JereKrischel 23:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent edits

Mahalo, Laualoha, your wording changes regarding "who had fought against annexation" and "largely overlaps" are excellent! Thank you for working with me on them! --JereKrischel 23:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Settled -- yeah, right!!

Mahalo for your work on the Legal Status of Hawaii article, but please let's discuss the "settled/not settled " issue more on the talk page before agreeing on a final edit. --JereKrischel 20:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Jere, if you want to remove the line completely while we discuss this, thatʻs fine with me, but itʻs not ok to keep pushing your pov here. "Not settled" is the npov, as it is factually based (even in terms of simple grammatical logic) and doesnʻt take sides. The pro-sovereignty pov is that the matter is clearly settled in Hawaiʻiʻs favor, and thereʻs lots of evidence for this, but Iʻm not pushing that: neutrality is very important, and respectful to the readers. I think you have to look at your "majority" bias in this matter.Laualoha 22:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but "not settled" is POV pushing - it is a core argument of the sovereignty movement which states that the issue is "not settled", whereas the entire world, for over 100 years, has acted and behaved and decided in all deliberations that the matter is settled. Although I appreciate your concern for "majority" bias, wikipedia is not a platform for legitimizing extreme minority viewpoints.

OK. This is a really rich paragraph for a for a logic lesson. I believe your reasoning here is following the argumentum ad populum or "bandwagon fallacy", by harping on the "majority" of believers in the settlement of the legal question. Also, thereʻs an argumentum ad ignorantiam ("absence of evidence=evidence of absence"): the "entire world" hardly knows about Hawaiian History, so of course they would "behave (as if) the matter is settled". Most countries behave as if the matter is settled about the guy who stole my kidʻs bag of potato chips too, but that doesnʻt have much to do with legality. Even if they did know, there might be some reasons why they might not want to oppose the U.S. (its nukes for one, which touches on an argumentum in terrorem and/or Argumentum ad baculum).

No, you misunderstand me, Laualoha. I'm not speaking to the merits of the issue when I state that the "entire world" has acted and behaved and decided in all ways that the matter is settled. I'm not trying to argue AGAINST the position. You're falling into Ignoratio elenchi, the logical fallacy of irrelavant conclusion - my opinion on whether or not the Hawaiian sovereignty movement has merits to its claims is not being addressed when I state that the question of if the matter is "settled" is core to their claims. --JereKrischel 15:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Weʻre talkinʻ mangoes & potatoes here. Nobody was discussing merits at this juncture. And your use of the word "their claims" proves my point below, as well as an additional fallacy of overgeneralization.Laualoha 00:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, thereʻs a definite straw man in your point: when you say "a core argument of the sovereignty movement", you are describing the position of that movement as weaker than it is (not to mention that "the movement" has many positions, not just one), and then tearing up the NPOV, which you have just attributed to "the movement", as POV.

Finally, simple "if/then" logic settles the "settled" thing. IF "settled" = done, finished, pau, end of story, and IF it were settled, THEN there would not be a dispute, and THEN this page would be completely irrelevant, and would probably not exist!

This is a Fallacy of presupposition and composition - "settled" in this context does not mean that there is no dispute in anyone's mind - merely no dispute in most people's minds. Neither does the statement that something is "settled" preclude it from current or future dispute.

Um...could you please define "most peopleʻs minds", and include the following:

whether "most people" applies to the entire planet (and I guess any possible humanoid life forms outside of it) or just to those who at least know what the issues are,
who decides where the fulcrum of "most" is set,
where the data comes from (i.e. citation), and
how that highly subjective data is colleced and analyzed in order to reach this conclusion.

If, through the above means, you can prove that "most" is indeed correct, then maybe Iʻll concede that one point. However, this still would have little effect on the question of whether you can state with certainty that the matter is "settled". Aloha, Laualoha 00:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

For example, as a matter of U.S. law, it has been settled that abortion is legal. Despite that, it is still disputed and fought over. --JereKrischel 15:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, "extreme minority" viewpoint hardly applies here. Besides the tens of thousands who have participated in sovereignty actions and related efforts, "the movement" is rather popular with indigenous nations, worldwide NGOʻs,the Dalai Lama, etc... Laualoha 10:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that it is disrespectful to make clear the fact that the hawaiian sovereignty viewpoint is an extreme minority viewpoint - and the fact that they continue to fight for their beliefs despite over 100 years of history stacked against them (for whatever reason you'd like to assert), should be seen as a comment on their depth of conviction, not a critique of their worthiness.

Hey, Jere -- couldja define "extreme minority" in your own words? Just for fun. Laualoha 11:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

How about less than .001% of the world population?[1] --JereKrischel 15:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Whatʻs your source, Jere?Laualoha 22:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
You asked me for my definition, right? Do you have a different definition? --23:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Let's see if we can toss around some more ideas on the Talk:Legal status of Hawaii page, and I'm sure we'll be able to work it out. --JereKrischel 23:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notes

  1. ^ JereKrischel

[edit] Technical tips

I'm just learning how to use this one, but I thought you might like it - using the "ref" and "references" code, you can make easy footnotes. More info here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Cite/Cite.php. (I converted the Prejean article to use it.)

Also, you can make nice labels for links by using the following format:

[http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Cite/Cite.php Page regarding Cite plugin]

Note that the URL is immediately followed by a space, then the pretty label you want to see. It ends up looking like this:

Page regarding Cite plugin

Also, if you just want the entire url to be the label, you don't have to put brackets around the url.

Anyway, looks like you're turning into a great Wikipedian! --JereKrischel 07:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tips

Welcome!

Hello, Laualoha, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!

These pages are alway helpful... I'll try to find a category for your page, but to wikify, just put [[brackets]] around words that you feel would be helpful in decribing your topic, and divide up the page using ==Title==. Also, adding some references to it helps scare off the ADFers. Good luck editing!--Rayc 00:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aloha, Hana Hou!

Hello Laualoha! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Below are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Happy Editing! -- Kukini 02:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Getting Started
Getting your info out there
Getting more Wikipedia rules
Getting Help
Getting along
Getting technical

Just thought you might want a few more useful links. I grew up in Laie when I was young. Thought I might drop another aloha in on ya. Latahs, Kukini 02:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Legal status references

Hey Laualoha! Sorry, I'm not trying to "rewrite history" by removing your references, I'm trying to find a better place for them in the detailed sections. I've put up a section regarding photographs, and I've already placed a section referring to Blount and other source material...can we rest on the intro a bit, and expand the sub-sections with the details you wish to include? Some of the links you provided also didn't work (kohala.net might be down), and it will help if you use the "ref" tags for your citations, so it's clear what on the page you're linking to you're citing. Please take a look at my examples of using the "ref" tags, and see if you can figure them out.

Mahalo! --JereKrischel 04:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jere -- Ok, maybe youʻre not trying to re-write history. However, I think a lot of history has, over the years, been re-written (whether or not people were trying to do this) simply by the way in which information is organized. Sometimes libraries "re-write" history for their service population, just by where they put the books! Thanks for organizing the stuff - I appreciate the effort, but you really need to leave my refs where they are also. If you say or imply that the U.S. had no role in the overthrow and then take out my statement AND my link to pictures of the soldiers on the palace lawn,thatʻs re-writing history. Iʻm fine with letting it rest once the intro is fairly balanced. Regarding the links, Iʻll try to make sure they work (they all did when I put them up) and Iʻll try to use the "ref" thing, although Iʻm not as tech savvy as you & Iʻm squeezing this stuff into a way-busy schedule as is, so it might take a bit. Some of my refs are pdfʻs -- do the tags work with those? Aloha, Laualoha 08:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but your link to soldiers on the palace lawn, then asserting that they were marines when they are clearly Provisional Government troops, is an inappropriate reference. There is no question that U.S. peacekeepers were landed - what is in dispute is whether or not they behaved in a neutral manner, or if they aided and abetted the Committee of Safety, or threatened the Queen. It has been clearly found that despite Blount's earlier beliefs, they did neither.
To do your ref, just put in the following code immediately where you want the reference:
<ref>[http:/some/pdf/url Description of the PDF] Slightly more information regarding relevance</ref>
The footnote at the top and bottom will automatically generate. Mahalo! --JereKrischel 15:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aloha back at ya!

Mahalo nui loa for your kind words Laualoha! You speak from your heart what you believe is right, and even if I disagree with you, it is not because I think your heart is wrong. I greatly appreciate your spirit of dialogue, and hope you will continue to challenge me, and accept challeges from me, so that we can both learn from each other. --JereKrischel 02:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Nice to see you back Laualoha! I've been swamped with editing stuff on Race and intelligence, and got into a real intense edit with the J. Phillipe Rushton article, but it's good to see some activity on more of the Hawaii articles! Hope all has been well! --JereKrischel 19:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/a/u/User_talk%7ELaualoha_3942.html"