We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Hawaii deals with race in very different ways than we do on the mainland. I think it is safe to say that most Americans' ideal is to ignore race entirely, and to deal with people as people, without preference and without prejudice.
"Created equal" was the noble, and historically mind-boggling term, as I recall. (Of course, character, manners, brains, honor, etc., are another matter...but basic human dignity is yours for free in the USA, unless you renounce it with bad behavior or unfortunate choices. But that is free choice.)
We posted the piece at RCP by Peter Brown this week, which asked whether Hawaii was part of the US, especially with respect to their handling of race - specifically, those descended from the native Hawaiians.
Aside from the sheer ignorance of the writer of the actual "culture" and "ethos" of Hawaii Mr. Brown simply fails to mention that, unlike the segregated academies of the Dixie-South, the Kamehameha Schools was educating Hawaiian students in this manner (as interpreted in Princess Pauahi Bishop's will and endorsed by her husband after her death) back when Hawaii was an independent nation. There is a strong sense of justice in Hawaii that appears to have been completely lost to Mr. Brown. Here in Hawaii we respect the people who were once the sole inhabitants of this land and whose ancestors ruled and governed Hawaii as an independent nation (one of the few in the world during the 19th century) until a coup-d'etat overthrew the monarchy and established a republic that later became a territory of the United States and then, in 1959, our 50th state.
The Hawaiian people have, with little complaint (except for a few hateful individuals) been granted over 100 legal exemptions to state laws by the Hawaii legislature over the years (including access to certain private properties for gathering herbs, etc., etc.) There are few who begrudge the admissions policies of the Kamehameha Schools (although there are many who desire that the Pauahi Biship Estate be better and more fairly administered to meet the many needs of the many poor and needy children of Hawaiian ancestry in the state.)
This is one reason why the Akaka Bill was supported by many in the Hawaiian & Hawaii communities (not a majority, but still a sizable number--I opposed the bill but only because it is so loosely written that the full implications of the bill would not be known until years after its passage). By granting "native Hawaiians" indiginous legal status (as Native American tribal groups have) these exemption laws and the admission policies of the Kamehameha Schools could remain intact AS APPROVED BY THE STATE LEGISLATURE AND ENDORSED BY THE PEOPLE OF HAWAII rather than having these cultural "rights" thrown out by a bunch of legal bozos in San Francisco (who have nearly 2/3 of their decisions overruled anyway).
I am not pro-sovereignty for the Hawaiian people but I do desire (as virtually every resident in Hawaii does also) to extend to them certain rights and priviliges appropriate to their heritage, culture and traditions.
While the current interpretation of US Constitutional law may, in fact, negate those legal priviliges now enjoyed by the Hawaiian people (as distinct from the "people of Hawaii") it is nonetheless the clear consensus in this state that, in this case at least, Dickens was right when he wrote that, "The law's an ass."
Gee, US law allows privately funded, tax-exempt organizations to discriminate, supercede and undercut "We the People of the United States of America" on the basis of Sex (you can have a girls-only school), Religion (you can restrict religious school admission and employment based on faith), on the basis of Economic Status (distribution of goods can be restricted to those in certain economic levels), political affiliation (try becoming the head of the DNC if you are registered as a Republican) ethnic heritage (Plymouth Dames), age (try enrolling in a preschool as the 32 year old man!), marital status (current marriage laws in all states but one) and even race (Black Business Women of America). But why cannot a privately-funded school restrict its enrollment on the basis of race?