The Mystery of Hawaiian History

Parade Magazine on 5/30/10 contained a brief discussion of the appointment of Kimberly Teehee as the first White House senior policy advisor for Native American Affairs. Teehee says; “Job creation is a huge priority: unemployment rates on some reservations are as high as 80%”. To my knowledge and I expect, yours, there are no special unemployment problems at all with mainstream Americans who have Indian ancestry but have opted out of their “Indian Nation”. Why would that be so?

“ Indian Country has great needs, but our future is far from bleak—more than $3 billion was directed to Indian tribes through the Recovery Act, and the 2011 budget provides a 5% increase over 2010”, says Teehee. But these tribal Indians will get access to that money only through abiding by the whims of their tribal chiefs. None of them have the option of governing their own lives unless they leave the “safety” of the reservation.

If problems like unemployment and extreme obesity disappeared from these Indian reservations— and they certainly should with $3 billion plus 5%—would Kimberly Teehee have a job? Could it be that Teehee’s continued prosperity and power are connected to the persistence of Indian tribes’ unemployment, extreme obesity and other severe social problems?

The Akaka bill, pending in the U.S. Senate, makes, by law, native Hawaiians an Indian tribe. Would that push our friends, neighbors and family members of native Hawaiian ancestry into the Indian atrocity model described above? We should hope not. No one knows for sure.

Do you want to risk it?

Though there has been a great deal of talk about the pros and cons of the Akaka Bill regarding the future of Hawaii, it is surprising to see how little of that debate takes into account the established precedents that govern those Native American tribes already recognized by the federal government. While there has been some debate over the extent to which the Bill creates a “tribe” in the same sense for Native Hawaiians as it has for Cherokees or Seminoles, it is certain that all existing precedent (and indeed the Constitutional provision that—probably—allows Congress to act in the case of the Akaka Bill) come from the laws governing Indian tribes. In other words, if we want to peer into the future of a post-Akaka Hawaii, we ought to take a look at what’s happening with tribal law.

And when you consider just how haywire things can go, it’s hard to find a better example than the Indian Child Welfare Act. The Act was passed in 1978 in response to real and serious concerns about the alarmingly high number of Indian children who were being removed from their homes (and their tribes) to be placed in non-Indian homes—threatening tribal stability and even survival. In response, Congress gave tribes an extremely strong voice in child custody proceedings involving an Indian child, including exclusive jurisdiction over cases where the child resides on the reservation or is a ward of the tribe.

Doesn’t seem so bad, does it? Enter the law of unintended consequences.

While the Act certainly served its function in protecting the survival of the tribes and their culture, the obvious potential for abuse of the Act’s provisions have also created a heartbreaking collection of cases where the welfare of children and families takes a back seat to political intrusion and people exploiting the system for their own purposes. It’s all there: children returned to a home where the State had evidence of sexual abuse—and over the objections of the children’s own natural parents—by a tribal court exercising its exclusive jurisdiction over the case. Children taken away from a non-Native parent by the family that can use the Act to settle old scores. And the list goes on and on.

And now consider what the Indian Child Welfare Act could mean for a Native Hawaiian tribe—especially in a state where people are proud to call themselves “hapa.” If the Act is determined to apply to the new Native Hawaiian government (and there’s no evidence that it won’t), family law in Hawaii may take a very ugly turn, with the Native Hawaiian government (or that side of the family) having the power to set the rules and run the show in child custody cases—even to the point of being able to come in long after custody has been settled and remove a Hawaiian child from a “non-Hawaiian” home. The pain that this could cause to a community and culture that has such a proud tradition of ohana is profound.

Our islands are different. Our culture is different. There’s a reason that the opponents of the Akaka Bill point to our history to show that Hawaii has always been an inclusive society, not a tribe. What a shame it will be if this Bill tears apart our long tradition of unity by creating a new tribe.

Malia Blom Hill is a Research Fellow of Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, where one of her major projects is centered on www.4hawaiiansonly.com Please visit and consider helping by adding your research, commentary, or support. Malia may be contacted by email at 4hawaiiansonly@gmail.com

By Dick Rowland

As now written, if the Akaka bill passed in the US Senate this state would be, by law, divided into two human
groups:

Hawaiians= Those with some or all Hawaiian blood unless they opted out.

Non-Hawaiians=Those without such blood unless they opted in by refusing to join the group above.

The “Hawaiians” would form a separate tribal nation which would have “rights” that the non-Hawaiians would not. But a “right” is useless unless it is enforced, which requires an equivalent obligation to assure compliance. Primarily, the US nation and the non-Hawaiians, otherwise known as the State of Hawaii, would be so obligated. Why? Because the Hawaiians are designated a special tribe, in perpetuity, unless the plenary power, the US Congress, says otherwise.

Some Hawaiians will surely say no to join an “Akaka Tribe” since they can readily see that mainland tribal members are largely treated like serfs. If they do that they will be non Hawaiian Hawaiians with no special privileges. In fact, they will remain totally assimilated in society as regular, everyday non-Hawaiian citizens of the State of Hawaii. Confused? Read on.

Speaking of American Indian Tribes; there are about 564 of them. They contain only 20% of all the Indians in the USA. In other words, 80% have left the reservations to become regular folks. But wait a minute: When the Queen lost her throne in 1893, most of Hawaii’s people were not native Hawaiians. Many, if not most, of the legislature and the Queens Cabinet were non-native Hawaiians. Many of those subjects fought for their Queen. Below is a quote from Michael Lilly, former Attorney General of the State of Hawaii, who has no native blood:

“ My great-grandfather was killed by the revolutionaries defending the Monarchy which was non-racist. Neither he nor the Queen would have countenanced a Hawaiian that did not recognize all nationalities as full citizens”

So how can it be that Michael Lilly is not to be a part of the tribe? Well first, there was never any Hawaii tribe but if there had been, he would surely have been among the first in line. Second, the bill before the Senate is exclusive, not inclusive. It is a law that plainly excludes all races but one in a most discriminatory way (a person that is 51% Polish, 30% Chinese, 10% Japanese and 9% native Hawaiian is native Hawaiian, not Polish). Plainly, Mr Lilly lacks the right kind of ancestors to satisfy our federal government’s desire.

They can’t be serious, you say? Of course they can. The only ones who have read the bill are those who oppose it. If some how we could get a few more Senators to read the proposed bill and think carefully about the consequences as well as their oath of office, there would be no way to get it passed. But they don’t. They instead listen to Senator Inouye when he tells them to vote for it.

So, there you have it; all that is necessary for sanity to prevail is for a few more Senators to gain some knowledge and practice integrity.

Instead we find them tied to apartheid.

Should a judge preside over a lawsuit where his family stands to gain megabucks? Should a governor, mayor, or senator decide to route a new highway to a family-owned shopping center, or award construction contracts to his family’s business?

The Akaka bill recognizes ethnic Hawaiians as a tribe. State and county officials then negotiate how much of our land, money, and jurisdictional authority to give that tribe. Government officials who are ethnic Hawaiian have a huge conflict of interest deciding how much of our stuff to give to their own blood brotherhood.

Executives, legislators, and judges must recuse themselves and not participate in decisions where they have conflict of interest. Normally recusal is rare. But if the Akaka bill passes, most government decision-making will focus on how much to give the tribe. Someone should not hold a job where ethics rules demand recusal from most of his work.

If the Akaka bill passes, no ethnic Hawaiian should hold high office in the executive, legislative, or judicial branches of state or county government. Officials serve multiple years. No ethnic Hawaiian should be elected or appointed to high office so long as an Akaka bill might pass.

See a detailed webpage on this topic at
http://tinyurl.com/24ohwpw

On April 21 all 9 members of the City Council were present. They spent 29 minutes hearing testimony, cross-examining witnesses, and discussing the Akaka bill. Three YouTube videos capture the entire 29 minutes, and can be found at

http://tinyurl.com/35tvwyr

A resolution supporting the Akaka bill is scheduled for hearing before the full Honolulu City Council on Wednesday morning April 21. A previous news report provided the text of that resolution and details about how to submit written and/or oral testimony.
http://tinyurl.com/y3fls6l

A webpage contains the text of the resolution, oral and written testimony opposing it, and text of a proposed substitute resolution opposing the Akaka bill. See:
http://tinyurl.com/yevolmu

Here’s an essay in honour of St. Patrick’s Day

http://tinyurl.com/yaes57z

The essay explores two topics:

(1) King Kauikeaouli Kamehameha III chose St. Patrick’s Day for his “official” birthday, much as modern monarchs declare an official birthdate for national celebrations even though it is not their true date of birth. Details are provided about Kauikeaouli and the fact that nobody knew his actual birthdate.

(2) Kelly Slater and Greg Long, surfers from Florida and California, are Caucasians who won Hawaii’s most prestigious surfing competition, the Eddie Aikau, on the most recent two occasions when it was held, 2002 and 2009. The competition is held rarely, only when waves are at least 30 feet high at Waimea Bay. An article in “Irish America Magazine” published March 13, 2010 celebrates Irishmen who are leaders in the modern revival of surfing. But a resolution which passed the State of Hawaii House of Representatives last week, on the same day it was introduced and without testimony or hearings, singles out “Polynesian tribal surfers” as a class to be honored, while excluding all others who lack a drop of Hawaiian native blood. Sure and begorrah, the Irish lads deserve a mention; or else the leprechauns will take away the pot of gold at the end of all those Hawaiian rainbows.

The movie “Avatar” fits the pattern of the “White Messiah” syndrome. Both of those are clearly relevant to an understanding of the politics of the Hawaiian independence movement and also the Akaka bill. A webpage contains an analysis of those conceptual interconnections plus five published articles moving from a general description of concepts to a specific Hawaiian application of the movie’s viewpoint. The webpage is at
http://tinyurl.com/yk7a4tc

The article published in a California newspaper (The Sacramento Bee) actually relies on the plot of “Avatar” to explain “indigenous” Hawaiian opposition to the placement of telescopes on Mauna Kea. The article raises the question whether ethnic Hawaiian protesters and their allies might be justified in using violence to defend Hawaii’s environment and ethnic Hawaiian religious/cultural values, as the indigenous Na’vi and their Caucasian Earthling allies used violence to defeat the bulldozing of Pandora’s rainforest to harvest unobtainium to satisfy Earth’s needs.

Honolulu Advertiser, Sunday March 14, 2010, Letter to editor

I am a combat veteran from the Vietnam era, who served with the 1st Battalion, 502nd Infantry Regiment, in 1969. My active duty began as a reservist attached to the Hawai’i National Guard’s 29th Brigade in 1968. At that time, Neil Abercrombie was a demonstrator against us, calling us names that was truly not Hawai’i.

Abercrombie and I have huge differences of both moral and economic issues. We are on opposite sides on national defense, as he voted against the Patriot Act in 2002. He supports same-sex marriage and testified in support of civil unions. He supports abortion, where I believe that life begins at conception. He supported the comprehensive health care bill pending in Congress, destroying the best health care system in the world.

I could forgive him for our many differences except for one, the Akaka bill. He believes in the racial separation of Hawai’i’s people without allowing for a plebiscite. His position is not pono. Hawai’i was and is a blend of many races and cultures. Hawai’i is of one people and Abercrombie wants us to be separated by race.

Governor? I don’t think so.

Jimmy Kuroiwa
Honolulu

Rice v. Cayetano was the most important civil rights lawsuit in the history of the State of Hawaii. The February 23, 2000 U.S. Supreme Court decision spurred a decade of additional civil rights lawsuits seeking to abolish or desegregate Hawaii’s empire of government and private race-based programs. Racial separatists immediately sought protection for those programs through the Hawaiian Government Reorganization bill (Akaka bill) still being pushed in Congress ten years later.

The Rice decision abolished racial segregation in Hawaii elections. The state Constitution had said only ethnic Hawaiians could vote for trustees of the state government agency “Office of Hawaiian Affairs.” Thanks to the Rice decision all registered voters now have equal voting rights regardless of race. A followup federal lawsuit, Arakaki#1, further desegregated OHA by removing the racial restriction on candidacy for OHA trustees. Thanks to Arakaki#1 all registered voters now have equal rights to run as candidates for all state government offices regardless of race. In Summer 2000 Governor Ben Cayetano won a legal battle and ousted all nine OHA trustees, because they had been illegally elected. In November there were 96 candidates for the nine seats. At least a dozen OHA candidates had no Hawaiian native blood, and one of them won a seat on the board. There were numerous proposals for ways to dodge the Supreme Court decision by various methods, including bills in the Legislature that would have transfered the assets of OHA and DHHL to a private racially exclusionary trust fund.

The battle for civil rights in Hawaii gained huge momentum from the Rice decision, and continues today against entrenched opposition. Strong language in the Rice decision (see quotes below) emboldened civil rights activists to file several lawsuits during the following ten years, seeking to dismantle or desegregate Hawaii’s empire of powerful, wealthy race-based government and private institutions. But the lawsuits attacking government programs were dismissed for technical reasons focusing on “standing” and the “political question” doctrine. The lawsuits attacking the racially exclusionary admissions policy at Kamehameha Schools were settled by large payouts to plaintiffs before any precedent-setting decision could be handed down. Since none of these government or Kamehameha lawsuits was decided on the merits, all issues remain open to future litigation.

In the meantime Hawaii’s empire of race-based institutions has sought protection through the Akaka bill, which would authorize creation of a racially-exclusionary government resembling an Indian tribe that could enfold the race-based institutions under its jurisdiction. The bill has passed the U.S. House on two occasions, but failed on a cloture vote in the Senate due to opposition from the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and a public veto threat from President Bush. On the tenth anniversary of the Rice decision it’s still not clear whether the Akaka bill will be enacted into law, and whether it could survive eventual Supreme Court scrutiny.

For a detailed description and analysis of the Rice decision, and the legal and political battles it spawned throughout the past decade (including Arakaki#1, Barrett, Carroll, Arakaki#2, Kamehameha Schools, Kuroiwa, DHHL property tax, and Akaka bill) see a new webpage created to commemorate the tenth anniversary:
http://tinyurl.com/y8jaahg

For an explanation of the “big picture” in which the Rice decision and the Akaka bill are important brush strokes, see a 302-page book “Hawaiian Apartheid: Racial Separatism and Ethnic Nationalism in the Aloha State” at
http://tinyurl.com/2a9fqa