4 ms·

There is a curious paradox here: Because American Samoans aren't legally self-determining, they're unable to become legally self-determining. We have to interpr

• eesmith 7y ago
  "We have to interpret their desires for them" is very easily re-interpreted as just another expression of paternal colonialism. Remember, and I quote now from the Samoa Historic Preservation Office document at http://www.ashpo.org/attachments/article/94/2017%20FIVE%20YEAR%20PLAN.pdf http://www.ashpo.org/attachments/article/94/2017%20FIVE%20YE... : "American Samoa has remained an “unorganized” territory, with its own Constitution but under direct Federal government supervision delegated by the President to the Department of the Interior. This unique status is not accidental. It is the result of decisions consciously taken by the American Samoan leaders—not to obtain citizenship nor acquire an organic act—in order to keep their traditional land tenure system, whose racial preferences would make it unconstitutional under Federal law." Your statement rejects the validity of their conscious decision. "Kill the Indian, and Save the Man" said Pratt. A policy of enforced statehood against their will would surely be characterized as "Kill the Samoan, and Save the American." Well, it wouldn't be the first time we broke agreements with indigenous peoples. You earlier wrote "It's only with statehood that Hawaii gained a strong tradition of spending public funds on preserving and understanding the history of the Hawaiians". The implication I read was that 1) a strong tradition could not start without statehood, and 2) that strong tradition is a natural consequence of statehood. I believe both are wrong. 1) Do the people of American Samoa not have a sufficiently strong tradition of funding the preservation and understanding of their own history? They certainly spend public funds on it, like http://www.ashpo.org/ http://www.ashpo.org/ . What else would come with statehood? Remember, the - for lack of a better term - white population of Hawaii dominated local politics until statehood. The political power of the Big Five, who backed the Hawaiian Republican Party, didn't want statehood because they thought territorial status was better for the sugar companies. And they wanted a subordinate plantation population. American Samoa is 89% Samoan, and political power is held by the Samoans. This is a very different situation. 2) It took 19 years of statehood before the 1978 Hawaii State Constitutional Convention which established Hawaiian as the second official language, and created the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. By comparison, the NM Department of Cultural Affairs started 15 years ago, which is nearly a century after statehood, and it is nowhere equivalent to the Office of Hawaiian Affairs in terms of effect. Now, it's true that the department consolidated many functions which were present earlier. But the Territory of Hawaii might well have had a 'farm and ranch heritage museum' (which is part of what the NM Department of Cultural Affairs overseas - https://laws.nmonesource.com/w/nmos/Laws-2004#!fragment/zoupio-_Toc972018/BQCwhgziBcwMYgK4DsDWszIQewE4BUBTADwBdoAvbRABwEtsBaAfX2zgE4B2AJgAYAjAA4AlABpk2UoQgBFRIVwBPaAHJVYiHFzYANroDCSNNACEyTYTC4E8xSvWXrCAMp5SAIRUAlAKIAZXwA1AEEAOQNfMVIwACNoUnYRESA https://laws.nmonesource.com/w/nmos/Laws-2004#!fragment/zoup... ). So, what's special about statehood how it preserves and helps understand history? And how does it follow directly from statehood, since I think the stronger influence in Hawaii is as a consequence of increasing awareness caused by the civil rights movement of the 1960s and onward.
  • lidHanteyk 7y ago
    Before I get to the main point, it would seem that I must clarify my point about governmental agencies: New Mexico gets to spend nearly three times what Puerto Rico spends on preserving its legacy and history, despite having about a third fewer residents. This is the privilege of statehood. I'm not endorsing "paternal colonialism" when I say that we must interpret the desires of island peoples; I'm talking literally about the fact that, since their delegates cannot vote, it is our votes which carry their desired change in the law. I would like to remind you that I am on the side of giving those delegates votes, and further, giving them votes which would normalize their relations with the rest of the States and the Union; I think that we ought to end the paternally-(neo)colonialist practice of non-voting delegations of second-class residents, in favor of voting Reps and Senators.
    • eesmith 7y ago
      You wrote "This is the privilege of statehood." That is not what I inferred from your original statement. Still I ask, is your argument that American Samoa isn't now doing enough to preserve their history and culture, and that statehood would improve the situation? If so, why? You write "I am on the side of giving those delegates votes" Yes, I am aware of that. I again quote from the Samoa Historic Preservation Office: "American Samoa has remained an “unorganized” territory, with its own Constitution but under direct Federal government supervision delegated by the President to the Department of the Interior. This unique status is not accidental. It is the result of decisions consciously taken by the American Samoan leaders—not to obtain citizenship nor acquire an organic act—in order to keep their traditional land tenure system, whose racial preferences would make it unconstitutional under Federal law." What you want want tear apart the local culture by destroying the traditional land tenure system. That is another of the lessons of Hawaii, and the American Samoans are well aware of it (based on a recent podcast I listened to where they went to American Samoa to talk with American Samoans on this exact topic). When you say that you know better and "interpret the desires of island peoples" in a way to completely invert the explicit agreement with those people, made through a voluntary and informed process, then why shouldn't I describe it as "paternal colonialism"? You want your preferred system of government - the states and federal system - to be their government, and get rid of the ‘aiga system of land ownership. That's colonialism. You want to override their decision because you think you know better. That's paternalism. How am I wrong about my characterization? I agree that there's also a "paternally-(neo)colonialist practice of non-voting delegations of second-class residents". But we can't fix that by continuing to practice colonialism and ignoring the wishes of the people and their non-voting representation.