(c) Copyright June 12, 2013
Kenneth R. Conklin, Ph.D.
All rights reserved
1. The circumstances of Senator Schatz' speech, the other Senators who "voiced support", and links to press releases and Congressional Record
On June 11, 2013 Senate majority leader Harry Reid (D,NV) said "Mr. President, I would ask the Chair at this time to recognize the Senator from Hawaii, Mr. Schatz, who replaced Senator Inouye. I understand he is going to give his maiden speech in the Senate today." (Page S4071 of the Congressional Record)
The "first time" for a Senator is as significant as for teenagers or young adults. A Senator will remember his maiden speech forever, and so will his colleagues. Senator Schatz waited six months before giving his maiden speech (he replaced the deceased Senator Inouye in December). Unfortunately he chose a topic which other Senators consider unimportant special-interest constituent service. It would benefit only the large, wealthy institutions serving a 21% racial minority of Hawaii's people. He squandered his political capital, thereby harming Hawaii's people of all races who depend on him to take care of us all.
One might think that a Senator's maiden speech would be deserving of special attention. Schatz certainly thinks so, because the headline of his press release containing full text of it is "Schatz Delivers Major Floor Speech On Achieving Fairness for Native Hawaiians" But the scheduling and circumstances of his speech indicate that Majority Leader Reid did not think it was very significant. His speech came during a quorum call in the middle of a contentious discussion of a controversial bill to overhaul America's immigration laws. A quorum call is a parliamentary way to keep the lights on and pass time when no other Senators are waiting to speak. This one happened around noontime, leading up to the regular Tuesday afternoon Republican and Democrat caucus luncheons -- a good time to let a new backbench Senator squeeze in a short speech on an irrelevant topic. It's the sort of circumstances and scheduling that might be expected for a Senator speaking in praise of a Little League team that won a championship, or introducing a resolution to rename a post office.
His press release said "Following his remarks, several of his Senate colleagues voiced their support for his efforts on behalf of Native Hawaiians" and included quotes from Senators Maria Cantwell (D,WA), Lisa Murkowski (R,AK), Mark Begich (D,AK), and Al Franken (D,MN), all of whom have shown their devotion to race-based legislation by serving on the Indian Affairs committee alongside Schatz. The press release uses the phrase "colleagues voiced their support," giving the impression that those other Senators gave speeches of support on the Senate floor, or at least entered their statements into the record as extensions of remarks. Not so. Senator Schatz is misleading us. None of those statements by other Senators appear anywhere except in the press release. Anyone can use the "find" function on his computer to quickly search the 333 pages of the Congressional Record for June 11 to look for the name of each of those Senators. Their votes and speeches on June 11 are printed, but there's nothing about Native Hawaiians, Kamehameha Day or Senator Schatz.
Senator Schatz' press release briefly summarizing his speech and containing the quotes from his four colleagues can be found on his Senate website at
http://tinyurl.com/pewdnky
Senator Schatz' press release containing the full text of his floor speech is entitled "Schatz Delivers Major Floor Speech On Achieving Fairness for Native Hawaiians" and is on his Senate website at
http://tinyurl.com/qdfb28l
All 333 pages of the Congressional Record for January 11, 2013, including Senator Reid's introduction of Senator Schatz and the events before and after Schatz' speech, are at
http://tinyurl.com/pa5n7n3
-----------
2. The best overall rebuttals to the general concept of giving federal recognition to a phony ethnic Hawaiian Indian tribe are here:
Kell'i Akina, Ph.D., the new CEO of the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii and 2012 OHA trustee candidate (37,835 votes), addressed the Conservative Forum for Hawaii at the Naniloa Hotel Crown Room in Hilo Hawaii, on Sunday June 2. Dr. Akina’s topic was “E Hana Kâkou: The Advancement of Native Hawaiians and All Residents of the Aloha State.” It was an extraordinary event, highly inspirational. Dr. Akina is a rising star among Hawaii conservatives. A video of his speech, a little over an hour, includes a description of his background; a chant he delivered; his speech filled with patriotism and conservative principles in relation to OHA, DHHL, and Hawaiian sovereignty; and a Q&A period. See the video at
http://tinyurl.com/kcxhy3b
Kenneth R. Conklin, Ph.D. 302-page book "Hawaiian Apartheid: Racial Separatism and Ethnic Nationalism in the Aloha State" A webpage providing the cover, entire Chapter 1, detailed Table of Contents, and how to order the book is at
http://tinyurl.com/2a9fqa
There have been hundreds of articles published in local and national media opposing the Akaka bill during the years from 2000 to now, and statements from President Bush, several Senators, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, several public opinion polls, editorials by the Wall Street Journal, etc. The most influential items have been listed in an index in chronological order, with full text copied in annual subpages, at
http://tinyurl.com/5eflp
Also see "Why all America should oppose the Hawaiian government reorganization bill, also known as the Akaka bill" at
http://tinyurl.com/ypops
----------
3. Following is a point-by-point rebuttal to 23 of the most significant, misleading or false statements made by Senator Schatz in his maiden speech of June 11, 2013.
Schatz1: June 11th marks a public holiday in the State of Hawaii – King Kamehameha Day – celebrated since 1872. We hold a statewide festival and mark the day with lei draping ceremonies, parades, hula competitions and other festivities. It is a day to honor Kamehameha the Great, who unified the Kingdom of Hawaii, and to celebrate the rich culture and traditions of the Hawaiian people.
Rebuttal1: Kamehameha is remember as "The Great" because his major accomplishment was to unify Hawaii under a single sovereignty. What Kamehameha hath joined together, let not Congress rip asunder.
http://tinyurl.com/n9f5fp
An earlier webpage on this topic provides more information including photos of the Kamehameha statue, Senator Akaka, Senator Inouye, and the famous painting by Herb Kane showing the Battle of Nu'uanu where Kamehameha pushed the army of O'ahu King Kalanikupule over a precipice to their deaths. See "Kamehameha vs. Akaka -- Kamehameha unified Hawai'i 200 years ago; Akaka bill's main purpose is to divide Hawai'i" at
http://tinyurl.com/bszgr
Schatz2: I chose this day to come to the Senate Floor to talk about an issue of great importance to me and to my state: Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization. It was a top priority of my immediate predecessors in this body – Senators Inouye and Akaka. For more than three decades they worked together in the Congress to advance priorities important to Hawaii and the nation. They made history at almost every step of their careers – securing dozens of “firsts” in the House and Senate. But for the indigenous people of the United States -- Senators Inouye and Akaka will be forever remembered for their work as members and then chairs of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, and for their advocacy on behalf of American Indians, Alaska Natives and Native Hawaiians.
Rebuttal2: For 22 years, throughout Dan Akaka's tenure in the Senate, Hawaii was the only state that ever had both of its Senators sitting together on the Indian Affairs Committee, until the present 113th Congress. Why did they do that, especially considering that there are no Indian tribes in Hawaii? They did it to ensure that whenever bills went through that committee to provide general benefits to all federally recognized tribes, they added the words "and Native Hawaiian." That's how ethnic Hawaiians came to be beneficiaries of so many race-based federal benefits intended for the Indian tribes, which will eventually be ruled unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment unless "Native Hawaiians" are arbitrarily re-defined as an Indian tribe.
Schatz3: I want to acknowledge their legacy and to thank Senator Akaka for the role that he continues to play in the great State of Hawaii and in the Native Hawaiian community in particular. And, here is the reason that I have chosen to carry forward this fight on behalf of Native Hawaiians. Simply stated: because it is right to seek justice.
Rebuttal3: Dividing the lands and people of Hawaii along racial lines is NOT justice, it is apartheid. No other state has 21% of its people being Indians, let alone 21% who would be eligible to join a single tribe and sit on both sides of the negotiating table as citizens of both the tribe and the state. No tribe has its lands widely dispersed as separate enclaves scattered in numerous places throughout the state, creating jurisdictional chaos. See a map showing the federal and state government lands which the Akaka tribe is likely to demand. Note that the map does not show the extensive holdings of Hawaii's largest private landowner Bishop Estate (Kamehameha Schools), which are also widely scattered and likely to be reincorporated out of the State and into the tribe:
http://tinyurl.com/bgx25
Schatz4: Native Hawaiians are the only federally recognized Native people without a government-to-government relationship with the United States and they deserve access to the prevailing federal policy of self-determination.
Rebuttal4: The federal government does not give recognition to Native Alaskans lumped together as a single political entity, nor to Native Americans lumped together as a single political entity.
Schatz5: In the U.S. Constitution, it is clear our Founding Fathers understood it was the tribal nations’ sovereign authority that distinguished them from others. It was the fact that tribes were Native groups with distinct governments that predated our own, that justified special treatment in the Constitution and under our federal laws.
Rebuttal5: That's right. Each tribe was a political entity unto itself and separate from other tribes who shared the same race.
Schatz6: But what was consistent throughout, were the federal policies and actions intended to strip Native Americans of their languages, weaken traditional leadership and family structures, divide land bases, prohibit religious and cultural practices, and break communal bonds. And, these policies were as harmful and unjust to Native Hawaiians as they were to Alaska Natives and American Indians.
Rebuttal6: In regard to Native Hawaiians, this is a scurrilous accusation unbecoming of a U.S. Senator. The United States never stripped ethnic Hawaiians of their language, and never prohibited their religious and cultural practices. The ancient Hawaiian religion was abolished by Liholiho Kamehameha 2, together with his step-mother regent Ka'ahumanu and High Priest Hewahewa, in 1819, the year before the first American missionaries arrived, and 74 years before the monarchy was overthrown. The U.S. encouraged and fostered Hawaiian culture and a native land base by passing the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act of 1920, and by making hundreds of millions of dollars in grants for Native Hawaiian programs including the Polynesian Voyaging Society, the Native Hawaiian Education Act, legislation establishing and funding Alu Like and Papa Ola Lokahi, and at least 150 other federal programs referred to later in Senator Schatz' statement. The government of the Kingdom, headed by full-blooded native Kings, established a policy of converting the public schools from Hawaiian to English as the language of instruction, to the point where 95% of all the schools were already using English by 1892 (year before the revolution).
http://tinyurl.com/6zrka
Further Rebuttal6: Senator Schatz rebuts himself by his own words later in his statement. "In an attempt to reverse the damage done by these policies, since the 1920’s, the Congress has established special Native Hawaiian programs in education, employment, health care and housing. And, the Congress has extended to Native Hawaiians many of the same rights and privileges accorded to American Indians and Alaska Natives." Later he adds "Congress has passed more than 150 statutes to try to address some of the negative effects of earlier federal actions and policies"
Schatz7: [J]ust like many Native Americans and Alaska Natives on the continent, the name Native Hawaiians chose in their own language was -- Kanaka Maoli -- The People.
Rebuttal7: Actually, the term "Kanaka Maoli" means "real people" (as opposed to ghosts). During the period when people of mixed ancestry became a significant part of the population, "Kanaka Maoli" specifically identified ethnic Hawaiians who had 100% native blood quantum. There are hardly any such people today, certainly not the 527,000 who checked the box for "Native Hawaiian" in Census 2010.
Schatz8: From 1826 until 1893, the United States recognized the independence of the Hawaiian Government as a distinct political entity. We extended full and complete diplomatic recognition, and entered into five treaties and conventions with the Hawaiian monarchs to govern commerce and navigation. These treaties are clear evidence that Native Hawaiians were considered a separate and distinct nation more than a century after contact.
Rebuttal8: The independent nation known as the Kingdom of Hawaii was NOT defined by race. It is a falsehood when Senator Schatz says "Native Hawaiians were considered a separate and distinct nation." Throughout its history, a majority of the cabinet ministers and judges, and nearly all the department heads, and 1/4 - 1/3 of the members of the legislature (both appointed and elected, both Nobles and Representatives) were Caucasians. And during the Kingdom's final years, most of the population were ethnic Japanese and Chinese invited by the Kings to work on the sugar plantations or to become businessmen. Thousands of Caucasians, Japanese, and Chinese were subjects of the Kingdom either by being native-born in Hawaii or by being naturalized under the laws. By birth, naturalization, or sweat equity Caucasians and Asians were full partners in the Kingdom.
Schatz9: But, on January 17, 1893, the legitimate government of the Native Hawaiian people was removed forcibly, by agents and armed forces of the United States.
Rebuttal9: This is a scurrilous lie. The 162 U.S. peacekeepers who came ashore in January 1893 did not take over any buildings, did not invade the Palace grounds, did not arrest the Queen, did not give any supplies or assistance to the armed militia of local men who carried out the revolution. The largest nationality of origin in the Annexation Club were Portuguese. A majority of the leadership group of the revolution (Committee of Safety) were native-born or naturalized subjects of the Kingdom, and the others were long-time residents and business owners disgusted with the corrupt monarchy.
Schatz10: The illegality of this action has been acknowledged in contemporary as well as modern times by both the Executive and Legislative branches of our federal government.
Rebuttal10: Congress has conducted major inquiries on two occasions, taking testimony under oath in a Senate committee during a two month period (Morgan Report 1894) and conducting hearings with expert testimony and public comment during a two year period (Native Hawaiians Study Commission 1983); and both times, after lengthy deliberation, reached the conclusion that the U.S. was not responsible for the revolution and does not owe any reparations to Native Hawaiians. See a summary of the conclusions and links to the full text of both reports at
http://tinyurl.com/f4cqt
Schatz11: An investigation called for by President Cleveland produced a report by former Congressman James Blount. The report’s findings were unambiguous: U.S. diplomatic and military representatives had abused their authority and were responsible for the change in the government. As a result of these findings, the United States Minister to Hawaii was recalled from his diplomatic post and the military commander of the United States armed forces stationed in Hawaii was disciplined and forced to resign his commission.
Rebuttal11: The Morgan Report repudiated the Blount Report, including sworn testimony before a Senate committee during January and February 1894 in which witnesses said that they made statements to Blount which Blount reported in an opposite meaning in Blount's report. See How the Morgan Report repudiates the Blount Report at
http://tinyurl.com/cfxbl
and especially section 6.4 at
http://tinyurl.com/muxtsro
Schatz12: Hawaii’s monarch at the time, Queen Liliuokalani, presented a petition to the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a formal statement of protest to the Secretary of State [in 1897 in opposition to the Treaty of Annexation]. The petition, signed by more than 21,000 Hawaiian men and women, represented more than half of the Hawaiian census population and was compiled in less than three weeks. It also included the signatures of approximately 20,000 non-Hawaiians who supported the return of the islands to self-governed rule.
Rebuttal12: All residents of Hawaii, regardless of race, were eligible to sign the petition (including women, children, and babies, none of whom were eligible to vote). The 21,000 signatures would have been slightly more than half of the ethnic Hawaiian population, but only 19% of the total population. It is a new assertion to say there were an additional 20,000 signatures by non-ethnic-Hawaiians. Where did such an assertion come from? Either Mr. Schatz should retract it, or provide a citation to prove it. Mr. Schatz is apparently parroting a wishful falsehood told to him by an overzealous advisor. Senator Schatz' predecessor Senator Inouye fell into disgrace when he made false statements on the Senate floor to support the Akaka bill. Apparently history-twisting is contagious, even from the grave.
http://tinyurl.com/6a3stjw
Schatz13: The “Petition Against Annexation” was a powerful tool in the defeat of the annexation treaty in 1897.
Rebuttal13: False, although often asserted by today's pride-filled ethnic Hawaiian activists, and commonly believed. A recent book provides evidence disproving it. William M. Morgan Ph.D., PACIFIC GIBRALTAR: U.S. - JAPANESE RIVALRY OVER THE ANNEXATION OF HAWAII, 1885-1898 (Annapolis: Naval Institute Press, 2011). In Chapter 15, Dr. Morgan says The anti-annexation petitions by Hawaiian groups Hui Aloha 'Aina and Hui Kalai'aina had no practical effect at all. Polling of Senators by newspapers and party whips before and after the petitions were presented in 1897 showed that no Senator changed his commitment on account of the petitions.
http://tinyurl.com/8y2s6o5
Schatz14: Senator Schatz refers to "the defeat of the annexation treaty in 1897."
Rebuttal14: No Hawaii Treaty of Annexation was ever voted upon in the Senate (not in 1893, not in 1897 nor 1898) until final passage by vote of 42-21 in 1898. The Treaty was previously "defeated" only in the sense that the Republican whips always came up 2-3 votes short when they did a whip count and therefore they did not bring it to the floor for a vote until final passage of the joint resolution.
Schatz15: In the next year, however, proponents of annexation introduced the Newlands Joint Resolution, a measure requiring only a simple majority of votes to gain passage. The annexation of Hawaii passed with the much reduced threshold of votes, and was signed into law by President McKinley in July of 1898.
Rebuttal15: The joint resolution of annexation required only a simple majority in both houses of Congress, but it actually passed by 42-21 in the Senate and by 209-91 in the House, partly because sentiments had changed due to the Spanish American War, and also because of Grover Cleveland's defeat by President McKinley. In modern times, it is now well-established in constitutional law that an international agreement can be approved and become binding on the US by a majority vote of both houses of Congress [Restatement (3d) of the Foreign Relations Law of the US sec. 303]. Literally hundreds of international agreements have been done this way in the 20th century, and the Supreme Court repeatedly has held that the method is valid.
Additional Rebuttal15: Senator Schatz seems on the verge of saying that the annexation of Hawaii to the United States was illegal or invalid. If so, we must wonder whether Senator Schatz' presence in the U.S. Senate representing Hawaii is improper and should be terminated.
Schatz16: For almost two centuries after the founding of our nation, federal policies of removal, relocation, assimilation and termination, decimated Native communities and worsened the socio-economic conditions for American Indians, Alaska Natives and Native Hawaiians. The policy of allotting parcels of land to individual Indians began in 1887, as a way to break up the reservations and communal lifestyles. In 1906, it was expanded to include Alaska Natives. In 1921, it was applied to Native Hawaiians.
Rebuttal16: The 1921 Hawaiian Homes Commission Act was NOTHING LIKE the allotment policy applied to break up Indian reservations. It was completely opposite. Under allotment, the Indians got their lands in fee simple as individuals, and soon non-Indian settlers were interspersed among them. Under HHCA the Hawaiians with at least 50% native blood quantum got only a lease on their land which still remained in communal ownership under DHHL under the State government. The HHCA forced communal land tenure based on race where previously there had been individual ownership by people of any race.
Schatz17: The policy of banning Native language use in the schools was adopted by the territory of Hawaii. Native children were punished for speaking Hawaiian, just as American Indians and Alaska Natives were punished for using their own languages in school.
Rebuttal17: The English-only law for schools, passed in 1896 and continuing throughout the Territorial period, never mentioned nor singled out Hawaiian. It applied to prohibit using any language other than English as the language of instruction, and was aimed mainly against Japanese and Chinese languages to ensure kids from those countries, now a majority of all kids in Hawaii, would be assimilated in anticipation of annexation to the English-speaking U.S. English was already the prevailing language in most schools -- 95% of the government schools were already using English as the language of instruction by 1892 (the year before the revolution). So the law had no effect on causing native children to lose ability in Hawaiian. Consider this. Today we have Hawaiian language immersion schools where the rule is Hawaiian-only, all day; and the parents are supposed to use Hawaiian-only at home too. Yet somehow the kids learn English. Why? Because English is the dominant language of everyday usage on the streets and in the media. So if Hawaiian was the dominant language on the streets in 1896 and the Territorial period, then the kids would have learned Hawaiian even though schools had the English-only rule. See webpage about whether Hawaiian language was illegal, at
http://tinyurl.com/6zrka
Schatz18: In 1993, the Congress passed, and President Clinton signed, legislation known as the Apology Resolution -- a formal acknowledgement and apology by the Congress. This legislation recognizes that the overthrow of the Hawaiian government resulted in “the suppression of the inherent sovereignty of the Native Hawaiian people” and “the deprivation of the rights of Native Hawaiians to self-determination.”
Rebuttal18: See a detailed critique of the apology resolution and the bad effects it has had, at
http://tinyurl.com/bkvv8e8
Bruce Fein, an attorney specializing in Constitutional law, wrote a booklet published June 1, 2005 by the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii. That booklet is entitled "Hawaii Divided Against Itself Cannot Stand." It was republished in three installments in the Congressional Record, and can be downloaded in pdf format here:
http://tinyurl.com/m5qxlmw
The section printed in the Congressional Record on June 14, 2005 is entirely
devoted to a point by point refutation of the apology resolution; that portion is featured at
http://tinyurl.com/ajz9s
Schatz19: Of the three major groups of Native Americans in the United States -- American Indians, Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiians -- only Native Hawaiians currently lack the benefits of democratic self-government.
Rebuttal19: The federal government does not give recognition to Native Alaskans lumped together as a single political entity, nor to Native Americans lumped together as a single political entity. Thus, Native Americans (lumped together) also lack the benefits of democratic self-government.
Schatz20: Although the Congress has passed more than 150 statutes to try to address some of the negative effects of earlier federal actions and policies, data reveal persistent health, education and income disparities. Native Hawaiians experience disproportionately high rates of unemployment and incarceration; and, Native Hawaiian children are over represented in the juvenile justice system. Hawaiian families rank last in the nation in average annual pay and face the highest rates of homelessness.
Rebuttal20: The Hawaiian grievance industry is expert at twisting statistics to get public sympathy and monetary grants from government and philanthropic institutions. There are two main processes whereby genuine data are skewed to portray ethnic Hawaiians as victims. (a) Anyone with a single drop of Hawaiian native blood is counted as Native Hawaiian; and at the same time they are NOT counted as any of their other ethnic or racial heritages. Thus it looks like Native Hawaiians are disproportionately represented in nearly all bad economic, social, and medical problems. (b) According to Census 2010, ethnic Hawaiians have a median age of only 26, while everyone else in Hawaii has a median age of 41. Of course young people have lower incomes, and greater rates of crime (especially accompanied by violence) than middle-aged people. That's why ethnic Hawaiians SEEM TO BE overrepresented in the criminal justice system and low income groups -- not because they are bad people and not because they are discriminated against, but simply because they are youthful as a group and experiencing the problems of youth regardless of race. For demographic analysis, see "Census 2010 Native Hawaiian data -- some political implications for the Akaka bill, Act 195 state recognized tribe, and the Hawaiian grievance industry racial victimhood allegations" at
http://tinyurl.com/d5a7po5
In any case, it's unclear why a sovereign Akaka tribe would improve the allegedly bad statistics. Indians on the mainland fare worse when they live on sovereign tribal reservations than when they live in racially integrated towns under state and county jurisdiction.
Schatz21: Separate is not equal, and that is why I urge the federal government to treat Native Hawaiians fairly.
Rebuttal21: AGREED. That's why we should not create a phony Indian tribe for ethnic Hawaiians! We should not divide the lands and people of Hawaii along racial lines because, as Senator Schatz so eloquently stated: "Separate is not equal."
Schatz22: Two years ago the State of Hawaii passed a historic measure to explicitly acknowledge that Native Hawaiians are the only indigenous, aboriginal, maoli population of Hawaii and to establish a Native Hawaiian Enrollment Commission. My good friend and the former Governor of Hawaii, John Waihee, was appointed Chairman and is leading the effort to register Native Hawaiians.
Rebuttal22: That's a terrible thing. "Separate is not equal." As Senator Schatz might be aware, in the 1930s and early 1940s German citizens of Jewish ancestry were required to wear a yellow star with the word "Jude" printed in bold lettering, and to carry identity papers identifying themselves as Jewish. Now we have the government of Hawaii creating a racial registry.
In April Keli'i Akina, Ph.D., newly inaugurated President of the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, published an article entitled "Hawaiians Give Vote of No Confidence to Sovereign Hawaiian Nation." He noted that after nearly a year, the Native Roll Commission has signed up only 9300 ethnic Hawaiians for the racial registry Kana'iolowalu, out of the 527,000 ethnic Hawaiians identified in Census 2010.
http://tinyurl.com/mkhrb2t
Schatz23: This landmark effort is widely supported by the State of Hawaii, our Congressional delegation and our citizens.
Rebuttal23: Racial separatism in general, and the Akaka bill in particular, are NOT supported by a majority of Hawaii's people. See this webpage created in 2006: "Akaka Bill -- Roundup of Evidence Showing Most Hawaii People and Most Ethnic Hawaiians Oppose It"
http://tinyurl.com/omewe
See especially a telephone survey in 2005, conducted by a professional survey company located outside Hawaii, which called every household in Hawaii that had a landline telephone with a published phone number and found that 67% or respondents opposed the Akaka bill:
http://tinyurl.com/cwxgg
and another, more refined survey in 2006, which also called every published landline phone number in Hawaii, got nearly the same result:
http://tinyurl.com/k5hxc
Since 2006 there has been additional strong evidence that Hawaii's people oppose this concept.
Zogby poll in December 2009:
http://tinyurl.com/y9x9q7u
But even if Hawaii's people wanted the Akaka bill to pass, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights has repeatedly called it racist in official statements published on letterhead in 2006
http://tinyurl.com/ocap3
and again in 2009
http://tinyurl.com/kqt39k
and again in 2010
http://tinyurl.com/ycfxmjz
-----------
4. Senator Schatz' press release summarizing his speech and providing quotes from four other Senators who "voiced support"
http://www.schatz.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=344027
U.S. Senate website of Senator Brian Schatz (D, HI)
Press Release of Senator Schatz
Schatz: "It is Long Past Time for the Native Hawaiian People to Regain Their Right to Self-Governance"
Tuesday, June 11, 2013
WASHINGTON -- Senator Brian Schatz delivered a major address on the floor of the United States Senate on the need for the federal government to treat Native Hawaiians fairly, and apply to them the same federal policy of self-determination available to other Native groups in the United States.
“The reason that I have chosen to carry forward this fight on behalf of Native Hawaiians is simple: it’s right to seek justice,” said Senator Brian Schatz. “It is long past time for Native Hawaiian people to regain their right to self-governance, and that’s why we must all work together and join in the fight for justice for Native Hawaiians.”
Following his remarks, several of his Senate colleagues voiced their support for his efforts on behalf of Native Hawaiians.
“Senator Schatz is already providing immediate leadership on Native Hawaiian issues in his role on the Indian Affairs Committee. His knowledge and enthusiasm will be a key asset in getting laws passed to benefit Native Hawaiians. As Chairwoman of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, I look forward to working with Senator Schatz and the Hawaii delegation to support opportunity and economic growth for Native Hawaiians and across Indian Country," said Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA), Chair of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs.
“The relationship between the Alaska and Hawaii delegations represent a special bond between two states whose histories are intertwined,” said Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), the senior member of the Alaska-Hawaii Senate coalition. “The Alaska delegation has always stood shoulder to shoulder with the Hawaii delegation on establishing a government-to-government relationship with Native Hawaiians and the United States. We will continue to support our Hawaii colleagues until justice for Native Hawaiians has been achieved.”
“It’s a well-known fact in the Senate that the Alaska and Hawaii delegations have a special bond as the country’s two youngest states. We have a long tradition of working together specifically to advance the unique needs of our Native populations. I’m grateful to Sen. Schatz for highlighting some of these issues during his first Senate floor speech today and I look forward to working with him on Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian issues in the future,” said Senator Mark Begich (D-AK).
“As we address the disparities faced by indigenous populations across the country, I'm glad Sen. Schatz is making the strong case that we must remember to include Native Hawaiians,” said Senator Al Franken (D-MN). “As a member of the Indian Affairs Committee, I have worked with Senator Schatz on a number of issues to ensure that all Native peoples are treated equally and benefit from the federal policy of self-determination.”
-----------
5. Senator Schatz' press release containing the full text of his speech
http://www.schatz.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=344024
U.S. Senate website of Senator Brian Schatz (D, HI)
Press Release of Senator Schatz
Schatz Delivers Major Floor Speech On Achieving Fairness for Native Hawaiians
Tuesday, June 11, 2013
Below please find Senator Schatz's full floor speech on achieving fairness for Native Hawaiians:
June 11th marks a public holiday in the State of Hawaii – King Kamehameha Day – celebrated since 1872. We hold a statewide festival and mark the day with lei draping ceremonies, parades, hula competitions and other festivities. It is a day to honor Kamehameha the Great, who unified the Kingdom of Hawaii, and to celebrate the rich culture and traditions of the Hawaiian people.
I chose this day to come to the Senate Floor to talk about an issue of great importance to me and to my state: Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization. It was a top priority of my immediate predecessors in this body – Senators Inouye and Akaka. For more than three decades they worked together in the Congress to advance priorities important to Hawaii and the nation.
They made history at almost every step of their careers – securing dozens of “firsts” in the House and Senate. But for the indigenous people of the United States – Senators Inouye and Akaka will be forever remembered for their work as members and then chairs of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, and for their advocacy on behalf of American Indians, Alaska Natives and Native Hawaiians.
I want to acknowledge their legacy and to thank Senator Akaka for the role that he continues to play in the great State of Hawaii and in the Native Hawaiian community in particular. And, here is the reason that I have chosen to carry forward this fight on behalf of Native Hawaiians. Simply stated: because it is right to seek justice.
Native Hawaiians are the only federally recognized Native people without a government-to-government relationship with the United States and they deserve access to the prevailing federal policy of self-determination. Opponents have argued that Native Hawaiians are not “Indians” as if the word applies to Native people of a certain racial or ethnic heritage or is limited to indigenous people from one part of the United States, but not another. This is misguided.
In the U.S. Constitution, it is clear our Founding Fathers understood it was the tribal nations’ sovereign authority that distinguished them from others. It was the fact that tribes were Native groups with distinct governments that predated our own, that justified special treatment in the Constitution and under our federal laws.
In what is now the United States, European contact with Native groups, began in the 15th and 16th centuries on the East Coast, and the 16th and 17th centuries on the West Coast; while in Alaska and Hawaii, European contact was delayed until the 18th century. Throughout the centuries a myriad of factors influenced how various Native groups were treated.
The historical timeframe when policies and programs were applied to various Native groups may have been different. But what was consistent throughout, were the federal policies and actions intended to strip Native Americans of their languages, weaken traditional leadership and family structures, divide land bases, prohibit religious and cultural practices, and break communal bonds. And, these policies were as harmful and unjust to Native Hawaiians as they were to Alaska Natives and American Indians.
There was a thriving society that greeted Captain James Cook when he landed on the shores of Hawaii in 1778. Prior to their first contact with Europeans, Native Hawaiians had a population of at least 300,000. They were a highly organized, self-sufficient society and they had their own rules, laws, language and culture.
In his journals, Captain Cook referred to the indigenous people of Hawaii as “Indians” because it was the established English term in the 18th century to describe Native groups -- regardless of their race, ethnicity or their governmental structure. But, just like many Native Americans and Alaska Natives on the continent, the name Native Hawaiians chose in their own language was -- Kanaka Maoli -- The People.
From 1826 until 1893, the United States recognized the independence of the Hawaiian Government as a distinct political entity. We extended full and complete diplomatic recognition, and entered into five treaties and conventions with the Hawaiian monarchs to govern commerce and navigation. These treaties are clear evidence that Native Hawaiians were considered a separate and distinct nation more than a century after contact.
But, on January 17, 1893, the legitimate government of the Native Hawaiian people was removed forcibly, by agents and armed forces of the United States. The illegality of this action has been acknowledged in contemporary as well as modern times by both the Executive and Legislative branches of our federal government.
An investigation called for by President Cleveland produced a report by former Congressman James Blount. The report’s findings were unambiguous: U.S. diplomatic and military representatives had abused their authority and were responsible for the change in the government. As a result of these findings, the United States Minister to Hawaii was recalled from his diplomatic post and the military commander of the United States armed forces stationed in Hawaii was disciplined and forced to resign his commission.
In a message to Congress in December of 1893, President Cleveland described the events that brought down the Hawaiian Government as an “act of war, committed with the participation of a diplomatic representative of the United States and without authority of Congress.” And, he acknowledged that “by such acts, the government of a peaceful and friendly people was overthrown.” President Cleveland concluded that “a substantial wrong has thus been done which a due regard for our national character -- as well as the rights of the injured people -- requires we should endeavor to repair" and he called for the restoration of the Hawaiian monarchy.
The Provisional Government refused to relinquish power and in July of 1894, declared itself to be the Republic of Hawaii. The Provisional Government advocated annexation of Hawaii to the United States and began to lobby the Congress to pass a treaty of annexation.
Hawaii’s monarch at the time, Queen Liliuokalani, presented a petition to the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a formal statement of protest to the Secretary of State. The petition, signed by more than 21,000 Hawaiian men and women, represented more than half of the Hawaiian census population and was compiled in less than three weeks. It also included the signatures of approximately 20,000 non-Hawaiians who supported the return of the islands to self-governed rule. The “Petition Against Annexation” was a powerful tool in the defeat of the annexation treaty in 1897.
In the next year, however, proponents of annexation introduced the Newlands Joint Resolution, a measure requiring only a simple majority of votes to gain passage. The annexation of Hawaii passed with the much reduced threshold of votes, and was signed into law by President McKinley in July of 1898.
For almost two centuries after the founding of our nation, federal policies of removal, relocation, assimilation and termination, decimated Native communities and worsened the socio-economic conditions for American Indians, Alaska Natives and Native Hawaiians. The policy of banning Native language use in the schools was adopted by the territory of Hawaii. Native children were punished for speaking Hawaiian, just as American Indians and Alaska Natives were punished for using their own languages in school. The policy of allotting parcels of land to individual Indians began in 1887, as a way to break up the reservations and communal lifestyles. In 1906, it was expanded to include Alaska Natives. In 1921, it was applied to Native Hawaiians.
In an attempt to reverse the damage done by these policies, since the 1920’s, the Congress has established special Native Hawaiian programs in education, employment, health care and housing. And, the Congress has extended to Native Hawaiians many of the same rights and privileges accorded to American Indians and Alaska Natives. The Congress has consistently recognized Native Hawaiians as native peoples of the United States on whose behalf it may exercise its powers under the Constitution.
In 1993, the Congress passed, and President Clinton signed, legislation known as the Apology Resolution -- a formal acknowledgement and apology by the Congress. This legislation recognizes that the overthrow of the Hawaiian government resulted in “the suppression of the inherent sovereignty of the Native Hawaiian people” and “the deprivation of the rights of Native Hawaiians to self-determination.”
It has been 20 years since the passage of the Apology Resolution, but the federal government has not yet acted to provide a process for reorganizing a Native Hawaiian governing entity. This inaction puts Native Hawaiians at a unique disadvantage. Of the three major groups of Native Americans in the United States -- American Indians, Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiians -- only Native Hawaiians currently lack the benefits of democratic self-government.
An extensive Congressional legislative and oversight record created over the last two decades, and dozens of Congressional findings delineated in federal statutes establish these facts: Indigenous Hawaiians, like tribes on the continental United States, formed a Native community with their own government; this political entity existed before the founding of the United States; and, Native Hawaiians share historical and current bonds within their community. Like tribes in the continental United States, Native Hawaiians, have certain lands set aside for their benefit pursuant to Acts of Congress, including: 200,000 acres of Hawaiian Homes Commission Act land and share an interest in the income generated by 1.2 million acres of public trust lands under the Hawaii Admission Act.
Although the Congress has passed more than 150 statutes to try to address some of the negative effects of earlier federal actions and policies, data reveal persistent health, education and income disparities. Native Hawaiians experience disproportionately high rates of unemployment and incarceration; and, Native Hawaiian children are over represented in the juvenile justice system. Hawaiian families rank last in the nation in average annual pay and face the highest rates of homelessness.
Separate is not equal, and that is why I urge the federal government to treat Native Hawaiians fairly. It is long past time for the Native Hawaiian people to regain their right to self-governance.
Two years ago the State of Hawaii passed a historic measure to explicitly acknowledge that Native Hawaiians are the only indigenous, aboriginal, maoli population of Hawaii and to establish a Native Hawaiian Enrollment Commission. My good friend and the former Governor of Hawaii, John Waihee, was appointed Chairman and is leading the effort to register Native Hawaiians. This landmark effort is widely supported by the State of Hawaii, our Congressional delegation and our citizens.
I want to acknowledge the Commission, commend its vital work, and urge Native Hawaiians to take advantage of this opportunity to help reorganize a representational government. The actions and commitments of the State of Hawaii and the Roll Commission are crucial. But, in order to reach our goal -- we must all work together.
That is why today -- on King Kamehameha Day -- I call upon all of us to join in the fight for justice for Native Hawaiians.
Thank you.
--------------
6. All 333 pages of the Congressional Record for January 11, 2013, including Senator Reid's introduction of Senator Schatz and the events before and after Schatz' speech, are at
http://tinyurl.com/pa5n7n3
The speech itself, and the events immediately before and after it, are on pages S4071 to S4073.
===========================
Send comments or questions to:
Ken_Conklin@yahoo.com
You may now
GO BACK TO OTHER TOPICS ON THIS WEBSITE
