Point/Counterpoint synopsis
| Point: Speaking about his own grandchildren, who speak Hawaiian and take pride in their culture and have studied Hawaiian history, including the overthrow of the monarchy: "It is THIS generation that is growing impatient with the lack of progress in efforts to resolve longstanding issues. It is THIS generation that does not understand why we have not resolved these matters.
|
| Counterpoint: But indeed, we HAVE resolved these matters. The overthrow of the monarchy in 1893, the annexation of Hawai'i in 1898, and the Statehood vote of 1959 (94% voting yes), clearly resolved these matters. Some diehards on the losing side keep agitating for a new "settlement." The main reason why Senator Akaka's grandchildren fail to understand that we have resolved these issues is because of the highly biased "education" (actually propaganda) they are receiving in Hawai'i's substandard schools with their highly politicized history lessons.
|
| Point: "There are those who have tried to say that my bill will divide the people of Hawai'i. As I have explained, my bill goes a long way to unite the people of Hawai'i ... The misguided efforts of my colleagues who seek to delay the Senate's consideration of this bill, however, may have a divisive effect on my state."
|
| Counterpoint: The whole purpose of this bill is to divide Hawai'i's people along racial lines by creating a government exclusively for people of one race. The bill then authorizes the new racial government to negotiate with what's left of the State of Hawai'i for land, money, and regulatory powers. That's a recipe for conflict. That's divisiveness. Those Senators who block this bill are performing a great service to protect the unity of Hawai'i's people under a single government guaranteeing the equal protection of the laws; protecting the integrity of the U.S. Constitution; and protecting all America from a precedent for further balkanization.
|
| Point: Senator Akaka's speech focused on the need for a structured process for ethnic Hawaiians to settle long-standing grievances stemming from the overthrow of the monarchy, and strongly hinting that the growing impatience of today's young people could result in violence if the issues are not settled (in a manner that satisfies them).
|
| Counterpoint: Citing restlessness and hinting at possible violence unless concessions are made is a threat. It is thinly-veiled extortion. Threatening violence is itself an act of violence. Appeasement of a bully merely encourages the bully to become more aggressive, as Neville Chamberlain learned when he gave Hitler the green light to grab a piece of Czechoslovakia, and stepped off the airplane waving a document and gleefully shouting "Peace in our time."
|
Coming as soon as they are published!
