(c) Copyright 2013
Kenneth R. Conklin, Ph.D.
All rights reserved
INDEX OF NEWS REPORTS AND COMMENTARIES FROM JUNE 1, 2013 to December 31, 2013. FULL TEXT OF EACH ITEM IS BELOW THE INDEX IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER
June 1, 2013: The OHA monthly newspaper reports that OHA sponsored a summit meeting among independence activists, supporters of the federal recognition, and organizers of the Kana'iolowalu racial registry, at University of Hawaii, to share ideas about how to move forward.
June 2: The Conservative Forum for Hawaii held a public discussion about the Akaka bill and the Hawaii Act 195 (2011) racial registry, at the Naniloa Hotel in Hilo. Grassroot Institute president emeritus Dick Rowland, and current president Keli'i Akina, were the speakers. (news report June 4; hour-long video available)
June 4: A consortium of Native Alaskan tribes, Native American tribes, and ethnic Hawaiians seeking federal recognition held a meeting with lawmakers in Washington DC. to discuss how to cooperate in getting recognition for the Akaka tribe and how to ensure continued government funding for existing and future race-based programs. (news report June 6)
June 11, 2013 is Kamehameha Day, a holiday in the State of Hawaii. (1)Senator Brian Schatz (D,HI) gives his maiden speech on Senate floor calling for federal recognition of Akaka tribe (although no bill has yet been introduced); (2) Schatz press release includes supportive comments from Senators Maria Cantwell (D,WA and chair of Indian Affairs Committee), Mark Begich (D,AK), Lisa Murkowski (R,AK), and Al Franken (D,MN) -- all 5 are members of the Indian Affairs committee.; (3) Hawaii TV news report about the speech includes video
June 12: Indian Country Today publishes photos and story about the celebration of Kamehameha Day, including secessionist sentiments.
June 13: Online newspaper publishes a condensed version of a webpage by Ken Conklin containing detailed rebuttals to 23 points in Senator Schatz' speech. The full webpage rebuttal is at
http://tinyurl.com/m3azruz
July 1: OHA monthly newspaper notifies ethnic Hawaiians that a new Hawaii law takes effect today automatically adding all the (108,000) names from the defunct Kau Inoa racial registry (over 7 years and millions of dollars) to the new Kana'iolowalu racial registry (languishing at only 9300 names after its first year).
July 4: Hawaiian independence activist Lela Hubbard urges ethnic Hawaiians NOT to put their names on the racial registry Kana'iolowalu. She says recent legislation forces "Hawaiians who have registered in any Office of Hawaiian Affairs registry, Kamehameha Schools database, Kau Inoa, etc. are now forced members of Kanaiolowalu, the Native Hawaiian roll" violating their right to freedom of association.
July 6: Numerous newspapers report that a new state law allows the ethnic Hawaiian racial registry Kana'iolowalu to automatically include all the names of all the people whose Hawaiian native ancestry has been verified by other institutions including DHHL, Kamehameha Schools, OHA, the state Department of Health, Kau Inoa, etc.
July 15: "The Trouble with the Kana'iolowalu Racial Registry" published essay by Ken Conklin
July 18: PBS-Hawaii live broadcast of a 60 minute panel discussion about ethnic Hawaiian self-governance, focusing on the Kana'iolowalu racial registry. All four panelists are sovereignty activists. The video recording was then placed on YouTube.
July 23: Hawaii's congressional delegation met with President Obama today at the White House. They're representing the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus. Some of the issues they'll be discussing reportedly include federal recognition for Native Hawaiians and immigration.
July 29: Andrew Walden essay "Hanabusa: Obama Considers Creating Akaka Tribe Without Congressional Approval" Includes link to download 23-page Dept. of Interior proposed revisions to 25 CFR 83
August 1, 2013: The OHA monthly newspaper for August is pushing hard for the Kana'iolowalu racial registry, including scare tactics. "Public Notice to Native Hawaiians" warns them that if they fail to register for Kana'iolowalu, they might forfeit forever, for themselves and for their descendants, their right to participate in the tribe and to receive benefits.
Aug 6: Ken Conklin essay about various methods whereby the Akaka tribe might get federal recognition, and the kinds of jurisdictional conflicts federal recognition would cause in Hawaii as shown by actual conflicts on the mainland.
Aug 7: Popular leftwing blogger Ian Lind publishes essay in Honolulu Civil Beat online newspaper describing the Kana'iolowalu signup requirements and how there may be hidden agendas in them; concludes he can't decide whether to sign up because the process and consequences are not transparent.
Aug 12: Honolulu Star-Advertiser reports that "Hawaii's congressional delegation has asked President Obama to consider executive action"
Aug 13: Honolulu Star-Advertiser EDITORIAL says Obama can and should act to give federal recognition to Akaka tribe.
Aug 14: (1) Honolulu Star-Advertiser online reader poll "Should President Obama use his executive authority to achieve federal recognition for Native Hawaiian sovereignty?" 3,014 votes, 70% NO.; (2) Andrew Walden analyzes Star-Advertiser editorial from August 13 and cites proof that Obama cannot use the 1994 Federally Recognized Indian Tribe List Act to recognize a native Hawaiian tribe, contrary to what the editorial had said.
Aug 18: Honolulu Star-Advertiser lengthy "news report" describes the low signup for the Kana'iolowalu racial registry, the upcoming grab of all names from previous racial registries; and provides a link to fill out the signup form online.
Aug 20: Ian Lind's blog provides 2 emails from lawyers. One says all racial entitlement programs are likely to be ruled unconstitutional unless ethnic Hawaiians become a federally recognized tribe either through an act of Congress or through administrative process. Other says ethnic Hawaiians greedily pushing for complete takeover are likely to get defeated, and points out that the assertion of unrelinquished sovereignty of native Hawaiians is false because sovereignty in 1892 belonged to a citizenry and government that were multiracial.
Aug 21: ANOTHER Star-Advertiser editorial pushing the Kana'iolowalu racial registry. This one laments the slow pace of signups, and warns that the ultimate goal remains unclear and disputed.
Aug 22: Washington Times reports "Obama urged to use executive order to recognize Native Hawaiians"
Aug 29: "I have a dream" -- for Hawaii, 50 years later (Recalling Martin Luther King's speech, and how his dream applies to Hawaii in 2013). Ken Conklin provides a one-paragraph list of things Hawaii must do to implement King's dream of racial equality and justice, along with detailed footnotes explaining each component of the dream. Major components include abandoning efforts to create an Akaka tribe, and eliminating racial entitlement programs.
Aug 30: The new Secretary of the U.S. Department of Interior will be the keynote speaker at the Native Hawaiian Convention in Honolulu, signaling closer cooperation in working toward federal recognition of an Akaka tribe.
September 4, 2013: (1) Washington Times news report about Hawaiian independence acttivists opposing the effort to get the Obama administration to grant federal recognition to the Akaka tribe. They have a petition on the White House website; (2) Hawaiian sovereignty activist Trisha Kehaulani Watson created a new blog and posted her first essay on it, opposing the Kana'iolowalu racial registry and especially opposing the automatic transfer of names from other racial registries without asking registrants' permission.
Sept 5: (1) Honolulu Star-Advertiser news report that Sally Jewell, the new Secretary of Interior, gave a speech at the annual convention of the Council for Native Hawaiian Advancement. She said Obama supports federal recognition of the Akaka tribe, but it's unclear how to accomplish that through administrative processes. (2) Honolulu Civil Beat online newspaper has a very different report about Jewell's speech, including details about protocols used in greeting her.
Sept 6: Honolulu Star-Advertiser mini-editorial notes that Jewell's speech sent mixed messages about administrative recognition of Akaka tribe, and federal oversight of the Department of Hawaiian Homelands.
Sept 14: The annual convention of the National Federation of Republican Assemblies meeting in Dallas adopted a resolution opposing "the enactment of any provisions of the Akaka Bill to include the establishment of a native Hawaiians-only government, program, department or agency as well as the division of the people of Hawaii by race or ethnicity through congressional legislation, presidential order, executive branch powers, or via regulatory implementation ..."
Sept 16: 4 of the 8 members of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights jointly wrote a strongly-worded 5-page letter to President Obama opposing any attempt to use executive action to give federal recognition to an Akaka tribe. The letter reiterated reasons for opposing the concept of the Akaka bill, expressed in several official statements by USCCR in previous years, and added objections to the new concept of using executive authority to do what Congress has refused to do for 13 years. The USCCR letter, dated September 16, 2013 on official letterhead and bearing the signatures of the 4 Commissioners, can be seen at
http://big09.angelfire.com/USCCR091613LtrOpposingAkakaExec.pdf
Sept 17: (1) The Washington Times published a news report about the USCCR letter.; (2) Roger Clegg (Center for Equal Opportunity) short news report in National Review online, entitled "A Good Message for Constitution Day"
Sept 18: (1) The Grassroot Institute of Hawaii issued a press release about the USCCR letter.; (2) Honolulu Advertiser online blogger describes the USCCR letter; (3) Michael Barone, The Washington Examiner, reports on the USCCR letter and gives brief history of efforts to pass the Akaka bill.
Sep 28: Connecticut Governor and Attorney General oppose changes in federal recognition procedures that would allow Indian groups previously rejected for recognition to get it.
October 30, 2013: The Little Shell tribe of Montana is seeking federal recognition through a bill in Congress, although it can also hope for recognition through a revised Dept of Interior process now being developed. It has been seeking recognition for 50 years.
Oct 31: The Lumbee Tribe of North Carolina is seeking recognition through a bill in Congress because language in the existing Dept. of Interior regulations does not allow administrative recognition for them.
November 1, 2013: OHA chairperson Colette Machado editorial says all paths to Hawaiian sovereignty should be pursued including Kana'iolowalu state recognized tribe, Akaka bill or Presidential executive action for federal recognition, and international action for full independent nationhood; and Hawaiians who favor one mode should not oppose those who favor other modes because all will converge like rivers to an ocean.
Nov 21: IMPORTANT E-MAIL dated October 18 is posted on a secessionist blog, sent from OHA trustee Oswald Stender to all other trustees and to commissioners of the Kana'iolowalu racial registry, urging that no more money be spent on recruiting for the registry. "When you add what was spent for Kau Inoa, OHA has spent over $10,000,000 for 120,000 registrants out of 500,000."
Nov 23: Today is the 20th anniversary of President Clinton's signing of the apology resolution which commemorated the 100th year since the 1893 overthrow of the Hawaiian kingdom. A front page article in the Honolulu Star-Advertiser noted that the federal government has not taken steps toward reconciliation with Native Hawaiians as called for in the resolution; the Akaka bill has failed in Congress; and the independence activists don't want the Akaka bill anyway, because they want secession.
Nov 26: The Heritage Foundation releases a position paper opposing S.J.Res12, which proposes an amendment to the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act of 1920. Many of the points in the position paper also apply to federal recognition for a Hawaiian tribe whether through an Akaka bill or through executive action.
Nov 27: Honolulu Star-Advertiser editorial recalls the apology resolution from 20 years ago and once again urges federal recognition for an ethnic Hawaiian tribe not yet created.
December 1, 2013: Three articles from the monthly OHA newspaper: (1) News report says OHA trustees have appropriated $600,000 as a final amount to pay for Kana'iolowalu, the racial registry, [which brings the total to $4 Million for this project] producing very low numbers of registrants, and no more will be spent; (2) A trustee column explains her decision to vote to end the project; (3) A trustee column says several major ethnic Hawaiian institutions have come together in a process to assemble the elements of an ethnic Hawaiian nation, and this process of nation-building can continue regardless whether such a nation gets political recognition from the U.S. as an Indian tribe or from the United Nations as an independent nation.
Dec 9: Trisha Kehaulani Watson article in Honolulu Civil Beat says the Kana'iolowalu racial registry process is not working and should be abandoned. Instead she favors setting up a federal commission comparable to the Native Hawaiians Study Commission from the 1980s, to review the whole situation and figure out how to accomplish restoration of a Hawaiian nation, restitution for past harms done by the U.S., and recognition of Hawaiian self-determination.
Dec. 11: Honolulu Star-Advertiser published three items about Hawaiian sovereignty: (1) News report about the annual "State of OHA" event featuring keynote speaker retired Senator Daniel Akaka and OHA chair Colette Machado telling 350 people that OHA's primary focus will be nation-building and federal recognition; (2) Guest commentary by Keoni Dudley on behalf of a group of independence activists saying now is a good time to seek sovereignty; (3) Guest commentary by Ken Conklin pointing out the racial divisiveness of federal recognition and how it would suddenly impose on Hawaii a large number of federal Indian laws whose impact would be like invasive species.
Dec 12: Honolulu Star-Advertiser online poll about Hawaiian sovereignty offered 3 choices. 56% voted against any form of sovereignty for ethnic Hawaiians; 29% voted in favor of creating an Akaka tribe; 15% voted in favor of secession (independent nationhood for Hawaii).
Dec 15: Want a Gambling Casino in Hawaii? Get Recognition for a Hawaiian Tribe.
Dec 16: Two letters to editor in Honolulu Star-Advertiser praise the December 11 commentaries about Hawaiian sovereignty, and express worries about it.
Dec. 26: The Native Hawaiian Roll Commission has gathered 101,130 registrants as of Christmas 2013, including more than 71,000 names transferred from Kau Inoa and Operation Ohana. About 60 chose to opt out of having their names transferred. It started the effort with the goal of collecting 200,000 names by last July.
Dec. 30: In a year-end interview of both Hawaii Senators and both Hawaii Representatives, Colleen Hanabusa was the only one who expressed disappointment at the lack of progress on federal recognition for a Hawaiian tribe, and for her it is the most important issue. She says an executive order is the most likely scenario.
END OF INDEX OF NEWS REPORTS AND COMMENTARIES FROM JUNE 1, 2013 TO DECEMBER 31, 2013. FULL TEXT OF EACH ITEM IS BELOW THE INDEX IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER
===============
FULL TEXT OF ALL ITEMS INDEXED ABOVE
http://www.oha.org/sites/default/files/KWO0613_WEB.pdf
Ka Wai Ola [OHA monthly newspaper], June 2013, pages 8 and 25
Discussing Hawaiian Self-Governance
OHA convenes second summit
By Treena Shapiro
A recent summit gave Native Hawaiian leaders a chance to further discuss thoughts about what Hawaiian self-governance might look like at the state, federal and international levels.
Held last month at the University of Hawai'i Kamakaküokalani Center for Hawaiian Studies, the second Kämau a Ea governance summit engaged dozens of participants in building on the work of an earlier November summit. Organized and hosted by the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Kämau a Ea brought together leaders from independence initiatives, government agencies such
as the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands, and other stakeholders pursuing Hawaiian self-governance.
Office of Hawaiian Affairs CEO Kamana'opono Crabbe told those in attendance, "I applaud each and every one of you for continuing to carry
the flame of the ka lama kukui, of our desire to seek self-determination and to reclaim inherent sovereignty."
As some attendees noted, this isn't the first sustained effort to establish a framework for self-governance.
However, many expressed hope that the outcomes of the summit and the momentum created by the state recognition of Native Hawaiians through Act 195 would finally lead to the establishment of a Native Hawaiian government.
During the two-day summit, attendees broke out into groups to discuss Hawaiian self-governance at the state, federal and international levels.
Jon Osorio, who participated in the international breakout group, said there's much to be drawn from the diverse experience of Hawaiians. "The fact is that the lähui, the Hawaiian national body does have a diverse experience with this history,"he said in an 'Öiwi TV report. "These are things that … need to be talked about, but they also need to be brought out to the lähui and say, 'Look, if you're confused about these issues, if you find these things difficult to understand, understand that we're all dealing with these kinds of things."
OHA Chief Advocate Breann Nu'uhiwa said she sees progress in the discussions on self-governance. "I think what struck me most was really
that people have come to a point where it's no longer about whose idea is more correct," she said on 'Öiwi TV. "It's really a question of, Can we work together? Is there value to draw from all of these different initiatives?"
In the state-centered discussion, participants raised some ongoing concerns about public perception, such as worries that the process is too driven by the state and that the governance effort could fall short, like its predecessors. They also talked about rallying support for Native Hawaiian recognition, perhaps through more education [end page 8 / begin page 25] and outreach to explain what the community is trying to achieve.
They also brought up some new concerns, such as the fate of a federal Native Hawaiian recognition bill after the retirement of U.S. Sen. Daniel K. Akaka and the death of U.S. Sen. Daniel K. Inouye, both staunch supporters of
the legislation popularly called the Akaka bill.
Federal recognition would allow Native Hawaiians to form their own government under federal purview and help protect Hawaiian institutions and programs from being challenged as race-based. Formal acceptance as an
independent nation would provide a wide range of opportunities for reshaping Hawai'i, including nation-to-nation relations with other countries.
Although Native Hawaiians have not sought to be identified as a tribe under federal law, one participant referred to the Seminole tribe in Florida as an example of how a state and an American Indian tribal government cooperate.
The Seminoles have their own lands and generate revenue through casinos. While separate government entities, the Seminoles still use state schools and hospitals, and Florida police enforce state and tribal laws.
In Hawai'i, as the state-sponsored Native Hawaiian Roll Commission continues its mission to register 200,000 Hawaiians eligible to participate in organization of a governing entity, many are starting to consider what's next
because the process is open-ended. It could lead to the newly established Hawaiian nation taking any form -- a state recognized entity, a federally recognized entity or an independent internationally recognized entity.
While a group weighed the pros and cons of including non-Native Hawaiian supporters in the effort, former Gov. John Waihe'e, chairman of the Native Hawaiian Roll Commission, noted: "We should reach out to non-Hawaiians.
We're sharing the same space," he added. "You need as much people supporting what you want to do as possible."
Explaining that OHA's role in the summit and the overall pursuit of self-governance is to convene stakeholders and give them an opportunity to participate in planning, Crabbe, OHA's CEO, said: "We're going to talk. We're
going to share, put everything on the table until things are resolved. Sometimes that's a very difficult process but it's a necessary process, at least to begin the discussion and understand each other."
------------------
http://hawaiinewsdaily.com/2013/06/hawaiian-roll-call-bill-and-u-s-and-hawaiian-sovereignty-questioned/
Hawaii Political Reporter, June 4, 2013
Hawaiian Roll Call Bill and U.S. and Hawaiian Sovereignty Questioned
By Ed Gutteling and Ross Armetta
Dr. Kelli Akina, the new CEO of the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii and former OHA trustee candidate, addressed the Conservative Forum for Hawaii at the Naniloa Hotel Crown Room in Hilo Hawaii, on Sunday June 2. Dr. Akina's topic was "E Hana Kâkou: The Advancement of Native Hawaiians and All Residents of the Aloha State."
He was preceded by CEO emeritus and Grassroot Institute founder Richard Rowland who spoke of the concept of promoting individual liberty in our communities "2×2".
Mr. Rowland, Paraphrasing Ronald Reagan, noted that the true decisions facing all citizens were not between the left and right politically, but between "up and down."
Mr. Rowland stated that the average person does not know or care about the many political ideologies and divisions of government. He believes that they evaluate the decisions as moving us "up" and towards personal liberty and well-being, or "down" the accelerating path of government restriction of liberty and reducing people's well-being. He stressed the importance of speaking to our daily contacts: to spread this concept of how to view the political ideologies and decisions made in our society.
After Mr. Rowland finished, Dr. Akina began with the moving Oli Aloha welcoming chant taught to him by his mentor Winona Beamer, emphasizing aloha for all. He then defined the biggest threat to all Hawaii, and all Hawaiians, as being the present threat of ending the aloha spirit of inclusiveness (Relating to the Hawaiian Roll Call Bill). Specifically he addressed the Akaka Bill as wanting to impose a government entity on Native Hawaiians similar to that of Native American Indians which would establish government to government relations but impede government to people relations.
Dr. Akina noted that the racial divisiveness of the Roll Call Bill was contrary to the spirit of the founding documents of America: the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution – as well as the Hawaiian Constitution of 1841.
Dr. Akina also stated that when the Federal Akaka bill failed, the Hawaii State Government removed the most controversial provision of the federal bill and passed that provision as state law.
The state version of the law relates to the Native Hawaiian Roll Commission which would define Hawaiians by blood lines based after the arrival of Captain Cook – which Dr. Akina believes to be a racially divisive mechanism that is contrary to the spirit of aloha.
Dr. Akina contrasted the Roll Call's racial division with the racial inclusion of the Kingdom of Hawaii's Constitution of 1841. The 1841 Constitution was a declaration of rights stating equality for all : "God hath made of one blood all nations of men to dwell on the earth, in unity and blessedness".
Dr. Akina mentioned that this enlightened Hawaiian document, instituted by King Kamehaeha III, preceded the United States ending racial inequality (the ending of slavery) by two decades.
Dr. Akina also stated that the commission had wasted millions of dollars promoting this roll, but had only gathered 9300 signatories of the estimated 500,000 eligible Hawaiians. Dr. Akina believes the lack of support by Hawaiians for the roll is a strong indicator that the leadership of OHA and the Native Hawaiian Roll Commission do not represent the will of the Hawaiian population.
Dr. Akina also mentioned scandals of corruption and cronyism in OHA as described in the recent series of three articles in the Honolulu Star-Advertiser. He implied that those articles portray, OHA trustees in violation of their sworn oaths of office, were promoting racial divisiveness, and were consolidating power to preserve their positions of influence rather that furthering the lives of Native Hawaiians collectively.
Dr. Akina stated that only by each individual Hawaiian becoming an owner of property, of attaining their own wealth and self-reliance, could true advancement occur. As long as OHA and DHHL refused to relinquish control of the land and assets under their control and release it to their constituents, there would be a perpetual cycle of dependency and lack of economic advancement for the Hawaiian People – that it is contrary to, and destructive of, the very concept of aloha.
Dr. Akina concluded by urging all residents to participate in OHA elections and as candidates – as all residents are entitled to do by law. Dr. Akina believes that only by enlightened reconsideration of OHA's mission could true advancement occur, for Native Hawaiians and all Hawaii residents.
Dr. Akina's presentation was followed by a question and answer session, in which several Native Hawaiians, including Hawaiian Sovereignty advocate and former U. S. Marine locally known as Uncle Sam, with tears in his eyes, strenuously objected to Dr. Akina's presentation, claiming that the United States lacked legitimacy of sovereignty based on historical records and the ill-legitimate, armed overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom, (that many believe effected by Sanford Dole and mercenaries – NOT by official U.S. action) as a nation as well as the U.S. President (Cleveland), at the time, strongly opposing the armed overthrow make the current government ill-legitimate and therefore not legally recognized by Hawaiian Sovereigns. It was also mentioned that President Cleveland spoke strongly and eloquently about the overthrow to the U.S. Senate and House on December 18, 1893. President Cleveland's speech is readily available on-line and does provide insight on the matter by those who lived through the overthrow.
Legal Scholar, Dwight Vicente raised the point that Hawaii is not technically a state in the union as it was incorporated under the Monroe Doctrine. That is why there are 50 stars (states) and only 13 stripes – the original and full states in the Union that signed and recognized the Declaration of Independence and Constitution. One of the participants claimed that the one of the legal articles referenced in 1959 to achieve statehood is non-existent and therefore Hawaii is not legally a state.
Dr. Akina gracefully responded to the questions and statements briefly pointing out that it was common for nations to change rule and be succeeded by others throughout history. Many could point to grievances about the legality or the legitimacy of the succession, including several of Hawaii's monarchs when they too ascended to power. Dr. Akina's emphasis seemed to be that in practical terms this is where we are – time does not go backwards – and that we are better off to strive toward the ideals of the U.S. and Sovereign Hawaiian Constitutions relating to equality and recognition of all people as Hawaiians.
Dr. Akina conveyed that it was important to emphasize the inclusiveness of all the Hawaiian community (aloha) and not seek or cause divisiveness, which would harm everyone. He again praised the spirit of the Declaration of Independence, and of the Hawaiian Kingdom's own constitution, of equality for all: government by consent of the governed.
The event was attended by at least 65 people including local Council Member Gregory Illagan, and Representative Faye Hanohano, and former State Senate Candidate Daryl Smith as well as several Hawaiian groups, and legal scholars Tim Rees and Dwight Vicente. It was recorded by Hawaii Political Reporter and will be aired on Na-Leo channel 53 at 9PM on the upcoming (June 4 ) and next Tuesday. The group was representative of the local community in general and included persons and parties from diverse ideologies.
Although strong emotion was present the spirit of aloha prevailed. The Conservative Forum (a non-profit , non-partisan organization) and the Naniloa Hotel provided a seemingly appreciated, by the majority of attendees, educational and communicative venue for this complex and powerful issue. The Forum occasional hosts a variety of events. Information can be found on their website.
Dr Akina's full presentation (over 1 hour) will be available in the next several days via links on the Conservative Forum of Hawaii, Hawaii Political Reporter's, and Hawaii News Daily's websites.
** A video of the entire one hour eight minute event is now available at
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bek8j0dEbTo&feature=youtu.be
--------------
http://www.staradvertiser.com/newspremium/20130606__Native_hui_back_Hawaiian_rights_.html?id=210371951
Honolulu Star-Advertiser, June 6, 2013
Native hui back Hawaiian rights
Indigenous Alaskans and American Indians meet with lawmakers in Washington, D.C.
By B.J. Reyes
Alaska natives and American Indians, groups recognized by the federal government as indigenous people with the right to self-determination, reaffirmed support for Hawaii officials' efforts to gain similar status for Native Hawaiians as congressional delegations from both states met Tuesday to discuss ways to continue working together for the mutual benefit of the only two noncontiguous states.
Federal recognition, effects of sequestration and continued congressional support for programs that benefit native people were issues raised at the inaugural roundtable meeting in Washington, D.C., by the Council for Native Hawaiian Advancement and the Alaska Federation of Natives.
The relationship was forged decades ago through the cooperation and longtime friendship of the late U.S. Sens. Daniel Inouye, a Hawaii Democrat, and Ted Stevens, an Alaska Republican, who recognized the need for the two youngest states to work in tandem.
Tuesday's meeting "was really the beginning of the conversation with respect to Alaska and Hawaii continuing their partnership, but it's the first time that it's been done so formally," U.S. Sen. Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii, who was appointed after Inouye's death in December, said in a phone interview. "This has been a partnership that was built over the decades but there are new members of the House and Senate and therefore it was really critical that we confirm our commitment to each other."
Fellow Hawaii Democrats U.S. Sen. Mazie Hirono and U.S. Reps. Colleen Hanabusa and Tulsi Gabbard also attended the meeting with the congressional delegation from Alaska and about 100 Native Hawaiian, Alaska natives and American Indian leaders, officials said.
"A lot of their questions had to do with how do we continue to go forward now and make sure our voices are heard in terms of Alaska and Hawaii issues … issues that people have been able to take for granted because we've always had the protection of the senators," Hanabusa said by phone.
Among the issues raised was federal recognition for Native Hawaiians. Efforts led by former U.S. Sen. Dan Akaka, who retired last year, have stalled in the Senate since 2000 because of opposition from conservative Republicans who consider it race-based discrimination.
"There was also a commitment from Indian countries and the Alaska native groups to support our effort towards getting a government-to-government relationship between Native Hawaiians and the federal government," Schatz said.
Other groups pressed for continued support of educational and economic programs, such as federal grants for native groups offered through the U.S. Small Business Administration that are "continually under attack every budget year," Hanabusa said.
Schatz added, "It was an opportunity for a bipartisan group of leaders to reaffirm their mutual commitment to native health and economic opportunity."
Although the meeting did not result in any proposed legislation, the groups plan to continue the roundtable meetings, alternating annually between Hawaii and Alaska.
"Everyone is in agreement that this is necessary for both the state of Alaska and the state of Hawaii and the native peoples of both states to be able to continue to be in receipt of what the federal government has basically promised and … be supportive of Native Hawaiians in their journey for recognition," Hanabusa said.
==============
** June 11, 2013 is Kamehameha Day, a holiday in the State of Hawaii. Senator Brian Schatz (D,HI) gives speech on Senate floor calling for federal recognition of Akaka tribe (although no bill has yet been introduced), and is supported by brief comments by Senators Maria Cantwell (D,WA and chair of Indian Affairs Committee), Mark Begich (D,AK), Lisa Murkowski (R,AK), and Al Franken (D,MN) -- all 5 are members of the Indian Affairs committee.
** Following are press releases and contents from the Congressional Record
http://www.schatz.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=344027
U.S. Senate website of Senator Brian Schatz (D, HI)
Press Release of Senator Schatz
Schatz: "It is Long Past Time for the Native Hawaiian People to Regain Their Right to Self-Governance"
Tuesday, June 11, 2013
WASHINGTON -- Senator Brian Schatz delivered a major address on the floor of the United States Senate on the need for the federal government to treat Native Hawaiians fairly, and apply to them the same federal policy of self-determination available to other Native groups in the United States.
"The reason that I have chosen to carry forward this fight on behalf of Native Hawaiians is simple: it's right to seek justice," said Senator Brian Schatz. "It is long past time for Native Hawaiian people to regain their right to self-governance, and that's why we must all work together and join in the fight for justice for Native Hawaiians."
Following his remarks, several of his Senate colleagues voiced their support for his efforts on behalf of Native Hawaiians.
"Senator Schatz is already providing immediate leadership on Native Hawaiian issues in his role on the Indian Affairs Committee. His knowledge and enthusiasm will be a key asset in getting laws passed to benefit Native Hawaiians. As Chairwoman of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, I look forward to working with Senator Schatz and the Hawaii delegation to support opportunity and economic growth for Native Hawaiians and across Indian Country," said Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA), Chair of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs.
"The relationship between the Alaska and Hawaii delegations represent a special bond between two states whose histories are intertwined," said Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), the senior member of the Alaska-Hawaii Senate coalition. "The Alaska delegation has always stood shoulder to shoulder with the Hawaii delegation on establishing a government-to-government relationship with Native Hawaiians and the United States. We will continue to support our Hawaii colleagues until justice for Native Hawaiians has been achieved."
"It's a well-known fact in the Senate that the Alaska and Hawaii delegations have a special bond as the country's two youngest states. We have a long tradition of working together specifically to advance the unique needs of our Native populations. I'm grateful to Sen. Schatz for highlighting some of these issues during his first Senate floor speech today and I look forward to working with him on Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian issues in the future," said Senator Mark Begich (D-AK).
"As we address the disparities faced by indigenous populations across the country, I'm glad Sen. Schatz is making the strong case that we must remember to include Native Hawaiians," said Senator Al Franken (D-MN). "As a member of the Indian Affairs Committee, I have worked with Senator Schatz on a number of issues to ensure that all Native peoples are treated equally and benefit from the federal policy of self-determination."
[** Full text of the speech is copied below]
--------------
http://www.schatz.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=344024
U.S. Senate website of Senator Brian Schatz (D, HI)
Press Release of Senator Schatz
Schatz Delivers Major Floor Speech On Achieving Fairness for Native Hawaiians
Tuesday, June 11, 2013
Below please find Senator Schatz's full floor speech on achieving fairness for Native Hawaiians:
June 11th marks a public holiday in the State of Hawaii – King Kamehameha Day – celebrated since 1872. We hold a statewide festival and mark the day with lei draping ceremonies, parades, hula competitions and other festivities. It is a day to honor Kamehameha the Great, who unified the Kingdom of Hawaii, and to celebrate the rich culture and traditions of the Hawaiian people.
I chose this day to come to the Senate Floor to talk about an issue of great importance to me and to my state: Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization. It was a top priority of my immediate predecessors in this body – Senators Inouye and Akaka. For more than three decades they worked together in the Congress to advance priorities important to Hawaii and the nation.
They made history at almost every step of their careers – securing dozens of "firsts" in the House and Senate. But for the indigenous people of the United States – Senators Inouye and Akaka will be forever remembered for their work as members and then chairs of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, and for their advocacy on behalf of American Indians, Alaska Natives and Native Hawaiians.
I want to acknowledge their legacy and to thank Senator Akaka for the role that he continues to play in the great State of Hawaii and in the Native Hawaiian community in particular. And, here is the reason that I have chosen to carry forward this fight on behalf of Native Hawaiians. Simply stated: because it is right to seek justice.
Native Hawaiians are the only federally recognized Native people without a government-to-government relationship with the United States and they deserve access to the prevailing federal policy of self-determination. Opponents have argued that Native Hawaiians are not "Indians" as if the word applies to Native people of a certain racial or ethnic heritage or is limited to indigenous people from one part of the United States, but not another. This is misguided.
In the U.S. Constitution, it is clear our Founding Fathers understood it was the tribal nations' sovereign authority that distinguished them from others. It was the fact that tribes were Native groups with distinct governments that predated our own, that justified special treatment in the Constitution and under our federal laws.
In what is now the United States, European contact with Native groups, began in the 15th and 16th centuries on the East Coast, and the 16th and 17th centuries on the West Coast; while in Alaska and Hawaii, European contact was delayed until the 18th century. Throughout the centuries a myriad of factors influenced how various Native groups were treated.
The historical timeframe when policies and programs were applied to various Native groups may have been different. But what was consistent throughout, were the federal policies and actions intended to strip Native Americans of their languages, weaken traditional leadership and family structures, divide land bases, prohibit religious and cultural practices, and break communal bonds. And, these policies were as harmful and unjust to Native Hawaiians as they were to Alaska Natives and American Indians.
There was a thriving society that greeted Captain James Cook when he landed on the shores of Hawaii in 1778. Prior to their first contact with Europeans, Native Hawaiians had a population of at least 300,000. They were a highly organized, self-sufficient society and they had their own rules, laws, language and culture.
In his journals, Captain Cook referred to the indigenous people of Hawaii as "Indians" because it was the established English term in the 18th century to describe Native groups -- regardless of their race, ethnicity or their governmental structure. But, just like many Native Americans and Alaska Natives on the continent, the name Native Hawaiians chose in their own language was -- Kanaka Maoli -- The People.
From 1826 until 1893, the United States recognized the independence of the Hawaiian Government as a distinct political entity. We extended full and complete diplomatic recognition, and entered into five treaties and conventions with the Hawaiian monarchs to govern commerce and navigation. These treaties are clear evidence that Native Hawaiians were considered a separate and distinct nation more than a century after contact.
But, on January 17, 1893, the legitimate government of the Native Hawaiian people was removed forcibly, by agents and armed forces of the United States. The illegality of this action has been acknowledged in contemporary as well as modern times by both the Executive and Legislative branches of our federal government.
An investigation called for by President Cleveland produced a report by former Congressman James Blount. The report's findings were unambiguous: U.S. diplomatic and military representatives had abused their authority and were responsible for the change in the government. As a result of these findings, the United States Minister to Hawaii was recalled from his diplomatic post and the military commander of the United States armed forces stationed in Hawaii was disciplined and forced to resign his commission.
In a message to Congress in December of 1893, President Cleveland described the events that brought down the Hawaiian Government as an "act of war, committed with the participation of a diplomatic representative of the United States and without authority of Congress." And, he acknowledged that "by such acts, the government of a peaceful and friendly people was overthrown." President Cleveland concluded that "a substantial wrong has thus been done which a due regard for our national character -- as well as the rights of the injured people -- requires we should endeavor to repair" and he called for the restoration of the Hawaiian monarchy.
The Provisional Government refused to relinquish power and in July of 1894, declared itself to be the Republic of Hawaii. The Provisional Government advocated annexation of Hawaii to the United States and began to lobby the Congress to pass a treaty of annexation.
Hawaii's monarch at the time, Queen Liliuokalani, presented a petition to the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a formal statement of protest to the Secretary of State. The petition, signed by more than 21,000 Hawaiian men and women, represented more than half of the Hawaiian census population and was compiled in less than three weeks. It also included the signatures of approximately 20,000 non-Hawaiians who supported the return of the islands to self-governed rule. The "Petition Against Annexation" was a powerful tool in the defeat of the annexation treaty in 1897.
In the next year, however, proponents of annexation introduced the Newlands Joint Resolution, a measure requiring only a simple majority of votes to gain passage. The annexation of Hawaii passed with the much reduced threshold of votes, and was signed into law by President McKinley in July of 1898.
For almost two centuries after the founding of our nation, federal policies of removal, relocation, assimilation and termination, decimated Native communities and worsened the socio-economic conditions for American Indians, Alaska Natives and Native Hawaiians. The policy of banning Native language use in the schools was adopted by the territory of Hawaii. Native children were punished for speaking Hawaiian, just as American Indians and Alaska Natives were punished for using their own languages in school. The policy of allotting parcels of land to individual Indians began in 1887, as a way to break up the reservations and communal lifestyles. In 1906, it was expanded to include Alaska Natives. In 1921, it was applied to Native Hawaiians.
In an attempt to reverse the damage done by these policies, since the 1920's, the Congress has established special Native Hawaiian programs in education, employment, health care and housing. And, the Congress has extended to Native Hawaiians many of the same rights and privileges accorded to American Indians and Alaska Natives. The Congress has consistently recognized Native Hawaiians as native peoples of the United States on whose behalf it may exercise its powers under the Constitution.
In 1993, the Congress passed, and President Clinton signed, legislation known as the Apology Resolution -- a formal acknowledgement and apology by the Congress. This legislation recognizes that the overthrow of the Hawaiian government resulted in "the suppression of the inherent sovereignty of the Native Hawaiian people" and "the deprivation of the rights of Native Hawaiians to self-determination."
It has been 20 years since the passage of the Apology Resolution, but the federal government has not yet acted to provide a process for reorganizing a Native Hawaiian governing entity. This inaction puts Native Hawaiians at a unique disadvantage. Of the three major groups of Native Americans in the United States -- American Indians, Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiians -- only Native Hawaiians currently lack the benefits of democratic self-government.
An extensive Congressional legislative and oversight record created over the last two decades, and dozens of Congressional findings delineated in federal statutes establish these facts: Indigenous Hawaiians, like tribes on the continental United States, formed a Native community with their own government; this political entity existed before the founding of the United States; and, Native Hawaiians share historical and current bonds within their community. Like tribes in the continental United States, Native Hawaiians, have certain lands set aside for their benefit pursuant to Acts of Congress, including: 200,000 acres of Hawaiian Homes Commission Act land and share an interest in the income generated by 1.2 million acres of public trust lands under the Hawaii Admission Act.
Although the Congress has passed more than 150 statutes to try to address some of the negative effects of earlier federal actions and policies, data reveal persistent health, education and income disparities. Native Hawaiians experience disproportionately high rates of unemployment and incarceration; and, Native Hawaiian children are over represented in the juvenile justice system. Hawaiian families rank last in the nation in average annual pay and face the highest rates of homelessness.
Separate is not equal, and that is why I urge the federal government to treat Native Hawaiians fairly. It is long past time for the Native Hawaiian people to regain their right to self-governance.
Two years ago the State of Hawaii passed a historic measure to explicitly acknowledge that Native Hawaiians are the only indigenous, aboriginal, maoli population of Hawaii and to establish a Native Hawaiian Enrollment Commission. My good friend and the former Governor of Hawaii, John Waihee, was appointed Chairman and is leading the effort to register Native Hawaiians. This landmark effort is widely supported by the State of Hawaii, our Congressional delegation and our citizens.
I want to acknowledge the Commission, commend its vital work, and urge Native Hawaiians to take advantage of this opportunity to help reorganize a representational government. The actions and commitments of the State of Hawaii and the Roll Commission are crucial. But, in order to reach our goal -- we must all work together.
That is why today -- on King Kamehameha Day -- I call upon all of us to join in the fight for justice for Native Hawaiians.
Thank you.
-------------------
http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/22566200/schatz-speech-seeks-support-for-native-hawaiians
Hawaii News Now (3 Hawaii TV stations joint news), June 11, 2013
Schatz speech seeks support for Native Hawaiians
By Tim Sakahara
HONOLULU (HawaiiNewsNow) -
The effort to get the Akaka Bill passed has started again. Today Hawaii Senator Brian Schatz delivered a speech on the Senate floor for Native Hawaiians.
Senator Brian Schatz used King Kamehameha Day to relaunch support for Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization widely known as the Akaka Bill.
Senator Schatz spoke of the more than 300,000 Hawaiians who greeted Captain James Cook when he arrived in 1778 and how they were unjustly overthrown by an abuse of American power.
"The legitimate government of the Native Hawaiian people was removed forcibly, by agents and armed forces of the United States," said Senator Brian Schatz, (D) Hawaii, in his speech to colleagues.
He said Native Hawaiian families rank last in the country in annual pay and face higher rates of homelessness. The people lack the benefits of democratic self-government and it's time they were recognized.
"Separate is not equal and that is why I urge the federal government to treat Native Hawaiians fairly. It is long past time for Native Hawaiian people to regain their right to self-governance," said Sen. Schatz.
It will be an uphill battle especially since influential Senators Daniel Inouye and Daniel Akaka themselves weren't able to get it passed.
"We will do it with a lot of help," said Congresswoman Colleen Hanabusa, (D) Hawaii District 1, by phone from Washington. "In addition to that don't ever forget that we have a President of the United States who is a keiki o ka aina and I believe he is committed to this issue as well."
The four members of Hawaii's delegation are said to be working on the Bill together even though Senator Schatz and Congresswoman Hanabusa are going after the same Senate seat. Logistically it's still unknown if they will reintroduce Senator Akaka's bill or author a new version. Either way it isn't expected to have major changes.
"But in order to reach our goal we must all work together. That is why on King Kamehameha Day I call upon all of us to join in the fight for justice for Native Hawaiians," said Sen. Schatz.
People at the Kamehameha Day events in Honolulu were happy Hawaii's delegation is continuing the fight.
"Like our cousins the Native Americans, they have been recognized. The Native Alaskans, they have been recognized. We are the last indigenous people of America and all we're asking for is to be recognized," said Sarah Keahi, Daughters and Sons of Mamakakaua.
It's unknown at this point when the Hawaii delegation will introduce the bill. No timeline has been set but they will need to work quickly if they want to get it done within the remainder of President Obama's term.
For the full text of Senator Brian Schatz's speech click here.
http://www.schatz.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=344024
If you would like to watch the speech click here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81_nZWzQOt4
-----------------
http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2013/06/12/photos-native-hawaiians-honor-and-celebrate-king-kamehameha-149857
Indian Country Today, June 12, 2013
Native Hawaiians Honor and Celebrate King Kamehameha
[Beautiful photos in the article have these captions:
King Kamehameha Statue, draped in leis.
Pa'u riders
This Native Hawaiian's T-shirt says it all [illegally occupied since 1893].
Traditional artists shows how Native Hawaiian designs are painted on cloth.
{Bamboo stamps imprinting kapa}
Bray Kapiao and upside down Hawaiian Flags, a sign of distress.]
Lei draping ceremonies, parades and other festivities June 7-9 honored the legacy of King Kamehameha, who in 1795 was responsible for unifying the Hawaiian Islands. Celebrations took place throughout the weekend on all of the Hawaiian Islands with the largest on Oahu in downtown Honolulu.
Festivities began on Friday, June 7, with the Lei Draping Ceremony at the Statue of King Kamehameha in front the historic Ali'iolani Hale building. The next morning there was a parade through downtown Waikiki . Thousands of spectators lined the streets to honor Hawaii's greatest hero, warrior and statesman, King Kamehameha. There were brightly decorated floats, energetic marching bands and traditional pa'u riders, representing the Hawaiian royal court on horseback. Later in the afternoon the members of the Celebration Commission hosted a day of music, traditional artists and exhibitors on the grounds of Iolani Palace.
Commission member Skylark Rossetti said, "Kamehameha had the vision to see what he wanted for his people and that was to be one people under one King, so we honor this visionary, not just so statues can be decked with leis but as symbolism that in our hearts we as Hawaiians can be one together."
The celebration also brought many traditional Native Hawaiians together who see Kamehameha Day as a reminder to the world that Hawaii is their traditional home and resting place of their Kupuna (ancestors). Bray Kapiko who sat enjoying the day's festivities had a long pole attached to his lawn chair flying two upside down Hawaiian flags. "These flags are a clear sign Hawaii is in distress, our lands were stolen from us and today is a reminder for all Hawaiians to never forget and to honor the royalty we once had" said Bray.
The parade and all the pageantry is not for everyone I met. Robert Haumea of Aiea said, "I only attend the Lei Draping Ceremony because for me that is the true honoring of this great leader."
It's clear the 96th Annual King Kamehameha Celebration had different meanings for visitors but one thing is clear the legacy of Hawaii's greatest leader will never be forgotten.
------------------
http://www.hawaiipoliticalinfo.org/node/6453
Hawaii Political Info, June 13, 2013
Maiden Speech by Senator Schatz Pleads for Akaka Tribe
by Ken Conklin
On June 11, 2013 Senate majority leader Harry Reid (D,NV) said, "Mr. President, I would ask the Chair at this time to recognize the Senator from Hawaii, Mr. Schatz, who replaced Senator Inouye. I understand he is going to give his maiden speech in the Senate today."
Senator Schatz waited six months before giving his maiden speech. He then squandered his political capital by choosing a topic which other Senators consider unimportant and would benefit only large, wealthy institutions serving a 21% racial minority of Hawaii's people.
Senator Schatz gave his speech around noontime, leading up to the Tuesday afternoon Republican and Democrat caucus luncheons. The speech was squeezed into a quorum call during a pause in a contentious discussion of a bill to overhaul America's immigration laws. Such scheduling might be expected for a speech in praise of a Little League team that won a championship.
The press release at
http://tinyurl.com/pewdnky
said "Following his remarks, several of his Senate colleagues voiced their support for his efforts on behalf of Native Hawaiians" and included quotes from Senators Maria Cantwell (D,WA), Lisa Murkowski (R,AK), Mark Begich (D,AK), and Al Franken (D,MN), all of whom serve on the Indian Affairs committee alongside Schatz. The press release uses the phrase "colleagues voiced their support," giving the impression that those other Senators gave speeches of support on the Senate floor, or at least entered their written statements into the record. But Senator Schatz is misleading us. None of those statements by other Senators appear anywhere except in his press releases; see the entire 333 page Congressional Record for June 11 at
http://tinyurl.com/pa5n7n3
The full text of Schatz' speech is in another press release entitled "Schatz Delivers Major Floor Speech On Achieving Fairness for Native Hawaiians" at
http://tinyurl.com/qdfb28l
and is also on pages S4071 to S4073 in the Congressional Record.
The best overall rebuttals to the general concept of creating a federally recognized Akaka tribe are:
Kell'i Akina, Ph.D., the new CEO of the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii and 2012 OHA trustee candidate (37,835 votes), addressed the Conservative Forum for Hawaii at the Naniloa Hotel Crown Room in Hilo Hawaii, on Sunday June 2. Dr. Akina's topic was "E Hana Kâkou: The Advancement of Native Hawaiians and All Residents of the Aloha State." It was an extraordinary event, highly inspirational. A video of his speech, a little over an hour, includes a description of his background; a chant he delivered in Hawaiian; his speech filled with patriotism and conservative principles in relation to OHA, DHHL, and Hawaiian sovereignty; and a Q&A period. See the video at
http://tinyurl.com/kcxhy3b
Kenneth R. Conklin, Ph.D. 302-page book "Hawaiian Apartheid: Racial Separatism and Ethnic Nationalism in the Aloha State" A webpage providing the cover, entire Chapter 1, detailed Table of Contents, and how to order the book is at
http://tinyurl.com/2a9fqa
There have been hundreds of articles published in local and national media opposing the Akaka bill during the years from 2000 to now, including statements from President Bush, several Senators, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, several public opinion polls, editorials by the Wall Street Journal, etc. See an index in chronological order, with full text in annual subpages, at
http://tinyurl.com/5eflp
Also see "Why all America should oppose the Hawaiian government reorganization bill, also known as the Akaka bill" at
http://tinyurl.com/ypops
A point-by-point rebuttal to 23 of the most significant, misleading or false statements made by Senator Schatz is provided on a webpage at
http://tinyurl.com/m3azruz
Here are a few of them.
Schatz1: June 11th marks a public holiday in the State of Hawaii ... to honor Kamehameha the Great, who unified the Kingdom of Hawaii ...
Rebuttal1: Kamehameha is remembered as "The Great" because his major accomplishment was to unify Hawaii under a single sovereignty. What Kamehameha hath joined together, let not Senator Schatz or Congress rip asunder.
http://tinyurl.com/n9f5fp
and
http://tinyurl.com/bszgr
Schatz3: I want to ... carry forward this fight on behalf of Native Hawaiians ... because it is right to seek justice.
Rebuttal3: Dividing the lands and people of Hawaii along racial lines is NOT justice, it is apartheid. No other state has 21% of its people being Indians, let alone 21% who would be eligible to join a single tribe and sit on both sides of the negotiating table as citizens of both the tribe and the state. No tribe has its lands widely dispersed as separate enclaves scattered in numerous places throughout the state, creating jurisdictional chaos. See a map showing the federal and state government lands which the Akaka tribe is likely to demand. Note that the map does not show the extensive holdings of Hawaii's largest private landowner Bishop Estate (Kamehameha Schools), which are also widely scattered and likely to be reincorporated out of the State and into the tribe:
http://tinyurl.com/bgx25
Schatz6: [F]ederal policies and actions intended to strip Native Americans of their languages, weaken traditional leadership and family structures, divide land bases, prohibit religious and cultural practices, and break communal bonds ... were as harmful and unjust to Native Hawaiians as they were to Alaska Natives and American Indians.
Rebuttal6: In regard to Native Hawaiians, this is a scurrilous accusation unbecoming of a U.S. Senator. The United States never stripped ethnic Hawaiians of their language, and never prohibited their religious and cultural practices. The ancient Hawaiian religion was abolished by Liholiho Kamehameha 2 in 1819, the year before the first American missionaries arrived, and 74 years before the monarchy was overthrown. The U.S. encouraged and fostered Hawaiian culture and a native land base by passing the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act of 1920, and by making hundreds of millions of dollars in grants for Native Hawaiian programs including the Polynesian Voyaging Society, the Native Hawaiian Education Act, Alu Like, Papa Ola Lokahi, and at least 150 other federal programs referred to later in Senator Schatz' statement. The Kingdom government, headed by full-blooded native Kings, established a policy of converting the public schools from Hawaiian to English as the language of instruction, to the point where 95% of all the schools were already using English by 1892 (year before the revolution).
http://tinyurl.com/6zrka
Schatz8: From 1826 until 1893, the United States recognized the independence of the Hawaiian Government as a distinct political entity. We extended full and complete diplomatic recognition ... Native Hawaiians were considered a separate and distinct nation more than a century after contact.
Rebuttal8: The Kingdom of Hawaii was NOT defined by race. It is a falsehood when Senator Schatz says "Native Hawaiians were considered a separate and distinct nation." Throughout its history, a majority of the cabinet ministers and judges, nearly all the department heads, and 1/4 - 1/3 of the members of the legislature (both appointed and elected, both Nobles and Representatives) were Caucasians. During the Kingdom's final years, most of the population were ethnic Japanese and Chinese invited by the Kings to work on the sugar plantations or to become businessmen. Thousands of Caucasians, Japanese, and Chinese were subjects of the Kingdom either by being native-born in Hawaii or by being naturalized. Caucasians and Asians were full partners in the Kingdom.
Schatz9: But, on January 17, 1893, the legitimate government of the Native Hawaiian people was removed forcibly, by agents and armed forces of the United States.
Rebuttal9: This is a scurrilous lie. The 162 U.S. peacekeepers who came ashore in January 1893 did not take over any buildings, did not invade the Palace grounds, did not arrest the Queen, did not give any supplies or assistance to the armed militia of local men who carried out the revolution. The largest nationality of origin in the Annexation Club were Portuguese. A majority of the leadership group of the revolution (Committee of Safety) were native-born or naturalized subjects of the Kingdom, and the others were long-time residents and business owners disgusted with the corrupt monarchy.
Schatz10: The illegality of this action has been acknowledged in contemporary as well as modern times by both the Executive and Legislative branches of our federal government.
Rebuttal10: Congress has conducted major inquiries on two occasions, taking testimony under oath in a Senate committee during a two month period (Morgan Report 1894) and conducting hearings with expert testimony and public comment during a two year period (Native Hawaiians Study Commission 1983); and both times, after careful deliberation, reached the conclusion that the U.S. was not responsible for the revolution and does not owe any reparations to Native Hawaiians. See a summary of the conclusions and links to the full text of both reports at
http://tinyurl.com/f4cqt
Schatz18: In 1993, the Congress passed, and President Clinton signed, legislation known as the Apology Resolution
Rebuttal18: See a detailed critique of the apology resolution and the bad effects it has had, at
http://tinyurl.com/bkvv8e8
Bruce Fein, an attorney specializing in Constitutional law, wrote a booklet published June 1, 2005 which included a point by point refutation of the apology resolution; that portion is featured at
http://tinyurl.com/ajz9s
Schatz20: Native Hawaiians experience disproportionately high rates of unemployment and incarceration; and, Native Hawaiian children are over represented in the juvenile justice system. Hawaiian families rank last in the nation in average annual pay and face the highest rates of homelessness.
Rebuttal20: There are two main processes whereby genuine data are skewed to portray ethnic Hawaiians as victims. (a) Anyone with a single drop of Hawaiian native blood is counted as Native Hawaiian; and at the same time they are NOT counted as any of their other ethnic or racial heritages. Thus it looks like Native Hawaiians are disproportionately represented in nearly all bad economic, social, and medical problems. (b) According to Census 2010, ethnic Hawaiians have a median age of only 26, while everyone else in Hawaii has a median age of 41. Of course young people have lower incomes, and greater rates of crime (especially accompanied by violence) than middle-aged people. That's why ethnic Hawaiians SEEM TO BE overrepresented in the criminal justice system and low income groups -- not because they are bad people and not because they are discriminated against, but simply because they are youthful as a group and experiencing the problems of youth regardless of race.
http://tinyurl.com/d5a7po5
In any case, it's unclear why a sovereign Akaka tribe would improve the allegedly bad statistics. Indians on the mainland fare worse when they live on sovereign tribal reservations than when they live in racially integrated towns under state and county jurisdiction.
Schatz23: This landmark effort is widely supported by the State of Hawaii, our Congressional delegation and our citizens.
Rebuttal23: Racial separatism in general, and the Akaka bill in particular, are NOT supported by a majority of Hawaii's people. See this webpage created in 2006: "Akaka Bill -- Roundup of Evidence Showing Most Hawaii People and Most Ethnic Hawaiians Oppose It"
http://tinyurl.com/omewe
See a survey in 2005 which called every household in Hawaii that had a published landline telephone number and found that 67% of respondents opposed the Akaka bill:
http://tinyurl.com/cwxgg
Nearly the same result was obtained in 2006:
http://tinyurl.com/k5hxc
See also the Zogby poll in December 2009:
http://tinyurl.com/y9x9q7u
In 2012-2013 only 9300 ethnic Hawaiians signed up for the racial registry Kana'iolowalu during the first year, out of the 527,000 identified in Census 2010.
http://tinyurl.com/mkhrb2t
But even if Hawaii's people wanted the Akaka bill to pass, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights has repeatedly called it racist in official statements published on letterhead in 2006
http://tinyurl.com/ocap3
and again in 2009
http://tinyurl.com/kqt39k
and again in 2010
http://tinyurl.com/ycfxmjz
--------------------
http://www.oha.org/sites/default/files/KWO0713_WEB_0.pdf#overlay-context=ka-wai-ola/iulai-2013
Ka Wai Ola [OHA monthly newspaper], Vol. 30, No. 7, July 2013, page 8
New law extends Kana'iolowalu privileges to more Native Hawaiians
On July 1, 2013 a law will go into effect that makes the Native Hawaiian Roll Commission responsible for including on the roll -- and extending the privileges of enrollment to -- verified Hawaiians and Native Hawaiians who are already registered with the Office of Hawaiian Affairs on its Operation 'Ohana, Native Hawaiian Registry and kau Inoa lists.
This new law helps ensure that Native Hawaiians who have demonstrated their civic commitment to the Hawaiian community by registering on those lists will have the same rights and acknowledgments as the members of the Native Hawaiian roll. If you are registered and verified with Operation 'Ohana, the Hawaiian Registry or Kau Inoa, you are to be included on the Kana'iolowalu roll as a result of the new law (Act 77).
----------------
http://www.staradvertiser.com/editorialspremium/letterspremium/20130704_Letters_to_the_Editor.html?id=214246821
Honolulu Star-Advertiser, July 4, 2013, Letter to editor
Hawaiians should avoid roll calls
Gov. Neil Abercrombie has dirtied his hands by signing Kanaiolowalu legislation, including House Bill 785, that passed the Legislature this year. The legislation contained unconstitutional clauses that undermine the Bill of Rights, which guarantees freedom of speech and freedom of association as well as the corollary: the right not to associate.
Hawaiians who have registered in any Office of Hawaiian Affairs registry, Kamehameha Schools database, Kau Inoa, etc. are now forced members of Kanaiolowalu, the Native Hawaiian roll.
Hawaiians are now a captured Indian tribe instead of members of a nation with the potential, once we resurrect our government, to be recognized in the family of nations with the right to have the United States compensate us handsomely for its illegal invasion of the Hawaiian Kingdom and forced abdication of Queen Liliuokalani.
Lela M. Hubbard
Aiea
------------------
http://www.mauinews.com/page/content.detail/id/574251/New-law-could-help-increase--Native-Hawaiian-roll-effort.html?nav=5031
The Maui News, July 6, 2013 [and numerous other newspapers and TV stations affiliated with Associated Press]
New law could help increase Native Hawaiian roll effort
The Associated Press
HONOLULU (AP) - A new state law allowing proof of ancestry to be taken from several sources is expected to make it easier to expand the roll of Native Hawaiians - a move that could help them form their own government.
The law that went into effect Monday aims to increase the number of people on the roll by reducing paperwork and redundancy on various lists of Native Hawaiians such as those at Kamehameha Schools and for homestead land leases, Hawaii News Now reported Thursday.
"Just the other week I was talking to one of my good friends and she had mentioned to me, 'I have list fatigue already,' '' said Naalehu Antony, a member of the Native Hawaiian Roll Commission, also known as Kanaiolowalu.
The new law will allow the commission to use information from entities such as Kamehameha Schools, the Department of Hawaiian Home Land and the Department of Health to compile the roll.
For example, a verification letter from Kamehameha Schools will be sufficient proof that someone is Native Hawaiian, Anthony said.
With a comprehensive list, Native Hawaiians could follow American Indian tribes in forming their own governments.
There are currently less than 15,000 people on the Hawaiian roll. The deadline to sign it has been extended to January.
Health officials have also agreed to confirm if someone is Native Hawaiian instead of the person having to pay $10 to request a birth certificate.
"We've simplified the process to be able to ask the Department of Health, given this person's name and this person's date of birth if they're Hawaiian and it's just a yes or no," Anthony said.
--------------------
http://www.hawaiipoliticalinfo.org/node/6551
Hawaii Political Info, July 15, 2013
The Trouble with the Kana'iolowalu Racial Registry
by Ken Conklin
SPECIAL NOTE: PBS Hawaii has announced that its program "Insights" scheduled for Thursday July 18, 8-9 PM, moderated by Dan Boylan, will focus on the Kana'iolowalu project. Among the panelists will be state Senator Clayton Hee, formerly head of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs; and Dexter Kaiama, an attorney and Hawaiian independence activist who is working closely with Keanu Sai and filed a complaint with the International Criminal Court alleging war crimes against Hawaii judges and prosecutors. As usual for the media, there will probably not be a moderator or panelist who will defend multiracial unity and equality.
Kana'iolowalu is a racial registration process supported by the Hawaii state legislature and using government money. The word as described by its supporters seems benign and friendly: striving together to achieve a goal, like the droplets of water in a stream. But the word has much more violent, warlike undertones. Kamehameha the Great was called "Kana'iaupuni" where that word "na'i" means "conquest" or "conqueror." "Olowalu" means "to rush or attack in concert" and also "dodging the onslaught of spears." So "kana'iolowalu" can best be translated as "conquest through swarming" -- a method of warfare like the blitzkrieg, whereby attackers surround, rush, and overwhelm an enemy.
The main trouble with Kana'iolowalu is philosophical and moral. The state legislature is creating a list of people who have at least one drop of Hawaiian native blood. Once the list is created, the legislature intends to grant governmental powers to that racial group and then hand over state government money and land to it. Should our government be supporting a process intended to divide the lands and people of Hawaii along racial lines?
There are also many important practical and legal troubles with the actual process currently underway.
In Act 195 (2011) the legislature created the foundation for a state-recognized tribe by declaring that ethnic Hawaiians are are Hawaii's only indigenous people, and by setting up the Kana'iolowalu process to create a list of them. Now, in Act 77 (effective July 1, 2013) the legislature has authorized the Kana'iolowalu racial registry to enormously expand its pitifully small enrollment by automatically dragging in the names of everyone whose Hawaiian native ancestry has been previously verified by OHA, Kamehameha Schools, other race-based institutions, or birth certificates on file at the state Board of Health. See the news report by Associated Press in the Honolulu Star-Advertiser of July 8, 2013.
http://tinyurl.com/ohhk4p5
There are at least three scenarios where the Board of Health might certify ethnic Hawaiians for the racial registry. They range from a completely voluntary confirmation requested by individual applicants, to an involuntary process where Kana'iolowalu tells BOH to have clerks or computers examine every birth certificate on record to compile a list of names of everyone who has "Native Hawaiian" on the certificate. Whatever method is used, BOH must deploy personnel and budget to this new task, without additional funding, diverting resources from other important responsibilities. People with no native blood will go to the back of the line while waiting to get certified copies of their birth certificates for normal purposes like applying for driver licenses, passports, etc.
It's troubling enough when a government rounds up everyone with a specific racial heritage and creates a list of their names. But the biggest trouble comes when that list is put into action to eventually take government land and money currently held on behalf of all Hawaii's people and hand it over to the racial group. Most of Hawaii's people probably oppose that idea; and perhaps even a majority among ethnic Hawaiians oppose it. Certainly it would be unconstitutional to do that, although Hawaii seems to do many unconstitutional race-based things faster than the U.S. Supreme Court can strike them down.
The main practical trouble with Kana'iolowalu is that it has already failed in its effort to appear to be a political entity and not merely a racial registry. Such a small percentage of ethnic Hawaiians signed up for it that the leadership decided to automatically add more than a hundred thousand names from earlier registries. Those registries were entirely racial with no pledge of political, civic, or cultural allegiance. Thus most of the names on the expanded Kana'iolowalu roll will be there based entirely on race, destroying any pretense that it is a political group.
It's at least immoral, and probably illegal, to drag people's names into a new membership roll containing political affirmations which those people might not support, and without asking their permission.
After more than 7 years and millions of dollars in advertising and recruiting, only 108,000 people had placed their signature on the Kau Inoa registry -- out of 527,000 ethnic Hawaiians counted in Census 2010. That's barely 20%, yet they would be presumed to make decisions for the other 80%. There is no quorum or membership threshold below which Kana'iolowalu must remain unactivated. Ethnic Hawaiians (and others) who oppose the whole concept are left on the outside and have no way to oppose it even if they are a majority. Should the 21% of Hawaii's people who have a drop of Hawaiian blood be allowed to dictate that our entire population and lands be divided along racial lines? 20% (Kau Inoa signers) of a 21% minority (ethnic Hawaiians in Hawaii) is only four percent of Hawaii's people; and if the enrolled membership makes decisions by majority vote, that's only two percent of Hawaii's people deciding the future for us all. Those two percent will be the most aggressively activist racial partisans in Hawaii, guaranteeing permanent racial strife and unending lawsuits.
More trouble comes from the fact that 237,000 ethnic Hawaiians live outside Hawaii, which is about 45% of the total 527,000 in the U.S. Should the State of Hawaii transfer land and money to the control of a "tribe" where 45% of its people live outside the state? See "Census 2010 Native Hawaiian data -- some political implications for the Akaka bill, Act 195 state recognized tribe, and the Hawaiian grievance industry racial victimhood allegations" at
http://tinyurl.com/d5a7po5
A powerful and persuasive speech rejecting racial separatism and ethnic nationalism, and supporting the aloha choice of unity and equality, was given on Sunday June 2, 2013 by Dr. Keli'i Akina, the new CEO of the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii and a graduate of Kamehameha School. A news report about the speech is at
http://tinyurl.com/no4h5ng
A video of the entire one hour eight minute event is at
http://tinyurl.com/kcxhy3b
This has been a summary of a much more detailed essay at
http://tinyurl.com/qb3ch29
** An abbreviated version of this essay was published on Hawaii Reporter July 16, where the editor deleted the paragraph about Keli'i Akina's speech. See
http://www.hawaiireporter.com/?p=393722
** A greatly expanded version with details and references is on a webpage at
http://tinyurl.com/qb3ch29
--------------------
http://www.pbshawaii.org/ourproductions/insight.php
PBS-Hawaii program announcements for July 18, 2013 at 8 PM
Native Hawaiian Sovereignty
On the next "Insights," we ask, "Is an independent Native Hawaiian government within reach?" To date, no sovereignty effort has managed to truly galvanize the Native Hawaiian population. Now armed with the state's approval, the Native Hawaiian Roll Commission has high hopes that will change. However, the commission is falling far short of its yearlong goal of signing up 200,000 eligible Hawaiians to help establish an independent government. Will a six-month extension change the tide and bring Native Hawaiians closer to self-governance?
Dan Boylan hosts a discussion with the following scheduled guests: Sen. Clayton Hee, Chairman of the State Senate Judiciary and Labor Committee [previously head of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs for about ten years]; Dexter Kaiama, Honolulu Native Hawaiian rights attorney [attorney for Keanu Sai who filed complaints with the International Criminal Court alleging war crimes by Hawaii judges and prosecutors]; Esther Kiaaina, Deputy Director of the Department of Land and Natural Resources [formerly spokesperson for OHA and staff policy advisor to Senators Inouye, Akaka, and Congressman Ed Case]; and Former Gov. John Waihee, Chairman of the Native Hawaiian Roll Commission.
[Ken Conklin's note: The Insights program of July 18, 2013 about Native Hawaiian governance and the Kana'iolowalu racial registry can be seen on YouTube where it was placed by PBS-Hawaii]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ViQWXH-nVtA&feature=player_embedded
Also on the PBS website at
http://www.livestream.com/pbshawaii/share?clipId=pla_fd9c5fad-9c60-42f9-a874-058a5f86e06d
-------------------
http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/22910398/hawaii-delegation-meets-with-president-obama
Hawaii News Now (3 Honolulu TV stations), July 23, 2013
Hawaii delegation meets with President Obama
HONOLULU (HawaiiNewsNow) - Hawaii's congressional delegation met with President Obama today at the White House. They're representing the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus. Some of the issues they'll be discussing reportedly include federal recognition for Native Hawaiians and immigration.
------------------
http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/ArticlesMain/tabid/56/ID/10244/Hanabusa-Obama-Considers-Creating-Akaka-Tribe-Without-Congressional-Approval.aspx
Hawaii Free Press, July 29, 2013
Hanabusa: Obama Considers Creating Akaka Tribe Without Congressional Approval
By Andrew Walden
At first glance, the Akaka Tribe has never seemed deader. Seven months into the 113th Congress, no bill advancing the Akaka Gang's scheme to invent a fake Indian Tribe and use it to seize control of the Native Hawaiian patrimony has been introduced into either house. Few Native Hawaiians are signing up for Kana'ioluwalu, the latest incarnation of the Akaka Tribal roll, a disinterest for which the Office of Hawaiian Affairs blames, "the lack of imminent threats to Native Hawaiian programs, such as lawsuits, which creates a lesser sense of urgency."
But behind the scenes there is a frenzy of activity. Scrambling for the votes and contributions of well-heeled Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA) cronies, Senate Democratic Primary opponents Rep. Colleen Hanabusa and Sen. Brian Schatz are peddling the idea that President Obama will create the Akaka Tribe without Congressional approval.
(Parallel to this is a push by Robin Danner and the Coalition for Native Hawaiian Advancement for US Department of Interior oversight of the State Department of Hawaiian Home Lands -- a separate effort which also encompasses a longshot attempt to create a fake Indian tribe in Hawaii, but that is a subject for another article.)
Coming out of a July 23 meeting between Obama and 22 members of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus (CAPAC), Hanabusa stated:
"As a Keiki O Ka Aina, President Obama understands the importance of Native Hawaiian recognition and what it means to our host culture. We know he will seriously consider our request to use his executive branch authority to achieve this elusive goal. Federal recognition of the Native Hawaiians right to self-governance is long overdue."
But Schatz spoke of less specific 'federal action' rather than 'executive branch action' saying:
"During the meeting, President Obama showed his clear commitment to prioritizing key issues that are important to Hawai'i and the Asian American and Pacific Islander community, including … federal action to ensure that Native Hawaiians have a government to government relationship…."
At issue is 25 CFR Part 83, the US Department of the Interior (DoI) "Procedures For Establishing That An American Indian Group Exists As An Indian Tribe."
Since 1978 this administrative procedure has existed alongside Congress' right to recognize Indian tribes, but the Akaka Tribe is excluded because application is limited to geographic locations where real Indian tribes might actually exist*, specifically the "Continental United States, mean(ing) the contiguous 48 states and Alaska."
The DoI Office of Federal Acknowledgement is currently considering revisions to the Part 83 regulations with public comments open until August 16.
At a March 19 hearing of the House Subcommittee on Indian and Alaskan Native Affairs, Department of the Interior Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs Kevin K. Washburn responded to questions from Hanabusa and Samoa Rep Eni Faleomavaega: "Our regs now leave out Native Hawaiians. We are not able to consider Native Hawaiians under our current regs." According to Washburn's written testimony, in which he did not mention Hawaii, the Part 83 process focuses on rectifying administrative errors. Said Washburn:
"The Part 83 Process is used by the Department to acknowledge Indian tribes that are not currently acknowledged as Indian tribes by the Department. The Department may also reaffirm a nation-to-nation relationship with tribes by rectifying previous administrative errors by the Bureau to omit a tribe from the original Federal Register list of entities recognized and eligible to receive services from the Bureau of Indian Affairs or by resolving litigation with tribes that were erroneously terminated."
After Washburn's April 24 testimony before the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, in which he mentioned neither Part 83 nor Hawaii, Schatz released a statement emphasizing his desire to pass the Akaka Bill, making no mention of "executive branch authority", and thanking Washburn for his support.
Washburn then authored the 'Preliminary Discussion Draft' of potential revisions to Part 83 which retains the limitation to "the contiguous 48 states and Alaska."
It is likely that any effort to administratively invent the Akaka Tribe via a procedure intended to rectify clerical errors would provoke a backlash from Congress and from the real Indian tribes. The final version of the Akaka Bill introduced by Sen Dan Akaka in September, 2012, broke a decades-long deal with the real Indian tribes by grabbing for Indian program money and setting itself up to buy mainland properties, take them into trust, and establish Indian casinos.
LINK: 'Preliminary Discussion Draft' -- a 23 page document drafted by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, U.S. Department of Interior, proposing changes to 25 CFR 83.
TITLE 25--INDIANS
CHAPTER I--BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
PART 83 PROCEDURES FOR ESTABLISHING THAT AN AMERICAN INDIAN GROUP
EXISTS AS AN INDIAN TRIBE
http://www.bia.gov/cs/groups/public/documents/text/idc1-022123.pdf
-----------------
** The OHA monthly newspaper for August is pushing hard for the Kana'iolowalu racial registry, including scare tactics. It can be downloaded at
http://www.oha.org/sites/default/files/KWO0813_WEB_0.pdf
Page 7 "Public Notice to Native Hawaiians" warns them that if they fail to register for Kana'iolowalu, they might forfeit forever, for themselves and for their descendants, their right to participate in the tribe and to receive benefits.
Page 8 is the registration form.
Page 9 gives examples of Indians who have been unable to get benefits for decades because one of their ancestors failed to enroll in their tribe.
Page 17 is entirely devoted to how the annual Native Hawaiian Convention in September will have Kana'iolowalu as its theme.
The very last inside page, #35, at the bottom under the classified ads, has a small legal release form allowing anyone currently on the Kau Inoa or OHA racial registries to opt out of having their name automatically added to the Kana'iolowalu list, but releasing OHA from any liability for loss of rights and recognitions.
Also on page 35 there's a paid classified ad by Lela Hubbard entitled "HAWAIIANS TRAMPLED" asking for people to contact her to participate in a class action lawsuit against Kana'iolowalu. It includes her e-mail address, but unfortunately many e-mails will go astray because some people will think the letter "l" [ell] in her address looks like the capital letter "i" [eye].
---------------------
http://hawaiipoliticalinfo.org/node/6614
Hawaii Political Info, August 6, 2013
Also published in Hawaii Reporter, August 7, 2013
http://www.hawaiireporter.com/?p=402211
Akaka Tribe Jurisdictional Conflicts Shown by Mainland Examples
by Ken Conklin
Congress is on vacation for the month of August. Thus one-third of the 113th Congress (8 of its 24 months) has expired, and the perennial Akaka bill has still not been introduced. What's going on? If a state-recognized Akaka tribe gets federal recognition, what kinds of jurisdictional conflicts would we see in Hawaii as shown by real conflicts now happening with Indian tribes on the mainland?
OHA is building its newest racial registry, Kana'iolowalu. Embarrassed that after a year only 9300 ethnic Hawaiians had signed up, OHA is now dragging more than 100,000 names onto the list, pulling from previous racial registries such as Kau Inoa, Project Ohana, Kamehameha Schools, etc. OHA is doing this without asking those people for permission, even though the previous registries were for the purpose of getting benefits from racial entitlement programs and never included the political affirmations in the new registry such as building a nation and claiming unrelinquished sovereignty. But Census 2010 counted more than 527,000 people claiming to be "Native Hawaiian", so even if Kana'iolowalu gets 260,000 names (extremely unlikely) it would still be a minority of those eligible by race and a far smaller minority of Hawaii's people.
Without federal recognition, a state-recognized tribe has limited clout. The huge number of existing Hawaiian racial entitlement programs funded by the state and federal governments might wither or be ruled unconstitutional. 856 grants totaling approximately $322,220,808 were already identified and described on a webpage "For Hawaiians Only" until it went dormant a few years ago.
The main purpose for setting up a state-recognized tribe is to seek federal recognition of it. Regarding Congressional action: federal recognition could come through straightforward passage of an Akaka bill; or through a stealth maneuver whereby the budget for the Department of Interior might suddenly have a clause inserted adding the "Native Hawaiian" tribe onto the list of federally recognized tribes. Both of those strategies have been tried many times in the last 13 years. Regarding executive action: federal recognition could come through a regulatory shuffle in the Bureau of Indian Affairs or Department of Interior; or the President might issue an Executive Order through a posting in the daily Federal Register. 25 CFR 83 is currently undergoing review -- this is the portion of the Code of Federal Regulations dealing with the procedure whereby the U.S. Department of Interior grants federal recognition to Indian tribes. Maybe the Akaka tribe could get recognized through stealthy amendments.
Suppose Native Hawaiians are able to create a members-only group that gets federal recognition as an Indian tribe. What would be the consequences for the State of Hawaii, for local businesses, for a million citizens of Hawaii who have no native blood, for ethnic Hawaiians who become members of the tribe, and for ethnic Hawaiians who choose not to become members? There are numerous webpages on those topics. But instead of merely wondering and speculating, we can look at what's actually happening in the 48 states on the mainland.
In December 2011 I pulled together 13 news reports from the final 13 weeks of that year from various places on the mainland. For each situation I described the facts and cited a link to the full news report. The topics as made relevant to Hawaii were:
• Promises or contracts made by the Hawaiian tribe cannot be enforced because the tribe cannot be sued on account of tribal sovereignty;
• Counties cannot assess taxes on tribal property nor use foreclosure to collect taxes;
• Counties cannot assess or collect taxes on gasoline purchased or used on Hawaiian tribe lands which is used or purchased on non-tribal lands;
• A Hawaiian tribe could purchase land and have the Bureau of Indian Affairs put it into federal land trust, thereby removing all tribal businesses on that land from local taxation, and neither the state nor counties can stop the BIA from doing so [news reports concerning two different locations and tribes];
• If a member of the Hawaiian tribe is raped or beaten up by a spouse or friend in a house on tribal land, should a tribal court have jurisdiction to put the spouse or friend on trial and send him to jail even though that spouse or friend has no Hawaiian native blood or is not a tribal member?
• A Hawaiian tribe, either through neglect or intentional policy, could allow its lands to become a sanctuary for criminal activity which state and county governments would be powerless to stop;
• Should the Hawaiian tribe be given a large tract of undeveloped land because the tribe claims to be the rightful owner and/or because it promises to be a good steward of the land?
• A state-recognized tribe might spend many years unsuccessfully seeking federal recognition, and is likely to break promises and engage in corrupt practices while seeking federal recognition or a casino.;
• State recognition of a Hawaiian tribe could lead to federal recognition with unexpected consequences including casinos.;
• A Hawaiian tribe might have priority over non-tribal businesses when a casino is to be created; and such a priority if enacted by a state legislature might be unconstitutional.;
• Once the Hawaiian tribe has published its roll of members and has been recognized, the tribal council can enroll or disenroll people for no good reason, and sovereignty ensures no state or federal court can interfere.;
• Members of the Hawaiian tribe have no right to freedom of speech.; The tribal council might kick out of the tribe dissident members who support a different slate of candidates for the next tribal election, thus "fixing" the election, and the dissidents have no way to appeal their disenrollment except in a tribal court controlled by the existing council.
This year I decided that instead of looking at a wide range of topics from a three month period, I would select news reports about a single topic from a single week. So at the end of July I put the following phrase into Google, including the quote marks: "tribal jurisdiction"; and I narrowed the search to the most recent week. "Tribal jurisdiction" is especially relevant to Hawaii because of the very large number of parcels of land scattered everywhere throughout the eight major Hawaiian islands that would likely be included in the land base of an Akaka tribe. There would be constant jurisdictional conflicts between the tribe and the neighboring lands owned by federal, state, and county governments and private residents. The checkerboard scattering of "Native Hawaiian" tribal lands throughout rural and urban areas in Hawaii is very different from other states where a tribe most likely has a single reservation which is most likely located in a remote place.
Here are a few mainland jurisdictional controversies with tribes, reported during the last week of July, 2013 as interpreted for relevance to Hawaii if the Akaka bill or an Executive Order creates a federally recognized Akaka tribe.
• It is an unsettled question currently being litigated, whether a Native Hawaiian tribal court has jurisdiction over a lawsuit for civil damages brought by the family of a tribal member who was killed or injured by a non-Native Hawaiian driver in a traffic accident on a state highway running through tribal lands. [Arizona]
• Native Hawaiian police can arrest and imprison someone who says misleading or slanderous things against a member of the tribal council. [Great Falls, MT]
• If a member of the Native Hawaiian tribe commits negligent homicide on non-tribal lands and then returns to his home on tribal lands, can a state sheriff go onto the tribal lands to arrest him, or are tribal lands a pu'uhonua or refuge where Native Hawaiian criminals cannot be arrested by the state? [Sious Falls, SD]
• When a 2-year-old toddler is raped and killed on Native Hawaiian lands, state and county police must stay out of it because of tribal sovereignty; and tribal police lack jurisdiction according to federal law because of the crime's seriousness; so the FBI must handle the case. [Oklahoma City, OK]
• State and county governments cannot assess taxes on Native Hawaiian tribal property located on tribal land, and cannot assess taxes on personal property nor property owned by a private non-Hawaiian limited liability corporation when leased by the Native Hawaiian tribe for use on tribal land [Mescalero, NM]
• A Native Hawaiian tribe could have its own laws regarding sales and taxation of liquor, tobacco, marijuana, gasoline -- laws in conflict with federal, state, and county laws governing neighboring lands across the street. [Sioux Falls, SD]
• Federal recognition of an Indian tribe is a complex, expensive, controversial, process; and the rules are being changed. How can local communities and wannabe tribes, seeking recognition, cope? [Solvang, CA]
This essay is a short summary of a much more detailed webpage which includes documentation for all the main points and links to the news reports. See
http://tinyurl.com/kjoedjr
---------------------
http://www.civilbeat.com/posts/2013/08/07/19643-hawaii-monitor-whats-the-point-of-getting-on-the-sovereignty-roll/
Honolulu Civil Beat, August 7, 2013
Hawaii Monitor: What's the Point of Getting on the Sovereignty Roll?
By Ian Lind
Have you noticed the recent spate of ads for Kanaʻiolowalu, the latest attempt to create a registry of Hawaiians who will then be eligible to participate in establishing a Hawaiian "governing entity?" In other words, a vehicle for Hawaiian sovereignty, however that is ultimately defined.
It's a project of the Native Hawaiian Roll Commission, created by the legislature in 2011, that seeks to rekindle momentum for Hawaiian self-governance after the Akaka Bill stalled in Congress.
This latest push via the roll commission was originally seen as a one-year effort that was to have been wrapped up by now, but it has been extended through January 19, 2014.
Building the registry has been anything but easy. According to the Kana'iolowalu website, only 17,225 people had registered as of Tuesday afternoon.
That's out of a total of 527,077 Hawaiians in the United States, including 289,970 living in Hawaii, according to data from the 2010 U.S. Census that was compiled by the Office of Hawaiian Affairs.
Pretty meager pickings, indeed, and it is evidence that the whole process has gotten a less than enthusiastic reception.
This isn't the first attempt to sign up Hawaiians. OHA conducted three previous programs aimed at creating a Hawaiian registry over the past decade. The most recent, Kau Inoa, eventually registered more than 100,000 people, but it took a number of years, and other groups have been urging their followers to rescind their registrations.
Just how those registration efforts are related to, or different from, the current registration project, and whether rights being gained or lost, is not at all clear.
In an apparent attempt to deal with that problem, Sen. Clayton Hee pulled another of those "gut and replace" moves during the 2013 legislative session. He deleted the contents of a bill on the service of process issued by another state, and substituted language requiring the roll commission to include on its books anyone OHA has already registered as Hawaiian or Native Hawaiian, or who meets the ancestry requirements of Kamehameha Schools.
There wasn't much testimony, perhaps because the "gut and replace" ballet wasn't widely expected. But in one sign of dissension, the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands opposed a provision to automatically include its beneficiaries on the roll of eligible Hawaiians, arguing that they should have the choice of whether or not to associate with Kana'iolowalu.
Others who oppose the bill criticized the project's high cost and meager results, noting that the first $1.8 million that was spent resulted in registering fewer than 10,000 people.
I hadn't been paying much attention to Kana'iolowalu, but when a cousin emailed and urged that I register, I decided to take a closer look.
The law establishing the Native Hawaiian Roll Commission established just two eligibility criteria.
To be eligible, according to the statute, you must be "a descendant of the aboriginal peoples who, prior to 1778, occupied and exercised sovereignty in the Hawaiian islands," and also have "maintained a significant cultural, social, or civic connection to the Native Hawaiian community and wishes to participate in the organization of the Native Hawaiian governing entity."
That's it. Sounds pretty straightforward. Bring as many Hawaiians as possible into the discussion, and let the process move forward.
But the roll commission has added its own wrinkle by requiring that people agree with an additional declaration that is not mentioned in the law.
On the registration form, you are now asked to declare: "I affirm the unrelinquished sovereignty of the Native Hawaiian people, and my intent to participate in the process of self-governance."
Frankly, I'm not sure what "unrelinquished sovereignty" means or why this is thrown into a registration process focused on "reunifying" Hawaiians.
Minutes of roll commission meetings might shed some light on the issue, but aren't made available on its website.
I'm sure that there's a bit of politics, a hidden litmus test perhaps, behind the nuanced choice of words. It makes me wary, and I doubt I'm alone.
I tend to be a realist. It seems to me that sovereignty, in the standard sense of having ultimate power over a body politic, was lost with the overthrow of the kingdom and the islands' annexation as part of the United States. It may or may not have been legal. It may or may not have been right or just. You can argue about whether a sovereign entity should be restored or recreated, and what shape that governing entity should take. You can probably argue over whether sovereignty is best understood in spiritual, political, cultural, or economic terms. But Hawaii sovereignty in the traditional political sense was essentially relinquished when the Hawaiian government was extinguished.
And I don't take it as a matter of faith that a sovereign Hawaiian governing entity will necessarily make things better. Possible, but I don't take it on faith.
I am, in short, an agnostic on sovereignty.
Does that understanding of the world render me ineligible to register with Kana'iolowalu, be placed on the roll, and participate in the future debates and decisions? Does the failure to register render one forever outside of the process? Answers aren't readily apparent.
As a Hawaiian, that concerns me.
It may not seem like a big deal now, and obviously a lot of Hawaiians aren't taking it seriously. But if and when the creation of a self-governing Hawaiian entity picks up steam and, more importantly, resources, whether or not you're on the official rolls could become a very big deal indeed.
Just who is considered "in" and who is left out has become a hot issue in many parts of the U.S. mainland, where American Indian tribes have been expelling tribal members now deemed "inauthentic," an ugly process known as "disenrollment" that has been tearing apart families and communities.
Care needs to be taken now to ensure similar problems will not happen here in the event that the move toward a "Native Hawaiian governing entity" is ultimately successful.
----------------------
http://www.staradvertiser.com/newspremium/hawaiinewspremium/20130812__Other_ways_explored_for_Native_Hawaiian_recognition.html?id=219233581
Honolulu Star-Advertiser, August 12, 2013
Other ways explored for Native Hawaiian recognition
Hawaii's congressional delegation has asked President Obama to consider executive action
By B.J. Reyes
Three years have passed since a vote on the Akaka Bill, but Hawaii's all-Democratic congressional delegation remains committed to gaining federal recognition for Native Hawaiians.
The Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act was last approved in the House in 2010, when Democrats held the chamber. It has never had a straight up-or-down vote in the Senate, where opposition remains strong among conservative Republicans.
While Hawaii Democrats say they continue to educate colleagues on the matter, they also are pursuing all other avenues to achieve the goal of establishing a process for Hawaiians to form their own governing entity and negotiate with federal and state governments on land use and cultural issues. The federal recognition would be similar to that for American Indians and Alaska natives.
Alternate approaches include requesting that President Barack Obama, who was born in Hawaii and graduated from Punahou School, use his executive authority to have the federal government recognize Native Hawaiians.
Under the 1994 Federally Recognized Indian Tribe List Act, an American Indian group may become federally recognized by an act of Congress, through administrative procedures or by a decision of the U.S. Supreme Court. Whether Native Hawaiians could be recognized in a similar fashion is being explored.
"The president is being asked to consider a number of potential executive actions," U.S. Sen. Brian Schatz said in a recent interview. "That could take many forms, including something by the Department of Interior, or at the secretary level or something at the presidential level.
"So the mechanics of this are still being considered alongside the really challenging public policy question, but our basic premise is that Native Hawaiians ought to be treated fairly when it comes to native groups."
All members of the delegation voiced support for Native Hawaiians last month after a meeting between Obama and members of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, comprising members of Asian and Pacific Islander descent and other advocates for Asian-Americans and Pacific islanders.
Sen. Mazie Hirono said the delegation remains committed to Native Hawaiian recognition and is open to pursuing all courses of action with a president from Hawaii who recognizes its importance.
"I think the president is very committed to Native Hawaiian recognition, and he said that he is going to be reviewing the legal basis in which executive action can be taken," Hirono said. "We're not there yet, but the delegation is definitely open to that and that route."
U.S. Reps. Colleen Hanabusa and Tulsi Gabbard added their support. Hanabusa said the goal of federal recognition was nothing new for Hawaii members.
"There are several ways the Department of Interior could pursue recognition, as they have with other native peoples in the past, and that is not an unusual process," she said. "We need to work together to decide which path forward is the best for Native Hawaiians, and I stand ready to assist them in making that important decision."
Advocates agree that getting the legislation passed through Congress would be difficult right now.
Although the Akaka Bill has passed the House three times since 2000, it has never advanced in the Senate, where Republicans have described the bill as race-based discrimination and have used procedural maneuvers to block a vote.
Former U.S. Sen. Daniel Akaka, for whom the bill is named, took to the Senate floor in December, during his final weeks in office before retiring, to urge senators to pass the bill in honor of his late friend and longtime colleague Daniel Inouye. Speaking as Inouye lay in state in the Capitol Rotunda, Akaka said he and Inouye worked to "create a process that could address the many issues that continue to persist as a result of the illegal overthrow of the Hawaiian kingdom in 1893."
The Senate took no action.
Critics are likely to see any action by the president as an effort to circumvent the authority of Congress.
"Congress, as the voice of the people, has made it clear for more than 17 years that Americans do not want to divide our society with the government establishment of an exclusively race-based entity," said Keli'i Akina, president and chief executive officer of the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, a group that has consistently opposed federal recognition. "The use of executive action to bypass the will of the people is both unconstitutional and an affront to democracy."
He said federal recognition would only enable a "privileged group of tribal leaders" to exploit resources and entitlements without benefiting Hawaiians.
Hirono dismissed such concerns. "If the executive branch has that authority, how is that an end run? I don't see it that way," she said. "Congress hasn't been able to do it."
Schatz added that opposition would exist regardless of the route taken. "We're going to have to continue the process of educating people about the unique history of Hawaii and of Native Hawaiians," he said.
--------------------
http://www.staradvertiser.com/editorialspremium/20130813_Obama_can_act_on_sovereignty.html?id=219354021
Honolulu Star-Advertiser, August 13, 2013, EDITORIAL
Obama can act on sovereignty
The so-called Akaka Bill aimed at achieving Hawaiian sovereignty has been stalled more than a decade in Congress because of opposition by Senate Republicans, leaving the most realistic approach to be executive order. Hawaii's Democratic delegation is wisely pursuing that approach while Hawaii-born President Barack Obama remains in the White House.
The 1994 Federally Recognized Indian Tribe List Act provides administrative procedures to allow an American Indian group to be federally recognized, and Hawaii's members of Congress are examining how Native Hawaiians may be included. If so, the secretary of interior would be able initiate that recognition.
That particular law uses the term "Indian tribe," which it says means "any Indian or Alaska Native tribe, band, nation, pueblo, village or community that the Secretary of the Interior acknowledges to exist as an Indian tribe." The Interior Department's Bureau of Indian Affairs has pointed out that "broad usage" of the term "Native American" came in the 1970s to include Native Hawaiians.
That law was enacted a year after a joint resolution of Congress apologized for the overthrow of the Hawaiian kingdom and called for "reconciliation between the United States and the native Hawaiian people." Native Hawaiians also had been recognized in the Admission Act provisions regarding ceded lands.
Such appropriate support was enhanced two years ago when Gov. Neil Abercrombie signed into state law formal recognition of Native Hawaiians as "the only indigenous, aboriginal, maoli population" of the islands to begin a process of a registry of qualified members. It also supports federal recognition of Hawaiians.
At a meeting last month with members of Hawaii's delegation, Obama was "very committed to Native Hawaiian recognition, and he said that he is going to be reviewing the legal basis in which executive action can be taken," said U.S. Sen. Mazie Hirono. "We're not there yet, but the delegation is definitely open to that and that route."
U.S. Sen. Brian Schatz has said that Obama "is being asked to consider a number of potential executive actions. That may take many forms, including something by the Department of Interior, or at the secretary level or something at the presidential level." Schatz's remark that the "basic premise" that Hawaiians "ought be treated fairly when it comes to native groups" is strong.
Recognition of Native Hawaiians as comprising an "Indian tribe" may disturb many Hawaiians, but such recognition may be the most realistic path. Opponents of Native Hawaiian recognition such as the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii are sure to challenge such a move, but the U.S. Supreme Court may prove more reasonable than Congress, where Republican filibusters have stopped recognition in the Senate. A congressional attempt at this point would be futile.
Congress has been derelict in providing Native Hawaiians with federal recognition. Obama recognizes that unfairness and is the appropriate president to achieve that goal through his administration, as lengthy as that road may be.
----------------------
http://hawaii-newspaper.com/polls/honolulu-star-advertiser-poll-archive/
HONOLULU STAR-ADVERTISER POLL ARCHIVE
Should President Obama use his executive authority to achieve federal recognition for Native Hawaiian sovereignty?
B. No (70%, 2,103 Votes)
A. Yes (30%, 911 Votes)
Total Voters: 3,014
Start Date: August 14, 2013 @ 12:00 am
End Date: August 14, 2013 @ 4:00 pm
----------------------
http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/ArticlesMain/tabid/56/ID/10345/Star-Advertiser-Gets-it-Wrong-Obama-Cannot-Act-on-lsquoSovereigntyrsquo.aspx
Hawaii Free Press, August 14, 2013
Star-Advertiser Gets it Wrong: Obama Cannot Act on 'Sovereignty'
By Andrew Walden
Desperately fighting for the support of the Akaka Gang, the Schatz and Hanabusa camps seek to outdo each other in hare-brained schemes to invent the Akaka Tribe. And the Star-Advertiser editorial board has been suckered by the rhetoric.
An August 13, 2013 Star-Advertiser editorial, "Obama can act on sovereignty" asserts that "the 1994 Federally Recognized Indian Tribe List Act
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/103/hr4180/text
provides administrative procedures to allow an American Indian group to be federally recognized."
This is false.
The 1994 Act does not create any new procedures for tribal recognition. It corrects an error by the US Department of the Interior and returns two small Indian tribes -- each previously recognized by Act of Congress--to the list of tribes recognized by the US government after the bungling DoI left them off the list. In doing so, the 1994 Act recites the following "Findings" (numbers added for clarity):
"Indian tribes presently may be recognized by (1) Act of Congress; (2) by the administrative procedures set forth in part 83 of the Code of Federal Regulations denominated 'Procedures for Establishing that an American Indian Group Exists as an Indian Tribe;' or (3) by a decision of a United States court."
Of course even small children learn that "Findings" are not new creations of law but are taken from existing law--leading this writer to wonder who is whispering plainly false legal history in the ears of Star-Advertiser editors. Or is this just amateur hour?
If one ignores this error, the next question is how the three possible methods might apply to Hawaii. Here are the answers:
(1) Congress has rejected the Akaka Bill for over a decade now and currently no form of the Akaka Bill is before Congress.
(2) Hawaii is specifically excluded from the Part 83 process.
(3) The courts have not ordered creation of an Akaka Tribe nor have they been asked to. In the Rice v Cayetano decision, the 7-2 US Supreme Court rejected Hawaiians-only OHA elections.
Here is the key language from Part 83:
"This part applies only to those American Indian groups indigenous to the continental United States which are not currently acknowledged as Indian tribes by the Department. It is intended to apply to groups that can establish a substantially continuous tribal existence and which have functioned as autonomous entities throughout history until the present."
"Continental United States means the contiguous 48 states and Alaska."
Therefore, under the existing Part 83 language, even if one buys the absurd idea that Hawaiians are a tribe, the Akaka Tribe is not eligible for the Part 83 process because Hawaiians are not "indigenous to the contiguous 48 states and Alaska."
Interestingly the Star-Advertiser editors do not mention the fact that Part 83 is currently under revision and public comment is now open. (The revisions have nothing to do with Hawaii but come in response to calls by gaming tribes to undo the effect of the US Supreme Court 'Patchak' decision which allows private citizens to challenge fee-to-trust conversions of land purchased by Indian tribes. Such conversions allow tribes to buy land outside an existing reservation, place it under their legal jurisdiction, and build a casino or other enterprise which would have otherwise been prohibited by state or municipal law.)
The Star-Advertiser editors have no excuse for not knowing this. As this writer explained July 29, 2013:
At a March 19 hearing of the House Subcommittee on Indian and Alaskan Native Affairs, Department of the Interior Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs Kevin K. Washburn responded to questions from Hanabusa and Samoa Rep Eni Faleomavaega: "Our regs now leave out Native Hawaiians. We are not able to consider Native Hawaiians under our current regs." According to Washburn's written testimony, in which he did not mention Hawaii, the Part 83 process focuses on rectifying administrative errors. Said Washburn:
"The Part 83 Process is used by the Department to acknowledge Indian tribes that are not currently acknowledged as Indian tribes by the Department. The Department may also reaffirm a nation-to-nation relationship with tribes by rectifying previous administrative errors by the Bureau to omit a tribe from the original Federal Register list of entities recognized and eligible to receive services from the Bureau of Indian Affairs or by resolving litigation with tribes that were erroneously terminated."
After Washburn's April 24 testimony before the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, in which he mentioned neither Part 83 nor Hawaii, Schatz released a statement emphasizing his desire to pass the Akaka Bill, making no mention of "executive branch authority", and thanking Washburn for his support.
Washburn then authored the 'Preliminary Discussion Draft' of potential revisions to Part 83 which retains the limitation to "the contiguous 48 states and Alaska."
Can "Obama act on sovereignty" outside of the Part 83 process which was itself created by Act of Congress? No. The US Constitution Article I, Section 8 enumerates that power among those granted to Congress:
"Congress shall have the power to regulate Commerce with foreign nations and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes."
OHA is the source of some of the disinformation about Indian Law. For instance, Civil Beat, January 9, 2012 reports:
(OHA Chair Collette) Machado said the timeline for the (US Department of) Interior recognition is 18 months to two years. She gave Civil Beat sample copies of several Native American constitutions and bylaws, including Arizona's Hopi Tribe, which was recognized by Henry Ickes, the Interior Secretary in 1936.
"This is parallel," Machado said of the Interior plan. "If the Akaka bill fails, we can still move forward at the state level. When you read this (she points to the constitutions and bylaws) you can see how hopeful it can be for Native Hawaiians, even if we are doing this with the state first rather than from the federal government down."
One has to read this very carefully to spot the deception enabled by the unclear antecedent in sentence two of paragraph one. What was it that Ickes "recognized"? A casual perusal might leave the impression that Harold Ickes recognized the Hopi Tribe in 1936. This would be false. The Hopi and all other pre-existing tribes were re-recognized in 1934 under the Indian Reorganization Act. What Ickes did in 1936 was approve the new Hopi Tribal Constitution -- an authority he had only because it was specifically granted to him by Congress.
From the text of the Hopi Constitution, here are the words Ickes used:
"I, Harold L. Ickes, the Secretary of the Interior of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority granted me by the act of June 18, 1934 (48 Stat. 984), as amended, do hereby approve the attached Constitution and By-laws of the Hopi Tribe."
The 1934 Act did not create an Akaka Tribe so the Department of the Interior does not have the authority to approve an Akaka Tribe constitution. In any case, the Akaka Gang should be careful what it asks for. Devolving power away from the State to the Federal government is not all that it is cracked up to be. An American Indian historical chronology has a different take on Ickes' 1936 role:
"Interior Secretary Harold Ickes forms Hopi Tribal Council over strong resistance of traditional people, establishes nineteen grazing districts on Hopi and Navajo reservations, and declares area immediately surrounding Hopi villages (District 6) exclusively Hopi."
Who are all these liars trying to fool by so loudly pretending there is an Executive Branch Akaka Tribal recognition end run around Congress? How funny is it that they have roped in the entire State Legislature to create a fake tribal roll based on these purely delusional ideas? When will the body politic of Hawaii reassert its Admission Act responsibility "for the betterment of native Hawaiians" and end this charade?
-------------------
http://www.staradvertiser.com/newspremium/hawaiinewspremium/20130818_Hawaiian_registry__New_effort_in_pursuit_of_native_rights_has_slow_start.html?id=220097151
Honolulu Star-Advertiser, August 18, 2013
New effort in pursuit of native rights has slow start
A plan to add names from past drives to boost numbers draws some concern
By Susan Essoyan
A campaign to register Native Hawaiians so they can form their own government has signed up less than a tenth of its ambitious goal of 200,000 people, but the roll will soon expand with the transfer of names from previous registries.
The initiative, known as Kana'iolowalu, was launched July 20, 2012, after passage of a state law recognizing Native Hawaiians as the only indigenous people of the islands and creating a Native Hawaiian Roll Commission to identify them.
A year later, as of July 16, just 15,211 people had signed up with Kana'iolowalu, far short of the target for the planned yearlong drive. The deadline was extended until January, and the pace has stepped up in recent weeks, reaching 18,527 as of Friday, thanks in part to a concerted blitz of television advertising this summer. About a quarter live on the mainland.
"It's taken more time than we thought to get moving, with procurement and getting set up," said Na'alehu Anthony, vice chairman of the roll commission. Staff and volunteers have attended 200 events, from canoe races to concerts, spoken to civic clubs and homestead associations, and reached out via social media and regular mail.
Some Hawaiians suggest the relatively low turnout for Kana'iolowalu may reflect a lack of interest as well as "list fatigue," after previous registration efforts failed to produce concrete results.
"Only 15,000 people enrolled in Kana'iolowalu in a year," said Mililani Trask, a pioneer in the push for native sovereignty. "We have hundreds of thousands of Hawaiians in the state and on the continent. It's pretty clear that they are not endorsing this initiative."
"When OHA was created, 55,000 Hawaiians were registered in a period of six months," added Trask, a former trustee for the Office of Hawaiian Affairs.
According to the 2010 Census, more than 527,000 people in the United States identified themselves as being of Hawaiian descent, with nearly 290,000 of them living in Hawaii.
In registering with Kana'iolowalu, Hawaiians affirm the inherent sovereignty of the Native Hawaiian people, harking back to the U.S.-backed overthrow of the Hawaiian kingdom in 1893. They also attest that their ancestry in the islands traces to before western contact in 1778. Non-Hawaiians who support the effort may sign a separate petition.
"As we look for solutions to this 120-year-old question about unrelinquished sovereignty, this is definitely a step toward it," Anthony said.
The number of people on the list will shoot up after Sept. 15, with the addition of the first batch of 50,000 names of certified Hawaiians from previous OHA registries, such as Kau Inoa, according to Clyde Namuo, executive director of the roll commission.
Those who don't want their name transferred must contact OHA by Sept. 15 to opt out.The older registries are Kau Inoa, a nation-building effort that began in 2004 and has 110,000 names; Operation Ohana, an earlier effort to verify Hawaiian ancestry, with 29,000 names; and the Hawaiian Registry, which issues identification cards and has 28,000 names, according to OHA spokesman Garett Kamemoto. The lists overlap.
The theory behind transferring the names is to avoid duplication of effort and ensure that anyone of Hawaiian descent who might want to participate in self-government isn't left out of the process.
"This is a common-sense approach," said former Gov. John Waihee, who heads the commission. "If you are a Native Hawaiian who has already been confirmed on an OHA registry, then you don't even have to sign up again. You will automatically be placed on the roll."
But some people object to the transfer, which was authorized in a bill quietly passed after legislators gutted and replaced the text of House Bill 785, which originally dealt with production of records in criminal cases. OHA and Kana'iolowalu officials testified in favor, while the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands successfully argued against having its beneficiaries automatically included on the roll.
Many people were unaware of the legislation. It became better known with the August issue of Ka Wai Ola, OHA's newsletter, which described the plan and how to opt out. The publication warned, however, that those opting out "risk waiving their right and the right of their children and descendants, to be legally and politically acknowledged as Native Hawaiians and to participate in a future convention to reorganize the Hawaiian nation."
"That's when I got upset because I was sort of like being threatened that if I took my name out, it would jeopardize my children and my grandchildren," said Melissa Leina'ala Moniz, who had signed up for Kau Inoa but doesn't want to have her name transferred. "I have 13 grandchildren."
She expressed fears that Kana'iolowalu will give Native Hawaiians the status of a Native American tribe rather than restoring the nation they had taken from them.
"What it's going to do, I believe, is it's going to take away our identity as Native Hawaiians and throw us into a bucket, into the Indian nation," she said. "It's going to lead to us losing a lot of our rights and our lands."
Kamana'opono Crabbe, CEO of OHA, said the wording in the newsletter was intended to alert and educate readers.
"No one can speculate on the eventual next steps for the roll," he said. "As a result, OHA is obligated to fully educate those who wish to opt out of the roll of all possible outcomes. It is our wish that no one be excluded and we will be able to build a vibrant and inclusive Hawaiian Nation."
So far, few people have voiced objections to combining the lists, Anthony said. The most common question for Kana'iolowalu all along has been, "Why do I have to do this again? I thought I did this already," he said Thursday. "We've had a handful of calls but only one actual opt-out."
Michael de la Cruz, a retiree who lives in Nuuanu, was wearing his black Kau Inoa T-shirt while walking in the park last week. He signed the Kau Inoa registry years ago and decided to add his name to Kana'iolowalu a couple of months ago, figuring it was worth another try.
"If we try to be like the American Indians or a nation-within-a-nation, that would be more beneficial to both sides," he said. "Hawaiians should register to make themselves known, instead of thinking, 'It's not going to do me any good.' But I can't blame them, really, because a lot of people signed up before and they're still waiting."
The Native Hawaiian Roll Commission is funded by OHA but operates independently of it, and its commissioners serve without pay. It received a total of $3.38 million in 2012 and 2013, and has spent $2.8 million so far, according to Namuo. OHA trustees recently deferred action on a request for additional funds for the current fiscal year.
The Office of Hawaiian Affairs championed the Kau Inoa initiative, starting in 2004, then shifted its efforts toward passage of federal recognition legislation with the election of President Obama in 2008, according to Namuo, chief executive officer of OHA at the time.
After the Akaka Bill stalled, attention turned to passing the 2011 state law, Act 195, that recognizes the Native Hawaiian people. Under its provisions, the Native Hawaiian Roll Commission will dissolve once the roll is published, and Hawaiians who are registered may then organize to determine their form of self-government.
"Being on the roll ensures that I can participate, and in today's world, being at the table and participating can make every difference in the outcome," said Denise Ka'a'a, who works in alumni relations at Kamehameha Schools.
REGISTERING AN OPINION
Kana'iolowalu is an opportunity for Hawaiians to participate in organizing a Hawaiian nation by registering with the Native Hawaiian Roll Commission.
To sign up: To learn more or register as a Hawaiian, visit www.hawaiianroll.org or call 594-0088.
To opt out: Registrants with Kau Inoa, Hawaiian Registry Program and Operation Ohana will be included in Kana'iolowalu unless they opt out by Sept. 15. For information, call the Office of Hawaiian Affairs at 594-1834 or visit www.oha.org and download the August issue of Ka Wai Ola.
---------------------
http://www.ilind.net/2013/08/20/two-more-views-on-sovereignty-and-federal-recognition/#sthash.GOBo0Cwe.dpbs
Ian Lind blog, August 20, 2013
Two more views on "sovereignty" and federal recognition
I received two private emails regarding my recent comments on the Native Hawaiian Roll Commission and its latest effort to compile a roster of Hawaiians. Both emails came from attorneys with significant experience and understanding of the status of Native Hawaiians.
The first email expressed a belief that organizing Hawaiians and seeking federal recognition of some kind is necessary, especially in light of the rightward tilt of the U.S. Supreme Court.
< ** Statement from first lawyer> I think it is important to realize that in the current legal climate at the U.S. Supreme Court (in my opinion, at least) the only thing that will save ANY programs specifically for Native Hawaiians (OHA, Hawaiian Homes, Kamehameha Schools, anything) from an eventually successful legal challenge is some form of formal "recognition" by Congress (through passage of the Akaka Bill or something like it) or the U.S. Department of the Interior (through the existing administrative process for tribal acknowledgement, for which Native Hawaiians are now ineligible because the regulations exclude Alaska and Hawaii from its coverage). Federal "recognition" doesn't have to look very much like what tribal sovereignty is on the Mainland (and there is a considerable range of structures even there), but it DOES have to be something even a hostile Supreme Court would be willing to recognize as being within Congress' powers under the Indian Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution.>
The second email is also from an attorney with long experience in Hawaii who expressed a different kind of concern. He wrote, in part:
< ** Statement from second lawyer> I am more concerned about Hawaiians expecting/taking too much than I am about them not getting enough. As long as affairs remain "as is" and Hawaiians do not over-reach I do not fear a successful challenge. The more the pro-sovereignty types keep beating the drums -- Hawaiians vs. Uncle Sam -- the more they are motivating a successful challenge. Hawaiians have plenty. If they continue to push for it all, it is likely they will wind up with none…. I think what I fear is more likely to happen than what your attorney friend fears.>
He also commented further on the Roll Commission's assertion of "the unrelinquished sovereignty of the Native Hawaiian people."
< ** Continued statement from second lawyer> Kamehameha started the nation of Hawai'i as an Absolute Monarchy. In 1840, Kamehameha III promulgated a Constitution changing the government of Hawai'i from an Absolute Monarchy to a Constitutional Monarchy. In 1852, when Kamehameha III was King, a new Constitution was approved. In 1864, Kamehameha V promulgated a new Constitution. In 1887, Kalakaua's Cabinet drafted a new Constitution and presented it to Kalakaua. Kalakaua signed a proclamation stating that he "being moved thereto by the advice of my Cabinet Council; and in pursuance of such advice did sign, ordain, and publish a new Constitution." In 1893, pre-overthrow, residents who were not Native Hawaiians were Cabinet members, legislators, justices/judges, other government officials and voters…. Sovereignty is the quality of having independent authority over a geographic area, such as a territory. It can be found in a power to rule and make laws. The "sovereign Hawaiian nation" and its Absolute Monarchy ceased to exist no later than 1852. It was replaced by the "sovereign nation of Hawai'i" and its Constitutional Monarchy. When Queen Liliuokalani was in office, there were three branches of government and she was in less than complete charge of only one of them – the Executive Branch. Others were in charge of the Legislative branch. Others were in charge of the Judicial branch. On January 16, 1893, the day prior to the overthrow, Native Hawaiians did not have political or economic control of Hawai'i.>
------------------
http://www.staradvertiser.com/editorialspremium/20130821__Sovereignty_issue_needs_clarity.html?id=220463571
Honolulu Star-Advertiser, August 21, 2013, EDITORIAL
Sovereignty issue needs clarity
When a commission was created to identify and count indigenous Native Hawaiians as a starting pool toward some form of sovereignty, the goal was ambitious. A year into the effort, the result has been disappointing.
The commission faces both a short-term climb and a long-term hard truth: First, as a January registration deadline looms, it must redouble outreach to emphasize that signing up is a key step toward sovereignty for Hawaiians; but second, that the means and goals of Hawaiian sovereignty are muddled and need much more clarity for participants before progress can be made.
The Native Hawaiian Roll Commission's initiative, called Kana'iolowalu, was launched in July 2012 to register Hawaiians in the islands and across the mainland to form their own government; it came after the 2011 Legislature created a state law recognizing Native Hawaiian as the indigenous people. The expectation was to gather information and hear from many of -- according to the 2010 Census -- about 527,000 Native Hawaiians in the United States, 290,000 of whom live in Hawaii.
Since its 2012 launch, the commission's staff and volunteers have attended 200 events, addressed civic clubs and homestead associations and sent messages through social media and regular mail. They have been trying to record people who are at least 18 years old with evidence that their ancestors resided in Hawaii in 1778, when Capt. James Cook arrived in the islands.
Unfortunately, the commission has signed up only 18,527 Native Hawaiians -- a fourth of whom live on the mainland -- in an effort that cost $2.8 million of the $3.38 million funded thus far by the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. That roster pales in comparison with names gathered by older registries: 110,000 by the Kau Inoa nation-building effort that began in 2004, 29,000 in the earlier Operation Ohana and 28,000 by the Hawaiian Registry, which issues identification cards. Talk about list fatigue, even for the most hardy of indigenous-rights activists.
A big plus to Kana'iolowalu's and other registry efforts, though, is that all those lists stand to be combined in the near future after certification. That should create a more comprehensive pool of interested participants than just the Kana'iolowalu effort alone and, hopefully, end for now the confusing litany of lists.
The much murkier road ahead, though, is the goal of Native Hawaiian sovereignty and the means toward such self-determination. And on these issues, divergent views abound. Further, there is no longer any clear vehicle in Congress to rally behind, with the demise of the so-called Akaka Bill.
One key opposition in Hawaii to the Akaka Bill was "that you really don't have a Native Hawaiian government entity that represented Native Hawaiians, that spoke for Native Hawaiians," Clyde W. Namuo, executive officer of the commission, said at the outset of the effort. "So when you went to lobby Congress, you had OHA but OHA is not an entity that was formed by that Native Hawaiian community; it's a government agency."
OHA's newsletter this month warned that those declining to sign up with the commission "risk waiving their right and the right of their children and descendants, to be legally and politically acknowledged as Native Hawaiians and to participate in a future convention to reorganize the Hawaiian nation."
Some Hawaiians resent such a message. Melissa Leina'ala Moniz, who signed up on the Kau Inoa registry, expressed annoyance that the commission, by seeking tribal status of the Hawaiian community, is "going to take away our identity as Native Hawaiians and throw us into a bucket, into the Indian nation. It's going to lead to us losing a lot of our rights and our lands."
Of course, "tribe" is a key legal term that surfaced in 2000, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that indigenous Hawaiians lacked the sovereignty that Congress had given to American Indians and Alaska natives. That is the reality that the commission's staff and volunteers must explain to Native Hawaiians, as they continue to lay the groundwork in Hawaii for some approach toward sovereignty that just might be bolstered by the Obama administration, or even Congress.
-------------------
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/aug/22/obama-urged-to-use-executive-order-to-recognize-na/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS
The Washington Times, Thursday August 22, 2013
Obama urged to use executive order to recognize Native Hawaiians
By Valerie Richardson
HONOLULU – Democrats are urging President Obama to bypass Capitol Hill once again and accomplish by executive order what Congress refused to do for 13 years: grant formal federal tribal recognition to Native Hawaiians.
The effort lost its most visible champion in January when Sen. Daniel K. Akaka, Hawaii Democrat, retired without having won passage for his namesake legislation, the so-called Akaka bill. The measure has not been introduced in the current Congress.
Even so, the timing may never be better for action: Mr. Obama, who grew up in Hawaii, has indicated his support for the Akaka bill. He also has shown a willingness to use his executive authority to bypass Congress on a host of issues including health care, welfare reform, immigration and climate change.
"The president is being asked to consider a number of potential executive actions," Sen. Brian Schatz, Hawaii Democrat, told the (Honolulu) Star-Advertiser last week. "That could take many forms, including something by the Department of Interior, or at the secretary level or something at the presidential level."
Supporters, including the all-Democrat Hawaiian delegation, say the recognition is needed to ensure that Native Hawaiians continue to receive special services in health care, job training and education.
Opponents argue that the measure sanctions race-based discrimination and would set a precedent for establishing divisive, racially separate societies. Some even fear the designation could open the island to gambling operations along the lines of Indian tribe concessions run on the mainland.
"Hawaiians have never been defined by race or by blood. They've always been inclusive," said Keli'i Akina, president of the free-market Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, which opposes the Akaka bill. "The establishment of a race-based entity is not Hawaiian."
First introduced in 2000, the Akaka bill was approved by the House three times, most recently in 2010, but the measure never passed the Senate. Among its chief critics during the latest vote was Rep. Doc Hastings, Washington Republican and chairman of the House Committee on Natural Resources.
Committee spokeswoman Jill Strait said in an email that the executive branch has no authority to establish a Native Hawaiian tribe.
"Aside from the fact that extending federal recognition to Native Hawaiians as a kind of Indian tribe would be an unconstitutional race-based action, Congress is deemed by the Supreme Court to have exclusive and plenary power to deal with Indian affairs," said Ms. Strait. "It would therefore be an abuse of power for the executive branch to attempt to extend federal recognition to a Native Hawaiian governing entity."
The Hawaiian government, controlled by Democrats, is moving to assist the administration. In 2011, the state Legislature established a registry of Native Hawaiians through the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, asking anyone with such ancestry to sign the roll, known as Kana'iolowalu.
Only about 9,300 had registered after a year -- the 2010 census estimates there are about 527,000 Native Hawaiians -- prompting the Legislature to extend the deadline and allow the office to add unilaterally the names of anyone who had signed other lists of Native Hawaiians.
Ken Conklin, a prominent critic of the Akaka bill, said the measure is an attempt to evade legal challenges aimed at the Office of Hawaiian Affairs' entitlement programs for Native Hawaiians. Declaring them an Indian tribe would allow the agency to avoid that dilemma, but doing so would create a host of other problems.
"Where would their sovereign lands be?" said Mr. Conklin. "The percentage of ethnic Hawaiians in Hawaii is 21 percent. They live everywhere: They're in all the neighborhoods, they're fully assimilated in the economy at all levels. It's just unimaginable."
Meanwhile, the Interior Department is engaged in efforts to reform the tribal recognition process, which opponents fear could include the removal of roadblocks to granting status to Native Hawaiians.
Supporters say tribal recognition is needed to ensure that Native Hawaiians have the same rights as other native groups, namely Indian tribes on the U.S. mainland. The Star-Advertiser came out in support of the executive path in an editorial Tuesday.
"The so-called Akaka Bill aimed at achieving Hawaiian sovereignty has been stalled more than a decade in Congress because of opposition by Senate Republicans, leaving the most realistic approach to be executive order," said the newspaper. "Hawaii's Democratic delegation is wisely pursuing that approach while Hawaii-born President Barack Obama remains in the White House."
Public opinion on the idea remains lukewarm. A 2009 Zogby poll found that 58 percent wanted voters to cast ballots on the Akaka bill and that 51 percent opposed it and 34 percent supported it.
An unscientific online poll conducted last week by the Star-Advertiser found that 70 percent of 3,104 votes cast opposed having Mr. Obama enact the Akaka bill by fiat, while 30 percent supported the idea.
Critics note that if the Akaka Bill is approved by executive order, it could be just as easily undone in the next administration. By then, however, a separate Native Hawaiian government may be entrenched on the islands of the 50th state.
"We all know President Obama has done an awful lot of executive-order kind of things," said Mr. Conklin. "He doesn't have the right or the authority, but there he is, doing it."
----------------------
http://www.hawaiireporter.com/i-have-a-dream-for-hawaii-50-years-later/123
Hawaii Reporter, August 29, 2013
"I have a dream" -- for Hawaii, 50 years later
by Kenneth R. Conklin, Ph.D.
On August 28, 1963 Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. delivered his "I Have a Dream" speech from the steps of the Lincoln memorial.[1] It was undoubtedly the most powerful civil rights speech of the 20th Century. How sad it is to see Dr. King's dream for race relations in America mocked by the nightmare developing in Hawaii.[2]
I certainly cannot begin to match Dr. King's eloquence. But on the 50th anniversary of his greatest speech, I offer my own dream for Hawaii's future as a tribute to Dr. King and a ho'okupu (offering) to my hanai (adopted) homeland.
My dream is summarized in a single paragraph. Each element of the dream has a footnote providing detailed explanations and references. Readers might be surprised that I find it necessary to say these things. That's why the footnotes are very important, even if lengthy and emotionally difficult.
My dream for Hawaii
I have a dream that someday all Hawaii's people will embrace the concept that we are all equal in the eyes of God,[3] and we are all fully imbued with the Aloha Spirit.[4] I have a dream that all Hawaii's people will embrace the fact that we are Americans.[5] I have a dream that all Hawaii's people will embrace the fact that we have a right to be treated equally under the law by our federal and state governments; and will therefore put aside and repudiate racial entitlement programs.[6] I have a dream that all Hawaii's people will put aside and repudiate efforts to create a race-based government and to divide the lands and people of Hawaii along racial lines.[7] I have a dream that someday Caucasian boys and girls who are born and raised in Hawaii will be treated as locals, keiki o ka 'aina, kama'aina; and that malihini and kama'aina Caucasians will no longer be subjected to racial epithets and racial hate crimes.[8]
Visits to Hawaii by Dr. King and Mrs. Coretta Scott King
Dr. King visited Hawaii a month after Statehood and gave a speech at the legislature on September 17, 1959 in which he said: "I come to you with a great deal of appreciation and great feeling of appreciation, I should say, for what has been accomplished in this beautiful setting and in this beautiful state of our Union. As I think of the struggle that we are engaged in in the South land, we look to you for inspiration and as a noble example, where you have already accomplished in the area of racial harmony and racial justice, what we are struggling to accomplish in other sections of the country, and you can never know what it means to those of us caught for the moment in the tragic and often dark midnight of man's inhumanity to man, to come to a place where we see the glowing daybreak of freedom and dignity and racial justice." It is significant that Dr. King and some of his fellow civil rights leaders wore Hawaiian leis in their fateful 1965 Alabama march from Selma to Montgomery, when many were severely clubbed, and bitten by police dogs.[9]
Dr. King's widow, Coretta Scott King, was remembered in a Honolulu Advertiser obituary on February 1, 2006, where it was noted that she "first came to Honolulu in June 1987 in an effort to establish Martin Luther King Jr. Day as a state holiday. Hawai'i was then one of seven states that had not declared it a state holiday, following the establishment of the federal holiday in 1983. ... A year later, King returned to the state Capitol to witness then-Gov. John Waihee signing the holiday into law. ... Hawai'i, among the last three states to mark the holiday in honor of the fallen civil rights leader, held its first Martin Luther King Jr. Day in 1989."[10]
Greatly shortened notes. The complete notes are at
http://tinyurl.com/n72ukh5
[1] A printed transcript of the speech can be seen at
http://tinyurl.com/5wwjbwt
An 18-minute video of the actual speech is at
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smEqnnklfYs
[2] How sad it is to see Dr. King's dream for race relations in America mocked by the nightmare developing in Hawaii. What nightmare? See
http://tinyurl.com/2a9fqa
[3] Hawaiian sovereignty activists have twisted the beautiful Kumulipo creation legend. See "Religion and Zealotry in the Hawaiian Sovereignty Movement -- How Religious Myths are Used to Support Political Claims for Racial Supremacy in Hawaii" at
http://tinyurl.com/2n4hy
[4] The Aloha Spirit is very real, very powerful, and universally present in all persons and all of nature. See "The Aloha Spirit -- what it is, who possesses it, and why it is important" at
http://tinyurl.com/66w4m2
[5] "Hawai'i's Fifth Column: Anti-Americanism in the Hawaiian Sovereignty Movement" at
http://tinyurl.com/5t3nc
"Was the 1893 overthrow of the monarchy illegal? Was it a theft of a nation owned by kanaka maoli and stolen by non-kanaka maoli?"
http://tinyurl.com/72xeb
See photocopies of letters granting full-fledged diplomatic recognition to the Republic of Hawaii as the rightful successor to the Kingdom of Hawaii.
https://www.angelfire.com/big11a/RepublicLettersRecog.html
"Was the 1898 annexation illegal?"
http://tinyurl.com/4e5bw
"Treaty of Annexation between the Republic of Hawaii and the United States of America (1898). Full text of the treaty, and of the resolutions whereby the Republic of Hawaii legislature and the U.S. Congress ratified it. The politics surrounding the treaty, then and now"
http://tinyurl.com/2748fgg
"HAWAII STATEHOOD -- A Brief History of the Struggle to Achieve Statehood, and Current Challenges"
http://tinyurl.com/3eh3e
"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" at
http://tinyurl.com/n2zzeo
So-called executive agreements between Hawaii Queen Liliuokalani and U.S. President Grover Cleveland -- the new Hawaiian history scam by Keanu Sai
http://tinyurl.com/3vdttyp
"Hawaii Statehood Day 2006 -- Celebration at Old Territorial Capitol Building (Iolani Palace) Disrupted by Hawaiian Ethnic Nationalist Wannabe-Terrorists"
http://tinyurl.com/pdt88
[6] A list compiled several years ago identified 856 grants totaling approximately $322,220,808 which are for Hawaiians only.
http://4hawaiiansonly.com/
OHA and DHHL Cost to State of Hawaii Treasury: more than $3 Billion
http://tinyurl.com/k7rpyk4
Office of Hawaiian Affairs -- Watching the Moves It Makes to Expand the Evil Empire
http://tinyurl.com/lbaj4at
Kamehameha School Racially Exclusionary Admission Policy, and Tax-Exempt Status, in View of Rice v. Cayetano
http://tinyurl.com/e3mlm
[7] History of the Hawaiian Government Reorganization bill in the 113th Congress (January 2013 through December 2014).
http://tinyurl.com/n7tf6ea
Hawaii begins to create a state-recognized tribe -- Act 195.
http://tinyurl.com/3rzjdrf
Major Articles Opposing the federal Hawaiian Government Reorganization bill (Akaka bill) -- INDEX for years 2000 - 2013
http://tinyurl.com/5eflp
[8] Road Rage vs. Racial hate Crime [Waikele incident]
http://tinyurl.com/2x34n5
Southern Poverty Law Center major report on racial hate crimes against Caucasians in Hawaii
http://tinyurl.com/kkpf74
Book review of UH Press "Asian Settler Colonialism."
http://tinyurl.com/8mkdmj
Anti-Caucasian writings and speeches by UH Professor Haunani-Kay Trask
http://tinyurl.com/2comb
[9] Text of Dr. King's speech to the Hawaii legislature on September 17, 1959, along with photos including his use of leis at the 1965 Selma to Montgomery march, can be seen at
http://tinyurl.com/mk8fhh5
[10] "Coretta Scott King warmly remembered in Islands", Honolulu Advertiser, Wednesday, February 1, 2006
http://tinyurl.com/lk2rvel
-------------------------
http://www.staradvertiser.com/newspremium/hawaiinewspremium/20130830__Interior_official_to_speak_at_Hawaiian_meeting.html?id=221771191
Honolulu Star-Advertiser, August 30, 2013
Interior official to speak at Hawaiian meeting
By Rob Perez
One of the largest gatherings to focus on Native Hawaiian issues takes place next week, and establishing a more direct relationship with the federal government is expected to be one of the key topics of discussion.
U.S. Interior Secretary Sally Jewell, who could play a critical role at the federal level in helping guide the process, is scheduled to attend the conference Wednesday and give a keynote address, a conference planner said Thursday.
The 12th annual Native Hawaiian Convention opens Tuesday at the Hawai'i Convention Center. More than 500 people had signed up to attend as of this week.
Forging a greater relationship with the federal government, including discussions on pursuing formal recognition of Hawaiians administratively rather than legislatively, is among the topics to be addressed, according to convention planners.
"We have to continue to make sure we solidify our trust relationship with the federal government," said Michelle Kauhane, president and chief executive of the nonprofit Council for Native Hawaiian Advancement, which organized the convention with the help of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs and the Native Hawaiian Roll Commission.
Kauhane said she received word Thursday from Interior officials that Jewell will be at the convention Wednesday. Her keynote address will be about 12:30, right before the day's luncheon, according to Kauhane.
Among the topics to be discussed during the convention is the roll commission's ongoing campaign, called Kana'iolowalu, to register Hawaiians so they can start their own government.
Also on the agenda: problems recently identified in a Star-Advertiser series on the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands' month-to-month land leasing program, and the federal government's intent to begin establishing administrative rules for the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act of 1920.
Since its inception, the law, which created a 200,000-acre trust to benefit eligible Native Hawaiians, has not had formal regulations at the federal level.
Getting such regulations has been a top priority for Kauhane's group, which has more than 100 Hawaiian community development organizations as members.
Part of the three-day convention will focus on ways for Native Hawaiian nonprofit groups to tap into the funding pipeline of national foundations.
That discussion will be bolstered by what roughly three dozen Native Hawaiian leaders learned in June during a trip to New York to meet with representatives of some of the country's largest foundations, according to Robin Danner, Kauhane's predecessor and now a part-time policy adviser to the council.
Danner said the convention brings together Hawaiians to discuss ways to tackle some of the most important issues involving the well-being of their communities.
"It's all about working together," she said.
People interested in attending the convention but haven't already signed up can register there for all events except the luncheons, according to Kauhane.
---------------------
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/4/hawaiians-split-movement-recognize-native-hawaiian/
The Washington Times, September 4, 2013
Hawaiians split on movement to recognize Native Hawaiians
By Valerie Richardson
Hawaii Democrats are pushing the White House to give formal tribal recognition to Native Hawaiians, but some Native Hawaiians are pushing back.
Advocates of Hawaiian independence have posted a petition on the White House's We the People website asking President Obama to reject Democratic pleas to grant them tribal status via executive order.
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/not-bypass-congress-signing-executive-order-federal-recognition-native-hawaiian/8Bqx2Rv7
The petition, created Aug. 27, contends that the attempt to "transform our Hawaiian identity is an unconstitutional, race-based action; a clear breach and violation of our perfect right denying our due process under law."
For 13 years, Congress rejected the so-called Akaka Bill, which would have granted tribal recognition to Native Hawaiians. Its sponsor, Sen. Daniel K. Akaka, Hawaii Democrat, retired in January, and so far nobody in the all-Democratic Hawaiian delegation has reintroduced it as members push for executive action.
"The president is being asked to consider a number of potential executive actions," Sen. Brian Schatz, Hawaii Democrat, told the (Honolulu) Star-Advertiser in August. "That could take many forms, including something by the Department of Interior, or at the secretary level or something at the presidential level."
Kekane Pa, a leader of the Hawaiian independence movement, criticized the effort to bypass Congress and said the Akaka Bill is designed to thwart efforts to restore Hawaii's indigenous government.
"The true intent is to have the Hawaii people give up their claim to their native lands to the U.S. government," said Mr. Pa, who serves as House speaker of the so-called Lawful Hawaiian Government, a separatist group formed in 1996.
The Hawaiian independence movement is one of several secessionist efforts cropping up across the U.S. In Colorado and Maryland, residents of rural counties are drumming up support for creating new states in order to escape what they describe as an anti-rural agenda in the state legislatures.
The Hawaii movement is different in that advocates are calling for the state to become its own nation. Hawaii was admitted into the union in 1959 as the 50th state.
Advocates of the Akaka Bill say federal recognition is needed in order for Native Hawaiians to continue to receive benefits from the state's Office of Hawaiian Affairs, which funds programs through the administration of the state's 1.8-million-acre ceded lands.
Native Hawaiians often are estimated at about 20 percent of the Hawaii population. Results for 2012 from the U.S. Census Bureau show that 10.1 percent of Hawaiians identified themselves as either Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, but another 23 percent said they were one of two races.
The petition is entitled "We Petition the Obama Administration to Not Bypass Congress by Signing an Executive Order for Federal Recognition of Native Hawaiian." Petitions need to gain 100,000 online signatures to prompt a response from the White House, and so far this one has 53.
--------------
http://kehauwatson.tumblr.com/post/60316851585/he-aupuni-palapala-oha-needs-to-invest-in-our-keiki
** Trisha Kehaulani Watson [Hawaiian sovereignty activist] newly established blog
September 4, 2013
He Aupuni Palapala: OHA Needs to Invest in our Keiki, not Gamble with Their Future
Act 195, establishing the Native Hawaiian Roll Commission, was passed in 2011 with good intentions. I think this is a critical point to hear and drive in: this was an initiative with good intentions by good people.
It marked a moment of cooperation among Hawaiian legislators and a new governor that gave many reason to believe that the long-standing issues surrounding the overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom and subsequent acts of discrimination against the Native Hawaiian people by government actors in Hawai'i would finally be effectively addressed.
That was two years ago.
Today, with expenditures from the Office of Hawaiian Affairs that reportedly range from $2 million to $3.4 million dollars, Act 195 has failed to live up to its promise. The Office of Hawaiian Affairs is reportedly about to consider another $1.8 million request, moving the total above $5 million. Currently, less than 18,700 individuals are registered. In the last U.S. Census, there were 527,077 Native Hawaiians counted in the United States.
Less than 4% of the entire Native Hawaiian population has voluntarily registered for the Roll.
With voluntary registration failing, the legislature passed Act 77 this past year (2013), which directed the inclusion of individuals registered with OHA's Kau Inoa, Hawaiian Registry Program and Operation 'Ohana automatically into the Roll.
This conversion takes place on September 15, 2013 and officials estimate that the number registered will be 50,000 once the conversion occurs.
Even if Kana'iolowalu manages to collect 50,000 individuals through their voluntary and involuntary registration, this would still be less than 10% of the eligible Native Hawaiian population.
The Problems
The primary problems are the timeline and the fact that the Roll Commission failed to live up to its promise to be a process for Hawaiians to collectively choose their own future and has instead shown its to be a pre-determined path towards federal recognition under the U.S. Department of Interior.
First though, an explanation of the timeline: Anyone who has ever worked with the Hawaiian community, or any community for that matter, would have predicted registration would have been slow. People are not so simple nor naïve as to just sign up for something as important as this because someone set up a table at an event or sent out a tweet.
To have believed the Hawaiian people would be so simple is insulting and fails to give Hawaiian communities the respect they deserve. This community has restored its language, restored traditional agriculture and navigation, rebuilt communities and provided their children wonderful educations.
Did anyone really think we were going to sign a piece of paper committing ourselves and our children to a vague "Nation building" process without adequate explanation of what lies ahead?
But there's a timeline. The architects of this whole thing gave themselves until January 2014 to register a critical mass. That was never enough time.
The secondary problem, and now bigger problem, is the campaign itself.
From its initial launch, the Kana'iolowalu campaign offered little explanation to the project or its history. There have been sufficient improvements since the early days of the campaign, but it has still largely failed to reach its target population.
It's done even less to educate Hawaiians about the Roll and the consequences thereof.
Yet, instead of correcting these design flaws, it revved itself up into a machine that used politics to register people by force when they wouldn't register voluntarily.
It seems no one ever taught the organizers something I learned from my kūpuna: what you accomplish is never as important as how you accomplished it.
There is nothing honorable about including Hawaiians in the registry without their prior, informed and voluntary consent.
Individuals registered for other programs should have had the opportunity to opt in, not given the burden of having to opt out.
The campaign has taken an even darker turn in recent weeks. The current edition of Ka Wai Ola (OHA's community newspaper) provides a "notice" to Native Hawaiians, specifying:
Native Hawaiians who choose not to be included on the official roll risk waiving their right, and the right of their children and descendants, to be legally and politically acknowledged as Native Hawaiians and to participate in a future convention to reorganize the Hawaiian nation…, and as a result may also be excluded from being granted rights of inclusion (citizenship), rights of participation (voting), and rights to potential benefits that may come with citizenship (e.g., land use rights, monetary payments, scholarships, etc.).
It seems clear that the Roll intends to exclude all those who chose not to enroll, even if that means excluding 90% of the Native Hawaiian population.
Signs of a pre-determined outcome began to appear in the Summer of 2013, when Senator Brian Schatz (HI-D) gave his first major speech on Native Hawaiians, promising to restart the effort to pass the Akaka Bill.
The move towards federal recognition is consistent with OHA's long-standing efforts to acquire "tribal" status of Native Hawaiians, despite extensive research that shows the political and cultural histories of Native American Indian Tribes are significantly different than that of Native Hawaiians. A legal point emphasized by proponents of Hawaiian independence, but continuously overlooked by proponents of working Native Hawaiians into the United States' existing tribal model.
The result is growing conflict and divide in the Native Hawaiian community as to their own future, and the emerging picture that Hawaiians are being systemically excluded from deciding their own fate when refusing to acquiesce to a pre-determined outcome of federal recognition.
So much for self-determination, and so much for a mechanism of bringing Hawaiians together.
It seems we are more divided than ever.
The Promise Broken
Kana'iolowalu promised to be a process whereby Native Hawaiians would have the opportunity to choose their own path forward.
Instead it has proven to be a herding towards a pre-determined path of federal recognition and enrollment under the U.S. Department of Interior and the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
Yet, the simple and critical question remains: what if federal recognition is not what Hawaiians want?
The path towards federal recognition began in 2000 in the wake of the Rice v. Cayetano decision. The decision held that elections for the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, a state sponsored election, could not be exclusive to Native Hawaiians. The rationale was the Native Hawaiians were not federal recognized like some American Indian tribes and therefore were not entitled to some of the legal preferences available to those recognized groups.
People instantly assumed the sky would fall on all Hawaiian programs. Alaskans moved to Hawai'i from Alaska in 2001 to form the Council for Native Hawaiian Advancement, which served as the primary advocacy agency for federal recognition of Native Hawaiians.
But the sky never fell.
Despite on-going efforts by anti-Hawaiian groups to systematically dismantle Hawaiian programs, existing programs would withstand these attacks. Courts repeatedly found programs stood up against legal challenges and Congress has continued to support legislatively established programs like the Native Hawaiian Education Act.
So why are we still pursuing federal recognition? It seems no one has a good answer.
Federal recognition could also have devastating consequences for American Indians. If Hawaiians are rolled into the Bureau of Indian Affairs, they would become the second largest "tribal entity" in the United States, second only to the Cherokee with 819,105 members. The American Indian tribes already face their own resource challenges, and it's unclear how the additional stressor of a group with over 500,000 members would impact that equation.
The fate of indigenous groups across the Pacific also becomes unclear. Will other indigenous groups like those in American Samoa or Guam also be required to force their people into an enrollment process?
For the second time in our history, Hawai'i may become the gateway for western forces to move into the Pacific.
The Dark Road Ahead
What remains clear is that in the thirteen years since the Rice decision, leaders have spent their efforts reacting to a threat that never fully materialized instead of inspiring their people to come together.
Today, Hawaiians are registering for Kana'iolowalu because they are afraid, not because they are inspired.
I am reminded of the Bayonet Constitution, signed at gunpoint. Or Lili'uokalani's Oath of Loyalty, signed so the Provisional Government would not put her cousins to death.
Is this what we have returned to?
Worse yet is that the Office of Hawaiian Affairs appears to be funding Kana'iolowalu at the expense of proven educational programs like Nā Pua No'eau.
At a time when OHA needs to be investing in our keiki, they choose instead to gamble with their future on a path towards federal recognition that is both unnecessary and without promise.
Kana'iolowalu will fail because it is wrong for Hawaiians. While perhaps originally well-intentioned, it has been executed in a manner that will only continue to drive Hawaiians apart.
There are two Hawaiian values kūpuna have taught me to live by: ho'omanawanui and pololei. Ho'omanawanui means to be patient and to take your time with things. Pololei means to do things correctly.
The organizers of Kana'iolowalu would have been well served to also mind the teachings of our kūpuna.
UPDATE: For those who made the decision not to register and want to send that message to the OHA Trustees, along with asking them to place a moratorium on funding the Roll Commission's campaign, I created the linked petition. Click the language below to take you to the petition site.
** No link was provided.
I am Kanaka Maoli (Native Hawaiian) and I have chosen not to register with Kana'iolowalu (the Native Hawaiian Roll). My decision in no way diminishes my inherent rights as a Native Hawaiian or the rights of my descendants. I ask the Office of Hawaiian Affairs to immediately cease funding of Kana'iolowalu and instead restore funding to Native Hawaiian health and education programs.
--------------
http://www.staradvertiser.com/newspremium/20130905__Hawaiian_recognition__a_key_issue_for_Obama_.html?id=222478941
Honolulu Star-Advertiser, September 5, 2013
Hawaiian recognition a key issue for Obama
The path to legislative approval still should go through Congress despite the president's support, says a top administration official
By Rob Perez
Interior Secretary Sally Jewell said Wednesday the Obama administration is exploring possible administrative options for pursuing federal recognition of Native Hawaiians. But she stopped short of saying the president supports going that route if it's doable.
"It would be preferable to go through the process congressionally because that's a clear path forward," Jewell said after an address to the 12th annual Native Hawaiian Convention. "Other paths forward are less clear, and that's what we are assessing."
Jewell, the first Interior secretary to come to Hawaii to meet with Native Hawaiians in more than 40 years, noted that President Barack Obama strongly supported recognition legislation that former Sen. Daniel Akaka and other Hawaii lawmakers unsuccessfully tried to get through Congress for more than a decade.
With the chances of passing such a measure still slim, Obama has been asked by some Native Hawaiian leaders and Hawaii's congressional delegation to consider pursuing recognition through executive-branch action.
If Native Hawaiians gain federal recognition, it would pave the way for a government-to-government relationship similar to the status held by American Indians and Native Alaskans.
But Jewell told the Star-Advertiser that legal factors make that path "trickier" and "somewhat complicated" for Hawaiians, who are excluded from some federal regulations that apply to other Native Americans.
"That's just something that needs to be understood and worked through," she added, acknowledging that she wasn't sure what the possible administrative options for Native Hawaiians are.
Jewell used her roughly 15-minute address to the convention to reiterate the Obama administration's support for Native Hawaiian recognition and to address calls for greater oversight of the federally created land trust for Native Hawaiian beneficiaries.
The Star-Advertiser has published a string of stories in recent months revealing lax oversight and other problems involving the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands, which administers the trust and issues homestead leases to eligible Native Hawaiians.
In acknowledging the newspaper coverage, Jewell said the state and Interior Department need to work together to assess the condition of the trust and where they envision it will be in eight years, the centennial anniversary of the passage of the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act.
She noted that Congress gave the Interior Department an oversight role, while the state's role is trust administrator.
"We're mindful of the balance struck by Congress and the continuing need for Interior and the state to work together collaboratively," Jewell said in her convention speech.
After the speech, Jewell told the Star-Advertiser that the state and federal governments could have done a better job overseeing the trust in recent years.
"That's why we're taking a new look at what that relationship should be so that we can do the work that's expected of us for the Native Hawaiian people," Jewell said.
The federal agency will soon publish proposed rules that will help clarify Interior's oversight role.
Once adopted, the regulations would be the first at the federal level in the nearly 100-year history of the trust. Advocates say rules are needed to more effectively hold the state accountable for its trust obligations.
While Jewell's remarks about the Hawaiian trust were seen as significant, they were made at a convention in which DHHL for the first time was not a sponsor.
In the 11 prior years that the Council for Native Hawaiian Advancement organized the convention, considered one of the largest annual gatherings to discuss Hawaiian issues, the state agency was a major sponsor, helping underwrite the cost of neighbor island beneficiaries to attend the conference on Oahu.
A DHHL representative could not be reached for comment late Wednesday.
U.S. Sen. Brian Schatz, who also addressed the convention Wednesday, told the audience that federal recognition for Native Hawaiians will be achieved.
"A government-to-government relationship is overdue," he said.
During a brief interview after his speech, Schatz said Obama did not commit to the Hawaii delegation to pursue recognition administratively, but "he is taking it seriously."
Schatz said the delegation presented the Obama administration with what he described as a legally sound way to achieve recognition. "We think we've made the best possible case."
In her post-speech remarks, Jewell said the U.S. government has not had a proud track record in dealing with Native Hawaiians and the nation's other "first people" and that Obama is working hard to rectify that record.
"You can't right the wrongs that may have been done over hundreds of years, but we certainly want to make sure we're taking positive steps forward," she said.
The three-day convention at the Hawai'i Convention Center ends today.
-----------
http://www.civilbeat.com/articles/2013/09/05/19817-interior-secretary-assures-hawaiians-on-federal-recognition/
Honolulu Civil Beat, September 5, 2013
Interior Secretary Assures Hawaiians on Federal Recognition
By Chad Blair
Robin Puanani Danner was just 10 years old the last time a U.S. secretary of the Interior visited Hawaii.
So on Wednesday, Danner, who recently retired from the presidency of the Council for Native Hawaiian Advancement, presented four lei to Secretary Sally Jewell -- one for each decade since the last Interior secretary visited -- and another nine lei for each of the U.S. presidencies during that time.
Danner was so passionate in welcoming Jewell to keynote the CNHA convention in Waikiki that, tears running down her face, she called her "the Stewart Udall of the Pacific." Udall, the last interior secretary to visit the islands, served in the Kennedy and Johnson administration in the 1960s.
Jewell's pile of lei was so high that she had to remove most of them so she could read her prepared remarks.
The secretary told the council that she has heard and understands the issues important to many Native Hawaiians, especially achieving federal recognition and improving the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands.
Despite the warm reception and widespread hopes, she didn't say how she would do that.
Jewell has been on the job just five months, and as she told the council, it's "a pretty big job." It involves protecting the nation's natural resources and heritage, honoring cultures and tribal communities, and oversight of renewable energy development on public lands.
As such, a big part of Jewell's job is to visit the interior itself. She was in Alaska before coming to Hawaii, and she is heading to the Marshall Islands later this week to attend a conference on how to address the threats that global warming present to low-lying islands. As Jewell noted, climate change also presents serious threats to the 49th and 50th states.
While in Honolulu, the secretary also met with Gov. Neil Abercrombie and members of his Cabinet to learn more about the state's priorities on energy, land and natural resources.
Jewell seemed to hit the right notes with the CNHA crowd, demonstrating that she not only understands the issues but genuinely cares about them. The CNHA is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit dedicated to enhancing the well-being of Hawaiians through cultural, economic and community development.
On federal recognition, which has never made it through the U.S. Senate despite the decade-long effort of Sens. Daniel K. Inouye and Daniel Akaka, Jewel said the Obama administration was "looking at different options to move on a path forward."
Though she did not elaborate, one of those options could be recognition of Hawaiians through the Interior Department, the path taken by many Native American tribes. Given Barack Obama's many frustrations with the Republicans in Congress who have thwarted much of his agenda, the first Hawaii-born president might feel great satisfaction were he to secure federal recognition, regardless of whether Congress signs off on it or not.
Jewell also touched lightly on the management problems with the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands, saying she was aware of a series of recent articles in the Honolulu Star-Advertiser.
The secretary said her office is "mindful of the balance" required between the state and Congress, which in 1921 established the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act when Hawaii was a territory. She hoped that significant progress would be made by the act's centennial in 2021, including incorporating recommendations made by the Hawaiian Home Lands Commission 30 years ago.
But waiting eight more years may not play well with Hawaiians who have been waiting decades for a homeland to call their own, especially under a president born here.
But Jewell acknowledged that the Star-Advertiser articles call for greater oversight of DHHL by the Interior, and she said her department was "moving forward with the rule-making process" while listening to concerns of "the broader Native Hawaiian community." She appeared sensitive to the fact that there are an array of opinions about the homelands program within that community.
The secretary also spoke of financial challenges in Washington. Because of budget cuts from sequestration, her department has far fewer resources; that might mean fewer visits from Interior officials and slower reactivity on their part. She also described the federal bureaucracy as "quite a giant hairball," which only adds to the challenges Jewell faces.
Her remarks were received by a standing ovation. Danner gave her a carved wooden shark, telling her to take the aumakua -- the Hawaiian word for a family god -- back to D.C. to give her a little mana.
----------------
http://www.staradvertiser.com/editorialspremium/offthenewspremium/20130906_Off_the_News.html?id=222617081
Honolulu Star-Advertiser, September 6, 2013, Off the News (mini-editorial)
Native Hawaiians get mixed signals
The Council for Native Hawaiian Advancement gave a big aloha to U.S. Interior Secretary Sally Jewell during its annual conference this week, and she had some warm words as well.
But once you peel away the lei piled around her neck, there were some cautionary messages hidden there, too.
There's been talk about President Barack Obama pursuing an administrative process for recognizing Hawaiian nationhood. Jewell underscored the president's support for sovereignty, but she spent a lot of time pointing out the technicalities in what is called Indian law that may be "trickier" where Hawaiians are concerned.
So, message received and understood: Advocates shouldn't hold their breath.
Besides, Obama has other nations on his mind these days.
-------------------
http://www.RepublicanAssemblies.org/nfra-resolution-in-opposition-to-the-akaka-bill/#printpreview
Resolution of the Convention of the National Federation of Republican Assemblies
Adopted at the National Federation of Republican Assemblies (NFRA) National Convention, September 14, 2013
RESOLUTION IN OPPOSITION TO THE AKAKA BILL
(The Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act)
WHEREAS, the National Federation of Republican Assemblies (NFRA) wants Americans of all backgrounds to have the opportunity to prosper and pursue happiness;
WHEREAS, the NFRA values many aspects of the traditional Hawaiian culture and recognizes these as major contributors to the essence and spirit of Hawaii;
WHEREAS, the NFRA recognizes the heritage and valuable contributions to society of all ethnic groups in the United States;
WHEREAS, the NFRA recognizes the blessings of more than 200 years of integrated society and civil rights for all in Hawaii since the people of Hawaii were unified;
WHEREAS, the NFRA believes that addressing social and other problems affecting descendants of native Hawaiians to help them become self-reliant in modern Hawaii is a matter for all the people of the 50th state to resolve;
WHEREAS, the NFRA encourages personal sovereignty, self-determination, color blindness, equal opportunity and a level playing field whereby anyone can make the most of his/her life;
WHEREAS, the NFRA recognizes that those who wish to succeed in the United States can and will achieve success without special rules, racial preferences, set asides, and the like;
WHEREAS, the proposed Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Bill seeks to divide Hawaii along racial lines, permit the establishment of laws which distinguish between people of different ethnicities, and create a new, ethnically-exclusive government or governing entity which duplicates the services provided by our existing governments; THEREFORE, be it
RESOLVED, that the NFRA in convention at Dallas, Texas, September 14, 2013, in advocacy of equal rights, opposes the racially and ethnically discriminatory legislation called the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Bill, known as the Akaka Bill; Be it further
RESOLVED that the NFRA opposes the enactment of any provisions of the Akaka Bill to include the establishment of a native Hawaiians-only government, program, department or agency as well as the division of the people of Hawaii by race or ethnicity through congressional legislation, presidential order, executive branch powers, or via regulatory implementation; Be it further
RESOLVED that the NFRA opposes any governmental attempt to grant preferences, privileges, and special subsidies or payouts to any single ethnic or racial group in violation of American principles of racial equality, equal opportunity and equal protection under the law; and be it further
RESOLVED that copies of this resolution shall be posted on the NFRA website, transmitted to NFRA membership, and be distributed to all members of Congress, the Chairs of the State Republican party of Hawaii, and the Chairman of the Republican National Committee.
------------------
Sept 16: 4 of the 8 members of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights jointly wrote a strongly-worded 5-page letter to President Obama opposing any attempt to use executive action to give federal recognition to an Akaka tribe. The letter reiterated reasons for opposing the concept of the Akaka bill, expressed in several official statements by USCCR in previous years, and added objections to the new concept of using executive authority to do what Congress has refused to do for 13 years. The USCCR letter, dated September 16, 2013 on official letterhead and bearing the signatures of the 4 Commissioners, can be seen at
http://big09.angelfire.com/USCCR091613LtrOpposingAkakaExec.pdf
----------------
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/17/civil-rights-panel-members-urge-rejection-hawaiian/
The Washington Times, Tuesday September 17, 2013
Civil rights panel members urge rejection in Hawaiian tribal status fight
By Valerie Richardson
Members of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights are urging President Obama to reject Democratic requests to grant tribal status to Native Hawaiians by executive order, saying it would be "unwise and unconstitutional."
Four of the eight commissioners signed a Sept. 16 letter to the president in response to an Aug. 22 article in The Washington Times, which reported on efforts by the all-Democrat Hawaii delegation to win tribal status for Native Hawaiians after years of congressional rejection.
The commission issued a report in 2006 recommending against passage of the so-called Akaka bill, which would have created an Indian tribe for those with Native Hawaiian ancestry.
"Neither Congress nor the president has power to create an Indian tribe or any other entity with the attributes of sovereignty," said the five-page letter. "Nor do they have the power to reconstitute a tribe or other sovereign entity that has ceased to exist as a polity in the past. Tribes are 'recognized,' not created or reconstituted."
The push for tribal recognition comes as the state's Office of Hawaiian Affairs attempts to preserve race-based benefits and privileges for Native Hawaiians, which were thrown into jeopardy by the 2000 Supreme Court case Rice v. Cayetano.
The Hawaii state Legislature created in July 2012 the Native Hawaiian Roll in order to register Native Hawaiians, a step in the direction of tribal recognition, but so far interest has been tepid. Only 20,722 people had registered as of Tuesday, even though 2010 U.S. Census figures show 527,077 Native Hawaiians living in the United States, 289,970 of those in Hawaii.
"There is no political unit presently governing Native Hawaiians, and judging from the response thus far to the state-sponsored enrollment process, there may be far less interest in creating one than the country has been led to believe," said the letter.
Mr. Obama has expressed support in the past for the Akaka bill, but has yet to comment publicly on the push to create a Native Hawaiian tribe by executive order.
Sen. Daniel Akaka, Hawaii Democrat, retired in January having never won passage for the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act, despite carrying the bill for 13 years. This year, no member of the Hawaii delegation has reintroduced the bill, but several have commented on the possibility of execution action.
Sen. Brian Schatz, Hawaii Democrat, told the (Honolulu) Star-Advertiser in August that the delegation was lobbying the president to bypass Congress and use his executive powers to create a Native Hawaiian tribe.
"The president is being asked to consider a number of potential executive actions," Mr. Schatz said. "That could take many forms, including something by the Department of Interior, or at the secretary level or something at the presidential level."
Sen. Mazie K. Hirono, Hawaii Democrat, reiterated her support for Native Hawaiian recognition in a statement Aug. 16 marking the anniversary of Hawaii statehood.
"As we mark Hawaii's statehood today, we must recognize the range of emotions it has inspired throughout the years," she said. "In particular, we must acknowledge historic injustices against Native Hawaiians, and continue to support federal recognition, as well as adequate funding for programs and partnerships to provide better services for this important community."
--------------
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/358754/good-message-constitution-day-roger-clegg
National Review online, September 17, 2013
A Good Message for Constitution Day
By Roger Clegg
Peter Kirsanow, Todd Gaziano, Gail Heriot, and Abigail Thernstrom of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights have written a letter to President Obama urging him not to implement by executive order provisions of the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization bill, which has never been enacted. The letter argues that such action would be both unwise as policy and unconstitutional.
They're quite right: This bill is simply an attempt to circumvent the ban on racial preferences by declaring -- falsely -- that Native Hawaiians are an Indian tribe rather than an ethnic group (as the Supreme Court has ruled).
The Center for Opportunity has posted the letter here,
http://www.ceousa.org/attachments/article/731/Akaka%20Letter%20September%202013%20Final.pdf
and there is an article about it in the Washington Times here.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/17/civil-rights-panel-members-urge-rejection-hawaiian/
---------------
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 9/18/2013
CONTACT:
Tim Lussier, Executive Director
Grassroot Institute of Hawaii
808.591.9193
tim@grassrootinstitute.org
US Civil Rights Commissioners Say No to Presidential Efforts to Enact the Akaka Bill
HONOLULU, Hawaii -- September 18, 2013 -- Four of the eight members of the United States Civil Rights Commission issued a letter to President Obama on September 16 reiterating the Commission's opposition to the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act (i.e., the Akaka Bill) in a 2006 report. In the letter, the four Commissioners stand specifically against the use of Presidential executive action as a means to enact the provisions of the Akaka Bill, which, since the retirement from Congress of the Hon. Senator Daniel Akaka and the passing away of the Hon. Sen. Daniel Inouye, has stalled indefinitely.
An essential component of the Bill has been the recognition of the Native Hawaiian people as an entity deserving a "government to government" relationship with the U.S. Federal Government as a "tribe." The letter from the Commissioners states: "We believe that provisions of the Akaka bill are both unwise and unconstitutional. Executive action implementing provisions of the Akaka bill would be at least as unwise and unconstitutional. Neither Congress nor the President has to power to create an Indian tribe or any other entity with the attributes of sovereignty."
According to Keli'i Akina, Ph.D., president of Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, "We are pleased that U.S. Civil Rights Commissioners are taking a bold stand for the defense of the Civil Rights of all people in our country. Both Hawaiians and non-Hawaiians in the State of Hawaii would be at a disadvantage with the establishment of an unconstitutional government-sponsored, race-based entity, something which would harm our social cohesion and work against the Spirit of Aloha."
The Commissioners' letter follows on the heels of the 2013 convention of the Council for Native Hawaiian Advancement which featured as keynote speakers U.S. Interior Secretary Sally Jewell and Assistant Secretary Rhea Suh. The purpose of the convention was to promote the advancement of a Native Hawaiian nation in line with the Native Hawaiian Roll Commission's citizenry enrollment program known as Kana'iolowalu. More than 150 Hawaiian orgnizations were represented at the convention, including the Office of Hawaiian Affairs.
Although the Native Hawaiian Roll Commission requires enrollees to "...affirm the unrelinquished sovereingty of the Hawaiian people," the U.S. Civil Rights Commissioners' letter states: "The efforts to obtain federal recognition of native Hawaiians as an Indian tribe or other sovereign entity are attempts to create a tribe out of a race. There is no native Hawaiian entity, let alone a governing body of such native Hawaiians, that has existed on anything approaching a continuous basis since 1900."
Dr. Akina adds, "The Commissioners have rightly pointed out in their letter that a distinctive practice of the Hawaiian monarchs prior to U.S. Annexation was their openness to all people as citizens regardless of race. This is the essence of Aloha and the basis for a society where people of all races and backgrounds live in harmony. The advancement of Native Hawaiians can only go forward in accord with the Aloha Spirit, which affirms the advancement of all people."
Read the letter from the U.S. Civil Rights Commissioners here.
http://library.constantcontact.com/download/get/file/1102560192310-278/Akaka+Letter+September+2013.pdf
----------------
http://politicalradar.staradvertiserblogs.com/2013/09/18/unwise-and-unconstitutional/
Honolulu Star-Advertiser, September 18, 2013, "Political Radar" blog
'Unwise and unconstitutional'
By Derrick DePledge
Half of the eight-member U.S. Commission on Civil Rights wrote to President Barack Obama on Monday and urged the president not to implement Native Hawaiian recognition through executive action.
U.S. Sen. Brian Schatz and others have suggested that the federal government could take some executive action to help Native Hawaiians achieve self-governance. Federal legislation, known as the Akaka bill for former U.S. Sen. Daniel Akaka, its original sponsor, has stalled in the U.S. Senate since 2000 because of conservative Republican-led opposition.
The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights has opposed the Akaka bill since 2006.
The letter to Obama was from Abigail Thernstrom, the commission's vice chair, and commissioners Peter Kirsanow, Gail Heriot, and Todd Gaziano. Thernstrom and Kirsanow are Republicans, while Heriot and Gaziano are independents. The other four members of the commission are Democrats.
An excerpt:
We believe that provisions of the Akaka bill are both unwise and unconstitutional. Executive action implementing provisions of the Akaka bill would be at least as unwise and unconstitutional.
Neither Congress nor the President has to power to create an Indian tribe or any other entity with the attributes of sovereignty. Nor do they have the power to reconstitute a tribe or other sovereign entity that has ceased to exist as a polity in the past. Tribes are "recognized," not created or reconstituted. The federal government may on appropriate occasions assist tribes in transforming their internal political structure, but they cannot bring into existence a tribe or other sovereign entity that has never existed or has ceased to exist as a separate polity.
Real tribes -- the kind the Federal government may recognize -- are defined by political structure and the maintenance of a separate society, not by bloodline. A mere shared blood quantum among the members of a group is not sufficient for the federal government to recognize an Indian tribe.
------------
http://washingtonexaminer.com/civil-rights-commissioners-to-obama-no-native-hawaiian-tribe/article/2536039
The Washington Examiner, September 18, 2013, BELTWAY CONFIDENTIAL
Civil Rights Commissioners to Obama: no Native Hawaiian "tribe"
BY MICHAEL BARONE
The Hawaii congressional delegation has called on Barack Obama to issue an executive order recognizing Native Hawaiians as an Indian tribe. This is an attempt to get around the 2000 Supreme Court ruling in Rice v. Cayetano that Hawaii's state-based law providing benefits and preferences to Native Hawaiians was unconstitutional.
Four of the eight members of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission -- Peter Kirsanow, Abigail Thernstrom, Gail Heriot and Todd Gaziano have written a letter to the president urging him not to issue such an order (h/t Roger Clegg in National Review Online). It's an excellent letter, pointing out that Native Hawaiians do not qualify as an Indian tribe under longstanding federal law and to give them benefits and privileges on the basis of race would be unconstitutional. They point out that there has never been a cohesive Native Hawaiian entity of any kind--the Kingdom of Hawaii regarded all inhabitants as citizens and encouraged foreigners to immigrate to Hawaii, as many did -- and that thanks to intermarriage there are precious few people purely of Native Hawaiian descent. In addition, there's not much evidence that more than a few ethnic activists seek such a designation. The state of Hawaii in 2012 passed a law allowing Native Hawaiians to enroll. By August some 20,000 did, in a state where 289,000 people told the 2010 Census that they were wholly or partially of Native Hawaiian descent.
The four commissioners point out that such an executive order would create a dreadful precedent. "Rewriting history to create a tribe out of the Native Hawaiian race would open a Pandora's box for other groups to seek tribal status. Cajuns are an identifiable ethnic group in Louisiana who have had a continuous presence there for over two hundred years. Their ancestors may have been none too pleased when Napoleon sold the lands of the Louisiana Purchase to America, and they had no opportunity to assert sovereignty. Should Cajuns be allowed to seek tribal status? Should the Amish of Pennsylvania or the Hasidic Jews of New York be allowed to seek tribal status? Both groups have far more separation from mainstream society, much lower rates of intermarriage, and all- encompassing rules governing the lives of members than do Native Hawaiians. Both groups also have histories stretching far back."
The state where the president was born has a long history of racial tolerance, as the four commissioners point out. The attempt to declare Native Hawaiian sovereignty (a goal some activists seek) or Indian tribal status goes entirely against the grain of that proud heritage. It is an outgrowth, I think, of the racial quotas and preferences that have become embedded in our society. Native Hawaiian activists want their quotas and preferences (and boodle) too. The chief sponsor of this measure in Congress was Democratic Senator Daniel Akaka, whose retirement in 2012 coupled with the death in December 2012 of his colleague (born in the same month, September 1924!) Daniel Inouye, has left Hawaii with less seniority in the Senate than it has had since the years just after statehood. Hawaii's two House members are both serving their second and first full terms. By the way, this is not just a Democratic cause. Former Governor Linda Lingle, a Republican, backed similar proposals. Fortunately Republicans were able to block Akaka's bills in the Senate.
On a trip to Hawaii in 1995, I interviewed an official of the state Office of Native Hawaiian Affairs, the agency whose authorizing statute was declared unconstitutional in Rice v. Cayetano. I hazarded the opinion that Native Hawaiians were actually much better off educationally and economically than fellow Polynesians in other Pacific islands. No, no, he insisted, Native Hawaiians had the lowest education and economic levels of any group in Hawaii -- and these next words I remember exactly -- "except of course the Filipinos."
I wonder what Filipino-American activists would have to say about that "of course." Maybe they'd ask for Indian tribal status too.
** Copy of the 5-page letter on official stationery is displayed at the bottom of the article.
--------------------
http://ledyard.patch.com/groups/politics-and-elections/p/state-attorney-general-fights-tribal-recognition-changes
The Ledyard Patch (Connecticut), September 28, 2013
State Attorney General Fights Tribal Recognition Changes
by Corey Fyke (Editor)
The Bureau of Indian Affairs wants to make it easier for tribes to get federal recognition, but Connecticut Attorney General George Jepsen and Gov. Dannel P. Malloy warn that could be a disaster for the state.
In official comments submitted to the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) last week, Attorney General George Jepsen wrote that the BIA's proposed regulations would "seriously weaken and undermine the core substantive criteria" for federal tribal recognition and would have the effect of reversing prior acknowledgment decisions affecting the state of Connecticut.
Gov. Dannel P. Malloy said that the proposed regulations would have a profound effect on the state.
"While I'm sure the Bureau of Indian Affairs has the best of intentions, the proposed regulations would have far-reaching, damaging consequences here in Connecticut and would be detrimental to Connecticut's residents," Malloy said. "I support the comments submitted today by the Attorney General and hope the Bureau of Indian Affairs takes these thoughtful comments to heart."
A preliminary discussion draft issued by the BIA in June would change criteria that currently require demonstration of distinct community and political authority since contact with European settlers. Under the proposed changes, both criteria would be satisfied by merely demonstrating that a state has maintained a state reservation since 1934. The draft also would allow a previously denied petitioner to re-petition if it can demonstrate that the changed criteria warrant a reversal of prior denial.
"The Draft's proposed relaxation of the substantive acknowledgement criteria is apparently based on a notion that satisfying the present community and political authority is overly burdensome and unnecessary. The current criteria are not the problem," wrote Attorney General Jepsen. "Acknowledgement presents complex and obviously very important questions of governmental power with extraordinarily serious ramifications for all involved. The present criteria appropriately require significant substantive inquiries and expansive factual findings. The Draft offers a fix that is seriously misguided."
A new "expedited favorable finding" process would allow groups to satisfy the community and political authority criteria by simply showing that a state reservation was maintained for the group since 1934. This is uniquely significant for Connecticut. This change could effectively reverse prior decisions denying recognition to the Eastern Pequot, Schaghticoke and possibly the Golden Hill Paugussett petitioners, contradicting findings in previous recognition decisions that determined that the maintenance of state reservations itself offered no evidence of community or political authority.
"The continuous existence as a distinct community and the continuous exercise of political influence or authority within the group are central to the decision to acknowledge an Indian tribe and to place them in a government-to-government relationship with the federal government," the Attorney General wrote. "These two core criteria are derived from a long line of judicial precedent that emphasizes both community and political authority as essential attributes to the existence of a tribal sovereign entity."
Additionally, the draft proposals would eliminate appeal review by the Interior Board of Indian Appeals, a move Attorney General Jepsen called "unwise."
The discussion draft is a preliminary precursor to a formal rulemaking process and is intended to provide tribes and the public an early opportunity to provide comments on proposed changes. The BIA's comment period on this discussion draft closed last Wednesday, Sept. 25.
Assistant Attorney General Mark Kohler, head of the Special Litigation department, and Special Counsel Robert Clark are assisting the Attorney General with this matter.
Please click here to view the comments filed with the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
http://www.ct.gov/ag/lib/ag/press_releases/2013/20130924_biacomments_discussiondraft.pdf
--------------------
http://www.greatfallstribune.com/article/20131030/NEWS01/310300023/Little-Shell-Tribe-seeks-federal-recognition-through-bill?gcheck=1
The Great Falls Tribune (Montana), October 30, 2013
Little Shell Tribe seeks federal recognition through bill
Written by Malia Rulon Herman
Tribune Washington Bureau
WASHINGTON – The Obama administration supports legislation from Montana's senators that would grant federal recognition to Montana's Little Shell Tribe of Chippewa Indians, an Interior Department official said Wednesday.
Speaking at a hearing before the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, Kevin Washburn, assistant secretary for Indian Affairs, said the federal government has a process for determining which tribes receive recognition, but Congress has its own process and responsibilities.
"Congress has the same trust responsibility that we have," Washburn said, referring to legal obligations that the U.S. owes to tribes.
Based on that, he said, "Congress does have the right to do so, and should" approve legislation to federally recognize the Little Shell tribe.
Washburn also said the Bureau of Indian Affairs is moving forward with reconsideration of an earlier decision denying the tribe federal recognition. He said he has 120 days from Sept. 16 to make a decision, but that could be extended while the department reforms its tribal recognition process.
"We need to make sure that the process is fair, but also that we proceed in a timely manner," he said.
Democratic Sen. Jon Tester of Montana, a member of the committee, told Washburn, "We need to keep working on this."
The Little Shell tribe, which has been recognized by the state of Montana since 2003, has been trying to gain federal recognition -- and the tribal lands and benefits that come with it -- since 1978.
The tribe's petition was preliminarily approved under the Clinton administration, delayed for eight years under the George W. Bush administration, then denied in 2009 by the Obama administration. The denial is not final because the tribe asked for reconsideration.
Tester said after the hearing he was encouraged by Washburn's testimony. He said he will continue to push his bill, but Congress' poor recent track record for getting things done makes it likely the administration's recognition process will move more quickly.
"I think we might be able to get this doggone thing done," he said. "I don't want to give artificial hope to the Little Shell because they have been down this road before... but we're going to continue to put pressure on both avenues."
Gerald Gray, chairman of the Little Shell tribe, urged senators to act quickly.
"The tribe has been in the process for all or parts of five decades," he said. "We urge Congress to end the tribe's ordeal by legislatively recognizing the tribe."
Gray said that in the meantime, tribal members do not have federally protected lands on which to protect their heritage and culture, or "desperately needed services and housing."
------------------
http://www.fayobserver.com/articles/2013/10/31/1293103?sac=fo.local
Fayetteville Observer (North Carolina), October 31, 2013
U.S. Sen. Kay Hagan testifies to support Lumbee Recognition Act
By Caitlin Dineen
After various legislators have spent more than two decades pushing to federally recognize the Lumbee Tribe of North Carolina, U.S. Sen. Kay Hagan added her support during testimony Wednesday at the Senate Indian Affairs Committee.
"Beyond simple fairness, the issue of Lumbee recognition is critically important to the North Carolina economy, and to counties and communities that have been hardest hit by the recent economic downturn," said Hagan, according to a transcript of her testimony.
Hagan, of North Carolina, introduced the Lumbee Recognition Act with North Carolina Sen. Richard Burr in June.
In 1956, Congress enacted the Lumbee Act, which recognized the tribe, but denied members access to federal services other federally recognized tribes receive.
Tribal members have been pushing for federal recognition since 1988. They petitioned the Bureau of Indian Affairs for full federal recognition in 1989, but were told by the solicitor general that because of language in the 1956 act, the tribe could only be recognized through an act of Congress.
In April, U.S. Reps. Richard Hudson and Mike McIntyre, both of North Carolina, introduced legislation to recognize the tribe.
Wednesday, Hagan said the lack of recognition is preventing tribal members from having access to services through the Bureau of Indian Affairs and Indian Health Services.
"The Harvard School of Public Health has found that residents of Robeson County have a lower average life expectancy due to persistent poverty and limited access to affordable health care," she said.
Hagan said the act would afford tribal members the same benefits other tribes already receive.
------------
http://www.oha.org/sites/default/files/KWO01113_web.pdf
OHA monthly newspaper, November 2013, page 34
To attain a Hawaiian Nation, all options should be pursued
by Colette Y. Machado, Chairperson and Trustee for Moloka'i and Lana'i
Trustee's note: This month I would like to share with you my remarks that I shared with those that attended the 12th annual Native Hawaiian Convention held at the Hawai'i Convention Center Sept. 3-5, 2013.
America celebrated the 50th anniversary acknowledging the men, women and children who marched on Washington to support civil rights legislation. They came from many different walks of life. They had many different points of view.
There, on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, they heard Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. proclaim, "I have a dream." His dream of racial equality is being realized faster than many ever imagined. Today, we have an African American president, something that would have been thought impossible just a couple of generations ago. Things are still not perfect and there is still much work for
everyone, but Dr. King's speech still inspires today!
Native Hawaiians also dream of equality equivalent to Alaska Natives and 576 tribes who have sovereign rights recognized by the federal government. We are continuing to move down the path toward recognition.
We are pursuing many different solutions that will help us reach our goal of a Hawaiian Nation, from Kana'iolowalu, state recognition to federal recognition to international recognition. All of these remedies are worth pursuing.
For too long, we have been told we have to pick one. Why? For too long, we have been acting like 'alamihi crab in a bucket, if one crab appears to be
headed for success, we pull it down to the bottom. But that's not unity, that's not togetherness and that is not how we are going to get ahead.
If we want equality, we have to prove that we are ready for it. Everyone should sign up for Kana'iolowalu and take part in that process and help shape the future. When the roll is created and we have a mechanism for the state to recognize our government, we don't have to stop. It will be a first step. We will continue along the path toward federal recognition, or even independence. But we will do it together, Ho'o Hui Lä Hui Hawai'i. By putting aside our differences and working together to decide upon what the best path, ala loa, can be, we will be much better off.
No, we won't be satisfied -- we will never be satisfied -- until there is justice
for Native Hawaiians. But before you can have a mighty stream that can't be ignored, you need a single drop of water. The stream might start in different places, with people of different positions, but eventually we will all come together and determine our own path.
Over the years, we have allowed obstructions to divert our path, much like our streams have been diverted. But as we have reclaimed our water rights, we need to be mindful of that lesson. Do not throw up obstructions in other people's paths as we move toward self-determination -- all paths lead to a new nation and eventually to unity. We need to honor and respect each other and work together to reach our ultimate goal.
In closing, I leave you with 'Ölelo No'eau 113: "Aloha mai no, aloha aku; o ka
huhü ka mea e ola 'ole ai. "When love is given, love should be returned; anger is the thing that gives no life."
Aloha mai no, aloha aku.
------------------
http://freehawaii.blogspot.com/#sthash.6VpVbnAa.dpuf
Free Hawaii blog, November 21, 2013
OHA TRUSTEE ON KANA'IOLWALU -- "STOP & SPEND THE MONEY TO MEET THE IMMEDIATE NEEDS OF OUR HAWAIIAN PEOPLE"
From: Oswald Stender
Sent: Friday, October 18, 2013 7:24 AM
To: 'Mahealani Wendt'; Colette Machado; Peter Apo; Robert Lindsey; Hulu Lindsey; Rowena Akana; Dan Ahuna; Haunani Apoliona; John Waihee
Cc: Kamana'opono M. Crabbe, Ph.D.
** Note by Ken Conklin: Oswald Stender is an OHA trustee with corporate financial experience who has served as OHA's chief overseer of investments; Wendt is a member of the Kana'ioluwalu commission; Waihee is a former Governor of Hawaii and currently he is both Chairman of the Kana'iolowalu Commission and an OHA trustee; Crabbe is CEO of OHA; and the other 7 recipients are OHA trustees.
Subject: RE: Native Hawaiian Roll Commssion
Mahealani: I guess I should respond to your email inasmuch as I am the one who is struggling with this issue.
First, I always look at the cost/benefit of requested funding-both short term and long term.
In this case, the funding request started at $250,000 then finally at over four million.
The one mission for the Commission was to make a list-not to build the nation.
After spending over three million dollars with a goal of 200,000 registrants, the effort produced 20,000.
When you add what was spent for Kau Inoa, OHA has spent over $10,000,000 for 120,000 registrants out of 500,000.
When Kana'ioluwalu had sign up booths at events that had 300 to 400 people in attendance and then signed up less than 10% of those in attendance, you need to ask "Why".
For the many who I have spoken to-many are not interested; many are confused with all these lists; and many are distrustful of the effort.
So, after 12 years and $10,000,000 -- I say stop -- most Hawaiians are distrustful of this effort and most are just not interested. At this point, I am not saying "abort" -- I'm saying you have done your best, you spent a lot of money at it and it is time to make up the list with what you have, write up your report and spend the money to meet the immediate needs of our Hawaiian people.
The effort to build the Hawaiian nation is a whole different effort (it is not Kana'ioluwalu's mission) and let's continue that effort.
We are not aborting the mission, we need to file a report on that mission.
Spending another million dollars will not get you another 20,000 signatures.
Aloha. Oz -
------------------
http://www.staradvertiser.com/newspremium/20131123__apology_still_weighs_on_activists.html?id=233137831
Honolulu Star-Advertiser, November 23, 2013
FRONT PAGE ARTICLE
Apology still weighs on activists
Congress has not offered reconciliation after admitting fault in overthrowing the isles, advocates say
By Ken Kobayashi
** Photo caption
Near the end of his speech on Waikiki Beach 20 years ago, President Bill Clinton was interrupted by pro-sovereignty demonstrators chanting "Justice for Hawaiians." Clinton told them, "I hope we can provide it." Four months later, Clinton signed a congressional apology that acknowledged the illegal overthrow of the Hawaiian kingdom.
ASSOCIATED PRESS / JULY 11, 1993
It has been 20 years since Congress apologized on behalf of the United States for the 1893 overthrow of the Hawaii kingdom, but some Native Hawaiian activists are still waiting for the reconciliation promised along with the conciliatory words.
The so-called "apology resolution" has been considered a significant milestone for Native Hawaiians in seeking redress and reconciliation with the federal government. It was passed to acknowledge the 100th anniversary of what the resolution described as the "illegal overthrow" of the Hawaiian government.
"It was important because it was a national admission by the U.S. government that the Hawaiian islands were improperly assumed by the United States," Leon Siu, an activist for the Hawaiian independence movement, said this week.
The apology resolution was passed by Congress and signed by President Bill Clinton Nov. 23, 1993, 20 years ago today. The resolution expressed "deep regret" to Native Hawaiians for the overthrow that included the participation of U.S. agents and citizens and U.S. naval forces invading the Hawaii nation. Specifically, it said Congress:
» "expresses its commitment to acknowledge the ramifications of the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii, in order to provide a proper foundation for reconciliation between the United States and the Native Hawaiian people; and
» "urges the President of the United States to also acknowledge the ramifications of the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii and to support reconciliation efforts between the United States and the Native Hawaiian people."
"The U.S. apology basically said, 'Sorry for stealing your nation,' but the apology purposely avoided providing any remedy, and the U.S. for the past 20 years has refused to engage in any meaningful dialogue for reconciliation," Hawaiian independence activist Pilipo Souza said this week.
While some critics say the resolution didn't go far enough in providing redress to Native Hawaiians, others have disputed the historical narrative in the resolution and maintain that an apology isn't necessary.
Still, the state Legislature recently reflected its support for the congressional action by passing its own resolution in April commemorating the 20th anniversary. State lawmakers said they reaffirm the state's commitment to reconciliation with Native Hawaiians for "historical injustices." The resolution also urges the federal government to advance reconciliation efforts.
The U.S. resolution was endorsed by all four Democratic members of Hawaii's congressional delegation -- U.S. Sens. Daniel Inouye and Daniel Akaka and U.S. Reps. Patsy Mink and Neil Abercrombie.
The apology was cited by the Hawaii Supreme Court in its 2008 ruling upholding a moratorium preventing the state from selling ceded lands that once belonged to the Hawaiian kingdom. But the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the decision in 2009, saying the resolution did not take away the state's sovereign authority to sell the lands.
And it has been highlighted in the congressional campaign to support the Akaka Bill that seeks to set up a process for Native Hawaiians to negotiate with the federal government on land and cultural issues. But the bill has been stalled by Senate Republicans for more than a decade, and supporters this year called on President Barack Obama to investigate the possibility of administratively awarding federal recognition to Native Hawaiians, effectively bypassing Congress.
This is not the solution Siu and other independence activists seek.
"Instead of returning our country, the U.S. is trying to further subdue the Hawaiian people by offering to turn 'Native Hawaiians' into a 'federally recognized' Native American Indian tribe. This is not reconciliation; this is humiliation." Siu said.
In its testimony in support of the state Legislature's resolution, the Office of Hawaiian Affairs said in the past 20 years, "new issues and debates have arisen regarding the proper means to address the ongoing historical harms and challenges faced by Native Hawaiians in restoring and maintaining their culture, cultural values and self determination."
OHA officials pointed out that the apology resolution was "a rare act of self-criticism" expressing a "clear commitment" to reconciliation with Native Hawaiians.
But, they noted, "lasting reconciliation continues to be a long and uncertain one."
-------
ON THE NET
» The apology resolution can be found at: 1.usa.gov/1aWBilK
------------------
** Note by Ken Conklin: Following is an important policy paper by the Heritage Foundation regarding a proposed amendment to the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act of 1920. Some of what's in this paper is relevant only to HHCA. However, most of the statement is focused on fundamental principles which are also relevant to any attempt to establish federal recognition for an ethnic Hawaiian tribe, whether by means of the Akaka bill or by means of executive action.
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/11/hawaiian-homes-commission-act-amendments-sanction-racial-discrimination
* PDF on official stationery is also available at
http://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/2013/pdf/IB4098.pdf
This paper, in its entirety, can be found at
http://report.heritage.org/ib4098
Produced by the Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies
The Heritage Foundation
214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE
Washington, DC 20002
(202) 546-4400 | heritage.org
The Heritage Foundation, Issue Brief #4098 on Legal Issues
November 26, 2013
Senate Joint Resolution 12: Sanctioning Racial Discrimination in Hawaii
By Hans A. von Spakovsky
Distinctions between citizens solely because of their ancestry are, by their very nature, odious to a free people whose institutions are founded upon the doctrine of equality.[1]
Senators Brian Schatz (D–HI) and Mazie Hirono (D–HI) recently introduced a resolution, Senate Joint Resolution 12, that would provide congressional approval of amendments to the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act of 1920.
While this resolution seems innocuous enough on its face, these amendments would institutionalize the racial and ethnic discrimination practiced by the Hawaiian Homes Commission (HHC) by allowing those who benefit unfairly from that discrimination to pass on the benefits to their family members.
Hawaiian Homes Commission
In accordance with the Hawaii Statehood Admissions Act of 1959, Congress must consent to any amendments to the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act of 1920.[2] The HHC provides "special" loans and homesteading leases for "residential, agricultural, or pastoral purposes" for "Native Hawaiians"--who are defined as "any descendant of not less than one-half part of the blood of the races inhabiting the Hawaiian Islands previous to 1778."[3]
In other words, the HHC engages in blatant discrimination against many of the residents of Hawaii to provide financial benefits to certain other residents based on their ancestry and "blood quantum" in direct violation of the protections of the Equal Protection Clause and the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
This post–Civil War amendment was adopted precisely to prevent a state (such as Hawaii in this instance) from treating its citizens in an unequal manner by excluding certain of its residents from the "privileges or immunities" of citizenship, especially on the basis of race or ethnicity. The many special benefits provided by the HHC include 99-year homestead leases at an annual rental rate of only $1.
S.J. Res. 12
S.J. Res. 12 provides congressional consent to state legislative changes that would allow a lessee of the HHC who received a lease "through succession or transfer, to transfer his or her leasehold to a brother or sister who is at least one-quarter Native Hawaiian" or to designate that same brother or sister to "succeed to the leasehold interest upon the death of the lessee."
In other words, S.J. Res. 12 would allow those residents of Hawaii who meet the ethnic definition of the law and have received racially preferential treatment and special benefits to bequeath or pass on those benefits to family members, thereby perpetuating the discriminatory conduct. Moreover, the resolution adds another racial classification: "at least one-quarter Native Hawaiian."
Sanctioning Official Discrimination
As the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (CCR) recognized in 2005, in a critical report on the proposed Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2005, Hawaii "is in a league by itself" when it comes to officially sanctioned discriminatory conduct.[4] It administers a huge public trust worth billions of dollars that "provides benefits exclusively for ethnic Hawaiians." The CCR recommended against congressional passage of the 2005 act because it "would discriminate on the basis of race or national origin and further subdivide the American people."[5]
For the same reason, S.J. Res. 12 is also highly problematic as a matter of public policy and fundamental fairness. Not only does it implicitly approve of the naked discrimination practiced by the HHC, but it would approve new rules allowing the beneficiaries of such discriminatory conduct to pass on those unfair and unjustified benefits to family members.
Worse, the resolution would explicitly approve a legal definition of "Native Hawaiian" that, in the words of Peter Kirsanow (who serves on the CCR), "implicates the odious 'one drop rule' contained in the racial-segregation codes of the 19th and early 20th centuries."[6] S.J. Res. 12 applies the special financial and other benefits given out as racial spoils by the HHC to those whose blood makes them at least "one quarter Hawaiian," or a "quadroon" under the abhorrent and hateful definitions that were similarly used in Jim Crow laws throughout the segregated South to discriminate against Americans.
The Supreme Court Has Already Spoken
As U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens ironically pointed out in his dissent in Fullilove v. Klutznick,[7] if a government "is to make a serious effort to define racial classes by criteria that can be administered objectively, it must study precedents such as the First Regulation to the Reichs Citizenship Law of November 14, 1935," which similarly defined Jews based on their ancestry.
The constitutionality of Hawaii's entire racial spoils system was called into question by the Supreme Court in Rice v. Cayetano,[8] in which the Court held that Hawaii's election system for the trustees of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs that only allowed "Native Hawaiians" to vote violated the Fifteenth Amendment. The Court lectured the state, saying that Hawaii should "as always, seek the political consensus that begins with a sense of shared purpose. One of the necessary beginning points is this principle: The Constitution of the United States, too, has become the heritage of all the citizens of Hawaii."[9]
In an earlier landmark decision, Shelley v. Kraemer, the Supreme Court also held that that the power of a state to create and enforce property interests must be exercised within the boundaries defined by the Fourteenth Amendment and that courts cannot enforce racially restrictive covenants on real estate.[10] Yet S.J. Res. 12 would approve Hawaiian legislation making the eligibility to lease property from the state government dependent on racial classifications in violation of that holding.
As CCR commissioner Gail Heriot points out, "[I]f the State of Hawaii were operating its special benefits programs for Whites only or for Asians only, no one would dream the United States could assist them in this scheme."[11] Yet S.J. Res. 12 would do exactly that--have Congress assist Hawaii in operating a discriminatory special benefits program, eligibility for which is determined by ancestry, familial relationships, and blood.
Sanctioning Racial Discrimination
A vast majority of Hawaiians -- 94.3 percent -- voted for statehood in 1959, and they clearly did not want "separatist enclaves" in their future state.[12] At the time, many pointed to Hawaii as an example for America. As a delegate to Congress testified in 1957: "Hawaii is living proof that people of all races, cultures and creeds can live together in harmony and well-being and that democracy as advocated by the United States has in fact afforded a solution to some of the problems constantly plaguing the world."[13]
Hawaii is America in a microcosm -- a melting pot of citizens of many different racial, ethnic, and national origins. A Senate resolution that sanctions further discriminatory conduct and provides preferential treatment and benefits for a certain portion of the residents of Hawaii is misguided, to say the least. All Hawaiians are citizens who are entitled to equal protection under the law.
-- Hans A. von Spakovsky is Manager and Senior Legal Fellow for the Civil Justice Reform Initiative in the Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation.
** Footnotes:
1. Hirabayashi v. U.S., 320 U.S. 81, 100 (1943).
2. Hawaiian Homes Commission, Senate Report 113-76 (July 15, 2013).
3. See Hawaii Department of Hawaiian Home Land, "Hawaiian Homes Commission Act,"
http://dhhl.hawaii.gov/hhc/laws-and-rules/
(accessed November 22, 2013).
4. U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, The Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2005, January 20, 2006, p. 17.
5. Ibid., p. 15.
6. Peter Kirsanow, "A Pandora's Box of Ethnic Sovereignty," National Review Online, June 6, 2006,
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/217832/pandoras-box-ethnic-sovereignty/peter-kirsanow# (accessed November 22, 2013).
7. 448 U.S. 448, 534 (1980), footnote 5. ("Indeed, the very attempt to define with precision a beneficiary's qualifying racial characteristics is repugnant to our constitutional ideals.")
8. 528 U.S. 495 (2000). See also Doe v. Kamehameha Schools, 416 F.3d 1025 (9th Cir. 2005).
9. Rice at 524.
10. Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1 (1948).
11. U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, The Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2005, p. 18.
12. Erica Little and Todd F. Gaziano, "Abusing Hawaiian History: Hawaiians Knew Their History in 1959," Heritage Foundation WebMemo No. 1117, June 8, 2006,
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2006/06/abusing-hawaiian-history-hawaiians-knew-their-history-in-1959.
13. Testimony of John A. Burns, delegate to Congress from the territory of Hawaii, Senate Committee on the Interior and Insular Affairs, April 1, 1957.
--------------------------
http://www.staradvertiser.com/editorialspremium/20131127_Reconciliation_eludes_Hawaiians.html?id=233570481
Honolulu Star-Advertiser, November 27, 2013, EDITORIAL
'Reconciliation' eludes Hawaiians
Twenty years after Congress apologized on behalf of the United States for the 1893 overthrow of the Hawaiian kingdom, reconciliation between the federal government and Native Hawaiians seems more distant than ever.
The "apology resolution," U.S. Public Law 103-150, was considered a significant milestone when it was approved by Congress and signed by then-President Bill Clinton on Nov. 23, 1993, to acknowledge with regret the 100th anniversary of the overthrow, which occurred on Jan. 17, 1893.
The resolution refers to the vibrant and sovereign history of Hawaii's indigenous people and documents the role of the U.S. government in usurping their last monarch, Queen Liliuokalani.
The overthrow ultimately resulted in Hawaii being annexed to the United States in 1898.
The resolution acknowledges that the Native Hawaiian people never directly relinquished their claims to their inherent sovereignty as a people or over their national lands and recognizes that Native Hawaiians "are determined to preserve, develop and transmit to future generations their ancestral territory and their cultural identity in accordance with their own spiritual and traditional beliefs, customs, practices, language and social institutions."
The resolution explicitly expresses a commitment to acknowledging the ramifications of the overthrow "in order to provide a proper foundation for reconciliation between the United States and the Native Hawaiian people."
Sadly, concrete action tied to this stated commitment has been sorely lacking for the past two decades.
This lack of commitment is most evident in the repeated defeat of the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act, commonly known as the Akaka Bill, a federal measure that would have conferred a form of self-government on Native Hawaiians, similar to the status of American Indian tribes or Alaska Natives.
Such federal recognition, or nation-within-a-nation status, is decried by those Native Hawaiians who seek nothing less than total independence -- some want the restoration of the monarchy. But it is hailed by the state Office of Hawaiian Affairs and many other Native Hawaiian groups and individuals who rightly consider it a legitimate way to achieve a valid form of self-rule and the resources and governance that come with it.
Although the Akaka Bill passed in the U.S. House, it never survived in the U.S. Senate, despite the ardent support of its namesake, Daniel Akaka, and the venerable Daniel Inouye, two Hawaii Democrats who long served in that chamber and led numerous foiled attempts to get it approved.
With Inouye's death and Akaka's retirement in December 2012, prospects for future passage seem grim.
Yet the historic justification for its passage remains, as do the modern needs of the Native Hawaiian community. The state's current congressional delegation must remain resolute in advancing the cause of Native Hawaiian sovereignty with their colleagues in the House and Senate, many of whom may be unaware of Hawaii's complex history or even of the apology resolution itself.
Federal funding for Native Hawaiian education, health and social programs remains vital to improving people's lives in the islands and to the incremental progress toward the overall goal so eloquently stated in the apology resolution, and so quickly dismissed once the ink was dry.
A "proper foundation for reconciliation between the United States and the Native Hawaiian people" may elude us still, but it cannot elude us forever.
------------------
http://www.oha.org/sites/default/files/KWO1213_WEB.pdf
OHA monthly newspaper for December, 2013, page 4
Trustees OK more funding for roll commission – with conditions
By Garett Kamemoto
The Office of Hawaiian Affairs Board of Trustees voted to give almost $600,000 in funding to the Native Hawaiian Roll Commission, saying it is the final funding that will be approved for the commission. Trustees also demanded an exit plan to terminate the commission's operations.
The funding is about a quarter of the amount requested by the commission in
May. Since August 2011, trustees have approved $3.3 million for commission
operations. As of Sept. 27, Kana'iolowalu reported registering 21,418 Native Hawaiians for the roll.
Kana'iolowalu had been designed to be a yearlong campaign to create a base roll of Native Hawaiians who would be eligible to participate in the formation of a sovereign government. It launched in July 2012. The deadline to enroll has been extended until January 2014. The commission is expected to sunset on June 30, 2014, after the publication of a certified roll.
Trustees expressed concerns about the cost effectiveness of the commission's campaign, and noted a large number of people whose names will be on the final roll will have come directly from OHA. In September, OHA transferred more than 87,000 names to Kana'iolowalu after the state enacted a law including on the official roll all individuals registered with OHA as verified Native Hawaiians. That includes people who registered with Kau
Inoa, the Hawaiian Registry Program and Operation 'Ohana.
In the motion approving the $595,000 for commission operations, trustees
demanded the commission come up with an exit plan within two weeks. Trustees also said no further money would be given to the commission.
In addition, the motion included recommendations made by Trustee Robert
Lindsey, including:
• If a Kanaka Maoli puwalu (gathering) is to be convened, it would be convened by OHA and not the state Legislature and that OHA's role would be to facilitate the puwalu.
• OHA should educate and inform the Hawaiian community on the overthrow,
and the events surrounding the overthrow.
• OHA will never negotiate away the sovereignty of the Hawaiian people and
national lands.
• OHA will facilitate discussions on all models of self-determination, including
independence and international recognition.
The Board of Trustees voted 7 to 1 to support the additional funding.
The Native Hawaiian Roll Commission was formed by Act 195 in 2011. The law formally recognizes the Native Hawaiian people as the only indigenous, aboriginal, maoli people of Hawai'i. The commission is responsible for preparing a roll of qualified Native Hawaiians and certifying that the individuals on the roll meet the definition of Native Hawaiian.
Under the provisions of the law, the commission is housed within OHA for
administrative purposes only and OHA is responsible for funding the commission.
-----------------
http://www.oha.org/sites/default/files/KWO1213_WEB.pdf
OHA monthly newspaper for December, 2013, page 21
Kana'iolowalu: Accountability and stewardship
Carmen "Hulu" Lindsey, Trustee for Maui, monthly column
As an elected trustee of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, I have the responsibility and fiduciary obligation to ensure that our people's trust funds are used prudently and in a manner that directly benefits them. It is important therefore that the community understands the reasoning behind
decisions taken recently by the trustees with regard to funding Kana'iolowalu, the Native Hawaiian Roll Commission.
By state constitutional provision, OHA is the lead state agency on matters relating to Native Hawaiians. OHA did not initiate or pass Act 195, which created Kana'iolowalu. The state Legislature did, but then refused to fund this initiative.
On July 7, 2011, Gov. Neil Abercrombie signed Act 195 into law. "Preparing and maintaining a roll of qualified Native Hawaiians" and certifying that roll are the primary tasks of the Native Hawaiian Roll commissioners, who were appointed by the governor. OHA was required to fund the state initiative
with Native Hawaiian trust funds, but was not authorized to direct or control
the process by which the commission addressed and fulfilled its mandate.
OHA complied, hoping that a bona fide effort would bring about the registration of at least two-thirds of the Native Hawaiians in our state. The law set out a time frame for Kana'iolowalu to achieve its mission: the registration of 200,000 Native Hawaiians by June 15, 2013.
On May 26, 2013, the commission indicated it had registered only 12,956
Hawaiians. Having failed to meet its goal, the time frame for registration was
extended to Jan. 19, 2014. We were told on Aug. 2, 2013, that the number registered had increased to 16,585.
As can be seen from these numbers, the enrollment effort has fallen far short
of expectations. The OHA trustees had approved $3.337 million in trust funds for the state initiative. This had all been spent by June 30, 2013. Where did these trust funds go and why was there so little to show for it in terms of
results?
For the past several months, the Kana'iolowalu commissioners have come to OHA seeking additional money. These efforts began on May 21, 2012, when
OHA received a letter from the commission requesting another $2.5 million for the project.
Given the poor performance to date, three trustees and I voted not to continue further funding for the commission. But over the last several weeks, OHA trustees have faced increasing pressure to continue funding Kana'iolowalu. Although the trustees rejected the commission's requests, its budget demands continued to be placed on the agenda.
Finally, on Nov. 7, 2013, the OHA trustees voted to support a final allocation
of $595,000 to allow the commission to end its effort and to publish a closing report. I supported this request only when the commission finally disclosed that they had in fact incurred over $200,000 in debts that needed to be settled.
At this point, I feel the commission has done all it is capable of doing. I think our people are confused by the many times they have been asked to register. I fear our people may have become distrustful of the process. Perhaps the media advertisements were not clear in defining the goals of the mandate. There may be all kinds of reasons for why we are where we are.
What remains clear is our people's continuing desire to form a Hawaiian nation where känaka can determine for ourselves what direction we will take for
sovereignty. We need to demonstrate that we understand and are capable of addressing that desire in a more responsible way than the results of the commission have so far. 'O wau iho nö.
-----------------
http://www.oha.org/sites/default/files/KWO1213_WEB.pdf
OHA monthly newspaper for December, 2013, page 20
To Raise a Beloved Nation
Peter Apo, OHA trustee for O'ahu, monthly column
First, to all, Happy Holidays, keep safe, stay warm and celebrate your existence.
The end of the year is always an inspiring time to look ahead to what the future might hold and so I find myself in deep reflection over OHA's stated mission, To Raise a Beloved Nation.
What a profound thought with plenty of room for dreaming of what could be. My dreams for a nation begin by first noting that since 1980, when OHA was created by state Constitution, we have been consumed by the political
processes of the drive for political recognition. Some seek recognition as a nation by the federal government. Others seek political separation from U.S. control, to stand recognized through the United Nations that would somehow restore Hawai'i to its preannexation status as a kingdom-state.
I believe it is important to continue exploring all paths to restoring a form of nationhood. But I don't believe that we have to wait to be blessed by the U.S. or the United Nations to begin to build the nation. First, we are already a cultural and spiritual nation toward which we moved decisively and quickly following the Hawaiian Renaissance of the '70s and '80s that had us marching in the streets and stridently demanding a process of reconciliation
that led to the creation of OHA, a constitutional overhaul of native rights, a
ceded land settlement, the set aside of 'Iolani Palace and Kaho'olawe until such time that a new governing entity is established, and a vibrant reconstruction of our culture in all its forms.
The nation is already defining itself and rising quickly, although the import of it all sometimes escapes us. OHA has already begun stitching together a national geo-cultural land inventory by buying back pieces of the nation in the form of culturally valuable properties such as Waimea Valley, 25,000 acres of Wao Kele O Puna, 500 acres of the Galbraith Estate in Wahiawä, 20 acres in Palauea, Maui, and more. Kana'iolowalu (Act 195) moves us closer toward identifying a certified electorate, to be recognized by the state and
the federal government, who could then form a citizenry to establish a
new governing entity. The train has left the station.
A milestone toward the shaping of the nation occurred in November when the six major Hawaiian economic institutions gathered in a puwalu to seek ways to connect the dots and begin a dialogue of unification toward a common vision of a Hawaiian future. In the room were leaders of the Kamehameha
Schools, Queen Lili'uokalani Trust, Queen Emma Foundation and Hospital Systems, Lunalilo Home, Department of Hawaiian Home Lands and OHA.
The meeting was dynamic and produced a profound commitment to move forward together -- as one people. If it's true that a nation is defined by its institutions, then we are crystallizing ourselves as never before with the leadership of the six most fundamental institutions of the Hawaiian people,
four of them descending directly from the ali'i, and two emerging from the political reconciliation process. Now we need to push the envelope and move with a higher sense of urgency toward creating other institutions and programs to imbed in the fabric of the national tapestry such as a Hawaiian
National Archives, an education system, a health system, a national institute of culture and the arts. Let the vision burst forth beyond the political boundaries and not be impeded by the absence of political recognition, for
it will come in due time. The time to declare our nationhood is now. All we have to do is act like one.
------------------
http://www.civilbeat.com/voices/2013/12/09/20622-where-do-we-go-from-here-the-future-of-native-hawaiian-self-determination/
Honolulu Civil Beat, December 9, 2013
Where Do We Go From Here? The Future of Native Hawaiian Self-Determination
By Trisha Kehaulani Watson
Kauikeauoli, Kamehameha III, declared in the mid-1800s, "He aupuni palapala koʻu," mine is a kingdom of literacy. We were a lāhui na'auao, an educated and enlightened nation.
Western education, while introduced by foreigners, was promoted heavily by the Hawaiian Kingdom and as a result, the Native Hawaiian people quickly became one of the most literate groups in the world.
We are no longer one of the most literate groups in the world.
I, like many Hawaiians, nonetheless still firmly believe in education, both western and Hawaiian. We are a people capable of great intellect and innovation.
An informed and educated Hawaiian community should decide the future of the Hawaiian people, and I believe many of the recent efforts to move towards self-determination have contributed more to Hawaiian miseducation than education.
Since Act 195 was first passed and signed into law in 2011 by the Hawaii State Legislature, the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA) has spent close to $4 million on the Hawaiian Roll Commission, commonly known as Kana'iolowalu. Despite this extraordinary expenditure, less than 19,000 individuals voluntarily registered by August 2013, which amounts to less than 4 percent of the global Native Hawaiian population. A second bill was passed to bolster the effort, Act 77 (2012) added OHA's former efforts at a Native Hawaiian registry to the Roll, pushing the current roll's numbers over 75,000.
It is unlikely that the initial efforts actually resulted in many individuals who had not signed onto the previous efforts (including Kau Inoa, Hawaiian Registry Program and Operation 'Ohana). At this point, one must ask why OHA spent close to $4 million in trust funds when the majority of the registry was created through legislation that cost beneficiaries nothing?
Kana'iolowalu is sadly only the latest registry effort to face-plant out of the gate. There have been four separate registry programs spanning about a decade of work; millions of beneficiary dollars have been spent. Yet, less than 20 percent of Hawaiians are registered among the four programs.
To provide historical context, more people signed the Ku'e Petitions than voluntarily registered with Kana'iolowalu, and the Ku'e Petition movement consisted of people collecting signatures by horseback in the fall of 1897 when the entire Hawaiian population was less than 40,000 people.
Isn't it time to say the current effort isn't working?
It doesn't work because at its core this is a campaign conceived of by a few people for masses that remain uninformed as to its agenda and unconvinced of its goals.
Maybe Hawaiians don't want to be Native American Indians. Maybe we shouldn't be pursuing a federal recognition path that tries to squeeze us awkwardly into the mold of American Indian tribes.
Maybe we just want to be Hawaiians. And we deserve a campaign that opens dialogues as to what that means for us today and excludes no option when determining for ourselves how to move forward.
We deserve a campaign that discusses the many ways forward, including, but limited to, thorough and articulate considerations of restoration, restitution and recognition.
Restoration
The Nation of Hawai'i should be restored in some form for those who want that option. Some may not; such should be their right. Yet, part of the problem of attempting to move forward with Hawai'i sovereignty has been the gross misinformation of what the Nation was or more importantly, was not.
The Nation of Hawai'i was an independent sovereign nation, and it was not race based. It was not race based then, it should not be made so now.
The Nation should be restored in some form because it was illegally and wrongly overthrown. That wrong should be made right.
For those who believe independence is impossible, I invite you to travel to any one of the many independent Pacific Island nation states that continue to prosper under independence. Independence is not only possible, but also commonplace.
But "the illegal overthrow" as it is called in the Apology Resolution (P.L. 103-150) was a wrong to every Hawai'i National and a wrong to this place.
"Restoration of the Nation" should be just that. The effort to craft a restored nation that is inconsistent with what the Nation was originally is a significant factor in why the effort continues to fail. You can't take all the parts of a Mustang and restore it into a Camaro.
Restitution
Once the Nation was illegally overthrown, Hawai'i entered into a dark era of blatant, violent, express and institutionalized discrimination against Native Hawaiians in an effort to further western economic and political agendas.
We do not have the death penalty in Hawai'i today because Native Hawaiians and immigrant groups were being disproportionately executed when we did have the death penalty in Hawai'i. The problem was so bad that the death penalty would eventually be outright banned in Hawai'i. That prohibition continues today.
For the institutionalized discrimination and resulting harm against the Native Hawaiian people (as a class of people identified by race, ancestry and ethnicity), there needs to be restitution to remedy the past harm.
This is separate from the Nation issue. This is akin to restitution given to the Japanese after WWII or restitution due African-Americans for slavery.
In the former of those two cases, the U.S. Congress established the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians in the 1980s to study the issue. This led to a report that recommended reparations to the Japanese-Americans who were victims of internment, an act codified in the Civil Liberties Act of 1988. The Act also provided restitution to the Aleut civilian residents of the Pribilof Islands and the Aleutian Islands for, among other things, "injustices suffered and unreasonable hardships endured while those residents were under United States control…" and "traditional village lands on Attu Island not rehabilitated after World War II for Aleut occupation or other productive use."
This is remedy due the Hawaiian people by the United States for how Native Hawaiians were treated and for the resulting intergenerational harm. It should be specific and finite.
Recognition
Recognition is about ancestry and knowledge. Recognition provides that indigenous people of a place were the true "First Discovers" and over time built a relationship with a place that was disrupted by foreign contact.
Recognition is not about restoration or restitution, it's about recognizing that indigenous peoples have knowledge about and connections to a place that should be honored and integrated into decision making. This is not about giving indigenous people a benefit, rather it's about institutionalizing mechanisms where native, cultural and community knowledge is utilized in a manner that benefits anyone who enjoys a particular place.
Recognition has little to do with sovereignty and even less to do with restoration. It recognizes a native tribe's former sovereignty, but it does not restore it. Tribes may be given some authority, but it a shadowy fraction of what historically existed.
To a degree, Native Hawaiians have recognition. It exists in the Hawai'i State Constitution, the National Historic Preservation Act and other laws. It needs to be enhanced and amplified. Native Hawaiians should collectively move towards having all the rights outlined in the United Nations Declaration of Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which the United States announced it would sign onto in December 2010.
Conclusion
I'm frustrated because we deserve better. Earlier this year, Kana'iolowalu issued a "notice" in the Ka Wai Ola (OHA's newspaper) with the following statement: "Native Hawaiians who choose not to be included on the official roll risk waiving their right, and the right [sic] of the their children and descendants, to be legally and politically acknowledged as Native Hawaiians…"
This appears to directly contradict the language of the Commission's enabling legislation, which reads: "No diminishment of rights or privileges. Nothing contained in this chapter shall diminish, alter, or amend any existing rights or privileges enjoyed by the Native Hawaiian people that are not inconsistent with this chapter."
It seems like the Commission has taken authority they don't have and used it to threaten Hawaiians into registering for a future the Commission seems unable to articulate. The Commission is beginning to walk and talk like the thug instigators of the Overthrow. And it's no surprise people aren't interested in signing up.
Instead of uniting us, the Roll continues to dissect us.
My frustration should not indicate an unwillingness to be part of us "coming together." I've just not seen good leadership tied to a good mechanism to make this happen.
If the right person asked, in the right way, with the right message, I think many of us would step forward and we would all be able to see what an extraordinary group Hawaiians are today. The right person could inspire the Hawaiian people into collective action. What is painfully obvious is that the Roll Commission process has not produced that inspiration.
There is no reason not to take a step back, constitute a federal Commission, much like the Native Hawaiians Study Commission established in 1980, but one that looks specifically at the issues of restoration, restitution and recognition, and calls upon the many Native Hawaiians who enjoy a range of perspectives and expertise to identify a plan or range of plans that work for all Hawaiians.
If not through the federal government, than OHA should fund a citizen commission. If $4 million of trust funds can be spent on Kana'iolowalu, then surely a fraction of that can be spent on an effort led by the community, with the community.
One of my favorite O'ahu chief was Mā'ilikūkahi. This is one of my favorite passages about him, written by Samuel Kamakau.
When the kingdom passed to Māili-kūkahi, the land divisions were in a state of confusion… Therefore Māili-kūkahi ordered the chiefs, alii, the lesser chiefs, kaukau alii, the warrior chiefs, pūali alii, and the overseers, luna to divide all of Oahu into moku and ahupua'a,ili kūpono, iliāina, and mooāina. There were six districts, moku, and six district chiefs, alii nuiāi moku. Chiefs were assigned to the ahupua'a – if it was a large ahupua'a, a high chief, an alii nui, was assigned to it. Lesser chiefs, kaukau alii, were placed over the kūpono lands, and warrior chiefs, iliāina. Lands were given to the makaāinana all over Oahu.
Māili-kūkahi commanded the chiefs, kāhuna, lesser chiefs, warrior chiefs and people: "Cultivate the land, raise pigs and dogs and fowl, and take the produce for food. And you, chiefs of the lands, do not steal from others or death will be the penalty. The chiefs are not to take from the makaāinana…."
The chiefs and people agreed with pleasure. Because of his exceedingly great concern for the prosperity of the kingdom, the chiefs and people never rebelled during his reign. No voice was heard in complaint or grumbling against this alii, from the chiefs to the commoners, from the most prominent poe kiekie to the most humble poe haaha`a.
I was taught to believe in people, to support distribution of power to the people. Give people the freedom to find solutions that work for them and the people will prosper. Why can't we build many roads forward? Celebrate our diversity, rather than diminish it.
The 400,000 Native Hawaiians (over 80 percent of the global population of Hawaiians, according to the census) who have decided not to register deserve an opportunity to be heard. We deserve options. Real options. All the options. We have the intellect and the innovation to develop and explore them.
In the 25 years that have passed since the promulgation of the Native Hawaiian Education Act, countless Hawaiians have utilized that opportunity to educate themselves. The aupuni palapala has been rekindled. The lāhui na'auao reignited.
Give us an opportunity to use our education and innovation to craft futures of our own making.
About the author: Trisha Kehaulani Watson was born and raised in Manoa Valley on the island of Oahu. She is a graduate of Punahou School. She obtained her M.A. from Washington State University and her J.D. and Ph.D. from the University of Hawaii. She specializes in environmental and cultural resource conservation.
** Note about the author from website editor Ken Conklin: This essay is not as benign as it might seem. For further information about its author, see "Dialogs with a racist -- Bringing to public awareness the explicit, enthusiastic, and unapologetic racism of Trisha Kehaulani Watson, a featured blogger on the public website of the largest circulation newspaper in Hawaii" at
https://www.angelfire.com/big09a/DialogsRacistWatson.html
------------------
http://www.staradvertiser.com/newspremium/hawaiinewspremium/20131211__Leaders_look_to_young_people_to_keep_OHAs_mission_moving.html?id=235352911
Honolulu Star-Advertiser, Wednesday December 11, 2013
Leaders look to young people to keep OHA's mission moving
The quest for self-governance remains the key to the future of Native Hawaiians, speakers say
By Sarah Zoellick
Unity, empowerment and self-governance were again themes of this year's State of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs address, with special attention paid to the importance of preparing a new generation of Native Hawaiian leaders.
"I've always tried to put into practice the values that I was taught by my kupuna, particularly the spirit of aloha," keynote speaker retired U.S. Sen. Daniel K. Akaka said Tuesday to about 350 people gathered at Central Union Church. "I strongly believe that this has enabled me to achieve all that I have throughout my life, (and) I would like our current and future generations ... to recognize the power of aloha and the effectiveness of leadership that is rooted in our Hawaiian values."
The event began with the blowing of conch shells, processions of the Alii Trusts, Royal Benevolent Societies and OHAtrustees and administration. Musician John Rasmussen's voice rang through the church as he sang his moving song "Be Recognized" before Akaka spoke.
Akaka reminded the crowd of the perseverance and dedication it took for him to persuade Congress to pass a resolution 20 years ago formally apologizing for the overthrow of the Hawaiian government, and he expressed hope that the following years he spent fighting for a bill for Native Hawaiian governance will eventually result in victory.
"I've worked on it for 12 years, and it's still not done," the former senator told the Honolulu Star-Advertiser after the event. "But we still have to strive and find a way to bring back what I call governance so the people of Hawaii at least can come together not only in housing and organizations, but in governance for the people."
Board Chairwoman Colette Machado, who suffered a stroke Nov. 1, opened the event by discussing her health concerns and noting how her experience can serve as an example for those working to move OHA forward.
"If we're talking about building our nation and moving forward, we all have to be able to see the good work and the fruits of that outcome," she said. "I'm so grateful that I'm actually here now to address this group. You folks need to know that the Hawaiians are moving on up. ... We're moving towards establishing a recognized governance for Native Hawaiians."
OHA Chief Executive Officer Kamana'opono Crabbe, touching on the event's theme of "Kukulu Hou i ka Hale o Mauli ola" -- Rebuild the House of Mauli ola -- spoke of ushering in an era of collaboration among OHA and its supporters.
"Kukulu hou is that strategy that directs us to rebuild, to re-establish and to reaffirm for the next five generations the work that we do to rebuild a healthy nation," he said. "It is the vision that guides us with a renewed drive to complete our mission."
As part of his State of OHA speech, Crabbe noted several of the office's accomplishments throughout the year, which included:
» Helping 771 Native Hawaiians borrow $14.7 million through OHA loan programs to expand businesses, improve homes, consolidate debt and continue their education.
» Handling 150 grant applications totaling $36 million, compared with last year's 72 proposals, which totaled $8.8 million.
» Awarding $8 million to 32 community organizations.
Crabbe said more than 6,200 Native Hawaiians are expected to benefit from grants awarded by OHA this year through programs to combat obesity, improve middle- and high-school test scores, increase economic well-being and preserve and perpetuate as well as protect Hawaiian culture.
"I thought it was well done; it had a feeling of Hawaii, without question," Akaka said after the event.
"I feel now after serving those many years in Congress that Hawaii really has a mission for the United States and the rest of the world through its people, and that has to be continued and developed in our young people."
Along with Akaka, dignitaries attending included Lt. Gov. Shan Tsutsui; former Govs. George Ariyoshi and John Waihee; Mayor Kirk Caldwell and Kauai Mayor Bernard P. Carvalho Jr.; state Department of Land and Natural Resources Director William Aila and Deputy Director Esther Kia'aina; state Sen. Laura Thielen; and state Reps. Calvin Say, Cynthia Thielen and Gene Ward.
** Note from website editor Ken Conklin: The entire OHA annual event including keynote speech by former Senator Akaka can be viewed in a YouTube video lasting 95 minutes, at
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_s3fQAWSugI#t=11
---------------------
http://www.staradvertiser.com/editorialspremium/20131211_YES_The_time_might_be_ripe_again_to_pursue_action_for_Native_Hawaiians_self-determination.html?id=235350641
Honolulu Star-Advertiser, Wednesday December 11, 2013
ISLAND VOICES [Guest commentaries]
The Quest for Sovereignty ... or not
-------
YES: The time might be ripe again to pursue action for Native Hawaiians' self-determination
Submitted by Kioni Dudley
It's surprising how sovereignty is suddenly coming alive again. Spontaneous activity is sprouting up in quite unexpected places. It's like the spirits of ancient Hawaii nudging people to action.
The Star-Advertiser editorial, "'Reconciliation' eludes Hawaiians" (Our View, Star-Advertiser, Nov. 27), is just the latest example. Hawaiian sovereignty is in the air. Perhaps this is its time.
If so, the non-Hawaiian community must also become involved; its support will be crucial to success. Past polls have shown that as many as 84 percent of non-Hawaiians support some form of Hawaiian sovereignty. That's not surprising. We are island communities. Hawaiians and non-Hawaiians live and work and party together, and have intermarried since the first white men arrived. It is now time to trust each other and work together toward some form of Hawaiian nationhood.
Twenty years ago, the 100th anniversary of the overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom was a catalyst for study and action. Sovereignty groups arose; the federal government funded research; and the state funded an election of delegates and a convention. Interestingly, however, only enough funds were allocated to get the convention started; there was no money for it to continue.
Delegates from neighbor islands struggled to attend, an agreement was reached that embraced an independence model, and a Constitution was written. It was ignored, however, and a "more politically acceptable" integration model known as the Akaka Bill was devised and put before Congress. It fared no better. The failure of both efforts was actually fortunate.
During the past 20 years, newspapers from the time of the overthrow and annexation have been translated, and a much clearer picture has emerged. The strong Hawaiian resistance at that time, suppressed in history books during decades when Hawaiians were forbidden to use their language, can now be followed in detail. It's exciting material.
And understanding young America's belief in its "Manifest Destiny" -- which motivated U.S occupation and colonization efforts in the Pacific during the 1800s -- has helped to explain the aggressive American actions here that culminated in the overthrow, annexation and statehood.
During the past 20 years, numerous countries that had once been occupied or colonized, achieved independence and became members of the United Nations. They have brought to that body a great concern for nations in similar situations.
That concern has not been lost on those supporting an independence model of nationhood in Hawaii. Some now teach courses on U.S. occupation and international law at our universities and community colleges. Others have engaged international diplomatic and legal institutions. H.E. Leon Siu, for instance, has been working effectively at the U.N., building support. Keanu Sai has filed complaints with the International Court of Justice.
Meanwhile, some pursuing a more modest "integration" form of nationhood are working to get President Barack Obama to use his executive power to recognize a Hawaiian nation. There is also a renewed effort to get Native Hawaiians to sign up to participatein a future nation, the Kana'iolowalu roll project. A convention to determine the form of a new nation could follow the Kana'iolowalu enrollment.
The co-signatories of this article are developing a series of public educational forums, "The Sovereignty Conversation -- Community Forums," that will give all of these conflicting interests a voice. Starting in January, the forums will be held at the Kapolei High School cafeteria on the third Tuesday of each month from 7 to 9:30 p.m. To involve all of Hawaii's people, they will be televised live on NATV Channel 53, and will be available for future access at www.olelo.org.
These programs were initiated by the Hawaiian Affairs Committee of the Makakilo-Kapolei-Honokai Hale Neighborhood Board. It is hoped that both the Hawaiian and non-Hawaiian communites will enter the conversation.
This is your chance to have a voice. The theme of this series is "Moving forward together to restore the beloved nation." Let us move forward together.
This piece was co-signed by Keoni Kealoha Agard, Z. Aki, Puanani Burgess, Tony Castanha, Kioni Dudley, Poka Laenui, Jon Osorio, H.E. Leon Siu, Pilipo Souza and Kuhio Vogeler. For more information or to support the program series, call 672-8888.
----------
NO: There will be much divisiveness and turmoil if the sovereignty movement succeeds
By Kenneth R. Conklin
This newspaper and its predecessors have repeatedly editorialized in favor of the Akaka Bill or executive action to create a federally recognized Hawaiian tribe.
The latest version of the Akaka Bill, which passed its Senate committee in September 2012, says the Akaka tribe would have the same status as all other federally recognized tribes without any of the limitations found in previous versions of the bill.
For example, it explicitly puts the Hawaiian tribe under the same law as mainland tribes for regulating gambling casinos. That version of the bill is the final legacy of U.S. Sens. Dan Akaka and Dan Inouye; it's what the Hawaiian establishment has always wanted, and what executive action would create.
Hawaii's people need to be informed about the large body of federal Indian law that would suddenly come into Hawaii, drastically changing or replacing long-settled state laws. Here are a few: Indian Non-Intercourse Act(s); Indian Reorganization Act of 1934; Indian Gaming Regulatory Act; Indian Child Welfare Act; inherent powers of self-government.
The supremacy clause of the Constitution says federal law (including Indian law) overcomes state law whenever there's a clash. With passage of the Akaka Bill, thousands of federal laws and court decisions would suddenly become operational in Hawaii, causing massive disruption to our legal system.
The turmoil would be comparable to a ship bringing thousands of invasive species, which overwhelm and destroy our ecosystem. Some consequences would be as immediately visible as poisoning or traumatic injury; many would at first go unnoticed but develop gradually like heart disease or cancer.
Federal Indian law would allow the Akaka tribe to remove huge amounts of land from the state and county tax base, forcing taxes to be raised or services greatly reduced. The authority to regulate zoning, labor laws, workman's compensation for injury, enforcement of contracts, child custody, civil and criminal law, would be removed from the state and counties on tribal lands or for ethnic Hawaiians everywhere. Jurisdiction would shift to tribal courts, where laws and procedures could be very different and inherently favorable to tribal interests.
A federally recognized Akaka tribe would also have the U.S. Department of Justice providing lawyers and funding to support tribal litigation. The state, counties, small businesses and individuals would be forced to spend enormous amounts of money and time dealing with unfamiliar laws and procedures in front of hostile tribal judges.
A mainland tribe's reservation is often in a single location far removed from non-Indian towns. But in Hawaii there would be chaos among conflicting jurisdictions due to tribal lands being interspersed among state, county and private lands. Consider all the parcels owned by the Department of Hawaiian Homelands, Office of Hawaiian Affairs and Kamehameha Schools. In addition there would be numerous small and large parcels transferred from county, state and federal jurisdiction because of settlement negotiations or lawsuits.
No other state has 20 percent of its population who are racially Indian, let alone 20 percent eligible to join one single tribe. Hawaii would have a major voting bloc who elect the state legislators and administrators who negotiate against the tribe, while that same voting bloc also elects the tribal leaders who will make demands against the state officials. Numerous state and county legislators and administrators, or their spouses and family members, would actually be members of the tribe whose leaders make demands against them. Talk about conflict of interest!
Federal recognition of a Hawaiian tribe would permanently divide the lands and people of Hawaii along racial lines, promoting political and legal battles while greatly worsening racial hostility. It's a recipe for disaster. Stop it.
Kenneth R. Conklin, an activist against Hawaiian sovereignty and race-based policies, was a co-plaintiff in the successful lawsuit to allow non-Hawaiians to run for Office of Hawaiian Affairs trustee.
--------------------
On Thursday December 12 the Honolulu Star-Advertiser ran an online opinion poll on the front page of its website beginning at midnight and ending at 4:00 PM.
The question was:
Generally, what's your sentiment on Native Hawaiian sovereignty?
The choices were:
A. Support independence under U.N.
B. Support nation within U.S. integration
C. Oppose it
The results, as recorded in the online poll archive, were as follows:
http://hawaii-newspaper.com/polls/honolulu-star-advertiser-poll-archive/
C. Oppose it (56%, 1,893 Votes)
B. Support nation within U.S. integration (29%, 974 Votes)
A. Support independence under U.N. (15%, 530 Votes)
Total Voters: 3,395
** Analysis by Ken Conklin: More people voted in this poll than in any other poll during the past three weeks. And at 56%, significantly more people voted against any form of ethnic Hawaiian sovereignty than voted in favor of either the independence or Indian tribe (Akaka bill) models combined. Opponents outnumbered Akaka tribe supporters nearly 2-to-1. Opponents outnumbered secessionists nearly 4-to-1. Queen Liliuokalani is quoted in many places as having said "The voice of the people is the voice of God." The people have now spoken once again, with basically the same results as in other polls and surveys conducted in previous years in the Honolulu Advertiser, Honolulu Star-Bulletin, Maui News, and Grassroot Institute two telephone polls which called every publicly listed telephone number in Hawaii. It's time for Hawaii's people to move forward in a spirit of reconciliation with aloha for all. E hana kakou -- let's all work together.
------------------
http://www.hawaiipoliticalinfo.org/node/7066
Hawaii Political Info, Sunday December 15, 2013
Want a Gambling Casino in Hawaii? Get Recognition for a Hawaiian Tribe.
by Ken Conklin
For many years there have been bills in the Hawaii legislature to authorize gambling. There has been heavy lobbying and advertising by mainland companies.
The Hawaii Coalition Against Legalized Gambling has battled successfully against such legislation, with help from local churches and mainland anti-gambling groups. But if a Hawaiian tribe is created and gets official state or federal recognition, it will sponsor all forms of gambling including casinos.
The Hawaii Coalition Against Legalized Gambling has refused to oppose federal or state recognition of a Hawaiian tribe. HCALG wants to focus on the single issue of gambling and fears to offend some of its politically liberal allies who support recognition, especially the United Church of Christ, the Catholic Diocese of Honolulu, United Methodist Church, Quakers, Mormons, and Buddhist groups. HCALG's strategy of appeasement is shortsighted, because the one event most likely to bring gambling to Hawaii would be recognition of a Hawaiian tribe.
The Hawaii legislature might soon give formal recognition to a Hawaiian tribe now being created through the state-sponsored Kana'iolowalu racial registry, successor to the Kau Inoa registry. Although the Akaka bill seems dead in the current 113th Congress, powerful politicians are working behind the scenes to get federal recognition through administrative procedures in the Bureau of Indian Affairs or the Department of Interior, or through a Presidential Executive Order. As a Senator, Barack Obama spoke in favor of the Akaka bill; and repeated his support for it several times since then. The OHA newspaper has bragged that behind-the-scenes efforts are underway. The Honolulu Star-Advertiser has editorialized in favor of them.
The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act was passed by Congress in 1988. One consequence of IGRA is that if the State of Hawaii or any of its counties allows any form of legalized gambling -- even so minor as issuing a license for a church bingo game -- then a Hawaiian tribe would be entitled to a full-blown gambling casino.
When land is taken into trust for a tribe it becomes federal land. The supremacy clause of the Constitution makes state and local governments unable to tax or regulate federal lands. The result is that tribal businesses on tribal lands, including gambling casinos, liquor stores, gas stations, tobacco shops, etc., operate free from state or local taxes; free from zoning regulations, environmental laws, and labor laws; free from paying minimum wage or workers' compensation for injuries, etc. Tribes spend large amounts of casino profits to lobby legislatures to pass laws favorable to them. Tribal sovereignty puts them outside the reach of state campaign spending laws, so they spend megabucks to elect pro-gambling candidates.
Mainland tribes worried that a Hawaiian tribe would set up gambling casinos in their own states competing against them. That's why mainland Senators demanded stronger and stronger language in the Akaka bill as the years went by to prohibit the Hawaiian tribe from engaging in gambling.
But in September 2012, just weeks before retiring from the Senate, Dan Akaka suddenly pushed through the Indian Affairs committee, where he was chairman, a new version of the Akaka bill with zero prohibitions against gambling. It's just what he and Dan Inouye had always wanted. It grants the Hawaiian tribe the same rights as all other tribes, and specifically says the Hawaiian tribe will be governed by the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. The bill actually gave the Hawaiian tribe special advantages for gambling by providing a "Carcieri fix" allowing it to put land into trust even though all other tribes recognized after 1934 are currently prohibited from doing so because of a 2009 Supreme Court decision.
Pushing a bill through Congress is not the way most tribes got recognized. The usual process is to submit an application to the Bureau of Indian Affairs and Department of Interior, accompanied by proof that the "tribe" satisfies all seven mandatory criteria under 25 CFR 83.7.
Ethnic Hawaiians fail at least three of the seven requirements. They have not been identified as an Indian entity on a continuous basis since 1900; the predominant portion of ethnic Hawaiians do not comprise a distinct community that has existed as a separate, identifiable community from the time of European contact until the present; and ethnic Hawaiians have not maintained a political entity that has exercised significant influence or authority over its members as an autonomous entity from European contact until the present.
The Department of Interior has been conducting a review of 25 CFR 83.7 and gathering public comments with a view toward easing the requirements and simplifying the process. Undoubtedly there are OHA lobbyists burrowing into the bureaucracy in hopes of revising the criteria and process to make it easier for themselves to get recognition.
If a Hawaiian tribe gets recognition through administrative hocus-pocus or Executive Order, it would immediately have all the rights of federally recognized tribes with none of the restrictions on funding or gambling that were included in various versions of the Akaka bill. Of course a future Republican President could issue a new Executive Order rescinding recognition. But once a tribe has been created and has gathered power to itself for a few years, it would be very hard to dismantle.
Here's a scenario for Hawaiian recognition without any Akaka bill. The Hawaiian Homes Commission Act of 1920 established what might be regarded as a "reservation" with 203,500 acres of land and a "tribe" consisting of all people with at least 50% Hawaiian native blood. In the statehood act of 1959, Hawaii agreed to take over responsibility for the Homelands, subject to oversight by the federal government. In view of recent difficulties with local administration of the Department of Hawaiian Homelands, the federal government might assert its rights under HHCA to supervise the program. Perhaps the Obama administration might simply declare that DHHL is a federally recognized tribe. Such an Executive Order might even state that because the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act was signed into law in 1921, the Hawaiian tribe has been federally recognized since 1921 and therefore qualifies to have land taken into trust despite the Carcieri decision. Perhaps the Presidential order might extend to all ethnic Hawaiians with at least one drop of native blood whose names will have been certified by the Kana'iolowalu racial registry process. Once created the tribe could exercise its inherent powers of sovereignty to extend its membership to the much larger group of all 527,000 who checked the box for "Native Hawaiian" in Census 2010.
Obama seems eager to please the Indian tribes. President Bush had refused to sign the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples because of concerns that it could undermine the sovereignty of the U.S. President Obama signed it. Obama also puts aside golfing to have an annual meeting in Washington with leaders of the federally recognized tribes to hear their concerns and reassure them of his support. Obama might listen to tribal leaders who oppose recognition for a Hawaiian tribe.
The genuine tribes have a lot to lose if a Hawaiian tribe gets federal recognition. The Hawaiian tribe would be the largest tribe in America, easily grabbing the lion's share of government handouts from a shrinking budget. The Hawaiian tribe would also be able to purchase land in other states, place it into federal trust, and have gambling casinos competing against the casinos many tribes rely upon as their primary source of income.
Census 2010 identified 527,077 people who checked the box for being "Native Hawaiian." 237,107 were residents of other states, including 74,932 in California (an increase of 25% above the number living there in 2000). The California branch of the Hawaiian tribe is flourishing, would be the largest tribe in California, capable of owning and managing one or more casinos.
From 2000 through 2012 the Indian tribes gave political support to the Akaka bill. Tex Hall, president of the National Congress of American Indians, testified alongside Haunani Apoliona, chair of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, before the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs in Washington.
The two Hawaii Senators wielded enormous power over the mainland tribes as members and sometimes chairmen of the Indian Affairs committee -- the power to appropriate billions of dollars for Indian programs, to pass laws regulating how the tribes do business, to summon tribal chiefs to oversight hearings where their leadership, policies, and budgets could be challenged, etc. The mainland tribes feared the size and power of a proposed Hawaiian tribe; but they feared Inouye and Akaka more and therefore gave lip service to supporting the Hawaiian tribe. That support was always shaky, and might now be changing. There are many arguments against recognizing a Hawaiian tribe which do not in any way attack the legitimacy of the genuine mainland tribes -- because the history of the Kingdom of Hawaii and its inclusion of large numbers of non-natives as full partners with voting rights and leadership positions is unlike any mainland tribe.
Now that Inouye and Akaka are gone, we who oppose the creation of a Hawaiian tribe, and especially we who oppose gambling in Hawaii, should ask mainland tribal leaders for help in stopping federal recognition for a Hawaiian tribe. Since recognition activity is now taking place primarily behind the scenes, tribal leaders do not need to issue public statements -- they can speak quietly to government officials they routinely talk with in the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Department of Interior. Let's encourage them to kill this egg before the rattlesnake hatches.
This has been a summary of a much more detailed essay, including footnotes, at
http://tinyurl.com/k3zyyy8
-------------------
http://www.staradvertiser.com/editorialspremium/letterspremium/20131216_letters_to_the_editor.html?id=235972411
Honolulu Star-Advertiser, December 16, 2013, Letters to editor (Two)
Race-based policy seems anachronistic
It is ironic that while we celebrate Nelson Mandela's South African legacy of racial comity and the ending of a legal division based on race, we in Hawaii entertain a sovereignty movement that will result in a legal construct that is similarly divisive.
To what end?
Tom Freitas
Hawaii Kai
-----
Sovereignty articles were constructive
The recent op-ed pieces on the quest for Hawaiian sovereignty represented a step forward in a discussion that has lacked substance for decades ("Quest for sovereignty … or not," Star-Advertiser, Insight, Dec. 11).
For the first time, an article in the newspaper addressed questions about what our society would be like with a sovereign Hawaiian entity: What is the impact on state and municipal revenues? Our taxes?How do laws apply differently between Hawaiian and non-Hawaiian citizens of our state? Will gambling be permitted? Do federal tribal laws supersede Hawaii laws?
It is easy to be emotionally pulled by phrases like"fairness to Hawaiians" and "illegal overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy," but what are the consequences of enthroning a sovereign Hawaiian government?
Hawaii citizens have a reasonable expectation to understand how life might be affected with a new government on the scene.
Bob Maynard
Kailua
-------------------
http://westhawaiitoday.com/news/local-news/native-hawaiian-roll-commission-outreach-end-jan-19
West Hawaii Today, December 26, 2013
Native Hawaiian Roll Commission ‘outreach' to end Jan. 19
By TOM CALLIS
Stephens Media Hawaii
The Native Hawaiian Roll Commission plans to end its outreach efforts Jan. 19 but will continue to accept registrants afterward, according to its executive director.
Formed to set up the foundation of a Native Hawaiian government by creating a roll -- a list of names of people of Hawaiian descent -- the commission has gathered 101,130 registrants as of Tuesday.
It started the effort with the goal of collecting 200,000 names by last July. That deadline was later extended, and executive director Clyde Namuo said earlier this month the commission will take steps to publish the list of names after Jan. 19, when its advertising and outreach efforts to the Hawaiian community will end.
Names will be accepted after that date, he said. But following Jan. 19, the commission will begin verifying names so the list can be published.
"We will publish the list of names by June," Namuo said. "At the latest, 2014."
Those who sign up will be eligible to participate in the selection of delegates for an eventual constitutional convention, he said.
Though the commission expects to fall short of its initial goal, Namuo said it still has enough to move forward.
"I think (we're at) a critical mass," he said. "100,000 is a critical mass of names."
It was unclear how many signed up from the Big Island. The commission did not respond to a Dec. 16 request for that information by press time Tuesday.
More than 71,000 names were transferred from Kau Inoa and Operation Ohana, according to the commission.
Namuo acknowledged difficulty in gaining signatures, which he partially attributed to registration fatigue.
"Part of it was that people said, ‘We already signed up for Kau Inoa. Why do we need to sign up again?'" Namuo said.
People were allowed to opt out of having their names transferred.
Commission vice chairman Naalehu Anthony said about 60 chose to opt out.
"I'm pretty happy with the success of it," he said of the program.
"We definitely had our set of challenges in terms of making sure the funds were available at the time they were needed."
While the intent is to create a government for Native Hawaiians, how that would look would still need to be worked out, Namuo said.
One option could be a government-to-government relationship similar to what Native American tribes have with the federal government, he said.
"Usually, a nation within a nation is what's referred to," Namuo said. "That's generally the model."
Without such a relationship, programs intended to benefit Native Hawaiians could be challenged in court, the commission says.
The state Legislature created the commission with Act 195 in 2011.
To register, visit hawaiianroll.org or call 594-0088.
-------------------
http://www.civilbeat.com/articles/2013/12/30/20727-hawaiis-congressional-delegation-letdowns-and-new-years-resolutions/
Honolulu Civil Beat, December 30, 2013
** Excerpts related to federal recognition of Hawaiian tribe. Both Hawaii Senators and both Hawaii Representatives were interviewed individually, and Hanabusa was the only one who mentioned recognition. For her, this was the major issue.
Hawaii's Congressional Delegation: Letdowns and New Year's Resolutions
By Adrienne LaFrance
Late December often prompts reflection about the year that has passed, and resolutions for the year to come.
For Hawaii's representatives in Congress, there were some big 2013 disappointments. Congress failed to pass comprehensive immigration reform or extend long-term unemployment benefits that are set to expire for nearly 1.2 million people. They are also impatient for federal recognition for Native Hawaiians similar to the recognition already granted to Alaska Natives and Native American tribes, and to pass legislation aimed at ending military sexual assaults.
What's something you hoped to accomplish but did not (so far) in 2013?
Hanabusa: What we were hoping to accomplish was the issue of federal recognition, at least getting it moved along, but there were all different kinds of issues associated with that. I was very disappointed. The other issue — which is something that I personally wanted — doing away with sequestration. I wanted to see it repealed.
What steps will you take to make it happen in 2014?
Hanabusa: We have to stay the course (in seeking federal recognition for Native Hawaiians) until we hear otherwise. We need to hear from the White House before we can chart the next steps. There are three ways you can achieve federal recognition: One is through Congress, the other is what you're hearing about now, which is executive orders; and then the third is judicial, which in my opinion would require the state to take some kind of action. I think that whatever the course may be, it's going to be something that the entire delegation pools behind... We have to hear from all the players, primarily the executive branch. It's in their court.
================
Send comments or questions to:
Ken_Conklin@yahoo.com
You may now
or
or
SEE MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THE HAWAIIAN GOVERNMENT REORGANIZATION BILL (AKAKA BILL)
or
GO BACK TO OTHER TOPICS ON THIS WEBSITE
(c) Copyright 2013
Kenneth R. Conklin, Ph.D.
All rights reserved
