As I wrote to my editor at Civil Beat when turning in my weekly column yesterday afternoon, I know that I’m “stepping in it again.”
“It,” in this case, is the whole Hawaiian sovereignty debate that always manages to stir up lots of emotion. And my column, which appeared this morning at CB, gets right at it again (“Hawaii Monitor: Did Hawaiian Hearings Set Up a Political Train Wreck?“).
And, yes, I’ve stepped into this previously more than a couple of times.
See, for example:
“Questioning matters of faith can be dangerous territory iLind.net
“Hawaii Monitor: Is Part of the Sovereignty Debate Just a Matter of Faith?” Civil Beat
“Hawaii Monitor: Some Laughable Royalty Claims” Civil Beat
“Hawaii Supreme Court rejects sovereignty defense” iLind.net
“Reminder: Always check the footnotes” iLind.net
You get the idea.
My point this week is simple. While we’re heard lots of emotional testimony relating esoteric historical claims about the 1893 overthrow and its aftermath during the statewide hearings being held by the Interior Department, there hasn’t been much if any acknowledgement of a very real problem facing Hawaiians. And that is the potential loss of many-most-all (?) programs that give preference to Hawaiians, which could happen if or when another legal challenge to Hawaiian only or Hawaiian preference programs reaches the increasingly conservative U.S. Supreme Court.
From today’s CB column:
The Interior Department initiative behind this set of hearings is another, perhaps last-ditch attempt to define a “special relationship” between Hawaiians and the federal government through administrative rules rather than legislative action.
If this isn’t successful—and it’s hard to see the Interior Department panel finding a way to move forward in light of the hostility expressed during the hearings—a whole range of institutions that have provided critical community services and support to Hawaiians, including Kamehameha Schools and the other alii trusts, along with OHA, the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands, and the network of nonprofit health, education, and cultural organizations built over recent decades with federal funding, will remain at risk.
No one likes to talk about this publicly, for fear it will encourage those legal challenges. But the hearings have shown that failing to acknowledge the real threats may be doing even more damage.
My closing point in the column:
While perhaps there are some who would not hesitate to trade all of the established Hawaiian institutions and programs for the vague promises and psychological satisfaction of “sovereignty,” I doubt very much that a majority of Hawaiians would want to embrace this tradeoff if it were made explicit.
The comments are pouring in over at Civil Beat. If you have access, you should check them out.
Discover more from i L i n d
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Many thanks to Ian Lind for his clear, concise, fair and balanced summary of the 15 rounds of testimony regarding possible rule-making by the Department of Interior to create a race-based Hawaiian entity and give federal recognition to it as though it is an Indian tribe. I am writing detailed testimony which will be submitted officially and also posted on my website on August 15 in honor of this year’s celebration of Statehood Day. I hope the folks who gave oral testimony, and thousands more, will also submit written testimony through the Department of Interior webpage.
The one concept which most of the testifiers repeated loudly and forcefully is that the U.S. has no right to be here in Hawaii because the overthrow and annexation were illegal, and there was no Treaty of Annexation. As Ian wrote, that concept had “lots of input, most of it direct, in-your-face, passionate, and personal, often reflecting a religious-like zeal which makes evidence irrelevant and renders certain “facts” beyond debate.”
The testifiers have freedom of speech, but it is counterproductive for them to say those things to U.S. government officials, who are sworn to uphold U.S. law. The Department of Interior will either ignore them, or will draw the conclusion that those poor misguided “Native Hawaiians” need lots of “educating.” So the Department of Interior will conclude it should go forward with its rule-making, in order to flood Hawaii with plenty of propaganda to persuade “Native Hawaiians” to knuckle under and become good Indians while also ensuring the continuation of racial entitlement programs which otherwise are illegal.
Reconciliation will never happen until people of Hawaiian ancestry reconcile themselves to the facts that the events of 1893 were an internal revolution; that the sovereignty of the independent nation of Hawaii continued for several years under the successor government of the Republic of Hawaii; that the Republic was given recognition de jure (as the lawful, rightful government) in letters personally signed by at least 19 emperors, kings, queens, and presidents of nations on 4 continents which formerly had recognized the monarchial government; that the Republic had the right to offer a Treaty of Annexation; that the U.S. government ratified and accepted the Treaty by means of its own internal decision-making process which has been repeatedly upheld by courts; and that no nation ever protested annexation and all nations acknowledged its legitimacy by continuing unbroken diplomatic and treaty relations with the U.S.
The religious-like zealotry by Hawaiian independence activists proclaiming “no Treaty of Annexation” was clearly displayed in the 15 public hearings. They have been incited by history-twisting con-artists like Keanu Sai, Henry Noa, Bumpy Kanahele, et. al. who are the ayatollahs of various faith-based groups whose dogma is the denial of the facts mentioned in the previous paragraph. These diehard deadenders of the Hawaiian Kingdom are like the infamous Baghdad Bob, spokesman for Saddam Hussein, who gave an on-air interview broadcast worldwide in which he insisted that Hussein’s army was winning the war even while a line of U.S. tanks rolling down the street was clearly visible right behind Bob.
It’s very hard to give up a religion. It’s emotionally wrenching. But Hawaiian natives did it before, in 1819, when Liholiho Kamehameha 2, and his stepmother regent Ka’ahumanu, and High Priest Hewahewa, abolished the old religion and ordered the destruction of the idols and heiaus throughout the Kingdom. They can do it again today. E malama pono.
Interesting comparison, sir. But really, why did most maka’ainana abandon the old religion? Because of blind faith in what Liholiho and Ka’ahumanu was telling them? Yeah right!
They were already starting to harbor doubts when they saw white men violating this and that kapu …. and not suffering any ill effects for their deeds. You also had to think that women who ate pork and bananas on the sly probably were a wee bit skeptical of the kapu when they didn’t get sick. But of course, that fateful day when Liholiho and his mothers defied the ‘ai kapu was the coup de grace. Their not suffering any form of divine punishment for violating one of the most serious kapus was all THE confirmation that most people needed to discard the old religion.
I can’t think of any equivalent event that would make a sovereignty activist give up his/her dream of an independent Hawaiian nation overnight. There’s no black-or-white test out there that will provide instantaneous answers as to which path the kanaka maoli should pursue.
i think some would rejoice in the elimination of indigenous preferences by the US hoping to foment some kind of revolutionary fervor among Hawaiians that would somehow lead to a Hawaii independent of the US. the immediate aftermath of Rice may have given that misimpression. in the end, it will likely not have that outcome and will simply repeat the short-sighted and self-defeating errors of the faction of establishment Hawaiians of the early territorial period (led by the great and all good Kuhio).
You stole my land in Eurasia. you kill my species. go back to Africa and pay me a trillion dollars a year.
A powerful argument can certainly be made that the creation of a new government entity and recognized relationship to protect and possibly expand benefits for a recognized class trumps political theater and utopian fantasies about complete independence that is not desired by any clear majority and is simply not forthcoming anyway.
Setting all that aside, this fiasco has raised serious questions about government transparency and accountability.
Simply put, why was Hawaii virtually blindsided by this proposal and series of meetings?
The Department of Interior announced the subject matter and meeting schedule on June 18, just days before the meetings were to begin on June 23.
That hardly seems like respect for a public process and a sincere effort to gather public input. It smells much more like going through obligatory motions to continue a play that has long been in motion.
And why has our governor been so mum about these matters? It is simply inconceivable that he didn’t have MUCH more advance notice than the voters who elected him. The failure to share the game plan smacks of secrecy and paternalism.
And was the appointment of his deputy director of land and natural resources to assistant secretary of insular affairs in the Department of Interior at this time merely a nice coincidence?
When the federal government comes to town to consider creating a new race-based political subdivision for your state that Congress has so far refused to approve, and of which many people from various ethnic backgrounds and political persuasions are very leery, and you are running for re-election in just one month, you really do need to explain where you stand and why you have been holding your cards so close.
The failure of the news media to press him and others on these issues is nothing short of appalling. It is, however, not surprising.
I wonder if the Dept. of Interior hearings might have been prompted by the letter OHA CEO Dr. Crabbe wrote to Sec. of State Kerry, asking for clarification on the federal govt.’s stance regarding the status of the Hawaiian Kingdom. Certainly, the scenario of an entity demanding total independence is not an appealing one for the feds, so perhaps the hastily arranged hearings were a way of trying to nip this possibility in the bud. But rather than silence the voices calling for independence, these hearings had the opposite effect, leading to the fiasco that played out before the news cameras.
Sometimes the best way to silence a voice
is to convince a fool that you are listening.
– t
Hi Ian.
I read your latest column at Civil Beat 🙂
Testimony was emotional, passionate, and knowledgeable. Those testifying had two minutes max to talk about 121 years.
You mention concern for “entitlements.”
Has it occurred to you that OTHER Hawaiians are disinterested in money? Clearly they are not doing this for the money.
Some are doing it for Pono while others are doing it for their kupuna. Their reasons vary 🙂
I doubt very much that all 8 million tourists would suddenly leave if the government shifted from US occupation and returned to a Hawaiian government. There would still be plenty of money coming in. With local control, there is the opportunity for a bigger piece of the tourist $ pie that currently goes directly offshore.
Would federal military $ still come ? Not likely but the vast bases and occupied land would be freed for businesses and uses that would benefit the general populace, not just the US war machine.
Would other nations rush to attack us? Of course not. The US has a long track record of armed wars in all parts of the world and would rush to war at the slightest pretext. Other countries know this well.
There is no more “access” to Civil Beat any more. As of Friday you don’t even get one freebie each day any more- not even the blogs. Oh well- I guess I’m an ex-CB reader since I can’t afford it.
Their loss… :>)
Andy Parx:
it appears this was a technical mistake or a business mistake; i had trouble getting the articles yesterday but the freebies are back right now! it was probably some kind of “weekend update”
………
and now i see the following:
“Thanks for your interest in Civil Beat!
Get full access for 15 days — Free
Create an account and get a 15-day free subscription to Civil Beat.”
Bishop Estate assets were never meant for the descendants of Native Hawaiians exclusively, but for all in Hawaii. Moreover, Kam School graduates have a lower college attendance rate than public school graduates, so perhaps Kam School harms its graduates. Kam School’s racial exclusionary policy cannot be defended on any ground, even practical.
Some Native Hawaiian activists argue that the Kingdom of Hawaii was multi-ethnic, and that those non-Hawaiians whose ancestors lived in the Kingdom will be allowed citizenship in a newly recognized Kingdom. If Kam School’s admission policies are any indication, this is untrue. Opening up Kam School to non-Hawaiians whose ancestors lived in the Kingdom era is a first step to credibility.