Akaka bill attitudes depend on wording of question; reasons for
opposition vary
The addition of five Akaka bill opponents to the
Hawaii advisory committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights has stirred
debate about what public sentiment actually is about the bill, with conflicting
polls being cited. The Star-Bulletin
has an editorial
looking at how the language used in two polls yielded very different results; an
op-ed
by Paul Sullivan, one of the new members; and five letters
on the topic. (BTW, I note that Garry Smith's letter claiming "A separate poll
by the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii had almost exactly the opposite results" of
the OHA poll earlier cited
by the S-B
which showed "68 percent of those surveyed
supported the Akaka Bill" continues the totally dishonest interpretation of the
GRIH poll results which I pointed out at the
time.)There are also two related letters
in the
Advertiser,
including this from Nancy Aleck providing some historical
context:It is quite instructive to read U.S. Congressional records of the debate over the "annexation" of Hawai'i in the late 1800s. Legislative opposition to annexation was blatant in its racism. Today, such attitudes are almost never publicly expressed. They are often couched in such terms as "being color blind."
In 1897-98, tens of thousands of Hawaiian nationals opposing annexation signed the Ku'e petitions. These anti-annexationists were motivated by completely different reasons than the men in Washington, D.C.
It is the same today. There are some very profound and very different reasons that people do not support the Akaka bill. It serves us all to learn more about this.
Posted: Sun - July 29, 2007 at 03:19 AM