Back in the summer of 2014, following the series of statewide public hearings held by the U.S. Department of Interior on then-proposed federal rule allowing for the recognition of a native Hawaiian governing entity, I tried to explain my reaction to the process.
The new rule was welcomed by many Hawaiians because it appeared to commit the United States to recognizing a government-to-government relationship with a duly approved Hawaiian governing entity, allowing negotiations over past transgressions to begin.
The rule was finally approved two years later, despite loud opposition by many. However, although delegates gathered and drafted a constitution for a governing entity, that effort sputtered and has never made further progress due to the divisions in the Hawaiian community.
Here’s how I began that 2014 column:
If I had to sum up in a single word the testimony of Hawaiians in the current round of statewide hearings, the word would be: “Dispossessed.”
The hearings, sponsored by the Interior Department, have sought input on whether, or how, the U.S. should seek to reestablish an official, government-to-government relationship with Hawaiians. They have drawn 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.
Five years later, it’s the TMT and Mauna Kea which has galvanized the same type of highly emotionally and politically charged reaction.
And my thoughts remain very much as they were back in 2014, so I thought that the column would be worth sharing once again.
Here’s the link to that 2014 column: Did Hawaiian hearings set up a political train wreck?
Discover more from i L i n d
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The delegates were NOT ‘elected’. The elections were cancelled by the US Supreme Court as a violation of Rice v Cayetano.
Here’s my final testimony in opposition to what became the final rule:
http://big09.angelfire.com/NPRM100115Conklin112615.pdf
Facts and logic, not emotion. But it made no difference — the Obama Department of Interior, with Esther Kia’aina orchestrating things behind the scenes, was hell-bent on producing the final rule.
By the way, it’s not finished. That rule is like a sleeper-agent spy, just waiting to be activated whenever OHA and CNHA decide the time is ripe (like when there’s a Democrat President).
There is no doubt that the Kanaka maoli have been oppressed (royally screwed, to use colloquial terms), much like the Native Americans, and African-Americans. How to remedy these historical wrongs is a vexatious problem that will not be resolved easily. The Hawaiian movement in all its various political stripes can only make progress when there is a unity of purpose and programs, which has been elusive over the years. The adherence to religious spirituality and symbols of the Kiai may be emotionally satisfying, but does not allow compromise nor unity with the multi-national population that could support it. It is sectarian, and does not appeal even to the majority of Hawaiians.
There is another train wreck unfolding with the TMT movement when the State and corporate powers finally decide to use force to break the impasse. However (and unfortunately) the unyielding position of the TMT opposition may leave the State no choice.
I’ll just gently point out here that likening the historical experiences of Hawaiians with those of Native Americans and African Americans — groups that were subject to wholesale genocide, enslavement, repression and disenfranchisement — is preposterous and offensive, especially since forms of violent and deliberate genocide practiced here were perpetrated by Hawaiians against Hawaiians of different islands and geneologies, but never by another ethnic group, and Hawaiians have never been prohibited from voting, holding public office, or owning property.
It is a train wreck and the cars are filled with all the communities in the Islands of Hawaii. We can’t fix the past, Professor Williamson BC Chang has been trying to do this for years but the result is a split between all the people here. But if we allow the obstruction of TMT to continue for the immediate future we deny ourselves technology; the kind of tech that drives the world. In the distant future the observatories on Maunakea will possibly consider not renewing their leases because many of them have been planning for TMT, that’s the synergy in the astronomy community. That means a loss of the income from the astronomy sector; which would have grown with TMT. We won’t be more Hawaiian by blocking TMT and clearly we aren’t going to return to a kingdom. Taxes are going to go up for sure, we can count on that.
So does anyone think that this quagmire will be resolved anytime soon?No, because this confrontation of past wrongs vs. future promises has no basis in fact.
What is true is that “locals’ (with some Hawn blood) are being energized to think there is some kind of compensation( payoff to OHA) for past “wrongs” done to those who feel marginalized by the current state of affairs. Oh to be young & ignorant of the truth of what is really happening! The state of Hawaii is NOT going to accommodate the cries of the Lahui! there will be am moment when it will all change for the protestors & then they will know the truth.
Until then, most folks are figuring an exit strategy to make sure they are not part of this “hostage -taking” financially, tax wise or in the future.Serious tax-paying residents are leaving quickly so they won’t have to pay a debt to Haw’ns that was never owed but now has come due vis a vis TMT.Wait till the tribe gets restless& folks realize how unreliable our state gov’t is in protecting citizen’s rights who do pay taxes & vote!..The Exodus of tax payers has begun!
Ian’s point in his 2014 article regarding legal challenges to race-based entitlement programs was and is timely. Worse, the case that ultimately decides the question may have nothing at all to do with a direct challenge to OHA, DHHL, or other Hawaii entitlements. There was a near miss earlier this year when the SCOTUS declined cert to a case challenging race-based/ancestry-based preferences for adoption of Native American children.