3 ms·
Having been to Hawai'i a few times, and having seen how the native population, versus the settlers are doing, I must say, if being a settler in Hawai'i is what
by vkou 4y ago
Having been to Hawai'i a few times, and having seen how the native population, versus the settlers are doing, I must say, if being a settler in Hawai'i is what life under Jim Crow was, it must have all been rainbows and unicorns and sunshine.
It obviously wasn't, but it's always good to see someone point to the stipulations of an indigenous treaty, while closing both eyes to the context in which it was drafted[1]... Or to the broader context of systemic discrimination that is very actively pissing on people, to this very day.
[1] Reparations for specific, not theoretical damages inflicted on indigenous Hawai'ian people by the government of the United States. But good on you for finding a theoretical[2] loophole! Look, everyone, feast your eyes - Europeans were actually the real victims of discrimination in Hawai'i, circa 1920!
[2] Presumably, there's some European person, somewhere [3], that can prove that half of their family tree[4] traces back to direct decadency from a non-settler European who lived on Hawai'i prior to 1778, and would like to be a beneficiary of the treaty, but isn't actually protected by it!
[3] Somewhere next to a spherical cow, and other pedantic, but utterly theoretical oddities.
[4] Unless you mean to tell us that there was some self-sustaining, secret isolated enclave of Europeans that have lived on Hawai'i prior to 1788, that only intermarried between eachother, I would expect that after a century and a half of intermarriage with native Hawai'ians, nobody either in 1920, or today would ever be able to tell the difference between that 'European' and a native.
- badpun 4y ago> [4] Unless you mean to tell us that there was some self-sustaining, secret isolated enclave of Europeans that have lived on Hawai'i prior to 1788, that only intermarried between eachother, I would expect that after a century and a half of intermarriage with native Hawai'ians, nobody either in 1920, or today would ever be able to tell the difference between that 'European' and a native. Race-based laws are nonsense, because the concept of "race" itself is a pseudoscientific nonsense. There's no objective way to tell a "race" of many (or maybe even most?) people. Take President Obama for example. What race was he?
- vkou 4y ago> What race was he? What bearing does 'race' have that on anything I said? The law in question solely speaks of 50% pre-1778 Hawai'ian ancestry. It doesn't say anything about 'race' genetics, skin color, hair color, or any other hereditary characteristics. It's a pretty simple question, that does not require unscientific hair-splitting - simply trace up your family tree, and count where your great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandparents lived in 1778. But since you've asked, Obama does not meet that criteria. His maternal grandparents are from Kansas, and his paternal grandparents are from Africa. Growing up in Hawai'i does not entitle him to those particular reparations settlers chose to grant to Hawai'ian natives.
- notch898a 4y agoHHCA says for eligibility: any descendant of not less than one-half part of the blood of the races inhabiting the Hawaiian Islands previous to 1778 You have to have blood of races that were on the islands before 1778. In practice a commission decides if you're the right race. Other groups oppressed by plantation owners like the Filipinos and Samoans just get the boot and even less land available to them due to racist policies. Samoan descendants are now even worse off than native Hawiians and have to contend with racially/segregation projected rarefication of land.
- robertlagrant 4y agoI think I agree, but I don't think what you say there is a good argument. You could apply it to hair colour groups (e.g. fair hair, dark hair, red hair) as well to prove the non-existence of hair colour.