Grading Dan Akaka's Term Paper: Red-Pencil Comments and Corrections



(c) Copyright 2000 Kenneth R. Conklin, Ph.D. All rights reserved


As a former professor I was accustomed to marking the term papers my students submitted. I would use a red pencil to write comments in the margins or between the lines. And at the end, I would assign a grade ranging from A (excellent) to F (hopeless failure).

Dan Akaka's term paper was submitted late, on July 20, 2000. Dan seems worried that he might fail, and with good reason. He circulated several drafts among his friends, but seemed reluctant to accept criticism from those who do not understand or who may disagree with his findings. He was given the freedom to get help from as many people as possible; but he talked only with his best buddies, most of whom seem woefully ignorant of the subject matter. Those earlier drafts came to my attention only after they were published in the newspaper.

On July 20 the final version of the Akaka bill was introduced into Congress in both the Senate and the House. In the Senate, it was given bill number S2899 and introduced by Senator Dan Akaka. In the House, it was given bill number HR 4904 and introduced by Representative Neil Abercrombie. Anyone writing to Congress to oppose these bills should mention the appropriate bill number. For information on which committees are currently considering the bill, and how to contact appropriate members of Congress, please contact me at my e-mail address posted at the end of every section of this website.

Listed below are ways to obtain the full text of the Akaka bill as it was submitted to Congress, and some newspaper commentaries on it. Following that is a copy of the speech given by Senator Akaka at the time he introduced the bill into the Senate. Finally, the complete text of the bill is provided, along with my red-pencil comments and corrections at appropriate places on Danny’s term paper.

The bill itself can be downloaded in PDF format by clicking on

http://209.84.157.248/hawnbill.pdf

Without using the pdf format, the bill can also be viewed (and copied) by typing the bill number (either one) into the small "search" window at the Library of Congress "Thomas" website at

http://thomas.loc.gov

Newspaper articles describing the bill and giving comments from Hawai'i residents were published in both the Honolulu Advertiser and the Honolulu Star-Bulletin on July 21, 2000. Here are those newspaper articles.

http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/2000/Jul/21/localnews1.html

http://starbulletin.com/2000/07/21/news/story2.html


Now that Dan has finally turned in his official paper, I am giving it an A for style, because it is quite well written, and the spelling seems correct. But he gets an F for content because there are many false statements and misleading half-truths; and the whole concept is morally repugnant. If the paper were submitted in an introductory course he would therefore receive a "gentleman's C" -- the grade generous professors sometimes gave to friendly students who made a sincere effort but just couldn't measure up to expectations. However, since this course is at the advanced graduate level, style is automatically assumed to be excellent, and the only grade is for content. Perhaps Dan should try a different career like going to work only for his buddies. But isn't that what he is already doing?


FIRST, HERE IS THE SHORT SPEECH GIVEN BY SENATOR AKAKA WHEN HE INTRODUCED HIS BILL. HE GETS HIGH STYLE MARKS FOR MAKING THE OTHER SENATORS FEEL SORRY FOR NATIVE HAWAIIANS, AND LEADING THEM TO BELIEVE THAT THIS BILL IS MERELY A WAY TO CORRECT SOME OVERSIGHTS AND TO SET THINGS RIGHT.

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I stand before you today to introduce a bill on behalf of myself and my dear friend and colleague, Senator Inouye, that is of great significance to the indigenous peoples of Hawaii--the Native Hawaiians. This measure clarifies the political relationship between Native Hawaiians and the United States. For years, Congress has legislated on behalf of Native Hawaiians as the aboriginal, indigenous, native peoples of Hawaii. This measure clarifies that political relationship and provides a process for Native Hawaiians to form a Native Hawaiian governing body to engage in a government-to-government relationship with the United States.

The United States has declared a special responsibility for the welfare of the Native peoples of the United States, including Native Hawaiians. This relationship has been acknowledged by the United States since the inception of Hawaii's status as a territory. This relationship was most explicitly affirmed by the enactment of the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act of 1920, which set aside 200,000 acres of land in Hawaii for homesteading by Native Hawaiians. Legislative history clearly shows that in addressing this situation, Congress based this action and subsequent legislation on the constitutional precedent in programs enacted for the benefit of American Indians.

Since Hawaii's admission into the Union, Congress has continued to legislate on behalf of Native Hawaiians as indigenous peoples. Native Hawaiians have been included as Native Americans in a number of federal statutes which have addressed the conditions of Native Hawaiians. This political relationship has been discussed within the Native Hawaiian community for many, many years. A large portion of the discussion has centered around the history of Hawaii's indigenous peoples and the United States' role in that history.

In 1993, Congress passed P.L. 103-150, the Apology Resolution, which extended an apology on behalf of the United States to the Native people of Hawaii for the United States' role in the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii. The Apology Resolution also expressed the commitment of Congress and the President to acknowledge the ramifications of the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii and to support reconciliation efforts between the United States and Native Hawaiians. The process of reconciliation is ongoing.

Mr. President, this legislation is important not only to Native Hawaiians, but also to all people in Hawaii. This measure provides the process to begin resolving many longstanding issues facing Hawaii's indigenous peoples and the State of Hawaii. In addressing these issues, we have begun a process of healing, a process of reconciliation not only with the United States but within the State of Hawaii. The essence of Hawaii is characterized not by the beauty of its islands, but by the beauty of its people. The State of Hawaii has recognized, acknowledged and acted upon the need to preserve the culture, tradition, language and heritage of Hawaii's indigenous peoples. This measure furthers these actions.

Mr. President, the clarification of the political relationship between Native Hawaiians and the United States is one that has been long in coming and is well-deserved. The history and the timing of Hawaii's admission to the United States, unfortunately, did not provide the appropriate structure for a government-to-government relationship between Hawaii's indigenous native peoples and the United States. The time has come to correct this injustice.


NEXT, HERE IS SENATOR AKAKA’S BILL. THIS BILL WAS INTRODUCED ON JULY 20, 2000 IN BOTH THE SENATE (BY SENATOR AKAKA) AND THE HOUSE (BY REPRESENTATIVE NEIL ABERCROMBIE). IN THE SENATE, IT IS BILL # S2899. IN THE HOUSE, IT IS BILL # HR4904. RED-PENCIL COMMENTS AND CRITICISMS BY PROFESSOR CONKLIN ARE INSERTED WHERE APPROPRIATE.


A BILL

To express the policy of the United States regarding the United States relationship with Native Hawaiians, and for other purposes.

SECTION 1. FINDINGS.


This is false. The Constitution never uses the word “indigenous.” The Constitution does not recognize native people or Indians as individuals or generically -- the Constitution only recognizes tribes of Indians because they are already existing as separate and distinct political entities.


Native Hawaiians are less indigenous to Hawai’i than the people of England are indigenous to England. Every racial group in Hawai’i immigrated to Hawai’i from elsewhere, no longer than about 1700 years ago.


There is no trust relationship between the United States and the race of Native Hawaiians. There is a trust relationship between the U.S. and all the people of Hawai’i as set forth in the Annexation and Statehood acts regarding the “ceded” lands.


The treaties of the United States were not with the race of Native Hawaiians. The treaties were with the Kingdom of Hawai’i. By the time of the overthrow of the monarchy in 1893, only a 40% minority of the population had any native blood. Thousands of Japanese, Chinese, and Euro-American immigrants had full and equal voting rights and property rights in the Kingdom; and their children, born in Hawai’i, were native-born subjects of the Kingdom equal to the Native Hawaiians. Most high government officials of the Kingdom had no native blood.


The Hawaiian Homes Commission Act was probably unconstitutional, and may yet be ruled unconstitutional as a result of the Rice v. Cayetano decision in which the Supreme Court identifies “Native Hawaiian” as a racial classification.


The U.S. has been very generous with this illegal program.


Those on the waiting list have not received free land only because there are no roads or utilities on those lands. Native Hawaiians never had paved highways or electricity or piped water before modern times. Those who want free land could have had it all along, except that the officials of DHHL refused to offer it, and the clients refused to accept it, without free roads and utilities.


Many other ethnic groups in Hawai’i maintain their cultural practices generation after generation without any governmental assistance or ethnically-defined housing areas.


The Apology Resolution was passed without public herarings or the opportunity for opponents to speak; and it was a simple resolution of sentiment to commemorate the 100th anniversary of an historic event.


The monarchy was overthrown primarily by local residents and citizens of the Kingdom of Hawai’i. The U.S. is not responsible for what its citizens do when living abroad. There were Native Hawaiians and non-natives on both sides of the revolution. The losers in a revolution seldom take a vote on whether to surrender, and seldom sign over control to the winners. Furthermore, the non-natives who comprised most of the high government officials were victims of the revolution every bit as much as those natives who supported the monarchy.


The Office of Hawaiian Affairs was created in a spirit of generosity by the State of Hawai’i by a Constitutional Convention ratified by a vote open to the entire population, 80% of whom were non-native. OHA is not a tribal government, and has never exercised any significant authority over Native Hawaiians. Virtually all the educational, health, and welfare benefits received by Native Hawaiians come through ordinary agencies of the state government which all citizens participate in.


Government programs have been very generous to Native Hawaiians. Those programs which are racially restricted to Native Hawaiians are unconstitutional.


Relatively few Native Hawaiians engage in these practices; and those who do have generally chosen such activities as hobbies or for personal enjoyment rather than as routine daily subsistence activities essential to their survival. Many people of all ethnicities enjoy “back to nature” hobbies or “back to my roots” ethnic activities.


Every ethnic group does these things.


Saying these things over and over and over does not make them true.


Congress has been very generous, although racial entitlement programs are unconstitutional.


The U.S. Supreme Court in Rice v. Cayetano specifically stated that it is doubtful whether Congress has the authority to delegate a federal trust responsibility to a state.


The trust responsibility was to all the people of Hawai’i. There were five purposes given as examples of what the ceded land revenues might be used for and “betterment of the conditions of Native Hawaiians” was only one of them. The government is specifically instructed to spend ceded land revenues for any one or more of those five purposes. For the first 20 years of statehood, virtually all the ceded land revenue was spent for public education, which did benefit Native Hawaiians since about 25% of the public school children are Native Hawaiian.


All states are admitted to the Union on an equal footing, and such conditions of admission are unenforceable since the only remedy for a breach is to throw the offending state out of the union or take over the operation of the state government.


Many non-native citizens of Hawai’i of Asian and Euro-American ancestry have a multi-generation cultural, historical, and land-based link to the land of Hawai’i and to their own ancestors who were full and equal citizens of the Kingdom of Hawai’i and exercised sovereignty as part of a democratic government.


Neither have the 60% of the residents of the Kingdom who had no native blood, nor their currently-living descendants.


Danny, we have gone over and over these same points many times already. Repeating false assertions will not make them come true.

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.


Danny, you may define your terms however you wish.

SEC. 3. UNITED STATES POLICY.


All of section 3 looks very familiar. Danny, we have gone over and over these same points many times already. Repeating false assertions will not make them come true. But if you click your heels three times you might end up in Kansas.

DANNY, EVERYTHING FROM THIS POINT ON IS OF NO PARTICULAR INTEREST, BECAUSE YOU ARE SIMPLY SPINNING OUT THE DETAILS OF YOUR FAIRY-TALE NATION. YOU ARE FREE TO CONSTRUCT YOUR MAKE-BELIEVE TRIBE HOWEVER YOU WISH. IF PEOPLE DECIDE TO SIGN UP FOR IT, THEY WILL THEN BE BOUND BY THE RULES YOU SET FORTH.

ONE THING IS VERY CLEAR FROM THE REMAINING TWO-THIRDS OF THIS ESSAY. YOU ARE CREATING A POLITICAL ENTITY THAT DOES NOT YET EXIST. YOU WANT THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT TO FIRST RECOGNIZE AN INDIAN TRIBE THAT HAS NEVER EXISTED AND DOES NOT NOW EXIST, AND THEN YOU PROVIDE A PROCEDURE FOR GETTING PEOPLE TO ENROLL IN THAT TRIBE AFTERWARD. THIS IS REALLY BASS-ACKWARDS DANNY.

I HAVE NO FURTHER COMMENTS. ENJOY YOUR DREAMS WHILE THEY LAST, BECAUSE YOU ARE DUE FOR A RUDE AWAKENING. ALOHA, AND BEST WISHES FOR A SUCCESSFUL NEW CAREER.

SEC. 4. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE OFFICE OF SPECIAL TRUSTEE FOR NATIVE HAWAIIAN AFFAIRS.

SEC. 5. DESIGNATION OF DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE REPRESENTATIVE.

SEC. 6. NATIVE HAWAIIAN INTERAGENCY TASK FORCE.

SEC. 7. PROCESS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A ROLL FOR THE ORGANIZATION OF A NATIVE HAWAIIAN INTERIM GOVERNING COUNCIL, FOR THE ORGANIZATION OF A NATIVE HAWAIIAN INTERIM GOVERNING COUNCIL AND A NATIVE HAWAIIAN GOVERNING BODY, AND FOR THE RECOGNITION OF THE NATIVE HAWAIIAN GOVERNING BODY.

who are the lineal descendants of the aboriginal, indigenous, native people who resided in the islands that now comprise the State of Hawaii on January 1, 1893, and who occupied and exercised sovereignty in the Hawaiian archipelago, including the area that now constitutes the State of Hawaii, as evidenced by (but not limited to)--

SEC. 8. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

SEC. 9. REAFFIRMATION OF DELEGATION OF FEDERAL AUTHORITY; NEGOTIATIONS.

SEC. 10. DISCLAIMER.

SEC. 11. REGULATIONS.

SEC. 12. SEVERABILITY.

END OF AKAKA BILL


================================

You may now

SEE MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THE AKAKA BILL

or

GO BACK TO OTHER TOPICS ON THIS WEBSITE


(c) Copyright 2000 Kenneth R. Conklin, Ph.D. All rights reserved


Email: ken_conklin@yahoo.com