User talk:Laualoha/Past Walaʻau

=Welcome to Wikipedia!=

=Walaʻau= I donʻt mind if you have problems with the way I write. But please respect that I do have a life, and donʻt take up too much space on my talk page with the issues you have, which may be very valid (or not).

For Feng Shui purposes, Iʻm archiving some old discussions here: /walaʻau =NPOV wording for sovereignty article= I think you were right about the ethnic cleansing wording - it was a bit too strong. However, tiered citizenship classes are specifically mentioned in at least one of the "constitutions" put forward:

http://morganreport.org/mediawiki/index.php?title=Proposed_Reinstated_Kingdom_Constitution_of_January_16%2C_1995


 * Section 1. Citizenship.


 * a. Kanaka Maoli National.
 * A Kanaka Maoli is defined as any person who by birth or national origin and ancestry is a descendant of the original inhabitants who prior to 1778 exercised sovereignty over the Archipelago of Hawai'i.


 * b. Citizens, Naturalized.
 * The Legislative General Assembly shall provide by law a naturalization process for all persons who qualify and choose to become citizens of the Nation.


 * There are specific clauses as to what first class citizens can do, and what second class citizens can do, regarding participation in government, as well as other rights.


 * I worked things around a bit more, hopefully they capture what we're both trying to express. --JereKrischel 04:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I hear what youʻre saying, but I still think "tiered classes" sounds like a caste system, and nobodyʻs talking about that. This may not be your intention, but I donʻt want anybody misunderstansing whatʻs going on here, either. Aloha, Laualoha 23:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, that's specifically spelled out in several of the constitutions - a caste system by which people of one race have certain rights to participate in government (judiciary, special councils, etc), and others don't. Although you may be right that people don't want to talk about that, because the idea of race-based privilege is generally frowned upon, that is still exactly what is being done and acted upon.

oh, wow, laulau -- first ethnic cleansing, now a caste system? I must be missing something...

It seems like youʻre saying what we have now is more fair. I donʻt want to misrepresent your position though --am I wrong? And if you do feel itʻs more fair, could you say that to my nihoʻole uncle who lives in a car on Kaupo beach with windows that donʻt roll up? Or should one just tell Uncle, "get a job"? Sovereignty groups (even ones I donʻt quite agree with) have generally done a lot of work (in both deed and paper) to address the problems faced by people at the bottom of the socioeconomic strata, both Kanaka Maoli and non-. If youʻre really that scared of what Kanaka Maoli would do if we had slightly more decision-making power in some areas, Iʻm concerned that  you might be assuming that we would behave toward non-Kanaka as America has behaved toward the people whoʻve "stood in its way". But have no fear; weʻre not America. If thereʻs a caste system here, itʻs definitely not of our making. Laualoha 12:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that by any stretch of imagination, the *system* we have defined now is more fair than one that creates two classes of citizenship, but that does not address the issue of whether or not our implementation of either system would be fair to your uncle.

hmm, lemme stretch my imagination...Hey Jere, how many classes of citizenship do ya think we got now?Laualoha 00:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * For example, do you feel a 2 tiered citizenship system would be more fair to my destitute portuguese aunty in Waianae, living on the streets alongside your uncle?

Eh, I think I know her, too! And she doesnʻt vote, cuz she has no car. And it wouldnʻt really make a difference to her world if she did. If Kanaka maoli had a little more say and the rich power mongers who currently run the government here had a little less, I think Auntie would probably be better off, not worse.Laualoha 00:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC) p.s.B/T/W, itʻs funny you should mention Auntie...My band has a song about her! If you come see us Iʻll make sure we play it, just for you. Aloha, Laualoha 00:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Again, your assurances of a benign racially dominated government ring hollow in my ears. Rich kanaka maoli in power haven't had a track record any different than any other rich ethnicity.  Think about who ordered the sandalwood forests denuded. --JereKrischel 00:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, Jere, ya got that one piece of history: The sandalwood thing was stuuuuuuuuupid. However, there were other factors involved, such as:1)the sudden appearance of foreigners with guns & cannons. People had already seen what they could do (e.g. the Olowalu Massacre, 1790) & kinda felt like theyʻd all be in a lotta trouble if they didnʻt get some with this new threat around; 2) the active involvement of American & European brokers pushing the issue, 3) the lack of prior exposure to a concept such as "environmental destruction", since they had always cared for the land very carefully, & 4)the protest of many, many makaʻainana & kahuna, who never stopped being pono.Laualoha 00:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Despite your assertions that if given superior powers, kanaka maoli would not abuse them, I am skeptical of any system that treats people differently on the basis of race. I simply assume that if you create a constitution with two classes of citizens, based on ancestry, with special privileges for a specific ethnic group, you are creating an explicit caste system, and though it may be argued that such a caste system might be more beneficial for society as a whole, there are no guarantees (and a bunch of historical examples that should drive fear into our hearts). --JereKrischel 15:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Um, Jere, Iʻd really like you to please look up caste system first. Itʻs a function of class, not "voting rights". Voting is only one part of power, and not the biggest one. Nobodyʻs seriously talking about kickinʻ Uncle Thurston out of his mansion, so you can tell him no worry. & Iʻm sure heʻd still be doing the same shifty schemes then as he is now; no one is gona stop his free expression of villainry, just like the Kingdom would not allow the royal police to stop the Committee of Safety from stockpiling weapons and holding treasonous meetings.Laualoha 00:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Differentiating people into two classes, where one class has certain governmental rights, and another class doesn't, is the definition of a caste system. And if voting isn't such a big part of power, why would it be so important to limit it to a preferred race? --JereKrischel 00:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The difficulty, of course, is that the people doing these things believe that because their goal is noble, their means are justified. The fact that non-natives are relegated to 2nd class citizen status in the constitutions put forth is a very minor point to them, compared to the eventual idea of justice they desire.  However, to those people not of the 1st class race, this minor point looms large.

"Second class citizens", huh? Is that what you call the "Big 5" and all those missionary descendants with gated communities for a living room? (Side note: my ex once did some work on a small house on the Castle estate. It turned out to be a "duck house" [yes, a house for the ducks]. He said 3 people coulda lived in it.)? Remember, these guys were very much around when we had sovereignty the first time. And these "second class citizens" had big mansions to stash their guns in then, too. Laualoha 12:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * First of all, you still have sovereignty - just like any other U.S. citizen, you can vote, participate in government, and participate in jury trials.

Lemme find the right words for you...oh yeah...been there, done that! And I can tell ya firsthand, it doesnʻt work. Granted, this may not be apparent to those for whom the system DOES work, because of its systemic bias toward people of that particular ethnicity, belief system, language, educational background, set of abilities, etc., but thatʻs where I think you gotta try to be a bit more objective, and make an effort to grasp the concept of institutional racism. Laualoha 00:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Seems to work very well for our Senator, several of our governors, a whole host of our legislature, and let's not forget our patently unconstitutional system of race-based programs being challenged now in court. I think I understand institutional racism very well, although perhaps you believe it can be leveraged for noble purposes. --JereKrischel 00:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * In fact, you, as a woman, have more sovereignty now than any woman in the Kingdom of Hawaii ever had.

More than the Queen or Princess Ruth, huh? Anyway, one of the "unacceptable" things about the Queenʻs 1893 constitution (leading to her overthrow & U.S. takeover) was the direct address of womenʻs rights, which had been taken away by the Bayonet guys and other Anglo/American settlers. And the usurpers actively campaigned for their cause on a sexist platform.Laualoha 00:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * So now that you've got suffrage for every woman, instead of power for royalty (male or female) you have a problem with that? There is no denying that the evolution of government in the Hawaiian Islands has vastly improved over the Kingdom of 1893, the Republic of 1898, and even the Territory of 1958.  --JereKrischel 00:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Secondly, socio-economic differences between haves and have nots have occured in every society. The ali'i were not humble people of the land, they were the "Big 50" of their day and time.  They had not only the trappings of excess you mention with missionary descendants (and ali'i descendants as well), but also the power of life and death over all in their domain.

To tell the truth, Iʻm not a huge aliʻi fan either. However, we need to look at what theyʻve done with their money, power, etc. as opposed to those same missionaries. While the missionary money still goes to the upkeep of their falling mansions and the psychiatric bills of their descendants, the aliʻi money has founded hospitals for the poor, care & education of orphan children, etc. Queen Liliʻuokalani walked the land, talked to the people personally, actively promoted literacy (which was much higher than in the U.S.)constantly helped the poor who would come to her in need, and did the best she could do to speak the voice of all her citizens, blood or not. These were the practices of most aliʻi of the time period, despite their overly-fancy clothes and whatnot, which they believed they needed in order to be respected by other nations. I donʻt personally agree with this (for one thing, I think they shoulda seen there was much too much racism for them to get real respect, no matter what they did) but then, I didnʻt live then.

As far as "the power of life & death" goes, itʻs one thing to have it, and quite another to use it. I can think of lots of people the late-1800ʻs aliʻi could have killed to make life a whole lot easier for them, but if anything, they were very anti-killing, and promoted peace constantly, even when this was extremely hard on them. I daresay George Bush would not have done the same. Laualoha 00:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Your comparision of a race based system that explicitly creates a 2nd class citizenry, and the struggles any society has in dealing with the haves and the have nots which create implicit 2nd class citizenry, is simply Tu quoque, or the "you too" fallacy. In either case, we should agree that such stratification of is undesirable, and that it should in no way be enshrined into law. --JereKrischel 15:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Ya know, Jere, this "equal voting power" you seem to think is so important basically means rule by the rich (who fund the candidates & campaigns), and it always has. I donʻt really think thatʻs ok. While I donʻt claim allegiance to any of the sovereign constitutions you mention, I can understand their reasoning, which is to give Kanaka Maoli greater power over certain areas in which they have a more intimate relationship. If someone wanted to give your whole town "equal voting power" over your grandmaʻs grave, you might have a few issues with that, too.Laualoha 00:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * No, equal voting power means equal rights. Assuming that a given ethnicity will somehow be immune to the corruption of riches and wealth is a red herring.  If you're worried about the rich, why not write a constitution which only gives voting power to poor people, instead of targeting a preferred ethnicity? --JereKrischel 00:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I think maybe we can put in some words to make clear the vastly differing viewpoints regarding the importance or significance of limited rights for non-natives, but we cannot deny the literal designs that call for them. I believe we both understand the issue, even though we place differing amounts of emphasis on it - if "with tiered citizenship based on native ancestry" seems to stilted to one side, perhaps "with special privileges reserved for those with native ancestry" or "with citizenship rights based on native ancestry"?  I thought that "tiered citizenship" was rather neutral, but perhaps we can find different words. --JereKrischel 23:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

=Recent edits=
 * Mahalo, Laualoha, your wording changes regarding "who had fought against annexation" and "largely overlaps" are excellent! Thank you for working with me on them! --JereKrischel 23:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Settled -- yeah, right!!

 * Mahalo for your work on the Legal Status of Hawaii article, but please let's discuss the "settled/not settled " issue more on the talk page before agreeing on a final edit. --JereKrischel 20:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Jere, if you want to remove the line completely while we discuss this, thatʻs fine with me, but itʻs not ok to keep pushing your pov here. "Not settled" is the npov, as it is factually based (even in terms of simple grammatical logic) and doesnʻt take sides. The pro-sovereignty pov is that the matter is clearly settled in Hawaiʻiʻs favor, and thereʻs lots of evidence for this, but Iʻm not pushing that: neutrality is very important, and respectful to the readers. I think you have to look at your "majority" bias in this matter.Laualoha 22:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but "not settled" is POV pushing - it is a core argument of the sovereignty movement which states that the issue is "not settled", whereas the entire world, for over 100 years, has acted and behaved and decided in all deliberations that the matter is settled. Although I appreciate your concern for "majority" bias, wikipedia is not a platform for legitimizing extreme minority viewpoints.

OK. This is a really rich paragraph for a for a logic lesson. I believe your reasoning here is following the argumentum ad populum or "bandwagon fallacy", by harping on the "majority" of believers in the settlement of the legal question. Also, thereʻs an argumentum ad ignorantiam ("absence of evidence=evidence of absence"): the "entire world" hardly knows about Hawaiian History, so of course they would "behave (as if) the matter is settled". Most countries behave as if the matter is settled about the guy who stole my kidʻs bag of potato chips too, but that doesnʻt have much to do with legality. Even if they did know, there might be some reasons why they might not want to oppose the U.S. (its nukes for one, which touches on an argumentum in terrorem and/or Argumentum ad baculum).


 * No, you misunderstand me, Laualoha. I'm not speaking to the merits of the issue when I state that the "entire world" has acted and behaved and decided in all ways that the matter is settled.  I'm not trying to argue AGAINST the position.  You're falling into Ignoratio elenchi, the logical fallacy of irrelavant conclusion - my opinion on whether or not the Hawaiian sovereignty movement has merits to its claims is not being addressed when I state that the question of if the matter is "settled" is core to their claims. --JereKrischel 15:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Weʻre talkinʻ mangoes & potatoes here. Nobody was discussing merits at this juncture.  And your use of the word "their claims" proves my point below, as well as an additional fallacy of overgeneralization.Laualoha 00:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, thereʻs a definite straw man in your point: when you say "a core argument of the sovereignty movement", you are describing the position of that movement as weaker than it is (not to mention that "the movement" has many positions, not just one), and then tearing up the NPOV, which you have just attributed to "the movement", as POV.

Finally, simple "if/then" logic settles the "settled" thing. IF "settled" = done, finished, pau, end of story, and IF it were settled, THEN there would not be a dispute, and THEN this page would be completely irrelevant, and would probably not exist!


 * This is a Fallacy of presupposition and composition - "settled" in this context does not mean that there is no dispute in anyone's mind - merely no dispute in most people's minds. Neither does the statement that something is "settled" preclude it from current or future dispute.

Um...could you please define "most peopleʻs minds", and include the following:
 * whether "most people" applies to the entire planet (and I guess any possible humanoid life forms outside of it) or just to those who at least know what the issues are,
 * who decides where the fulcrum of "most" is set,
 * where the data comes from (i.e. citation), and
 * how that highly subjective data is colleced and analyzed in order to reach this conclusion.

If, through the above means, you can prove that "most" is indeed correct, then maybe Iʻll concede that one point. However, this still would have little effect on the question of whether you can state with certainty that the matter is "settled". Aloha, Laualoha 00:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * For example, as a matter of U.S. law, it has been settled that abortion is legal. Despite that, it is still disputed and fought over. --JereKrischel 15:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, "extreme minority" viewpoint hardly applies here. Besides the tens of thousands who have participated in sovereignty actions and related efforts, "the movement" is rather popular with indigenous nations, worldwide NGOʻs,the Dalai Lama, etc... Laualoha 10:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think that it is disrespectful to make clear the fact that the hawaiian sovereignty viewpoint is an extreme minority viewpoint - and the fact that they continue to fight for their beliefs despite over 100 years of history stacked against them (for whatever reason you'd like to assert), should be seen as a comment on their depth of conviction, not a critique of their worthiness.

Hey, Jere -- couldja define "extreme minority" in your own words? Just for fun. Laualoha 11:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * How about less than .001% of the world population? --JereKrischel 15:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Whatʻs your source, Jere?Laualoha 22:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * You asked me for my definition, right? Do you have a different definition? --23:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Let's see if we can toss around some more ideas on the Talk:Legal status of Hawaii page, and I'm sure we'll be able to work it out. --JereKrischel 23:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Legal status references
Hey Laualoha! Sorry, I'm not trying to "rewrite history" by removing your references, I'm trying to find a better place for them in the detailed sections. I've put up a section regarding photographs, and I've already placed a section referring to Blount and other source material...can we rest on the intro a bit, and expand the sub-sections with the details you wish to include? Some of the links you provided also didn't work (kohala.net might be down), and it will help if you use the "ref" tags for your citations, so it's clear what on the page you're linking to you're citing. Please take a look at my examples of using the "ref" tags, and see if you can figure them out.

Mahalo! --JereKrischel 04:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Jere -- Ok, maybe youʻre not trying to re-write history. However, I think a lot of history has, over the years, been re-written (whether or not people were trying to do this) simply by the way in which information is organized.  Sometimes libraries "re-write" history for their service population, just by where they put the books!  Thanks for organizing the stuff - I appreciate the effort, but you really need to leave my refs where they are also.  If you say or imply that the U.S. had no role in the overthrow and then take out my statement AND my link to pictures of the soldiers on the palace lawn,thatʻs re-writing history.  Iʻm fine with letting it rest once the intro is fairly balanced.  Regarding the links, Iʻll try to make sure they work (they all did when I put them up) and Iʻll try to use the "ref" thing, although Iʻm not as tech savvy as you & Iʻm squeezing this stuff into a way-busy schedule as is, so it might take a bit.  Some of my refs are pdfʻs -- do the tags work with those? Aloha, Laualoha 08:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but your link to soldiers on the palace lawn, then asserting that they were marines when they are clearly Provisional Government troops, is an inappropriate reference. There is no question that U.S. peacekeepers were landed - what is in dispute is whether or not they behaved in a neutral manner, or if they aided and abetted the Committee of Safety, or threatened the Queen.  It has been clearly found that despite Blount's earlier beliefs, they did neither.


 * To do your ref, just put in the following code immediately where you want the reference:


 * The footnote at the top and bottom will automatically generate. Mahalo! --JereKrischel 15:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Aloha back at ya!
Mahalo nui loa for your kind words Laualoha! You speak from your heart what you believe is right, and even if I disagree with you, it is not because I think your heart is wrong. I greatly appreciate your spirit of dialogue, and hope you will continue to challenge me, and accept challeges from me, so that we can both learn from each other. --JereKrischel 02:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Nice to see you back Laualoha! I've been swamped with editing stuff on Race and intelligence, and got into a real intense edit with the J. Phillipe Rushton article, but it's good to see some activity on more of the Hawaii articles!  Hope all has been well! --JereKrischel 19:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

H3
Thanks for your edits on H3. Even though I completely agree with it and think it is one of the most beautiful Interstates in the country, your edits need citations. Although not me, someone else will add the tags requesting them. So if you could find something, that'd be great. Thanks! -- M PD T / C 01:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Aloha
Greetings, Laualoha. I very much appreciate your recent edits, and I suspect we share a desire to get some changes on the Hawaii articles so they are no longer so pungently POV. Your help is much appreciated in bringing things back to the center, and I look forward to your contributions. Please feel free to drop me an email to discuss more if you like. Mahalo, Arjuna 10:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Aloha redux
Aloha Laualoha! Good to see you back! I could really use your help on the Legal Status page - I'm convinced that it is important to give information about claimants to the authority of the Kingdom of Hawaii sufficient background, but I'm sure you could help make the text more sympathetic. Can we work together on bringing some balance to the tone, while still retaining the important information? Mahalo! --JereKrischel 05:34, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Morgan
Aloha Laualoha, I'd love to jam sometime! You can check out some of the bands I played with back in the day here and here. Just been trying to get back into the swing of music again, playing with GarageBand 08 on my mac.

But onto the Morgan stuff - please, you're shotgunning way too much editorializing trying to demonize Morgan. Yes, he was a confederate racist, no doubt - but to assert that his only reason for advocating for the annexation of Hawaii was to get rid of negroes is simplistic and jingoistic. If you want to add more useful information there, that's great, but try it this way:

1) find the particular quote in the reference you're interested in using;

2) either quote that person directly, or work on a very neutral presentation of a summary of their work (drawing your own conclusions from their words is violating WP:OR);

3) use the "ref" tags to make the reference, instead of inlining it as a direct link to your reference. Bad example:

This is a bad example of referring to some web reference.

Good example:

This is a good example of referring to some web reference.

4) Use notable and scholarly references - try to stay away from just random web pages.

I'm more than happy to help you improve the John Tyler Morgan page, but you'll need to be very careful about how you proceed. Use proper style, avoid in-line editorializing, and cite notable references. We can both make the article much better together, and if you would like my help in taking a quote you feel is important, and summarizing it in an NPOV manner, I'd be more than happy to help. Using the article as a soapbox to advocate for guilt-by-association with the Hawaiian revolution, annexation and statehood is not appropriate - and I think that if you're not careful, that's how it comes across.


 * "Anyway, I'm happy to help further, please let me know. Mahalo! --JereKrischel 04:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Some specific problems
Your reference doesn't fit your sentence, "His first and most developed choice was to send them to the Congo; however, there were difficulties with this due mainly to a lack of U.S. control there". The word "Congo" never even appears in the reference. Could you be more specific as to what passage in that pdf you're referencing there? --JereKrischel 05:01, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Jere, you are correct here -- in haste, I accidentally pasted the wrong reference. However, my original reference (which you removed) was correct.  One way or another, even an incorrect reference does not give you the right to  delete my edits.  You could have easily googled the info yourself; itʻs readily available. It comes originally from a text: .  Hereʻs a quote:
 * '''Always urging a “general exodus” of Southern blacks, at various times in his long career Morgan also advocated sending them to Hawaii, to Cuba, and to the Philippines - which, perhaps because the islands were so far away, he claimed were a “native home of the negro.” But Africa was always first choice. To Morgan, Leopold’s new state seemed heaven-sent. Wouldn’t this territory require manpower to develop? And wouldn’t the Congolese be eager to trade with the United States if the Americans they met had the same skin color? And couldn’t the Congo become a market for the South’s cotton surplus? Africa, he later said on the Senate floor, “was prepared for the negro as certainly as the Garden of Eden was prepared for Adam and Eve . . . In the Congo basin we find the best type of the negro race, and the American negro . . . can find here the field for his efforts.”

'''--Laualoha 05:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Mahalo, I've put your expanded reference in. --JereKrischel 08:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Your reference hits a page that states: "Your account profile indicates you're located in a country where Questia does not have the publisher's permission to allow you access to this particular publication. Less than 5% of our publications have this restriction so we encourage you to search for an alternative publication or update your profile to correct any error in your country of residence." Could you help be more specific about what that reference is supposed to be? Is it supposed to refer to Morgan's writing, or someone else's commentary about Morgan's writing? It would also be nice to have a reference backing up the statement, "Throughout his legal and political career, Morgan was a prolific and inflammatory writer." Although this very well may be true, we should find a specific, notable reference that claims that. Similarly with "It is one of the classics of the antebellum segregationist period of white supremacist thought, for quotes such as these" - we need to have a notable reference to make the claim that it is a classic, and for what quotes it could be considered iconic for. Again, I've no doubt that what you're writing could very well be true, but we need to source it appropriately to notable sources. Mahalo! --JereKrischel 05:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Sometime there is no visible online source for books. Hereʻs the ref: --Laualoha 05:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Could you give the particular quote you wanted to attribute to that source? --JereKrischel 08:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Your claim "This report conspicuously lacked native or immigrant worker sources and is based almost entirely on the perspective of the wealthy American and European males in the Islands at the time." is in-line editorializing and an ad hominem attack. One could just as easily state, "The report gave light to the perspective of industrious and concerned American and European businessmen, and lacked the royalist and race-baiting sources found in the Blount Report." We need to be very careful about trying to add in-line POV pushing. --JereKrischel 05:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Dude, itʻs the truth, ok? People need to know itʻs based on nearly all-white (talk about "tiny minority") sources, which the Blount Report is not.  --Laualoha 05:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Regardless of whether or not it is true, it can be POV pushing. That being said, it is not true, since there were several testimonies from native sources, including Robert Wilcox - .  Not to mention, the Blount Report was based on nearly all-white royalist sources as well, and was included in the deliberation during the Morgan Report (Blount himself testified in person).  Framing the context in terms of race as a primary factor is not appropriate.  Being white does not make someone wrong, and I believe you're trying to imply with your text there that the report is wrong because the witnesses were primarily white.  --JereKrischel 08:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Your statement "In 1894, in probable conjunction with his design, Morgan chaired an investigation into the Overthrow of Hawaiʻi which concluded that the U.S. had remained completely neutral in the matter." is completely POV pushing. You are asserting a probability of your own opinion, giving no references, and seeming to offer a psychic insight into the mind of a man 100 years dead. This is a particularly soap-boxy statement, that could go the other way like, "In 1894, most probably because of a deep feeling of guilt related to his previous racism, Morgan held an absolutely fair and impartial investigation into the Hawaiian Revolution, and worked to obtain the annexation of Hawaii to the United States, so it could be an example of multi-racial peace and harmony for the larger nation." Neither extreme is appropriate. --JereKrischel 05:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Um, thanks for the kudos on the psychic thing, but I donʻt think itʻs necessary (And if I were able to commune with the dead, it would definitely not be with JT Morgan). Look, the man had Hawaiʻi in mind for the deportation of Black people.  That is a clear fact.  In basically the same time period, he gets on a boat for Hawaiʻi and drums up an all-white report that that the U.S. did nothing wrong and says annexation to the U.S. is a good thing.  Come on, Jere, do the math.  It is impossible to say that these  things are NOT related, unless you have some evidence that he had an "amazing grace"-type spiritual revelation in between.


 * If you want to continue this discussion, please do so on your own talk page. Donʻt overturn my edits anymore, or Iʻm gonna start playing like that, and itʻs contrary to my practice of Aloha & my principles of good editing.  Looking forward to that jam. Donʻt eat Spam.  Aloha, --Laualoha 05:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The man mentioned Hawaii for the deportation of Black people. That is a clear fact.  The linking of that fact, and his participation on a 9 member committee is pure speculation.  We cannot take our own speculation, regardless of how accurate it may be, and put it into our edits.  I'm sure you'd be very disappointed if I took my rant about sovereignty activists being in it just for the money on the Hawaiian sovereignty movement page - it would be inappropriate, because it is simply my speculation.  Same here.


 * I've already responded here before I read about continuing on my talk page, so please pardon this reply - and feel free to continue your response on my talk page if you'd like. I'm not trying to overturn your edits, I'm trying to make them more accurate and appropriate, which I think we're getting to.  I've done some work fixing the references on John Tyler Morgan, and would appreciate any further comments you have on that, including additional references you'd like to make, and additional points you'd like to highlight.  I'm sure that together we can greatly improve the John Tyler Morgan article, by providing clear references, a neutral presentation, and a guide into someone who has a very interesting history.  Mahalo and aloha, even though I still love spam --JereKrischel 08:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Jere, thatʻs, um, how do I put this? BAD FORM. Some of your points are very negotiable, others are highly fallacious, but AS I SAID, I donʻt really feel like filling up my whole talk page with your POV, by continuing this further here. I think you should respect that, and READ THE WHOLE RESONSE I courteusly wrote you before sticking in your text all over the place! If you want to have a discussion, fine, but not here. Brah, no occupy my page, okay?

As I said, Iʻm not a typist. I do 20 WPM at best, next to your 120. But I think this has very little to do with whoʻs point is more valid.

If you want to talk about SPAM, we can continue THAT discussion here if you like. Itʻs really bad you know. Genocidal WWII occupation food, making people all over the Pacific unhealthy.

B/T/W, Too much coffee is not a good thing either. I like it myself, but in excess, itʻs hard on your adrenal system, wears out your artery walls, shuts down your liver, and makes you overlook important stuff thatʻs right in front of you before you go flying off the handle on your trip. Much Aloha, --Laualoha 18:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Undue weight
Aloha to both of you. Skimming over this exchange, I think a lot of it (as with the disagreements between JK and myself on [Overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy‎] and [Kingdom of Hawaii] et al.) has to do with which perspective is more solidly represented in mainstream scholarship. Not all perspectives have equal validity, according both to Wikipolicy and common sense, so this ultimately comes down to a WP:UNDUE issue. For Morgan, I don't know the good (any!) sources. But for example, I don't think it's possible to accurately read Russ and Kuykendall (to name just a couple of the old historians, leaving out the more recent/current UH team, which is definitely more tendentious) than as more skeptical of Morgan than of Blount, and supporting the view that the overthrow had the active support of U.S. Government agents. (JK, please don't clutter L's page here with your rebuttal, we already know you will disagree, and that's fine.) Of note: have a look at this review in today's Star-Bulletin, written by some commie pinko at BYU, that hotbed of radical subversives. So if I can make a suggestion on a possible way out of this endless (and pointless, since it just goes around and around in circles) dialogue, you might consider working together on filling in a matrix similar to the one we have already started here to try to determine which edits are "mainstream" and which are undue weight. I have been reading through the texts and taking notes, but have yet to do a datadump onto the matrix. JK is working on his side, but hopefully all this may be of use in L's work as well. But it may be useful to start a similar one on this disagreement (and L, your input on the other one is most welcome too). To both of you, aloha. Arjuna 22:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * P.S. Secondary sources are more valuable than primary ones, since use of the latter is too easily manipulated and becomes original research. Cheers, Arjuna 22:28, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Mahalo everyone! Iʻm archiving all of this now, and looking forward to a new start.--Laualoha 03:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)