[mikki_mono]

Ok out there, I know many of you have conserns on the Native Hawaiians gaining recoginition just like the Native Americans and Alaskan Natives. Sure i've heard many different conserns about them putting up tribal casinos, property/manufacturing taxes, limiting schooling and numerous other issues. Personally I do support them and any suggestions that they make. The only limitations that they should be able to keep is what wishes/laws the prior Royal family stated before the died. For example right now the biggest issue is the the court battle on Non-native hawaiians attending Native Schools (Kamehameha Schools 9th Circut of Appeals Battle).
So my question to all of you is what do you think about the issue, do you support the Hawaiians or do you not?

[Blackbear]

I think it's been too long in coming and that native hawaiians should have had instant recognition. I don't have concerns at all about them being recognized and a casino and stuff is their business. What do you mean by limiting them on some issues??????

[Jammer]

Well my first question would be what are they going to be recognized as or for? I mean last time I heard they hadn't inhabited that island since their beginning...They are polynesian descent just as the taihitions and the maori people of New Zealand. I believe people have speculated that the people of Hawaii have only been there since around the year 676 or so. Although there has been other speculation as to there being two distinctly different groups of polynesians that have inhabited the islands of hawaii. Granted they have been living on the islands for a long time now and have much history that grows along with them through the islands. But then I guess that would make the question arise as to, if We American Indians could actually prove that indeed we haven't been here since the beginning would we still recieve what little we do now? Or what everything that I have left be taken? If not then I see no reason why the Hawaiian people shouldn't be given some type of recognition. But as for the same things that we indians get I'm not sure. Because we are two different distinct peoples.

[kgirl7]

Originally Posted by Jammer

Well my first question would be what are they going to be recognized as or for? I mean last time I heard they hadn't inhabited that island since their beginning...They are polynesian descent just as the taihitions and the maori people of New Zealand. I believe people have speculated that the people of Hawaii have only been there since around the year 676 or so.

That's headed in some dangerous territory, as you notice yourself, cuz if you wanna go all the way back and say that they were just immigrants to the land just like anyone else, people can use that same argument against Indians. What matters is that they were in Hawaii before any European, and their land was taken from them.

But as for the same things that we indians get I'm not sure. Because we are two different distinct peoples.

But the things Indians get is not historically because of a specific racial makeup. It's because Indians are the first people of the continental United States. Native Hawaiians are the first people of Hawaii, it's the same thing. Sure, Indians and Hawaiians are of a different race, but both groups were colonized, *coughinvadedcough* by the europeans and had their land taken away.

I'm not concerned about them putting up casinos or anything, it's their land. Most of the Native Hawaiians I've talked to have been more concerned with protecting their lands and sacred areas more than anything else however.

[Blackbear]

Get the same thing we native americans get? You mean like a chance to be a nation that is self governing once again like they used to be? To have remains and artifacts repatriated to them that have been taken in the name of science, like us? To be able to protect their children from being adopted out into non native families like us?

Seriously... what "same things we indians get" do you mean? And I still want to know from Mikki what issues they should be limited on.

[Jammer]

Well as I stated earlier Hawaiians are native to the islands of hawaii. Who's to say that 2000 years ago or so their werent other peoples there. What is the guidlines on when a land becomes yours or not. That would be a touchy subject as well considering that the europeans have been coming for the past 600 years or so, another 400 years and they can be seen just as the hawaiian people are. The polynesian people have a history those in and of hawaii have a history or another land etc...so can you really consider them to be native to anything else but their original homeland? Kgirl there is only one thing wrong with being able to use the same argument with the ndns. We have no oral history as a whole people of our origins coming from another land or island etc... Although many of us have our creation stories but those could very well be thrown out as nonsense etc...

BB, just a few things that I was putting in with the whole "not the same things as us ndns" is the whole federal ndn feather issue or commods etc. But if that does happen then I see no reason why they should not be held under the BIA and be subjected to the same card carrying BS that federal ndns have to blood quatum and all.

[Blackbear]

BB, just a few things that I was putting in with the whole "not the same things as us ndns" is the whole federal ndn feather issue or commods etc. But if that does happen then I see no reason why they should not be held under the BIA and be subjected to the same card carrying BS that federal ndns have to blood quatum and all.

ROFLMAO!!! Ok first of all, they did'nt use Eagle feathers for ceremonial reasons so they probably would'nt even want the right to them, but say a chief or nation leader from a continental tribe wanted to present a tribal leader or representative of native hawaiians with an eagle feather as an honor gift.. he would'nt be able to keep it not being included in those laws. Just something for thought there... and as far as commods go.. honey you have be on a certain income level to recieve commods unless it's part of the treaty agreements for your tribe LOL!! If that hawaiian be dirt poor she/he could be getting commods or WIC or whatever.. commods are'nt just for indians LOL! Same card carrying BS and such? Not all the native tribes have BIA cards and soem of us (like the iroquois) don't have our rolls kept with the BIA and each nation gets to decide it's blood quantum requirement.. don't you think they should be able to too? What if they did'nt want to have a blood quantum requirement like the lumbee? Don't you think they should have that right?

[mikki_mono]

First of all I do thank you all for you comments on this issue. I agree with Kgirl7 on what Jammers stating on Native Hawaiians being immigrants. Buddy you should really go back and read the history on Native Hawaiians. If you were in Hawaii and stated that to a true hawaiian native that's ansestors have been there for generations you seriously would be in for a serious history lesson.
As for BB's issue on eagle feathers being allowed I talked to some Native Hawaiians who are card holders (Official Native Hawaiian decendants) that go to powwows and compete professionally they would love to carry feathers legally with out having to carry a letter written by a legal Native American card holder giving them authority for the feathers. Sure there is an issue on exactly who is Native Hawaiian and how much. The Kamehameha Schools and the DHHL require a certain percentage of blood to register to go to school and put your name on the wating list for land in hawaii. The documents that you send in they do go back and research the history of the documents and names you list. That determines if you are hawaiian and what percentage. As for the Office of Hawaiian affairs who issue the Native Hawaiian id cards they too go thorough you ancestory and determine if you are who you are but they are not as thorough as the other 2 are.
To follow any issues or the status of the Native Hawaiians you can go to indians.com, oha.org, starbulletin.com, hawaiitribune-herald.com to name a few.

[Blackbear]

Originally Posted by mikki_mono

As for BB's issue on eagle feathers being allowed I talked to some Native Hawaiians who are card holders (Official Native Hawaiian decendants) that go to powwows and compete professionally they would love to carry feathers legally with out having to carry a letter written by a legal Native American card holder giving them authority for the feathers.

Wow, I did'nt know that Native Americans could give that authority. I was told you could'nt. But keep in mind, we have to be identified as well and carry a permit for our feathers (or our cards and cards alone are'nt a guarantee you won't be questioned or have your feathers confiscated). If that letter holds water then it's pretty close to the same thing we have to have.

[ccreek10]

The other issue we need to look at here is sovereignty. Native Hawaiians aren't considered a sovereign nation like the different tribes/nations here in the States. And they don't have a government-to-government relationship with the U.S./States as do the Indian tribes. If they become Federally recognized as Native Americans, they will then become eligible for those scarce Government monies/services that are now being provided to tribes. The budget/appropriations for health care, housing, etc., for tribes is being cut every year. I guess this is because most people think that all Indians are benefiting from casinos, which we all know isn't true. This has been an issue for the past 10-15 years that this issue has come up. The majority of the Indian tribes have been against recognition.

[Jammer]

Originally Posted by Blackbear

ROFLMAO!!! Ok first of all, they did'nt use Eagle feathers for ceremonial reasons so they probably would'nt even want the right to them, but say a chief or nation leader from a continental tribe wanted to present a tribal leader or representative of native hawaiians with an eagle feather as an honor gift.. he would'nt be able to keep it not being included in those laws. Just something for thought there... and as far as commods go.. honey you have be on a certain income level to recieve commods unless it's part of the treaty agreements for your tribe LOL!! If that hawaiian be dirt poor she/he could be getting commods or WIC or whatever.. commods are'nt just for indians LOL! Same card carrying BS and such? Not all the native tribes have BIA cards and soem of us (like the iroquois) don't have our rolls kept with the BIA and each nation gets to decide it's blood quantum requirement.. don't you think they should be able to too? What if they did'nt want to have a blood quantum requirement like the lumbee? Don't you think they should have that right?

Well the lumbee aren't federally recognized are they? Last I heard they were still a group of mixed ndns from different nations here and there with barely any language etc... Now if we want to get into it, Well have to bring up the whole topic on the definition of what an "Indian" is. E.G is it blood? Or culture? An the whole blood quantum to begin with is BS I'm not one to be sexist, racist or discrimintive, but that seems to be where **** gets the deepest. Nations start disenrolling FB because they don't agree on certain things, or they even dismantle the whole nation its self and become a corporation LOL. The era of following your heart is over.
As for them being able to have the right to specify on who is hawaiian and who isn't I'm sure their able to do that now. What is it that FB hawaiians get that the 1/2 or 1/4 don't get? I mean as most of us know you don't have to have the blood to participate within the community or take part in the culture. What are the other reasons for becoming sovereign? No taxes on the islands for the natives? Or do they really think that they'll be totally sovereign? Just because they are totally surrounded by a body of water wouldn't make them any different then from us. They would still be protected by the USA government and deal with the same **** as us. So why go through the hassel? Whats the point? To be declared something that they already are? Polynesians? It all points to money. Every nationality alive is greedy as ****. We learn from the more advanced countries and emmigrants on that. You get a taste or if someone gives your an inch they start running miles and miles...And before you know theres even more **** to deal with. Why even start with that when they already belonged to somewhere else. Seriously. They have not exsisted on those islands since their beginning, only for the past 1600 years or so if I'm not mistaken. I'm not saying all this because I'm bagging on the hawaiian people. I happen to think they are a great people and have a beautiful culture, I just think that when a group has a mother land they originated from, they shouldn't start barking up anothers backyard when even we have a hard enough time trying to set things right.

[kgirl7]

First off, I suggest that any person who thinks that the reason that Indians receive anything from the Fed. Gov't on the belief that they originated in this land, promptly take of their rose-colored glasses and crush them underfoot. Stories of where people came from don't matter to the gov't cuz they all think Indians and Polynesians originated in Asia. Indians from the land bridge and Polynesians from Southeast Asia. So to them both groups are immigrants. No, the point is, who was there*first* before the arrival of the Europeans?! The Native Hawaiian people! They had their own government and everything on the islands. Then all of a sudden here come the Europeans who just take it.

It's kinda like you living in an apartment for a couple of years and then all of a sudden someone else decides to move in while you're still living there. They unpack their stuff, make their bedroom in your living room, use up the food in your fridge, make themselves comfortable. And adding further insult to injury they invite the neighbors and have a grand ole party, and when you complain they use the argument, "Well it's not *your* apartment, you didn't live here from time immemorial" to justify their occupation. If I was the original inhabitant of the apartment you can best believe I'd been like "You better recognize!" lol. Or at least PAY some rent.

Furthermore, maybe it's not all about money. Maybe Native Hawaiians would like to get recognition so they can say, prevent their burial grounds from becoming another military site, or one of the many housing developments that spring up in Hawaii. And even if it about money, who says money is a bad thing. Money can help fund language revitalization programs, provide better schooling, etc.

You know I kinda think part of the problem is those stupid maps that show Hawaii in a little box directly under California. The Hawaiian archipelago is out in the Pacific, in Polynesia, with thousands of other islands. It's not North American at all, why fault Native Hawaiians for being in their own geographical region? This Mother Land of the Hawaiians could have been just the next island over, who knows? I'd rather a Native Hawaiian speak to that. Also Hawaiians weren't in Hawaii since 1600. There are stone temples there that archaeolgist have dated back to 1600, but settlement was much much longer than that, like fifth century A.D. (Although what matters to me is what the Native Hawaiian people say themselves.)

[Blackbear]

Jammer.. Hawaiians used to be on a nation to nation level.
http://www.lava.net/~poda/history.html (learn a little about hawaiian history)
1893
Queen Liliuokalani surrenders the kingdom to the United States under protest.

Does that sound familiar?

Also I only used the lumbees as an example because they were the only name I could think of at the time that does not have a blood quantum... Should I have used cherokee and their very low quantum requirements instead to make my point?

[iolana1]

Originally Posted by Jammer

Well the lumbee aren't federally recognized are they? Last I heard they were still a group of mixed ndns from different nations here and there with barely any language etc... Now if we want to get into it, Well have to bring up the whole topic on the definition of what an "Indian" is. E.G is it blood? Or culture? An the whole blood quantum to begin with is BS I'm not one to be sexist, racist or discrimintive, but that seems to be where **** gets the deepest. Nations start disenrolling FB because they don't agree on certain things, or they even dismantle the whole nation its self and become a corporation LOL. The era of following your heart is over.
As for them being able to have the right to specify on who is hawaiian and who isn't I'm sure their able to do that now. What is it that FB hawaiians get that the 1/2 or 1/4 don't get? I mean as most of us know you don't have to have the blood to participate within the community or take part in the culture. What are the other reasons for becoming sovereign? No taxes on the islands for the natives? Or do they really think that they'll be totally sovereign? Just because they are totally surrounded by a body of water wouldn't make them any different then from us. They would still be protected by the USA government and deal with the same **** as us. So why go through the hassel? Whats the point? To be declared something that they already are? Polynesians? It all points to money. Every nationality alive is greedy as ****. We learn from the more advanced countries and emmigrants on that. You get a taste or if someone gives your an inch they start running miles and miles...And before you know theres even more **** to deal with. Why even start with that when they already belonged to somewhere else. Seriously. They have not exsisted on those islands since their beginning, only for the past 1600 years or so if I'm not mistaken. I'm not saying all this because I'm bagging on the hawaiian people. I happen to think they are a great people and have a beautiful culture, I just think that when a group has a mother land they originated from, they shouldn't start barking up anothers backyard when even we have a hard enough time trying to set things right.

Things seem to be getting interesting and i've been trying to hold my tounge. Sorry Jammer dear as for the hawaiians being immigrants since the 1600 is total wrong and you should go back and review your history. We Native Hawaiians have inhabited the islands since 300 ad and still to this day inhabit the island. As for immigrants comming to the islands it wasnt until 1773 when James Cook arrived. It was 1826 when the US Government gave the hawaiian kingdom it's full recognition. In 1893 the US had planned to overthrough the royal family and it wasnt until in 1895 (us found away to overthrough the royal family) when Queen Lili'uokalani signs a document formally abdicating her throne for fear her supporters would be condemned to death. As for 1974 in recognition of the special relationship between the United States and the Native Hawaiian people, Congress extends to Native Hawaiians the same rights and privileges accorded to American Indian, Alaska Native, Eskimo and Aleut communities. This is the first of more than 40 federal legislative acts acknowledging the special relationship between the United States government and the Native Hawaiian people. Along came 1993 the centenary anniversary of the overthrow of the Kingdom , congress passes and President Clinton signs into law "Public Law 103-150" apologizing for the United States' role in the overthrow and for the deprivation of the rights of Native Hawaiians to self-determination. So why shouldnt we be able to still have our recognization like we were give so long ago?

Personally I do find this going through congress and not being pass childish and stupid. For what reasons shouldnt we be granted our status and what purpose does it show to others. I mean we had status back in 1826 why shouldnt it still be like this today. I do support our bill and I hope congress passes the bill in September and give us back our recognation like we are intitled to. For I too am a Native Hawaiian (2/3) that dates back 8 generations and also Native American too.

Ck out the Hawaiian History line: http://www.oha.org/cat_content.asp?...tid=19&catid=42

[Blackbear]

Here's a good reason for wanting recognition......
http://www.thehawaiichannel.com/news...58/detail.html

HONOLULU -- Kamehameha Schools filed its request for reconsideration to a federal appeals court to protect its Hawaiians-first admissions policy.

A three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals declared the admissions policy illegal last month.

In an 18-page petition, Kamehameha Schools' lawyers asked for a larger panel of judges to hear its case. It is harshly critical of the two judges who declared the admission policy illegal.

The filing points out that the ruling was the first time in history that a private program to help a minority group was overturned because of a law meant to protect minorities, KITV 4 News reported.

"I think that's just a perversion of our justice system," Attorney General Mark Bennett said.

"This is a unique case of immense important to us here in the islands and the court should get it right," constitutional attorney John Van Dyke said.

Much of the argument focuses on what Congress wants because Kamehameha's policies were declared invalid based on an old civil rights law. However, Kamehameha Schools points out newer laws.

"It is doing so because of the special political relationship between the United States and the Native Hawaiian people and the panel I think just simply got that wrong," Bennett said.

The 2002 law also said the political status of Native Hawaiians is comparable to that of Native Americans.

"We have a bunch of very specific statutes saying that the Native Hawaiians are entitled to separate and preferential treatment," Van Dyke said.

Opponents say the appeals court got it right the first time. They say that Kamehameha Schools doesn't have the legal right to exclude every non-Hawaiian applicant.

The court should decide by Sept. 13 whether it will assign an 11-judge panel to hear the case. If it doesn't, then Kamehameha may be forced to admit the non-Hawaiian student who brought the case while it goes to the Supreme Court.