The Mystery of Hawaiian History

Correcting historical revisionism and misconceptions promoted by the Akaka Bill

Archive for category Uncategorized

Akaka bill — Important newly published historical and legal analysis by Ryan William Nohea Garcia

Aug 27

Posted by Ken Conklin in Uncategorized | No Comments

 

A major historical and legal analysis of the Akaka bill has just been published  in a well-respected scholarly law journal.  The 78-page article appears in the current issue of the Asian-Pacific Law & Policy Journal published by the William S. Richardson School of Law at the University of Hawaii.  

The article analyzes the Akaka bill in light of federal Indian policy for tribal recognition, the history of the Kingdom of Hawaii as a multiracial government, the issue whether Congress can convert an ethnic group into a political entity, etc.  As often happens with articles in scholarly legal journals, the footnotes probably take up more space than the body of text; however, the article is understandable for non-lawyers and extremely interesting for anyone who has been following the controversy over the Akaka bill. 

Ryan William Nohea Garcia, “Who Is Hawaiian, What Begets Federal Recognition, and How Much Blood Matters.” Asian-Pacific Law & Policy Journal, Vol. 11, No. 2, 2010, pp. 85-162.
The entire article can be downloaded directly from the journal’s website — copy/paste this URL into your internet browser:

http://tinyurl.com/akakagarcia

Here are the abstract and the conclusion as published in the article.

ABSTRACT 

The Akaka bill proposes to federally recognize a Hawaiian governing entity similar to those of federally recognized Indian tribes. As the Akaka bill will institutionalize a political difference between Hawaiians and non-Hawaiians, who is Hawaiian is a timely, and controversial, issue. Also controversial is whether Congress possesses the authority to federally recognize a Hawaiian governing entity. This article addresses three questions that probe the heart of the controversy surrounding the Akaka bill: who is Hawaiian, what begets federal recognition, and how much blood matters. After analyzing relevant Indian jurisprudence, this article demonstrates that political history, not indegeneity, begets federal recognition. As such, it is the political-historical, not racial, definition of Hawaiian that is legally significant to the Akaka bill. Since, however, the Akaka bill utilizes an ethnic Hawaiian blood eligibility criterion, another important question – and one Justice Breyer raised in Rice v. Cayetano – is how much blood is necessary to distinguish ideological self-identification from legitimate racial identity. To the extent racial preferences may coexist with the equal protection components of the Constitution, this article contends that a preponderance of preferred blood is the logical quantum, but a fifty percent requirement is the most practicable.

CONCLUSION

The Akaka bill is novel in that it is the first Congressional attempt to federally recognize a non-Indian entity, and to do so in a fashion inconsistent with the political history of the former governing entity it is ostensibly recognizing. Under a different view, the Akaka bill is novel in that it endeavors to federally recognize a government to collectively represent an entire ethnic group based upon shared indigeneity, rather than political history. But political history, not indegeneity, begets federal recognition. As a result the Akaka bill faces invalidation because its political-historical inconsistencies – most of all with regard to who is Hawaiian – raise a number of cognizable legal issues potentially fatal to the bill. Its blood-based eligibility criterion further raises the question of how much ethnic blood is necessary to distinguish legitimate racial identification from ideological association. To the extent that racial preferences may coexist with the equal protection components of the Constitution, a preponderance of blood is the logical quantum, but a fifty percent requirement is the most practicable.

Violence and threats of violence in the Hawaiian sovereignty movement

Aug 25

Posted by Ken Conklin in Commentary, News, Uncategorized | No Comments

 

A scholarly lecture in Hilo on Sunday August 22 was disrupted by Hawaiian sovereignty activists.  Ironically, the lecture focused on Islamist violence and raised the question whether Hawaiian sovereignty activists might become radicalized in the same way as the Islamists.  The Hawaiian activists didn’t like the topic or the facts being reported.  Sovereignty activists have behaved in similar ways at other public events as documented later; including threats of bodily harm to schoolchildren and to adults at an attempted Statehood Day celebration.  
For more details about what happened at the lecture in Hilo on Sunday, see an article in the libertarian-oriented Hawaii Political Info online newspaper, at
http://hawaiipoliticalinfo.org/node/3276
A major webpage is entitled “Violence and threats of violence to push demands for Hawaiian sovereignty — past, present, and future”.   See
http://tinyurl.com/2su9pa
For discussion of the “big picture” see the book “Hawaiian Apartheid: Racial Separatism and Ethnic Nationalism in the Aloha State” at
http://tinyurl.com/2a9fqa

Akaka bill maneuvers coming up from September through December 2010

Aug 17

Posted by Ken Conklin in Uncategorized | No Comments

The flight path of the Akaka bill now in the Senate has an eerie resemblance to what happened in previous years. “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it” (George Santayana). Will the Akaka bill pass or fail? In either case, will the end come with a bang or a whimper? Let’s review the whimper of Senate stealth maneuvers in 2000 and 2001, and the bang of the cloture motion on the Senate floor in 2006, to compare them with what’s been happening during the past year and what’s plausible for the upcoming period of September through December, 2010.

If we work hard and are lucky the bill will either die lonely, and quietly forgotten, as happened in 2000; or will crash and burn spectacularly as happened in 2006. But this will be the period of greatest danger in ten years …

For the complete article, see

http://www.hawaiipoliticalinfo.org/node/3245

Certified Hawaiian

Jul 15

Posted by Malia Hill in Uncategorized | No Comments

When you’re Hapa, you get used to people playing, “guess the ethnicity” with you.  Especially on the mainland.  (In Hawaii, the game is generally much shorter.  In part because one of your cousins will inevitably walk by and put an end to things.)  I actually don’t mind it though.  I’ve always liked the way that our racial/ethnic mix gives us a broad feeling of connection on the Islands.   Like we’re all in this together.  After all, even if you may not be Portuguese/Japanese/Filipino/Samoan/Hawaiian/Chinese/Haole/Etc., it’s a pretty fair guarantee that you’re at least related to someone who is.

And this leads us to one of the things that so puzzles me about how the Akaka Bill is supposed to work–namely, how do you even go about defining who counts as “Hawaiian Enough” to be part of a Native Hawaiian government.  After all, we’re talking about a culture that includes the concept of hanai adoption.  That’s about as far from a “one-drop rule” as it’s possible to get, culturally speaking.

But, of course, since we’re talking about laws and stuff here, there has to be a way to legally define who gets to play in a Akaka government.  But would you believe that, as the Bill currently lies, a significant number of those who would consider themselves Hawaiian wouldn’t count as such for the purposes of the Akaka Bill?  In fact, one analysis found that more than 73% of those who defined themselves as Hawaiian for the purposes of the census would now be counted as such for the purposes of the Akaka Bill.  Here’s why:

Under the conditions set forth in S1011, Section 3(12), for an Hawaiian to become a “Qualified Native Hawaiian Constituent” all five of the following conditions must be met:

  • (A) Must be direct lineal descendant of indigenous people living in Hawaii on or before January 1, 1893 or of a person eligible in 1921 for Hawaiian Homelands.
  • (B) Wishes to participate in the reorganization of the Native Hawaiian governing entity
  • (C) is 18 years of age or older;
  • (D) is a citizen of the United States; and
  • (E) maintains a significant cultural, social, or civic connection to the Native Hawaiian community, as evidenced by satisfying 2 or more of 10 criteria

Of the five, Parts (B) and (E) are the most likely to exclude Hawaiians from becoming “Qualified” to participate in the Tribe.  Part (B) most likely means excluding all persons who do not sign up for Kau Inoa.  The December, 2009 Kau Inoa Newsblog proudly announces: “Those who register in Kau Inoa will help shape the Hawaiian nation to come….We are happy to share that at the end of November 2009, 108,118 people were registered in the Kau Inoa Native Hawaiian Registry….”

The 2000 US Census counted over 401,000 Hawaiians in the US.  A 2004 estimate by the US Census Bureau counted 279,651 Hawaiians in Hawaii, down from 283,430 in 2000.  The out-migration of Hawaiians is a direct result of the lack of economic opportunity created by OHA-funded shake-down artists and their environmentalist allies.  The Kau Inoa number is less than 27% of all Native Hawaiians, but it gets worse.

Rule (E) excludes many of the roughly 122,000 Hawaiians living outside of Hawaii.  Exceptions are made for for college students, military personnel, federal employees (such as Congressional staffers) and their dependents,  Hawaiian Homelands beneficiaries, their children and grandchildren.

By making “Native Hawaiian Membership Organization” into the following two separate rules, an activist or other OHA operative who has been a member of two Native Hawaiian Membership Organizations thereby meets the “two of ten” qualification in Part (E):

  • (viii) Has been a member since September 30, 2009, of at least 1 Native Hawaiian Membership Organization.
  • (ix) Has been a member since September 30, 2009, of at least 2 Native Hawaiian Membership Organizations.

The bill does not contain a list of such organizations, leaving the door open to all sorts of games as some organizations are accepted and others are not.

I don’t know about you, but I find the notion of having to “prove” your Hawaiian-ness by virtue of what clubs or activities you belong to be . . . mind boggling.  Especially when you consider that the Akaka Bill includes a loophole for those who might not have Hawaiian blood, but are “regarded as Hawaiian” by the Native Hawaiian community (whatever that may mean).  By that logic, a haole with the right connections can be part of the Native Hawaiian government while a 100% local, ethnically Hawaiian guy who likes to keep to himself might not.  Seriously.  Only politicians and huge sums of money can combine to create something so ludicrous.  Don’t tell me that’s what most people are thinking of when they say that Native Hawaiians deserve some kind of recognition.

Tags:

A new children’s book filled with racially inflammatory historical falsehoods should be recalled — Kim Hunter (author) and Patti Carol (illustrator), “Ka Pu’uwai Hamama — Volunteer Spirit”

Jul 6

Posted by Ken Conklin in Uncategorized | No Comments

A book published in May 2010 seems intended to serve three noble and benevolent purposes: show well-deserved appreciation to an elderly volunteer, Mrs. Anne Jurczynski, who has given 24 years of service to Iolani Palace; celebrate the importance of the Palace in Hawaii’s history; and help children learn Hawaiian language by telling a story in simple words where every page has a paragraph in English and the same paragraph in Hawaiian.

But the book “Ka Pu’uwai Hamama — Volunteer Spirit” contains some commonly repeated historical falsehoods which serve the purpose of arousing resentment, anger, and racial hostility. In an essay-length book review, the worst falsehoods are quoted and disproved with explanations of what is true and citations where proof can be found. The book is poisonous to the souls of innocent schoolchildren, and should be recalled just like Tylenol was recalled in 1982 when several people died from cyanide-laced capsules, and Toyota vehicles were recalled in 2010 because of sticky accelerators.

A webpage identifies numerous historical falsehoods and distortions with quotes from the book, plus detailed analysis, internet links, and citations of documents proving that each item is false or distorted and telling what is true. There’s also further explanation of why books like this are poisonous to the souls of innocent children, and why books like this should be regarded as defective products that should be recalled. See

http://tinyurl.com/2d9brvf

July 4 is a triple holiday for Hawaii — 1776, 1894, 1960

Jul 3

Posted by Ken Conklin in Uncategorized | No Comments

July 4, 1776 marked the creation of the United States through the Declaration of Independence. Hawaii proudly celebrates that date as part of our heritage because Hawaii joined the union.

July 4, 1894 marked the creation of the Republic of Hawaii through the publication of its Constitution. At least five delegates to the Constitutional Convention were native Hawaiians; the Constitution was published in both English and Hawaiian; the Speaker of the House was former royalist John Kaulukou.

July 4, 1960 marked the date when the U.S. flag with 50 stars was first officially displayed, by being raised at 12:01 AM at the Fort McHenry National Monument in Baltimore, Maryland (where Francis Scott Key had written “The Star Spangled Banner”). Although Hawaii’s statehood was ratified by 94.3% of Hawaii voters and proclaimed by President Eisenhower in 1959, the tradition is to make the date for official display of an updated flag the following July 4.

A webpage provides a description of what Hawaii was like on July 4, 1776; the significance of the creation of the Republic of Hawaii on July 4, 1894 and annexation of Hawaii to the U.S. in 1898. It includes links to the Constitution of the Republic of Hawaii; a political biography of President Sanford B. Dole; photos of the original letters personally signed by emperors, kings, queens, and presidents of 20 nations on 4 continents in 11 languages recognizing the Republic as the legitimate government of Hawaii; a proposed treaty of annexation to the United States written in 1854 by King Kauikeaouli Kamehameha III which failed of the King’s signature by reason of his death; the Morgan Report of February 1894 (an 808-page report of the investigation into the events surrounding the Hawaiian Revolution of 1893, and the alleged role of U.S. peacekeepers in the overthrow of Queen Liliuokalani); full text of the Treaty of Annexation between the Republic of Hawaii and the United States of America (1898), and of the resolutions whereby the Republic of Hawaii legislature and the U.S. Congress ratified it; Hawaii Great Statehood Petition of 1954 — 120,000 Signatures Gathered in 2 Weeks On a Petition for Statehood for Hawaii; the Statehood vote count in 1959, broken down by representative districts; The Native Hawaiians Study Commission report of 1983; and other items relevant to the significance of our July 4 holiday. See

http://tinyurl.com/68u7nz

OHA’s Official Grant Goals

Jul 2

Posted by Malia Hill in Uncategorized | No Comments

Break out the champagne and the 12-pages of Hawaiiglish, it’s OHA grant application time!  (What is Hawaiiglish?  It’s the name I’ve come up with for the bizarre hybrid of English and Hawaiian that is especially popular in the field of obtaining Hawaiian grants or talking about Hawaii when you’re running for office.  You know . . . when you get sentences like, “The kapuna understand the matrix of needs required to foster care of the ohana.”  Yes, this is a pet peeve of mine, since I feel like it’s pandering–as though Native Hawaiians are going to applaud anything you say just because you stuck the word “pono” in the sentence.)

By Malia Blom Hill

Anyway, as part of its announcement of the new granting year, OHA also published its list of priorities.  And, to be scrupulously fair, many of them are completely reasonable and even necessary.  For example, there is a huge emphasis placed on increasing economic self-sufficiency for Native Hawaiians, with a specific goal of increasing family income and housing stability.  There are also laudable mentions of the need to exceed education standards and preserve Hawaiian culture.  Heck, I don’t even have a quarrel with the emphasis on preserving the environment and protecting the land.  There are places in this country where I might not be moved by that (I’m looking at you here, Newark), but Hawaii . . . well, that is some beautiful, beautiful stuff.

Of course, what I’ve done here is once again (like a broken CD or KPOI’s playlist) come back, yet again, to the same theme.  In effect, laudable goals do not equal laudable programs.  That’s why this exercise in transparency is so necessary.  Native Hawaiians deserve to know if all of these efforts to increase their family income, preserve their land, and protect their culture are actually good and effective program, or if they’re nothing more than vanity projects, giveaways to favored groups, or noble ideas that just don’t work in the real world.  Or whether they’re working like crazy and just need some more publicity and support to really help.  Some people get threatened by transparency efforts like 4HawaiiansOnly.  They think we’re trying to attack people or take away their support.  That’s a very defensive and short-sighted view.  All we’re doing is giving people the information they need to make an informed judgment about how their money is being spent.  You have to wonder about the motivations of those who want to prevent people from having that knowledge.

House votes to annex Hawaii, June 15, 1898

Jun 16

Posted by Malia Hill in Uncategorized | No Comments

Taken from Politico by Andrew Glass:

On this day in 1898, the House approved Senate Joint Resolution 55 providing for the annexation of Hawaii as a U.S. territory. At the time, Hawaii was an independent republic. The vote was 209-91.

The Republic of Hawaii had been declared on July 4, 1894, under the presidency of Sanford Dole, a native speaker born in Hawaii into a family of Protestant missionaries from Maine. Dole, a cousin of the pineapple magnate, advocated the Americanization of Hawaiian society and culture, while pressing for annexation of the Pacific island chain.

An alliance of anti-imperialist Republicans and Democrats in the House — including Speaker Thomas Reed (R-Maine) — opposed the annexation treaty negotiated under President William McKinley. For nearly a month, Reed blocked the resolution from coming up for debate.

The resolution was largely the handiwork of Rep. Francis Newlands (D-Nev.). Proponents of annexation eventually prevailed by sponsoring a joint resolution, which needed simple majority approval, rather than a vote on McKinley’s treaty, which would have required a two-thirds Senate majority.

Earlier in the year, the Senate had rejected the proposal after being presented with a petition signed by 38,000 Hawaiians.

Eventually, overwhelming sentiment in the House in favor of annexation forced Reed to relent — though he voted against it.

The Senate approved the measure on July 4, 1898; McKinley signed it on July 7. In August, a ceremony on the steps of the former royal palace in Honolulu marked the impending transfer of sovereignty.

Hawaii officially became a U.S. territory on April 23, 1900. Robert William Wilcox, who had sought to restore the Hawaiian monarchy through several unsuccessful rebellions, served as its first delegate.

In 1959, Hawaii became the 50th state.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/38513.html#ixzz0r2foN2HI

Treaty of Annexation between Hawaii and the U.S.A. Yes, it really exists and is now available on a webpage.

Jun 15

Posted by Ken Conklin in Uncategorized | No Comments

Hawaiian independence (secession) activists keep saying “There was never a treaty of annexation between Hawaii and the U.S.” If that were true, then Hawaii would still rightfully be the independent nation it once was. And that would make the secessionists very happy. If there was never any cession, then there doesn’t need to be any secession. Just get the U.S., or the United Nations, or the World Court to recognize it.

But indeed there was a treaty. Annexation was well and truly done. A new webpage provides the full text of the Treaty of Annexation, and the resolutions whereby both the government of Hawaii and the government of the U.S. agreed to it. There’s also a discussion about the politics of annexation in 1898 and 2010. See

http://tinyurl.com/2748fgg

William McKinley was President of the U.S. at the time of annexation in 1898. He signed the joint resolution of Congress whereby the U.S. agreed to the Treaty of Annexation which the Republic of Hawaii had offered. That’s why McKinley High School in Honolulu has a large statue of President McKinley, holding a document in his right hand with a cover that clearly says “Treaty of Annexation.” And that’s why today’s secessionists hate both the statue and the document in McKinley’s hand. In 2009 a resolution was introduced in the Hawaii state legislature calling for the statue to be stripped of that document. The resolution actually got considerable support from some of the legislators. Talk about historical revisionism! In 2010 the crazies actually staged a protest rally at the McKinley statue, and again on the grounds of ‘Iolani Palace, proclaiming thatthere was never a treaty of annexation.

So find out the truth. Go see the treaty for yourself, at

http://tinyurl.com/2748fgg

Tags: , , ,

Kamehameha Day 2010 — What Kamehameha hath joined together, let not Akaka rip asunder

Jun 11

Posted by Ken Conklin in Uncategorized | No Comments

June 11 is Kamehameha Day — an official holiday of the State of Hawaii.

The greatest accomplishment of King Kamehameha The Great was to unify all the Hawaiian islands under a single government 200 years ago.

But now once again we are threatened with the Akaka bill in Congress, whose primary purpose is to rip us apart along racial lines.

The Kingdom founded by Kamehameha was multiracial in all aspects. John Young (Englishman) was so important to the founding of the Kingdom that his tomb is in Mauna Ala (the Royal Mausoleum on Nu’uanu Ave.), where it is the only tomb built to resemble a heiau, and is guarded by a pair of pulo’ulo’u (sacred taboo sticks). His bones are the oldest bones in Mauna Ala. Yet the Akaka bill would deny John Young membership in the Akaka tribe.

The first sentence of Hawaii’s first Constitution (1840), known to historians as the kokokahi sentence, was written on advice of American missionary William Richards. In English, it can be translated into modern usage as follows: “God has made of one blood all races of people to dwell upon this Earth in unity and blessedness.”

The Akaka bill would do exactly the opposite of the one-blood concept, ripping us apart for no reason other than race, establishing a binary opposition of “us vs. them,” dividing Hawaiian children from non-Hawaiian parents, spawning jealousies between members of the Akaka tribe and their cousins who are not allowed to belong. This is not aloha.

The Kingdom of Hawaii was founded by people of different races working together on the battlefield and in the government. That cooperation continued throughout the Kingdom’s history. Every person born in the Kingdom, regardless of race, was thereby a subject of the Kingdom with all the same rights as ethnic Hawaiians. Immigrants could become naturalized subjects of the Kingdom, with full rights; and many Asians and Caucasians did so. From 1850 to 1893, about 1/4 to 1/3 of the members of the Legislature at various times were Caucasians appointed by the King to the House of Nobles and also elected to the House of Representatives (and later elected to the House of Nobles after a Constitutional change).

There has never been a unified government for all the Hawaiian islands that included only ethnic Hawaiians, either among the leaders or among the people.

We’ve all heard the closing line spoken by ministers presiding over weddings: “What God hath joined together, let no man put asunder.” Today, in honor of Kamehameha Day, let’s say: What Kamehameha hath joined together, let not Akaka rip asunder.

A more detailed version of this essay is at:
 http://tinyurl.com/2c3ue8v