| | That article has all the right words for all the wrong reasons. I am sorry, but I cannot go with the whole, as much as I agree with the parts.
When native Hawaiians — or anyone else — look in a mirror, what they ought to see, first and foremost, is not a native Hawaiian, not a citizen of that state and not even an American. They ought to see an individual, what they have made of themselves.
So, once the U.S. military seized an independent kingdom and annexed it for the benefit of sugar companies, the Hawaiians should have admitted the reality of the situation. I advocate that, in fact, here on SOLO and take hits for anarcho-Saddamism or whatever. How was what the U.S. military did in Hawaii 1898 any different from what Saddam Hussein did in Kuwait -- except that Kuwait actually could have been part of Iraq, whereas Hawaii was never part of the the USA until the Washington Gang captured it.
So, how do you recompensate victims?
It is possible, perhaps, that dead victims get no compensation. That might be objective justice.
Consider this. In some parts of the world, children and grandchildren labor in de facto slavery to pay off the debts of their elders or even ancestors. We do not do that in American. In America, generally speaking, heirs inherit assets, but not liabilities. The children of dead people are not forced to pay off the dead people's credit cards.
So, on that theory, what is done is done. Get over it.
At least that is one theory. I sense that not many regular posters here will be comfortable with that. Perhaps I am wrong.
In my heart of hearts, I have no problem with "native" Hawaiians -- however defined -- using U.S. Law to get what they can. It is not much different than working for a public university or being a NASA engineer, is it?
But neither is that an intellectually productive approach to the problem of recompensating victims, which is the real issue in this story.
(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 9/07, 9:56am)
|
|
