Parrothead_Diver
Contributor
Is it just me, or did anybody else realise that the original poster has never chimed back in on this whole conversation?
Can you say TROLL???????
Can you say TROLL???????
Passport needed?
- Thread starter willo
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
SueMermaid
Guest
I never go anyplace without my passport. Even when traveling domestically. It just makes everything easier.
SteveDiver
Contributor
willo:
No, You do not need a passport. I just got back. Hawaii is an US state. Do you need a passport to fly to Florida?
normantr
Guest
sharky60:
Actually, a correction is not needed based on my comment. My comment was one of humor based on the tone of the thread as set by previous posts. And referring to them as "those people" does not seem quite right. You seem to have a lot of anger towards a place where your heart is.
SteveDiver
Contributor
normantr:
I have been to the islands many times and never had an issue or was treated rudely. I have been in the tourist areas and also dine and shop where the locals do. I have several friends that are residents as well. I do not look like a "local" whatever that "look" may be? There are many locals that do not look Hawaiian. I have had nothing but a great time in Hawaii and always said to others on how nice and relaxed the locals are. If tourist go there and trash up the island and make demands (if this is the case) then hopefully they are treated rudely.
DiveMaven
Contributor
I agree, we go to Maui every year and we've never been treated with anything but friendly courtesy. We travel a couple of times a year and it is clear that by being friendly and courteous to the locals, they reflect that back to you. We treat their homes with respect and make requests when we need something, not demands.
We've seen a lot of tourists (from all over the world) who appear to have a sense of entitlement when they are on vacation. They act as if everyone is there to serve them and make their vacation comfortable. Those are the people who make everyone around them nasty and give "tourist" a bad name.
We've seen a lot of tourists (from all over the world) who appear to have a sense of entitlement when they are on vacation. They act as if everyone is there to serve them and make their vacation comfortable. Those are the people who make everyone around them nasty and give "tourist" a bad name.
sharky60
Contributor
normantr:
Sorry for my 'tone', I guess I shouldn't make posts when I've not had a good nights sleep. It's really not anger for Hawaii, just frustration with people, on both sides of the pond actually.
I have a hard time with mainlanders that don't know their own country and with mainlanders and islanders alike that aren't happy being part of it. Just my mid-western upbringing I guess. didn't mean to step on any toes!
I am not of Polynesian decent although like I said before some folks in Hawaii and on the mainland say I look it, I take it as a complement. I do have family members, that are native Hawaiian's from Samoan decent, and they are very partiotic, most of them are veterans and one is a graduate of west point, so it's not just a 'haole' point of view that I'm coming from.
I'm not really sure how this tread has gotten to this, but to the original question...no, you don't need a passport to go to Hawaii, if you feel better using it for an ID, cool, use it, no problem mon.
Wouldn't be right to let this fester... Yes, hard as it is to admit, there is a detectable undercurrent of racism here. Of course, there're two sides to this.
On the "local" side: the ethnic Hawaiians lost control of a lot of their lands (conned, stolen, or bequethed) and very nearly lost their heritage and culture under the "reforms" of Puritanical missionaries. The backlash of this is the sovereignty movement today. Many, many other non-Caucasian locals have roots in the immigrant labor camps of the plantations and related industries (the "Big Five") controlled mostly by Caucasians. In today's context, the feelings toward the wealthy, priviledged principals of the Big Five would be like what we feel toward the honchos of Enron, WorldComm, and Adelphia. "The rich get richer, the poor get poorer." If you believe this is true now, it was even more so back then. The backlash to this is the Democratic Party's dominance of island politics and the strength of labor unions.
On the "non-local" side: In the context of the time of the missionaries, what happened was "manifest destiny". It was "us" amending the ways of the "heathen". It was "if you aren't strong enough to hang on to it, then don't cry if you lose it". It didn't help the Hawaiians that they had virtually no concept of private property as Westerners understand it. This sounds demeaning and arrogant now, but it was the reality of the time. In more current times, the short-sighted brashness and aggressiveness of the large population of young military Mainlanders on their way to be maimed or die in the South Pacific (WWII) or Southeast Asia (Vietnam) continued the image of disrespect towards the locals. Stepping back, this behavior is understandable but that gets lost in the heat of the moment.
Much of this conflict is still within eye-witness memory and the scabs are still there.
Of course, it's not all that simple. Neither side is clean. I've met some of the descendants of the "Big Five" and in many ways, they're more Hawaiian than Hawaiians. Sure, there were cowards doing despicable things while hiding behind the power of the Five. But many others quietly returned good favors. Newer transplants are more sensitive and empathetic than even a few decades ago. And even Hawaiians, well, a case can be made that "true" Hawaiians are not what we see today. There's evidence that original settlers of Hawaii were small-statured Marquesans whose communal culture was practically obliterated by later Tahitian invaders who brought the warrior structure of the alii we now call "Hawaiian". But they adopted a graciousness and nobility exemplified by Duke Kahanamoku.
Secede from the US? Said and thought only by the most hopeless nutcases (which the media loves because it sells). An uncle was only one of three left to muster (and he was walking wounded) out of a company of 200 nisei who was part of a larger 442nd mission to breakthrough to the surrounded Texans of the 141st at Bruyeres, France. Another uncle died in the same action, bled to death crawling back to an aid station. Meanwhile, my future in-laws lost their business and were "relocated". Special forces from Vietnam to the present are loaded with Hawaiians. Secede? Bull. We didn't spill to give it up.
When we enter the ocean, we meet it on its own terms. Respect the environment for what it is, as it is, and work within it. Goals are easier to achieve when you leave little turbulence in your wake. We may wish to be more fish-like but cannot; take pride in your origins and share them, not impose them. Spread da aloha.
On the "local" side: the ethnic Hawaiians lost control of a lot of their lands (conned, stolen, or bequethed) and very nearly lost their heritage and culture under the "reforms" of Puritanical missionaries. The backlash of this is the sovereignty movement today. Many, many other non-Caucasian locals have roots in the immigrant labor camps of the plantations and related industries (the "Big Five") controlled mostly by Caucasians. In today's context, the feelings toward the wealthy, priviledged principals of the Big Five would be like what we feel toward the honchos of Enron, WorldComm, and Adelphia. "The rich get richer, the poor get poorer." If you believe this is true now, it was even more so back then. The backlash to this is the Democratic Party's dominance of island politics and the strength of labor unions.
On the "non-local" side: In the context of the time of the missionaries, what happened was "manifest destiny". It was "us" amending the ways of the "heathen". It was "if you aren't strong enough to hang on to it, then don't cry if you lose it". It didn't help the Hawaiians that they had virtually no concept of private property as Westerners understand it. This sounds demeaning and arrogant now, but it was the reality of the time. In more current times, the short-sighted brashness and aggressiveness of the large population of young military Mainlanders on their way to be maimed or die in the South Pacific (WWII) or Southeast Asia (Vietnam) continued the image of disrespect towards the locals. Stepping back, this behavior is understandable but that gets lost in the heat of the moment.
Much of this conflict is still within eye-witness memory and the scabs are still there.
Of course, it's not all that simple. Neither side is clean. I've met some of the descendants of the "Big Five" and in many ways, they're more Hawaiian than Hawaiians. Sure, there were cowards doing despicable things while hiding behind the power of the Five. But many others quietly returned good favors. Newer transplants are more sensitive and empathetic than even a few decades ago. And even Hawaiians, well, a case can be made that "true" Hawaiians are not what we see today. There's evidence that original settlers of Hawaii were small-statured Marquesans whose communal culture was practically obliterated by later Tahitian invaders who brought the warrior structure of the alii we now call "Hawaiian". But they adopted a graciousness and nobility exemplified by Duke Kahanamoku.
Secede from the US? Said and thought only by the most hopeless nutcases (which the media loves because it sells). An uncle was only one of three left to muster (and he was walking wounded) out of a company of 200 nisei who was part of a larger 442nd mission to breakthrough to the surrounded Texans of the 141st at Bruyeres, France. Another uncle died in the same action, bled to death crawling back to an aid station. Meanwhile, my future in-laws lost their business and were "relocated". Special forces from Vietnam to the present are loaded with Hawaiians. Secede? Bull. We didn't spill to give it up.
When we enter the ocean, we meet it on its own terms. Respect the environment for what it is, as it is, and work within it. Goals are easier to achieve when you leave little turbulence in your wake. We may wish to be more fish-like but cannot; take pride in your origins and share them, not impose them. Spread da aloha.
I only posted once, so I am posting another as not to be accused of being a trollParrothead_Diver:
chepar
Contributor
bluemagoo:
This is true - but I think it is more of an issue for people that come to Hawaii to live, rather than people that come for a short vacation. Tourists are constantly coming and going, and the majority of their interaction with local people are going to be those that are employed in the tourist industry. If someone employed in the tourist industry has a serious problem interacting with people based on race, I'm not sure they would be able to last in that particular industry very long.
For the people coming to live here, it's a bit of a different situation. I'm a bit conflicted about this issue - I like to think of it as "cultural differences" - i.e. the "local" vs. "mainland" way of looking at things, but I know this is not always the case.
Undoubtedly for some people the roots of this has to do with race. For other people it's not about race, but rather how well mainland transplants "assimilate" into island culture. Maybe for some the lines between this distinction are blurred. Either way, it's something that is tangible. We pride ourselves on being a true cultural melting pot, but that doesn't mean that prejudices do not exist.
Very thoughtful post, bluemagoo.
Similar threads
