2005 August 17 Wednesday
Parallel Hawaiian Racial Government Proposed In US Congress

The US Congress, not content to rest on its laurels with all the destructive multiculturalist immigration and domestic policies it has already created, wants to build even bigger problems into our national institutions. Parallel ethnic governments anyone?

Once known primarily for its opposition to tax increases and government intrusion on individual liberties, the five-year-old Grassroot Institute of Hawaii this year suddenly thrust itself to the forefront of opposition to the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act, known as the Akaka bill for lead sponsor U.S. Sen. Dan Akaka, D-Hawai'i.

The bill would create a process for federal recognition of Native Hawaiians as a political entity, and Akaka and U.S. Sen. Daniel Inouye, D-Hawai'i had been promised the measure would come to the floor of the Senate by this month.

I'm beginning to think that annexation of Hawaii is up there on the list of places the US should not have grabbed. The top such place is Puerto Rico. We should grant them their independence whether they want it or not.

Some Congress critters are speaking up against the creation of a special class of citizens and a parallel government in Hawaii.

The U.S. House of Representatives also have their concerns. In a letter to House Speaker Dennis Hastert and Majority Leader Tom DeLay from Representatives Steve King, Mike Pence, Gil Gutknecht, Dana Rohrabacher, Virgil Goode, Jeff Flake, Ernest Istook, Barbara Cubin, Lynn Westmorland, Jeb Hensarling, Dave Weldon, and others who signed on between July 20 and July 22, 2005, they presented questions about the bill.

Second, these bills raise practical questions that simply have not been addressed. For example, would a race-based government in Hawaii have the power to disrupt our nation's military operations there? Will gambling expand in Hawaii, given this legislation's vague language? Would the new race-based government have new rights to file lawsuits against the federal government under "breach of trust" theories? Will Native American appropriations be depleted when the 400,000 Native Hawaiians across the nation seek to participate in the same programs? How could Hawaii function if people living in the same neighborhood are subject to different laws, regulations, and taxes?

Consider for example, two small businesses in Hawaii competing against one another. One is owned by a Native Hawaiian, and the other is owned by one who is not. The former will be exempt from state taxes, state business regulations, and zoning and environment laws, and the latter will not. These problems and many other questions deserve answers.

Someone planning ahead could marry a native pure blood Hawaiian as a way to have kids who would be exempt from taxation and regulation. "Wealthy businessman seeks pure Hawaiian women to create tax-exempt business dynasty."

Former US Senators Slade Gorton of Washington and Hank Brown of Colorado say a racially exclusive government for native Hawaiians would violate the US Constitution.

The Senate is poised to sanction the creation of a racially exclusive government by and for Native Hawaiians who satisfy a blood test. The new race-based sovereign that would be summoned into being by the so-called Akaka Bill would operate outside the U.S. Constitution and the nation's most cherished civil rights statutes. Indeed, the champions of the proposed legislation boast that the new Native Hawaiian entity could secede from the Union like the Confederacy, but without the necessity of shelling Fort Sumter.

The Akaka Bill classifies citizens by race, defying the express provisions of the 14th Amendment. It also rests on a betrayal of express commitments made by its sponsors a decade ago, and asserts as true many false statements about the history of Hawaii. It should be defeated.

Among a list of 21 House conservatives who signed the letter opposing the Akaka bill are immigration restrictionist Tom Tancredo (R-CO) and libertarian Ron Paul (R-TX). Paul's name on the list is not surprising. But Paul is also taking positions on cultural issues and national identity questions which go against the Open Borders position of many ideological libertarians. John Ray points to a Ron Paul essay "Immigration and the Welfare State" where Paul calls for a halt to illegal immigration and says his constituents want a general reduction in immigration.

More and more of my constituents are asking me when Congress will address the problem of illegal immigration. The public correctly perceives that neither political party has the courage to do what is necessary to prevent further erosion of both our border security and our national identity. As a result, immigration may be the sleeper issue that decides the 2008 presidential election.

The problem of illegal immigration will not be solved easily, but we can start by recognizing that the overwhelming majority of Americans – including immigrants – want immigration reduced, not expanded.


Economic considerations aside, we must address the cultural aspects of immigration.


We need to allocate far more of our resources, both in terms of money and manpower, to securing our borders and coastlines here at home. This is the most critical task before us, both in terms of immigration problems and the threat of foreign terrorists. Unless and until we secure our borders, illegal immigration and the problems associated with it will only increase.

The sense of common cause and common interests is decaying in America. A serious proposal to create a parallel government in Hawaii based on a blood test is yet another example of how big the problem has become.

In an interview with the German magazine Der Speigel retired Prime Minister of Singapore Lee Kuan Yew explains why he couldn't allow an unfettered Western style democracy to operate in Singapore.

SPIEGEL: During your career, you have kept your distance from Western style democracy. Are you still convinced that an authoritarian system is the future for Asia?

Mr. Lee: Why should I be against democracy? The British came here, never gave me democracy, except when they were about to leave. But I cannot run my system based on their rules. I have to amend it to fit my people's position. In multiracial societies, you don't vote in accordance with your economic interests and social interests, you vote in accordance with race and religion. Supposing I'd run their system here, Malays would vote for Muslims, Indians would vote for Indians, Chinese would vote for Chinese. I would have a constant clash in my Parliament which cannot be resolved because the Chinese majority would always overrule them. So I found a formula that changes that...

Steve Sailer comments in response that multiple ethnicities with big differences in loyalties are the enemy of democracy.

There's so much romanticized worship of the Ellis Island immigration these days that it's heretical to mention the obvious fact that massive European immigration was a blow to functional democracy at the local level in America. It's hard to run a multiethnic city without venal machine politics. Chicago, for example, remains a one party town all the way into the 21st century. Like Singapore and the Lee family, Chicago has settled upon dynastic family rule as the best solution, with DaLee Rich Mike following DaLee Rich Joe as mayor for 37 of the last 50 years, and who knows how many years to come.

A group of Muslim organizations in Britain have written a public letter protesting the British government's decision to shut down radical Mosques and the Muslims assert that Sharia law is not extreme.

1. The term "extremism", frequently used in the public discourse about religion and terrorism, has no tangible legal meaning or definition and is thus unhelpful and emotive. To equate "extremism" with the aspirations of Muslims for Sharia laws in the Muslim world or the desire to see unification towards a Caliphate in the Muslim lands, as seemed to be misrepresented by the prime minister, is inaccurate and disingenuous. It indicates ignorance of what the Sharia is and what a Caliphate is and will alienate and victimise the Muslim community unnecessarily.


3. It is natural for Muslims to feel sympathy with fellow Muslims elsewhere in the world and to desire justice for those of them living under oppression. Many people compare the Israeli reality with South African apartheid and demand a similar solution. To denounce anybody who questions the legitimacy of Israel will be seen as an attempt to silence academic thought and legitimate political expression. If the government hopes to pander to Zionist pressure by condemning and excluding from this country people who are critical of Israeli apartheid, it is in fact supporting apartheid.

A clear majority of British Muslims want to live under Sharia law. The idea of religious freedom for all religions contradicts the idea of individual freedom.

Note that to Muslims a non-Muslim living under Muslim rule is not oppressed by a Muslim living under non-Muslim rule is oppressed. More generally, the more people put their ethnic, racial, or religious group identity ahead of national identity the more divided a polity becomes and the more democracy becomes a spoils system with politicial differences centered around grabs for goodies for each group at the expense of other groups. Systems split by ethnic differences, religious differences, and tribal loyalties become corrupt because civil servants and politicians see control of power in government as means to deliver for their groups. In-breeding groups become the centers of political factions. In the extreme societies sink into civil war.

Many warning signs are flashing across Western Civilization that people in different races, ethnicities, tribes, and religions do not have the same loyalties, values, culture, and sense of common identity. America and other Western nations are in deep demographic trouble. The dilution of white majorities is opening a Pandora's Box of inter-ethnic politicial clashes. It is time to stop all immigration, deport illegal immigrants, and repeal the automatic granting of US citizenship to children born in the US to foreign parents.

Update: ParaPundit question: If people are so different as to deserve separate governments and separate legal systems then shouldn't they be kept in separate countries divided by enforced borders?

Share |      By Randall Parker at 2005 August 17 01:17 PM  Politics Identity

Jim said at August 17, 2005 2:00 PM:

Hawaii is my favorite place on earth. It is so beautiful, and the people are so kind.

I really hope this awful law doesn't pass. It seems that it couldn't pass muster in light of the 14th amendment unless they somehow manage to classify native Hawaiians as 'indians', which would be quite perverse.

I wish a law was passed outlawing even the recording of 'race' by any federal, state or local gov't. Judge people as individuals on their own merits. Period. Affirmative action seems so Orwellian - perpetual discrimination to end discrimination. In Chicago, where preferential treatment for 'minority-owned' businesses is somehow still law, this policy is routinely abused by the mob by setting up fake minority or women 'owners'. It's so counter-productive and wasteful. Minority-owned businesses do just fine if they have good quality work at competitive prices, just like every other business.

D Flinchum said at August 17, 2005 2:06 PM:

One of the more important aspects of this law is, if it should be enacted, what are the ramifications for those states in the west that now have or soon will have a large Hispanic make-up? Will they be allowed to have the same consideration? I saw the article regarding this subject in the Wall Street Journal (Gorton and Brown)this week and it prompted me to start reading Amy Chua's "World on Fire" regarding free market democracy, ethnic conflict, and globalization. Intersting read so far.

John S Bolton said at August 17, 2005 2:29 PM:

If there be natural impulses towards conflict along lines of blood, which offcials are apparently assuming is the law of life, how can they justify the exploitation of such impulses against the majority in a democracy? That cultural differences can eventuate in extreme conflict is not doubted by anyone perhaps. Again, officials are found to be making the most of such divisions, as if civil war and partition were their goal. Now I wonder if one professor in the pay of the government will dare to tell us that this ethnic conflict mongering against civilization and the interest of the majority of the people is wrong, viciously wrong.

Jorge D.C. said at August 17, 2005 7:14 PM:

Among a list of 21 House conservatives who signed the letter opposing the Akaka bill

Very sad that only 21 would sign an opposition letter. This is Decline of the Roman Empire instability.

The hyprocrisy is so thick on the race issue at this point. How much longer can it go on? Hillary Clinton addresses La Raza proudly with no outrage from "liberals" or anyone else. How many more brown power movements will whites tolerate?

As to this situation here is my theory: The relative whitewashing of Japanese WWII atrocities in modern day American media [and the schools] has dampened historical native-Hawaiian motivation to embrace the USA for protection against Asian oppressors.

Witness the past week in the media coverage of Hiroshima vs media coverage of VJ Day or simply the end of the war in the Pacific. How many schoolchildren even know what VJ Day is? How many know what the Bataan Death March is? How many know that the Japanese performed vivisections on POWs?

Hawaiians historically have embraced the USA mostly out of fear of much worse overlords. I imagine Hawaiian schools are almost dhimmi-like on the subject of Japan considering the huge Japanese population in Hawaii. So to the modern day Hawaiian there is almost zero historical context necessary to gauge potential threats on the horizon.

Think we can assume little overt Chinese penetration in Hawaii to this point. Otherwise the old impulse of safety with America would kick in and extinguish this separatist movement.

Check the Hawaiians' pulse after China deals with Taiwan. Until then this is the cultural-Marxism chickens coming home to roost.

RPM said at August 17, 2005 7:28 PM:

But that's the liberal mindset Jorge, nobody would harm Hawaii if the evil Amerikans were expelled! Sigh

John S Bolton said at August 18, 2005 4:00 AM:

From the comparison of these two policies, one being that different physical groups require separate electorates or the equivalent; and the other being that we should wave in multitudes of those who must have interventions such as racial quotas or sovereignties, one can conclude that, if there is no contradiction between the two policies, the goal must be to maximize intercommunal conflicts on the above basis.

Derek Copold said at August 18, 2005 11:15 AM:

If this passes, and it probably will eventually, it's only a matter of time before other minority groups try to get the same privileges for themselves. Sure, it seems preposterous, but remember, as Peter Hitchens put it: There's no position so ludicrous that liberals won't attempt to make it policy.

John S Bolton said at August 18, 2005 4:32 PM:

This is another reading on the fever chart of the manipulation of racial hostilities for political power gain. We have not one political element of size, which does not flourish by the enhancement of intercommunal conflict. If it passes, you can hear the power seekers exulting and screaming: minority victory! The left enthuses over any such minority 'victory', because they will never be a majority. How could they ever be, when, for them, mass murder is a social and political ideal?

John S Bolton said at August 18, 2005 5:04 PM:

Hawaii's statehood has contributed the Asian senators who give us this piece of racial conflict expansion and possible partition. If diversity is such strnegth and riches, how can such deliberate enhancement of division come from it?

Proborders said at August 19, 2005 7:54 PM:

Randall, you wrote, "I'm beginning to think that annexation of Hawaii is up there on the list of places the US should not have grabbed. The top such place is Puerto Rico. We should grant them their independence whether they want it or not."

Randall, do you favor the USA’s granting of independence to both Puerto Rico and Hawaii or to Puerto Rico and not Hawaii?

RPM, people born in Hawaii are US citizens. They are Americans.

Most people in Hawaii are not indigenous (or part indigenous) Hawaiian.

Randall Parker said at August 19, 2005 9:01 PM:


Dumping P.R. would definitely be a big net plus.

Hawaii: Probably would be a net loss in spite of this latest idiocy. What we really need to dump is about half of Congress. What a bunch of losers.

Jorge D.C. said at August 20, 2005 2:52 AM:

Hawaii vs. Puerto Rico is apples and oranges. Even in the ICBM/satellite era Hawaii is key strategic base in the Pacific for nukes and subs.

Hawaii can never be independent in the modern age. Either we run it or another world power China, Japan or Russia runs it end of story.

Most people in Hawaii are not indigenous (or part indigenous) Hawaiian.

Believe Hawaii is 20% Pacific-Islander about 35% white and the rest is Japanese and other Asians and minorities. Probably not too many illegal Mexican construction crews but I could be wrong...

Post a comment
Name (not anon or anonymous):
Email Address:
Remember info?

Web parapundit.com
Go Read More Posts On ParaPundit
Site Traffic Info
The contents of this site are copyright ©