(c) Copyright December 3, 2008
Kenneth R. Conklin, Ph.D.
All rights reserved
Hawaii Governor Linda Lingle has repeatedly and zealously done everything she can to support race-based political power for ethnic Hawaiians; and she has consistently supported government and private institutions providing racially exclusionary benefits to them. I have always wondered why. When asked about it, she says simply "Hawaiians should decide for themselves whether to create their own government." (But what about the rights of the rest of Hawaii's people?) or "I made a promise when campaigning for Governor and I am keeping my word." (But she has broken other promises, so why not this one?) Those answers are superficial, and left me wondering what is actually motivating her.
But then a letter to editor from two Kamehameha School graduates opened my eyes. They said Lingle had spoken with the Kamehameha alumni group during the 2002 campaign, explaining that as a Jew she sees the ethnic Hawaiian pursuit of sovereignty in the same way she sees the historical drive to create and sustain the nation of Israel. The letter writers made it very clear that this was not merely their interpretation, it was what Lingle had actually said. Lingle herself saw the analogy as providing a religious justification for exercise of political power by a racial/religious group. The depth of that analogy will be explored below. Should the Governor of a fully integrated, multiracial, multireligious state be imposing her religious views as a basis for reorganizing our governmental structure? And aside from her personal religious views, should she be imposing on us the views of Hawaiian activists who claim their racial group's right to control Hawaii is given to them by their gods in the same way as the Jews' right to control Israel?
WHAT LINGLE HAS DONE FOR HAWAIIAN SOVEREIGNTY
In a televised debate a few days before the election of 2002, Linda Lingle and Mazie Hirono competed to see who could be the best panderer to OHA, which sponsored the debate. Both promised to support the Akaka bill, but Lingle seemed more enthusiastic. Both promised to work with the Legislature to overcome the then-recent Hawaii Supreme Court decision that had stopped the flow of ceded lands revenue to OHA -- Hirono was cautious about the limits of a Governor's power, but Lingle promised she would immediately resume the flow of money (damn the torpedos, full speed ahead).
Indeed, the first thing Lingle did after winning the election was to hold meetings with key Legislators and personal advisers, resulting in an order to department heads to identify ceded land revenues within their own departments and immediately begin sending checks to OHA. Lingle personally testified in favor of the Akaka bill before the U.S. Senate Indian Affairs Committee. She repeatedly went to Washington to lobby for the bill, including a foray onto the Senate floor during a quorum call (apparently there's a Senate rule that allows Governors to lobby inside the chamber). When Kamehameha Schools lost a desegregation lawsuit before a 3-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, a massive red-shirt rally estimated at 20,000 marched from Mauna Ala (Royal Mausoleum) to Iolani Palace, where Governor Lingle wore the red shirt and made an impassioned speech to the assembled throng in support of Kamehameha's racially exclusionary admissions policy. Although she is Jewish and a Zionist, a photo on the internet shows her dressed up in a Luftwaffe uniform that was very spiffy. It's unclear whether the photo was artificially assembled, because it was posted on two webpages both hostile to Lingle: one protested Lingle's actions in pushing the Superferry despite local opposition (thus behaving like a Nazi), and one protested her actions in supporting a Supreme Court appeal of a ceded lands issue (thus "stealing" Hawaiian land like the Nazis stole Jewish property).
LINGLE'S MOST IMPORTANT POLITICAL MOTIVE IN HAWAII IS HER BELIEF THAT THE PUSH FOR HAWAIIAN SOVEREIGNTY IS SIMILAR TO THE PUSH TO CREATE A NATION OF ISRAEL
A letter to editor that appeared in the Honolulu Star-Bulletin of November 29, 2008 and also in the Honolulu Advertiser of December 1, provided valuable information from inside the racial supremacist movement. Bob and Paulette Moore, Kamehameha Schools '53/'52, were writing to complain about Lingle's support for the State of Hawaii's appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, of a decision by the Hawaii Supreme Court, that had ruled that the state is prohibited from selling ceded lands until a settlement has been achieved between the state and ethnic Hawaiians. The Moores said Lingle had promised in 2002 to support ethnic Hawaiians, but in supporting the state's current appeal "Lingle now dances a different jig. ... See how Lingle easily bends, how she gracefully spins, how she cleverly twists. She shames herself. Auwe."
Here's the most important part of the letter, showing Lingle's true motives for her 6-year history as a Hawaiian sovereignty activist:
"In 2002 when Linda Lingle first aspired to governorship, she met with the I Mua group to stress her inherent kinship with Hawaiian causes. Lingle made clear the unique value that the Israel homeland represents to world Jewry, with bindings of history, culture, ancestry and genealogy, a profound relationship beyond simple geography or real estate. She articulated clearly her parallel appreciation of the singular reverence that the aina invokes in kanaka maoli, whence is imbedded their connections of culture, religion, common beliefs, customs and mores."
Wow! I will soon explain the profound depth of that belief. But now let's further explore Linda Lingle's mixing of religion and politics. The reason for this focus on Lingle's strong personal commitment to Zionism is to show that it is indeed her primary motive for supporting Hawaiian sovereignty, which she regards as very similar to the movement to create a Jewish nation of Israel.
Zionism is a name for the historical struggle to establish and maintain a Jewish nation inside the British mandate for Palestine after World War 2, and to encourage huge numbers of Jews to travel to Israel from throughout the world to become citizens of Israel. Readers must keep in mind that not all Jews are Zionists, and there's also disagreement whether "Jewish" designates a race or a religion. Most Jewish congregations are willing to accept non-Jews who wish to convert to Judaism, which would seem to indicate that most Jews accept it as being a religion and not a race. Interpreting "Jewish" as a racial designation became very unpopular when Hitler started treating it as a racial category to be exterminated. On the other hand, the nation of Israel has a government policy known as the "right of return" which allows all Jews worldwide to "return" to take up permanent residence in the Jewish homeland of Israel even if they have never been there before. That right of "return" was originally restricted, either by government law or by the policies of some denominations, to people whose mother was Jewish (precisely because there is no doubt who is someone's biological mother, whereas it might sometimes be doubtful who is the father). Some denominations accept as Jews people whose fathers are Jewish even when their mothers are not; but other denominations do not accept such people as Jews unless they go through a formal conversion process. There's also a social custom throughout the world, and legal policy for the right of return to Israel, that "once a Jew, always a Jew." Even if someone who is a Jew stops going to synagogue, eats pork, and converts to some other religion, he is still a Jew. Thus it appears the nation of Israel treats "Jewish" as a racial category since provable genealogy is an important consideration, if not mandatory, for someone to exercise the right of return.
There are millions of Jews who are not religiously observant but still call themselves Jews because of their racial heritage. And there are also many Jews who feel no emotional attachment or patriotism toward Israel and would not be greatly upset if Israel ceased to be a nation. Linda Lingle is not one of those. As will be shown below, being Jewish is at the core of her personal identity; i.e., her awareness and definition of who she is. And Zionism is the political commitment she probably holds closest to her heart. That's important because Lingle regards the Hawaiian sovereignty movement as analogous to Zionism, so all her passion for Zionism carries over to her support for the Akaka bill, for OHA, for Kamehameha Schools' racially exclusionary admissions policy, etc.
When Lingle won the election in 2002, the media noted that she was the state's first female governor, and first Jewish governor. But some commentators also noted that she was the first female head of government in Hawaii since Queen Liliuokalani, who was overthrown in 1893. An article was published in Haaretz, a major newspaper in Israel, noting with pride that Lingle is Jewish. The title of the newspaper article was: "Hawaii's Jewish Queen." The lengthy article included the following:
"Throughout the campaign, she spoke about Israel, which she has never visited (Krasnjansky is already planning a trip for her), but she told reporters that she gave money every week to plant trees in Israel. She has also talked about how Israel is a safe haven where Jews can go in times of trouble and how support for Israel is imperative. In interviews with the local press, she drew a comparison between the residents of Hawaii who suffered from the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and the Israelis who are hurt by Arab terror. And she called on President Bush to provide Israel with advanced arms in order to ensure its military superiority. ... 'It's an exciting time. I'm very optimistic about the future,' Lingle said when she presented her program.
Mark Davis was not quite as excited. 'She was vague about everything having to do with separation of church and state,' he says."
The article in Haaretz has a lengthy section on Hawaiian history (the distorted version in the apology bill) entitled "Successor of the Queen." It says "Some of Lingle's supporters see her as a modern reincarnation of the islands' last queen, Liliuokalani. ... Today, 110 years after the queen's abdication and nine years after the American apology, some perceive Lingle's election as amending a historic injustice and like to think of the governor-elect as stepping into the deposed queen's shoes."
On November 8, 2002, the Hadassah organization issued a news release, entitled "50th State's First Jewish Governor is also Life Member of Hadassah -- First State Exec in the Nation." The tagline at the end of this news release, as with all news releases from Hadassah, describes the organization this way: "Founded in 1912, Hadassah, the Women's Zionist Organization of America is the largest women's, largest Zionist, and largest Jewish membership organization in the United States." The news release included the following material:
"(New York, NY -- November 08, 2002) -- Linda Lingle, Hawaii’s governor-elect, has made news for the 50th state and for Hadassah, the Women’s Zionist Organization of America. She is Hawaii’s first woman governor, its first Jewish governor – and the only chief executive of a state to become a life member of Hadassah at her own initiative. Hours after her election, Lingle said: 'I am aware of the wonderful work accomplished at Hadassah Hospital and am very proud of being a life member. I recently had a meeting with the Israel Consul General during his trip to Hawaii, and he extended to me an invitation to visit Israel. ...'"
Lingle actually made the trip to Israel in May 2004. The Jewish Journal of May 13 reported: "Hawaii Gov. Linda Lingle is stopping in Los Angeles this week before embarking on a six-day trip to Israel. The visit to the Jewish state will be the governor's first. Lingle, a Jewish Republican, accepted the Golda Meir Award at a State of Israel Bonds luncheon on Thursday at the Four Seasons ..."
Before leaving the topic of Zionism, we might consider whether it is a form of racism. The most authoritative body to deal with that issue is the United nations. According to Wikipedia, "United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3379, adopted on November 10, 1975 by a vote of 72 to 35 (with 32 abstentions), 'determine[d] that Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination'. The resolution is often referenced in debates of Zionism and racism." But then, according to Wikipedia, "United Nations General Assembly Resolution 46/86 passed on December 16, 1991, revoked Resolution 3379 with a vote of 111 to 25, with 13 abstentions." That revoking of "Zionism is racism" was done because "Israel made revocation of resolution 3379 a condition of its participation in the Madrid Peace Conference, in progress in the last quarter of 1991. Under pressure from the administration of President George H.W. Bush in the United States, the UN passed the resolution." Perhaps the best conclusion is that most nations believe in their hearts that Zionism is racism, but that they realize that in order to bring Israel to the negotiating table with its neighbors, they must overlook the racism. No nation would negotiate the terms of peace if its right to exist is not acknowledged.
USING RELIGION TO ASSERT THE RIGHT OF A RACIAL GROUP TO EXERCISE ABSOLUTE POLITICAL POWER -- ISRAEL AND HAWAII
The Jewish religion says that God made a covenant with Abraham whereby God gave the promised land of Israel to the descendants of Abraham through Isaac (i.e., the Jews) in honor of Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his only son (at that time) Isaac as a burnt offering, and in return for the promise of Abraham to require Jews to obey the Ten Commandments and other Jewish laws. Thus, according to this religion, Jews have an absolute God-given right to control the government, the land, the laws, and the population -- not only a right, but a responsibility to God to be good stewards of what God has entrusted to them.
The Hawaiian religion is not based on a covenant but on a family relationship where the gods, the ethnic Hawaiians, and the Hawaiian islands are all members of a family bound together by genealogy. According to Kumulipo (the creation legend) the gods mated and gave birth to the Hawaiian islands as living beings filled with mana (spiritual power). Later the gods mated and gave birth to a human boy Haloa. Hawaiian sovereignty activists say Haloa is the primordial ancestor from whom all ethnic Hawaiians are descended (a more generous view is that Haloa is the ancestor of all human beings, like the Biblical Adam). Therefore, say the Hawaiian activists, there is a genealogical relationship in which anyone with a drop of Hawaiian blood is a child of the gods and a (younger) brother to the Hawaiian islands in a way that nobody else can ever be who lacks a drop of the magic blood. Therefore, according to this religion, ethnic Hawaiians are entitled by birth to exercise race-based political authority over all the lands and waters of Hawaii. It's a family kuleana (right and responsibility) in which the elder brother (Hawaiian islands) supervises, protects, inspires, and feeds the younger brother (ethnic Hawaiians), while the younger brother obeys commands and performs duties to ensure the happiness and productivity of the older brother. "He ali'i ka 'aina, he kauwa ke kanaka" -- Land is the chief, people are its humble servants.
The relationship between ethnic Hawaiians and the lands of Hawaii is actually stronger than the relationship between Israel and the Jews. The Hawaiian relationship between people and land is hard-wired through genealogy and can never be severed. But the Jewish relationship to Israel is part of a covenant with God which means that God can kick the Jews out of Israel if they fail to perform their duties under the covenant (which has happened several times historically). In Hawaiian theology, if the people fail to properly care for the land, then the land will respond with famine; and if the commoners or chiefs offend the gods by violating taboos, then there must be human sacrifice to appease the gods and restore pono (the balance among gods, land, and people).
Jews today accept non-Jews as religious converts, and Israel usually extends the right of return to such converts. But ethnic Hawaiians do not accept "converts" as truly being Hawaiian either for purposes of exercising political power or for entitlement to government race-based handouts. The concept of being "Hawaiian at heart" is an informal honorific title that carries no political or legal rights. In a famous lawsuit regarding Kamehameha's admissions policy, a boy whose mother had been legally adopted by an ethnic Hawaiian claimed to be Hawaiian for purposes of admission to Kamehameha School; but the school reversed its initial acceptance of admission after discovering that the boy was not genealogically Hawaiian. When Chief Judge David Ezra of the U.S. District Court in Honolulu made a speech from the bench that he understood the Hawaiian concept of hanai (adoption) and that the boy should be treated as Hawaiian, there was an uproar from Hawaiian sovereignty activists saying that hanai is an act of generosity that historically did not convey any rights for the adopted child to claim the genealogy of the adoptive parents.
It's unfortunate that Governor Lingle does not grasp the fundamental differences between the race-based nation of Israel, vs. the race-based Akaka bill and proposals for a race-based independent nation of Hawaii.
The modern nation of Israel was created by the United Nations following World War 2 because Jews throughout the world, but especially in Europe, had been slaughtered by the millions merely on account of race. They needed a nation of their own as a refuge from genocide; and a world that felt guilty for failing to protect them carved out land for them in the same place where Israel had existed in ancient times. Hawaiian sovereignty activists abuse the word "genocide," soliciting sympathy by applying it to the massive deaths caused by new diseases introduced unintentionally to Hawaii by explorers. Jewish survivors of the Nazi death camps, and their survivors, have every right to be angry at Hawaiian activists who abuse that word.
Very few ethnic Hawaiians have ever been singled out and murdered in hate crimes simply because they were ethnic Hawaiian -- the Massey Case got huge publicity precisely because it was so unusual. It was ethnic Hawaiians, not Caucasians or Asians, who slaughtered other ethnic Hawaiians in the hundreds of thousands during centuries of constant warfare. Kamehameha The Great was probably the biggest killer in the history of Hawaii, yet we honor him with statues, songs, and his image on the new Hawaii 25-cent coin.
The Jews had a diaspora that lasted for many centuries following the collapse of ancient Israel. Hawaiian sovereignty activists try to solicit sympathy by using the same word "diaspora" to describe the voluntary migration of 40% of them to the other 49 states where they find greater success and a better lifestyle than in Hawaii.
Although ethnic Hawaiians are a 20% minority in their own ancestral homeland, they live, work, play, and pray alongside everyone else and achieve the highest levels in income, politics, the business and professional occupations -- unlike the Jews in Europe, America, and even Palestine during previous centuries.
Hawaiian activists actually claim that they enjoy special advantages not available to other ethnic groups in Hawaii, because ethnic Hawaiians are living in their ancestral homeland where they are in touch with their ancestral spirits and also can perceive spiritual messages in the sea and sky which others who lack a drop of the magic blood are oblivious to. Here's what Hawaiian "cultural practitioner" Butch Helemano said in his TV commercial for the Kau Inoa racial registry: ""Well basically, you know, being Hawaiian allows me to look at the world with a different perspective than others that aren't. In other words we can look at the sea and look at it as a place of sacredness and look at the sky as a place that we hear and look for messages so don't forget who we are and your culture cuz that's the most important thing here as a Native Hawaiian."
COMPARISON OF HAWAII WITH ETHNIC/RELIGIOUS NATIONALISM ELSEWHERE
In Iran, the Shah was overthrown by commoners united under a charismatic Islamist religious leader, the Ayatollah (high priest and prophet) Khomeini. An Islamic Republic of Iran was officially established with religion as part of the national name, and a Constitution was established giving religious elders the right to over-rule decisions of government leaders. Islamic law was adopted for daily use; women were required to wear clothing that concealed every inch of skin; thieves were punished by having their hands chopped off.
Ethnic Hawaiians are much more lenient than that. A sovereign nation of Hawaii would be multiracial, with great tolerance for other cultures, religions, and languages. The situation might be similar to Israel where Muslim religion is tolerated and where Palestinian Arabs are members of the Knesset (parliament). However, every proposal for Hawaiian sovereignty includes the concept that ethnic Hawaiians must have special rights to self-determination and race-based political power under a theory of the "indigenous rights" as expressed in a recent United Nations resolution.
The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia was founded by Aziz Ibn Abdul Rahman Al Saud through military conquest. Today the nation operates like a business owned by the extended family consisting of hundreds of his descendants who rule with an iron hand and impose a fundamentalist, Wahabbist Islamic theology. Although a nation of Hawaii ruled by ethnic Hawaiians would be much more tolerant of diversity, its power elite would certainly be centered on a small number of families; and of course all ethnic Hawaiians are members of one big family including the gods and the islands, according to Kumulipo.
In the Pacific island nation of Fiji, there have been several military coups to defend racial supremacy by law for ethnic Fijians. The Constitution guarantees a majority of ethnic Fijians in parliament. One military coup was staged for a single purpose: to overturn a democratic election where the office of Prime Minister had been won by ethnic Indian. Constitutions for a nation of Hawaii proposed by sovereignty activists always rig the system to guarantee that the head of government must be ethnic Hawaiian, the parliament must have a guaranteed majority of ethnic Hawaiians, the judges must be ethnic Hawaiian, etc. Although some policies would be decided democratically without regard for race, there would be certain topics where only ethnic Hawaiians would be allowed to vote, such as immigration, foreign policy, land use, etc.
In America many ethnic groups have a wish for self-determination, and some actively pursue it. Perhaps the most gentle, mild-mannered exercise of self-determination is the Amish, who form communities where they cling to themselves, maintaining their own distinctive culture and religion. They pose no threat to outsiders, make no attempt to dominate others, pay their taxes and obey the local laws without asserting they are somehow exempt. Hawaiian sovereignty activists are not like that. They insist that ethnic Hawaiians must have race-based political supremacy over all others in the entire archipelago of Hawaii.
The continental U.S. has groups similar to Hawaiian sovereignty activists.
The following three paragraphs may sound to people in the Southwestern U.S. like the viewpoint of MEChA or Nation of Aztlan; and they may sound to people of Hawai'i like the viewpoint of Hawaiian sovereignty activists. Actually these are the views of both groups, and are similar to the views of other ethnic nationalist movements in America. The activists claim to be indigenous to a certain area because they have at least one ancestor who lived somewhere in that area (in a range of hundreds of miles) prior to Western contact. Although someone's percentage of native blood may be very small, he nevertheless claims to be an aboriginal, indigenous, native person of that area.
The history of that area following Western contact goes something like this: Natives suffer extreme population decline (some call it genocide) because of newly introduced Western diseases. Gradually white people of European and American ancestry arrive in increasing numbers, and "impose" their culture, religion, language, legal system, money economy, and private property ownership, "forcing" the native people to assimilate to this strange new way of life. The white people bring in other non-natives, from Asia and Africa, as laborers. Eventually white people end up owning most of the property and running most of the government. Other non-white immigrants also get well-established. Natives end up at the bottom of society. At some point the U.S. stages an armed invasion to support a total takeover by the white oligarchy. After a few years or a few decades the area is officially annexed by the United States and sooner or later becomes a state.
But in recent years a growing awareness of historical heritage produces special pride in people who have any degree of native ancestry. Some people of native ancestry choose to identify more closely with their native ancestors than with their other ancestors, even when their native blood quantum is very small. An activist's pride in his native ancestry is accompanied by anger at historical injustices committed by his own white, Asian, or African ancestors against his native ancestors. The newly self-proclaimed indigenous people demand the right to self-determination, nationhood, and reparations from the United States for the "crimes" committed against them more than a century ago.
Ethnic Hawaiian activists might think the above three paragraphs describe themselves. But no. Those paragraphs describe people who have at least one ancestor of Mexican-Indian blood. The area where they live is not the State of Hawai'i, but rather the States of California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas; and perhaps parts of other nearby states. As anyone who has studied American history knows, the lands of those states were formerly part of Mexico, and were obtained as a result of military conquest in a war with Mexico, or through treaty or purchase. And before the Spanish conquest and creation of Mexico those lands belonged to the indigenous people who lived there (especially the Aztecs), and whose descendants still live there today. The immigrants who came and took over the land, and the newer immigrants who came since then, freely chose to come (except for African slaves dragged there by their owners), and freely chose their new nationality as Americans. But the surviving "natives" of today never chose to be invaded or engulfed by a foreign culture or nation. Some radicals among them say they owe no allegiance to the United States, and they assert "indigenous rights" under "international law" to self-governance and independence.
Racial separatists and ethnic nationalists among both Hawaiians and Chicanos have always looked for inspiration to radical leaders of the black power movement. Of course the situation of African Americans is different from Hawaiians and Chicanos. Africans were brought in chains across an ocean to America, and their descendants today demand reparations for slavery. Hawaiians and Chicanos remained in the lands of their indigenous ancestors and were invaded and overrun by foreigners -- they demand reparations not for slavery but for loss of lands and loss of political control. But viewed from the present situation of the United States of America, all three groups are minorities who claim historical grievances against America. Radicals in all three groups demand enormous amounts of money, land, and power as reparations. Some in each group demand political recognition as sovereign governments.
According to a website for the Republic of New Africa, "The Republic of New Afrika declared Black People's independence because it "believes that Black People in Amerikkka make up a nation of people, a people separate and apart from the Amerikkkan people. The RNA also believes that as a nation of people, We are entitled to all of the rights of a nation, including the right to land and self-determination. The RNA further believes that all the land in Amerikkka, upon which Black People have lived for a long time, worked and made rich as slaves, and fought to survive on is land that belongs to Us as a People, and it is land We must gain control of because, as Malcolm X said, land is the basis of independence, freedom, justice and equality. We cannot talk about self-determination without discussing it within the context of land. Therefore, the RNA [identified the five states of Mississippi, Louisiana, Alabama, Georgia and South Carolina as Black People's land and] believes that gaining control of Our land is the fundamental struggle facing Black People. Without land, Black Power, rights and freedom have no substance."
 Kamehameha Schools website has the text of Lingle's speech at Iolani Palace on August 8, 2005 including two photos of her wearing the red shirt with slogans "Ku I Ka Pono" and "Justice for [ethnic] Hawaiians."
 Here's the photo showing Lingle dressed in a Lutwaffe uniform. It's unclear whether she really did that as a fashion statement (sort of like wearing the red shirt of the Hawaiian sovereignty activists at a huge rally at Iolani Palace), or whether it was photoshopped by her political opponents to accuse her of behaving "like a Nazi":
 The letter to editor from Bob and Paulette Moore, in two slightly different versions, can be found in the Honolulu Star-Bulletin of November 29, 2008 at
and in the Honolulu Advertiser of December 1, 2008 at
 "Hawaii's Jewish Queen" news report published in Israeli newspaper Haaretz.
 Hadassah organization news release, entitled "50th State's First Jewish Governor is also Life Member of Hadassah -- First State Exec in the Nation."
 The Jewish Journal of May 13 reported that Lingle accepted the Golda Meir Award at a State of Israel Bonds luncheon in Los Angeles on her way to spend six days in Israel.
 "United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3379, adopted on November 10, 1975 by a vote of 72 to 35 (with 32 abstentions), 'determine[d] that Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination'.
 "United Nations General Assembly Resolution 46/86 passed on December 16, 1991, revoked Resolution 3379 with a vote of 111 to 25, with 13 abstentions."
 RELIGION AND ZEALOTRY IN THE HAWAIIAN SOVEREIGNTY MOVEMENT -- HOW RELIGIOUS MYTHS ARE USED TO SUPPORT POLITICAL CLAIMS FOR RACIAL SUPREMACY IN HAWAI'I
 He ali'i ka 'aina, he kaua ke kanaka.
"Whose Land Is It? Hawaiian Spirituality, Kingdom Law, and Modern Law All Support Racial Equality
 Regarding the question whether hanai (adoption) of a non-ethnic Hawaiian child into an ethnic Hawaiian family confers political or legal race-based rights on the child, see the series of news reports regarding Brayden Mohica-Cummings beginning December 5, 2003 and continuing to the end of the year, gathered at
 After about 30 years of struggle and disagreement, on September 13, 2007 the United Nations General Assembly finally adopted the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States were the only nations voting against it. They have large populations of indigenous people and fear that the resolution seems to authorize unregulated migration, special rights based on race, and balkanization leading to the breakup of nations because of assertions of a right to self-determination. The declaration can be found in numerous languages on the United Nations website at
 Fiji and Hawaii Compared -- Racial Supremacy By Law in Fiji Resembles What Hawaiian Sovereignty Activists Are Seeking (both Akaka bill and independence proposals)
 Constitutions for a nation of Hawaii proposed by sovereignty activists always rig the system to guarantee that the head of government must be ethnic Hawaiian, the parliament must have a guaranteed majority of ethnic Hawaiians, the judges must be ethnic Hawaiian, etc. See, for example, the Constitution adopted by Bumpy Kanahele and his followers of the Nation of Hawaii on January 16, 1995
 Hawaiian Nationalism, Chicano Nationalism, Black Nationalism, Indian Tribes, and Reparations -- Akaka Bill Sets a Precedent for the Balkanization of America
 Republic of New Africa:
Send comments or questions to:
You may now
READ THE INFORMAL VERSION OF THIS ESSAY
GO BACK TO OTHER TOPICS ON THIS WEBSITE
(c) Copyright December 3, 2008
Kenneth R. Conklin, Ph.D.
All rights reserved