scholarly journals Discussion of Crabbe: Restoring Balance to Hawaii: “Kūpa'a i Ke Kāhua o Hawai'i”

2007 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 31-32 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joseph Keawe'aimoku Kaholokula

AbstractDr Crabbe presents a broad overview of the sociohistory of Hawaii following western contact and its colonisation by the United States (US). He describes the constant political, societal, and psychological struggles of Kānaka Maoli (native Hawaiians) against the never-ending tides of foreign influences to the shores of Hawaii. Within his sociohistorical overview, three significant issues for Kānaka Maoli are emphasised. One issue is that of 'Āina land. (The word 'Āina is capitalised throughout because, in the Native Hawaiian worldview, 'Āina is a living entity who gives and sustains life; it is an ancestor of the Hawaiian people, and it is important to the existence of Kānaka Maoli.) The second issue has to do with Kānaka Maoli is identity, which has been impacted by various foreign contacts and US colonisation that has negatively impacted traditional Hawaiian practices, customs, beliefs, language, and society. The constant struggle of Kānaka Maoli in regaining sovereignty, or self-determination, is a third issue of significance in Dr Crabbe's article. This article will briefly discuss the interplay among, and significance of, these three issues: 'Āina, Kānaka Maoli, and sovereignty, focusing on the importance and relevance of the first for the second and third.

2011 ◽  
Vol 9 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 58-69
Author(s):  
Marlene Kim

Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders (AAPIs) in the United States face problems of discrimination, the glass ceiling, and very high long-term unemployment rates. As a diverse population, although some Asian Americans are more successful than average, others, like those from Southeast Asia and Native Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders (NHPIs), work in low-paying jobs and suffer from high poverty rates, high unemployment rates, and low earnings. Collecting more detailed and additional data from employers, oversampling AAPIs in current data sets, making administrative data available to researchers, providing more resources for research on AAPIs, and enforcing nondiscrimination laws and affirmative action mandates would assist this population.


2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (36) ◽  
pp. 5738-5741 ◽  
Author(s):  
William B. Goggins ◽  
Grace K.C. Wong

Purpose Although racial and ethnic differences in cancer survival in the United States have been studied extensively, little is known about cancer survival in US Pacific Islanders (PIs), a fast-growing and economically disadvantaged minority group. Methods Using data from the US National Cancer Institute's Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) registries, we compared cause-specific and all-cause survival for female breast, prostate, lung, colorectal, stomach and liver cancer for Native Hawaiians, Samoans, other PIs (including Tongans, Guamanians, and others), African Americans, and Native Americans with non-Hispanic whites using Cox proportional hazards models. Separate models were fitted adjusting for demographic factors only and demographic and disease severity variables. Results Among all groups, Samoans were the most likely to present with advanced disease and had the worst cause-specific survival for all sites considered. Samoans had particularly poor results (adjusted for demographic variables only) for female breast (relative risk [RR] = 3.05; 95% CI, 2.31 to 4.02), colorectal (RR = 1.82; 95% CI, 1.37 to 2.41) and prostate (RR = 4.82; 95% CI, 3.38 to 6.88) cancers. Native Hawaiians and other PIs also had significantly worse cause-specific survival than did non-Hispanic whites for most sites, but generally had better survival than African Americans or Native Americans. Conclusion Much of the survival disadvantage for PI groups appears to be a result of late diagnosis, and thus targeted interventions have much potential to reduce cancer mortality in this group. More research is needed to find explanations for the particularly poor cancer survival for Samoans in the United States.


Author(s):  
Ol’ga A. Pylova ◽  

The article focuses on the emigration of Ukrainians to the US and the formation of a Ukrainian diaspora there. Emigration from ethnic Ukrainian territories began at the end of the nineteenth century and has continued to the present day. The generally accepted periodisation considers five waves of emigration (before 1914, 1914–1945, 1945–1986, 1986–2014 and after 2014) and therefore five stages of the diaspora formation. As the study shows, the stages or waves of emigration from Ukraine largely coincide with the migration processes in the Russian Empire, the Soviet Union and finally in the post-Sovi- et space, but there are also a number of differences that need to be understood. The diaspora issues were often linked to issues of emigrant self-determination, identity formation as well as the policies of the recipient state. Political, social, educational and other organisations have been formed within the diaspora over the course of its existence, with the diaspora institutionalisation pro- cesses varying according to the specific historical period. In the context of the continuation of the next stage of Ukrainian emigration to the United States and the evolution of the diaspora today, a historical and genetic study of the transmigration of Ukrainians overseas and the formation of diaspora structures acquires particular relevance.


1973 ◽  
Vol 67 (5) ◽  
pp. 21-28
Author(s):  
James M. Wilson ◽  
Angel Calderón-Cruz ◽  
John Tarkong

There can be no doubt that the principle of self-determination is applicable to the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands. The UN Charter applies it. The United States as administering authority under its 1947 trusteeship agreement with the Security Council has explicitly and repeatedly recognized its applicability. The real question is precisely what elements of the principle are applicable, how they are to be applied, and within what framework.


2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (1_suppl) ◽  
pp. 44S-53S ◽  
Author(s):  
Shyanika W. Rose ◽  
Michael S. Amato ◽  
Andrew Anesetti-Rothermel ◽  
Brittany Carnegie ◽  
Zeinab Safi ◽  
...  

In 2009, flavored cigarettes (except menthol) were banned in the United States, but other flavored tobacco products (FTPs) were allowed. Women, populations of color, youth, sexual minority, and low–socioeconomic status populations disproportionately use FTPs. Localities have passed sales restrictions on FTPs that may reduce disparities if vulnerable populations are reached. This study assessed the extent to which FTP restrictions reached these subgroups (“reach equity”). We identified 189 U.S. jurisdictions with FTP policies as of December 31, 2018. We linked jurisdictions with demographics of race/ethnicity, gender, age, partnered same-sex households and household poverty, and stratified by policy strength. We calculated Reach Ratios (ReRas) to assess reach equity among subgroups covered by FTP policies relative to their U.S. population representation. Flavor policies covered 6.3% of the U.S. population (20 million individuals) across seven states; 0.9% were covered by strong policies (12.7% of policies). ReRas indicated favorable reach equity to young adults, women, Hispanics, African Americans, Asians, partnered same-sex households, and those living below poverty. Youth, American Indians/Alaska Natives (AIAN) and Native Hawaiians/Pacific Islanders (NHPI) were underrepresented. Strong policies had favorable reach equity to young adults, those living below poverty, Asians, NHPIs, individuals of 2+ races, and partnered same-sex households, but unfavorable reach equity to women, youth, Hispanic, AIAN, and African American populations. U.S. flavor policies have greater reach to many, but not all, subgroups at risk of FTP use. Increased enactment of strong policies to populations not covered by flavor policies is warranted to ensure at-risk subgroups sufficiently benefit.


1976 ◽  
Vol 70 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-27 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michla Pomerance

Ever since the principle of self-determination entered the lexicon of international politics during World War I, American foreign policymakers have had to contend with problems revolving around that concept. The need to favor one or another claimant, each waving the banner of self-determination and invoking the “right to determine its own fate,” continues to present dilemmas, often extremely troubling ones, for U.S. decisionmakers. Examples from recent history come readily to mind. The entire post-World War II decolonization process entailed an endless series of such dilemmas, and even after formal decolonization was all but completed, such nagging issues as Katanga, Biafra, and Eritrea remained, not to mention the problems of South Africa, Northern Ireland, the Middle East, and Indochina. Indeed, even within America’s own imperial domain, the United States was faced with the conflicting demands of the Puerto Rican nationalists and the majority of the Puerto Rican electorate, the claims of the Marianas as against those of Micronesia as a whole, and demands for cultural autonomy on the part of diverse ethnic groups.


Author(s):  
Ronald Williams Jr.

On January 17, 1893, Her Majesty Queen Liliʻuokalani, sovereign of the Hawaiian Kingdom, was overthrown in a coup de main led by a faction of business leaders comprised largely of descendants of the 1820 American Protestant mission to the “Sandwich Islands.” Rev. Charles Hyde, an officer of the ecclesiastic Papa Hawaiʻi (Hawaiian Board) declared, “Hawaii is the first Country in which the American missionaries have labored, whose political relations to the United States have been changed as a result of missionary labors.” The actions of these “Sons of the Mission” were enabled by U.S. naval forces landed from the USS Boston the evening prior. Despite blatant and significant connections between early Christian missionaries to Hawaiʻi and their entrepreneurial progeny, the 1893 usurpation of native rule was not the result of a teleological seventy-year presence in the Hawaiian Kingdom by the American Protestant Church. An 1863 transfer of authority over the Hawaiian mission from the Boston-based American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions (ABCFM) to the local ʻAhahui ʻEuanelio o Hawaiʻi (AEH) (Hawaiian Evangelical Association) served as a pivotal inflection point that decidedly altered the original mission, driving a political and economic agenda masked only by the professed goals of the ecclesiastic institution. Christianity, conveyed to the Hawaiian Islands initially by representatives of the ABCFM, became a contested tool of religio-political significance amidst competing foreign and native claims on leadership in both church and state. In the immediate aftermath of the January 1893 overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom government, this introduced religion became a central tool of the Kanaka Maoli (Native Hawaiian) struggle for a return of their queen and the continued independence of their nation. Native Christian patriots organized and conducted a broad array of political actions from within the churches of the AEH using claims on Ke Akua (God) and Christianity as a foundation for their vision of continued native rule. These efforts were instrumental in the defeat of two proposed treaties of annexation of their country—1893 and 1897—before the United States, declaring control of the archipelago a strategic necessity in fighting the Spanish/Filipino–American War, took possession of Hawaiʻi in late 1898. Widespread Americanization efforts in the islands during the early 20th century filtered into Hawaiʻi’s Christian churches, transforming many of these previous focal points of relative radicalism into conservative defenders of the American way. A late-20th-century resurgence of cultural and political activism among Kanaka Maoli, fostered by a “Hawaiian Renaissance” begun in the 1970s, has driven a public and academic reexamination of the past and present role of Christianity in this current-day American outpost in the center of the Pacific.


Author(s):  
Malinda Maynor Lowery

The Lumbee tribe of North Carolina, including approximately 55,000 enrolled members, is the largest Indian community east of the Mississippi River. Lumbee history serves as a window into the roles that Native people have played in the struggle to implement the founding principles of the United States, not just as “the First Americans,” but as members of their own nations, operating in their own communities’ interests. When we see US history through the perspectives of Native nations, we see that the United States is not only on a quest to expand rights for individuals. Surviving Native nations like the Lumbees, who have their own unique claims on this land and its ruling government, are forcing Americans to confront the ways in which their stories, their defining moments, and their founding principles are flawed and inadequate. We know the forced removals, the massacres, the protests that Native people have lodged against injustice, yet such knowledge is not sufficient to understand American history. Lumbee history provides a way to honor, and complicate, American history by focusing not just on the dispossession and injustice visited upon Native peoples, but on how and why Native survival matters. Native nations are doing the same work as the American nation—reconstituting communities, thriving, and finding a shared identity with which to achieve justice and self-determination. Since the late 19th century, Lumbee Indians have used segregation, war, and civil rights to maintain a distinct identity in the biracial South. The Lumbees’ survival as a people, a race, and a tribal nation shows that their struggle has revolved around autonomy, or the ability to govern their own affairs. They have sought local, state, and federal recognition to support that autonomy, but doing so has entangled the processes of survival with outsiders’ ideas about what constitutes a legitimate Lumbee identity. Lumbees continue to adapt to the constraints imposed on them by outsiders, strengthening their community ties through the process of adaptation itself. Lumbee people find their cohesion in the relentless fight for self-determination. Always, that struggle has mattered more than winning or losing a single battle.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document