Category Archives: Hawaiian issues

Hawaiians also clash over issue of identity

7 Replies

I’ve been thinking about the reactions to Senator Elizabeth Warren’s disclosure of DNA test results showing a high probability that she had a Native American ancestor sometime back several generations. I’m struggling to understand the dynamics of the discussion, which is in many respects very familiar to those of us in Hawaii.

Please excuse me in advance for just sort of musing over what’s involved rather than thinking it through in advance

It seems there are the genetic and DNA side of ancestry, there are family traditions of ancestry, and then there are cultural and spiritual aspects of ancestry. A lot of considerations and understandings driven by politics and social power are also mixed in.

That’s certainly the case here, where reactions to Warren’s DNA announcement reflect our immense partisan divide. The implication of many anti-Warren opinions is that she must have been conniving to benefit unfairly when she began identifying herself with an unknown Native American ancestor. But that ignores what was happening at that time.

Elizabeth Warren and I are pretty much in the same generation. She graduated from college in 1970, a year after I graduated. In my case, I then enrolled for graduate school at the University of Hawaii. It was an exciting time to be a student. Within a year, an ethnic studies program was established at UH, and I was lucky enough to become a teaching assistant in the program. Ethnic awareness was on the rise, and it was common among my peers for people to be exploring their ethnic and family roots with a new emerging consciousness. This happened among Hawaiians (a shift later recognized as a modern Hawaiian renaissance), where young people were both discovering and recreating their culture in a variety of ways. On campuses across the country, students organized to demand Black Studies, Asian-American Studies, and Native American Studies. Political movements, from the Black Panthers to the American Indian Movement to Kalama Valley and Kahoolawe reflected this new consciousness of identity.

So when I hear that Elizabeth Warren “suddenly” identified with a Native American ancestor when she was in law school in the 1970s, it doesn’t seem at all suspect to me. It’s one person’s experience of our common generational journey.

Who could have come to adulthood at that time and not been impacted personally by our generation’s search for and recreation of identity? She was, it certainly seems, a product of our times.

And what about the debate over DNA definitions of ancestry versus tribal definitions?

I found a New York Times article a couple of days ago very helpful (“Before Arguing About DNA Tests, Learn the Science Behind Them“).

For centuries, people thought of ancestry in terms of blood, and fractions of it. People were pure-blooded or half-blooded. When the United States government set up rules for deciding who could be members of Native American tribes, it called the system “blood quantum.”

Slavery, too, led to an obsession with increasingly tiny fractions of ancestral blood, reaching the absurd extreme of the “one drop” rule. A single black ancestor — no matter how far back in the family tree, no matter how tiny the mythical drop of blood he or she contributed — was enough to make a person black.

So these two approaches to ancestry clash. During certain periods, places, or for certain purposes, one must meet a threshold “blood quantum” level in order to be considered part of a particular group. At other times, places, or purposes, you can’t escape a given ancestral identity even if it was established by that “one drop” many generations ago.

This same debate continues to play out in Hawaii, where applicants for leases from the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands must be 50% Hawaiian, while other state laws recognize as Hawaiian those “who are descendants of native Hawaiians who inhabited the Hawaiian Islands prior to 1778.”

A report by a Hawaii Advisory Committee of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights in 2001 described the situation:

Even among Hawaiians, however, there is disagreement over who is truly Native Hawaiian. Some take a more inclusive approach. For example, in her statement before the Hawaii Advisory Committee at the 2000 forum, Dr. Lilikal? Kame‘eleihiwa, director of the Center for Hawaiian Studies, University of Hawai‘i at M?noa, cited to the United Nation’s Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People, which states that “indigenous peoples have [the] collective and individual right to maintain and develop distinct ethnic and cultural characteristics and identities, including the right to self-identification.” According to Dr. Kame‘eleihiwa, this right has been abrogated by the American government’s requirement that Native Hawaiians be 50 percent blood quantum. She stated that her people believe Native Hawaiians are any blood quantum.

On the other end of the spectrum, however, are those who believe that individuals with only “one drop” of Hawaiian blood are not Native Hawaiians, as expressed by Emmett Lee Loy, a Native Hawaiian attorney who spoke at the 2000 forum. He believes that attempts to lower the blood requirement are strategically designed to support the interests of those who want recognition legislation passed.

“What they’re trying to do is broaden the class so much that the State of Hawai‘i is allowed to shirk its obligations to the 50-percent-plus blood quantum.” He contends that the requirements established by the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act are the ones that should remain in effect.

Others spoke out in the 2000 forum saying that the practice of defining who is Hawaiian by blood quantum pits Hawaiians against each other, in effect causing them to compete for both recognition and the limited available resources. William Lawson, a Hawai‘i resident, spoke to this issue by stating that the existence of a blood quantum level:

…is a blatant discriminatory mandate whereby those of Hawaiian ancestry with 50 percent or higher blood quantum have been pitted against those of less than 49 percent quantum or less of the qualifying mandate. What blood quantum makes a Caucasian a Caucasian or what quantum makes a Filipino a Filipino or an Afro-American an Afro-American, and so on and so forth?71

A footnote to the report adds further details.

Beginning in the mid-1970s, the U.S. Congress defined the term “Native Hawaiian” (capital “N”) to include all persons who are descended from the people who were in the Hawaiian islands as of 1778, when Captain James Cook discovered the islands for the Western world. Compare Native American Programs Act of 1974, Pub. L. No. 93-644, § 801, 88 Stat. 2291, 2324 (1975), with Hawaiian Homelands Homeownership Act of 2000, Pub. L. No. 106-569, tit. V, subtitle B, § 513, 114 Stat. 2944 (2000) (amending tit. VIII, § 801(9)(B)). Previously, Congress used the term “native Hawaiian” (lower case “n”) with regard to persons having 50 percent or more Hawaiian blood. See Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, Pub. L. No. 67-34, ch. 42, § 201(a)(7), 42 Stat. 108 (1921); id. § 209, as amended (subsequently modified to 25 percent for heirs). Except where otherwise indicated, the Hawaii Advisory Committee intends the broader application of the term. Use of this terminology should not be construed as an attempt to either define or limit the scope of those persons whose rights are the subject of this report.

The Hawaii Advisory Committee is also aware that many Native Hawaiians prefer to identify themselves as their ancestors once did, i.e., Kanaka Maoli. Other Native Hawaiians contest the validity of this term. Although use of the term Kanaka Maoli is becoming more widespread, many of the documents discussed in this report and statements provided by members of the public use the term Native Hawaiian instead. Considering the complexity of the issues involved, the Hawaii Advisory Committee has decided to follow common usage in order to avoid potential confusion.

Warren finds herself in the midst of a stormy debate over the meaning of identity that still reverberates across Hawaii as well.

I wish more reporting on her situation managed to reflect the social and cultural history behind these ongoing debates.

News media fails to call out bogus “war crime” concerns

8 Replies

Big Island County Council Member Jen Ruggles made news last week when she began boycotting her official duties due, she said, to her fear that performing the duties of her office might entail committing “war crimes” against Native Hawaiians.

Say, what? This Big island official had to swear to uphold and defend the Constitution in order to run for office, and again when she was sworn in after winning election. And now she wants to renege on her oaths based on this misreading of the laws of war?

See:

“Big Island: Am I A Criminal? Puna Councilwoman Questions Her Legitimacy,” Jason Armstrong, Civil Beat, August 30, 2018.

“Ruggles to skip meetings; Councilwoman not satisfied with county’s response to ‘war crimes’ claim,” Tom Callis, West Hawaii Today, September 2, 2018.

The war crimes claim came up a few years ago when Sai pursued a quasi-legal claim on behalf of a Kauai man, alleging that being required to pay taxes constituted a crime of war by the local and federal governments. When I interviewed the supposed victim, he quickly backpedaled.

See: “War Crimes on Kauai?“, Civil Beat, November 11, 2015.

Having an elected official raise the silly “war crimes” argument is one thing. Heaven knows politicians are prone to doing some very silly things on a regular basis.

But, in my view, the news media has failed the public by not providing careful, critical, and sustained reporting on the issue, providing the facts to debunk these claims, which have largely been given a pass by reporters and editors.

Ruggles relies on an argument that has been peddled by David Keanu Sai, who claims to be the titular head of the long-lost Hawaiian Kingdom (although, of course, that’s a claim disputed by any number of rival claimants to the same Kingdom’s throne).

In its simplest form, Sai and his followers argue that the annexation of Hawaii by the United States was illegal because it was done via a joint resolution of Congress rather than a treaty of annexation. And, if the annexation was illegal, then it must be that Hawaii has been subject to an illegal military occupation for the past 120 years.

Of course, the U.S. Supreme Court–the final arbiter of what’s legal and what isn’t in the United State–long ago upheld the legality of annexation via the joint resolution route, so the argument quickly fails. And then there’s that inconvenient fact that island residents, including Hawaiians, quickly obtained U.S. citizenship and have wielded it now for 120 years, including half a century during which Hawaiians were politically allied with the Republican-controlled territorial government and dominated the patronage that it dispensed.

But that hasn’t deterred its proponents from continuing to misrepresent and selectively quote sources in their continuing quest for evidence of “occupation” along with some semblance of legitimacy.

Back in 2011, I commented on the role of the media and the lazy “he said, she said” reporting style in prolonging this lame debate.

Sai and others making similar arguments don’t get their fair share of serious criticism, constructive or otherwise. In part, there’s political correctness involved. People are just reluctant to be seen as publicly critical of things Hawaiian. Hawaiians ourselves are usually more inclined to shy away from open criticism and conflict, and just work around differences. It’s an island thing we grow up with. We live on an island, so don’t fight unless absolutely necessary. The media, along with most politicians, also seem to believe Hawaiian issues are another “third rail” of public life to be avoided.

The situation hasn’t changed in the intervening time.

In my view, this has some very unfortunate political effects.

First, it requires believers to accept an unhealthy dose of magical thinking, and to venture into a Trump-like world of alternative “facts” that ignore the political realities of more than a century.

Second, it demeans and trivializes the experience of contemporary victims of actual war crimes to compare their experience of violence, pillaging, and wars of occupation to that of Hawaii residents. There just isn’t a rational comparison to be made there.

And, third, it takes the legitimate debate over what should be done to build an entity capable of pursuing Hawaiian sovereignty and self-determination, and pushes that much needed discussion off to the sidelines, while vocal proponents of the “war crimes” and “annexation never happened” theories are allowed to take center stage to spout their views that taxes=war crimes, that the Kingdom lives on, and Hawaii is nothing more than a “fake” state.

There’s so much wrong here that it’s hard to know whether to laugh or cry.

Throwback Thursday: 1982

2 Replies

Yours Truly, 1982.

I’ll just take this description of Na Maka o ka Aina’s Kahoolawe Video Archive:

On March 6, 1982, five years after the disappearance of George Helm and Kimo Mitchell in the seas off the island of Kaho‘olawe, the Protect Kaho‘olawe ‘Ohana held a tribute to the two men at ‘Iolani Palace in Honolulu.

Representatives from the Helm and Mitchell families along with community members, singers and musicians from Kaua‘i, Maui, Moloka‘i and Hawai‘i island joined their O‘ahu compatriots in remembering the legacy of George and Kimo and the actions of many others who worked peaceably to stop the U.S. military bombing of Kaho‘olawe.

If you’re so inclined, a video of my short presentation can be found here.

Guest post: Bad politics meets twisted history in Thomas Square

3 Replies

Ken Conklin sent the following brief essay as a comment to my post earlier in the week about Thomas Square.

Conklin, who earned a Ph.D. from the University of Illinois, Urbana, has lived in Hawaii since 1992. He describes himself as speaking Hawaiian “with moderate fluency,” and has written at length about aspects of the Hawaiian sovereignty movement from a critical perspective.

While I don’t agree with all of his editorial views, I find his interpretation of Hawaii history most interesting and informative. He does his homework.

So here are Ken Conklin’s quick thoughts on Thomas Square.

It’s good to use public spaces to exhibit reminders of Hawaii’s history. But we should NOT use public spaces to display twisted versions of history to be used as propaganda on highly controversial issues, at taxpayer expense. That’s what’s happened at Thomas Square.

There’s a long wall about 4 ft. tall that grabs the makai 1/3 of Thomas Square as a sacred shrine to a future restored independent nation of Hawaii. On that wall is Kauikeaouli Kamehameha III’s famous one-liner. But there’s a brand new false English translation carved in stone under the King’s “Ua mau…” It says: “The sovereignty of the kingdom continues because we are righteous — King Kamehameha III, 1843.”

That’s false as a translation of what the King actually said (he never said “…because WE ARE righteous); false as a description of today’s reality (the Kingdom ended with the revolution of 1893 and the nation’s sovereignty was transferred to the U.S. in 1898); and false as what is desirable for our future (most people in Hawaii favor remaining the 50th State). It’s pure propaganda.

Kauikeaouli is my favorite Hawaiian king. His statue is beautiful, although way overpriced at a quarter million property-tax bucks. But he personally played almost no role in the events of 1843. The unsung hero was American medical missionary Dr. Gerrit Judd, the King’s closest advisor. He risked his life to secretly write a petition to Queen Victoria, rousted the King from an alcoholic depression, made him sign it, and found an American to deliver it. Five months later Admiral Thomas arrived with a proclamation restoring sovereignty. A procession marched to Kawaiaha’o Church; where Dr. Judd read the English-language proclamation loudly in fluent Hawaiian. The King’s only contribution was his famous one-line response.

The flagpole is perhaps the tallest I have ever seen. The Hawaiian flag without an American flag anywhere in sight is a clear assertion of Hawaiian independence. False in fact. Bad wish.

Then there’s the cubical rockpile intended as a living “altar” to the old Hawaiian gods, with offerings that will be constantly refreshed by zealous activists. This despite the fact that Kauikeaouli had become a Christian about 20 years before 1843. I’ll bet the activists had no permit to build it, but Mayor Caldwell winked at them.

Why has there been no statue to Kauikeaouli for 175 years despite dozens of other public statues to numerous Hawaiian kings, queens, chiefs, rebels, and even foreigners like Sun Yat-sen? Because Hawaiian secessionists and race-supremacists, favoring communal land ownership as in Samoa, think Kauikeaouli made bad political mistakes — he proclaimed a Constitution that said all people are equal in the eyes of God; he welcomed Caucasians into his cabinet and legislature; and he created private property ownership allowing many natives to sell their land to non-natives.

“Sovereignty Restoration Day” was accurate 175 years ago but today is a clear propaganda label. The statue erected 175 years after the event serves exactly the same purposes as the statue to Confederate General Robert E. Lee in Charlottesville Virginia, erected decades after he lost the Civil War. In both cases the purpose is to convey an attitude of hostility toward the U.S. and its perceived “military occupation” of the homeland; support for secession; and desire to establish a race-nationalist independent nation where one race (white in VA, Hawaiian in HI) would have supremacy over all others. Shame on Mayor Caldwell for participating and for enabling a long-time sovereignty activist as project director [Guy Kaulukukui].

For further reading:

Conklin says he has created a very detailed webpage on this topic.

And a shorter summary is available on his own blog, The Mystery of Hawaiian History.