‘Hawaiian kingdom’ is on shaky ground

Re “Rebuilding a Hawaiian Kingdom,” Column One, July 21

I have no problem in honoring the traditions and practices of native American peoples of the continental U.S. or Hawaii. However, everyone in the United States is required to obey federal, state and county laws and regulations, and no one should think he is above these.

Should someone commit a murder in “Bumpy’s town,” would the perpetrator be stoned or killed in the ancient ways? Could Bumpy’s town become the Las Vegas of Hawaii by disregarding state and local laws?

King Kamehameha, from whom Dennis “Bumpy” Kanahele claims to have descended, never gave his conquered people an inch of land to call their own. They were killed, enslaved or run off.

Yes, we should be sensitive to their needs, but not obligated or cowed by history.

Mike McGinley

Los Angeles

*

Your July 21 front-page article discusses Hawaiian issues, and specifically the race-based rights and claims against the U.S. government. Surprisingly, you highlight a descendant of Kamehameha who claims land rights on the island of Oahu. Kamehameha was originally from the island of Hawaii, and invaded Oahu in 1795, killing and enslaving those who opposed him. That ancestral claim to land was based on the standards then. Subsequent standards were a negotiated treaty.

Could you explain why invasion (with the assistance of Western firepower), death and destruction make a more valid claim than a negotiated treaty?

Richard Zoraster

Whittier