Burial council hears outrage over home site - News

LIHUE>> Dozens of Hawaiians and their supporters testified yesterday in tears and with shouts and voices crackling with emotion before the Kauai Niihau Burial Council. Read more
First Prev
of 4
Next Last
thecommongood

Honolulu, HI

#67 Oct 10, 2008
Kawahineomano,

No offense but you really ought to choose sources with whom I am NOT familiar if you don't want me to be able to discredit them. I happen to have recieved my BA in Political Science from UHM and while I never took any classes from this Keanu Sai (I graduated before he started teaching), I seem to recall that he is a doctoral CANDIDATE and a Hawaiian Activist. Not exactly an learned and IMPARTIAL scholar in my book. I took a couple of courses in international law from Dr. Nevzat Soguk. Dr. Soguk specializes in international relations theory, international organizations, and comparative politics. While Dr. Soguk focuses refugees and migrants, human rights, international political economy, and (most importantly) indigenous politics are also strong interests. I've had MANY discussions with him about international law and indigineous rights and although we disagree on many things, in the end we both agree that international law isn't all that binding. In the end, international law is nothing more than a network of agreements - contracts - between nations. Contracts can always be broken and, as a result, the bottom line will always be "might makes right." Those who lack the power to enforce their contracts, have no practical recourse. The reality is, the Kingdom of Hawaii was overthrown. Since I don't believe there is such a thing as a LEGAL overthrow, I think we both agree on the illegality of that overthrow. What we disagree on is who is responsble and what can be done about it. You think it is the US, I think it was the Hawaiian citizens/residents who happened to ask the US for help in overtorowing the Kingdom. I think the subsequent establishment of the Republic, recognized by the international community (just as the Kingdom was), negates your claim that anything was taken from the Hawaiian people by the US. I believe the motivations for the annexation are irrelevant as is the fact that it was by a joint resolution, since the way it played out was in fact legal. Any atempt to use international law to discredit the actions of the US fails simply because I don't care. Laws are only as effective as the people who are willing to enforce them. Even if the international community were to agree with you, can they realistically do about it? "Might makes right," remember? Besides, it's not like we have tanks and garrisons on the ground enforcng US will upon the peoople of Hawaii. Native Hawaiians are no longer the only "people of Hawaii" and our Statehood is not an occupation, no matter how badly some want to characterize it as such. You are right in thinking that there are several sides to this story. No matter our differences, I think you have to agree that only history can determine which side is ultimately "right." Before I go, point of fact: I do fear the implications of native Hawaiian sovereignty. Look at it from my point of view for a second. Why should you be treated any differently than any other citizen of the United States? Why should I have to pay for those undeserved benefits?
Zoomer32

Ewa Beach, HI

#68 Oct 10, 2008
Okay, both of you are no longer having a conversation about the real topic but simply defending your egos. This is why we have a court system for such resolutions -- for a judge to decide, not law school graduates and educated laymen.

In my opinion, you are both wrong. The issue has nothing to do with sovereignty, but personal property rights. Commongood and Alice, stop your racist antics and move on.
thecommongood

Aiea, HI

#70 Oct 10, 2008
Zoomer32 wrote:
Okay, both of you are no longer having a conversation about the real topic but simply defending your egos. This is why we have a court system for such resolutions -- for a judge to decide, not law school graduates and educated laymen.
In my opinion, you are both wrong. The issue has nothing to do with sovereignty, but personal property rights. Commongood and Alice, stop your racist antics and move on.
You might want to read the entire discussion thread before you start flapping your gums (figuratively speaking). This isn't about ego, it's about perspective, and perspective is relevant to the issue of whether and to what extent the Burial Council can restrict a private landowner's use and enjoyment of his own land. You can't seriously be trying to restrict what people post about on this thread based on your own personal opinions on what is or is not relevant? THAT'S ego, my friend. You don't like our discussion, ignore it. No one is forcing you to read anything. This is America after all.
thecommongood

Honolulu, HI

#71 Oct 10, 2008
BTW, just out of curiousity, what about my posts do you find racist?
Zoomer32

Ewa Beach, HI

#73 Oct 10, 2008
alice wrote:
<quoted text>It is never racist to demand a fact check or two. The natives love to be admired and loved but they need to earn that.
Addressing Hawaiians as native is racist, because your intent is to demean a political group in a racial matter. BTW, you cannot invent your own race: Eurasian. According to U.S. Census, there is no such thing. You are racist -- Hon.
Zoomer32

Ewa Beach, HI

#74 Oct 11, 2008
thecommongood wrote:
<quoted text>You might want to read the entire discussion thread before you start flapping your gums (figuratively speaking). This isn't about ego, it's about perspective, and perspective is relevant to the issue of whether and to what extent the Burial Council can restrict a private landowner's use and enjoyment of his own land. You can't seriously be trying to restrict what people post about on this thread based on your own personal opinions on what is or is not relevant? THAT'S ego, my friend. You don't like our discussion, ignore it. No one is forcing you to read anything. This is America after all.
I defended you once, when you addressed modern-day law regarding land tenureship. Then the tone of the conversation changed to discuss the issue of Hawaiian sovereignty claims. Honestly, I couldn't care less about what you think. But your passion against Bishop estate and native Hawaiians makes you no better than the protesters themselves. I believe in private property rights being protected, and that includes CHARITABLE INSTITUTIONS. Mind your own business, and leave Hawaiians alone.

So if you feel the need to defend yourself, I would call that defending your EGO. If you did not have such a problem with that, you wouldn't care what I believe.
owt

Kihei, HI

#75 Oct 11, 2008
Why is there such pressure to sell sell sell land and to buy buy buy to develop develop develop land here. Land availability becomes rarer which increases property values. All of this increases proportionately and quickly all before cultures & races can adopt coping with each other. Land development should only take place after the races or ethnicities have learned to cope with each other, excluding building gated communities and pushing families on to beaches in favor of paying customers from outside.
Anonymous

Kapaa, HI

#76 Oct 11, 2008
Didn't they make a movie about that ..."Poltergeist" or something?
thecommongood

Waipahu, HI

#77 Oct 11, 2008
Zoomer32 wrote:
<quoted text>
I defended you once, when you addressed modern-day law regarding land tenureship. Then the tone of the conversation changed to discuss the issue of Hawaiian sovereignty claims. Honestly, I couldn't care less about what you think. But your passion against Bishop estate and native Hawaiians makes you no better than the protesters themselves. I believe in private property rights being protected, and that includes CHARITABLE INSTITUTIONS. Mind your own business, and leave Hawaiians alone.
So if you feel the need to defend yourself, I would call that defending your EGO. If you did not have such a problem with that, you wouldn't care what I believe.
I did notice that you had agreed with one of my earlier posts. That's partially why I was surprised at the tone of your more recent post. You seemed to be expressing disgust at the course that the conversation had taken. Your post was disrespectful and did not contribute anything meaningful to the discussion. I am sorry that you disagree with the opinions that I have expressed of late but you don't have to be rude about it. Kawahineomano and I seem to disagree on many things but we've been able to keep the conversation civil and mature. Just because you disagree with my recent posts doesn't mean you have to reduce yourself to behaving like a spoiled child. If you have a different position from me then say so. State your position proudly and have the courage to back it up with facts. Otherwise you're no different from the droves of infants that populate these forums, spewing insults and immaturity. I enjoy reading posts from intelligent people who disagree with me. We may never see eye to eye but it is far better to be exposed to different opinions than it is to ignore them. No matter how strongly you feel about anything, you must be willing to ask yourself "what if I'm wrong?" Especially when presented with facts or perspectives that differ from your own. If you want, you can view this post as me being "defensive" or "egotistical." Or you could put some thought into what I've said and maybe we can have some interesting conversations in the future. Your choice.
Edison

Aiea, HI

#78 Oct 11, 2008
Thecommongood and Kawahineomano - you guys display maturity and intelligence. I salute you for that and I salute you for your persistence to prevail on facts where you base your opinions. As far as my opinion goes it merely pertains who is sovereign in Hawaii at this point of time. History is always written by winners.
I don't think there is any disagreement with that.
History also shows that successful invaders had prevailed and succeeded in their subjugation because they tolerated subdued cultures. They let it survived, but in the process over time they formed into one culture which survived because the repercussion was beneficial for the common good and civilized society is created eliminating elements that are inimical to the objective of that emerging society. Subdued people who had adapted to the ways of the conquerors, of course, had learned to merge and contribute for the betterment of everyone.
The situation with the burial graves can be resolved if the authority or entity that is tasked to take care of this kind of situation that has occurred many times in the past has done its homework and responsibility to settle this sensitive issue. We need to make laws or amend laws to preclude resentment and disunity in this area.
Zoomer32

Ewa Beach, HI

#79 Oct 11, 2008
thecommongood wrote:
<quoted text>I did notice that you had agreed with one of my earlier posts. That's partially why I was surprised at the tone of your more recent post. You seemed to be expressing disgust at the course that the conversation had taken. Your post was disrespectful and did not contribute anything meaningful to the discussion. I am sorry that you disagree with the opinions that I have expressed of late but you don't have to be rude about it. Kawahineomano and I seem to disagree on many things but we've been able to keep the conversation civil and mature. Just because you disagree with my recent posts doesn't mean you have to reduce yourself to behaving like a spoiled child. If you have a different position from me then say so. State your position proudly and have the courage to back it up with facts. Otherwise you're no different from the droves of infants that populate these forums, spewing insults and immaturity. I enjoy reading posts from intelligent people who disagree with me. We may never see eye to eye but it is far better to be exposed to different opinions than it is to ignore them. No matter how strongly you feel about anything, you must be willing to ask yourself "what if I'm wrong?" Especially when presented with facts or perspectives that differ from your own. If you want, you can view this post as me being "defensive" or "egotistical." Or you could put some thought into what I've said and maybe we can have some interesting conversations in the future. Your choice.
I respect Kawahineokamano's knowledge, and although we have similar beliefs as native Hawaiians, we differ when it comes to property rights -- I am a property owner, although she isn't.

But you spend too much time on these forums, choosing which interesting conversation to have with whomever. I see you're all about making others "put some thought" into what you said, without putting thought to other people's words. Frankly, I don't have time to waste to do the research to post facts simply to be right all the time with anonymous contributors. If sitting at the computer all day gives your ego the thrill it needs, so be it: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is yours.

I apologize if I offended you, but I was simply saying that your conversation was going nowhere and off topic. We all know the facts about the coup d'état (you call it the Republic, I call them treasonists) in 1893, and the details of annexation, blah blah blah. And I read your posts concerning Bishop estate, and I find it hypocritical for you to defend a white landowner but condemn a charitable trust simply because you don't approve of whom they choose to benefit.

I've said enough. Do as you will, but I'm boycotting this thread after this last post. I've got better things to do with my time than entertain you.
bjr from Texas

United States

#80 Oct 11, 2008
Even we caucasian mainlanders know better than to build on ancient burial sites. Bad, bad medicine. I certainly would not want to feel that I am walking on an elder's grave. I won't even step on the area where my dog is buried!
bjr from Texas

United States

#81 Oct 11, 2008
And if the buyer did indeed buy the property without knowledge of the burial site, that means he did not do his due diligence. If he had checked into it, he would have known.
thecommongood

Waipahu, HI

#82 Oct 11, 2008
bjr from Texas wrote:
And if the buyer did indeed buy the property without knowledge of the burial site, that means he did not do his due diligence. If he had checked into it, he would have known.
Actually, there are ancient Hawaiian burials all over the place. Hawaii is an island state. We don't have as much room as you folks on the mainland. If we were to put the brakes on every time we found some bones buried in the sand, there would be no Waikiki, no Hawaii as we now know it. These remains should be relocated to a central location, paid for by the Burial Council, so this landowner can enjoy his property and the remains get the respect they deserve. Can't stop progress folks. Oh, and don't forget to get a priest to bless the land before you start building again.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 4
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Hanalei Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Kauai Water Department wins approval of explora... (Oct '12) Jan '15 jax23willis 3
Kapaa Music Thread (Apr '12) Nov '14 Musikologist 15
News New record temperatures set at Lihue, Honolulu ... Oct '14 Joe Balls 1
Food bank delivers to a community in need (Sep '14) Sep '14 Katy Means 1
News A new lava flow begins as another ends (Jul '14) Jul '14 Adrian Godsafe MSc 1
News Walgreens seeks to open store in Nanakuli - Bus... (Sep '08) Jun '14 tommy 52
News Father Gets Probation for Making Son Walk 1 Mile (May '14) Jun '14 Warren Jones 2
Hanalei Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Hanalei People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]