3 ms·

My point is Section 7 doesn't appear to be relevant at all. > in practice they're both very strongly correlated to race It's not like there isn't court histor

My point is Section 7 doesn't appear to be relevant at all. > in practice they're both very strongly correlated to race It's not like there isn't court history on this very topic. https://imagesofoldhawaii.com/protection-of-traditional-customary-practices/ https://imagesofoldhawaii.com/protection-of-traditional-cust... ] The Pele Defense Fund decision extended rights to non-Hawaiians, noting, “Accordingly, non-Hawaiians could have the same right as Hawaiians, irrespective of Article XII, § 7, if they could prove that their rights were based on custom and usage.” Can you prove your rights to Maunakea were based on custom and usage? Then go ahead and get in on this agreement! The court even traces the principle back to English common law. > I know they're different things, but in practice they're both very strongly correlated to race. It looks like your objection was addressed head-on in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peyote_Way_Church_of_God,_Inc._v._Thornburgh https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peyote_Way_Church_of_God,_Inc.... , on the non-drug use of peyote in the Native American Church: ] The court found that because the [Native American Church] limited membership only to those of Native American ancestry the exemption was for a political group and it was "rationally related to the legitimate governmental objective of preserving Native American culture". Hence there was no equal protection problem in only giving the exemption to the NAC. That's a direct parallel to the issue in Hawaii - it's a political group, not a religious one nor racial one. > Native Hawaiian cultural traditions include religion To be clear, the disagreement is because Native Hawaiian cultural practitioners argue that they have a custom and usage of regarding Maunakea as a sacred mountain. Now that I've read more about the issue, yes, you are right - it doesn't make since for someone who doesn't uphold that belief to be part of the group. On the other hand ... I now really don't understand your issue. We make special accommodations for the exercise of religion, like the use of peyote above. ] "The listing of peyote as a controlled substance in Schedule I does not apply to the nondrug use of peyote in bona fide religious ceremonies of the Native American Church, and members of the Native American Church" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peyote#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peyote#United_States . You aren't a member of the Native American Church so you aren't allowed to use peyote, even for non-drug religious ceremonies. You don't follow a long-held religious belief that Maunakea is a sacred mountain so you don't get to sit on the committee which oversights activities on that mountain. > Does enrollment in an Indian tribe affect anything in non-tribal government? I don't understand your question. That is, I don't see how the answer is anything other than "yes, absolutely." > The referendum for Hawaii's statehood passed with over 93% in favor, with the knowledge that being part of the US means being bound to follow the US Constitution Umm .. that makes no sense. Hawaii was bound to follow the US Constitution when the US annexed the islands in 1900 as an organized incorporated territory. It was never an unincorporated territory like American Samoa where the full Constitution does not apply. Annexation of Hawaii was done despite the opposition of most native Hawaiians, and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newlands_Resolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newlands_Resolution points out: ] Debate between anti-sovereignty and sovereignty activists still exists over the legality of the acquisition of Hawaii under the US constitution.[4][5] The Hawaiian sovereignty movement views the annexation as illegal.[4][6] However, the U.S. Supreme Court gave tacit recognition to the legitimacy of Hawaii's annexation in De Lima v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 1, 196 (1901). And in any case, Hawaiians aren't recognized as a tribe, while my comment regarded recognized tribes. I made that transition because your arguments are equally applicable to both situations, which suggest you also want to reduce tribal sovereignty.

josephcsible 4y ago
> We make special accommodations for the exercise of religion, like the use of peyote above. But here we're not giving Native Hawaiians extra permissions. Instead, we're taking away permissions from everyone else. If we were just giving them extra permissions, then I wouldn't be nearly as upset about this. > You aren't a member of the Native American Church so you aren't allowed to use peyote, even for non-drug religious ceremonies. The difference is that peyote was already illegal, and Native Americans got an exception to be allowed to use it. Now imagine an alternate reality in which peyote used to be legal for everyone, and then Native Americans said it was a sacred plant to them, so the law should be changed to prevent anyone else from possessing any. That's what this decision feels like to me. > You don't follow a long-held religious belief that Maunakea is a sacred mountain so you don't get to sit on the committee which oversights activities on that mountain. If the committee only had power over other Native Hawaiians, then again, I'd be fine with this. The issue is that they're making rules for the rest of us. They now get to tell us "building a telescope on this mountain is against my religion, so you can't do it." > Umm .. that makes no sense. Hawaii was bound to follow the US Constitution when the US annexed the islands in 1900 as an organized incorporated territory. It was never an unincorporated territory like American Samoa where the full Constitution does not apply. Yes, the Constitution applied even before statehood. My point was that if the people living there didn't want it to apply to them, they would have asked for independence instead of asking for statehood.
- eesmith 4y ago
  > But here we're not giving Native Hawaiians extra permissions. Instead, we're taking away permissions from everyone else. If we were just giving them extra permissions, then I wouldn't be nearly as upset about this. The argument is that customary practices they enjoyed were taken away from them. Therefore your objection does not apply. Similar to how some indigenous people in the Arctic have special permission to hunt whales, or how some Native Americans may possess eagle feathers. Plus, we've seen how Neo-Druids have right to worship at Stonehenge, and that's a relatively new cultural tradition. > My point was that if the people living there didn't want it to apply to them, they would have asked for independence instead of asking for statehood. Annex a kingdom, move in a bunch of non-indigenous people until they are a large majority, then hold a vote on statehood. The majority wants statehood. And you think that's deeply meaningful way to understand how to treat the minority population whose country was stolen from them though a coup d'état which occurred with the active participation of agents and citizens of the United States? Surely the results of the 1978 Constitutional Convention give a stronger indication of what Hawaiian self-determination means in this regard.

josephcsible 4y ago

> We make special accommodations for the exercise of religion, like the use of peyote above. But here we're not giving Native Hawaiians extra permissions. Instead, we're taking away permissions from everyone else. If we were just giving them extra permissions, then I wouldn't be nearly as upset about this. > You aren't a member of the Native American Church so you aren't allowed to use peyote, even for non-drug religious ceremonies. The difference is that peyote was already illegal, and Native Americans got an exception to be allowed to use it. Now imagine an alternate reality in which peyote used to be legal for everyone, and then Native Americans said it was a sacred plant to them, so the law should be changed to prevent anyone else from possessing any. That's what this decision feels like to me. > You don't follow a long-held religious belief that Maunakea is a sacred mountain so you don't get to sit on the committee which oversights activities on that mountain. If the committee only had power over other Native Hawaiians, then again, I'd be fine with this. The issue is that they're making rules for the rest of us. They now get to tell us "building a telescope on this mountain is against my religion, so you can't do it." > Umm .. that makes no sense. Hawaii was bound to follow the US Constitution when the US annexed the islands in 1900 as an organized incorporated territory. It was never an unincorporated territory like American Samoa where the full Constitution does not apply. Yes, the Constitution applied even before statehood. My point was that if the people living there didn't want it to apply to them, they would have asked for independence instead of asking for statehood.

eesmith 4y ago
> But here we're not giving Native Hawaiians extra permissions. Instead, we're taking away permissions from everyone else. If we were just giving them extra permissions, then I wouldn't be nearly as upset about this. The argument is that customary practices they enjoyed were taken away from them. Therefore your objection does not apply. Similar to how some indigenous people in the Arctic have special permission to hunt whales, or how some Native Americans may possess eagle feathers. Plus, we've seen how Neo-Druids have right to worship at Stonehenge, and that's a relatively new cultural tradition. > My point was that if the people living there didn't want it to apply to them, they would have asked for independence instead of asking for statehood. Annex a kingdom, move in a bunch of non-indigenous people until they are a large majority, then hold a vote on statehood. The majority wants statehood. And you think that's deeply meaningful way to understand how to treat the minority population whose country was stolen from them though a coup d'état which occurred with the active participation of agents and citizens of the United States? Surely the results of the 1978 Constitutional Convention give a stronger indication of what Hawaiian self-determination means in this regard.