The Honolulu Advertiser was kind to print a commentary by Jere Krischel. The commentary pointed out that U.S. Census data show that ethnic Hawaiians in other states, notably California, have higher income than the average for the population there. Furthermore, ethnic Hawaiians in California are doing far better than ethnic Hawaiians in Hawaii despite the fact that those in California do not receive the benefits provided in Hawaii by OHA, DHHL, etc. This raises the possibility that Hawaii's large number of racial entitlements are doing more harm than good.
The Advertiser has limited space. Therefore Jere Krischel published a longer version of his article in Hawaii Reporter, with more details.
Haunani Apoliona, Chair of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, wrote a reply co-authored by OHA's chief Administrator Clyde Namu'o. The reply was based on the original Advertiser article. Therefore both versions of the Krischel article are provided. The OHA reply defends the Hawaiian entitlements on the grounds that they are required by state law and that they are part of the birthright of Hawaii's "indigenous people."
Later, Mr. Krischel wrote a rebuttal in Hawaii Reporter, taking issue with the description of ethnic Hawaiians as "indigenous" and the concept that one racial group should have a birthright superior to others who were also born and raised in Hawaii (even for many generations).
Along the way there were short letters to editor from other writers.
All items are provided, in chronological order.
At the end there are links to other dialogs, and to some webpages dealing with ethnic Hawaiian victimhood claims (including income and health statistics), the Akaka bill, and other Hawaiian sovereignty issues.
-----------------
http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070109/OPINION03/701090312/1110/OPINION
Honolulu Advertiser, Tuesday, January 9, 2007
COMMENTARY
Hawaiians do better without entitlements
By Jere Krischel
The 2005 American Community Survey for California, recently released by the U.S. Census Bureau, confirms Native Hawaiians' ability to prosper without special government programs. In fact, it proves that Native Hawaiians do better when treated equally.
The estimated 65,000 Native Hawaiian residents of California, with no Office of Hawaiian Affairs or Hawaiian Homes, or other such race-based entitlements, enjoyed higher median household ($55,610) and family ($62,019) incomes, relative to the total California population ($53,629 and $61,476 respectively), despite having smaller median household and family sizes.
In OHA's latest grant report, it shows that 10 percent of its operating budget went to support their "Community Grants Program". Their breakdown also shows that 100 percent of both its Education and "Native Rights, Land and Culture" grants were distributed in the State of Hawai'i. An analysis of the listed grants showed that there were no programs outside of Hawai'i. Thus, no Native Hawaiians in California, or anywhere outside of Hawai'i, benefit from OHA.
California is particularly appropriate for comparing earning power because California has the greatest Native Hawaiian population outside of Hawai'i; and it happens that the median age of Native Hawaiians residing in California, 33.7, is almost identical to that of the whole state's, 33.4 years.
Some may argue that the Native Hawaiian statistics in other states represent an out-migration of well-to-do Native Hawaiians. But if this is the case, the lower statistics of those Native Hawaiians who have stayed in Hawai'i are simply an artifact of the well-off moving away, and not due to any systemic bias against Native Hawaiians.
It is much more likely that those Native Hawaiians who have chosen to leave the state did so for economic reasons, and their significant success outside of the state reflects poorly on the race-based programs only implemented in the Islands.
The fact that Native Hawaiians succeed without government programs targeted toward their community was suggested in the Census 2000. This data showed that the then-60,000 Native Hawaiian residents of California enjoyed comparable relative median household and family incomes, despite their five-year younger median age.
Despite these numbers, some local media in Hawai'i — not including The Advertiser — have cited the recent ACS as showing that "Poverty still grips Hawaiians" and "Census survey shows need for assistance to Hawaiians."
But the survey shows this isn't true.
Age makes a huge difference in earning power. Data show the older you are, the more money you make. The statistics showing a lower median income for Native Hawaiians in Hawai'i are actually a result of the 14-year difference between the average age of Native Hawaiians and that of the overall population of the state.
With the facts showing improved Native Hawaiian prosperity when treated equally, and a clearer understanding of the effect median age can have on income statistics, it was surprising to see the Nov. 27 headline in The Honolulu Advertiser: "OHA push for Akaka bill topped $2M".
That's well over $2 million of taxpayer money spent to lobby for a bill that would potentially divide the State of Hawai'i and give away much, perhaps all, of the state and its governing power and jurisdiction to a brand new sovereign nation of, by and for Native Hawaiians.
The Akaka bill got started when race-based programs were challenged in Hawai'i — programs that have existed for decades, and have apparently done a great disservice to Native Hawaiians when compared with their counterparts in other states without such race-based entitlements.
In addition to the millions of dollars spent on lobbying for the Akaka bill, the bloated (and very powerful) bureaucracies of OHA and Department of Hawaiian Home Lands have cost the State of Hawai'i millions since 1990. Federal entitlements for Native Hawaiians have added millions more.
There is no doubt that there are people in need in Hawai'i — but these people are of all races and backgrounds. We neglect too many of those in need when we target our help toward one certain ethnicity, and do more damage than good to the ethnicity we target. A closer look at the statistics shows us clearly that no Hawai'i residents, of any race or ethnicity, have a need for the Akaka bill.
Jere Krischel was born and raised in Hawai'i and now resides in California with his wife and two young children. He wrote this commentary for The Advertiser.
---------------
http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?ad40512a-7922-4c8f-a54e-09018803ffb1
Hawaii Reporter (online), January 11, 2007
Census: Native Hawaiians Do Better When Treated Equally
By Jere Krischel
The 2005 American Community Survey for California, recently released by the U.S. Census Bureau, confirms Native Hawaiians’ ability to prosper without special government programs. The estimated 65,000 Native Hawaiian residents of California, with no Office of Hawaiian Affairs or Hawaiian Homes or other such race-based entitlements, enjoyed higher median household ($55,610) and family ($62,019) incomes, relative to the total California population ($53,629 and $61,476 respectively) despite having smaller median household and family sizes.
California is particularly appropriate for comparing earning power, because California has the greatest Native Hawaiian population outside of Hawaii; and it happens that the median age of Native Hawaiians residing in California (33.7 years) is almost identical to that of the general population of California (33.4 years).
The fact that Native Hawaiians are quite capable of making it on their own was suggested by Census 2000 which showed the then-60,000 Native Hawaiian residents of California enjoyed comparable relative median household and family incomes despite their 5 year younger median age.
California a fluke?
Some may argue that the Native Hawaiian statistics in other states represent an out-migration of well-to-do Native Hawaiians. The idea of large swaths of rich Native Hawaiians leaving paradise for the mainland seems counter intuitive, but for argument's sake, let's consider it.
If in fact all the rich Native Hawaiians are leaving the state of Hawaii, let's say because of onerous taxes or the lack of fine avocados, the lower statistics of those Native Hawaiians who have stayed in Hawai'i are simply an artifact of the well-off moving away, and not due to any systemic bias against Native Hawaiians. Removing the rich from our calculations hasn't made anyone poorer, but will obviously lower the group average.
It is much more likely that those Native Hawaiians who have chosen to leave the state did so for economic reasons, and their significant success outside of the state reflects poorly on the race-based programs only implemented in the Islands.
Media Misrepresentation
Oblivious to the respectable earnings of Native Hawaiians, some media in Hawaii have cited the 2005 ACS as showing “Poverty still grips Hawaiians” and “Census survey shows need for assistance to Hawaiians.” But the 2005 ACS sample survey for Hawaii shows Native Hawaiians in Hawaii, who average only 24.6 years of age, enjoy median family income of $56,449; and 55% of them occupy homes they own. Hispanics in Hawaii, in comparison, average 24.2 years of age, have a median family income of $54,803 and only 46.2% of them occupy homes they own. If anything, if one were looking for an ethnic group in Hawaii that was needy, the census data might suggest Hispanics. But nobody is anywhere near suggesting race-based programs for Hispanics in Hawaii - that "honor" is reserved for Native Hawaiians alone, and the census data has been carefully selected and misrepresented to fit that political point of view.
Could it Be Age?
The sample chosen in Hawaii for the ACS 2005 survey showed at 14 years difference in the median age for Native Hawaiians living there. Age makes a huge difference in earning power. For example, the Census 2000 data shows Hawaiians 35 to 44 years had over $9 thousand greater household income than Hawaiians ten years younger. This more than erases the difference reported of less than $6-8 thousand between Native Hawaiians and the total population of Hawaii.
The Ulterior Motive Becomes Apparent
Now with this backdrop of improved Native Hawaiian prosperity when treated equally, and a clearer understanding of the effects median age can have on income statistics, imagine how surprised we all are to learn of the shocking information discovered by the Honolulu Advertiser and Jim Dooley, “OHA push for Akaka bill topped $2M”. (Adv. 11/27/06.) Well over $2 million of taxpayer money spent to lobby for a bill to break apart the State of Hawaii and give away much, perhaps all, of the state and its governing power & jurisdiction to a brand new sovereign nation of, by and for Native Hawaiians.
The Akaka Bill got started when once well-intentioned race-based programs were challenged in Hawaii - programs that have existed for decades, and have apparently done a great disservice to the overall health, wealth and well-being of Native Hawaiians when compared to their counterparts in other states without such race-based entitlements. In addition to the millions for lobbying to break up the State with the Akaka Bill, the bloated (and very powerful) bureaucracies of OHA and HHCA have cost the State of Hawaii over $1 billion just since 1990. Federal entitlements for Native Hawaiians have added over $1 billion more.
By continuing to paint Native Hawaiians as a special victim class, through willful misrepresentation of the data, supporters of race-based entitlements preserve their rationale at the expense of truth.
The Future
There is no doubt that there are people in need in Hawaii - but these people are of all races and backgrounds. We neglect too many of those in need when we target our help only to a certain ethnicity, and do more damage than good to the ethnicity we target. Race is an illusion, compelling yet meaningless - and a closer look at the statistics used to promote that illusion shows us clearly that no Hawaiians, of any race or ethnicity, have a need for the Akaka Bill.
Jere Krischel was born and raised in Hawai'i and now resides in California with his wife and two young children. He also is a member of the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii.
------------------
http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070111/OPINION02/701110305/1108
Honolulu Advertiser, Thursday, January 11, 2007
Letters to the Editor
ISLAND VOICES
COLUMN ON HAWAIIANS WAS UNJUST AND BIASED
This is in regard to the commentary by Jere Krischel (Jan. 9).
It amazes me how people who do not live in Hawai'i and do not see what is happening to our Islands have such strong opinions.
Obviously, since you're in California, you do not see what is happening to our island people.
When was the last time you drove around the west side of O'ahu? When was the last time you drove around east side of our island? There's a big difference in what you will see. Our island has become divided, and dominated by the wealthy. How many Hawaiians are living on Kahala Avenue and how many Hawaiians are living on the west side of the island?
Your commentary is unjust and biased. The next time you write about a particular race, you should actually visit the places that are using the grants. Maybe you might have a different opinion.
Alice Lenchanko
'Ewa Beach
-------------------
http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070112/OPINION03/701120313/1110/OPINION
Honolulu Advertiser, Friday, January 12, 2007
COMMENTARY
Betterment for Hawaiians mandated by law
By Haunani Apoliona and Clyde W. Namu'o
Jere Krischel's Island Voices column (Jan. 9) begs response. His claim that assistance toward Native Hawaiians in Hawai'i does more damage than good is ludicrous, and his analysis is simplistic.
Krischel bases his comments on the 2005 American Community Survey for California, which reports that that state's 65,000 Native Hawaiians have a slightly higher median income than the statewide average. That is great news. But to say that this is because those Hawaiians have no Office of Hawaiian Affairs or Department of Hawaiian Lands in California, and that therefore Hawaiians "at home" would also be better off without those entitlements, is wrong.
Should all Hawaiians pack their bags and head for California? Should Hawai'i continue to morph into Anytown U.S.A.? Lose the native people, language and unique culture, and you'll achieve just that.
The term "birthright" is better suited than "entitlements." Native Hawaiians are the indigenous people of Hawai'i, and have the right to thrive in their ancient homeland — although it is extremely difficult for many. Hawai'i's real estate is among the most expensive in the world. Development is out of control, and rent has skyrocketed. Native Hawaiians, by federal and state law, have the right to access resources to improve their conditions. Hawaiians on the Mainland also have access to a myriad of grants and scholarships earmarked for Native Americans, Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders.
Krischel chooses to discount reality. The federal and state investment in addressing basic needs of Native Hawaiians prepares them to take the next step toward self-sufficiency, which enables Native Hawaiians to pursue economic self-sufficiency. In taking that next step, they sometimes have to leave their homeland to pursue opportunities not available in Hawai'i.
The data about Native Hawaiians that Krischel describes show the successful outcome of government programs to date. However, it reinforces the challenge to our communities to resolve the dismal socioeconomic conditions that now exist.
In reality, Krischel has re-emphasized the need to continue government programs for Native Hawaiians to expand the positive impact they are starting to make for communities in which they live.
The fact that 40 percent of the nation's Native Hawaiian population lives outside of Hawai'i is very telling. California's Native Hawaiian population, 65,000, is the nation's second largest, next to Hawai'i. First-hand accounts from such entities as the Association of Hawaiian Civic Clubs, Kamehameha Schools and University of Hawai'i alumni chapters on the Mainland verify that economic opportunity was the reason for out-migration. Many of these Hawaiians feel squeezed out of their kulaiwi (ancestral homeland), and their children and grandchildren will likely never be able to afford to move "home."
California's constitution does not mandate support for Native Hawaiians. The State of Hawai'i Constitution does.
The distinct status of indigenous Native Hawaiians and a mandatory commitment to betterment of conditions of Native Hawaiians is an ongoing condition of statehood. The Office of Hawaiian Affairs was created in 1978 to facilitate the state's obligation to Hawai'i's indigenous people. And the Department of Hawaiian Homelands, now a state agency, has its origins in the U.S. Congress, and is based on federal law.
The Office of Hawaiian Affairs continues its community outreach beyond Hawai'i's shores, because those Hawaiians living away are our family, based on our traditional beliefs.
For many Hawaiians, prospering means more than earning a median income thousands of miles from home. Many would rather 'ai pohaku, or "eat the stones of the land," and continue to live in their native land — no matter how difficult it may be. Resources derived from our kulaiwi that help to better overall conditions of Native Hawaiians are our birthright. The result is beneficial to the entire community.
Sadly, Krischel's overall disdain toward the hoped-for passage of federal recognition for Native Hawaiians, commonly known as the Akaka bill, is magnified by the entities with which he is affiliated, including the Grassroot Institute of Hawai'i, which has consistently expressed opposition to programs and entitlements for Native Hawaiians.
Haunani Apoliona is chairwoman of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. Clyde W. Namu'o is OHA's administrator. They wrote this commentary for The Advertiser.
-------------------
http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070114/OPINION02/701140321/1108
Honolulu Advertiser, Sunday, January 14, 2007
Letters to the Editor
ENTITLEMENTS
HAWAIIANS IN HAWAI'I HAVE BEEN OPPRESSED
This is a response to Jere Krischel's Island Voices column (Jan. 9).
It is not fair to compare Hawaiians living in California with those Hawaiians living in Hawai'i.
Hawaiians in California are more protected than the Hawaiians here. There is no perception of a threat of taking over California. They are genuinely protected by civil rights laws like everyone else, and are respected.
Hawaiians in Hawai'i are often attacked, maligned and discriminated against because of subjective notions that they have more advantages and are out to get or get rid of non-Hawaiians.
Indeed, many Hawaiians in Hawai'i are more vocal and militant — because we have the right and entitlement because of the oppression we've gone through for so long.
It is also very difficult for many non-Hawaiians that Hawaiians are getting more educated and aware of their own rights as the first inhabitants of the state.
Mahalo nui loa!
Keoni Kealoha Devereaux, Jr.
Mo'ili'ili
-----------------
http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?71d57161-f59c-4936-b215-6fa1f4d8fa5a
Hawaii Reporter, January 17, 2007
Native Hawaiian "Birthright" Suspect
By Jere Krischel
In a January 12th response to a January 9th article I wrote in The Honolulu Advertiser, the leaders of OHA claimed, "Native Hawaiians are the indigenous people of Hawai'i, and have the right to thrive in their ancient homeland." I find this sentiment frightening in its consequences, contrary to the ideas of freedom, and based on false premises.
What we today call "Native Hawaiians" did not spring from the mountains of Oahu, or the beaches of Maui. As exemplified by the quintessential example of Native Hawaiian culture, the Hokule'a (now voyaging to Micronesia), Hawaiians were voyagers, explorers, and colonists from other islands in the Pacific and beyond.
Their "ancient homeland" can be arbitrarily placed anywhere between Hawaii and the path they took from Africa, depending on which date one chooses. As with every people who have ever travelled to Hawaii, "Native Hawaiians" came from somewhere else - we are all immigrants here, separated only by the amount of time since our ancestor's original arrival. To assert some special, distinct status, based on a single drop of blood before an arbitrary point in time, over all of ones' peers who have lived together side by side for over 200 years is simply abject racism.
The "right to thrive" envisioned by OHA leaders to apply only to those of their preferred race is also troubling. To adapt a sentiment from the recent film, "Pursuit of Happyness", it is not thriving that is guaranteed by the government, but the freedom to pursue thriving. To assert that there is a right to an outcome, rather than simply the freedom to pursue that outcome with equal opportunity, is to guarantee a right that is never realized.
The most frightening consequence of the words of OHA's leadership, though, is the dehumanization of what they see as "non-indigenous" Hawaiians. They have dedicated themselves to an idea of race-based entitlements, and seem to fail to realize that by placing a single race in a position of having the "right to thrive" in Hawaii, one can only conclude they do not feel this is a right shared by those not of the proper race. Perhaps they expect the people of improper ancestry to find their own "ancient homelands", and would have them thrive there.
I suspect, though, they simply haven't been able to see the dangerous consequences of their basic premises, and the importance of judging people not "by the color of their skin but by the content of their character".
I was born and raised in Hawaii. My parents were born and raised in Hawaii. My grandparents were born and raised in Hawaii. How many more generations must pass in my family before OHA will grant the members of my family without direct bloodline to before 1778 "birthright"? How many more centuries before OHA is willing to treat all Hawaiians of all ancestries equally? Just as other Hawaiians living on the mainland due to economic circumstances, I feel squeezed out of my kulaiwi (ancestral homeland). But unlike those with the proper blood who evoke sympathy from OHA leadership, my birthright is denied.
Jere Krischel is a Senior Fellow with the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, born and raised in Hawaii and currently living in California with his wife and two young children.
=================
RELATED WEBPAGES
"Forced assimilation may hurt Hawaiians" -- A typical combination of junk history and junk science fueling the Hawaiian grievance industry
https://www.angelfire.com/hi5/bigfiles3/ForcedAssimHurtsHawnHealth.html
Native Hawaiian Victimhood Claims -- What Are They? Why Are They Being Asserted? How Can the Bad Statistics Be Explained?
https://www.angelfire.com/hi5/bigfiles3/victimhoodclaims.html
The Hawaiian Grievance Industry -- Panhandling for Race-Based Handouts and Political Power
https://www.angelfire.com/hi5/bigfiles3/grievanceindustry.html
AKAKA BILL DIALOGS -- SEE A COLLECTION OF SEVERAL SERIES OF PUBLISHED ARTICLES WHERE SUPPORTERS AND OPPONENTS CONFRONT EACH OTHER. THIS WEBPAGE WAS ONE OF THOSE SERIES.
https://www.angelfire.com/hi5/bigfiles3/AkakaDialogs.html
SEE MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THE AKAKA BILL
https://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/OpposeAkakaBill.html
SEE WEBPAGES ABOUT HAWAIIAN SOVEREIGNTY ISSUES IN ADDITION TO THE AKAKA BILL
https://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/
Send comments or questions to:
Ken_Conklin@yahoo.com
