Site hosted by Build your free website today!

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

(c) Copyright by Kenneth R. Conklin, Ph.D. August 29, 2012




Data focused on Native Hawaiians from Census 2010 are now available. Those data have important political implications for Hawaii and all of America regarding the Akaka bill and/or Act 195 state-recognized tribe; and regarding victimhood claims asserted by the Hawaiian grievance industry as a way of demanding sympathy, money, and political power.

Following both the Census of 2000 and the Census of 2010, it took about two years before the demographic data for "Native Hawaiians" finally became available. It seems like a very simple question to ask "How many people checked the box identifying themselves as 'Native Hawaiian'"? But it took two years to find out, because the Census Bureau first focused on its Constitutionally mandated duty to provide total population counts for every state, county, municipality, and census block throughout all 50 states and several territories, to allow redistricting in time for the elections of 2012. The Census Bureau then felt compelled to follow the precedent of several decades to lump Native Hawaiians into a larger category of "Native Hawaiians and other Pacific Islanders" and to keep them lumped together until the Census Bureau finally began reporting on detailed racial subgroups for all races in America.

Here are a few HIGHLIGHTS FROM THE ESSAY BELOW: If a Native Hawaiian tribe is created, it would be the largest Indian tribe in America. The fact that nearly half its members live outside Hawaii would mean that Hawaii taxpayers end up giving away land, money, and a lot of decision-making power to nearly a quarter million people outside our state. In Hawaii the average age of Native Hawaiians is only 26 while the average age of everyone else is 41. That says a lot about why activists complain that Native Hawaiians have low income, drug abuse, incarceration, etc. -- it's because they're young, not because they're either bad people or discriminated against. Also, anyone with a single drop of Hawaiian blood is counted as "Native Hawaiian" when it comes to bad things, but someone with a single drop of Caucasian blood is not counted as Caucasian. So of course the skewed statistics make things look bad for Native Hawaiians.

Topics to be discussed, in the following order (scroll down):








ENDNOTES AND SOURCES (Native Hawaiian and State of Hawaii first, followed by Indian tribes, Blacks, and Hispanics)



Sometimes people say to me "Conklin, why are you always picking on Native Hawaiians and not other ethnic groups?" My answer is simple. I'm trying to protect unity, equality, and aloha for all. Unity: the unity of Hawaii with the United States, and the unity of all Hawaii's people under a single state government. Equality: the concept that we are all equal in the eyes of God and we should all be treated equally under the law by our government. Aloha Spirit: the concept that the Aloha Spirit is an aspect of God -- a powerful source of love and respect found at the core of all human beings and throughout nature.

Those principles are explained at
and the Aloha Spirit is further discussed at

There is no other ethnic group in Hawaii that has some of its leaders pursuing racial separatism, demanding to create a race-based government empowered with land, money, and jurisdictional authority. The major vehicles for doing that are the proposed federally recognized tribe under the Akaka bill,
and the state-recognized tribe put in motion under Hawaii Act 195 of 2011.

Native Hawaiians hold many high-ranking government positions as members of the state legislature and county councils, department heads, judges, etc. Every one of them has a clear conflict of interest when making decisions about handing over government land, money, or jurisdictional authority to a race-based tribe whose membership roster they have already signed or are easily eligible to sign. Government officials should make a pledge to recuse themselves from participating in any decision that would benefit exclusively or primarily their own ethnic group or their spouse's or children's ethnic group. For example Filipino legislators should not vote on making a grant to the Filipino Cultural Center, while Native Hawaiian legislators should not vote on any bill to turn over $200 Million of land in Kakaako to OHA, or to give preferential fishing rights or tuition waivers to Native Hawaiians. Is there anything controlled or subsidized by the government that is specifically focused on benefitting Caucasians, or for their exclusive use? If so, then Caucasian officials should recuse themselves from dealing with it. The Akaka bill and Act 195 have such a pervasive impact throughout all levels and departments of government that any Native Hawaiian in a decision-making position is likely to face a very large number of unavoidable conflicts of interest and should be recusing himself from so many decisions that it would prevent him from adequately representing his constituents. Therefore, so long as the Akaka bill or Act 195 remain a threat, voters should wonder whether it is a bad idea to vote for any Native Hawaiian. See analysis of the problem of race-based conflict of interest at

The threat posed by the Akaka bill and Act 195 is so severe that it distorts a voter's decision which candidate to vote for even when none of the candidates in a contest is Native Hawaiian. A conservative who might normally vote Republican based on normal conservative issues must instead vote for a liberal Democrat for fear that a Republican who favors the Akaka bill might be successful in persuading fellow Republicans to stop blocking it, whereas the Democrat who also favors the Akaka bill will merely be ineffective in pushing it. See "Why it's important to defeat Lingle and Djou for U.S. Senate and House in November 2012" at

Extensive research has uncovered more than 850 race-based government grants to benefit Native Hawaiians exclusively, totaling more than $322 Million. The webpage compiling information about them has not been updated for a long time. It's hard to keep up with these burgeoning racial entitlement programs; so by now the totals have undoubtedly grown.

Native Hawaiians are 21.3% of the population of Hawaii. If they think of themselves as primarily Native Hawaiian rather than as citizens of Hawaii and of the United States, then they will vote as a bloc for Native Hawaiian candidates or for non-natives who pledge to deliver money, land, and political power to Native Hawaiians. If it comes right down to it, the rest of us can outvote them 4-to-1. But a zealous racial minority can overcome an apathetic majority. Dear reader, are you offended by the racial divisiveness of this paragraph? Then you should be troubled when you see signs like "We're Hawaiians and we vote" or T-shirts or TV commercials with slogans like "Get out the Hawaiian vote; no vote, no grumble." Ballot boxes should not be used as pillboxes in a race war. The Council for Native Hawaiian Advancement is even sponsoring the "Hawaiian Way Fund" racial separatist version of the Aloha United Way charity. Should United Way now stop sending money to service agencies that help Native Hawaiians, and let each ethnic group serve "its own kind"?

There are dozens of ethnic Hawaiian groups, both democratic and monarchial, which aspire to lead a future independent nation of Hawaii or which assert a claim that they already are the lawful government of a nation which never gave up its sovereignty. A few groups say they welcome people with no native blood as fully equal citizens; but in fact even the groups which welcome non-natives propose a two-tier citizenship in which only those who have native blood would have full voting rights and property rights while all who lack a drop of the magic blood would have only limited voting rights on a restricted range of topics and limited property rights on restricted areas of land. See the endnotes for links to the Constitutions of three such groups. The Akaka bill is seen by its supporters, including Senator Akaka himself, as a conduit to secession.

There's an astonishing level of anti-military and anti-American feeling among many supporters of the Akaka bill and especially among most supporters of independence, being played out in lawsuits and political activity in Hawaii, elsewhere in the U.S., and at the international level.

The fact that Native Hawaiians are the only ethnic group in Hawaii whose leaders demand racial separatism or ethnic nationalism is what makes it not only reasonable but necessary to single out that group and pay special attention to its demographic data.

When ethnic Hawaiian leaders assert medical, economic, or social victimhood claims demanding public sympathy and government handouts because their group has the worst statistics for drug abuse, low income, and incarceration, we're entitled to examine the data to see whether that's true and if so what the explanation might be.

When ethnic Hawaiian leaders demand a race-based government in Hawaii, we're entitled to look at what percentage of Hawaii's people would fall under its jurisdiction and compare that against the social and political impact throughout the U.S. if Congress were to create a race-based government for African-Americans or for Mexican-Americans.



That's how many people checked ONLY the race box for "Native Hawaiian" even though the instructions were clear that people could check multiple boxes reflecting multiple ancestries. In reality there are probably fewer than 5,000 people with 100% Hawaiian native blood. That means 75,000 people in Hawaii and 151,000 people nationwide are so zealous about Hawaiian activism that they chose to ignore and disrespect their non-native ancestors, even when those non-natives comprise most of their heritage.

A tiny tearjerker propaganda book published in 2003, "Then There Were None", traces the decline of the number of "pure Hawaiians" from (allegedly) somewhere between 400,000 to one million in 1778. Page 47 in its entirety says: "By 1878 there were only 48,000 pure Hawaiians left alive." And by 2003 the book is dedicated to "the five thousand piha kanaka maoli [pure-blood Hawaiians] who remain."

So how do we get an official Census figure of more than 80,000 "pure Hawaiians"? Because the Census is based on self-reporting, and because some people disrespect all their ancestors who are not Hawaiian. In 2000 and again in 2010 people were allowed to answer the race question by marking one OR MORE boxes to identify their racial heritage. The instructions were clear that multiple race boxes could be marked. But some Hawaiian activists chose to suppress the fact that most of their ancestry is non-Hawaiian. Even with a name like "Smith" or "Lichtblau" they would look a Census worker in the eye and say proudly and defiantly "I am pure Hawaiian." Some race-mongers from OHA and Kamehameha Schools told people receiving race-based handouts to mark only the one box for "Native Hawaiian" because (they asserted) ethnic Hawaiians would get more government money if there were more of them who identified with only one race. Apparently there were at least 75,000 people in 2000 and 2010 who were so zealous about having a drop of Hawaiian native blood that they chose to suppress the great bulk of their ethnic heritage, and they marked only the one box for "Native Hawaiian." A Native Hawaiian with multiple racial heritages might despise and suppress the non-native majority of his own blood, and refer disparagingly to people with no native ancestry as "weeds". See "Pure Hawaiians, Impure Hawaiians, and Weeds -- Dialog between J. Arthur Rath III and Kenneth R. Conklin regarding the approaching extinction of Hawaiians with 100% native blood" at

Anecdotal evidence is clear that OHA, Kamehameha Schools, and other Hawaiian institutions often encouraged their beneficiaries to report only their Native Hawaiian ancestry, in hopes of increasing government handouts and strengthening public perception of Hawaiians as "a people" who are unique, distinct, and separate (and thus eligible for federal recognition as an Indian tribe!).

I, Ken Conklin, spent several years from 2000 to 2006 working one week every month for the Census Bureau interviewing people in their homes 8 times during a 16 month period to gather data about jobs and unemployment. The first interview asked for the names, birthdates, and races of each household member. Occasionally I encountered people whose names were not Hawaiian and whose physical appearance was not Hawaiian, but who would identify themselves solely as Hawaiian. A Hawaiian woman might have a non-Hawaiian name because she was married, but a man has no such explanation.

A Census Bureau rule made it clear that interviewers were required to accept without question whatever race someone claimed to be.

Occasionally I bent the rule by casually asking a "pure Hawaiian" a question like "I can mark more than one race -- any other races?" and sometimes I got a loud and defiant response "No! I'm pure Hawaiian" even when a man had a name like "Jones" and looked Caucasian.

Perhaps the most poignant example was when I interviewed a very sweet single mother of a toddler, who identified herself only as Okinawan [the Census calls her Japanese] and she identified her baby only as Hawaiian. When the official interview had ended and I made clear it was over and asked if she'd be willing to answer an off-the-record personal question to satisfy my curiosity. I gently, in a soft voice, asked "Did you give birth to that boy or is he adopted?" She said she had given birth to him. I asked why she identified the boy as Hawaiian, and she answered that the boy's [absentee] father is Hawaiian. I then asked her why she gave only "Hawaiian" as the boy's race when she, the boy's natural mother, is Okinawan. She said that she receives benefits for the boy from Kamehameha Schools and they had told her that she should always refer to her boy simply as Hawaiian. She added that the boy's father is only part-Hawaiian and mostly Filipino. That interview from years ago stands out in my mind today because it seemed so sad to me that a woman felt compelled to deny her own Okinawan ancestry as being part of the ancestry of a baby to whom she herself had given birth, and also to deny to the boy's Census record the predominantly Filipino ancestry of the boy's part-Hawaiian father. And it's not the only interview like that!



That's how many people checked the race box for "Native Hawaiian" with or without also checking additional race boxes. In Hawaii that's an increase of 21% above year 2000, while nationwide it's an increase of 31%. Clearly Hawaiians are thriving and making lots of babies, even more on the continent than in Hawaii.

One explanation for Native Hawaiian fertility is that their average age is only 26, while the average age for the rest of Hawaii's people is 41 (see below) and thus most are beyond the usual age for childbearing.

Another explanation is that Hawaiian culture, including large extended families and being on welfare for multiple generations, seems not only open but welcoming to making "illegitimate babies" by contrast to other cultures. Indeed, some Hawaiian activists publicly encourage Hawaiian girls to make lots of babies, with or without marriage. Because it's not only fun, but also serves "the lahui" as a way to gain political power by becoming a larger percentage of the population. See "Native Hawaiian Population To Double by 2050 -- Lilikala Says Use Population Bomb to Blow Up Current Non-Native Majority" at

Some of the increase in Native Hawaiian population is probably due to all the publicity about the Akaka bill throughout the decade, and outreach for the Kau Inoa racial registry. The number might well explode by hundreds of thousands if a Native Hawaiian government begins distributing land and annual payments to people who have the magic blood.

In Census 2000 there were roughly 240,000 ethnic Hawaiians living in Hawaii, 60,000 living in California, and 100,000 living in the other 48 states. A spreadsheet was created to show the number of ethnic Hawaiians, and several other Polynesian types, and Micronesians, and Melanesians, in each state.

For Census 2010 such a spreadsheet has not been created. But there is a chart in the Hawaii state databook released in August 2012 (Table 1.42, page 81) showing the number of ethnic Hawaiians (both "pure" and total) in the top 18 states. California continues to lead the pack with 74,932, an increase of 24.8% since 2000. If the Akaka bill passes, then the California branch of the Akaka tribe would be the largest federally recognized tribe in California. Other states have shown startling increases: Nevada, with 16,339 is up by 97.7%; Arizona with 9,549 is up by 94.6%; Georgia, with 3,976, is up by 82.1%. In a couple of states the population jump might be due to Hawaii sending prisoners to for-profit prisons in those states; but quite a few states show 40-80% increases with no easy explanation.

Comparing Census 2000 with Census 2010, we see that the population of ethnic Hawaiians living outside Hawaii is increasing faster than the population of ethnic Hawaiians living inside Hawaii, for both the "pure Hawaiians" and the impure ones. It seems that life outside Hawaii is better and more conducive to flourishing than life inside Hawaii, for all ethnic Hawaiians regardless of blood quantum. That's true even though the huge number of racial entitlement programs for ethnic Hawaiians are almost entirely limited to residents of Hawaii. As Jere Krischel pointed out, perhaps the racial entitlement programs are doing more harm than good, by robbing people of the incentive to be self-reliant or even entrepreneurial. Krischel noted that in California (the state with the largest number of ethnic Hawaiians outside Hawaii), based on year 2000 data, ethnic Hawaiians have higher median income than the median for the state as a whole, and other favorable statistics, by contrast to the below-median outcomes for ethnic Hawaiians in Hawaii.

The fake Hawaiian tribe of 527,077 would be far larger than any of the genuine tribes in America. The largest tribe is Navajo, with 332,129. There are 819,105 Cherokees, but they are divided among several different tribal governments. Both the Akaka bill and Act 195 specify that there shall be only one Native Hawaiian tribe. Although the Akaka bill says the Hawaiian tribe cannot have gambling casinos and cannot benefit automatically from government handouts given to all tribes, those restrictions might be ruled unconstitutional, or can easily be changed by future legislation. The genuine tribes should be very afraid that a Hawaiian tribe would overwhelm all of them in competing for a shrinking pot of federal handouts and for customers for Hawaiian casinos in every state.

Shortly after Barack Obama became President, a letter was sent to him raising racial and demographic issues in relation to the Akaka bill, and appealing to the civil rights experience of African-Americans who chose the integrationist dream of Dr. Martin Luther King rather than the racial separatist nightmare of (the early) Malcolm X and Louis Farrakhan. The letter pointed out that (in Census 2000) 240,000 ethnic Hawaiians comprised 20% of Hawaii's population, while 40 million blacks comprised 13% of America's population. Just imagine how divisive and racially incendiary it would be to gather all America's black people and create a race-based government for them, authorized to negotiate for huge areas of land and jurisdictional authority. The impact of the Akaka bill [or Act 195] on Hawaii would be 50% more severe than that, because the percentage of ethnic Hawaiians in Hawaii's population was half again larger than the percentage of blacks in America's population.

Similar issues have been raised comparing the effort to create a racial separatist government in Hawaii with the demands by some Mexican-Americans to win a "reconquista" by creating a "Nation of Aztlan" with governmental authority over several states in the southwestern U.S. whose lands had formerly belonged to Mexico and currently remain populated by people of Mexican ancestry (most of whom are descendants of the Aztecs and Mayas). In Census 2010, there were 50 Million people of Hispanic or Latino ethnicity comprising 16% of America's population. Thus the impact on Hawaii of creating an ethnic Hawaiian government for 21% of Hawaii's people would be about 1/3 more devastating than creating a Nation of Aztlan in America. See "Hawaiian Nationalism, Chicano Nationalism, Black Nationalism, Indian Tribes, and Reparations -- Akaka Bill Sets a Precedent for the Balkanization of America" at



There are more than 237,000 "Native Hawaiians" living outside Hawaii among the other 49 states, which is about 45% of the entire racial group. A major policy decision for the Hawaii legislature will be whether to transfer State of Hawaii land and money to the control of a future federally recognized Akaka tribe, or to the Act 195 tribe which the legislature is in the process of creating.

Both Act 195 and the Akaka bill make it clear that Hawaii residence is not a requirement for tribal membership. The only requirements for membership are to have at least one drop of the magic blood and to have some sort of easy-to-obtain affiliation with some sort of Hawaiian cultural group (perhaps a hula halau, canoe club, or civic club). The application form for the racial registry authorized under Act 195 requires not only an affirmation of Hawaiian native blood but also documents proving it; whereas there is merely an affirmation "I have a significant cultural, social or civic connection to the Native Hawaiian community" but no requirement for any proof nor even a name of an organization or description of the cultural, social, or civiv relationship. Race is all-important. Connection to the Native Hawaiian community is only mentioned because the Akaka bill and Act 195 require it as a pretext for the assertion that the Akaka tribe is a political entity and not merely a racial group.

Thus state government land, money and jurisdictional authority, which now belong to all the people of Hawaii, will be transferred to a tribe which has nearly half its people who are not citizens of Hawaii. Those outsiders will receive benefits from the tribe (given to the tribe by Hawaii citizens), and those outsiders will also participate as equals in making decisions about the allocation of tribal resources.

Should Hawaii taxpayers be forced by our legislators to pay huge subsidies, and to turn over control of land-use policy, to people who are not citizens of Hawaii?

The issue is complicated by the fact that some Native Hawaiians in the state legislature might have more loyalty to their race, including ethnic Hawaiians on the mainland, than they have to their constituents of all races here in Hawaii who elect them to office. That topic was discussed in the section above entltled "Why Single Out Native Hawaiians For Scrutiny", and in a webpage at



The 2010 age gap of 16 years has widened significantly from 2000, when the median age of Native Hawaiians was 25 and the median age of everyone else was 39 (a gap of 14 years). The actual numbers in Census 2010 say Native Hawaiians (at least one drop of native blood) living in Hawaii have a median age of 26.3 and are 21.3% of the population, while Hawaii's total population (including Native Hawaiians) has a median age of 38.6. Doing some arithmetic (see endnotes) to remove Native Hawaiians from the total population shows that the median age is 41.9 for the 78.7% who lack Hawaiian native blood.

The age gap of 16 years has huge consequences for interpreting data portraying Native Hawaiians as having lower income, greater drug abuse, and higher incarceration rates than the rest of Hawaii's population. Someone who is only 26 years old is obviously just getting started in a career and therefore not earning as much as someone well-established at age 42. Young people get drunk, do drugs, and commit crimes much more than middle-aged people(especially violent crimes meriting harsher penalties).

Most social victimhood statistics (low income, drug abuse, incarceration, etc) touted by the Hawaiian grievance industry are attributable to youth, not to race. The Census provides many data about income, housing, crime, etc. which are reported in 5-year age cohorts (i.e., 15-19, 20-24, etc.). The only way to discover whether Native Hawaiians truly have the worst statistics among Hawaii's ethnic groups is to compare people at the same age. But the tycoons of the Hawaiian grievance industry have no desire to do that.



How blood quantum is counted (or not counted) is another major factor in explaining the Hawaiian victimhood claims. The Census does not ask "What percentage of your ancestry is Native Hawaiian?" Neither do any of the hundreds of "studies" comparing Native Hawaiian victimhood against the victimhood of other races. Failure to account for blood quantum percentage not only distorts data related to alleged social disparities that are age-related, but also to alleged medical disparities such as cancer, diabetes and heart disease.

Who gets counted as "Native Hawaiian" seems to be everyone with a drop of Hawaiian native blood, even if he has 31/32 of his ancestry being Caucasian or Filipino or Japanese. But someone with only one drop of Caucasian blood would never be counted as Caucasian. So if low quantum Hawaiians are counted as Hawaiian while low-quantum Caucasians or Filipinos are not counted as Caucasians or Filipinos, then of course the tycoons of the Hawaiian grievance industry can scream that "Native Hawaiians have the worst statistics for drug abuse" or "Native Hawaiians are disproportionately impacted by incarceration and severity of sentencing"; and also that "Native Hawaiians have the worst rates for cancer, diabetes, and heart disease." Everything that's bad looks worse for Native Hawaiians because there are a lot more people being counted as Native Hawaiian who should be counted as some other race.

Michelle Obama has 1/32 Caucasian ancestry (her great-great-great grandfather was a white slave-owner). [See endnotes] Judging by her appearance and cultural background she could never "pass for white." But she would be counted as Caucasian (and only Caucasian) if the statistical techniques used by the Hawaiian grievance industry were applied to all racial groups.

If researchers feel compelled to put people into racial boxes, then a better way to do it would be to label someone as belonging to whatever race is the largest percentage of his ancestry. The best way would be to award fractional tally marks to each race according to the fraction that race has in someone's ancestry. Thus if someone incarcerated has 1/32 Hawaiian blood, 3/32 Chinese, 3/8 Caucasian, and 1/2 Filipino, those would be the fractional tally marks allocated to each of those races when studying allegations of disproportionate incarceration.

Identifying the percentage of blood quantum for each Native Hawaiian would also have the benefit that an analysis could be made to discover whether there is a correlation between blood quantum and social or medical outcomes. For example, do people with higher Hawaiian native blood quantum have a higher incidence of incarceration, or diabetes, than Hawaiians of the same age who have a lower native blood quantum? Is there some sort of genetic or physical reason that someone's degree of Hawaiianness causes social dysfunction or disease? Or, if the cause is more social than genetic, then perhaps researchers could develop a taxonomy of Hawaiian cultural characteristics and, for each individual research subject, give a score on a scale from 1 to 10 to quantify the person's extent of being Hawaiian on each characteristic.

If the grievance industry wants to assert that "being Hawaiian" causes bad things to happen medically or through social discrimination, then such an allegation can only be proved if researchers identify "how Hawaiian" someone is, either as measured by genetics or as measured by cultural behaviors.



In 2005 a webpage was posted which warned about the bogus victimhood claims resulting from failure to account for blood quantum and age gap. The same analysis applies today, even more strongly, considering that the age gap has widened significantly.

In April 2006 the Hawaiian grievance industry was put on notice about the importance of blood quantum and age gap, in a paper entitled "Native Hawaiian Well-Being Statistics -- Suggestions for Improving How Data Are Gathered and Analyzed to Make Them More Useful for Scientific Study and Remedial Programs." The paper was submitted to the headquarters of the Hawaiian grievance industry, at that time known as Policy Analysis & System Evaluation (PASE) division of Kamehameha Schools for Volume 3 of "Hulili" and for their annual pity-party meeting to celebrate old, new, and repackaged victimhood statistics.

In Summer 2008 Harry Messenheimer, Ph.D. published a monograph for Grassroot Institute of Hawaii entitled "Good News: Native Hawaiians Prosper" in which he analyzed the data and reported that Native Hawaiians do about as well as everyone else.


ENDNOTES AND SOURCES (Native Hawaiian and State of Hawaii first, followed by Indian tribes, Blacks, and Hispanics)

The State of Hawaii Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism is an official partner of the U.S. Census Bureau, compiling data from U.S. Census reports and reorganizing it to focus on data that are specific to Hawaii (as well as compiling data created by State of Hawaii government and private agencies). The best source for links to Information from U.S. Census 2010 for all racial groups in Hawaii, for race alone and also for race alone or in combination, is

For breakdown into age groups overall and by male/female, and corresponding breakdowns for each county see

For a breakdown into age groups for "pure Hawaiians" see


Native Hawaiian Population by County, Island and Census Tract in the State of Hawaii: 2010. By State of Hawaii, Department of Business, Economic Development & Tourism Research and Economic Analysis Division; Hawaii State Data Center; February 2012. Includes population ranking of 28 racial/ethnic groups in Hawaii; and for each county, island, and census tract how many people identified themselves as being only Native Hawaiian (i.e., "pure Hawaiian") and also how many identified themselves as being Native Hawaiian alone or in combination with other races (i.e., having at least one drop of Hawaiian native blood), and what percentage that is of the total population of that geographic area. There are no census tracts having zero Native Hawaiians, and very few having less than five percent (mostly on military bases). Native Hawaiians are dispersed through all neighborhoods and thoroughly integrated.


State of Hawaii Databook, "the official summary of statistics on the social, economic, and political organization of our state" published August 2012. Contains 1,066 pages. 9.57 megabytes. If you view it on the internet you will see the page numbers and can jump to any particular page; but if you download to your desktop you might not be able to see page numbers. See especially Tables 1.38 (p.76), 1.40 (p.79), and Table 1.42 (p.81).

See also


Regarding the age gap of 15.6 years between Native Hawaiians and non-Native Hawaiians. Instead of writing and solving an algebra equation which could be incomprehensible to many readers, let's do the analysis as follows.

Median age of general population is 38.6, and that's 100% of the population. 38.6 x 100 = 3860. Median age of Native Hawaiians is 26.3, and they are 21.3% of the population. 26.3 x 21.3 = 560. Removing the Hawaiians, 3860 - 560 = 3300. That 3300 represents 78.7% of the population. 3300 divided by 78.7 = 41.9 which is the median age of the non-Hawaiian population.

Thus there's a gap of 41.9 - 26.3 = 15.6 years between the median age of everyone in Hawaii who is Native Hawaiians vs. the median age of everyone in Hawaii who is NOT Native Hawaiian.

In 2005 a webpage was posted which warned about the bogus victimhood claims resulting from failure to account for blood quantum and age gap. The same analysis applies today, even more strongly, considering that the age gap has widened significantly.

In April 2006 the Hawaiian grievance industry was put on notice about the importance of blood quantum and age gap, in a paper entitled "Native Hawaiian Well-Being Statistics -- Suggestions for Improving How Data Are Gathered and Analyzed to Make Them More Useful for Scientific Study and Remedial Programs" which was submitted to the Policy Analysis & System Evaluation (PASE) division of Kamehameha Schools for Volume 3 of "Hulili"


Regarding proposals for an independent nation of Hawaii, and the nature of voting rights and property rights for two different levels of citizenship (racial supremacy guaranteed by law for people with Hawaiian native blood):

Background of State of Hawaii sponsored Native Hawaiian Convention

Native Hawaiian Convention proposed Constitution for an independent nation of Hawaii, Article 5 grants to citizens of Hawaiian native blood, collectively, the exclusive right to control for the entire nation the national policies regarding immigration, foreign policy, how the lands and waters are used; and also to have exclusive ownership and management of portions of the islands set aside for themselves.

Bumpy Kanahele's proposed Constitution for his Nation of Hawaii proposes that every citizen regardless of race can vote, but the head of state must be ethnic Hawaiian, all judges must be ethnic Hawaiian, a majority of the legislature must be ethnic Hawaiian, and members of the kupuna, makua, and opio councils must be ethnic Hawaiian. See Bumpy's Constitution at

Reinstated Hawaiian Government (Henry Noa) Constitution specifies that the head of state, all cabinet ministers, and all members of the upper chamber of the legislature must have Hawaiian native blood.


In 2010 there were 5,220,579 people who identified themselves as American Indians or Alaska natives (race alone or in combination with other races). Included among them were 3,397,251 people who identified with a specific tribe. The largest tribal groupings were Cherokee, 819,105; and Navajo, 332,129. Although the Cherokee grouping has a larger population than "Native Hawaiian", it must be remembered that the Cherokee grouping includes several separate tribes whereas "Native Hawaiian" aspires to be a single tribe under a single political leadership. The largest individual Cherokee entity has 285,476 people, while the largest Navajo entity has 308,013. According to the "Navajo Times" of July 7, 2011, the Navajo Nation "tribe's census office last week pegged tribal enrollment at 300,048, while "In August 2010, the Cherokee Nation gave its enrollment as 288,749, not including the Eastern Band, which accounted for another 13,000 plus members, for a total of about 302,000."

See "The American Indian and Alaska Native Population: 2010, U.S. Census Bureau, January 2012." See especially Table 7 on page 17.

See also

See also The Navajo Times, July 7, 2011
"Census: Navajo enrollment tops 300,000"
By Bill Donovan


In 2010 there were 42,020,743 black people in America (race alone or in combination), representing 13.6% of the total population of 308,745,538.

In 2010 there were 50,477,594 people who identified themselves as Hispanic or Latino, representing 16.3% of the total population -- an increase of 43% from year 2000.

See "Overview of Race and Hispanic Origin: 2010, U.S. Census Bureau; issued March 2011" at


One of Michelle Obama's great-great-great-grandfathers was a Caucasian slave owner. Thus Michelle Obama has 1/32 Caucasian blood, and would be eligible for any racial entitlement programs offered to Caucasians. And she should be counted in victimhood statistics for Caucasians in case she ever gets breast cancer or suffers low income or incarceration, according to the statistical techniques used by the Hawaiian grievance industry.

The New York Times on October 8, 2009 published details of careful research into Michelle Obama's genealogy
including an interactive family tree with mouse-over information about each known member through six generations.

A webpage was produced entitled "How the Obama Family Will Benefit from the Caucasian Government Reorganization Act of 2040" at


Send comments or questions to:

You may now