(c) Copyright 2002 Kenneth R. Conklin, Ph.D. All rights reserved
The racial separatist version of Hawaiian sovereignty is supported by the large government and tax-exempt private institutions whose money and power are dedicated to racially exclusionary programs -- institutions like Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA), Department of Hawaiian Homelands (DHHL), Kamehameha Schools Bishop Estate (KSBE). These organizations have highly paid staff members and consultants, and substantial political power; but justify their existence by claiming to help poor, downtrodden ethnic Hawaiians. Some ethnic Hawaiians are wealthy; most are hard working middle class people; some are truly needy. The needy ones are the "poster children" (ab)used by the wealthy institutions and bureaucrats to fuel the racial grievance industry and to ensure public support for the entitlement programs. These organizations are under attack in the courts because their racially exclusionary beneficiary programs are unconstitutional. The best hope for preserving these programs is to get federal recognition for a (phony) "Native Hawaiian" Indian tribe.
Such a tribe could enfold all the racially exclusionary organizations and benefit programs, protecting them against 14th Amendment lawsuits. Accordingly, the wealthy institutions provide funding and political support for academic programs and consultants to support federal recognition; and they also sponsor UH projects designed to identify and publicize the needs of their poor downtrodden clients. President Dobelle undoubtedly hopes to cash in on the wealth and power that would flow to the University of Hawai'i if UH can become a partner in existing racial entitlement programs and in the establishment of a new tribal government or independent nation.
If Hawaiians are truly the neediest ethnic group, then they would automatically receive more government assistance than other groups under any system where help is given to needy people based on need alone. But the sovereignty activists are much more concerned with race-based political power than with helping needy people. The activists demand that help for needy ethnic Hawaiians must be funneled through special racial entitlement programs (where a political power base can be established) rather than through general public welfare programs. And recently there have been some racial entitlement programs benefitting ethnic Hawaiians who are very wealthy, such as the Kalawahine Streamside Hawaiian Homeland, and the $500 Million program for cable wiring exclusively on Hawaiian Homelands.
When OHA recently went through the charade of seeking public input to develop its long-range strategic plan, the "beneficiaries" made it abundantly clear that their most important priorities were to receive help with education, healthcare, housing, and jobs -- the same priorities of all ethnic groups. But OHA insists on setting its highest priorities and greatest budget expenditures on racial separatist political goals such as "nation building" and "federal recognition." OHA Chair Haunani Apoliona arrogantly imposes her personal slogan as the guiding principle for the organization: "Ho'oulu Lahui Aloha" ("To Raise Up a Beloved Nation"), echoing the slogan of the arrogant King Kalakaua who squandered his nation's wealth on building a gaudy palace and taking a round-the-world cruise even while desperately needy people got little or no help.
Many Hawaiian sovereignty activists oppose the Native Hawaiian recognition bill, because they favor independence for Hawai'i. The ethnic nationalist movement tries to portray a public image that sovereignty is about a nation, not about a race. They point out that the Kingdom of Hawai'i was a multiracial independent nation having treaty relations with other nations. They invite all people, including those with no Hawaiian blood, to help achieve sovereignty. But the activists conceal an ugly racism -- every concrete proposal for an independent Hawai'i contains special voting rights and property rights for so-called "indigenous" people (i.e., those who have Hawaiian blood). These proposals would establish racial supremacy for ethnic Hawaiians while making second-class citizens out of the remaining 80% of Hawai'i's people. And according to the version of “international law” which these activists claim is valid, only ethnic Hawaiians and a handful of non-Hawaiian descendants of Kingdom subjects would be eligible to vote in a plebiscite to decide whether Hawai’i should be independent.
Both the separatist Indian tribe model of Hawaiian sovereignty and the ethnic nationalist model of Hawaiian sovereignty are fundamentally racist. Both adopt the view that anyone with a drop of Hawaiian blood is entitled to special voting rights and special property rights exclusive to them, while also participating in all the other rights available to all citizens. Genuine Indian tribes have always been separate and apart from the surrounding population and have maintained historical continuity of tribal government exercising substantial authority over tribal members eager to remain separate and apart. But ethnic Hawaiians historically welcomed newcomers, went out to recruit more newcomers, eagerly embraced the new religion and new technology, and made the newcomers into full partners with voting rights, property rights, and predominance in appointive and elective “tribal” government positions. No Indian tribe ever had non-Indians as large proportions of its chiefs. The Hawaiian Kingdom established a social contract where newcomers were welcomed as full partners, with equal voting rights and property rights, in exchange for massive investment of capital and expertise. That social contract was established by the sovereign monarchs of Hawai'i exercising self-determination on behalf of their people. Today's sovereignty activists disrespect their ancestors by seeking to undo that long-established social contract. If Native Hawaiians ever were indigenous, they long ago gave up indigeneity in favor of joining the modern world. Like virginity, indigeneity cannot be re-established once it has been abandoned so enthusiastically.
Democratic values include unity, equality, and aloha for all. These fundamental principles are deeply embedded in Hawai'i, and clash sharply with the Hawaiian sovereignty agendas of racial separatism and ethnic nationalism. For an explanation of unity, equality, and the aloha spirit; and WHY these fundamental principles clash with the sovereignty agendas, see:
ALOHA FOR ALL: BASIC PRINCIPLES at
An amazing speech was given by Professor Haunani-Kay Trask, of the Center for Hawaiian Studies, on September 2, 2002, at an ethnic Hawaiian political rally on the grounds of ‘Iolani Palace. That speech provides a good look at the CHS party line as it is used for the purpose of racial demagoguery on a specific controversy. In the speech, Professor Trask explicitly (and most unrepentantly) “confesses” she teaches her anti-American and anti-white views in her courses at the Center for Hawaiian studies. The speech itself, and an analysis of it, clearly exemplify important elements of the CHS party line. See:
You may now visit any of the following:
Expanded introduction explaining how all the below-listed pieces fit into the big picture at the University of Hawai'i
(1) A look at the racial supremacist doctrine which is the CHS party line and which President Dobelle actively supports; and a comparison with the fundamental democratic principles of unity, equality, and aloha for all.
(2) A discussion of the UH propaganda factory known as the Center for Hawaiian Studies, and why its monolithic party line in support of racial supremacy has become the unchallenged orthodoxy in every academic department that shares students and curriculum with CHS
(3) A review of the short history of President Dobelle’s tenure as President at UH, focusing on his aggressiveness in pushing the CHS agenda and his recent pledge to politicize UH even further, harnessing UH as a partner in bringing about a racial supremacist government entity
(4) The first exchange of e-mails between the director of the Academy for Lifelong Learning and Dr. Conklin which then resulted in the newspaper article and editorial
(5) The Honolulu Advertiser article of Thursday September 5, 2002, the Advertiser editorial of September 6, 2002, and the articles published in the UH student newspaper “Ka Leo” September 30, 2002.
(6) Other examples of threats, intimidation, property damage and career damage caused by CHS activists and timid administrators
GO BACK TO OTHER TOPICS ON THIS WEBSITE
(c) Copyright 2002 Kenneth R. Conklin, Ph.D. All rights reserved