Site hosted by Build your free website today!

Opposing the Akaka bill -- lecture notes by Ken Conklin. Church of the Crossroads, Sunday September 12, 2010. Unity and Equality vs. Racial Separatism -- Why the Akaka bill is historically, legally, and morally wrong; with bad consequences for all Hawaii's people including those with native ancestry.

A series of three 60-minute lecture/discussions were scheduled for the Church of the Crossroards in Honolulu on three successive Sundays in September 2010. The presentations were publicly announced ahead of time. I, Ken Conklin, was the speaker for September 12. My topic was: "Unity and Equality vs. Racial Separatism -- Why the Akaka bill is historically, legally, and morally wrong; with bad consequences for all Hawaii's people including those with native ancestry"

Being a retired professor, I'm accustomed to using lecture notes. I wanted to make the notes available to the audience, including internet webpage links that would provide more detailed explanations plus citations of source material. Since the notes ran longer than a single page, and not knowing how many people might attend, I made the notes available on a webpage and gave its URL to the audience.

Video of the entire 68-minute lecture/discussion was also made available through both and the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii. See, September 28, 2010
Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, September 28, 2010
The 68 minutes of video is broken into two parts and can be accessed directly as follows:
Ken Conklin's Akaka Bill Lecture Part 1 from Grassroot Institute on Vimeo.
41 minutes
Ken Conklin's Akaka Bill Lecture Part 2 from Grassroot Institute on Vimeo.
27 minutes

The quality of the sound on the above videos is less than perfect, because the video was created by a friend of Conklin's who recorded from the back of the room. There was also a professional staff from 'Olelo Public Access Television, and presumably their video will eventually be shown on television. If that video is available "on demand" a link to it will be posted here.


Outline (scroll down to see each section in detail)

1. Introduction

2. Practical effects of Akaka bill (10-year compilation of bill text, news reports, commentary; practical impossibility of repealing the bill to put humpty dumpty back together; no time limit for settlement; impossibility of final settlement because of interspersal of lands and special rights of ethnic Hawaiians to encroach through PASH, NAGPRA, and water rights; conflict of interest for any ethnic Hawaiian to serve as high government official due to decision-making authority in handing over government lands to his own blood brotherhood; bad effects on businesses and communities; clash of jurisdictions; could cost State government loss of $690 Million revenue per year; ethnic Hawaiians would suffer loss of democratic and constitutional rights. "Cone of uncertainly" of practical effects, comparable to predictions for path of hurricane.)

3. Historical issues, authoritative reports, legal documents (Morgan Report 1894; Native Hawaiians Study Commission 1983; apology resolution filled with falsehoods and distortions; U.S. Supreme Court 9-0 says ceded lands belong to State in fee simple absolute on behalf of all people regardless of race; photos of original letters by 20 heads of government in 1894-1895 formally recognizing Republic as rightful government, including Lili'uokalani's oath of loyalty; Treaty of Annexation 1898; Statehood vote 1959 results by district; attorney's point by point rebuttal of Akaka bill; U.S. Commission on Civil Rights letter to Congress in 2009 opposing Akaka bill; House Judiciary Subcommitte on the Constitution in 2005 called it unconstitutional)

4. Evidence that Hawaii's people, and commentators of national stature, oppose the Akaka bill (compilation of hundreds of major commentaries during 10 year period; roundup of evidence that Hawaii's people oppose Akaka bill, including telephone polls, newspaper polls, and 2009 Zogby poll)

5. Support unity, equality, aloha for all. Oppose racial separatism, ethnic nationalism, religious fascism (unity of Hawaii with U.S.A.; unity of Hawaii's people under a single sovereignty of the State of Hawaii; all people equal in eyes of God; all people should be treated equally under the law by their government; Kumulipo creation legend twisted by sovereignty activists into a justification for religious fascism claiming ethnic Hawaiians are children of the gods and brothers to the land in a family relationship relegating non-natives to second-class citizenship; 1840 "God hath made of one blood all races of people to well on this Earth in unity and blessedness."; Kingdom had multiracial full partnership but Akaka bill discards Caucasians and Asians as trash; "Asian Settler Colonialism"; sovereignty activists approve of model whereby ethnic Russians were expelled or lost civil rights in Baltic nations after Soviet Union collapsed; Letter to President Obama noting victory of integration over racial separatism in the Black civil rights movement, asking what would happen to America if a Nation of New Africa were created)



Aloha kakou. Pule (prayer).

Who is Ken Conklin?
Personal background:
Basic principles: Unity and Equality:
The Aloha Spirit and Kokokahi:
Book: "Hawaiian Apartheid: Racial Separatism and Ethnic Nationalism in the Aloha State" 27 copies in Hawaii Public library. Portions on internet, and link to order the book from publisher, at

Lecture notes for today's presentation are on the internet at the URL which I have printed on this sign, and also on these pieces of paper for your convenience. The notes include a large number of internet webpages which provide much greater detail than time would allow today, including documentation to prove historical and legal claims.

I'm setting aside 15 minutes at the end of today's presentation for questions and discussion, but would appreciate your cooperation in letting me express my views first, without breaking the train of thought.

First I'll briefly mention some of the noncontroversial clearcut practical difficulties of implementing the Akaka bill, and some of its straightforward simple injustices for Hawaii's people including ethnic Hawaiians. Then I'll delve into more complex historical, moral, and legal issues which are likely to be controversial and will raise topics which I'm sure people will want to discuss.



What is the Akaka bill? There have been five very different versions just in the last 17 months. The so-called Akaka/Lingle compromise, along with the version immediately before that which Lingle opposed, are at
A compilation of all significant news reports, commentaries, and text of all bills throughout 2009-2010, with links to the same information for the entire decade, is at

Once the Akaka bill passes, there is no doubt that a group of ethnic Hawaiians will get together and create the Akaka tribe. Even if the vast majority of ethnic Hawaiians DON'T like the whole idea, the minority who DO like the idea WILL create the tribe.

No quorum: minority who want tribe can create one; majority left out. Hawns are voting with their feet to oppose it. After 7 years and megabucks in ads including mainland, only about 1/4 of those eligible signed Kau Inoa. Coercion: join or lose benefits; lose protections of state and federal Constitutions; Kow-tow to tribal chiefs or lose benefits and maybe be expelled (mainland tribes expel dissidents to get bigger per capita payouts).

The tribe will then demand to take huge amounts of land, money, and jurisdictional authority away from the State of Hawaii for the exclusive benefit of tribal members. Since politicians regard ethnic Hawaiians as a monolithic voting bloc of 20% of Hawaii's people, easily able to swing any election, very few politicians will have the courage to stand up against the tribe to protect the 80% who are unorganized and incapable of resisting the tribe's demands.

As a practical matter the Akaka bill cannot be repealed, because you cannot really undo the dividing up of Hawaii's people and lands along racial lines. After Humpty Dumpty falls off the wall you cannot put him back together again. After Thelma and Louise drive off the cliff, they will never get back to the top. More to the point: Remember what happened after WW2 when the British pulled out of India and that nation divided along ethnic/religious lines resulting in Pakistan at war with India, and Bangladesh later also splitting off. Just try putting them back together now! Remember how Muslims and Hindus caught on the wrong side of the dividing line burned their houses rather than abandon them to the people with whom they were trading places; and then they slaughtered each other on the roads as one group traveled north while the other traveled south. Remember Bosnia, where Eastern Orthodox Serbs, Roman Catholic Croats, and Muslim Bosnians had been living together in integrated neighborhoods, sometimes intermarried just as in Hawaii -- until they started dividing up Bosnia into ethnic enclaves and doing ethnic cleansing. The Akaka bill is the first step on the road to such horrors. Despite assertions of peaceful intent, the sovereignty movement has a long history of violence from Kamehameha's ruthlessness in killing opponents, to Lili'uokalani's instigation of violence by Robert Wilcox in 1889 and 1895, to threats by today's supporters of the Akaka bill and/or independence. For the evidence see

Akaka bill has no time limit for final settlement of claims -- earlier versions had a time limit of 20 years, but no more. The tribe, and what's left of the State of Hawaii, can file lawsuits against each other forever into the future, over current and historical grievances. Bitterness and hatred will grow.

In fact, it would be impossible to ever have a final settlement, because of jurisdictional spillover of two kinds: (1) The lands of the Akaka tribe vs. the lands of private citizens and of the remaining State of Hawaii would be so thoroughly interspersed that there would be constant jurisdictional clashes of the sort that next-door neighbors face when one plays music so loud it disturbs the other, or a tree inside the yard of one house has branches overhanging the fenceline and dropping debris in the neighbor's yard; and (2) There are numerous laws and customs that would allow ethnic Hawaiians to trespass onto non-tribal lands or make demands on how non-tribal lands are used -- for example: gathering rights and shoreline access (PASH), NAGPRA issues related to ancient burials and artifacts, water diversion for taro farming or stream-flow maintenance under the public trust doctrine, etc. For example, it is inconceivable that any final settlement would allow ancient bones found on non-tribal lands to be dug up and discarded without consulting the tribe. For an extended analysis of item (2) see "How Hawaiian racial entitlements take away rights from private and government landowners in ways unique among the 50 states" at

One example of the profound divisiveness of the Akaka bill is the deep and pervasive conflict of interest faced by any high government official of the state or county governments who is also an ethnic Hawaiian. Executives, legislators, or judges will have decision-making authority as officers of the existing government when it comes time to divide up the lands, resources, and jurisdictional authority of Hawaii between the Akaka tribe and the State of Hawaii. Ethnic Hawaiians who exercise government authority would be in the position of taking resources owned by all of us and giving those resources to themselves and their blood brotherhood based on nothing but race. The divisiveness and far-reaching consequences of the Akaka bill are explored in the 302-page book "Hawaiian Apartheid: Racial Separatism and Ethnic Nationalism in the Aloha State" at
There is at least an ethical duty, and perhaps a legally enforceable obligation, for any ethnic Hawaiian who is a federal, state, or county government official to recuse himself from (i.e., step away and not participate in) any voting or decision-making related to supporting the Akaka bill, or especially implementing the bill after it passes. Ethnic Hawaiians in such high positions would need to recuse themselves so frequently, from so many matters, that it behooves ethnic Hawaiians not to run for office, or to resign from office if already in place. But since they are not likely to do that, it is unfortunately necessary for the rest of us to do it for them -- to discriminate against them by never voting for or appointing ethnic Hawaiians to such high-level positions in the first place. For a deeper analysis of this terrible consequence of the Akaka bill, see the webpage at

Disastrous effects of Akaka bill on Hawaii businesses and communities. Some of those effects are described here, including a compilation of articles by business owners and property owners in areas of the U.S. mainland impacted by tribes, such as upstate New York.
Tribes in California have used numerous legal maneuvers to avoid lawsuits on grounds of sovereign immunity, and have been successful in getting huge concessions from state and local governments who must pay enormous infrastructure costs even though the tribes avoid the taxes that would pay for them. The article cited here is focused on gambling casinos; but the concepts are relevant to all issues.
See also the "Real Stories" section of the website of the Citizens Equal Rights Alliance

Clash of jurisdiction; police, courts, zoning, taxation. Indian Child Welfare Act. As tribal member, how would you like to be getting a divorce and have your child custody and property division decided by tribal chiefs like Rowena Akana or John "babyface" Waihee IV?

Crime is rampant on reservations due to jurisdictional problems. Hawaii has a checkerboard scattering of tribal lands. Impossible to make any final global settlement because of "sacred places", burials, water, shoreline access.

"Neighbors Living Under Different Laws -- Example of State Sex Offender Registry" (How Minnesota court decision would apply here. If a registered child molester decides to move to the Waimanalo Hawaiian Homestead he would then be outside state jurisdiction and could get away with not registering his new address, even though he now lives conveniently close to Blanche Pope elementary school. Actual names, addresses, and property values where registered sex offenders lived in the Waimanalo homestead in 2005):

Beacon Hill Institute economics study says "state tax and lease revenues would fall by $342.8 million to $689.7 million. The burden of replacing this lost revenue would fall on all tax-paying Hawaiians through higher excise and income taxes."

OHA and people who favor the Akaka bill like to say that there's nothing in the Akaka bill that divides Hawaii's land; nothing that creates jurisdictional conflict. They are correct -- the bill itself does not automatically result in these things happening. But the bill does very clearly identify the division of land and jurisdictional authority as things the Akaka tribe will be empowered to negotiate with the state and federal governments; and the bill sets up a process that will surely lead to major consequences. All the things I'm describing as the practical consequences of the Akaka bill have actually happened on the mainland as Indian tribes have clashed with states and local communities.

CONE OF UNCERTAINTY: When a hurricane is on the rampage, forecasters predict its path as a "cone of uncertainty." For the next few hours the hurricane's path will almost definitely be within a narrow band whose width is perhaps 25 miles. But longer into the future, it gets harder to predict which way it will veer, and how fast it will travel. So the width of the band widens. Two or three days in the future the hurricane might be anywhere within a band several hundred miles wide. It takes several days for communities to prepare for the possibility the hurricane will make a direct hit on them. Thus, millions of people along a thousand miles of coastline feel terrorized; begin boarding up their windows and stocking up on food, water, batteries, etc.; and might pack up their valuables and head for higher ground away from the coast. The Akaka bill is like a category 5 hurricane in the effects it will have on Hawaii's lands, people, communities, institutions, social structure, legal system, etc. There's a cone of uncertainty regarding exactly which people, which communities, etc. will be impacted most severely. But there's no doubt the effects will be devastating. Every metaphor has its limits. Unlike a hurricane whose threat lasts only a few days, the Akaka bill will terrorize Hawaii for many years. And unlike a hurricane which people can run away from, there's no way to escape the effects of the Akaka bill.

The loss of democratic and constitutional rights that ethnic Hawaiians would suffer if the Akaka bill passes -- the impact would be felt by those Hawaiians who join the tribe, and to a lesser extent by those who do not join it. Benefits now being given to individuals from federal or state Hawaiians-only programs will henceforth get benefits only from the tribal council -- fed and state give goodies to the tribe, whose chiefs then pass them out to the members. Non-members get nothing unless they join the tribe. Members who are buddies with the chiefs get favored treatment. Cannot file a lawsuit or appeal to fed or state courts -- sovereignty means the tribal court rules.



What Does the United States Owe to Native Hawaiians? Two reports commissioned by Congress contain the answers, which are directly applicable to the Akaka bill. U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs 808-page (Morgan) report in February 1894 includes 2 months of testimony under oath in open session under cross examination, repudiating the Blount Report. Native Hawaiians Study Commission report (1983), following two years of testimony and data-gathering, concluded that there is no historical, legal, or moral basis for political autonomy or racially exclusive government benefits for ethnic Hawaiians, although social and medical problems make it important to do outreach programs to be sure they are offered the benefits available to all Americans. See summaries and links to both reports:

Apology resolution is heavily cited in both the Akaka bill and the independence movement. But it is filled with historical inaccuracies:

Constitutional scholar-attorney Bruce Fein's booklet "Hawaii Divided Against Itself Cannot Stand" -- about half of it is a point by point refutation of the apology resolution.

Apology reso has no bearing on Hawaii ceded lands; ceded lands belong to State of Hawaii in fee simple absolute on behalf of all people regardless of race. The U.S. Supreme Court 9-0 ruling in March 2009 made that clear. A webpage includes major legal briefs, court rulings at all stages along the way, and a compilation of news reports and commentaries.

Apology reso and annexation reso are both legally binding but have vastly different effectiveness due to "now therefore" clauses: comparison at

Photos of the original letters from 1894-1895 formally recognizing the Republic as rightful government, de jure, personally signed by heads of 20 nations on 4 continents in 11 languages (including Liliuokalani's oath of loyalty to the Republic).

Yes there is a Treaty of Annexation; read it at

Essay: "Hawaii Statehood -- straightening out the history-twisters. A historical narrative defending the legitimacy of the revolution of 1893, the annexation of 1898, and the statehood vote of 1959." Heavy documentation.

Attorney Paul M. Sullivan 65-page "Killing Aloha", a point-by-point rebuttal to the Akaka bill, with cartoons by Daryl Cagle.

Ryan William Nohea Garcia 78-page scholarly article in current issue of Asian-Pacific Law & Policy Journal says Akaka bill likely to fail in the courts because it tries to convert an ethnic group into a political entity despite the multiracial character of the Kingdom of Hawaii.

U.S. Commission on Civil rights letter to Congress opposing the Akaka bill (by 6-2 vote), on official letterhead, dated August 28, 2009, with signatures. The letter cites Hawaii's history as a multiracial nation with full equality, including the kokokahi sentence of the Constitution of 1840.

Akaka bill hearing before the U.S. House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, in Washington D.C., on Tuesday July 19, 2005. Audio files of testimony, written statements of witnesses, news reports. Chairman's conclusion: "Race alone does not and should not be the basis for creating a sovereign entity. It is the antithesis of our form of government and contrary to the principles on which this country was founded. ... America should not be a place where governments are defined by race or ancestry or the color of one's skin. And, it should not be a place neighbors, who may have lived next to each other for decades, are suddenly subject to two different civil and criminal standards because of race."

OHA and other pushers of the Akaka bill constantly spew the propaganda that there are only 3 groups of U.S. indigenous people: Native Americans, Native Alaskans, and Native Hawaiians. And of course the Native Hawaiians are horribly victimized by being the only indigenous group that lacks federal recognition. Wrong! There are more than 560 federally recognized tribes, each unique and distinct. Some had wars against others. If U.S. actually recognized "Native Americans" or "indigenous people" there would be only one huge Indian tribe with several million members. Note that most Americans who are racially Indian do not belong to any tribe and would not be eligible to join one. Also, many people living on tribal reservations are not racially Indian. Also, there are hundreds of Indian groups seeking federal recognition, including many who have been refused recognition or had previous recognition rescinded.

U.S. Federally Non-Recognized Tribes: 226 federally non-recognized tribes are listed here. Updated 06/18/08. "Federally Non-Recognized Tribe" is defined as a formally organized entity that has: A. Applied for federal recognition and is not yet approved; or B. Previously recognized and recognition was rescinded; or C. Applied for federal recognition and was rejected.

Also: "State recognized tribes" are Native American Indian Tribes and Heritage Groups that are recognized by individual states for their various internal government purposes. "State recognition" confers limited benefits under federal law and is not the same as federal recognition, which is the federal government's acknowledgment of a tribe as a sovereign nation. However, in some states, state recognition has offered some protection of autonomy for tribes not recognized by the federal government. For example, in Connecticut, state law protects reservations and limited self-government rights for state-recognized tribes. See a heavily footnoted list of state recognized tribes which includes details of each group's quest for recognition.



Hundreds of major articles have been published opposing the Akaka bill during the ten years it has been in Congress. Many of these commentaries are in publications with nationwide readership. An index lists all of them from 2000 to 2010, in chronological order, with links to the full text of each one:

Roundup of evidence from 2000 to 2006 showing that most Hawaii people, including most ethnic Hawaiians, oppose the Akaka bill. Includes text of questions and results of two telephone polls by Grassroot Institute of Hawaii which called every landline in Hawaii listed in the telephone directory; plus newspaper polls, eyewitness journalist report on Honolulu hearing in 2000, surveys asking people to rank the priority they attach to solving various social problems, etc.

OHA has paid for biased polls to to claim people support Akaka bill -- questions like Should Hawaii's indigenous people enjoy the same recognition given to America's other indigenous people? (Well, duh!) But professional, high-reputation ZOGBY POLL in December 2009 showed the majority of Hawaii's people oppose Akaka bill and even larger majority want local hearings and ballot referendum.



In the media we have been told for a decade that there is urgency in resolving the issue of Hawaiian sovereignty. But the media usually offer only two choices: The Akaka bill vs. total independence. That's a false choice. The vast majority of Hawaii's people -- a silent majority -- favor the Aloha choice embracing unity, equality, and aloha for all. This is NOT the status-quo, where we have over 160 federally funded racially exclusionary programs to benefit ethnic Hawaiians, plus hundreds more state and private programs.

Essay: "Three Choices For Hawai'i's Future: Akaka Bill vs. Independence vs. Unity and Equality"

Unity: (a) Unity of Hawaii with U.S.A.; and (b) unity of Hawaii's people under a single sovereignty of the State of Hawaii.

Equality: (a) We are all equal in the eyes of God; and (b) We should all be treated equally under the law by our government, regardless of race. Both the racial separatists (Akaka bill) and the ethnic nationalists (independence movement) disagree with both (a) and (b).

Kumulipo creation legend is deliberately twisted to produce a justification for the claim that ethnic Hawaiians are children of the gods and brothers to the land in a way nobody can be who lacks a drop of the magic blood. This is a justification for a race-based government in which ethnic Hawaiians are entitled to racial supremacy in Hawaii. It is a core belief and strategy of both the Akaka bill supporters and the independence activists to use the term "indigenous" as a buzzword slogan for this distortion of Kumulipo as justification for religious fascism. Establishment of religion is prohibited under the Constitution. It's a pathway to the horrors of Bosnia, Rwanda, Zimbabwe, Darfur, etc. Native Hawaiian writer and historian David Malo made it clear that Kumulipo is a creation story of the origin of all mankind, not merely ethnic Hawaiians.

Say it again: Both the supporters of the Akaka bill and supporters of independence believe that people are NOT equal in the eyes of God(s). They believe that only ethnic Hawaiians have a sacred genealogical family relationship with the gods and with the 'aina. This justifies racial supremacy and 2 levels of citizenship. Those who lack a drop of the magic blood have only second-class citizenship as guests in the ancestral homeland of ethnic Hawaiians; property ownership restricted to certain areas and voting rights limited to certain topics.

For more details about the perversion of the Kumulipo creation legend by sovereignty activists to support Hawaiian religious fascism (including examples of actual assertions of this religious belief during political activity) see webpage "THE USE OF HAWAIIAN RELIGION TO CLAIM THAT PEOPLE WITH HAWAIIAN ANCESTRY HAVE AN INHERENT, INALIENABLE RIGHT TO CONTROL THE LAND AND THE GOVERNMENT" at

Hawaiian Kingdom was multiracial in its creation. Without John Young and British armaments Kamehameha could not have created unified Kingdom. That's why Kamehameha named him Governor of Kamehameha's own home island (Hawaii Island) and gave him a house right next to the great heiau Pu'ukohola. That's why John Young's tomb is in Mauna Ala (Royal Mausoleum) and resembles a miniature heiau and guarded by pair of pulo'ulo'u (sacred taboo sticks). His bones are the oldest in Mauna Ala. Son Keoni Ana (John Jr.) was Kuhina Nui of Kingdom. There are only two signatures on the second Constitution (1852): "Kamehameha Rex" (King Kamehameha III) and "Keoni Ana". John Young's granddaughter was Queen Emma, wife of Alexander Liholiho Kamehameha IV and candidate for monarch against Kalakaua in the election of 1874 following the death of King Lunalilo.

Hawaiian Kingdom government was multiracial throughout its history. Most department heads were Caucasians; also most cabinet ministers, and 1/4 to 1/3 of all Legislators (both Representatives and Nobles, both elected and appointed). Anyone born or naturalized in Hawaii was a subject of the Kingdom with full rights equal to the natives. Over a thousand Asians became naturalized. The first sentence of the first Constitution of the Kingdom (1840) says "God hath made of one blood all races of people to well on this Earth in unity and blessedness." See essay: "The Aloha Spirit" (and Kokokahi) at

Akaka bill supporters say that shows Hawaiians were so inclusive, warm and generous, and now we're holding it against them as they try to revive a native government. But no. This is about a Kingdom that could not have been created and would not have thrived without non-natives as full partners. Caucasians and Asians were necessary full partners in the Kingdom, but now the racist Akaka bill wants to throw them away like trash. There was no "native government" for the Akaka bill to "reorganize."

Independence movement correctly describes Hawaiian Kingdom as multiracial to oppose Akaka bill and to portray themselves as seeking a multiracial independent nation. But in reality the independence activists seek to use claims of special "indigenous rights" and the ancient Hawaiian religion to justify a 2-tier citizenship where only ethnic Hawaiians would have full voting rights and full property rights while anyone lacking a drop of the magic blood would be merely a second-class citizen with the right to own property only in limited areas and the right to vote only on certain limited topics.

The book "Asian Settler Colonialism" illustrates this by portraying Hawaii's people of Japanese, Chinese, Filipino, etc. ancestry, even after multiple generations in Hawaii, as being foreign "settlers" just like the haoles. The book says that by remaining silent and enjoying their prosperity in Hawaii the Asians are accomplices to the oppression of the natives under a belligerent military occupation and a Caucasian oligarchy. The book grievously insults Hawaii's Asians by demanding they give up their hard-won equal rights to subordinate themselves to ethnic Hawaiians in an effort to throw off the yoke of American imperialism. See essay-length book review:

An illustration of what might happen to Asian and Caucasian "settlers" in Hawaii if the independence movement were successful can be found in what has happened in the Baltic nations (Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia) following the breakup of the Soviet Union. All three countries had large numbers of ethnic Russians who were born there and whose families had lived there for multiple generations during the 50-year period of Russian occupation. There was considerable resentment -- even hatred -- toward them. Each newly liberated nation developed different policies on how to treat its ethnic Russians. Some of the policies seriously considered and/or implemented included: deporting recent immigrants; stripping even long-term immigrants or multiple-generation ethnic Russians of their citizenship in the land where they were born and raised; allowing them to remain as resident aliens; allowing them to become full-fledged citizens with voting rights only after mastering the local language and passing a test on the history of the nation (from a biased perspective); forcing them to sell houses and lands after a transitional period; etc. Many Hawaiian independence activists think such scenarios would be appropriate for what should happen to Caucasians and Asians in Hawaii after the U.S. is kicked out. One such activist wrote his Ph.D. dissertation in 2009 on this topic, describing in detail the history of Russian occupation and curent policies toward ethnic Russians in each of the three Baltic nations. These ideas should be deeply worrisome to Hawaii's Caucasians and Asians who think Hawaiian independence is a lovely, benign concept.

Whose land is it? 'Olelo No'eau: "He ali'i ka 'aina, he kauwa ke kanaka" Land is chief, people are its humble servants. The 'aina has been here for millions of years; people have been here for less than 2,000 years. It is disrespectful for the servants to quarrel among themselves over who should control their master.

Balnakization; Aztlan; Black nationalism:

Letter to President Obama reminding him of his Berlin speech "Tear down walls that divide us ... walls between races and tribes; natives and immigrants ..."; Reminder of Black struggle for equality (hooray: separatists lost, integrationists won). In 2009 both the Senate and the House passed resolutions apologizing to African-Americans for slavery. The apology resolution of 1993 to Native Hawaiians is a primary justification in the Akaka bill for "reorganizing" a "Native Hawaiian" government. If that logic were followed, then the apology resolutions for slavery would seem to justify creating a Nation of New Africa. Only 13% of America's people have any degree of African ancestry, whereas 20% of Hawaii's people have any degree of Hawaiian ancestry; so imagine creating a Nation of New Africa inside U.S., and then raise the impact by 50% to imagine the effect of the Akaka bill in Hawaii. The letter to President Obama about the Akaka bill is at


Send comments or questions to:

You may now


(c) Copyright 2010 Kenneth R. Conklin, Ph.D. All rights reserved