From the Akaka bill: Section 3 Definitions – (10)

. . . the term ”Native Hawaiian” means—

(i) an individual who is 1 of the indigenous, native people of Hawaii and who is a direct lineal descendant of the aboriginal, indigenous, native people who—

(I) resided in the islands that now comprise the State of Hawaii on or before January 1, 1893; and

(II) occupied and exercised sovereignty in the Hawaiian archipelago, including the area that now constitutes the State of Hawaii; or

(ii) an individual who is 1 of the indigenous, native people of Hawaii and who was eligible in 1921 for the programs authorized by the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act (42 Stat.108, chapter 42) or a direct lineal descendant of that individual.
~ ~ ~

Now what does (II) really mean? Only the Ali’i? Only those that were part of the monarchy? The monarchy exercised sovereignty not the kanaka maoli. This is a very slippery definition.

How is the rest of this definition not a “racial heritage” definition? What else is a “direct lineal descendent” other that a racial heritage definition? Why should some be treated differently than others because of who their ancestors were on the basis of “one drop” of Hawaiian blood?

The Akaka bill in Section 2. Findings (15) says:

. . . despite the overthrow of the government of the Kingdom of Hawaii, Native Hawaiians have continued to maintain their separate identity as a distinct native community through cultural, social, and political institutions, and to give expression to their rights as native people to self-determination, self governance, and economic self-sufficiency;

And the question is, what political insititutions? None exist. OHA was created by modifying the Hawaii State Constitution. What are we talking about here?

This is an anonymous submission we got last week from someone who calls himself (or herself) 4A. . .
—

Billy is a modest home owner with a wife and two kids. His ancestry is 25% Irish, 25% Chinese, 12.5% Hawaiian, and 12.5% Unknown. He is reading the paper in his living room at 8:00am on Saturday sipping a cup of coffee. The rest of the family has gone shopping. He is interrupted:

Knock, knock.

Billy: Who’s there?

Voice: A sincere stranger to talk to you about the Akaka Bill on Capitol Hill.

B: What’s that?

SS: A proposed federal law which allows Native Hawaiians to move back to Alii owners and common serfs.

B: Are you kidding?

SS: Of course not. We can’t have commoners owning property.

B: Why not?

SS: That’s a dumb question but here’s the answer anyway…….They might sell it!

B: Then it can’t be sold?

SS: Don’t be silly Billy, of course it could be sold. But only by Alii.

B: Isn’t that a lot like Communism?

SS: Oh no, Billy. We call it traditional customs of indigenous peoples.

B: You mean going back to when life was nasty, brutish, dull and short?

SS: Well, not intentionally.

B: Gosh, I don’t like the sound of that! How could you possibly convince common people to accept that idea?

SS: We adhere to a principle, Billy.

B: What does that mean?

SS: We avoid discussing consequences and we avoid any vote by the people.

B: How do you do that?

SS: We remind ourselves by means of a slogan.

B: What’s that?

SS: We repeat, over and over: “Serfs up”, “Serfs up”, “Serfs up”, “Serfs up”

Billy takes the handouts that SS hands him, closes the door and goes back to his coffee but not the paper. He is thinking— and —-sipping — and thinking.

Members of OHA joined with Governor Lingle and Hawaii’s Congressional Delegation at a reception recently. The intent was to build support for the Akaka bill in Congress. Representative Neil Abercrombie said,

“If Mr. Bush’s administration recognizes that this is something not just for native Hawaiians, but something all of Hawaii wants and needs, then I think we’ll be in good shape.”

All of Hawaii wants and needs the Akaka bill? Everyone? At debates held recently by the league of women voters weren’t there opponents of the Akaka bill from all sides of the spectrum? Hawaiian sovereignty separatists as well as those who want Hawaii to remain a state with no preferential treatment and everyone being treated equally under the law attended those debates, all against the Akaka bill.

Whatever Rep. Abercrombie believes he doesn’t speak for everyone. He might not even speak for a majority but we will never know without a statewide vote.

Does he speak for you?

This was in the CERA Report Nov/Dec 05 authored by CERA’s President Elaine Wellman. “The poster child for Apartheid in America is the ‘Akaka Bill’”. See the CERA website to find out why she says that.

Makes for some heavy thinking. If you want more read her book “Going to Pieces“. If you do, send your thought to this blog.

A new blog concerning the Akaka Bill and the ramifications of its passage for Hawaii.