3 ms·
> [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 i
by 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.