Posted below is an original, full-length essay submitted for publication to the Honolulu Advertiser newspaper. (A correction to population percentages has been made.) A shortened version was actually printed in the newspaper, under a headline which we did not write and which does not express our views, and accompanied by inflammatory photographs from the overthrow of 1893. For further details of the mis-publication of this essay, see the note at the end.
LET'S HAVE A REAL SECOND DIALOGUE
(c) Copyright 2000 H. William Burgess, Kenneth R. Conklin, and Sandra Puanani Burgess All Rights Reserved.
The Focus article "Let's open a second dialogue" in last Sunday's Advertiser
(12/26/99) is based on a false premise, would demote
80% of Hawaii's
citizens to second-class status and makes it sound
like that is a done deal.
If the authors of the article have their way, about 1
million of us and our
descendants will become, even more than now, like
serfs (or maka'ainana) to
support the hereditary elite consisting of anyone with
at least one drop of
Hawaiian blood.
The false premise is in the 4th paragraph on page B4
where the issue of
sovereignty is framed as "the theft of a race of
people's land and rights".
That statement has no historical or factual basis.
The Hawaiian "race" did not own the Kingdom's lands
and no theft of any land
or rights to land occurred. In 1893, at the time of
the overthrow,
Hawaiians made up only about 40% of the population.
60% of the people then
living in the Kingdom had not even one drop of native
blood. Persons of
other ancestry born in Hawaii and naturalized
foreigners had the same
rights, privileges and immunities as natives. The
Queen, like the Kings who
preceded her, held the public lands for the benefit of
all subjects, not
just for those of Hawaiian ancestry. The provisional
government, the
Republic and each succeeding government to this day
has continued to hold
the public lands for the benefit of all citizens
without regard to race.
Hawaiians living in Hawaii today have the same rights
with respect to the
public lands as they always had, no more and no less
than any other
citizens.
With respect and aloha for our Hawaiian neighbors and
friends and for the
authors of the article, we think the real dialogue
should be about whether
the activists' claims have any historical, moral or
legal validity at all.
We propose to look first at the racial divide that now
exists in Hawaii and
then examine, one by one, the "justifications"
advanced in the article for
making the wall between us permanent, higher and
wider.
THE EXISTING RACIAL DIVIDE
Unnoticed by the national public and even by many
Hawaii residents,
especially during the last 21 years since OHA was
created in 1978, Hawaii
has quietly become the only state in the nation that
divides its citizens
into two classes based on race. The wall dividing us
has been built by both
the federal and state political establishments and
extends far beyond
"affirmative action" programs such as minority
set-asides or hiring quotas
or school admission standards.
Those on the "Hawaiian" side of the wall receive the
exclusive use of about
200,000 acres of the state's public lands, plus all of
the net income and
proceeds from the rest of the public lands, plus more
than $30 million
borrowed every year by issuing State bonds (which
saddle the State's
taxpayers and their children and grandchildren years
into the future to
repay the principal and interest) and a multitude of
other state and federal
programs that provide health, housing, education and
other benefits
exclusively to those of Hawaiian ancestry. OHA now
holds cash and
investments of about $350 million and is demanding
about $1 billion more for
"back" payments for the 11 year period from 1980 -
1991.
In addition, those on the Hawaiian side of the wall
continue to share fully
in the use of public schools, parks, fire and police
protection and other
governmental facilities and services. Still not
satisfied, speaker after
speaker demanded at the just concluded
"reconciliation" hearings that
"their" nation be restored, all of the public lands be
turned over to them
and that the U.S. pack up and leave, and, by the way,
leave them trillions
of dollars for rent for using "their" lands for the
last 107 years.
On the other side of the wall are the rest of Hawaii's
citizens, the about 1
million people of Haole, Japanese, Filipino, Chinese,
African American,
Latino, American Indian and other ancestries, who are
given the privilege
of working to support the hereditary elite.
Now, let's look at the assumptions and arguments
offered to support this
government sponsored racial division and its proposed
expansion.
SOME FORM OF SOVEREIGNTY AND REPARATIONS NOT AN ISSUE ANY MORE?
The Focus article starts, "Hawaii will have some form
of sovereignty...this
is not an issue any more." Later the authors describe
as "not really a
matter of debate" that, "Those of Hawaiian blood have
reparations or
entitlements coming their way as a result of wrongs
done to themselves and
their ancestors."
Whoa! Stop right there gentlemen. You missed the
constitution. Remember
the 14th Amendment? No State shall deny to any
person within its
jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. And
the case law? Any
governmental attempt to give special treatment based
on race or ancestry or
blood is presumptively invalid. "My ancestors got
here before your
ancestors" has never passed strict scrutiny.
Sovereignty, entitlements, reparations and OHA all
violate the constitution
and are very much in issue. Check the briefs in Rice
v. Cayetano now
pending in the U.S. Supreme Court. Check the amicus
brief in OHA v. State
now pending in the Hawaii Supreme Court. Here's the
way U.S. Supreme Court
Justice Scalia puts it:
"Individuals who have been wronged by unlawful racial
discrimination should
be made whole; but under our Constitution there can be
no such thing as
either a creditor or a debtor race. That concept is
alien to the
Constitution's focus upon the individual, see Amdt.
14, 1 ("[N]or shall any
State . . . deny to any person" the equal protection
of the laws) (emphasis
added), and its rejection of dispositions based on
race, see Amdt. 15, 1
(prohibiting abridgment of the right to vote "on
account of race") or based
on blood, see Art. III, 3 ("[N]o Attainder of Treason
shall work Corruption
of Blood"); Art. I, 9 ("No Title of Nobility shall be
granted by the United
States"). To pursue the concept of racial entitlement -even for
the most admirable and
benign of purposes - is to reinforce and preserve for
future mischief the
way of thinking that produced race slavery, race
privilege and race hatred.
In the eyes of government, we are just one race here.
It is American."
"A NATION, LAND AND ALL, WAS STOLEN"?
Was a nation stolen from the Hawaiian people? If we
were to pretend that
the Republic of Hawaii was not the internationally
recognized government of
Hawaii and that it had not governed Hawaii for five
years before annexation
and that the Republic of Hawaii and the United States
had not agreed to and
completely carried out the annexation of Hawaii and if
we disregard the 101
years that have passed and the blood, sweat and tears
of the people who have
made Hawaii their home since then and if it were
possible to turn back the
clock and restore the Kingdom, then, by any standard,
it should be restored
to all the subjects of the Kingdom, not to a select
few whose ancestors
in1893 made up only about 40% of the population.
The "nation" proposed by the activists is one where
the political power is
held exclusively by those of Hawaiian ancestry and
public lands are held
exclusively for them. That is the nation they want to
be "restored" to
them. However, such a unified nation of Hawaii has
never existed.
By 1893, the year of the overthrow, the Hawaiian
monarch, like the Queen of
England today, reigned but did not rule. The
political power was held by
multi-ethnic leaders presiding over a multi-ethnic
population in which,
like Hawaii today, no ethnic or racial group was in
the majority.
Hawaiians, like the members of each of the other
groups, were in the
minority. The constitutions promulgated by Kamehameha
III and subsequent
monarchs gave naturalized subjects all the rights,
privileges and immunities
of natives.
The Kingdom of Hawaii was itself established in part
due to aid given to
Kamehameha by westerners whom Kamehameha rewarded by
making them
high-ranking chiefs and advisors in his government and
by giving them large
tracts of land. One of them, John Young, was to later
have a granddaughter
who became Queen Emma. Since 1810, when the Kingdom
encompassing all the
Hawaiian islands was first established, control of the
public land was never
reserved exclusively for those of Hawaiian ancestry
and that ancestry alone
gave persons no added rights, privileges or
immunities.
How can we "restore" a nation which never existed?
Why would we want to
create a new sovereign entity of any kind whose
guiding principle is
Apartheid?
Were lands stolen from the Hawaiian people? Certainly
not. Neither the
overthrow nor Annexation made any change in private
land ownership. Although
some Hawaiians claim the ceded lands (i.e.,
substantially all the public
lands of Hawaii) were, are or should be "theirs",
those claims don't hold
water. Two federal studies have found that.
In 1983, the Native Hawaiians Study Commission
examined the claims of
Hawaiians to ceded lands. In a thorough and detailed
analysis, the majority
concluded that there was no valid basis for these
claims.
Twelve years later, the issue came up again when
federal officials prepared
an environmental impact statement for new usage of
Bellows Air Station. The
EIS, prepared without reference to the 1983 study,
nevertheless came to the
same conclusion as the earlier work: that Hawaiians do
not have and never
had special rights to ceded lands different from the
rights of other
subjects of the Kingdom of Hawaii or citizens of
successor governments.
These two studies were the products of fact-finding
investigations, unlike
the 1993 "Apology Resolution" which was passed without
public hearings,
evidence-taking or investigation, as a courtesy to
Hawaii's Congressional
delegation and upon the assurance of Hawaii's senior
Senator that it was
"just an apology".
Congress, although it has great power, cannot change
historical fact. The
historical fact is that the ceded lands were not
"stolen" from the Hawaiian
people or taken from them without compensation. Under
the Kingdom of Hawaii
and every government of Hawaii since then, the lands
referred to as "ceded
lands" were, and still are, public lands held for the
benefit of all
Hawaii's citizens without regard to race or ancestry.
See http://aloha4all.org
HAWAIIANS EXCLUDED? LACK OF POWER? POLITICAL STATUS UNCHANGED?
The Focus article says "Clearly, in the past 106 years
Hawaiians have been
the ones excluded.", "lack of power" was a consistent
theme and
"...political status of Hawaiians has changed little
since the overthrow."
The opposite is true. The Hawaiian people never had
sovereignty under the
monarchy. It was not "their" country; it was the
monarch's country. Power
did not come from the people; it resided in the
monarch. That is what the
constitution of the Kingdom said. That's what the
Supreme Court of the
Kingdom said in Rex v. Booth. That's what Kamehameha
V and Liliuokalani
said in their pronouncements on the subject.
Hawaiians got sovereignty in 1900 when they became
citizens of two
democracies, the Territory of Hawaii and the United
States. Exercising
this sovereignty through the vote, they dominated the
legislatures of the
Territory for decades. In 1903 the Territorial
legislature, with a
majority of over 70% Hawaiian members, voted
unanimously to seek statehood.
In the statehood plebiscite in1959 Hawaiian voters,
along with all citizens,
considered whether Hawaii should be admitted unto the
Union as a state. The
"yes" vote in favor of statehood was 94%.
Today, in the State of Hawaii, individuals of Hawaiian
ancestry occupy
positions of elected and appointed office at all
levels, including, in
recent years, those of governor, chief justice,
speaker of the State house,
and U.S. Senator. Far from excluded, the Hawaiian
people have for almost
100 years wielded formidable political influence and
power, vastly greater
than they could have under the monarchy.
"CULTURE DISHONORED"? "DISLOCATED"? "PAIN"?
The authors of the Focus article say, "Pain will be
very much present in the
room. It is the pain of having your culture
dishonored and your cultural
practices and language outlawed."
History confirms that some features of the ancient
culture were indeed of
incomparable beauty but it also tells us the momentous
changes in Hawaiian
culture were voluntarily initiated and carried out by
the Hawaiians
themselves.
The most drastic cultural change came in 1819 when
Ka'ahumanu, Kamehameha's
widow and then the most powerful of the Ali'i nui,
said, "We intend to eat
pork and bananas and coconuts and to live as the white
people do."
Supported by her powerful Maui kinsmen, she "broke the
kapu". Under her
direction, the young King, Liholiho (Kamehameha II)
ordered destruction of
the heiaus and burning of the wooden idols. The next
year, 1820, the first
company of American missionaries arrived, and soon
thereafter Ka'ahumanu,
the kuhina nui and de facto Mo'i, took charge of
Christianity and made it
the official state religion. Christianity displaced
Lono and Ku as the path
to mana and became the new kapu. Those who did not
convert were evicted
from their aina. Both the British and American
consuls protested that
Ka'ahumanu's new kapu was a threat to the whaling
fleet and bad for
business. Ka'ahumanu replied, "We do not rule there
[in America or
Britain], but these islands are ours, and we wish to
obey the commands of
God." Native Land and Foreign Desires,
Kame'elei'hiwa, 82 and 154-157.
The chiefs for the most part adopted western economic
values and were eager
to acquire western skills and goods and technology.
Indeed, the chiefess
Kapi'olani complained to a gratified Lahaina
missionary in 1825 that when
among her fellow chiefs "I hear so much said about
money, and cloth, and
land, and ships, and bargains, that it makes me
sick..."
The King and chiefs worked with foreign nations,
welcomed the westerners and
their laws and forms of government and incorporated
them into Hawaii's
government. In 1845 Kauikeaouli (Kamehameha III)
explained to S.M. Kamakau
why he dismissed natives from government offices and
appointed foreigners.
"My native helpers do not understand the laws of the
great countries who are
working with us." William Little Lee, who had studied
law at Harvard under
Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, arrived in
Honolulu in 1846 with Charles
Reed Bishop. At the request of the King and chiefs,
Lee drafted many of the
documents which installed a stable democratic American
form of government.
The constitution of 1852 as approved by the King and
chiefs established a
strong role for the popularly elected House of
Representatives but was not
as democratic as Lee had proposed because the Chiefs
(whose maxim was
"Kanakas were made for the Ali'i) had become jealous
of the growing power of
the people.
These and many other changes in Hawaiian culture and
governance were
voluntarily adopted by the Ali'i nui because they
considered it in their and
their followers' best interests to do so. Hawaiians,
like successful
people, companies and societies everywhere, welcomed
new ideas, adopted
those which made their lives better and rejected those
old ways which did
not.
The Hawaiian activists' argument that they feel pain
and deserve special
treatment now because 170 years ago immigrants
"dishonored" or "dislocated"
their culture is not really persuasive at all. Many
people of all
ethnicities yearn for the old-time cultural values and
simpler agrarian ways
of their grandparents. But natives and immigrants
alike made choices to
adopt newer ways of life that seemed more likely to
yield success in a
changing world, while still honoring their ancestors
and feeling pangs of
nostalgia. It is patronizing, bordering on
disrespectful, when some
activists today "feel the pain" in a Clintonesque,
staged sort of way to
enhance their claims to "victim" status and obtain
sympathy from politically
correct politicians.
How many Hawaiians today really want to return to a
culture where:
BOTTOM OF THE LADDER?
The Focus article says, "It's 1999 and Hawaiians are
still at the bottom of
the social ladder." An unseen violin wailing sadly in
the background, the
authors speak of "the current plight of many
Hawaiians" and "their
continued languishing and demise".
Excuse us, but didn't the August 1999 survey commissioned
by OHA find that 39% of
Hawaiian families have income between $51 thousand and
$100 thousand? And
only 37% of other families are in that income bracket?
Would someone please explain why our state and federal
governments should
provide health, housing, educational benefits and
other entitlements for all
Hawaiians, even those in the middle and higher income
classes, but not give
those same benefits to other citizens, even to the
ones who are truly in
need?
Shall we form two lines, one for Hawaiians and one for
needy non-Hawaiians,
and give help to all the Hawaiians, rich, middle class
and poor, before
giving whatever resources remain to the needy
non-Hawaiians?
The answer of course is that the government should not
award benefits or
impose detriments based on race. If people are in
need, the social support
systems of the state and nation should be available to
help them, without
regard to race. That is the best answer, and it fits
perfectly with both
the Aloha spirit and the idea of equal protection of
the laws.
BLOOD QUANTUM
The authors of the Focus article got it almost right
on the blood quantum
issue. Almost.
They pointed out that the issue of blood quantum is
"divisive, racist and
exclusionary". We agree. As Ken Conklin pointed out
in a recent letter to
the Advertiser, People are not dogs to be judged on
pedigree papers.
If the authors had just taken the next step they would
have it absolutely
right. Any blood quantum is far too high. The blood
quantum should be
zero. Stop dividing the community by giving help
preferentially based on
race. Help people on the basis of need. Period.
For further discussion see websites
https://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty and
http://aloha4all.org
WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE? TOSS OHA IN THE TRASH CAN. RESTORE ALOHA.
The concept of ethnic self determination, proclaimed
by OHA, has no place in
a modern, functioning multi-ethnic democracy -- and
Hawaii has been one of
the world's most envied. Look around at the
communities dominated by the
partisans of ethnic self-determination, Kosovo,
Bosnia, central Africa,
Chechnya, East Timor. Is that what we want in Hawaii
or in the United
States? Has any society ever profited from
segregation based on the
accident of birth or ancestry?
One of the authors of this essay was a delegate to the
1978 Constitutional
Convention which created OHA. He and we now see the
creation of OHA was one
of the greatest mistakes this state has ever made.
For the first 20 years
of Statehood, the income from the ceded lands went by
and large to the
Department of Education where it benefitted public
school children of all
races, including the about 25% of the students of
Hawaiian ancestry. That
stopped in 1978 and now all the net income, and more,
from the ceded lands
goes to OHA which holds it, not even for all Hawaiians
but only for the
small group of 50% or more Hawaiians. OHA now holds
$350 million in cash
and investments. Meanwhile, our public school houses
and the quality of
public education delivered to our young (about 25% of
whom are of Hawaiian
ancestry) continue to suffer from inadequate funding.
We believe that, if OHA with its separatist agenda and
voting rights and
giveaway of resources based on ancestry, is allowed to
continue, it will
eventually destroy three things in Hawaii: the spirit
of Aloha; the
democratic principle of equal justice; and the State's
economic future.
We hope the Supreme Court's decision in Rice v.
Cayetano will make it clear
that OHA, the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, the
sovereignty movement and
all federal and state programs that give special
privileges or entitlements
to Hawaiians, or to any other ethnic, racial or
ancestral group for that
matter, should be consigned to the dustbin of history
with apartheid, white
supremacy, ethnic cleansing and other discredited
concepts based on racial
discrimination.
That would allow us here at home to restore Hawaii's
great gift to the
world: Aloha -- true Aloha -- Aloha without
government-sponsored racism.
It would allow us to again make Hawaii what President
John F. Kennedy once
said the rest of the world wants to become. It would
allow us to make real
the glowing statement of Governor Cayetano in his
State of the State
address, "The spirit of aloha is the glue that holds
us together. It is the
heart and soul of the Hawaii we all love today - the
Hawaii we want to pass
on to our children."
Very truly yours,
(Authored and signed by) H. William Burgess, Kenneth R. Conklin, Sandra Puanani Burgess
(Additionally signed by) Donna Malia Scaff, Jack H. Scaff, Fran Nicols, Vernon F.L. Char, Allen Teshima, Patrick Barrett, Heinz-Guenther Pink, Frederick Lins, Diane Canada
(c) Copyright 2000 H. William Burgess, Kenneth R. Conklin, and Sandra Puanani Burgess All Rights Reserved.
----------------------
GENEOLOGY OF THIS ESSAY:
Posted above is the original, full-length essay submitted for publication to the Honolulu Advertiser newspaper. (A correction to population percentages has been made.) It was written in response to a published article of approximately the same length. We wrote and submitted it five days after the essay to which it replies. However, the Advertiser waited to publish our response until 4 weeks after the original article had appeared, and many important points were left out.
The article to which we were responding appeared on December 26, 1999 can be seen at
http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/1999/Dec/26/opinion3.html
Our response, as finally published on January 23, 2000 was considerably shortened, was given a headline which we did not write and which does not express our views, and was accompanied by pictures of armed soldiers from the newspaper's archives from the overthrow of1893. We feel that the shortening of the essay, the misleading headline, and inflammatory photos do a disservice to the actual content of our essay.
The essay as published on January 23 can be viewed at
http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/2000/Jan/23/opinion3.html
--------------------
Below are links to the other pages on this website:
(c) Copyright 2000 Kenneth R. Conklin, Ph.D. All rights reserved
GO BACK TO OTHER TOPICS ON THIS WEBSITE