No. Referring to the words of another poster as “drivel” is an attack upon the post or the argument (albeit a rather emotional attack that does little to elevate the tone of the discourse) and is not considered an attack upon the poster.
C’mon, guys. Everyone comes into these threads with a certain amount of passion regarding the topics they address. That passion is liable to be expressed in emotional ways. We expect that the typical Doper will be able to bear up under the emotional pain inflicted by an occasional snide remark. We do not encourage it, but we understand it, and we are not going to make any attempt to force every post to be utterly dispassionate. Sometimes you are going to be frustrated by your opponent’s apparent inability to see the blinding truth that you have posted At such times you are liable to express a concern for their powers of ratiocination or perception in ways that are not up to the standards of Miss Manners, John Henry (Cardinal) Newman, or Robert’s Rules. On other occasions, someone will take issue with one of your brilliant insights in a manner that does not seem to express quite the respect and adoration that it surely deserves.
So what?
If it was a good shot, acknowledge it and move on.
If it was a clunker, demonstrate your moral and mental superiority by ignoring it.
You guys get to pick and choose which discussions you will read. We staffers have to slog through all of them, regardless how uninformed, illogical, badly presented, or just stupid they are. As a general rule, we hope that the decent posters (such as the posters in this thread) will police themselves while not dissecting each post for (often inadvertant) infractions.
Screw you, Tom! It’s not every day I get to cite The Colony of New York v John Peter Zenger–well, I could cite it every day but it would get old fast and you will note that in my five years here I have NEVER done so before–and then you ruin my fun by getting all huffy about having to read all the crap we write? Then you have the temerity to say “(e)veryone comes into these threads with a certain amount of passion regarding the topics they address,” when it’s perfectly obvious that I have little or no passion about anything, especially Hawaiian independence, and that this tantrum has not the slightest basis in my true feelings, which are completely noncommital though vaguely sympathetic toward the mods, and exists only because I like to pretend I have feelings now and then? How do you answer THAT, Mr Smarty Pants?
The last two kings were elected. Lydia Liliuokalani was named heir to the throne by her brother and was never elected anything. But you make your point, the Kingdom of Hawaii elected monarchs when the line died out. A kingdom with tribal status would have to have elected kings, and would be open to all ethnic Hawaiians, not just the descendents of the alii.
Monty, I’m guessing they’d write a new constitution instead of dredging up one of the old ones. But I’ll bet the one Liliuokalani was trying to promulgate would be a model.
[Concerned ordinary poster hat on]Tomndebb, could you please, please do something about Liberal? I think we’re all sick of his hostile attitude and attention craving. He really hasn’t contributed squat to this thread, he’s just managed to derail it. If you’d rather I start a pit thread about it, or write to Ed Zotti or the Chicago Reader eds or something, I can follow through, but please take the first step and issue a warning to him the next time he pulls the belligerent act. I know I’d deeply appreciate it.[COPH off.]
During a Native American Studies class I took a couple of summers ago, the issue of Hawaiian sovereignty was discussed rather as a tangent to the issue of protecting the Hawaiian language. I don’t remember what the upshot was, but there was a concern that to be accorded tribal status, the Hawaiian people would have to designate a certain portion, not all, of the state as tribal land. Does that make sense?
Moderator’s Note: The middle of the thread really isn’t the place for a comment like this, for several reasons. If you think another poster’s behavior is such that it actually violates the rules of the board, the appropriate venue is e-mail to the Moderators; for some concrete violation contained in a particular post, use the report this post button; or you can e-mail us “manually”. If the posting style or point of view of another poster just plain annoys you beyond the point of wanting to refute their arguments in Great Debates, you can start a Pit thread (and include a link to the Pit thread in a GD thread if you like), ignore the other poster, or even Ignore the other poster (without publicly mentioning that you’re doing the last, of course).
I’ve always been intrigued by this type of argument, whether used about Hawaii or the United States or my native Australia.
Just out of interest, say i stole something from you and passed it on to a friend of mine, who had no way of knowing that it was stolen, and who accepted it on good faith.
If the police tracked the item down, should my friend be allowed to keep it just because he “had nothing to do with the historical injustices” that led to it coming into his possession? Or would you expect to get your item back?
Many had property not stolen but lost through circumstances not under their control such as the nisei Japanese of American ancestry who were relocated into camps and had to sell property they would have otherwise kept.
Ahh, but Kamehameha stole it from the other Chieftans and imposed his name on them. Actually some think Kamehameha (although really his name was Tamehameha) was Samoan, descendant of immigrants who came over in the 16th century after they were booted out of Samoa for violence. They decided that the natives just didn’t measure up to the high standards the Samoans had.
Either way there was two main periods of migration. Around 800 AD (that’s what the archaeology tells us although certain people desperately want to push this back several centuries) and then again in the 16th century.
After the ravages of over 500 years of White exceptionalism it’s kinda scary to me that people would think the reverse would be any better.
I’m sure you’re correct. My knowledge of Hawaiian history is pretty limited.
My point, however, was a more general one about the question of if (or when) stolen property can morally be deemed to belong to the recipients rather than to its original owner.
I seem to recall that for one of the Polynesian languages, the K represented the very same sound that another Polynesian language had represented by the T. IOW, the name is spelled two different ways but is pronounced only one way.
No, he pronounced it Tamehameha. We were a fairly diverse island group with a very large population. One million is the one I’ve heard a lot. Things got whittled down to one pronunciation pretty quickly. I think this is one of the reasons they try to link certain Hawaiian legends to certain Samoan legends to come up with the theory I gave above. If you google Tamehameha you’ll get lots of those independence sites. Trying to undo all the “White” stuff that was done to them.
I suppose it’s also why you hear tapa and tiki a lot.
No, /t/ and /k/ were phonemically identical in Hawaiian when the alphabet was decided on, as were /l/ and /r/ - this one’s better known because Liholiho was consulted about how he wanted to spell his name. I think /b/ and /p/ were also considered identical, since Beretania Street still has that spelling instead of “Pelekania.” Not that most people are aware of this - the last time I was in Honolulu the Advertiser included an elderly Hawaiian griping that all the kids are calling kalo “taro” now, when in truth they’re variant pronunciations of the same word. (He also hated the term “Big Island” and I totally agree with him there.) Nowadays using /t/ and /k/ interchangably is just going to get you looked at funny.
Fern, any thoughts on the recent court decision to desegregate Kam Schools, and how that may affect the independence movement? You seem closer to the discussion than any of us.
Well that makes sense. Are you sure there also weren’t different accents throughout the islands though?
It’s definitely not “Big Island.” I caught part of a travel show hosted by Alec Baldwin who kept saying things like “And on “Big Island” the volcano …” So annoying and wrong. It’s just the big island. No caps. At least that’s how I’ve had it.
What we basically have is one group of self-identified people, who are really the same as any other person here. Meaning they live in the local culture which primarily comes from the ex plantation workers. There’s really not anything defined as Hawaiian only. So those that identify themselves as Hawaiian really live a life the same as most other people in these islands. And really no one understands how to deal with what happened because because of that. Except for those who think things should stay the same (me) or Hawaii should return to its independence.
So then that court case comes along as an explanation point to lots of people who only had a vague sense of unease before. I think it will certainly make those who felt that unease more determined. But because Hawaii is set firmly within the US court system I don’t really see what they can do. How long can estates set up by wills last? Bernice Bishop died 120 years ago during the Kingdom era. I seem to remember hearing that estates set up by will should only last so long.
It has increased pressure on our politicians to show that they’re “Doing something” so they’ve already come out and said that this is why they need the Akaka Bill passed. Even though no one knows what it will do or how it will effect anybody. I can’t imagine too much will change though. Bernice did want to educate all children, it was only a preference for Hawaiian blood that she asked.
Plus about half of all marraiges here are involve multiple ethnicities. The local culture I mentioned is a big part of that. And all the Samoans and especially Filipinos really fit into that culture. It wont be too long till no one has more then 50% Hawaiian blood.
I’ve been away for a week with no net access, so I’m just now catching up.
Perhaps you’re correct in what you say above, but not according to what I’ve been given to understand. “…no big problem with the provisional government”? “…Royalty wasn’t all that popular”? “…despotic Monarchy…”? Surely, loaded phrases that are from the mark of history – again, as I’m given to understand. Furthermore (regarding the “bloodless” comment), if you give your wallet to a mugger to avoid getting shot, how does that make you not a victim (or absolve the mugger from ethical responsibility)?
This is a falacious argument; not only can one not say categorically that “foreigners” would have overthrown the Monarchy, it makes no difference as to the legitimacy of the action. I suggest, however, that you look into land rights (google on “great mahele”) before you attempt to claim that no one got their land stolen or rights trampled.
As I’ve said from the beginning, I think the practical issues of restoring sovereignty are insurmountable, which makes the end result of the argument we’re having moot. The ideological disagreement ends up also being insurmountable, as you seem to be arguing from a different set of ethical axioms than I am. So, I disagree with you, but have little desire to pursue it any more.
I don’t know; it is an intriguing question, actually. There are complicating facets to this, as far as I’m concerned. If someone stole my car and it was found (even if it was sold to someone who bought it in good faith) – yes, I’d expect to get it back. The person who received the property should be reimbursed – by the thief. Yes, I acknowledge the practical issues involved. Now, if someone had stolen a watch from my grandfather 60 years ago…no, I’d not expect anything. On the other hand, a material item such as a watch doesn’t hold the same status for me as does land (i.e., something from which one can derive his/her livelihood).
There isn’t a clear answer to me. Certainly, an extended time frame is a mitigator (cf. DrDeth’s point regarding Neanderthals). In the opposite direction, the worth of something gives this dispute more weight. One might ask how much is the near-total loss of one’s culture worth, as that’s what is under consideration here?