Proponents say the plan would duplicate the legal scenario set up for Native Americans, but the Akaka bill carves out new territory. Unlike Indian tribes made up of tightly knit populations that have lived together continuously, participation in the new group would be available to nearly anyone able to trace their roots back to a Native Hawaiian ancestor, no matter where they now reside. U.S. Civil Rights Commission member Gail Heriot told Congress in June that, "If ethnic Hawaiians can be accorded tribal status, why not Chicanos in the Southwest? Or Cajuns in Louisiana?"

Under the Akaka bill, someone will have to divine exactly who qualifies as a Native Hawaiian. In the bill's current version, the determination would be handled by a nine member commission staffed by experts in native Hawaiian genealogy. That, says the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, amounts to racial discrimination and would "subdivide the American People into discrete subgroups accorded varying degrees of privilege."

The Supreme Court has already ruled that elections based on a blood quota violate the Fifteenth Amendment's ban on restricting voting along racial lines. In its 2000 decision in Rice v. Cayetano, the Court held that the Office of Hawaiian Affairs could not hold elections limited to ethnic Hawaiians. "Ancestry can be a proxy for race," the court wrote, "and is that proxy here

Gorey details aside, mind you, I'm talking about the basic question here - do indigenous peoples have the right to self rule?

So, their rights were lost because we subjected them? Should that be the case anywhere we take with military force?

Can you walk upright under the tongue of an oxcart?

So, their rights were lost because we subjected them? Should that be the case anywhere we take with military force?

Do you have a flag?

So, their rights were lost because we subjected them? Should that be the case anywhere we take with military force?

Do you have a flag?

We did roll in and occupy land that said indigenous population owned. If it's ok for the native Americans, why not for the native Hawaiians?

Gorey details aside, mind you, I'm talking about the basic question here - do indigenous peoples have the right to self rule?

Who said they are indigenous to this land?

The Native American Tribes are absolutely, 100% different than the tribes of Hawaii, for one reason and one reason only.

The American Government signed treaties to end hostilities with the Native Americans. Native Americans (in posession of such treaties) have all the rights allotted to them in those treaties, including citizenship, and may sue the government for violation of those treaties.

That is not the case in Hawaii.

Been reading your American History again DFK?

Coercion doesn't make a treaty invalid.

That doesn't mean being a ruthless bastard is a good idea; that just makes it harder to advance your interests peacefully, which is the cheapest way.

What does?

Actually yes, it is a good idea, if you use the theory you seem to be espousing of, essentially "to the victor go the spoils." Showing mercy and compassion whilst simultaneously taking land via iron fist don't go well together, and only serve to undermine all foreign policy. This is ok if you are a super-power out to control the known world, a la the Roman Empire under the Caesars; but not in the modern age where national borders are essentially set.

Keep in mind, I'm not advocating any one position over another. I'm pointing out the inherent hypocrisy in our dealings with both indigenous and conquered peoples in this nation and in others.