2 ms·
> 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 per
by 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> 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. Again, all of those special permissions are fine since they can be granted without making it illegal for the rest of us to do things that were previously legal. A better comparison would be if the neo-Druids were given exclusive right to visit Stonehenge.
- eesmith 4y agoWhat are you talking about? The new Hawaii law doesn't grant practitioners of Native Hawaiian cultural traditions the exclusive right to visit or use Maunakea. They now have a seat at the table, rather than having decisions be the exclusive right of the University of Hawaii. Anyone used to be able to whale. Now it's illegal in the US except for Alaska Natives and the Makah of Washington State.
- josephcsible 4y agoShould the previous owner of your house get a seat at the table to decide what home improvement projects you now are and aren't allowed to do?
- eesmith 4y agoYour question is completely irrelevant. The University of Hawaii does not own the Mauna Kea Science Reserve. The owner is the State of Hawaii, who leased it to UH in 1968. The owner of a piece of land can generally decide to switch to another steward, which is what happened here. So far every issue you've raised seems to at odds with established legal precedent and common practice, and some drastically misunderstand history or, if true, would totally destroy the remaining Native American treaty rights. To be clear, I'm pretty ignorant about these topics as well. But it's not hard to research, which is what I did for my answers.