Talk:Akaka Bill/Archive 1

Archive 1

Repeated POV push

I find Jere Krischel's POV is decidedly against the Akaka Bill (and its federal recognition of Native Hawaiians], Native Hawaiian sovereignty, and the Hawaiian perspective of the history of Hawai`i. On the Webpage http://www.grassrootinstitute.org/board_staff2.shtml, he is listed as a board member of the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii [sic], a group with a mission to lobby against the bill and to "educate" the public with its perspective (http://www.grassrootinstitute.org/Sunshine%20on%20the%20Akaka%20Bill.shtml). It is clear that his edits weren't neutral particularly in article sections concerning the Native Hawaiian POV. These articles need more balanced writing and editing (and watching). HeartlyHear 11:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate any help you can give in reaching NPOV. Asserting that there is some sort of racial POV that must be adhered to is an odd statement, but perhaps you could explain that in more detail. Insofar as GRIH, its mission is education - whether or not knowing the truth about the Akaka bill makes you for or against it is out of their purview. Perhaps we can address some of your issues one at a time? --JereKrischel 15:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I find myself in the rather odd position of agreeing with some (but by no means all) of JK's edits -- viz., text that does seem to be a little to POV in favor of the pro-Akaka bill perspective. I think the article should not advocate either way, and certainly I agree with HH that many of JK's language is quite POV and indeed insidious. It's quite telling that he is the one who asserts that HH is advocating a "racial" POV when HH said or implied no such thing (as he and I have discussed many times before, such a category as "ethnicity" that can be used with more validity). I also agree that GRIH seems to be a lobbying organization (clever use of the term "education" to describe that behavior though) and thus JK's perspective on this issue may be skewed. Aloha. Arjuna 21:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

My apologies if you have found my language POV or "insidious" - I'm sure we can work out some compromise. I took HH's statement, the Hawaiian perspective of the history of Hawai'i as racial - perhaps he meant it only as an indication of geography, but in that case, I'm just as representative of the Hawaiian perspective. Only he can clarify what he meant by that term. Anyway, any help in finding some way to find a neutral ground is appreciated. --JereKrischel 23:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Viriditas, kudos on finding a good NPOV compromise. Sounds right to me. Arjuna 04:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I've gone over things once more on a few points I felt were particularly POV pushing - could we discuss their inclusion before inserting them back in? Some specific points:

• "parity" is weasel-wordy. The Akaka bill would not bring about a level playing field, since native Hawaiians would not be subject to any of the same requirements for tribal membership.

• "seeks to recognize Native Hawaiians as Native Hawaiians...does not create a Native Hawaiian government" seems right out of the pro-Akaka brochures. I'm not sure what that section was even trying to elaborate on.

• AFAIK, the "new 2007 version of the bill" is identical to the one introduced and failed last year. Someone please show me a specific textual difference if I'm mistaken.

Any comments would be helpful. Mahalo! --JereKrischel 16:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

First, allow me to reproduce some comments that JK posted on HeartlyHear's talk page. I'm simply doing this as this seems the appropriate place to discuss the concerns that JK raised and to make the discussion part of the article's record. JK wrote:

Mahalo, HeartlyHear, but I must admit I have some significant reservations about your recent edits. In specific:

• Your characterization of "indigenous, Native Hawaiians" seems either redundant, or POV pushing. The question as to whether or not Native Hawaiians can be considered as "indigenous" to Hawaii, given the fact that they are most likely part of a second wave of colonization to the islands, and actually displaced the first people who migrated there (the Marquesans), is an open one;

• Stating that the bill has anything to do with "parity" regarding Native American and Native Alaskan tribes is blatantly misleading - none of the required qualifications for tribal recognition are in the Akaka bill -> it is well beyond "parity";

• Talking about "health, housing and economic development", and implying that if these programs weren't race based they wouldn't help people in need is misleading;

• Asserting that somehow native Hawaiian citizens of the State of Hawaii do not currently enjoy self-determination and self-governance is blatantly false -> no native Hawaiians are disenfranchised on the basis of their race in the State of Hawaii, and enjoy the same rights of self-determination that any other citizens of the State of Hawaii and the United States have;

• The 2007 version of the bill is not different at all from the last version S.147 - asserting that it clarifies anything is false;

• Asserting that support of the Akaka Bill comes from those who want to "ensure that the native (especially at-risk) population continues to receive services" is complete propaganda - those who oppose the Akaka Bill also want to ensure that at-risk populations recieve services, simply not due to their racial makeup;

• "Many Republican congressional delegates" is awfully broad and inspecific. Be more precise if you'd lke to be;

• Inoyue's quote is probably acceptable, but the assertion that treating Native Hawaiians in a manner completely different than Native Americans are treated is somehow discriminatory is failing to address the issue those people with Native American and Native Alaskan, or other pre-United States ancestry in the Americas who do not have tribal affiliation or special rights based simply on their bloodline;

I appreciate the time you're spending, but if you could address some of the issues I've raised, I'd greatly appreciate it. --JereKrischel 07:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Arjuna here again. I don't have time to go over these point by point, and only have time now to go over his point #1. But again, I think many of JK's points reflect a tendentious understanding of the issues and ignore the consensus positions of scholarly work about Hawaii.

1. JK, can you cite a source indicating that the "original" Marquesan populations in Hawaii were "displaced" by a second Tahitian wave? The second wave hypothesis in itself is not necessarily in dispute (although there is no real scholarly consensus as to exactly how or by whom colonization took place), but the idea that the second wave extirpated, rather than absorbed, is at best, and unsupported statement. Certainly, suggesting that this is a "fact" is incorrect; certainly it is at odds with the patterns of immigration/migration throughout the Pacific. This makes the notion that the inhabitants of Hawaii that were here at the time of Cook's arrival were therefore NOT "indigenous" similarly spurious. In light of this, how HH's edits were "POV pushing" seems wholly without merit, and in fact a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

2. JK and I have battled many times before over the issue of whether the Akaka Bill is "race-based" (his view, reflecting, perhaps, own political opinions -- to which he is of course entitled to hold outside Wikipedia), or whether "ethnicity" is a more valid representation. "Ancestry-based" seemed to be a compromise wording that we both accepted, so I'm disappointed to see him resurrecting the term again.

I have to run, but look forward to continued discussion of these and the other points JK raised. In the meantime, I wish you both aloha. Arjuna 08:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding 1), you are correct, there is no scholarly consensus, which I think addresses the point I'm trying to make -> labeling Hawaiian colonists pre-1778 as "indigenous" seems like an attempt to label them as having superior rights in some manner. I suppose I see it in the same light as Americans who decry recent immigrants as not "real" Americans, even though their ancestors came here from somewhere else at one point in time. Insofar as references, see Herb Kane's information regarding the displaced Marquesan theory.

Regarding "race-based" versus "ancestry-based"...I believe in this case we're trying to make a statement regarding opposition, not a neutral statement as to what it actually does. In places where we describe the Akaka bill without attributing our description as a criticism, I think our compromise should hold, but in this case, I think it's a bit different. Does that make sense? --JereKrischel 08:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding differences between S.147 and S.310, I stand corrected, there are some textual differences, but I do still disagree with the characterization. Here you can see the specific differences. Nowhere in there do I find support for the following statements:

• Any clarification regarding secession or separating parts of Hawaii from the U.S.;
• Prohibition of casinos or other gaming in Hawaii (it simply says it cannot rely on "inherent authority" or "Federal Law" to justify doing so);
• Federal/state criminal and civil jurisdiction are subject to change as per the result of negotiations described in Section 8(b);

Some more interesting points that probably deserve mention are the elimination of explicit racial requirements for being a commissioner, the removal of the Governor of Hawaii's role in "Native Hawaiian Relations", and the insistence that this Native Hawaiian Governing entity be singular, and all other Native Hawaiian groups would not have any recognition at all (almost as if the Cherokee were able to establish themselves as the only legal Native American tribe). --JereKrischel 09:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Most of the HeartlyHear edits seemed to come directly off of Akaka's website [1]. I wouldn't be nearly as concerned if Akaka's statements on the bill were quoted directly, rather than simply being presented as factual. Although certainly some things are not disputed (who supports the bill, who co-sponsored it, etc), there are significant disputes as to the characterizations Akaka has made about his bill. For example, he states on his webpage, "The language satisfactorily addresses concerns expressed in July 2005 by the Bush Administration regarding the liability of the United States in land claims, the impact of the bill on military readiness, gaming, and civil and criminal jurisdiction in Hawaii." Asserting that any specific changes "satisfactorily addresses concerns" is a fairly large leap - if he could cite the Bush Administration stating that, that would be one thing, but instead he's simply making an unsupported assertion.

A particularly interesting quote from Akaka's web page is, Negotiations between the recognized Native Hawaiian entity, the United States, and the state of Hawaii will address issues such as criminal and civil jurisdiction, historical grievances, and jurisdiction and control of natural resources, lands, and assets. - this seems important enough to mention, and makes assertions that the Akaka bill will not alter any criminal and civil jurisdiction, or land base, or anything, seem misleading, since although the bill itself may not make it happen, it directly opens the door to those changes. Sort of like picking the lock on a store, leaving it open, and asserting that nothing you did had anything to do with the group of guys who drove up, walked through the door, and stole a bunch of stuff. --JereKrischel 09:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Bit confused about the flow of this Webpage and how things should be entered... I added comments using the + so they are below.

Regarding JereKrischel's comments/questions, based on scholarship I've read or reviewed, he does make unsupported, outdated, or disputed claims. Calling the Hawaiians (who were the first to arrive in the islands from at least 1200 AD--and documentation is forthcoming because it is definitely available) "colonists" and claiming they are not "indigenous" is quite surprising because it is a minority viewpoint (in academia and I would venture to say most of society worldwide) that some would even say is even racially biased. LOL! Certainly, older scholarship was written from an older perspective, and perhaps the viewpoint originates from older texts. A discussion to define "colonist" and "indigenous" is needed here (in the discussion area), perhaps. At least it will clarify what assumptions each of us are working from. I am not an anthropologist, but I do try to read as much as I can and to find the most up-to-date research. I think we owe a people that much before we try to write about them. I'm sure no Native Hawaiian would appreciate what seems an insinuation (or perhaps, subtle slight), in JereKrischel's comment, that they mindlessly "gave up the keys to the kingdom."

I will be providing more responses and research to address all of the comments, but need to log off now. As JereKrischel would appear to want to discuss many things, it will take some time to do them each, so please allow for ample time to do so. So I will sign off with this quote, which is not necessarily about politics, colonialism, or the indigenous, but does provide food for thought (in addressing the "indigenous" discussion, at least). J.B. Hare wrote, in the preface to Bronislaw Malinowski's "Baloma; the Spirits of the Dead in the Trobriand Islands" (see [2]):

[Malinowski] makes the point that no set of beliefs can be studied in isolation from the rest of society. Anthropology should not be the haphazard collection of random customs and artifacts, as it had been up to that point. Rather, we need to study cultures on their own terms in a systematic fashion.

If we read the latest information from the experts, we are better informed. HeartlyHear 14:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Mahalo for your comments HeartlyHear. A few responses - 1) Vinton Kirch, in On the Road of the Winds talks extensively about the multiple waves of colonization to the Hawaiian islands. To call the first Marquesan and Tahitian colonists to the Hawaiian islands "indigenous" seems quite surprising...perhaps after a few generations one could make the argument that they significantly changed and therefore adopted a new identity, but this argument could be made for the people who have ancestors from the 1800s in Hawaii. The ancient Hawaiians were voyagers, travelers and colonists of the Pacific - I'm unsure what kind of criteria you're using to assert that they are "indigenous", but european voyagers, travelers and colonists are not.

Insofar as "keys to the Kingdom", the Kingdom was never a racially exclusive one. From the very inception of the Kingdom, the unification of the islands by Kamehameha, John Young was his right hand man, who trained his troops with modern weapons making it possible for Kamehameha to do things like push men, women and children over the Nuuanu pali.

Anyway, I look forward to addressing issues one at a time, and appreciate your patience. Mahalo! --JereKrischel 16:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and to answer your question of "colonist" and "indigenous" - I'm very interested in your definitions, because I believe what you call the "common understanding" is really a proxy for "white people are colonists, everyone else is indigenous". I believe it is a left-over from the perspective of european explorers who saw themselves as truly human, and the people they met as "native". It is ironic that this term of disparagement is now a matter of pride, yet used in the same spirit of separation originally intended.

My personal definition is that we are all "indigenous" to the earth, and barring a single spot in Africa where the first tribe of modern humans evolved, we are all "colonists". I'm very interested in what definition you use, and if you can evenly apply it to all situations. --JereKrischel 16:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

As a side note, "The draft Universal Declaration on the Rights of the Indigenous Peoples prepared by the DWIG does not provide a specific definition of indigenous peoples or populations. According to the Chairperson, Ms. Erica Irene Daes, Rapporteur of the Working Group, this was because "historically, indigenous peoples have suffered, from definitions imposed by others" (E/CN.4/Stib.2/AC.4/1995/3, page 3)." --JereKrischel 16:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

First of all, JK, please don't reorganize and insert paragraph breaks into other people's comments. I understand you are trying to rebut specific points, but this makes it harder, not easier, to follow. Second, I'm becoming alarmed at your attitude towards this article. HH spent a lot of time (as did you) in copy editing the article and has been working in good faith to try to come up with constructive ways to find common ground. Your blanket reverts do not seem to be in good faith, and indeed, you seem to feel as though you "own" the article. You do not. Neither does HH, nor I, but again, your blanket reverts are apparent bad faith. I am going to revert to HH's version, as he already incorporated much of your previous edits. From there, let's take that as a baseline and go over your objections point by point. I'm also adding tags to the article to make it clear that the neutrality of the article is disputed, and that it documents a current event. As for the substance of your remarks here, my reaction is that your interpretation of the issues are sufficiently unorthodox as to qualify as POV, and this is unfortunately reflected in the previous versions of the article. Your attempt to problematize the definition of "indigenous" is eccentric and unsuccesful. Mahalo. Arjuna 20:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, where did I insert a paragraph break? I've added some indentation for people's comments as a courtesy, but haven't broken directly into anyone's comments. Please correct me if I've missed something.

Insofar as moving forward, I respectfully ask that you revert your revert, and we start from the original baseline rather than HeartlyHear's mass edit. I've gone over point by point my objections, and haven't gotten any sort of discussion regarding those specifics. I'm more than happy to help, but doing a massive POV pushing change and expecting us to move from that baseline forward is inconsiderate, even if well intentioned. Moving alone quickly is not going to work as well as moving together slowly.

Lastly, as I respect your right to your POV, please show the same consideration to mine. Characterizing me as unorthodox or eccentric is bordering on a personal attack I know you don't really intend, so please, discuss the issue rather than simply describing my opinions in a colorful manner. --JereKrischel 00:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi JK. This is getting confusing in terms of what discussion thread started when and where it appears. Since a lot of the different sections on this talk page actually discuss very similar or related things, I propose we continue it in HH's new section "Updates" just to keep track of things more easily. Cheers, Arjuna 02:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Akaka Bill Edits

All right then, I spent about 5 hours trying to balance out the article, adding links, additing material for both sides. I hope that it works more to everyone's liking! I will need to learn how to use endnotes so it's cleaner from a layout perspective.

I'm not sure whether I'm for or against the bill, but I do feel it was originally skewed toward the opponents' perspective, and I am slightly more for the bill than agains. I had started in with the editing from the top, so I only got halfway through the first few edits, that is, up through the supporters' section. But I think it would be good to hear from both sides to add to the debate.

From an English professor's and professional writer and editor's perspective, I feel that is more of an article now than bullet points. Stating the bill's objectives first made sense, before listing proponents and opponents, then going into their ongoing debate.

Must run, but hope everyone has a nice day! Ta ta! HeartlyHear 17:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Mahalo, HeartlyHear, but I must admit I have some significant reservations about your recent edits. In specific:

• Your characterization of "indigenous, Native Hawaiians" seems either redundant, or POV pushing. The question as to whether or not Native Hawaiians can be considered as "indigenous" to Hawaii, given the fact that they are most likely part of a second wave of colonization to the islands, and actually displaced the first people who migrated there (the Marquesans), is an open one;

• Stating that the bill has anything to do with "parity" regarding Native American and Native Alaskan tribes is blatantly misleading - none of the required qualifications for tribal recognition are in the Akaka bill -> it is well beyond "parity";

• Talking about "health, housing and economic development", and implying that if these programs weren't race based they wouldn't help people in need is misleading;

• Asserting that somehow native Hawaiian citizens of the State of Hawaii do not currently enjoy self-determination and self-governance is blatantly false -> no native Hawaiians are disenfranchised on the basis of their race in the State of Hawaii, and enjoy the same rights of self-determination that any other citizens of the State of Hawaii and the United States have;

• The 2007 version of the bill is not different at all from the last version S.147 - asserting that it clarifies anything is false;

• Asserting that support of the Akaka Bill comes from those who want to "ensure that the native (especially at-risk) population continues to receive services" is complete propaganda - those who oppose the Akaka Bill also want to ensure that at-risk populations recieve services, simply not due to their racial makeup;

• "Many Republican congressional delegates" is awfully broad and inspecific. Be more precise if you'd lke to be;

• Inoyue's quote is probably acceptable, but the assertion that treating Native Hawaiians in a manner completely different than Native Americans are treated is somehow discriminatory is failing to address the issue those people with Native American and Native Alaskan, or other pre-United States ancestry in the Americas who do not have tribal affiliation or special rights based simply on their bloodline;

I appreciate the time you're spending, but if you could address some of the issues I've raised, I'd greatly appreciate it. --JereKrischel 07:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Reverts

Aloha HeartlyHear. I put a comment on JK's page stating that I find his reversions highly problematic, particularly the fact that they are blanket reverts. Sorry, JK, but this approach was not at all collaborative in spirit and frankly, disrespectful. In short, with all respect to JK, I find his edits on this but the other Hawaii-related articles to be consistently unfair, unobjective, and pushing a singularly tendentious POV. HH, you will be able to see from the history of many of these pages that he and I have been in "edit wars" over these and similar issues, but I'm taking a breather from all that as I think it was getting under both of our skins, and going nowhere. I respect JK as an intelligent person though I strongly disagree with (what I, and perhaps you would agree are) his ideologically-based POV pushing. Anyhow, long story short, I thought your edits --for the large part -- were perfectly fair and appropriate. Another edit war is not very constructive, but at the same time I am asking for your help in addressing some of JK's concerns. It is quite possible that there is a permanent disconnect here, and in that case we may have to take another approach, which could be either to split the analyses/interpretations (since they may be irreconcilable) into separate sections, or to seek external informal mediation. As for JK's specific concerns, the appropriate place to address those is on the article's talk page. Mahalo. Arjuna 08:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Untitled

It would be helpful if more details of the bill were included. Native Americans tribes generally have an area of land which they have sovereignty over. What part of Hawaii does the Akaka bill cover? All of it? From news reports I can't tell.

Aloha for all has some information about that here. --JereKrischel 00:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I strongly encourage another look at Wikipedia's pillar two. This page clearly advocates a one-sided opinion: an anti-Akaka Bill opinion. An equal amount of research, information, and emphasis on all opinions is what every reader deserves and appreciates. For one, all of the external links (except for the link to the bill itself) are anti. The reason that I am posting is because a growing number of my professors are discrediting the virtues of Wikipedia due to overall biased, opinionated information like this. I think Wikipedia can be a great thing if we hold to the five pillars. Student9278 06:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)student9278