Hawaii Is An Apartheid State

13 posts / 0 new
Last post
Hawaii Is An Apartheid State

Under legislation that the House of Representatives has voted 261-153 to foist on Hawaii, a panel would be empowered to decide who is a "Native Hawaiian" and entitled to special privileges and immunities. Because there are perhaps only 7,000 "pure" Native Hawaiians, "Hawaiian blood" will inevitably be the criterion and the "one-drop rule" likely will prevail. Goering would have approved of this racialist sorting-out.

Those designated Native Hawaiians would be members of a new "tribe" conjured into existence by Congress. But it cannot legitimately do that.

In 1959, 94 percent of Hawaiians, including a large majority of Native Hawaiians, voted for statehood. Opposition was strongest among Southern Democrats in Congress, who, with the civil rights revolution simmering, were wary of Hawaii's example of multiracial harmony.

Today, the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act, when accurately described, is opposed by a large majority of Hawaiians and supported by only a bare majority of the approximately 240,000 Native Hawaiians in the state. The legislation, sponsored by Sen. Daniel Akaka, is a genuflection by "progressives," mostly Democrats, to "diversity" and "multiculturalism."

It would foment racial disharmony by creating a permanent caste entitled to its own government - the Native Hawaiian Governing Entity - within the United States. The NHGE presumably would be exempt (as Indian tribes are) from the Constitution's First, Fifth and 14th amendments. It would, Akaka says, negotiate with the state of Hawaii and the United States concerning "lands, natural resources, assets, criminal and civil jurisdiction, and historical grievances."

Reparations? We shall see. Independence - secession? "That could be," Akaka, 83, has said, depending on "my grandchildren and great-grandchildren."

The seeds of this weed were sown in 1993, when Congress passed a tendentious apology for supposed US complicity - which was neither clear nor essential - in the peaceful 1893 overthrow of Queen Liliuokalani's monarchy by Hawaiian residents.

remind remind's picture

It was not a peaceful overthrow, it was an act of fascist aggression.

N.Beltov N.Beltov's picture

Hawaii was annexed by yanqui imperialists in 1898. Around the same time they had the "Bayonet Constitution", so named because Liluokalani's predecessor, Kalakaua, signed it under duress.

And then we have:

US National Archives wrote:
  When King Kalakaua died in 1891, his sister Lili'uokalani succeeded him, and members of the native population persuaded the new queen to draft a new constitution in an attempt to restore native rights and powers. The move was countered by the Committee on Annexation, a small group of white businessmen and politicians who felt that annexation by the United States, the major importer of Hawaiian agricultural products, would be beneficial for the economy of Hawaii. Supported by John Stevens, the U.S. Minister to Hawaii, and a contingent of Marines from the warship, U.S.S. Boston, the Committee on Annexation overthrew Queen Lili'uokalani in a bloodless coup on January 17, 1893 and established a revolutionary regime.


Go back where you came from. Earth is full.


1897 Petition against the Annexation of Hawaii



John Queball, you sound familiar to someone with a different name.....

N.Beltov N.Beltov's picture


aka Mycroft

Ah this old trick. If every country practices apartheid then Israel isn't unusual. I expect our correspondent will soon be posting threads on Belgian apartheid, Swiss apartheid, Korean apartheid, Chinese apartheid, Mongolian apartheid, Canadian apartheid and Bolivian apartheid in order to make his point.


South Africa was the only Apartheid regime.Tongue out


And where did South Africa learn how to create Apartheid?  I was told that they came to Canada to learn how we we dealt with our "Indian Problem."  How is what we have done different than what they did?  If we were 10% of the population and they, the first nations, were 90% Canada would be a very different county.

I fully support the native people of Hawaii in their endeavor to preserve their culture in whatever way they chose.




Well that's a relatively amusing trolling effort, since it reflects one babble regular and refers to another babble thread title. Marks off for the idiocy of the premise, though. B-.

aka Mycroft wrote:

Ah this old trick. If every country practices apartheid then Israel isn't unusual. I expect our correspondent will soon be posting threads on Belgian apartheid, Swiss apartheid, Korean apartheid, Chinese apartheid, Mongolian apartheid, Canadian apartheid and Bolivian apartheid in order to make his point.

Or indeed "Estonian apartheid."


Caissa wrote:

South Africa was the only Apartheid regime.Tongue out

History doesn't mean much to you, does it?

2 ponies


From what I vaguely recall in reading about similar cases of the US federal government creating Native American "tribes" - this act that's being referred to in Hawaii isn't unusual or illegal.  A number of Native American "tribes" have apparently been created throughout the USA over the past couple of decades with financial backing from gaming corporations.  All that's required from what I recall is a group of people with the necessary blood "quantum" to get together and petition to become a federally recognized tribe.  It's nothing new and while it's shady, I have no idea if it's actually illegal; immoral and twisted, sure, but is it actually illegal?  I'm not justifying it - I'm just saying it's not unusual in the USA; it might be unusual for it to happen in Hawaii but it's happened in other US states regularly.  And Native Americans fall under federal jurisdiction in the USA from what I recall, the same way Aboriginal laws, regulations, etc fall under federal jurisdiction in Canada. 


It wouldn't hurt to link to references on such a story.

Skinny Dipper

Different countries and internal states offer their minorities different rights such as education in a their own language or religion, land-use rights, or extra seats in the first or second chamber of their parliament or legislative assembly.

If I may use some sarcasm, when we think about Israel, we should not think about how it is practising Apartheid against the Palestinians.  We should think about all the privileges it offers the Palestinians who are treated better than they would be in places like Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Egypt.  The Israelis are defending the Palestinians.  It reminds me of the apartheid South Africans who mentioned that the blacks had a better standard of living in South Africa than in the neighbouring countries.  Back in the Middle East, the Israelis are generous enough to give the Palestinians the right to educate their children in Arabic and practice their religions.  The Palestinians receive indirect economic benefits from Israeli society.  It's not the Israelis who are preventing the Palestinians from receiving these benefits.  It's the radical Palestinians who tell their own people not to support and participate in the Israeli economy.  That's the end of my sarcasm.

Catchfire Catchfire's picture