Native Hawaiian Sovereignty

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Dragoon68, Feb 24, 2010.

  1. Dragoon68

    Dragoon68
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    4,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is more baloney from Congress setting yet another precedence to destroy America.

    Bill to Grant Native Hawaiians Sovereignty Passes House

    There's not a single Hawaiian alive today that has any more claims to being native than any other American born citizen. The whole idea of "native American" that should have "sovereignty" with the USA is deeply flawed. We already made that mistake with Indians and now these clowns want to start something more. Next up will be black Americans. Our objective should be to end this ridiculous separation and special treatment for groups of people based on their ancestry of generations ago or their race. We can all eventually claim something somewhere by that criteria. It's just a matter of how far back we want to go. We would be better off to restore sovereignty for States that establish it for various groups of people.
     
  2. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,132
    Likes Received:
    221
    I don't know about other States, but here in the Empire State, stores on Indian Reservations sell items tax free - the biggest product being cigarettes. NY is supposed to collect taxes on sales to non-Indians, but so far nothing. Currently tax on one pack is about $2.75. A lot of revenue lost by NY.

    Salty
     
  3. Martin

    Martin
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2005
    Messages:
    5,228
    Likes Received:
    0
    ==I'm not sure about the Hawaiian issue, however the United States government made treaties with many Native American tribes/nations and those treaties should be honored. America is not threatened by Indian Tribes being given sovereign status.

    ==Native Americans have been the object of "special" abuse for most of American history. From being pushed out of their homeland, "removed", to entire states trying to pretend like they did not exist (ex: Dr. Walter Plecker and Virginia). A little special treatment is not uncalled for or silly. After all, they are the descendents of the original Americans. While the treatment of Native Americans throughout history is not your fault or my fault, it is a great stain on this nation's history. Native American sovereignty does not threaten the United States or divide Americans.

    ==Actually, that is not true. Only one group of people can claim to have been Americans before the arrival of Europeans in the 16th and 17th centuries. That group is the Native Americans. Considering the history I don't think most of them are asking for much. Just that treaties be honored and they be given the sovereignty that they had before Europeans arrived. None of that threatens the sovereignty of the United States.

    Btw, I fully support the Federal recognition of the Lumbee, Mattaponi, Upper Mattaponi, Pamunkey, Chickahominy, Eastern Chickahominy, Monacan, Nansemond, and Rappahannock Tribes.
     
  4. Dragoon68

    Dragoon68
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    4,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    The Indians living today aren't the Indians with which the treaties were made and they're not living as a separate sovereign nation any longer. Instead they're living off everyone else as wards of the state that the rest of us support. They get lots of special deals. The result is that they languish on "reservations" ripe with corruption and abuse. Their greatest hope is to establish a casino on "their" land where no other American citizen can. It's stupid that this continues on for generations under the banner of "those poor native Americans from which we took their land". Baloney! The history books love to tell one side of the story. Every person in America - Indians included - is living on land once "owned" or occupied by someone else. The last thing we need is to establish a new "sad story" for Hawaiians they make them out to be the victims of those evil Europeans that settled in America. No so-called "native America" merits any special consideration today. They need to get out of their "special" status and get compete in the mainstream with every other citizen on the same terms.
     
    #4 Dragoon68, Feb 24, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 24, 2010
  5. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    We stole it fair and square!

    There needs to be an international law on land stealing. One country steals land from another there should be a 10 year statute of limitations. After 10 years title passes and it takes a new war to get it back.
     
  6. Dragoon68

    Dragoon68
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    4,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    Baloney! We bought some of it fair and square. Most of it was unclaimed and unoccupied. Some of it was taken by conquest of war. The idea that all of America "belonged to the Indians" and we "stole it from them" is a patent lie perpetuated by historians bent of degrading European and American settlers to grossly evil men and, at the same time, elevating Indians to wholly victimized innocent peace loving righteous men.

    But, aside from this, just what entitles "native" Hawaiians to establish a sovereign nation now within the US when other "native" Americans in the South just a few generations ago were prevented from doing so? Where does all this silliness stop?
     
    #6 Dragoon68, Feb 24, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 24, 2010
  7. Martin

    Martin
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2005
    Messages:
    5,228
    Likes Received:
    0
    ==Two points. First, these treaties are still in effect. They did not have a "sale by date" and, for the most part, the treaties have never been reversed (etc). It was just decided that the treaties would be ignored. That is just not right. Second, most of these people did not give up their sovereign status, it was taken away from them by the United States government. History is full of American Indians being told to pack up and move out. Some did and were moved onto reservations, others like the Cherokee and the Shawnee fought back but still lost. That cannot be reversed, however honoring the treaties and the sovereign status of these tribes is one way of correcting what was done.

    ==Who put them on the poor reservations? Who gave them the alcohol? This was done to them and they have suffered the consequences. American Indian society has been devestated by unemployment, alcholism, and poverty. While there is a level of personal responsibility that they must accept, there is also a level of responsibility that falls on the nation that pushed them off their homelands and onto the reservations.

    ==If they want to build casinos it is their right to do so. Although the current legislation on the table concerning the Lumbee does not allow them to build any casinos if/when they are recognized.

    ==Generally speaking it has been the European side. Europeans, and later Americans, did take their land. That is an historical fact. The British Colonies and The United States of America did enter into treaties with the sovereign tribes. That is an historical fact. None of that is "baloney". If this history can be swept under the rug and forgotten then that is a major tragedy. It always amazes me how Holocaust deniers are, rightfully, ignored and scoffed at. Yet many Americans either deny, or ignore, the way American Indians have been treated since 1607.

    This is not to say that the Indians have always been victims. There were several times when various tribes came very close to running the Europeans out (Powhatan Uprising of 1622, King Philip's War of 1675-1676, etc). And Indians, like Europeans, committed atrocities during those wars.

    My impression is that most American Indians don't want sympathy. They want what was rightfully theirs.

    ==That is not what we are talking about. We are talking about treaties and promises that were broken. We are talking about people who were forced off of their land (not by their choice). This is a moral and legal problem.

    ==The Europeans who settled America were not evil. The problem was that their view of civilization made it possible for them to push aside anyone who was not "using" the land (in the European sense). They were not evil, they were just acting in a way that was consistant with their worldview. Later, the Americans pushed west in the name of Manifest Destiny. Much of this was motivated by a need for land and a desire for wealth. The settlers who pushed west were not evil. They had their reasons for doing what they did. However the government also had a responsibility to make sure that it upheld its promises to the Indians. Generally speaking, that was not done.

    ==I know many Native Americans who live and work in the mainstream. Most don't strike me as wanting sympathy. They just want what was promised them. All things considered, I don't think they are asking for much. Most tribes have worked through the BIA to gain recognition status. They have played by the rules given them.
     
  8. Dragoon68

    Dragoon68
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    4,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    Diversions! There's no reason to establish so-called "native" Hawaiians as a sovereign nation within the USA. That would be a dumb mistake! The so-call "native American Indian" story is proof positive why it would be so.

    But that's all aside from whether or not the treaties are binding forever and all the other arguments that allegedly justify perpetual special provisions for the descendants of American Indians.
     
  9. Martin

    Martin
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2005
    Messages:
    5,228
    Likes Received:
    0
    ==While some land was purchased "fair and square", most of it was just "claimed". The claim that much of the land was "unoccupied", which is an appeal to vacuum domicilium, is not totally correct. It would be more correct to say that the land was "unoccupied" or "unused" according to European standards. Some tribes re-located during summer/winter months. Others had lands that were used to hunt (etc). The European understanding of land ownership and use caused them to think that the Indians were not using their land (etc). The Europeans were, generally speaking, wrong on that point. However even if the Indians were not using the land the way Europeans thought it should have been used they did not have the right to just walk in and claim the land. There were some Europeans who realized the tragic mistakes other Europeans were making. Men like Roger Williams and William Penn worked hard to make sure their colonies were properly purchased or that they did not repeat the mistake of others.

    ==How are you defining "conquest of war"? Does forcing the Cherokee off their land at gunpoint count?

    ==That is not true. No legitimate historian claims that the European settlers were all evil or that the Indians were all innocent victims. Sure, you have extremists (as there always are). But mainstream historians do not assert the things you have attributed to them.

    How much time and effort have you put into studying and reading the history of these things? I'm not just talking about secondary sources written by historians. I'm talking about primary and secondary sources.
     
  10. Martin

    Martin
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2005
    Messages:
    5,228
    Likes Received:
    0
    ==I started my replies to you by pointing out that I am not familiar with the situation in Hawaii or the history. The information I am putting out is not a "diversion", it is a response to some of your information. I am replying to things you have stated.
     
  11. Paul3144

    Paul3144
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2009
    Messages:
    2,378
    Likes Received:
    0
    Domestic dependant nations retain all sovereign powers that they have not ceded by treaty or had revoked by the plenary authority of Congress. The Constitution recognizes Indian tribes as separate governmental units by allowing treaties with said tribes and allowing Congress to regulate commerce between foreign nations, states, and the Indian tribes. Indian tribes also retain sovereign immunity. Here's a good article about that by a law professor: http://www.umass.edu/legal/derrico/sovereignty.html
     
  12. Dragoon68

    Dragoon68
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    4,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    It's not something I've studied in depth nor care to do so nor do I think someone who has, as interesting as it can be, is any better qualified to judge what issues are in front of us now.

    It's just plain and simple that we don't need to now establish a sovereign nation of so-called "native" Hawaiians nor any other group. None of the so-called "native" Americans alive today have any more claim to this land than than any other person legally here now.

    We may well have made a mess of the dealings with American Indians through mutual fault but we sure ought not to repeat that mistake again and we sure ought to seek an suitable end to what otherwise will be a perpetual system of special benefits. Indeed we ought to revisit the treaties we made with nations that no longer exist just as we revisit treaties with nations that still exist. We just don't want to tackle that because of it's political ramifications - it's easier to just keep carrying on and even expanding on the past.

    Some of my ancestors arrived here in 1620 and numerous generations have been born right here since. Some of them came much latter. Some of them are recent immigrants. We're now native Americans. This is our land - not the American Indian's land that we stole - and "our" includes the people of all ancestry - Indians, Europeans, Africans, Asians, etc.

    No Indian alive today has an superior right to be here than any of the right of us that came here from some other direction. We are all here in God's land and He's the only one that really owns the land. The deeds of the past are done and the debts have been settled long ago. Everyone needs to get over those things and move on to the future else there will never be an end to it.
     
  13. Dragoon68

    Dragoon68
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    4,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    At some point in time the "sovereign powers" of ancient nations no longer exist and just as a dead man has no rights neither does a dead nation. The old Hawaiian nation died a long time ago. Bringing it back to life now would serve no purpose.
     
  14. Paul3144

    Paul3144
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2009
    Messages:
    2,378
    Likes Received:
    0
    Those nations still exist. We can't just ignore treaties.
     
  15. Paul3144

    Paul3144
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2009
    Messages:
    2,378
    Likes Received:
    0
    The Indian tribes never ceased to have sovereign powers. They are still recognized to this day and our courts uphold them.
     
  16. Dragoon68

    Dragoon68
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    4,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    Your points are interesting and I understand where you're coming from whether I agree or not. The "diversion" is that it takes us into an argument about American Indians rather than about the pending legislation concerning Hawaiians. Yes, I brought it up American Indians but as an example of the perpetual problem that situation has created and, therefore, the obvious need not to do something just as stupid in these times. In one sentence I say that we don't need to repeat the same dumb mistakes we've made in times past by establishing so-called "native" Hawaiians as a sovereign nation.
     
  17. Dragoon68

    Dragoon68
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    4,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, the courts still do recognize them, but I say that is largely bogus because they are no longer truly a nation of people and, if not so today, surely in a few more generations they will not be so. Therefore, at some point the treaties have no meaning because one party is no longer extant. It is joke! They are no more sovereign today than some of the groups that organized themselves into religious or political sects in modern times. It is in name only and merely a way to perpetuate the benefits without the responsibilities.

    Given that why do we have some now advocating we go back in time to recognize so-called native Hawaiians as yet another sovereign nation? It is in name only and merely a way to estalish the benefits without the responsibilities.

    How about we recognize the States as sovereign instead? How about we recognize the sovereign States that wanted to establish a sovereign nation separate from the rest? This "sovereign" word seems to get used differently when talking about one small group of people of a particular ancestry verses other large groups of people binding together form larger purposes.
     
  18. NiteShift

    NiteShift
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2005
    Messages:
    2,034
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, look at the way that the different tribes defined conquest when at war with each other, and occupied land that previously belonged to other tribes.

    For instance, the Illinois tribes; Cahokia, Kaskaskia, Peoria etc. were pratically wiped out and their former lands occupied by Sauk, Fox and Kickapoo tribes. Same with the Eries, who were eliminated by Iroquois and their land taken by them. This is how the Indians defined conquest, and they needed no Europeans to show them this. That said, I believe the treaties now in effect should be honored.

    If there are treaties giving Hawaiian natives autonomy, I am not aware of them. But I don't know for sure.
     
    #18 NiteShift, Feb 25, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 25, 2010
  19. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    So, D68, would you have opposed Irish independence in 1916? Should Ireland have remained a part of the UK?

    Even now Northern Ireland is in the process of 'devolving' from total UK authority - I suppose you would also oppose that?

    I have a difficult time with the subjugation of a native people by a foreign invader anywhere in the world. Treaties should be honoured by any honourable nation.

    Assimilated peoples are only truly assimilated if they have an active part in the process. It is wrong to do so without their agreement.
     
  20. Dragoon68

    Dragoon68
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    4,511
    Likes Received:
    0

    So, C4K, I'm not interested in the Irish problem but I'm very interested in what goes on in America. I don't want to see yet another so-called "sovereign nation" established within our borders. It makes no sense to treat some Hawaiian residents differently than others and open the door to more special treatment by the federal government at taxpayer expense. I suspect its more of gimmick to grant some rights that most cannot have and perhaps in hope of generating income from some kind of cute tourist attraction.

    I'm aware of the legal situation involving the treaties with the American Indians but, like all treaties, they can and should be changed as the situations and needs change. That happens all the time in treaties with real sovereign nations around the world. I'm not advocating that be done in an illegal or immoral manner. I just believe that the foolishness of how we have, are, and may continue to deal with this issue needs to be re-evaluated and changed as the law provides. There is no reason some American citizens should be treated differently today just because their ancestry is different than others. This is one nation. The idea that there are other sovereign nations without our borders may have seemed okay during the Indian Wars, may sound okay in the world of legalism but, in reality,today it's as bogus as a $3 bill. No Indian tribe in America today has any actual semblance of being a true sovereign nation. Neither will the Hawaiian "tribes" if they manage to buffalo Congress into giving them that status before the law.
     
    #20 Dragoon68, Feb 25, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 25, 2010

Share This Page

Loading...