-
Archives
- August 2022 (1)
- November 2021 (2)
- July 2021 (1)
- May 2021 (1)
- September 2020 (1)
- September 2019 (1)
- August 2019 (1)
- March 2019 (1)
- February 2019 (1)
- January 2019 (1)
- September 2018 (2)
- August 2018 (1)
- November 2017 (1)
- October 2017 (1)
- April 2017 (1)
- February 2017 (6)
- May 2016 (1)
- March 2016 (1)
- November 2015 (1)
- August 2014 (1)
- January 2014 (1)
- November 2013 (1)
- October 2013 (1)
- August 2013 (2)
- July 2013 (1)
- June 2013 (1)
- September 2012 (1)
- April 2012 (1)
- December 2011 (1)
- September 2011 (2)
- March 2011 (1)
- January 2011 (5)
- December 2010 (7)
- November 2010 (3)
- October 2010 (6)
- September 2010 (8)
- August 2010 (9)
- July 2010 (6)
- June 2010 (6)
- May 2010 (4)
- April 2010 (2)
- March 2010 (3)
- February 2010 (4)
- November 2009 (1)
- June 2009 (1)
- April 2009 (3)
- January 2009 (1)
- December 2008 (2)
- November 2008 (2)
- August 2008 (1)
- June 2008 (2)
- May 2008 (2)
- April 2008 (21)
- March 2008 (1)
- January 2008 (1)
- December 2007 (2)
- November 2007 (4)
- October 2007 (1)
- September 2007 (1)
- August 2007 (3)
- July 2007 (6)
- June 2007 (3)
- May 2007 (1)
- April 2007 (1)
- March 2007 (1)
- February 2007 (1)
- January 2007 (4)
- December 2006 (1)
- November 2006 (1)
- June 2006 (7)
- May 2006 (8)
Akaka’s Civil Rights Problem
So much of the argument for the Akaka Bill is couched in Civil Rights terms–we are given to understand that to oppose it is to somehow oppose the rights and privileges of Native Hawaiians. In fact, one of the most pernicious historical fallacies surrounding the former Kingdom of Hawaii as it relates to the argument for the Akaka Bill ca be found in the way that Akaka supporters blithely ignore the multi-ethnic make-up of the Hawaiian government at the same time as they push for the wholesale creation of a race-based “reorganization.” In light of this sensitive question, it might be interesting to examine where some of the nation’s experts on matters of civil rights stand on the Bill.
Would you be surprised to hear that they oppose it? It’s true. On Dec. 7, 2010, the United States Commission on Civil Rights delivered a letter to key Congressional leaders reiterating their opposition to the Akaka Bill. If you’re interested, you can read the letter in full here. (And the earlier, more detailed letter it references can be seen here.) Without equivocation, the USCCR expresses its opposition that any attempt made to attach the Native Hawaiian Reorganization Act to a spending bill this session. In addition, the letter states that the changes that have been made or proposed to the Act are insufficient to overcome the constitutional concerns that have been raised, and reiterates the Commission’s opposition to the Bill.
What is the source of the Commission’s opposition?  The reasons given should be familiar to most of those who have made a careful study of the legislation and its possible consequences: that Congress lacks that constitutional authority to thus “reorganize” ethnic groups into dependent sovereign nations without a strong history of self governance; that doing so will set a dangerous precedent; that it should not be used as an attempt to shore up race-based benefits threatened by recent court decisions; and that it is contradictory to the history of the Hawaiian government.
Above all, the opinion of the Commission makes it clear that the questions of race that surround the Akaka Bill are far more complex than Akaka’s supporters would like to admit. It’s as though, in their efforts to help one ethnic group, the pro-Akaka lobby has deliberately ignored the fundamental principles of civil rights.
Tags: Akaka bill, Historical revisionism, Inouye
This entry was posted on December 7, 2010, 9:00 pm and is filed under Commentary, US Comm on Civ Rights. You can follow any responses to this entry through RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed.