I am.

The US State Hawaii is the topic. Hawaiian natives are requesting sovereign status as granted mainland Native Americans. The legal precedent is there, as is the colonization history. Why would you deny them sovereign status?

I am glad congress could find the time to waste on this crap while ignoring things that matter

Hawaiians not being recognized as a Native Tribe has a whole lot to do with gambling money from Vegas paying off politicians, or so goes the conventional wisdom in Hawaii.

There is already a whole Island set aside that you cannot enter unless you are Native Hawaiian.

When I lived there it was descendants of the missionary families, who were the power elite, that blocked gambling. As I recall the Bishop Trust was at that time the largest private landholder in Hawaii.

That's Niihau, but it's privately owned, not set aside by the government.

I am not sure the specifics of the set up that is proposed. But I said earlier if it were set up similar to the system in Alaska the design is generally in the best interest of everyone.
Having a system of corporations and tribal governments working together on a local level and collaborating efforts can be a very good thing for the state and local communities involved.
It is not a perfect system, but it is better than others that have been established.

Hawaii should, of course, be restored as a sovereign kingdom.

__________________
President Josiah Bartlet: Sweden has a 100% literacy rate. 100%! How do they do that?
Leo McGarry: Maybe they don't and they can't add.

okey doke, how far would you like to go back?

__________________
No individual can plan his own existence in their view.

So the state planners must arrogate to themselves the right to manipulate any sector of the economic system if the good of “society” or the “general welfare” is paramount.

Ipso- if the rights of the individual get in the way, the rights of the individual must be sublimated.

The Road to Serfdom
FA Hayek (interpretation)


Mortgage Backed Security survivor

Without Hawaii, the Japanese Empire never would have been stopped in WWII.

Hawaii is of major geopolitical significance to US national security and this piece of dogpoo they call a resolution is deeply troubling.

The idea that the West should be weakened in its power projection capabilities all because of a bunch of tribal dancers with masks is laughable. Reminds me of that scene in the movie "Patton" where the whole army stops on the bridge because they don't want to hurt the Donkeys.

I guess in that case Sweden should carve up a piece of its land and hand it over to Gotar descendants eh?

__________________
Losing faith in Western Civilization one liberal at a time.

I wont disagree, Hawaii is very important when it comes to projecting military power across the Pacific.
Id like to hear your justification on how this would undermind the national security of the US. Tribal lands are still subjected to US law on the important issues, and if it ever came to military action, I would be very surprised if the US military hesitated in defending those lands the same as they would other US lands.
Obviously your understanding of tribal issues in America isnt very broad. Again, how would this undermind the pojection of power. It wont at all.

I'm confused, your first sentence answers everything else you just asked me.

__________________
Losing faith in Western Civilization one liberal at a time.

In your post, the notion you made was that Hawaii is important militarily, which I dont disagree with, but you also said this resolution would undermind that ability. I dont think it will at all, that is the basis for my argument.

In the greater scheme of American military force projection, or even in its behavior in and around the Hawaiian Islands as it currently is with land use and access, there would be no signifigant change in that status with passage of this resolution as far as Im aware.

Either way, it is largely moot at this point as it wont be made into law.

I apologize, I didn't enter my frame of mind into this thread.

I meant that this could be a downward slope kind of thing. I was thinking long-term. Maybe one day we really will have elected some people or someone foolish enough to give up Hawaii completely because of PCness. This resolution doesn't look very promising.

__________________
Losing faith in Western Civilization one liberal at a time.

Most colonial countries had to give up their colonial territory at some point, that's just the way it goes.

__________________
England has no eternal friends and no eternal enemies, only eternal interests - Palmerston