COLLIDING
HISTORIES (Saranillio)
This essay illuminates on
the fact that, the contemporary discourse on Hawai‘i’s statehood status is narrated
by two disparate and opposing histories.
The pro-statehood narrative (i.e., official state histories) view
statehood as a progressive multicultural, multiethnic achievement acquired
through the democratic process of consent by the people. Former Governor Lingle praised Hawai‘i’s
statehood as a “model of tolerance ahead of its time” (286). Whereas critics of statehood (myself included),
says Saranillio, reflect upon the status of statehood as “a manifestation of
the overthrow, sustaining the relations of domination necessary for U.S. state,
economic, and military assaults to continue into the present” (285).
Saranillio argues that the
problematic of the 1959 congressionally mandated plebiscite is in itsfailure to
comply with the United Nations’ required options for “independence” or other “separate
systems of self-government”. Here is my
concern: According to the author of our other reading, imagining the good
indigenous citizen, the U.N. was established in 1942, with its members
being bound to the Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. However, the covenant proclaiming that all
people have the inherent right to self-determination wasn’t ratified until 1966
(Robinson 65). How then could the 1959
plebiscite contain the language of self-determination which was ratified in
1966? Am I missing something here? Any
help in clarifying this would be appreciated.
The main argument for
Saranillio is that “the discourse of pathology” is systematically employedby
patriarchal white sovereignty (PWS) to justify its use of power over
indigenous peoples in what amounts to a perpetual race war. PWS then affirms its domination over indigenous
people by extending civil “rights;” namely, welfare handouts, to those who
measure up to “good white citizens”.
This gives rise to indigenous welfare dependency. Thus, PWS successfully subjugates and
controls the behavior of indigenous people through citizenship rights. Saranillio’s solution to PWS is found in Indigenous
sovereign counter rights claims, as they directly challenge the historical
authority of PWS, forcing PWS back into its racist discourse of Indigenous
pathology – which is, of course, that Indigenous poverty is the result of their
inability to behave as “good” (white) citizens.
Aaron C.
In contrast to Moreton-Robinson, I do not believe that the 1966 covenants she cites were the first to underscore the inherent rights of peoples to self-determination. The UN Charter, ratified in 1945, inscribed the right of self-determination into the framework of international law. The charter states that one of the purposes of the United Nations is “to develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace.” Chapter XI of the charter further outlines the obligations that colonizing countries have to those "non-self-governing territories" that they had either invaded or inherited as trust territories.
ReplyDeleteIn 1960, the UN general assembly also adopted the "Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples." Although UNGAR 1514 was passed in December 1960, its language had been debated for several years prior to its formal adoption. What made this resolution distinct from the principles of self-determination that were already included in international law in the 1940s, is that UNGAR 1514 specifically underscored INDEPENDENCE as the preferred route for undoing the damage of colonialisms. From what I understand, this was one of the reasons that the 1959 statehood vote and law was pushed through when it was. US officials were fully aware that the international community was moving in this direction and that it needed to deal with the Hawaiʻi situation before 1514ʻs passage.