(c) Copyright 2014
Kenneth R. Conklin, Ph.D.
All rights reserved
INDEX OF NEWS REPORTS AND COMMENTARIES FROM JUNE 1, 2014 AND CONTINUING
June 1, 2014: Honolulu Star-Advertiser columnist provides his view of "Why Inouye steered clear of Hawaiian sovereignty" [* which is false, because Inouye was the main pusher of the Akaka bill to convert a racial group into a fake Indian tribe and give it federally recognized sovereignty!]
June 2: The Hawaii newspaper with largest circulation conducted an online poll advertised in the physical newspaper, asking "What kind of future do you favor for Native Hawaiians?" Four choices were offered. The winner, with 41% of the vote, was "No entitlements at all." In second place "Federal recognition" with 31%. "The status quo" got 22%; and "Independence" got only 6%.
June 3: Grassroot Institute of Hawaii press release about the June 2 newspaper poll: "In more than a decade, despite millions of dollars spent pushing for the creation of a Native Hawaiian government, OHA has failed to persuade the people of Hawaii that this is a good thing for our state or for Native Hawaiians. That represents millions of dollars that could have been spent helping the Native Hawaiian community in more effective, less divisive ways."
June 4: Grassroot Institute President, Dr. Keli'i Akina, publishes article in "The Daily Caller" describing the Obama administration's attempt to use executive authority to give federal recognition to a not-yet-created Hawaiian tribe as an end-run around both Congress and the courts.
June 8: "Native Hawaiians ponder the pathways" Lengthy article in Kona newspaper describes pathways ethnic Hawaiians might pursue, and how some Hawaii Island elected officials approach the topic.
June 11 (Kamehameha Day holiday): Honolulu Star-Advertiser ran side-by-side essays on Hawaiian sovereignty:
(1) Keli'i Akina, President of Grassroot Institute and candidate for OHA trustee, opposing racial separatism vs.
(2) Brickwood Galuteria, state Senator and activist for OHA nationbuilding and federal recognition of a Hawaiian tribe.
also
(3) Letter in Kona newspaper, commenting on June 8 article, says ethnic Hawaiians remain divided on sovereignty because OHA and state have failed to provide funds to continue the Hawaiian Sovereignty Elections Council which could have educated everyone.
June 15: 2 letters to editor: (1) Entitlements subvert quest for sovereignty (When one group of people is subsidized by another group, the former develops an "entitlement mentality" that stifles improvement, because failure can always be blamed on the other side.) (2) Hawaiians want what was originally theirs (The Kingdom of Hawaii was pre-empted by the terrorist invasion of our internationally acknowledged sovereign nation in 1893)
END OF INDEX OF NEWS REPORTS AND COMMENTARIES FROM JUNE 1, 2014 AND CONTINUING.
===============
FULL TEXT OF ALL ITEMS INDEXED ABOVE, IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER
http://www.staradvertiser.com/editorialspremium/onpoliticspremium/20140601_borreca.html?id=261367171
Honolulu Star-Advertiser, June 1, 2014
Why Inouye steered clear of Hawaiian sovereignty
By Richard Borreca
For years, whenever former U.S. Sen. Daniel K. Inouye was asked about Native Hawaiian sovereignty, Hawaii's most accomplished politician would deftly parry the query.
"The Hawaiians have to decide what they want and when they do, I will do what I can in Washington to get it," Inouye would answer.
Inouye may be gone, but this year the question of how to answer the question of the relationship among the state of Hawaii, the federal government and Native Hawaiians is growing more complex and more heated.
The furor started last month just as the Office of Hawaiian Affairs was concluding setting the table for a process of nation-building.
If you are organizing a government for, by and of Native Hawaiians, first what was needed is a list of who are the nation's citizens.
Already there is trouble. First, there are Native Hawaiians according to the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act of 1920, who are "any descendant of not less than one-half part of the blood of the races inhabiting the Hawaiian Islands previous to 1778."
Added to that are Native Hawaiians who had signed up via the Native Hawaiian Roll Commission, which defined Native Hawaiian "as any person who is a lineal descendant of the aboriginal people who resided in the Hawaiian Islands prior to 1778, or, any person who is eligible or is a lineal descendant of a person who is eligible for Hawaiian Home Lands."
Complaints about what would be accomplished with this list of voters were magnified by the objections of groups such as The Grassroot Institute, which said it doubted OHA can call an election that does not allow participation from all voters in Hawaii. Non-Hawaiians telling Hawaiians what's what is both presumptuous and a prescription for disaster, but the president of the Institute is Kelii Akina, who says he is running for OHA trustee-at-large.
About this time, OHA's top executive decided it would be good to ask the U.S. Secretary of State if Hawaii was a state or a separate country.
In polite terms, there was a certain amount of pushback to this query.
Last week, OHA held a public hearing on the nation-building process and the OHA executive suggested the process would be best served with a six- to nine-month breather to mull over who would be carrying the bricks in this nation-building and what would be the resulting edifice.
But then, just like the joke, "I'm from the government and I'm here to help," the federal Interior Department heaved into the picture.
Grassroot Institute found several federal notices saying first that the Interior Department was considering a new plan.
"This rule would establish a process for identifying members of the Native Hawaiian community for the purpose of reorganizing that community as four political subdivisions or bands, organizing the bands into a confederation, and then acknowledging a government-to-government relationship with that single confederation as a tribe," read the first notice.
A later notice said: "The Secretary of the Interior is considering whether to propose an administrative rule that would facilitate the re-establishment of a government-to-government relationship with the Native Hawaiian community, to more effectively implement the special political and trust relationship that Congress has established between that community and the United States."
Conservative media like Fox News immediately leapt on their horses and rode off in all directions at once.
"President Barack Obama's administration has quietly suggested it is willing to create a two-tier, race-based legal system in Hawaii, where one set of taxes, spending and law enforcement will govern one race, and the second set of laws will govern every other race," Fox reported with more bluster than facts.
A spokeswoman for the Interior Department issued a cautionary statement saying nothing has happened, but it is "considering publishing an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to help determine whether the Department should develop a formal, administrative process to re-establish a government-to-government relationship with a future Native Hawaiian governing entity."
And that is why Inouye was wise to wait for orders and not issue his own.
--------------------
Every day the Honolulu Star-Advertiser posts a "Big Question" poll which offers several possible answers and asks readers to vote online. On June 2, 2014 the question was
What kind of future do you favor for Native Hawaiians?
Readers were offered the following choices.
A. Federal recognition (nation-within-nation model)
B. Independence
C. The status quo
D. No entitlements at all
For about 14 years this newspaper has editorialized repeatedly in favor of the Akaka bill, and protection of racial entitlement programs; and has slanted its selection of news topics and the way news reports are written in an effort to shape public opinion. Notice that the "ballot position" of the four choices places the newspaper's preferred answer at the top of the list, and the choice it most strongly disapproves is at the bottom. The ethnic Hawaiian establishment has a huge war chest of money and thousands of bureaucrats whose jobs depend on status quo and urgently wants federal recognition to protect the status quo against court challenges of unconstitutionality (OHA has $650 Million in assets; Kamehameha Schools [Bishop Estate] has between 8 and 15 Billion in assets depending on how land is valued; there are more than 850 racial entitlement programs). The independence activists don't have much money, but make more noise than any other group.
Nevertheless, the "silent majority" spoke loud and clear, in favor of abolishing all racial entitlements. Here are the results:
http://poll.staradvertiser.com/honolulu-star-advertiser-poll-archive/
June 2, 2014
What kind of future do you favor for Native Hawaiians?
D. No entitlements at all (41%, 529 Votes)
A. Federal recognition (nation-within-nation model) (31%, 393 Votes)
C. The status quo (22%, 283 Votes)
B. Independence (6%, 118 Votes)
Total Voters: 1,288
------------------
http://us3.campaign-archive1.com/?u=f9a371d0547f107d938233d66&id=dd589169b6&e=4a7cf86850
Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, Press ZRZelease, June 3, 2014
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
DATELINE: June 3, 2014, Honolulu, Hawai'i
CONTACT: Keli'i Akina, (808) 591-9193 akina@grassrootinstitute.org
Star-Advertiser Poll Indicates a Lack of Enthusiasm for a Native Hawaiian Nation
Opposition to federal recognition has changed little in the past decade
HONOLULU, Hawaii -- June 3, 2014 -- A recent poll by the Honolulu Star-Advertiser found that despite the strong state push for the creation of a Native Hawaiian governing entity, the majority of those responding oppose federal recognition of a Hawaiian nation.
The poll, which appeared on the Star-Advertiser website as a daily poll question for June 2, 2014, asked, "What kind of future do you envision for Native Hawaiians?" The most popular answer was "No entitlements at all," with 41% of the vote, while retaining the status quo received 22% of the vote. Only 31% favored federal recognition, while 6% chose "independence."
Though admittedly unscientific, the poll's finding that 63% of respondents oppose the creation of a Native Hawaiian nation is familiar. In fact, it echoes the results of a more rigorous survey released by the Grassroot Institute in 2005 in which it was found that 67% of Hawaii residents opposed the Akaka Bill.
"We are surrounded by evidence that the state's rush toward creating a Native Hawaiian government lacks the support of Hawaii's citizens, including many Native Hawaiians," stated Keli'i Akina, Ph.D., President of the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii. "The Star-Advertiser poll only confirms what we already knew from the anemic number of active sign-ups to the Native Hawaiian Roll: there is an obvious lack of enthusiasm for the nation-building process."
Dr. Akina continued, "In more than a decade, despite millions of dollars spent pushing for the creation of a Native Hawaiian government, OHA has failed to persuade the people of Hawaii that this is a good thing for our state or for Native Hawaiians. That represents millions of dollars that could have been spent helping the Native Hawaiian community in more effective, less divisive ways. Haven't they wasted enough time and money on a cause that is only supported by an elite few? OHA and the state must get out of the nation-building business and refocus their efforts on projects that can make a real, tangible difference in the lives of our citizens."
------------------
http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/04/hawaiians-are-not-a-tribe/
The Daily Caller, June 4, 2014
and
http://www.indianz.com/News/2014/013913.asp
Indianz.com, June 4, 2014
Hawaiians Are Not A Tribe
by Keli'i Akina
President, Grassroot Institute of Hawaii
On the surface, Hawaii is a melting pot of all races and national origins. Beneath that surface, there is brewing an attack upon Constitutional protections against racial discrimination which could have far-reaching consequences for the rest of the nation. The Department of Interior's advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) is the latest move in its process of paving the way for federal recognition of a race-based government of Native Hawaiians.
http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=201404&RIN=1090-AB05
This represents an egregious overreach of executive power.
From a sentimental point of view, Americans can easily feel sympathetic toward the idea of righting the supposed wrongs done to Hawaiians as a tribe. The problem with this thinking is that Hawaiians never were and certainly are not today a tribe. From the time the Hawaiian Kingdom was established by its first monarch King Kamehameha through the 1893 abdication of the throne by its last monarch Queen Lili'uokalani, citizenship in Hawaii was never based upon race. If the Hawaiian Kingdom were somehow to be reinstated today, there would be no racial tribe to give anything back to, as the Hawaiian citizenry consisted of Polynesians, Caucasians, Asians, and others who lived under a constitutional monarchy.
The executive branch is using the construct of a native tribe to attempt an end-run around both the Supreme Court and Congress. In 2000, the Supreme Court ruled in the landmark Rice v. Cayetano case that Native Hawaiian is an ethnicity (like, for example, Portuguese or Hispanic) and not a tribal or political category. Congress, from 2000 to 2012, rejected all attempts through the numerous versions of the Akaka Bill to redefine ethnic Hawaiians as a political tribe with a "government to government" relationship to the United States. That having failed, in 2012 the executive branch, through the Department of the Interior, began laying the groundwork for administrative rules to officially recognize a Native Hawaiian tribal government,
http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=201210&RIN=1090-AB05
again, something which does not exist. That effort coincided with the passage in the same year of the State of Hawaii's Act 195
http://kanaiolowalu.org/about/act195/
which established the Native Hawaiian Roll within the Office of Hawaiian Affairs for creating a roll of racially Hawaiian citizens (i.e., tribe members).
The effort of the Native Hawaiian Roll to redefine Hawaiians as a political tribe has met with little support. The commission responsible for administering the roll, which was open between July 20, 2012 and May 1, 2014, claims that approximately 125,631 Native Hawaiians have "signed up."
http://kanaiolowalu.org/news/story/?id=48
In fact, most never "signed up," as official registration requires enrollees to endorse an affidavit which states: "I affirm the unrelinquished sovereignty of the Hawaiian people and my intent to participate in the process of self-governance."
http://kanaiolowalu.org/pdfs/FINALrev1_RegistrationFor_20120803.pdf
The majority of names on the roll were transferred from non-political lists of ethnic Hawaiians who have not affirmed such a statement.
http://hawaiitribune-herald.com/news/local-news/rolling-forward
Yet the executive branch is undeterred. So obvious are its efforts to create a tribe by fiat that four members of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights were moved to send a letter to President Obama, dated September 16, 2013,
http://new.grassrootinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Akaka-Letter-September-2013-Final.pdf
telling him that, "Executive action implementing provisions of the Akaka bill would be … unwise and unconstitutional." They also reiterated that "whatever the perceived or actual wrongs that were done to native Hawaiian rulers in the late nineteenth century, there was not then a distinct 'tribe' of native Hawaiians living separately from the rest of society, and there certainly has not been any in the 120 years since."
So, to what end does the executive branch labor? Who benefits from the redefining of ethnic Hawaiians as a tribe for purposes of federal recognition? Ultimately, it may come back to the tried-and-true motivations of money and power -- at least among "tribal" leaders and the political and corporate elite in Hawaii who, with their national counterparts, have dominated Native Hawaiian politics for decades. It is likely that any Native Hawaiian government entity would be able to lay claim to sizeable land holdings and revenues -- and the Office of Hawaiian Affairs has been working to expand its role and powers as a developer.
In a broader sense, however, a larger beneficiary may be those who traffic in racial identity politics. The legal reverses suffered in recent years would be wiped away by a philosophy that raises racial identity to the level of sovereign nationhood. Not only would this open the door to other groups to petition for special legal status based on their standing as a racial community, but it would force a reconsideration of how far the equal protection of the Constitution can actually reach.
----------------------
http://westhawaiitoday.com/news/local-news/native-hawaiians-ponder-pathways
West Hawaii Today (Kona), June 8, 2014
Native Hawaiians ponder the pathways
By Nancy Cook Lauer
West Hawaii Today
ncook-lauer@westhawaiitoday.com
What do Native Hawaiians want? It depends whom you ask.
Some groups think federal recognition, a government-within-a-government status, is the ticket. The U.S. Department of the Interior is currently mulling over that approach, deciding whether to create a federal rule to facilitate the process.
Others are advocating a roll of all descendants of the indigenous Polynesians who settled the islands prior to 1778 to vote for delegates for a convention where those decisions will be made. The Office of Hawaiian Affairs is currently considering whether to give the Native Hawaiian Roll Commission more time to sign up enough Native Hawaiians to do that.
For some, nothing less than a return to the Hawaiian Kingdom will do. They want a demilitarization of the islands and they say the U.S. government is occupying Hawaii illegally because the country took over the kingdom at gunpoint and there was never a lawful treaty of annexation.
As with any other group of people, you can't paint an entire race, an entire ethnicity, an entire society, with the same broad brush. It's a controversial issue, and emotions run high.
"Why do Hawaiians have to look like we're such idiots, fighting with each other all the time?" asked an outwardly frustrated OHA Trustee Rowena Akana at a recent board meeting.
It's a crucial issue for the state, where 21.3 percent of Hawaii residents reported in the 2010 census that they had some Hawaiian blood, and 5.9 percent said they were pure Hawaiian. It's even more important for Hawaii County, which, with 29.7 percent of residents with Hawaiian blood and 8.5 percent pure Hawaiian, leads the state in both categories.
In addition, some 1.8 million acres of land, 43 percent of the state and about the same percentage on Hawaii Island, is considered ceded lands, Hawaiian government and crown lands that were ceded to the state of Hawaii after annexation and statehood. They are now held in trust for the Hawaiian people, with revenues used for a public purpose.
OHA Chief Executive Officer Kamanaopono Crabbe heaped fuel on the fire with a May 5 letter to U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry requesting an opinion about Hawaii's legal status under international law.
Crabbe said he'd attended sessions where political scholars opined that Hawaiians are not an indigenous people of the United States, but rather nationals of an occupied state. He referenced treaties signed by President Grover Cleveland and Queen Liliuokalani in 1893 that obligated the United States to administer Hawaiian law and to restore the government of the Hawaiian Kingdom.
"First, does the Hawaiian Kingdom, as a sovereign independent state, continue to exist as a subject of international law?" Crabbe asks in the letter. "While I await the opinion from the Office of Legal Counsel, I will be requesting approval from the Trustees of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs that we refrain from pursuing a Native Hawaiian governing entity until we can confirm that the Hawaiian Kingdom, as an independent sovereign state, does not continue to exist under international law and that we, as individuals, have not incurred any criminal liability in this pursuit."
The OHA Board of Trustees rescinded the letter, and after a lengthy closed-door session with Crabbe, both sides emerged vowing to move forward despite the dispute.
The Hawaii Legislature through Act 195 signed in 2011 by Gov. Neil Abercrombie, set up a nation-building enrollment process dubbed "Kanaiolowalu," loosely translated as "striving with many voices." But, three years later, the number of voices still falls short, despite $3.9 million set aside for the roll-building, convention and governing documents.
The goal, through the Native Hawaiian Roll Commission, was to get 200,000 names, said Lei Kihoi, Hawaii Island's representative on the five-member commission. But the group has so far collected only about 132,000 and verified 128,000, she said. There are some 530,000 Hawaiian descendants in all, with about half living in the state, she said.
OHA is considering setting up a second Hawaiian roll to accommodate those who distrust the process because it was created by state law without consulting their Native Hawaiian groups. Testifiers at a May 29 meeting also questioned OHA's neutrality on the issue because it is a state agency.
Longtime activist Walter Ritte urged OHA to bring in a neutral third party to help facilitate nation-building by a Native Hawaiian group. He thinks the state and federal governments should stay out of it.
"We're trying to build our nation," Ritte said. "We cannot wait for lawyers in the state to tell us how to build our nation. That's not going to work."
OHA, faced with a barrage of people wanting to testify, postponed decision-making until June 24.
The Obama administration has recently gotten into the act as well, offering up as an administrative rule a federal recognition status that was for 13 years the goal of former U.S. Sen. Daniel Akaka, D-Hawaii, who retired in 2012 without getting it through Congress.
The May 20 notice from the U.S. Department of the Interior signals it's considering whether the federal government should develop a formal, administrative process to re-establish a government-to-government relationship with a future Native Hawaiian governing entity. It has not yet opened the public comment period.
Crabbe and OHA Chairwoman Colette Machado, in a joint statement, praised the move.
"The OHA-supported nation building process and the federal government's consideration of a federal recognition process present an opportunity for a seamless transition from nation building to pursuing federal recognition, but only if that represents the desire of the Native Hawaiian people," the statement said.
Not everyone is sure they want the type of federal recognition currently in place for Native Americans, where land is allotted for reservations where tribal laws apply.
Native Hawaiians in the top layers of Hawaii County's government are taking a wait-and-see approach.
Both Mayor Billy Kenoi, and Kona Councilman Dru Kanuha, said they've signed the newest Native Hawaiian roll, but they are not involving themselves in the current roll-building process.
Kenoi notes that what's good for the county of Hawaii -- education, health care, programs that strengthen families -- is also good for the Native Hawaiian community. He's been trying to improve the quality of life for everyone on the island, he said.
"I haven't been engaged in the effort of self-determination and self-governance. … It's an issue that's important to everyone in Hawaii, Hawaiians and non-Hawaiians alike," Kenoi said. "I leave that in the hands of those who are directly advocating and conversant in the process and the entire Native Hawaiian community as a whole. I think it's the Native Hawaiian community's decision to make."
Kanuha said he signed up because he thinks an umbrella group of Native Hawaiians getting together to kuka, or deliberate, in a convention will help bring agreement.
"Whether I agree with sovereignty or not isn't that important," Kanuha said. "What's important is to be part of a group where we have those opportunities. There's going to be people who disagree. … But if we can all have an open mind about it and work it out. … The Hawaiian Roll Commission is an important starting place."
Kanuha notes that currently, "There are a lot of splintered groups all over the place."
Among the most strident have been Native Hawaiians claiming they are part of a reinstated Kingdom of Hawaii.
Dwight Vicente is a Hilo man who has for 20 years been quietly but consistently testifying before the County Council, telling the government that its various codes and laws are illegal because there is no recognized U.S. government in Hawaii.
"As long as the U.S. military is here, we cannot move forward," Vicente said. "We are under military occupation."
Vicente says he doesn't recognize the U.S. government, although he does pay his taxes, albeit "under protest."
He characterizes the Hawaiian Kingdom as "in recess," and he disregards those who say they are the government of the kingdom. Iolani Palace is not currently in the hands of Hawaiians, he said.
"There are those that speak it, but it remains to be seen," Vicente said. "When you see someone sitting on the throne, then you will know."
-------------------
http://www.staradvertiser.com/editorialspremium/guesteditorialspremium/20140610__No_Redefining_Native_Hawaiians_as_a_tribe_would_disrespect_history_and_benefit_only_a_few.html?id=262658931
Honolulu Star-Advertiser, June 11, 2014 [Kamehameha Day]
Efforts to divide Hawaiians from non-Hawaiians
Redefining Native Hawaiians as a tribe would disrespect history and benefit only a few
By Keli'i Akina
As a proud ethnic Hawaiian and loyal United States citizen, I am troubled by efforts to divide Hawaiians from non-Hawaiians by creating a sovereign race-based tribe or nation.
It is easy for many to support the idea of sovereignty for ethnic Hawaiians, if we are considered comparable to an Indian tribe.
The problem with this thinking is that Hawaiians never were and are not today a tribe. As four members of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights wrote in a Sept. 16, 2013, letter to President Barack Obama, "whatever the perceived or actual wrongs that were done to native Hawaiian rulers in the late 19th century, there was not then a distinct 'tribe' of native Hawaiians living separately from the rest of society, and there certainly has not been any in the 120 years since."
Citizenship in the Hawaiian Kingdom was not based upon race. If the Hawaiian Kingdom were somehow reinstated, there would be no racial tribe to give anything back to, as the Hawaiian citizenry consisted of Polynesians, Caucasians, Asians and others who lived in a constitutional monarchy. The lives of ethnic Hawaiians then and today have been beautifully intertwined with people of all races.
The Office of Hawaiian Affairs and the executive branch of the federal government are using the construct of a native tribe to attempt an end-run around the Supreme Court and Congress. In 2000, the Supreme Court ruled in Rice v. Cayetano that Native Hawaiian is an ethnicity (like, for example, Hispanic or Japanese) and not a tribe or political entity.
Congress, from 2000 to 2012, rejected attempts through the Akaka Bill to redefine ethnic Hawaiians as a political tribe with a "government to government" relationship to the United States.
Then, in 2012, the Obama administration, through the Department of the Interior, began laying the groundwork for administrative rules to officially recognize a Native Hawaiian tribal government -- again, something that does not exist.
That effort coincided with passage of the State of Hawaii's Act 195, which established the Native Hawaiian Roll within OHA for creating a roll of racially Hawaiian citizens (i.e., tribe members).
The effort of the Native Hawaiian Roll to redefine Hawaiians as a tribe has met with lackluster support from Hawaiians themselves. OHA claims that approximately 125,631 Native Hawaiians have "signed up."
In fact, most never "signed up," as official registration requires enrollees to endorse an affidavit stating: "I affirm the unrelinquished sovereignty of the Hawaiian people and my intent to participate in the process of self-governance."
The majority of names on the roll were transferred from non-political lists of ethnic Hawaiians who have not affirmed this statement.
So, who benefits from the redefining of ethnic Hawaiians as a race-based, sovereign tribe? It may come back to the perennial theme of land and power -- at least for self-appointed tribal leaders who, with their national counterparts, have dominated Native Hawaiian politics for decades. It is likely that leaders of a Native Hawaiian tribe would attempt to lay claim to sizeable land holdings and revenues (i.e., the 1.8 million acres of ceded lands). OHA certainly has been working to expand its powers as a land developer. As for those who have signed up to be members of such a fictitious tribe, they may soon realize they are being exploited.
There is no tribe -- only tribal leaders who stand to gain financially.
----------------
http://www.staradvertiser.com/editorialspremium/guesteditorialspremium/20140610__Hawaiian_sovereignty_.html?id=262658951
Honolulu Star-Advertiser, June 11, 2014 [Kamehameha Day]
Hawaiian sovereignty?
Yes: After years of debate, Native Hawaiians are ready to take charge of their future
By Brickwood Galuteria
For Native Hawaiians, unity is our most precious possession.
Recent public discussion on the issue of nation building has missed the bigger picture of how creating "one voice" for Native Hawaiians will affect Hawaii politics.
Let's put it into perspective: More than 125,000 Native Hawaiians are listed on the Native Hawaiian Roll, and out of this number, more than 100,000 live in Hawaii. Many suggest that 65 percent of them are registered voters. What does this mean?
This means that a movement toward greater political influence by Native Hawaiians is imminent. This means that Native Hawaiians will have an impact of political consequence, affecting all aspects of life in Hawaii.
By conservative estimates, even if only half of the Roll engages as "one voice," it outnumbers some of the largest political entities currently in play. As a sitting state senator, it is clear to me that the sheer numbers of civically engaged Hawaiians will impact state policy, not only for Hawaiians, but for all people of Hawaii. To realize this substantial political sway, we must stand together and seize the moment. He waiwai nui ka lokahi … unity is our most precious possession.
With thousands on the Roll, momentum is on our side. Kana'iolowalu has allowed for a much-needed forum bringing people together for impassioned discussions and decision-making on the path toward a governing entity. Let us move diligently through the next steps and place that dialogue within a formal process. The current proposed timeline, albeit ambitious, has election of delegates in September, an 'aha (convention) to draft a governing document in October/November, and the vote on this document by all listed on the Roll as early as January 2015.
Suggestions have been made to extend the process by six to nine months for more education. To be fair and factual, the Kana'iolowalu campaign was launched on July 20, 2012 -- that's almost two years of active list enrollment, public education and awareness initiatives. There is more than enough information out there for people to learn and understand.
For too many years, we have been a people divided by varying visions of self-governance. That is a healthy debate that will soon have its voice. The 'aha is where these debates should take place. Derailing or slowing efforts now will only stall a good process that gives those who've chosen to engage in this historic initiative a hand in crafting a government model.
The Office of Hawaiian Affairs has served well as a neutral and fair facilitator in the people's nation-building effort thus far. But the recent controversy has been quite telling. As a learning takeaway, we recognize that despite the varying degrees of what self-governing looks like, we all share the common goal of doing what is pono for the Native Hawaiian community.
What I've also learned is that perhaps OHA is better suited to simply fund the initiative from its trust portfolio and turn the actual process over to a third party or a consortium of entities better suited to do the job. There are trusted and credible Native Hawaiian groups with skill sets to take on the challenge. If there ever was a "kakou thing," this is it.
The impetus behind Kana'iolowalu is, in essence, to bring those who wish to participate to the table, and ultimately move our people forward -- united -- toward a political solution and greater political authority sooner than later. That's the bigger picture.
-----------------
http://westhawaiitoday.com/opinion/letters/letters-6-11-14
West Hawaii Today (Kona), June 11, 2014, letter to editor
Education would help us all beter understand Hawaiian issues
Mahalo for bringing out some of the challenges all of us in these Hawaiian Islands must address. The quote to the effect that "Hawaiians have to look like idiots" by an Office of Hawaiian Affairs trustee who has been in office for 24 years, demonstrates why so many people perceive Hawaiians are divided.
The real issue is who continues to keep Hawaiians divided? In the 1990s, a process was set up called the Hawaiian Sovereignty Elections Council, three models of self-determination for the Hawaiian people were identified after consultation with international legal experts -- "1. Total independence, 2. Nation within a nation, 3. State within a state." A process to elect delegates was created, a vote was held, and 80 elected delegates met, and decided that two models of self-determination should be explored: total independence and nation within a nation.
While the implications of "total independence" are obvious, the "nation within a nation" simply means equal status with the U.S. Soon after the delegates set this course, OHA and the state of Hawaii pulled all the funding, effectively killing that process.
The recent controversy erupted after OHA asking the U.S. State Department a simple question: "Does the Hawaiian Kingdom continue to exist under international law?" The majority of OHA trustees not wanting to know the answer demonstrates why it is time for an independent process, without OHA, its trustees or the state of Hawaii being involved.
An equal amount of money they have spent trying to force the Hawaiian people on the "state within the state" model, should be spent on educating everyone in these islands on the "nation within a nation" and "total independence" models of self-determination. This process would allow all of us to understand what is pono for all the people and the islands we all love.
Ron Cawthon
Keauhou
----------------------
http://www.staradvertiser.com/editorialspremium/letterspremium/20140615_letters.html?id=263148231
Honolulu Star-Advertiser, June 15, 2014, Letter to editor
Entitlements subvert quest for sovereignty
Kudos to Keli'i Akina for so eloquently stating the case against Hawaiian sovereignty ("Hawaiian sovereignty?" Star-Advertiser, Island Voices, June 11).
When one group of people is subsidized by another group, the former develops an "entitlement mentality" that stifles improvement, because failure can always be blamed on the other side.
As a group, Hawaiians (or more accurately, "part-Hawaiians," which describes over 95 percent of the population) already have sad problems with health and crime, but to create a subsidized Hawaiian nation or tribe would only make matters worse.
Hawaiians have made it to the highest ranks of government and business without entitlement, and to divide harmonious Hawaii along racial lines is bad for everyone.
Art Whistler
Manoa
-----------
http://www.staradvertiser.com/editorialspremium/letterspremium/20140615_letters.html?id=263148231
Honolulu Star-Advertiser, June 15, 2014, Letter to editor
Hawaiians want what was originally theirs
When did seeking to restore our freedom and independence become an "entitlement," as suggested by the Star-Advertiser's June 2 Big Q poll ("What kind of future do you favor for Native Hawaiians?")
The Kingdom of Hawaii was pre-empted by the terrorist invasion of our internationally acknowledged sovereign nation in 1893, and for well over a century we have been denied justice. Can anyone recall wars in which free nations were invaded and occupied, and made to live under the dominion of their invaders? Would anyone deny that justice was served when those nations' freedom and independence were restored?
Walter Akimo
Hilo
================
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 2014 Kenneth R. Conklin, Ph.D. All rights reserved
