 |
| Kenneth R. Conklin |
The Honolulu Advertiser of Sunday April 25, 2004,
had two articles about the Hawaiian Recognition bill
(Akaka bill) S.344 and H.R.665. One supports the
Akaka bill. The other opposes it and supports
independence from America instead. The Advertiser
presents only those two concepts. But we do not need
to choose between two evils. There is another
possibility -- the aloha choice of unity and equality.
The first Advertiser article is in favor of the
Akaka bill, by University of Hawaii Professor
Davianna McGregor. She was the author of the 1993
apology bill in which Congress apologized to ethnic
Hawaiians for the (minor) U.S. assistance in the 1893
overthrow of the monarchy. In her article, she
supports the Akaka bill as a way to save racially
exclusionary government programs and institutions that
benefit ethnic Hawaiians. She argues against the
position of the Hawaiian sovereignty independence
activists, who oppose the Akaka bill because it would
make independence from the United States more
difficult to achieve. McGregor's article is: "AKAKA
BILL YES: Independence does not offer same guaranteed protection of Native rights"
http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2004/Apr/25/op/op10a.html
The second article is opposed to the Akaka bill,
by Wesleyan University Professor J. Kehaulani Kauanui. She opposes the Akaka bill on the grounds that it
would place ethnic Hawaiians more firmly under the
plenary power of Congress by treating them as though
they are an Indian tribe, thereby making it even more
difficult than at present for ethnic Hawaiians to
demand independence from the United States. Kauanui's
article is: "AKAKA BILL NO: Unnecessary bargain
extinguishes all claims in exchange for recognition"
http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2004/Apr/25/op/op11a.html
Both articles make it clear that Hawaiian
sovereignty activists, whether they support tribal
status or independent nation status, believe that
ethnic Hawaiians are entitled to racial supremacy in
Hawaii on the theory of "indigenous rights." Their
dispute is focused on whether ethnic Hawaiians can
best preserve the racial supremacy they already enjoy
in Hawaii, and expand it, by asserting indigenous
rights inside an independent nation of Hawaii, or by
asserting indigenous rights as members of an Indian
tribe inside a state of Hawaii which is part of the
United States.
However, there is a third choice which the
Advertiser left out, and which it always leaves out in presenting the alternative scenarios for the future of the sovereignty of Hawaii's people. This third choice is undoubtedly favored by the vast majority of Hawaii's people of all ethnicities, and is probably favored by a majority of ethnic Hawaiians themselves.
This third choice is to favor unity, equality, and
aloha for all.
Unity has two aspects: the unity of Hawaii with
the United States (contrary to the desire of the
independence activists to rip the 50th star off the
flag), and the unity of all Hawaii's people under a
single sovereignty of the State of Hawaii (contrary
to the desire of the Akaka bill supporters to divide
Hawaii along racial lines by creating a race based
government exclusively for ethnic Hawaiians).
Sovereignty activists forget that the sovereign
Kings of an independent Hawaii made no claim to
special "indigenous" rights. The sovereign monarchs
exercised self-determination on behalf of their people
by granting full voting and property rights to all
non-native persons born or naturalized in Hawaii.
There was a social contract, or social justice, in
which the newcomers contributed their religion,
literacy, financial investments and business expertise
in return for full membership as equals in the
Kingdom. Independence activists forget that countless
persons of Hawaiian native ancestry have gladly fought
and died for their nation of America, including Korean
War medal of honor winner Herbert K. Pililaau. Most
ethnic Hawaiians are proud to be Americans, and proud
to participate as equals in our rainbow society,
despite the rantings of Haunani-Kay Trask and Poka
Laenui.
Equality has two aspects.
Spiritually, a belief in equality is a belief
that we are all equal metaphysically, or in the eyes
of God. This is contrary to the religious belief of
some Hawaiian activists who claim that ethnic
Hawaiians are, in some sense, the gods' chosen people.
The activists say that the gods mated and gave birth
to the Hawaiian islands as living beings, and later
mated and gave birth to the human ancestor of all
ethnic Hawaiians. Thus the gods, these islands, and
the ethnic Hawaiians are all related geneologically as
members of a family, and anyone lacking a drop of
Hawaiian native blood is forever outside that family.
Hawaii is the homeland of those who have a drop of
the magic blood, and who created the "host culture."
The rest of Hawaii's people are mere guests in the
Hawaiian ancestral homeland. This religious theory is
the basis of the assertion that ethnic Hawaiians are
entitled to racial supremacy in the political life of
Hawaii, with superior voting rights and property
rights based on status as "indigenous" people. The
Hawaiian spiritual belief in the fundamental
inequality of people in the eyes of god(s), based on
ancestry, is the basis for demanding first-class
citizenship for ethnic Hawaiians; while the other 80 percent
of Hawaii's people would be second-class citizens
with limited voting rights and limited property
rights.
This two-tier concept of citizenship could be
achieved either by becoming an Indian tribe whose
members would enjoy special rights in addition to the
same rights as all other citizens of Hawaii, or by
Hawaii becoming an independent nation with ethnic
Hawaiians having special "indigenous" rights.
The "debate" in The Honolulu Advertiser between
Professor McGregor and Professor Kauanui is merely a
debate over whether independence or tribal status
would be the more effective way to guarantee racial
supremacy to ethnic Hawaiians. It most definitely is
not a debate over what would be the best future for
all Hawaii's people.
The two-tier concept of citizenship was asserted
in the American system of slavery before the Civil
War, and Jim Crow laws afterward. It was asserted in
Germany and Italy in the 1930s, with disastrous
results. More recently it was asserted in Rwanda and
Bosnia. In Fiji in recent years there have been
military coups in which a democratically elected
government was overthrown when descendants of
immigrant sugar plantation workers from India were
voted into power (similar to Hawaii's people of
Japanese and Chinese ancestry), and the "indigenous"
Fijians refused to accept the election results. In
Zimbabwe today white landowners with multiple
generations of residence are having their land
confiscated and are being murdered with the approval
of the "indigenous" government. All these moral and
political disasters came about because some people
felt their racial group was entitled to special rights
over the land and over other racial groups.
Interestingly, the United Nations has never been able
to agree on a definition of "indigenous" people; and
the U.N. has had only a draft declaration of the
rights of indigenous people for about 15 years because
the nations of the world cannot agree on what those
rights should be.
The second aspect of equality is much easier to
describe. We should all be treated equally under the
law. Aside from metaphysical or religious beliefs, it
is important in a multiracial democracy that
government not discriminate on the basis of race. We
must all be able to expect government to treat us even-handedly. That most definitely is not happening in Hawaii today, with the plethora of Hawaiians-only programs paid for with government money or by private
institutions: OHA, DHHL, Kamehameha School, Alu Like,
Papa Ola Lokahi, Native Hawaiian Leadership Project,
etc. Equality under the law is exactly what both the
Akaka bill and the independence movement are trying to
make permanently impossible.
In an article published in '''The Honolulu
Advertiser''' of July 20, 2001, I pointed out that it is
a great disservice to the people of Hawaii to portray
the sovereignty debate as a choice between only the
two alternatives of ethnic nationalist independence
vs. Akaka bill tribal status. The third alternative
of unity, equality, and aloha for all gets almost no
media attention, but is by far the most popular with
all ethnic groups.
http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2001/Jul/20/op/op04a.html
Hawaii stands at a crossroads. Sovereignty is
for all of Hawaii's people collectively to decide.
We, the people of Hawaii, should assert our
collective right to choose the aloha alternative of
equality and unity. We must send a barrage of
letters, faxes and phone calls to senators and
representatives from other states (forget the Hawaii
gang of four). We must tell them that the Hawaiian
Recognition Bill S.344 and H.R.665 is extremely
controversial, and that it is unconstitutional. We
must beg them to rescue us from our own pork-obsessed delegation.
If the Akaka bill passes it will allow a
well-organized minority of a minority group to divide
Hawaii racially. The bill allows those who like the
tribal concept to sign up and create a tribe, without
any vote ever being taken by all ethnic Hawaiians (and certainly not by all Hawaii's people) to approve or disapprove such a concept. Those who sign up will elect a temporary tribal governing council. The council will create a tribal governing document, which can be approved by the Secretary of Interior without ever being put to a vote of those who signed up let alone a vote of all ethnic Hawaiians or all Hawaii's people. If the document calls for elections to select a permanent tribal council, only those who signed up get to vote. The council can then enact laws governing tribal members regarding property ownership, education, healthcare, marriage, divorce, child custody, criminal prosecution, etc. all without recourse to state or federal protections (sovereignty means the right to make decisions which other governments cannot interfere with). Violations of tribal law are handled by tribal courts according to whatever procedures the tribal council approves. Federal handouts are given to the tribe, which in turn distributes the benefits however it wishes, making corruption and nepotism normal. Just imagine how fairly benefits would be distributed if OHA's trustees were the tribal council. Just imagine having important personal decisions approved or disapproved by OHA's trustees, with expulsion from the tribe for those who refuse to abide by the rulings or for those who challenge the leadership.
We must tell members of Congress that if they
support racial separatism for Hawaii, it will set a
precedent for rewarding ethnic strife in their own
states. The recent gubernatorial recall election in
California shows the beginnings of such strife.
Indian tribes contributed tens of millions of dollars
to political candidates, without regard to state
campaign contribution limits because they are
"sovereign" governments (who nevertheless participate
in California state elections which sovereign foreign governments are not allowed to do). Hispanic nationalist activists from La Raza and MEChA supported Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante, who, as a still-active member of those groups, supported the concept of a separate nation for California's people of Hispanic ancestry.
The surest way for evil to triumph is for good
people to stay silent and do nothing. It's time to
speak up.
The basic principles of unity, equality, aloha
for all are described here: http://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/principles.html
By contrast, the commonly held anti-American and anti-white beliefs of both the ethnic nationalists (independence movement) and the racial separatists (Akaka bill supporters) are identified here: http://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/sepnatcommoncore.html
The Hawaiian religious belief in a family
relationship among the gods, these islands, and the
ethnic Hawaiians is used as a spiritual basis for
asserting a political claim to racial supremacy. See: http://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/religion.html
A 5-paragraph summary of what's bad about the
Akaka bill, followed by extensive reference notes, is
here: http://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/AkakaNationalSummary2004.html
Kenneth R. Conklin, Ph.D., is an independent scholar in Kaneohe, Hawaii. His Web site on Hawaiian Sovereignty is at: http://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty He can be contacted at: mailto:Ken_Conklin@yahoo.com
HawaiiReporter.com reports the real news, and prints all editorials submitted, even if they do not represent the viewpoint of the editors, as long as they are written clearly. Send editorials to mailto:Malia@HawaiiReporter.com
