Preemptive occupation

In the Maui News letters, Leah Grantham applies the erroneous theory of preventive or preemptive occupation - basically that America was right to occupy Hawaii, and/or that Hawaii is better off, because some other country might have if the U.S. hadn't. I have heard this argument before. First, it is pure speculation that another country would have been as lawbreaking as the U.S. in dealing with Hawaii, and that even if they had it would have been worse than the U.S. It is also quite possible that if Hawaii wasn't occupied by the United States, it would still be an independent country and would be much better off now. But the larger point is that even if there's a chance that Hawaii would have been occupied by someone else and would have been worse off, that doesn't justify anything! It's like, you're lucky I moved into your house and let you camp in the yard, otherwise you might be homeless. Right? She also spreads misinformation that independence advocates want to "give Hawaii back to people of Native Hawaiian ancestry" and "put one individual in charge of people's lives." Actually, it is nationality, not ethnicity, that was and is the basis for being part of the Hawaiian country, with a naturalization process; and the Kingdom was/is a democratic constitutional monarchy where political rights (of all races) included electing legislators (of all races) who through a parliamentary process enacted the laws governing people's lives.

Along this line, Kenneth K. Hoopai Jr. also points out that the term "Hawaiian" actually refers to nationality.

The Maui News
Letters to the Editor
Wednesday, June 23, 2004

Better a state than a colony of another country

The June 18 letter on how Hawaii should be an independent nation showed that the writer's knowledge on the past is incomplete. The writer painted a picture of King Kalakaua and Queen Lili'uokalani as good rulers loved by all. In truth, though wonderful musicians and charming, erudite people, they were both ineffectual rulers.

Kalakaua enjoyed spending money and embellished his fine palace and gambled away money that could have greatly benefited Hawaii's people. Lili'uokalani's government was inefficient, and the queen herself was weak, arrogant, and failed as a leader.

Many people talk of restoring the monarchy and giving Hawaii back to the people of Native Hawaiian ancestry. But is putting one individual in charge of people's lives based on purity of ancestry really helping people or just the leadership?

Since separate nations have been around, larger ones have been dominating smaller ones. If America hadn't claimed Hawaii, Japan would have jumped at the chance to add Hawaii to its growing empire, and Polynesians under Japan's wing have been treated far worse than Hawaiians have ever been treated.

America is not a bully. Hawaii is an American state and it is better that way.

Leah Grantham
Lahaina

Unity needed to stop destructive development

This question needs to be answered. Am I Hawaiian? Answer: If you were born in Hawaii, yes.

How's that? Answer: You would be Hawaiian by nationality not by your ethnic background. Kanaka maoli are the aboriginal people of Hawaii.

Kanaka maoli, Hawaiians and Hawaiians-at-heart, look around us. Our aina is hurting. The new Mokulele Highway is being built and that means more concrete jungle.

The next problem I see coming, is where is all the water going to come from when all this stuff gets built?

We have to stop this soon and save ourselves by coming together as one ohana!

Kenneth K. Hoopai Jr.
Paukukalo

Posted: Wed - June 23, 2004 at 11:44 AM

getBlogName(); > getCategoryName("C1126750129"); >

Preemptive occupation

> >