Why People Outside Hawai’i Should Oppose the Akaka Bill


(c) Copyright 2001 - 2005 Kenneth R. Conklin, Ph.D. All rights reserved


Legislation is proposed in Congress which threatens America's fundamental commitment to equality and unity. All persons are inherently equal, and should be treated equally under the law. Our country celebrates a great diversity of races, ethnic groups, and cultures -- each free to pursue its own proud heritage under the unity of a stable government that guarantees everyone will be treated fairly.

But in Hawai'i, radical members of one minority are asking Congress to create a separate sovereign political entity restricted to people of one race. The purpose is to defend racial entitlement programs by overturning a Supreme Court decision, and to permanently funnel billions of federal dollars into Hawai'i. The result would balkanize Hawai'i and would establish a precedent for similar action in other states. This bill creates a huge phony Indian tribe in a place where tribes never existed, thereby diverting money from real Indian tribes and circumventing the usual standards for tribal recognition.

The Native Hawaiian recognition bill passed the House unanimously in the 106th Congress in the year 2000 on a voice vote hidden among a group of non-controversial bills, and nearly passed the Senate by stealth on the last day of Congress in December when it was buried in the fine print of a major appropriations bill. In the 107th Congress the bill made it out of committee in both the House and Senate, but died without ever being called to the floor for a vote. Severe stealth maneuvers were attempted in December 2001 in the Senate, but failed when exposed to the light of day. In 2002 there was no significant action in either chamber. In the 108th Congress, 2003-2004, the bill also passed its committee in both chambers, but died. The 109th Congress, 2005-2006, is expected to see a major push to pass the bill, as Hawai’i’s (Republican!) Governor Lingle made it a campaign pledge to lobby personally for the bill in Washington, and all four of Hawai’i’s Senators and Representatives have vowed to make it a top priority. Millions of dollars have been set aside to lobby for the bill by the Office of Hawaiian Affairs and other large, wealthy ethnic Hawaiian institutions.

WHY ALL AMERICA SHOULD OPPOSE S.344 AND H.R.665, THE HAWAIIAN RECOGNITION BILL. A short summary of the most important arguments against the bill, and a lengthy set of “footnotes” leading to webpages explaining those points.
http://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/AkakaNationalSummary109Cong.html

Here are three basic reasons why U.S. citizens outside Hawai'i should oppose the Native Hawaiian recognition bill:

(A) A huge phony ethnic Hawaiian "tribe" (400,000 people) would compete against real Indian tribes for the lion's share of federal funding for Indian programs. So-called Native Hawaiians cannot satisfy the 7 mandatory requirements for federal recognition, and therefore seek an act of Congress to circumvent the customary recognition process. This would be unfair to hundreds of other Indian groups. A Congressional recognition that circumvents customary procedures also sets a precedent that makes it easier to recognize more (phony) tribes in the future, and comes at a time when many states and communities want to tighten recognition procedures to avoid getting more tribes in their midst.

(B) This bill worsens a recent trend toward the balkanization of America. It would give sovereign political status to a racial or ethnic group that is thoroughly assimilated, intermarried, and interspersed among the rest of the population. If the "one-drop" definition of "native" or "indigenous" being used in this bill for "Native Hawaiians" were applied elsewhere, many millions of people would be eligible to form sovereign political entities in other states. Anyone can assert "I deserve special treatment because some of my ancestors were treated badly."

(C) This bill violates due process and states' rights. It seeks to nullify the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Rice v. Cayetano, 120 S.Ct. 1044 (2000). This bill requires the federal government to initiate, finance, and carry out the creation of a new government within the State of Hawaii, without changing the Constitution of Hawaii and without the consent of the citizens of Hawaii. Greedy and powerful politicians in Hawai'i ignore the long-term social disaster of a proposed apartheid system, and ask Congress to impose a law that most people would oppose.

These three basic issues contain nine points in opposition to the Native Hawaiian recognition bill. The nine points are restated below, followed by a more detailed exposition of each one.

A1. Huge expenditures on a phony ethnic Hawaiian "tribe" (400,000 people) would compete against real Indian tribes for the lion's share of federal funding for Indian programs, and would siphon money from other worthy programs. A disclaimer in the bill, stating that Native Hawaiians cannot participate in BIA (Bureau of Indian Affairs) programs, will easily be changed in future legislation.

A2. So-called Native Hawaiians cannot satisfy the 7 mandatory requirements for federal recognition, and therefore seek an act of Congress to circumvent the customary recognition process. This would be unfair to hundreds of other Indian groups who have been denied recognition under those same requirements.

A3. A Congressional recognition that circumvents customary procedures also sets a precedent that makes it easier to recognize more (phony) tribes in the future, and comes at a time when many states and communities want to tighten recognition procedures to avoid getting more tribes in their midst, and to make recognition more rule-based and less politicized.

B1. This bill encourages and worsens a recent trend toward the balkanization of America. It would give sovereign political status to a racial or ethnic group that is thoroughly assimilated, intermarried, and interspersed among the rest of the population.

B2. If the "one-drop" definition of "native" or "indigenous" being used in this bill for "Native Hawaiians" were applied in other parts of the United States, and a similar procedure were established for federal recognition and tribal enrollment, many millions of people would be eligible to form sovereign political entities in other states. For example the Hawaiian bill would provide legal and political justification for the Chicano nationalist proposals of MEChA, advocating a secessionist Nation of Aztlan embracing California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas. Black nationalism and reparations for slavery would also be encouraged.

B3. Race-based political programs breed racial resentment among both the favored group and the disfavored groups. Anyone can assert "I deserve special treatment because some of my ancestors were treated badly."

C1. This bill is intended to overturn or circumvent the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Rice v. Cayetano, 120 S.Ct. 1044 (2000).

C2. This bill violates states' rights. What the federal government would do to Hawai'i under this bill could also be done to other states. This bill requires the federal government to initiate, assist, finance and carry out the creation of a new government within the State of Hawaii, without changing the Constitution of Hawaii and without the consent of the citizens of Hawaii.

C3. Hawai'i's Congressional delegation and political power structure support this bill because they expect it to establish a permanent funnel to send billions of federal dollars to Hawai'i. That's bad for people of other states. But equally bad is the fact that the people of Hawai'i are helpless in the face of greedy politicians who ignore the long-term social disaster of a proposed apartheid system that will produce a racial balkanization of Hawai'i. Statesmen from outside Hawai'i must help Hawai'i citizens. Many, perhaps most, Native Hawaiians themselves oppose this bill.


FURTHER EXPLANATIONS OF THE ABOVE POINTS

A1. Huge expenditures on a phony ethnic Hawaiian "tribe" (400,000 people) would compete against real Indian tribes for the lion's share of federal funding for Indian programs. This bill allows enrollment of anyone with even a single drop of native blood. On that definition Census 2000 shows there are about 400,000 so-called Native Hawaiians (anyone who checked that box on the Census form) -- 240,000 living in the State of Hawai'i, 60,000 in California, and another 100,000 living in the other 48 states. The number might become much larger if the recognition bill passes and people, realizing they might get federal benefits, suddenly start remembering that their great-great grandmother had Hawaiian blood. For details see:
http://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/population2000.html
The Hawaiian tribe would be about ten times the size of the largest Indian group currently seeking recognition (the 40,000-member Lumbees of North Carolina, who have been petitioning for recognition for over 100 years!). The "Native Hawaiian" tribe would be larger than any other genuine tribe (except, perhaps, for the Cherokee). The federal government would be taking responsibility not only for existing Native Hawaiian federal programs, but also for numerous racial entitlement programs foolishly enacted by the State of Hawai'i which are now coming under challenge in the courts under the 14th Amendment equal protection clause. Hawaiian activists, seeking to show that there is a government trust relationship with ethnic Hawaiians, gleefully say there are more than 160 racial entitlement programs currently in place. Both political parties in Hawai'i, and the economic power structure, ignore the racist and balkanizing effects of this bill because they favor establishing a permanent funnel to bring billions of federal dollars into Hawai'i. This bill is clearly intended to lay the groundwork for huge permanent future programs of federal aid to ethnic Hawaiians.

A2. So-called Native Hawaiians cannot satisfy the 7 mandatory requirements for federal recognition, and therefore seek an act of Congress to circumvent the customary recognition process. This would be unfair to hundreds of other Indian groups which have been waiting many years and spending large sums to seek federal recognition in compliance with the customary rules established by Congress and administered by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Why should a fake tribe be put at the head of the line? There is no way Hawaiians can satisfy such requirements as being a separate and distinct group of people apart from the surrounding population, and having a tribal government which exercises substantial authority over their affairs and has existed continuously since historical times. A few years ago Congress gave federal recognition to the Mashantucket Pequot tribe of Connecticut through a process which also circumvented customary procedures. Congress has been severely embarrassed by the revelations of lying and corruption involved in that situation, as documented in a "60 Minutes" CBS TV program and in the best-selling book by author Jeff Benedict entitled, "Without Reservation: The Making of America's Most Powerful Indian Tribe and the World's Largest Casino." Hawaiians are not an Indian tribe. There never has been a Hawaiian tribe. There was a Kingdom of Hawaii in the 19th Century. But, regardless of race, everyone born in the Kingdom of Hawaii was a citizen and everyone who came to Hawaii could become a naturalized citizen. When the United States annexed Hawaii in 1898, all citizens of Hawaii, regardless of race, became American citizens. Thus Native Hawaiians became U.S. citizens long before members of Indian tribes were granted citizenship.

A3. A Congressional recognition that circumvents customary procedures sets a precedent that makes it easier to recognize more (phony) tribes in the future, and comes at a time when many states and communities want to tighten recognition procedures to avoid getting more tribes in their midst, and to make recognition more rule-based and less politicized. Connecticut Senators Dodd and Lieberman, and Attorney General Blumenthal, oppose having more (phony) tribes recognized. Connecticut Attorney General Blumenthal’s letter of March 10, 2003 to Senator Inouye has excerpts provided here, making the point that recognition procedures need to be tightened, not loosened. A book review of Jeff Benedict’s book “Without Reservation,” documenting the previous corrupt Congressional recognition of a phony tribe in Connecticut, is also provided. Finally, a newspaper article describing an Indian Affairs Committee hearing on recognizing yet another tribe in Connecticut, provides evidence of nepotism and influence-peddling in the Congressional recognition process. See:
http://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/AkakaBlumenthalConnecticut.html

B1. This bill encourages and worsens a recent trend toward the balkanization of America. It would give sovereign political status to a racial or ethnic group that is thoroughly assimilated, intermarried, and interspersed among the rest of the population. Ethnic Hawaiians live in every neighborhood of Hawai'i (including the wealthiest ones), working, eating, and praying side by side with everyone else. All other ethnic groups participate in traditional Hawaiian activities that are completely racially integrated, such as dancing hula, restoring heiau (stone temples), gathering traditional materials and making lei (flower garlands), speaking Hawaiian language. Would Congress feel comfortable establishing a separate, sovereign political entity for African-Americans? Or Chinese-Americans? Hawaiian-Americans are far more thoroughly integrated into the rest of society than these other ethnic groups. What history has joined together, let not Congress rip asunder! Racial separatism written into law is a sorry chapter of America's history that deserves to remain behind us. This bill would give encouragement to other ethnic groups seeking special status or reparations. Instead of our national motto, E Pluribus Unum, we would have E Unum Pluribus. The bill begins a process that will undermine the union. It divides us. It would create many out of one. Don't let that happen. United we stand. Divided we fall.

B2. There are millions of U.S. citizens who have at least one ancestor from the indigenous peoples who populated the territory now known as the United States; but these U.S. citizens are not enrolled in Indian tribes because their blood quantum is too low or because the ancestor's tribe has been lost to history. For example, descendants of Aztec and Maya people are especially numerous in California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas. If the "one-drop" definition of "native" or "indigenous" being used in this bill for "Native Hawaiians" were applied in these other parts of the United States, and a similar procedure were established for federal recognition and tribal enrollment, many millions of people would be eligible to form sovereign political entities.

According to the Native American FAQs Handbook by George Russell, copyright 2000, page 44: There are approximately 2.4 million self-identified Native Americans but only 1.4 million are tribally enrolled. Anthropologists estimate there are 15 million people who have some discernable degree of Native American blood, and recent mitochindrial DNA studies suggest the number may be much larger than 15 million. If the Akaka bill is passed, it would set a precedent that only one drop of native blood is required for a group of alleged Indians to obtain federal assistance to create a tribal government where none has previously existed, and then to receive automatic federal recognition and enter negotiations with the federal and state governments for land, money, fishing and hunting rights, gambling casinos, etc.

The case of Texas is especially similar to Hawai'i. Texas, like Hawai'i, was once an independent nation whose land was subsequently engulfed by the United States and whose "Indian" population was not given any race-based separate political identity nor any oportunity for "self-determination" apart from the rest of the absorbed population. Under the logic of this bill, the U.S. could fund and enable the creation of a new government or multiple governments in Texas for any descendants of "aboriginal indigenous natives" who lived there at the time of European contact. Since no proof of an existing historical tribe would be needed, anyone with a drop of Indian blood, no matter how thoroughly that person is assimilated into the surrounding community and no matter how far removed from a tribe, could demand as much. Ditto for any other state. The hundreds of Indian groups who have been seeking recognition for years would now be home free. Is it wise to set a precedent like that? Do we really want hundreds, perhaps thousands of new sovereign governments sprinkled throughout the country, each immune from state regulations and taxes, competing with existing businesses who are subject to both?

The Hawaiian recognition bill seeks to pull a thoroughly integrated ethnic group out of society and create an ethnic nationalist government. The same arguments favoring an ethnic Hawaiian “nation” would also favor nationhood for Mexican-Americans, whose radical sovereignty groups MEChA and Nation of Aztlan are very active in California and the Southwest. The legal theory behind the Hawaiian recognition bill makes Hawaiian nationalism the thin edge of a knife poised to balkanize America and perhaps eventually dismember it. Hawaiian nationalism, Chicano nationalism, Black nationalism, and demands for reparations are destabilizing America. Passage of the Hawaiian Recognition bill would give legal and political support to all such radical movements. See:
http://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/AkakaHawnChicanoNatnl.html

B3. Race-based political programs breed racial resentment among both the favored group and the disfavored groups. Anyone can assert "I deserve special treatment because some of my ancestors were treated badly." If the government offers to pay extra for cheese, more people will go into the cheese business and the warehouses will soon be overflowing with cheese. If the government offers to pay for feelings of racial resentment, the community will soon be overflowing with racial resentment. If the government is going to give out special benefits (money, land or power) to a group defined by race (or ethnicity or ancestry) it is going to have to go into the business of defining racial purity. As in South Africa under apartheid or in Hawaii under the Native Hawaiian Recognition Bill, government commissions will have to police the racial boundaries to wall out claimants who don't "really" belong to the favored group. Money being the mother's milk of politics, such programs encourage political battles over racial definitions. Political benefits go not to the best representative of the community but to the best racial partisan. Such programs also encourage demands for more such programs, particularly if the favored group claims to be a victim of vast, unspecific, historical wrongs. This is one of the dangers of proposed reparations for slavery. Ethnic Hawaiians have no legitimate claim at all for reparations, but this Hawaiian Recognition bill, based in part on the 1993 Apology Bill, is clearly a commodification and marketing of grievance.

C1. This bill is intended to overturn or circumvent the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Rice v. Cayetano, 120 S.Ct. 1044 (2000). The Rice decision directly concerned only the right to vote without racial restriction in an election for trustees of a state government agency. However, in reaching its 7-2 decision, the Court explicitly ruled that "Native Hawaiian" is a racial definition and not a political one. In combination with other Supreme Court rulings (most notably, Adarand) the clear conclusion is that all race-based government programs for Native Hawaiians will eventually be ruled unconstitutional. Beneficiaries of such programs, and especially the bloated agencies of high-salaried bureaucracies that administer these programs, are lobbying Congress to pass this bill so that "Native Hawaiian" will be redefined as a political, or Indian, term and not a racial one. Congress can recognize an existing Indian tribe but it cannot convert an ethnic group into a tribe. See United States v. Sandoval, 231 U.S. 28, 46 (1913).

C2. This bill violates states' rights. What the federal government would do to Hawai'i under this bill could also be done to other states. This bill requires the federal government to initiate, assist, finance and carry out the creation of a new government within the State of Hawaii, without changing the Constitution of Hawaii and without the consent of the citizens of Hawaii. This bill requires the Federal government (in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment) to assist racially defined "Native Hawaiians" in creating a new separate government. A racially restricted election (in violation of the 15th Amendment and the Voting Rights Act) will then be held to elect the Native Hawaiian Interim Governing Council and then the organic governing documents for the new government will be developed. Then a referendum or plebiscite (probably also in violation of the 15th Amendment and VRA) will be held for approval of the new organic documents by those selected to vote by the racially elected Native Hawaiian Interim Governing Council. That new government will then be certified by the Secretary of the Interior and will automatically, without any further action by Congress, be recognized by the Federal government. The United States is then authorized, without any further approval of Congress, to negotiate with the State of Hawaii and the new Native Hawaiian government for the transfer of lands, resources and assets to the Native Hawaiian government. (Note: Unlike Indian reservations where title to the land is held by the United States, the bill would transfer the land and resources to the New Native Hawaiian government.) Think about it. Without any change in Hawaii's constitution; without the consent or approval by Hawaii's citizens; without even any further action by Congress, the State of Hawaii will be dismembered and some of its public lands, resources and assets will be given to a new government whose citizens will not be subject to Hawaii's laws, regulations and taxes except to the extent they agree (in return for. perhaps, a gaming license?). To accomplish this restructuring of the lives of those of us who call Hawaii home, the bill would make radical changes in settled law. Its impact would be far reaching and pave the way for adverse consequences not only in Hawaii but in virtually every other state.

C3. If one family member is abusing another family member who screams for help, neighbors should intervene to protect the victim. Hawai'i's Congressional delegation and political power structure support this bill because they expect it to establish a permanent funnel to send billions of federal dollars to Hawai'i. That's bad for people of other states. But equally bad is the fact that the people of Hawai'i are helpless in the face of greedy politicians who ignore the long-term social disaster of a proposed apartheid system that will produce a racial balkanization of Hawai'i. To avoid such a disaster we need the help of courageous political leaders outside Hawai'i who will stand up to our wayward Congressional delegation. This bill was hatched through a political process filled with stealth and deception (see
http://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/StealthDeception.html ).
Only ethnic Hawaiians favorable to the bill, plus a few hand-picked non-Hawaiian politicians, were allowed to participate in the drafting and redrafting of the bill. When hearings on the bill were held in Hawaii, most of the testimony from ethnic Hawaiians was against the bill. Many ethnic Hawaiians do not want to be classified as a kind of Indian tribe, subject to Congress' special power over Indian tribes. For Native Hawaiian opposition to the Native Hawaiian Recognition Bill, see:
http://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/AkakaKanakaOpposed.html
It would be unfair to other citizens who, in their lives and businesses, must comply with state civil, criminal, zoning, environmental, regulatory laws and pay state taxes and be subject to the jurisdiction of state courts while members of the newly created fake tribes, as citizens of quasi-sovereign governments, would be immune from those laws and taxes and court jurisdiction except to the extent that they consent. Only Hawai'i and Utah completely prohibit all forms of gambling. The people of Hawai'i are justifiably concerned that a federally recognized Indian tribe might be able to set up casinos on "tribal" land. Although Senator Inouye says that could never happen, Hawai'i citizens are uneasy about the enormous political contributions he has received from Indian tribe casino interests; also, Inouye's predictions about the benign effects of the "Apology bill" in 1993 have proved to be woefully wrong, as Hawaiian racial separatists have repeatedly used that misguided resolution of sentiment to demand massive reparations and total independence.

For full information about the Hawaiian sovereignty movement, and federal recognition for racially-defined Native Hawaiians, see http://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty

There are some additional points not mentioned above, which require a more detailed knowledge of Hawaiian history to understand. The U.S. doesn't owe anything to Native Hawaiians on account of the overthrow of the monarchy in 1893. If the U.S. nevertheless mistakenly thinks it owes reparations for the overthrow of the monarchy, any reparations would be owed to all descendants of the people living in the Kingdom prior to 1893. Native Hawaiians made up only 40% of the population at the time of the overthrow in 1893, 26% at the time of annexation in 1900, and perhaps 20% today. Polynesians may or may not have been the first humans to settle in Hawai'i. But Native Hawaiians are not indigenous to Hawai'i. The white people in England are more indigenous to England than the Native Hawaiians are indigenous to Hawai'i. Many so-called Native Hawaiians have very little native blood. And for all Native Hawaiians, 99% of the bones of their ancestors are buried elsewhere, outside Hawai'i. Self-determination is for all people, not just Native Hawaiians. It is wrong to allow a minority of a 20% minority to decide the fate of 100% of the people of Hawai'i. The so-called "trust relationship" is not between the U.S. and the race of Native Hawaiians, but between the U.S. and all the people of Hawai'i, as can be clearly seen in the Organic Act of annexation in 1900 and the Admission Act of statehood in1959. The points in this paragraph are more fully explained at http://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/OpposeAkakaBill/AkakaWrong.html

-------------------------

There are two major theories of what Hawaiian sovereignty or self-determination should look like. These theories and their advocates are often in conflict with each other and even within themselves. Both racial separatism and ethnic nationalism are characterized by the same underlying attitudes: hostility toward the United States and racism toward people who have no Hawaiian blood. Hawaiian racial separatism and ethnic nationalism are analyzed, and public statements illustrating the core attitudes common to both are provided at:
http://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/sepnatcommoncore.html

Following are excerpts of some additional writings of Native Hawaiians or supporters which are anti-American, or contain assertions that Hawai'i should become a nation independent of the United States with racial supremacy guaranteed by law for ethnic Hawaiians. The Native Hawaiian Recognition bill is paradoxically opposed and supported by such activists. There is opposition from activists who fear that the bill will place ethnic Hawaiians more firmly under the thumb of the United States. There is support from activists who see it as a form of reparations and a step along the path to future "liberation."

------------------

http://www.inmotionmagazine.com/akaka1.html *** excerpts ***

This article was delivered as testimony to the US Senate Committee on Indian Affairs and the US House Committee on Resources on the subject of US policy on the relationship of the United States to Native Hawaiians at a hearing on August 30, 2000, at Neal Blaisdell Center, Honolulu, Hawai'i, by Dr. Richard "Kekuni" Blaisdell

Our first reason for rejecting the Akaka Bill is that because of the bill's unstated racist purpose, we Känaka Maoli are being rushed into further US colonial subordination, rather than freedom and equality with the US and other nations, as the distinct Kanaka Maoli people and nation of our homeland Ka Pae'äina o Ka Moananui (The Hawaiian Archipelago). this proposed trust relationship is in itself racist, for under Federal Indian Control Law, it will thereby subjugate us Känaka Maoli as a people to permanent Federal wardship, in addition to State of Hawai'i wardship, as a "domestic dependent nation," under the "plenary power of Congress." We Känaka Maoli will be reduced from current second-class status to that of a third-class "quasi-sovereign" with a puppet government under the US Interior and Justice Departments.

Should this bill beome US law, the Kanaka Maoli sovereignty movement will be effectively destroyed. The US will be able to announce to the world family of nations that we Kanaka Maoli have freely chosen to become "Native Americans." This will be construed to mean that we Känaka Maoli have thereby directly relinquished our inherent sovereignty and right to self-determination.

A second, unstated purpose of the Akaka Bill is that the US will then be able to exercise undisputed jurisdiction and claim title over our homeland of Ka Pae'äina to assure US domination of the Pacific Basin and Rim.

Moreover, these Federally-funded programs are negligible compared to the resources rightfully due us colonized Känaka Maoli with the right to political equality, as a separate people and nation, under the UN Charter, Chapter XI, Article 73, pursuing decolonization, as provided by UN General Assembly Resolutions (UNGAR) 742, 1514, 1541 and 2625. (See below under VI. Recommendations.)

As recorded in the attached 1993 Kanaka Maoli Tribunal Mano'o Report, under these UN provisions, the colonizing US owes us Kanaka Maoli people and nation reparations for damages, return of our stolen national lands, payment of back-rent for US use of our lands and return of our jurisdiction over all of our Ka Pae'äina territory, as a start toward full restitution for more than 200 years of US wrongs committed against us, including 102 years of belligerent military occupation.

The second reason we reject the Akaka trust recognition bill is because it results from a top-down, anti-democratic process initiated and now rushed by the US Hawai'i congressional delegation/Native Hawaiian Task Force beginning in March 2000.

Since we Kanaka Maoli people did not initiate this process, we do not have full input in it, and we do not have final consent on the outcome, the process is a blatant violation of our inherent Kanaka Maoli sovereignty and right to self-determination.

The third reason for our rejection of the Akaka Bill is the content of the legislation, with a process for development of a unilaterally imposed, subordinate political structure for our Kanaka Maoli people and nation, that is racist and demeaning with numerous distortions, misrepresentations and contradictions.

major omissions:

- No reference is made to the Apology Resolution's 6th and 8th whereas clauses concerning the 1893 US's conspiracy, armed invasion and recognition of the unlawful usurpers' Provisional Government, "in violation of treaties between the two nations and international law."


---------------------

TESTIMONY TO THE UNITED STATES SENATE COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS AND THE UNITED STATES HOUSE COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES HAWAI'I SITE HEARINGS ON S. 2899 AND H.R. 4904, BILLS TO EXPRESS THE POLICY OF THE UNITED STATE REGARDING THE UNITED STATES' RELATIONSHIP WITH NATIVE HAWAIIANS

By Dr. Lilikala Kame'eleihiwa Director, Center for Hawaiian Studies, at the University of Hawai'i at Manoa August 30, 2000

*** Excerpts ***

I thank you for the opportunity to speak on this single most important piece of legislation to come before the American Congress since the overthrow of the Hawaiian government, the government of my grandmother, in 1893 by agents of the American military. I have found the latest draft of this legislation to be very carefully crafted and well thought out, and I can agree with much that has been written here. I agree with your analysis that given the dire needs of the Hawaiian people at this time, and the attacks from certain quarters on Hawaiian entitlements, it is critical that Federal recognition of the political relationship between the American government and the Hawaiian people be clarified and established.

And I thank you for your good work. I would, however, like to propose the following friendly amendments to the document regarding certain issues: As a result of America illegally taking control of the Kingdom of Hawai'i's Crown and Government lands, Hawaiians were denied their Native tenant rights, held from time immemorial, of access to those lands for the purposes of building homes, and for planting food. Denial of access to ancestral Hawaiian lands has caused great poverty among the Hawaiian people, as well as the highest rates of infant mortality, the shortest life expectancy, and the worst health and socio-economic statistics of any people in Hawai'i." It has also inculcated an institutional racism in Hawai'i's public schools so severe that Hawaiians have the highest drop out rate of any ethnicity in Hawai'i.

(iii) the United States and the State of Hawai'i shall segregate the National Trust Lands from other public and private lands; (iv) the United States and the State of Hawai'i shall allocate not less than two (2) million acres of land drawn from State-controlled Ceded lands, State-controlled Hawaiian Home Lands, and Federally controlled Lands to the National Land Trust; and

The Hawaiian Nation reserves the right to amend this legislation every year in order to properly effectuate the adopted Congressional policy and recognition."


---------------------------


From: noevilempire@earthling.net

Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000

To: exec@hawaii-nation.org

Subject: Provisional Government of Aztlan

Aloha!

Since 1848 when the Mexican government "signed" the "Treaty" of Guadalupe Hidalgo, the U.S. has been occupying the northern half of Mexico known as Aztlan. What makes this occupation as patently illegal as their current occupation of the Kingdom of Hawai'i, is the fact that the U.S. Army forces occupying Mexico City and other parts of Mexico had standing orders to overrun the rest of the country if the government refused to sign this "treaty". This is known in legal circles as BLACKMAIL-rendering the "agreement" entered into null and void! From California to Texas, millions of U.S. citizens are in fact residing on foreign soil. Millions of others, born and raised in this territory, think they are U.S. citizens, when in LEGAL reality, they are MEXICAN.

Many are aware of this situation and, tired of U.S. racism and economic exploitation on both sides of the FALSE BORDER( FRONTERA FALSA ), are struggling to end U.S. occupation of their land. A provisional government has been set up to address these issues: 1. Ending YanKKKee occupation and 2. Shall Aztlan be independent, or re-unify with Mexico?

Those who support independence argue that Mexico's current government is so dominated by the U.S. and its corporate interests, that it represents de facto TOTAL occupation of the ENTIRE COUNTRY by the U.S.-reunification will solve nothing. Those who support re-unification argue that while engaging in a process of transition toward re-unification, Aztlan will support the liberation of Mexico by the Zapatistas(EZLN), and other popular revolutionary movements. Once Mexico is liberated, the transition to re-unify Aztlan with the rest of Mexico will be completed.

With this background in mind, I hope the Kingdom of Hawai'i will support the Provisional Government of Aztlan (Revolutionary Council) in its efforts to end U.S. occupation, just as we would support the Kingdom of Hawai'i in its efforts to accomplish the same objective. We have a common enemy. We have a common struggle, for Aztlan and Mexico are also Indigenous nations( remember Mexico RE-GAINED its independence from Spain in 1821, after 300 years of colonial occupation by that country. Mexico as a nation was founded in 1325 by representatives of the Tenochca Mexica-"Aztecs"), which is why, as you will find, the representatives of our provisional government have names in the Indigenous Nahuatl language.

Here then, is the URL for the Revolutionary Council of the Provisional Government of Aztlan: http://www.serve.com/Aztlan/revgov.html. The e-mail address for Cuauhtli, Minister of Information is Cuauhtli@Aztlan.Org. We need to support each others efforts for International recognition and hopefully, establish mutual agreements, fair trade and SELF-DETERMINATION for both Aztlan and the Kingdom of Hawi'i.

Solidarity!,

S.J.A.


================================

You may now

SEE MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THE AKAKA BILL

or

GO BACK TO OTHER TOPICS ON THIS WEBSITE


(c) Copyright 2001 - 2005 Kenneth R. Conklin, Ph.D. All rights reserved


Email: ken_conklin@yahoo.com