E Pluribus – What?

35
6006
courtesy of www.stoptheakakabill.com
article top

courtesy of www.stoptheakakabill.com

BY JERE HIROSHI KRISHEL – Present on the Great Seal of the United States since 1782, its meaning is both simple and profound – “Out of many, one.”

inline

Originally it may have been but a literal acknowledgement of the Union of the thirteen colonies, but as the years have gone by it has become a philosophical premise which we apply as a standard of morality.

It is today a clarion call for the respect of diversity, an acknowledgement that while we may have our differences, we are one people, under one law. Each citizen of the United States takes for granted that regardless of their racial background, cultural background, or family history, they are endowed by their Creator, the same unalienable rights as all their other fellow citizens.

The startling truth, however, is that we have a lot further to go before our laws and our country are aligned with this noble motto. Just as the institution of slavery stood as a stain against the noble ideals upon which our constitution was based, today we live under a government which has yet to make good on the motto, ‘E Pluribus Unum.’

While our constitution expressly prohibits denying people equal treatment under the law with the fourteenth amendment, our government has often both willfully and woefully ignored this basic guarantee.

The race-based quota system of affirmative action is perhaps the most visible example of this violation of constitutional rights (with a low point in Grutter v. Bollinger, and some progress recently with Ricci v. DeStefano).

The idea of treating people differently because of their racial background is anathema to the concept of civil rights, and the “fighting fire with fire” philosophy of fixing racial discrimination by using more racial discrimination is hypocrisy at its worst.

However, an even more egregious violation of the principle of equal treatment exists in current Indian law, and an even greater danger is presented to us with the Akaka Bill that has been proposed in various forms for the past ten years.

As it stands today, we have three distinct classes of citizenry in the United States – tribal leaders, tribal members, and non-tribal citizens. Tribal leaders stand generally above the law, with no constitutional checks on their power.

The Supreme Court in its Nevada v. Hicks (2001) case stated, “it has been understood for more than a century that the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment do not of their own force apply to Indian tribes.”

This exemption from the basic protections afforded to other citizens places tribal members in the most disparaged class of the three, leaving them at the whim of their tribal governments.

While under tribal jurisdiction, non-tribal citizens fare just as poorly, but they at least have the wherewithal to escape from the reservation, while tribal members face the threat of tribal expulsion, confiscation of the lands their family may have lived on for generations, and even loss of custody of their own children.

Today, there are 565 federally recognized tribes which may freely violate the constitutional rights of their members. The Shinnecock Nation, backed by Gateway Casino Resorts, with only 1,292 members, became number 565 on October 1, 2010, after all appeals to their recognition (including objections from other already established casino tribes) were exhausted.

The Shinnecock, and the other 564 federally recognized tribes, are granted exemptions from state and local jurisdictions, creating a special class of citizenry not subject to the rights and laws of their peers.

These federally recognized tribes also have access to lucrative federal assistance programs (regardless of any tribal casino income), funded by non-tribal taxpayers and controlled exclusively by tribal leaders. So instead of ‘E Pluribus Unum,’ the truth is that today we live in a country governed by ‘E Pluribus Pluribus,’ with a constant, yet often overlooked, division of people into different strata of citizenship.

The Akaka Bill serves as yet another continuation of that deplorable trend, promising to “reorganize” everyone with the smallest drop of native Hawaiian blood into an Indian tribe, with all the equal protection problems that come with it.

Specifically constructed to protect current race-based programs targeted at native Hawaiians, the Akaka Bill is a headlong dive into the constitutional loophole provided by Indian Law, and promises to divide the State of Hawaii in the most wrongheaded manner imaginable.

From a purely self-interested point of view, it’s no wonder that future Akaka Tribe leaders want to get in on the Indian Tribe game – between the casino money, and the federal dollars appropriated (regardless of whether or not a tribe is economically self-sufficient), even the most reasonable and rational person might be sorely tempted.

An investigation into recent native Hawaiian grants handed out by the government at https://4hawaiiansonly.com has already identified over 766 grants totaling over $273 million.

While only a drop in the bucket compared to the more than 4 billion spent on Indian tribes every year (the BIA is unable to give any exact number), there is no question that we’re talking a lot of money, and a lot of temptation. It will be a long road for our country, to repair the self-inflicted wounds of ‘E Pluribus Pluribus.’

Ending the second and third class citizenship status of existing Tribal Law, and preventing the enactment of further injustices like the Akaka Bill will not be easy – the forces arrayed against a nation of one people, under one law, have resources common citizens simply cannot match.

But in the end, no matter how long or difficult the struggle, the United States will one day live up to its noble ideals of its founding – E Pluribus Unum.

Comments

comments

bottom

35 COMMENTS

  1. “Jere!! The Republic of Hawaii had no authority to ratify the unconstitutional illegal Newlands Resolution in the first place so your arguments are totally misleading.”

    Sure they had authority – they were an internationally recognized, sovereign and independent nation. Why wouldn’t they have the authority to ratify a treaty by their own laws, recognized as legitimate by the entire international community?

    “totally contradicts Public 103-150, where Congress admits to a crime”

    PL103-150 was a US law, and under the jurisdiction of the SCOTUS. They declared that the whereas clauses in PL103-150 (written by Davianna McGregor, and fact checked by nobody before passage), had no legal weight, as per the standard rules of statutory construction.

    “I have long advocated that Cleveland’s appeal to Congress was the proper way to undo the mess the committee of safety created”

    And the result of Cleveland’s referral of the matter of the Hawaiian Revolution of 1893 to Congress was the Morgan Report, which determined after taking both the Blount Report, and testimony under oath, that the US peacekeepers which landed during the Revolution behaved in a purely neutral manner. After the Morgan Report, Cleveland officially recognized the legitimacy of the Republic of Hawaii, and considered the Republic to have inherited all the treaty obligations previously held by the Kingdom of Hawaii.

  2. E Pluribus whatever!!

    By EPU I’m really not referencing the U.S. Seal “out of many,one.” Rather, I’m referring to your original headline (which somehow vanished?), “One law, one nation” etc. This is a direct reference to the Biblical concept of equality, which go’s something like this… There shall One law, and one manner shall be for you, and for the stranger who sojourn’s with with you.”

    This kind of equality wasn’t the sort you speak of in your comments, and yet this is where American liberty is actually rooted. These principles were applied in the Colonies long before John Lock was born. Enlightenment era produced confusion that till this day scholars are sharply divided over. We call this historical revisionism right?

  3. “This is a direct reference to the Biblical concept of equality, which go’s something like this… There shall One law, and one manner shall be for you, and for the stranger who sojourn’s with with you.””

    That’s from Numbers – here’s the full passage:

    “Each sacrifice of a bull, ram, lamb, or young goat should be prepared in this way. Follow these instructions with each offering you present. All of you native-born Israelites must follow these instructions when you offer a special gift as a pleasing aroma to the LORD. And if any foreigners visit you or live among you and want to present a special gift as a pleasing aroma to the LORD, they must follow these same procedures. Native-born Israelites and foreigners are equal before the LORD and are subject to the same decrees. This is a permanent law for you, to be observed from generation to generation. The same instructions and regulations will apply both to you and to the foreigners living among you.””

    So specifically, they’re talking about animal sacrifices, and one law – but they’re not really asserting that there is one people there. On the other hand, we are Americans, we are one people, and we should all be subject equally to the law.

    I had not intended my original title to be biblical in reference, and in comparison, it actually goes further than Numbers, and hearkens to the New Testament opening of the blessings of God to all people.

    So when I speak of equality, I do mean equal treatment under the law, regardless of ancestry.

  4. But Israel was not a cosmopolitan democracy as America is today. This passage is echoed throughout the old testament, and it became part of the main feature or quality of the system in the new testament area. “On this hangs all the law and the prophets, Love God with all you heart, and love thy neighbor as thyself.” “Do unto other as you would yourself” was also part of Israelite foreign policy, did you know that Jere??? The nation could not violate Gods laws this way without suffering the “same judgment.” Israel was not to “oppress the weak for unjust gain.” This meant weak nations could not be exploited without consequence!!!! One seeking citizenship within the commonwealth needed to be a faithful Israelite for a number of years before they could be a full member of the commonwealth society and even then certain functions were exclusive privileges of those appointed to a particular post. Americas highest principle of justice says your laws and rights come from the Bible (God) not from nature or from man (the state). The passage under consideration speaks to those who are “strangers who sojourns with you.” Provisions were made to treat non-members with equality but again the key words are “and for the stranger who sojourns with you.” This presupposes a self sustaining integrated system, that could not be mixed. If a non-Israelite refused to fully integrate into Jewish culture they were, we might say, less than equal. The New Testament gives us the same phrasing when Paul says in Eph 4:4; “THERE IS ONE BODY, AND ONE SPIRIT, EVEN AS YE ARE CALLED IN ONE HOPE OF YOUR CALLING.” American democracy has over the years become flawed because of its transformation from a nationalist to a cosmopolitan culture. One nation under God has been changed to mean many nations and many religions under the Government. This is completely inverted would you agree? The cultural unity Israelites enjoyed was the result of some very specific instructions not to mix the faith with heathen laws. In this we see that authority and law came from God not the state or the people. Progressives are trying to create a multicultural society, which you seem to prefer over the wisdom of One law one faith. Legal continuity (equity) and moral absolutes are what distinguish, or should distinguish, a Christian culture (Deut Chapter 4). This is one of the reasons why America was bound to a contiguous territory but you deny this right? Do you care to know what the Anglo-Saxon’s were saying about Hawaii and Hawaiians when the provisional government (committee of safety) had tried to advocate before Congress annexation of Hawaii into the Union? Please show me that you are capable of objectivity by citing the actual dispute to this effect!! What was the criterion for states entering the Union during the early formations? Read Noah Websters writings, you’ll be very surprised to learn that he and others believed that Christian principles lay at the center of their legal culture. This is one of the reasons Cleveland had made the effort to repair the breach as it were, and why he was so adamant about restoring the Queen to her lawful post. He and others who knew about the countries founding had no doubts that their countrymen had committed a fraud on a peaceful people. If a laymen like me who dropped out of school in the 4th grade can beat you in a debate, what will you do when you face a formidable opponent? You write well but your logic is mangled. I cannot write but my augments are sound because I look at all the parts involved not just the ones I isolate to win a minor point. One more thing. By blessing to all people do you mean to say Judeo Christian law is open to all people? This means divine judgement against those who replace good for evil and who blaspheme the lord with evil laws! Does this mean Deut 4 is void??? Are you a futuristic dispensationalist? These types are all confused about Biblical law in general. Evangelicals are always chiding humanist for rejecting Biblical obsolete while they are the first ones to say Gods law was abrogated with the advent of Christ. Read Nehemiah and tell me what the unifying principle was for Israel as they sought to rebuild their country? Why for example were mixed marriages prohibited going forward? Don’t give me the liberal answer, I already know what they say about this. I’m looking to see if you can answer this from a theological perspective? This by the way carried into the new testament with regards only to the faith not to race. Non-organic thinking leads to dissolution. oops I gave you the answer!!

  5. “But Israel was not a cosmopolitan democracy as America is today. This passage is echoed throughout the old testament, and it became part of the main feature or quality of the system in the new testament area.”

    So are you advocating to a return to the Old Testament, or do you believe in Christ’s message of universal salvation?

    “This meant weak nations could not be exploited without consequence!!!!”

    If you’re trying to assert that somehow Hawaii was exploited, you’ve got your perspective a bit skewed – Hawaii, of all the island nations of the pacific, has been the most prosperous and powerful since joining the Union.

    “This presupposes a self sustaining integrated system, that could not be mixed. ”

    This also presupposed animal sacrifice. Are you following the rules of animal sacrifice as declared in Deuteronomy?

    “Progressives are trying to create a multicultural society, which you seem to prefer over the wisdom of One law one faith.”

    No, progressives are trying to artificially separate people by culture, demanding specific treatments for specific races – their use of the word “multiculturalism” is only a thin facade over their basic racism. A multicultural society, such as that of the Kingdom of Hawaii, which included people from all over the world in every branch and level of government, is something to be relished, cherished, and aspired to, and can only be achieved if we have One Law, and leave people to their own to choose their faiths, as outlined by the first amendment.

    “This is one of the reasons Cleveland had made the effort to repair the breach as it were, and why he was so adamant about restoring the Queen to her lawful post.”

    You’ll note that the Provisional Government flatly repudiated Cleveland’s demands, and once Cleveland referred the situation to Congress, Cleveland himself (as well as eventually Liliuokalani), became reconciled to the wisdom and natural union of Hawaii and the United States, whose history was intertwined as far back as Oobookiah’s plea for the Connecticut missionaries to bring the word of God to the islands.

    “By blessing to all people do you mean to say Judeo Christian law is open to all people? ”

    By blessing to all people, I mean to say that the Judeo Christian God does not deny salvation to anyone based on their ancestry. Judeo Christian law is a concept only truly practiced by the Vatican and orthodox jews, and even that is a far cry from the actual laws put forth in the bible (especially with the advent of the New Testament for Christians).

    “Read Nehemiah and tell me what the unifying principle was for Israel as they sought to rebuild their country?”

    Nehemiah was the old testament. As a jew, he would have considered Christians the enemy of his people.

    “This by the way carried into the new testament with regards only to the faith not to race.”

    And so we agree, asserting any sort of unequal treatment for people based solely on their ancestry or skin color is wrong. Now whether or not we agree on what is a true and untrue faith, that’s another story, but as a proud American, I stand by your right to believe whatever you wish to.

  6. “By blessing to all people, I mean to say that the Judeo Christian God does not deny salvation to anyone based on their ancestry. Judeo Christian law is a concept only truly practiced by the Vatican and orthodox jews, and even that is a far cry from the actual laws put forth in the bible (especially with the advent of the New Testament for Christians).:

    I’m not addressing personal salvation or animal sacrifice at all. I’m addressing civil law as statesmen would, not an evangelist or a Jew living in Palestine. No court would accept your logic about Hawaii multiculturalism or prospering as an out for the U.S. or for the fake Republic for that matter (unless of course the court was dominated by white males who are bigoted against brown people). I’m Imagining you standing before a tribunal trying to say that everything America did that was fraudulent and evil in Hawaii, should be weighed against how many white people personally benefited from the evil act. Kind of like saying Obama HC is legal because 300 million people are getting health care! Or I raped her because she had short shorts, and besides she had the baby!! So by your logic, because she went on to have the baby, no crime was committed? This is the same logic illegal immigrants use to skate Immigration laws. We can ignore your laws, bankrupt your country, because we do the work you don’t want to do!!!!!! These and other excuses are created where the law is treated with contempt, but such only forces political manufacturing, which again is a curse on the Republic! Christ corrected the Jewish leaders who accused him of breaking the Sabbath law, but in the end Christ broke no Sabbath law. You are the Jews attempting to find fault with me, and with our Queen, were no crime existed. The annexation party had only self-interest in mind, nothing more nothing less.

    Your comments reveal that you are ok with treating Kanaka Maoli as second class, since you believe that due process (civil rights) needed to be suspended in order to somehow make a way for true liberty. This contradiction is rooted in greed and white prejudice not law.

    “Judeo Christian law is a concept only truly practiced by the Vatican and orthodox jews, and even that is a far cry from the actual laws put forth in the bible (especially with the advent of the New Testament for Christians).

    This is classic antinomianism!!! I’m talking about the law of liberty as found in James 2 and elsewhere in scripture!! Common law was contract law correct? Law and salvation are two completely different institutions; Ecclesial and civil. You Jere, are confusing the two. Law is morality externalized, and religion is concerned with morality because it makes ultimate determinations on what is good and evil. Both institutions are valid today but by your reasoning Gods law is somehow not binding or useful in America?, or that it lacks universal appeal? Doesn’t scripture give us instruction on justice and equity? Or are you saying the salvation message is the only message of scripture?, as if the old testament law were pitted against the new?? Didn’t Christ say he came not to destroy the law but to fulfill it? Did not New Testament believers use Biblical law to adjudicate disputes?

    “When New England began its existence as a law order, its adoption of Biblical law was both a return to Scripture and a resolute return to the fundamentals of Christendom. Thus the New Haven Colony records show that the Law of God, without any sense of innovation, was made the law of the colony:

    March 2, 1641: And according to the fundamental agreement made and published by full and general consent, when the plantation began and government was settled, that the judicial laws of God given by Moses and expounded in other parts of scripture, so far as it is a hedge and fence to the moral law, and neither ceremonial or typical nor had any reference to Canaan, hath an everlasting equity in it, and should be the rule of their proceedings.

    April 3, 1644: It was ordered that the judicial laws of God, as they were delivered by Moses … be the rule to all the courts in this jurisdiction in their proceedings against offenders.

    “Nehemiah was the old testament. As a jew, he would have considered Christians the enemy of his people.”

    No, he would have embraced Christians and visa versa. Lots of Jewish Rabbis who don’t believe in Christ see American liberty, and Americans, as a “natural Union.” The American Government also views Israel as a friend!!! So no, your hypothetical, like most of what you post, is fictitious surmising. Your hypothetical here reveals something about your own white prejudice I think.

    America no longer requires integration; even the courts are staring to bring in outside laws to assist them in domestic disputes.

    Actually I’m amazed at your propensity to gloss over the critical facts. One of which is the way the Queen used the term “under duress.” Guam and Hawaii were coerced by America to become a state; similar to the way Americans are being coerced into Obama HC! The government manufactures a crisis then drives circumstance until we cry uncle! That’s bully politics not good faith! It is why you will never win with these silly inversions you use. Doing this belies your commitment to one law. All you are doing is trying to protect the status quo, nothing to do with justice or equity. The testimonies of those who were involved in the overthrow and annexation, as you might carry them forward, would be viewed or considered not credible because of all the underhanded things they did to get were they got!!! I would bring all of Cleveland’s words as well as all the formal testimony offered by Americans against yours and those who had misused their authority for political advantage. The Bible calls what the annexation party did “framing mischief by law.”

    Again I say you are losing these arguments to an amateur layperson, who is a surfer, not a scholar! What would happen if I recruited my mentors to debate you?

  7. “I’m addressing civil law as statesmen would, not an evangelist or a Jew living in Palestine.”

    Then identify the court with jursidcition, and the applicable body of law.

    “Christ corrected the Jewish leaders who accused him of breaking the Sabbath law, but in the end Christ broke no Sabbath law.”

    Certainly Christians believe that, but do you think practicing Jews do?

    “Your comments reveal that you are ok with treating Kanaka Maoli as second class, since you believe that due process (civil rights) needed to be suspended in order to somehow make a way for true liberty.”

    Not at all. I believe that the various sovereignty groups that would assert some sort of kanaka maoli preferred class of citizenry in their re-created Kingdom are making that argument. I’m asserting, very simply that true liberty is only possible when all people are treated equally under the law, regardless of their ancestry.

    “I’m talking about the law of liberty as found in James 2 and elsewhere in scripture!!”

    How do you reconcile James 2, which asserts favoritism is forbidden, with your assertion that we should practice favoritism in order to rectify some percieved historical injustice?

    “Both institutions are valid today but by your reasoning Gods law is somehow not binding or useful in America?”

    We live in a secular state, with no espoused state religion, and an explicit right in our bill of rights to protect the religious beliefs of those who may not believe in your God. Clearly, bibilical law does not apply in modern times, and it certainly would be a poor replacement for the secular system our founding fathers started so many years ago.

    Are you *aware* of all the various bibilcal laws?

    “And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free: Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever.” (Exodus 21:5-6)

    “Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.” (Leviticus 25:44 , KJV)

    “As for the male and female slaves whom you may have, it is from the nations around you that you may aquire male and female slaves.” (Leviticus 25:44, NRSV)

    Would you reinstate slavery, according to bibilcal law? If not, why not?

    “March 2, 1641, April 3, 1644”

    Both well before the founding of the American Republic, don’t you agree?

    “No, he would have embraced Christians and visa versa.”

    Which is why the Jews put Jesus up on a cross? Your rose-colored view of ancient Palestine is hardly supported by the facts of early Christianity.

    “Your hypothetical here reveals something about your own white prejudice I think.”

    Except, I’m not white.

    “Guam and Hawaii were coerced by America to become a state”

    Guam is not a state, and the plebesite in Hawaii in 1959 was not coerced. Prince Kuhio, and other ex-royalists, worked towards Statehood since annexation!

    “I would bring all of Cleveland’s words as well against yours and those who had misused their authority for political advantage.”

    Would you include Cleveland’s words where he formally recognized the legitimate, sovereign and independent nation of the Republic of Hawaii?

    “Again I say you are losing these arguments to an amateur layperson, who is a surfer, not a scholar! What would happen if I recruited my mentors to debate you?”

    I think you’ve overestimated both your mentors and your own ability to conduct a coherent and rational argument. I understand that it is hard for you to let go of many of the misconceptions you’ve been raised with, but you’ve failed the most basic tests here -> identify the court with jurisdiction, identify the body of law which applies, and file suit. Your arguments, as impressed as you may be with them, hold no legal weight until you actually get the matter adjudicated. I would propose to you that until you’re able to make these basic legal arguments, you’re simply stating a matter of personal opinion, and as much as you have a right to that, it is no more legally binding than anyone else’s personal opinion.

  8. Keanu Sai, if you don’t already know, is doing all that you suggest and more even as we speak! Just Google “The Hawaiian Kingdom” and you’ll see what I’m talking about! I am not now nor have I ever advocated that we forgo adjudication, here or elsewhere. My comments are never intended to replace or dismiss legal adjudication at all. I’v simply tried to identify where the correct venue should be given the facts we now have on this history. I do know for a fact that some of the points I’ve made with you will be made in what is now shaping up to be the legal basis of a formal complaint/process against the United States. The Lord is our ultimate adjudicator and He, being Sovereign over the affairs of men and nations, can and does exact his justice with-out mans courts!!! If you don’t know this Jere, you are mighty ignorant! I’m speaking truth to power similar to what Jeremiah, Isaiah, and other’s have done, where there were no righteous courts available to adjudicate their cause except the Lord our God “with whom we have to do.” “If thou seest the oppression of the poor and violent perverting of justice in a province, marvel not at the matter: for he that is higher than the highest regardeth; and there be higher than they.” You think and speak purely horizontal, whereas I think and speak vertically. Knowing what I know about America’s religious history it makes perfect sense to me. My opinion doesn’t matter I agree, but Gods word most certainly matters. “A false witness shall not go unpunished, and he that speaketh lies shall perish.” “getting treasure by a lying tongue is vanity tossed to and fro of them that seek death, the robbery of the wicked shall destroy them; because they refuse to do judgement.”

    My opinions may be incoherent and irrational to you, but you are without good judgment anyway, which is far worse because failing to see the whole truth you demonstrate your own bias just as you accuse me of doing. The Hawaiian community thanks you for making it clear that your arguments are biased towards the State, which you somehow deny had any legal glitches, errors, frauds etc. Any novice student of American law would know I’m right about the fraud I speak of if they took a little time to read about it. They would know you are a propagandist for the status quo. That I would bet money on!

  9. “Keanu Sai, if you don’t already know, is doing all that you suggest and more even as we speak!”

    And when his lawsuit is thrown out, or a decision goes against him, will you finally concede that your opinion on the legal matter is incorrect?

    “I’v simply tried to identify where the correct venue should be given the facts we now have on this history.”

    You haven’t mentioned either a specific venue or a specific code of law anywhere.

    “The Lord is our ultimate adjudicator and He, being Sovereign over the affairs of men and nations, can and does exact his justice with-out mans courts!!!”

    Well, you are *not* the Lord, nor are you his chosen Messenger, so you’ll understand my skepticism that your opinion necessarily matches the Almighty’s.

    “I’m speaking truth to power similar to what Jeremiah, Isaiah, and other’s have done”

    I’m sorry, but I’m not buying the prophent Napoleon line. You are not a seer of the old testament, nor are you the second coming of Jesus.

    “My opinion doesn’t matter I agree, but Gods word most certainly matters.”

    Does all of his word matter, or only certain parts of it? Are we allowed to ignore the legality of slavery according to biblical law, but cannot ignore admonitions against homosexuality? The problem isn’t God’s word, it’s how different people interpret it.

    “My opinions may be incoherent and irrational to you, but you are without good judgment anyway”

    And you have a constitutional right to your separate, however mistaken, opinion.

    “Any novice student of American law would know I’m right about the fraud I speak of if they took a little time to read about it.”

    And maybe that’s the problem – this is not a question to be decided by novices, this is a question to be decided by the courts.

    I look forward to Keanu’s attempt to get the matter adjudicated by the SCOTUS, and hope that when it is once and for all determined as baseless, either by lack of standing or by considered opinion, you’ll change your mind the same way Prince Kuhio, Robert Wilcox, and even Queen Liliuokalani did, and embrace the union of Hawaii and the rest of the United States.

  10. The race issue as framed by Jere above is simply anecdotal (too narrow) because it ignores critical components of the history leading up to Statehood. Race was taken up in Congress in the mid 1800’s, where Americans who protested annexation had warned that Hawaii was not part of the vision of the founders. These nativists (anti-imperialists) were protective of their unique statecraft, which they believed was unique to the Anglo Saxon race. Trying to address racial preference issues in exclusion of the events that lead up to Statehood, makes it appear as if the powers that be are using the Akaka bill to force a situation that will forever close the books on Statehood despite what it appears to be on the surface. When you oppose race based laws you are simultaneously attacking statehood because statehood was predicated on fulfilling this manufactured trust obligation based on prior frauds committed against the Hawaiian government. This was an attempt at creating a protectorate but where unilateralism not law became the tool of subversion. Statehood was a tacit admission that a great fraud had not only been committed but that it required some kind of remedial program to mitigate the effects etc. Without promises to this effect, the whole process would have looked totally top down and self serving, which of course it was regardless of the remedial language submitted with the Admissions Act.

    Jere’s response to me tells me he has this in mind much more than he appears to be about fixing or preventing racial classifications in the State Constitution he and others claims to oppose. How else would you explain the systematic denial that something was wrong with how statehood was promulgated? If you continue to oppose the Akaka bill, you are only making it more likely that the forthcoming legal challenges to statehood will succeed. Viewing the history narrowly this way
    tells me you are more interested in sanitizing the history than correcting it. Race is just a front for you in other words. Behind this are really a bunch of white property owners trying to secure their possessions against fears of a native government emerging with tax powers etc.

Comments are closed.