The Economist is especially snarky in it’s critique of the crazy bill sponsored by US Senator Danial Akaka (Democrat-Hawaii) to create “self-governance” for native Hawaiians in order to “right the wrongs” of the past. The whole article is worth reading, but here’s a good bit:
A casual observer might think that a century under the American yoke has not been all bad for native Hawaiians. Their median household income is $52,000, making them slightly better off than white Americans and much richer than any group of Polynesians outside the United States. And they also live in Hawaii.
Statehood was not imposed on native Hawaiians by force. In 1959, they voted for it by a two-to-one margin. Since then, native and non-native have rubbed along well enough to marry each other with casual abandon. Back in 1984, only 4% of native Hawaiians were classified by the Office of Hawaiian Affairs as pure native Hawaiian, and colour-blind love must have reduced that figure since then.
Mr Akaka’s gripe, however, is that native Hawaiians have been denied the degree of self-determination that has made Native American reservations such happy places…
Yet another reason to like The Economist (in addition to the consistently clever captions they put on their photographs).