quote:HONOLULU (AP) _ The failed proposal to give Native Hawaiians self-governance is creating worries that Hawaiian benefit programs could be endangered.
The U-S Senate denied a measure today that would have given federal recognition to Native Hawaiians, similar to the way American Indians are treated by the government.
This isn't really "news," since this isn't the first time they've been denied and no one is surprised at the repeat performance, but it opens an interesting discussion: why does the U.S. Gov't continue to deny native Hawaiian sovereignty rights when they've already established a precedent of recognition with the Native Americans?
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't understand why Native American's demand independent recognition. It's perfectly possible to retain their cultural identity while still being absorbed into the fabric of America. The precedent established with mainland Native Americans certainly shouldn't be followed with Hawaiians. Is there any other advantage in that for them besides tax free casinos? There seems nothing wrong with simply considering them equal citizens of the United States while allowing them to retain their cultural independence.
Posts: 959 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe cause they’ve seen what a mistake it’s been with the Native Americans. So many live in poverty. The teens at my church do a missionary trip to some of the North Dakota reservations and the pics they bring back are so sad. What they need to do is do away with these special programs and just have them be regular Americans with the same rights and benefits as anyone else. It’s been long enough.
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Maybe cause they’ve seen what a mistake it’s been with the Native Americans. So many live in poverty. The teens at my church do a missionary trip to some of the North Dakota reservations and the pics they bring back are so sad. What they need to do is do away with these special programs and just have them be regular Americans with the same rights and benefits as anyone else. It’s been long enough.
Then why not take away the privileges for the Native Americans?
It's not like they haven't done it before.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
How does this guarantee it: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
That’s and a few other things about excluding them from counts in population numbers is all I can find. Are you talking about something else?
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's guaranteed by treaty not in the constitution. Sure can take the "privileges" away, but then y'all are gonna have to give our land back!
Posts: 772 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
This has some background info. That clause has been interpretted to give the indian nations considerable independent status.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd love to visit Hawaii.
Posts: 379 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
umm ya... the US of A has been for generations been commiting a premeditated delibarate genocide against the Native Americans, forced relocations, bounties, stealing and reeducating their young, denying them as human beings and instead demonizing them as "savages", and then the constant wars that pillaged their land and massacred their people. Modern times we still even in Canada took away their children and moved to residationial schools hundreds of miles away where they get to be "civilizaed" and brainwashed to forget and abandone their "savage" past.
Oh oh and thats not the greatest, recently in the 70's its been unearthed that various USA health companies have been testing various vaccines on natives populations that whose side effect is geuss what! Sterilization... And as far as we know still coninues.
And then there's the little fact that dispite living on very rich mineral land the Indians due to whatever treaties only recieve a pittance of what the land is worth the rest pocketed by corporations, politicians etc etc.
And you think they'll just happily become part of the American fabric?
IP: Logged |
posted
I suspect handing out prime real estate like Hawaii is a slightly more painful experience than granting reservations in the likes of North Dakota.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
As I understand it, it wouldn't have created a separate land for Hawaiians.
What would have happened is anyone who had even a drop of Hawaiian blood would have been put under a different governing body than other citizens, no matter where in Hawaii they lived.
In other words, your neighbor, who was only 1/32 Hawaiian, would not have had to pay taxes, and you would. But they would still have benifited (or maybe even worked for) the regular US services, like police, fire, etc.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong in this.
In other words, we'd have had two "classes" of citizens, each subject to different laws, intermingled through the whole of the state of Hawaii.
And then we'd have to worry about how to treat them when they went to other states, since this law would have been written in Hawaii.
It was really a big mess. There's more to it not passing than just "Hawaiians aren't as important as Indians."
Posts: 1894 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Indian tribes still pay federal taxes; they don't, however, get state or local benefits, either. I don't know the details of this piece of legislation, but I imagine it would be similar.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:SEC. 9. APPLICABILITY OF CERTAIN FEDERAL LAWS.
(a) INDIAN GAMING REGULATORY ACT- Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize the Native Hawaiian governing entity to conduct gaming activities under the authority of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.).
(b) BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS- Nothing contained in this Act provides an authorization for eligibility to participate in any programs and services provided by the Bureau of Indian Affairs for any persons not otherwise eligible for the programs or services.
posted
Still reading, and I'm not a lawyer, but it seems like this is going something like this:
Native Hawaiians have certain lands that they've already been given, and this would authorize the government to grant them more land--at least, negotiations over land is part of the power given to both the independent Hawaiian governing body as well as the new position in the Interior that would deal with this new government.
However, Hawaiians would not have to live on any of these to be considered "sovereign." They would just need to"
quote:(A) IN GENERAL- Subject to subparagraph (B), for the purpose of establishing the roll authorized under section 7(c)(1) and before the reaffirmation of the political and legal relationship between the United States and the Native Hawaiian governing entity, the term `Native Hawaiian' means--
(i) an individual who is 1 of the indigenous, native people of Hawaii and who is a direct lineal descendant of the aboriginal, indigenous, native people who--
(I) resided in the islands that now comprise the State of Hawaii on or before January 1, 1893; and
(II) occupied and exercised sovereignty in the Hawaiian archipelago, including the area that now constitutes the State of Hawaii; or
(ii) an individual who is 1 of the indigenous, native people of Hawaii and who was eligible in 1921 for the programs authorized by the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act (42 Stat. 108, chapter 42) or a direct lineal descendant of that individual.
Then they would have to "opt-in" by submitting forms and documentation that would be created by the new Hawaiian governing body.
Posts: 1894 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
From there, it's tough, because all the legislation creates is an interim "Council" that would basically have two powers: Creating the "Roll" of Native Hawaiians, and creating the new sovereign government. Naturally, it doesn't include what that new government body would consist of.
It does say that they would have to submit any amendments that would be neccesary to the federal or state legislation to the appropriate bodies for vote, so they shouldn't be able to superceed state or federal law.
But a lot of it is vague, and I haven't read any of the legislation this refrences, either in relation to the Hawaiian Homes Commision Act, the Apology Resolution, or any of the laws governing Native Americans. The law's kind of confusing, because it seems to establish the Native American laws as being a guide for these, but denies that all factors in that apply.
So I can see why reaction and interpretation of this is all over the board.
Posts: 1894 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
