My column at Civil Beat today asked a straightforward question: “Why Did News Media Ignore Native Hawaiian Convention?”
Supporters and opponents of the Na‘i Aupuni convention seem to agree that it could have widespread ramifications for Hawaiians and non-Hawaiians alike.
It was my impression that the proceedings received almost zero media coverage. So I tried to quantify that impression.
For perspective, I looked back at the news coverage of the state’s 1978 Constitutional Convention. The constitution had been written in 1950, revised at a Con Con in 1968, and so the 1978 convention was generally expected to generate incremental changes.
But there was broad and deep coverage of that convention, before, during, and after.
I went to the printed indexes to the Honolulu Star-Bulletin and Honolulu Advertiser, what were then Honolulu’s competing daily newspapers. I didn’t count the each of the stories, but based on a count of the average number of stories listed in each column of the index, and the number of printed columns, there were roughly 500-600 news stories about the Con Con, its issues, and its personalities in these two publications alone. Add to that Honolulu’s three broadcast stations, and neighbor island newspapers, and there was just a lot of news.
By contrast, the surviving daily newspaper, along with television stations, invested very little reporting time in covering this convention.
Do your own news search. There were just a handful of news stories about the proceedings themselves. Most news coverage was focused on those protesting the convention rather than reporting on the actual convention proceedings.
And in online comments, I’m already being pummeled for suggesting that the convention deserved more reporting.
So it goes.
Discover more from i L i n d
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The real question is why have none of our journalists yet found the honesty or courage to tell us that the ‘aha adopted a declaration of race-war. Right up front in your face, the preamble says “we join together to affirm a government of, by, and for Native Hawaiian people” (i.e., of the race, by the race, and for the race), and “affirm our ancestral rights and Kuleana to all lands, waters, and resources of our islands and surrounding seas.” (i.e., we’re gonna take over the whole place, just like Kamehameha did, who was known as “Ka Na’i Aupuni” — the conqueror.) None of our arrogant journalists has yet found the honesty or courage to tell us that the plain language in the preamble is the declaration of a race-war from a gathering blatantly labeled “Na’i Aupuni” which means “Conquest.”
Known white supremacist advocates for a race war? Shocking!
Does this critique apply to CB too?
The underpinnings of the convention could have used more scrutiny, but it’s a mistake to compare the limited attention to the proceedings with the broader and more detailed coverage of a state constitutional convention of an earlier time. One was an overhaul of the fundamental law of an established, recognized, functioning state that applies to all its residents and visitors, in a time when news media were constructed and managed very differently. The other is an aspirational effort that produced a document that may or may not be ratified by the limited ethnic constituency it seeks to represent, be recognized by any authority that would make it anything more than a political statement, or ever actually apply to anyone.
Obsessing over the gathering’s machinations could also be seen to unfairly bestow an aura of legitimacy that opponents from polar opposite ends of the spectrum would passionately argue is false, and that others might view as naive and patronizing.
Anyway, in this internet age, more information has been available to the limited audience that was interested.
Juicy_J, but all those mean dangerous terrifying Hawaiians are after him.
Hardly dangerous of terrifying. More like a circus sideshow. The most “newsworthy” thing that happened was “Uncle Walter” getting tossed out on his ear.
Otherwise the whole thing was a small group claiming to represent a certain small ethnic and political segment of the population getting together for a good long rant session about the perceived injustices of previous centuries. Yawn.
Thank you.
Me feeling is that you can so casually dismiss what went on primarily because all we saw on the news was Walter protesting after he gave up his original right to be part of the proceedings. Your other comments, to me, smack of serious insensitivity to the situation of Hawaiians. And I’m saying this as a public critic of much of the sovereignty posturing.
Possible reasons 1) no one really cares; 2) just another gathering of Hawaiians ; 3) no legitimacy, started out with elected delegates, then a court case, then anyone who applied is a delegate; 4) descended into a side show (again) with Hawaiians pitted against Hawaiians; 5) no one respects the process or the outcome except the delegates who participated in it; 5) the “Constitution” looks like something downloaded after a Google search.
I believe they were streaming the proceedings on one of the cable channels?
Exactly. The coverage was there if anybody cared to watch it. Frankly, I tried to watch it but kept falling asleep.
And what exactly is “the situation of Hawaiians” to which I am supposed to be sensitive? Hawaiians today are full citizens with the right to vote of the most powerful and prosperous country on earth with more government handouts in terms of free homesteads, healthcare, job training, etc. than any other population subgroup.
A few but very vocal individuals rant on about “injustices” that supposedly happened over 120 years ago. I really think most Hawaiians would rather live in the present and plan for their future instead of being so hopelessly stuck in the past.
These are the people Al Gonzales calls the 808 Silent Majority.