Hawai'i Governor Linda Lingle testified in favor of the Akaka bill S.147 on March 1, 2005 before the U.S. Senate Committee on Indian Affairs. Among other things, she said the Akaka bill would be "a unifying force for our state." The full text of her speech is at:
Perhaps Governor Lingle believes that ethnic Hawaiians have historical grievances, and feel pain and anger over events of the distant past. She believes they need comforting, an apology, and reparations so that reconciliation can take place. Then we can all live together happily ever after. There has already been an official U.S. apology (P.L. 103-150, 1993). In 1999 the Clinton administration sent high officials to Hawai'i to hold public "reconciliation" hearings, asking Hawaiians "What do you want?" (Most of those who testified said they wanted independence, not federal handouts). In 2000 the Akaka bill was first introduced in Congress. Now all we have to do is pass that bill, to begin a process of self-government and negotiations for reparations. Then reconciliation will happen.
Don't hold your breath! No matter how big the reparations given, they will always be seen as an insufficient down-payment on a debt that can never be repaid.
Let's pass the Akaka bill so we can begin building a bridge to the Nineteenth Century.
(1) Suppose a married couple decide to get a legal separation and to sign a formal division of their joint marital assets. Would such actions be "a unifying force" for reconciliation and living together happily forever after? More likely they are large steps along a path to permanent divorce.
People who have any degree of Hawaiian native ancestry are thoroughly intermarried among all racial groups, and widely dispersed among all neighborhoods and income levels in Hawai'i; and throughout all 50 states of America and many foreign countries. They live, work, play, and pray side by side with everyone else. Ethnic Hawaiians do not live separate and apart from the surrounding population (one of the requirements for tribal recognition by the Bureau of Indian Affairs).
There has never been a Hawaiians-only governing entity that exercised substantial authority over all ethnic Hawaiians (another of the requirements for tribal recognition by the Bureau of Indian Affairs).
In the government of the Kingdom of Hawai'i, most cabinet members and many Legislators (both appointed and elected) had no native ancestry, from the founding of the Kingdom in 1810 right up to the moment the monarchy was overthrown. Englishman John Young, a hero of the wars of unification, was appointed by Kamehameha to be governor of Kamehameha's home island, and was given one of Kamehameha's daughters in marriage (Young was thereby grandfather to Queen Emma). Before the Kingdom ended in 1893, most of the cabinet ministers appointed by all the Kings and by Queen Lili'uokalani were white men, and about one-third of the Legislators were white (in the early years the Nobles were appointed while the Representatives were elected; in later years all were elected). The revolutionary Republic of Hawai'i, 1894-1898, had native John Kaulukou as Speaker of the House. The President was Sanford B. Dole, a white son born in Hawai'i in 1844 to one of the early missionaries. Dole had been a member of the Kingdom's legislature elected from an overwhelmingly native district in Koloa, Kaua'i; and had been a Justice of the Supreme Court appointed by King Kalakaua.
(2) The language of the Akaka bill would destroy Hawai'i's multiracial integration by writing racial separatism into law; and it is also very divisive within the ethnic Hawaiian community. It is the opposite of "a unifying force."
The language of the bill clearly states that only people of Hawaiian native ancestry are eligible to create a governing entity to be given federal recognition. Most of Hawai'i's multiracial rainbow does not want to be divided along racial lines; and that includes most people of Hawaiian native ancestry.
The Akaka bill does not provide any way for Hawai'i's people as a whole to either approve or reject the concept of creating a race-based government. The bill also does not provide a way for people of Hawaiian native ancestry as a whole to either approve or reject that concept. Any group of ethnic Hawaiians can create a governing entity and get federal recognition for it, even if they are only a small percentage of America's 400,000 ethnic Hawaiians.
Primarily three types of ethnic Hawaiians will join the governing entity: radical racial separatists; those already receiving benefits from large race-based institutions; and those who hope they or their children will receive benefits in the future. Such institutions have become entrenched through decades of federal funding or tax-exemption as "charitable" trusts. If an Akaka tribe is created, then all government handouts will be given to the tribal council who will pass them out only to tribal members.
Thus the Akaka bill not only separates ethnic Hawaiians from everyone else, it also separates ethnic Hawaiians from each other according to whether or not they are dependent on goverment handouts or tax exemptions through race-based institutions. The creation of a "Native Hawaiian" tribe will divide ethnic Hawaiians into those who are members and those who are not. Ethnic Hawaiians will be under strong economic and cultural pressure to join the tribe; otherwise, they forego both monetary benefits and the right to be considered "Native Hawaiian."
After 17 months of intensive advertising and community outreach throughout Hawai'i and many mainland venues, fewer than five per cent of ethnic Hawaiians had signed their names on a racial registry that is likely to be used as a membership roll if an Akaka tribe gets created. The remaining 95% voted with their feet: they are either apathetic or hostile to the concept of a race-based governing entity.
A great many ethnic Hawaiians oppose the Akaka bill for two different kinds of reasons: (a) Most prefer to remain integrated in Hawai'i's multiracial rainbow; (2) Some Hawaiians of more than 50% native ancestry fear the dilution or extinguishment of the homestead rights they enjoy under the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act of 1921, and their specific inclusion among the beneficiaries named in the public land trust in section 5(f) of the Hawai'i Statehood Admissions Act of 1959.
(3) The language of the Akaka bill encourages dividing up the lands and resources of the State of Hawai'i along racial lines, guaranteeing a 20-year period of racial strife against the federal government and an unlimited period of strife with the State government.
The bill authorizes a twenty year period of three-way negotiations among the federal government, state government, and ethnic Hawaiian governing entity, followed by lawsuits for many more years to resolve unsettled disputes involving the federal government. Furthermore, the bill does not impose any time limit at all on disputes with the State of Hawai'i. This bill is a recipe for racial strife without end, pitting the racially exclusionary ethnic Hawaiian governing entity against the people of the State of Hawai'i (20% of whose voters are ethnic Hawaiians on the opposite side of the negotiations). It imagines but does not guarantee there will be "an agreement regarding the transfer of lands, natural resources, and other assets, and the protection of existing rights related to such lands or resources; the exercise of governmental authority over any transferred lands, natural resources, and other assets, including land use; the exercise of civil and criminal jurisdiction; the delegation of governmental powers and authorities to the Native Hawaiian governing entity by the United States and the State of Hawaii."
Imagine the bitterness as the initial twenty-year period draws to a close and the federal government says no to some demands; and the on-going bitterness whenever the state Legislature says no to the continuing series of demands that have no time limit.
(4) A primary purpose of the Akaka bill is to protect racial separatist institutions, both government and private. By further empowering such racially exclusionary institutions, the Akaka bill is the opposite of "a unifying force." By protecting those institutions the bill also ensures that ethnic Hawaiians can get goodies from the federal and state governments that nobody else can have, and at the expense of everyone else. That's a recipe for racial animosity.
From July 1 1990 to now, the combined damage to the state’s treasury from OHA and DHHL has been over $1 Billion. Note that this figure does not include costs from before 1990 (OHA was created in 1978, and DHHL was created in 1921). At the current expenditure rate, making reasonable assumptions, the projected damage for the next 10 years would be more than two Billion additional dollars. For a spreadsheet see:
At present in Hawai'i there are a substantial number of government agencies and private institutions providing services exclusively to ethnic Hawaiians. Some government agencies are the Office of Hawaiian Affairs and the Department of Hawaiian Homelands. Some non-profit quasi-governmental organizations operate primarily by getting government grants: such as Alu Like, Papa Ola Lokahi, The Native Hawaiian Legal Corporation, The Native Hawaiian Leadership Project, Kua'ana Student Services, Na Pua No'eau. Sone racially exclusionary institutions are privately endowed tax-exempt charitable trusts, such as Kamehameha Schools (Bishop Estate), the Queen Lili'uokalani Childrens Trust, and Lunalilo Home. All of these government and private agencies, trusts, and institutions have been operating on the basis of racial separatism, refusing as far as possible to provide benefits to anyone who lacks a drop of Hawaiian native blood. Sometimes they provide benefits to residents of a geographic area, which unavoidably includes people with no native ancestry; but always such areas are selected because the population there is primarily of native ancestry.
Senators Akaka and Inouye have spent their careers sitting on the Indian Affairs Committee even though there have never been any Indian tribes in Hawai'i. Hawai'i is the only state which has had both of its Senators serving on that committee. Why have Akaka and Inouye done that? Whenever a bill passes through that committee to provide federal money to benefit the genuine Indian tribes, the Hawai'i Senators have a chance to quietly insert the words "and Native Hawaiians" into the bill. They've been doing that for so many years, there are now more than 160 federal programs benefitting "Native Hawaiians." To get the goodies, someone need only have at least one drop of Hawaiian native blood; but the other 80% of Hawai'i's citizens are shut out.
Of course it's against the law for government to give benefits based solely on race to a racial group that the government has never discriminated against. Lawsuits now pending in the courts threaten to put an end to these race-based programs. That's why the institutions, individuals, and politicians benefitting from them want to create a phony Indian tribe to make these programs legally allowable.
A main purpose of the Akaka bill is to allow these organizations to remain racially exclusionary while continuing to receive government appropriations and/or tax exemptions. These organizations are already racial-separatist. Thus the Akaka bill will not be a unifying force; on the contrary, the Akaka bill will further strengthen and empower racial separatism.
The Hawai'i political establishment, both Democrat and Republican, are heavily committed to passing the Akaka bill. That's because they want taxpayers from New York to California to keep sending federal money to Hawai'i. Politicians fear to oppose anything they think would be desired by what they mistakenly see as a monolithic 20% ethnic Hawaiian swing-vote.
(5) Governor Lingle says the Akaka bill would be "a unifying force" for the people of Hawai'i. Back in 1993 Senator Inouye said something very similar about P.L. 103-150, the apology resolution. The Akaka bill relies heavily upon the apology resolution, passed in 1993 to commemorate the centennial of the 1893 overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy. During the debate on that resolution on the Senate floor in 1993, Senator Inouye sounded much like today's Governor Lingle, as he repeatedly said the resolution was "a simple apology" that would promote reconciliation between ethnic Hawaiians and the rest of Hawai'i's people.
Inouye assured Congress the apology resolution would not be used as a basis for demanding special programs from the government, and that it would not empower any sort of nationalist or secessionist movement. He was wrong on both counts.
Today's active and growing Hawaiian independence movement relies heavily on the apology resolution, calling it a confession of a crime against international law. Today's activists quote Senator Slade Gorton's warning on the Senate floor in 1993 that the logical consequence of the apology resolution would be secession. Language from the apology resolution is repeatedly cited in every piece of legislation to provide government benefits to ethnic Hawaiians, and it is cited heavily in both the "findings" of the Akaka bill and in the accompanying committee report. It is because of the apology resolution that the Akaka bill established the date of 1893 for tracing someone's native genealogy in order to prove eligibility for charter membership in the Akaka bill's ethnic Hawaiian governing entity.
The history of how the apology resolution has been used for the 12 years since it was passed stands as a warning not to believe anyone -- Governor or Senator -- who says the Akaka bill will promote reconciliation and be a unifying force for Hawai'i.
Would a legal separation and division of property be "a unifying force" for a couple who are already married? The Akaka bill proposes a legal separation that many of its supporters regard as the first step toward a divorce rather than toward reconciliation. In this divorce, one of the spouses has expectations of receiving all the marital property! For evidence that the Akaka bill is regarded as a step toward total independence by some independence leaders and that Senator Akaka himself encourages that idea, see:
The Akaka bill is touted as a step toward reconciliation; as a step toward fulfilling the spirit of the apology resolution. That resolution placed the U.S. on record apologizing for the overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy in 1893. Now it's time to right the wrongs of the past. Those who support the Akaka bill are building a bridge to the 19th Century.
(6) Artist Herb Kane created a painting years ago showing how Kamehameha the Great went about the task of "unifying" Hawai'i. Kamehameha did it by killing anyone who stood in his way. He took no prisoners, including women and children, except for an occasional high chief whose fate was to be offered as a human sacrifice on one of Kamehameha's stone temples. In 1895, Kamehameha's army invaded the island of O'ahu. At the Battle of Nu'uanu Pali, his army used modern canons and guns in addition to stone-age spears to push the defending army to the edge of a precipice. Those who were not killed on the spot either jumped or were pushed to their deaths on the rocks below.
Mr. Kane's painting can be seen at
Every year the State of Hawai'i celebrates an official Kamehameha Day holiday. On that day in 2005, Honolulu Advertiser artist Dick Adair published a cartoon showing that opposition to the Akaka bill is being pushed over that same precipice. See:
Governor Lingle says the Akaka bill would be "a unifying force" for Hawai'i. Many fans of the Star Wars movies are hoping the "Force" is against her. Another cartoon by Dick Adair shows two warriors armed with light-sabres fighting about the Akaka bill. This bill will lead to fighting, not to unification. See Adair's Star-Wars Akaka-bill cartoon at:
(7) Below are some examples of the racial divisiveness that the Akaka bill would further inflame. Those who say the Akaka bill will promote racial reconciliation or be a unifying force for Hawai'i are following in the footsteps of Neville Chamberlain, foreign minister of Great Britain, who tried to pacify and appease Adolf Hitler by giving him a piece of Czechoslovakia in hopes he would then be satisfied.
Red-Shirt Pro-Apartheid March of September 6, 2004 -- “Die Jugend Marschiert”
Professor Haunani-Kay Trask: Some Speeches and Writings Illustrating the Anti-American and Anti-White Attitudes of the Hawaiian Sovereignty Movement
Racism in the Hawaiian Sovereignty Movement
In U.S. Census 2000, more than 400,000 people nationwide checked the box for “Native Hawaiian.” If the Hawaiian bill passes, the newly recognized “tribe” would instantly become the largest tribe in America, competing against genuine tribes for government handouts. A spreadsheet created from Census 2000 data shows 240,000 "Native Hawaiians" comprising about 20% of Hawai’i’s population; plus 60,000 in California, plus another 100,000 scattered among the remaining 48 states.
Hawaiian Nationalism, Chicano Nationalism, Black Nationalism, Indian Tribes, and Reparations -- (The Native Hawaiian Recognition Bill) Sets a Precedent for the Balkanization of America
Hawai'i's Fifth Column: Anti-Americanism in the Hawaiian Sovereignty Movement
Affirmative Action Gone Berserk -- Racial Entitlement Programs in Hawai'i, and the Attempt to Create a Phony Indian Tribe to Defend Them
The Hawaiian Recognition bill (aka Akaka bill) is pork barrel ethnic politics at its worst. The primary purpose of the bill is to protect racial entitlement programs which otherwise will be ruled unconstitutional by the courts.
Over 160 Hawaiian racial entitlement programs are slowly but inexorably coming under attack in the courts because they are unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment equal protection clause. There are literally Billions of dollars (yes, with a B!!) in racially exclusionary programs benefitting ethnic Hawaiians. To see a list of many of these programs , and how much money was spent on each in year 2000 and a few immediately preceding years, go to:
Ethnic Hawaiians are deeply divided among themselves regarding whether to support or oppose the Hawaiian Recognition bill. Native Hawaiian Opposition to the Native Hawaiian Recognition bill is important, and it is growing. When the people who will allegedly benefit from legislation say they don’t want it, everyone should listen carefully. Public statements in opposition, and photographs of protestors, are provided. See:
If the Akaka bill passes, it will severely damage the democratic and constitutional rights of ethnic Hawaiians, both those who join the tribe and those who do not. See:
After 17 months of intensive advertising and community outreach, fewer than 5% of ethnic Hawaiians placed their names on a racial registry expected to be used as a tribal roll.
If the Akaka bill passes, it would have disastrous effects on local businesses and local communities. Some of those effects are described here:
Other nations have suffered grievously because of laws and government policies establishing racial supremacy. See:
Fiji, with a history similar to Hawai'i, enforces Native Fijian racial supremacy over descendants of Asian sugar plantation workers through a legal system resembling what Hawaiian sovereignty activists are seeking. Over the past ten years there have been several race-based military coups, and on-going racial strife. See:
Send comments or questions to:
SEE MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THE AKAKA BILL
SEE WEBPAGES ABOUT HAWAIIAN SOVEREIGNTY ISSUES IN ADDITION TO THIS BILL