http://tinyurl.com/yaes57z

The essay explores two topics:

(1) King Kauikeaouli Kamehameha III chose St. Patrick’s Day for his “official” birthday, much as modern monarchs declare an official birthdate for national celebrations even though it is not their true date of birth. Details are provided about Kauikeaouli and the fact that nobody knew his actual birthdate.

(2) Kelly Slater and Greg Long, surfers from Florida and California, are Caucasians who won Hawaii’s most prestigious surfing competition, the Eddie Aikau, on the most recent two occasions when it was held, 2002 and 2009. The competition is held rarely, only when waves are at least 30 feet high at Waimea Bay. An article in “Irish America Magazine” published March 13, 2010 celebrates Irishmen who are leaders in the modern revival of surfing. But a resolution which passed the State of Hawaii House of Representatives last week, on the same day it was introduced and without testimony or hearings, singles out “Polynesian tribal surfers” as a class to be honored, while excluding all others who lack a drop of Hawaiian native blood. Sure and begorrah, the Irish lads deserve a mention; or else the leprechauns will take away the pot of gold at the end of all those Hawaiian rainbows.

http://tinyurl.com/yk7a4tc

The article published in a California newspaper (The Sacramento Bee) actually relies on the plot of “Avatar” to explain “indigenous” Hawaiian opposition to the placement of telescopes on Mauna Kea. The article raises the question whether ethnic Hawaiian protesters and their allies might be justified in using violence to defend Hawaii’s environment and ethnic Hawaiian religious/cultural values, as the indigenous Na’vi and their Caucasian Earthling allies used violence to defeat the bulldozing of Pandora’s rainforest to harvest unobtainium to satisfy Earth’s needs.

I am a combat veteran from the Vietnam era, who served with the 1st Battalion, 502nd Infantry Regiment, in 1969. My active duty began as a reservist attached to the Hawai’i National Guard’s 29th Brigade in 1968. At that time, Neil Abercrombie was a demonstrator against us, calling us names that was truly not Hawai’i.

Abercrombie and I have huge differences of both moral and economic issues. We are on opposite sides on national defense, as he voted against the Patriot Act in 2002. He supports same-sex marriage and testified in support of civil unions. He supports abortion, where I believe that life begins at conception. He supported the comprehensive health care bill pending in Congress, destroying the best health care system in the world.

I could forgive him for our many differences except for one, the Akaka bill. He believes in the racial separation of Hawai’i’s people without allowing for a plebiscite. His position is not pono. Hawai’i was and is a blend of many races and cultures. Hawai’i is of one people and Abercrombie wants us to be separated by race.

Governor? I don’t think so.

Jimmy Kuroiwa
Honolulu

The Rice decision abolished racial segregation in Hawaii elections. The state Constitution had said only ethnic Hawaiians could vote for trustees of the state government agency “Office of Hawaiian Affairs.” Thanks to the Rice decision all registered voters now have equal voting rights regardless of race. A followup federal lawsuit, Arakaki#1, further desegregated OHA by removing the racial restriction on candidacy for OHA trustees. Thanks to Arakaki#1 all registered voters now have equal rights to run as candidates for all state government offices regardless of race. In Summer 2000 Governor Ben Cayetano won a legal battle and ousted all nine OHA trustees, because they had been illegally elected. In November there were 96 candidates for the nine seats. At least a dozen OHA candidates had no Hawaiian native blood, and one of them won a seat on the board. There were numerous proposals for ways to dodge the Supreme Court decision by various methods, including bills in the Legislature that would have transfered the assets of OHA and DHHL to a private racially exclusionary trust fund.

The battle for civil rights in Hawaii gained huge momentum from the Rice decision, and continues today against entrenched opposition. Strong language in the Rice decision (see quotes below) emboldened civil rights activists to file several lawsuits during the following ten years, seeking to dismantle or desegregate Hawaii’s empire of powerful, wealthy race-based government and private institutions. But the lawsuits attacking government programs were dismissed for technical reasons focusing on “standing” and the “political question” doctrine. The lawsuits attacking the racially exclusionary admissions policy at Kamehameha Schools were settled by large payouts to plaintiffs before any precedent-setting decision could be handed down. Since none of these government or Kamehameha lawsuits was decided on the merits, all issues remain open to future litigation.

In the meantime Hawaii’s empire of race-based institutions has sought protection through the Akaka bill, which would authorize creation of a racially-exclusionary government resembling an Indian tribe that could enfold the race-based institutions under its jurisdiction. The bill has passed the U.S. House on two occasions, but failed on a cloture vote in the Senate due to opposition from the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and a public veto threat from President Bush. On the tenth anniversary of the Rice decision it’s still not clear whether the Akaka bill will be enacted into law, and whether it could survive eventual Supreme Court scrutiny.

For a detailed description and analysis of the Rice decision, and the legal and political battles it spawned throughout the past decade (including Arakaki#1, Barrett, Carroll, Arakaki#2, Kamehameha Schools, Kuroiwa, DHHL property tax, and Akaka bill) see a new webpage created to commemorate the tenth anniversary:

http://tinyurl.com/y8jaahg

For an explanation of the “big picture” in which the Rice decision and the Akaka bill are important brush strokes, see a 302-page book “Hawaiian Apartheid: Racial Separatism and Ethnic Nationalism in the Aloha State” at

http://tinyurl.com/2a9fqa

http://tinyurl.com/yjyn9b5

One of those bills is to establish gambling casinos on the native Hawaiian Homelands. The bill HB2759 HD2 has already passed second reading with approval by two committees (Hawaiian Affairs, and Judiciary) and now awaits a hearing by the Finance Committee.

This information should raise many doubts in the minds of Congressional Representatives and Senators who have been relying on assurances from the Hawaii delegation that the Akaka bill prohibits gambling by the Akaka tribe.

Even though the Akaka bill has language which seems to prohibit the Akaka tribe from gambling, that language could nevertheless be evaded. Suppose the State grants a license to establish casinos on the Hawaiian Homelands, and does so before the Akaka bill is passed and before the tribe gets certified by the Secretary of Interior. The tribe might be able to keep the casinos despite language in the Akaka bill prohibiting them, on the theory that the Constitution says Congress cannot pass ex-post-facto laws. The Akaka tribe could ask a court to nullify the Akaka bill’s prohibition on gambling without fear of nullifying the rest of the bill, because the bill has a severability clause.

Following are excerpts from a lengthy Honolulu Advertiser article of Sunday, February 14, 2010 about legislation for gambling.

http://tinyurl.com/yzujhhv

The excerpts show that Hawaii legislators, including the Chair of the House Committee on Hawaiian Affairs, believe casinos could be placed on native Hawaiian homelands without interfering with the Akaka bill.

“Gambling interests spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on lobbying and public relations in Hawai’i nearly a decade ago, tempting state lawmakers with new tax revenue from a grand resort and casino. Nothing happened. This year, with no similar lobbying blitz, state House lawmakers have opened the door to legalized gambling, either through a single casino on O’ahu or casinos on Hawaiian home lands. … Even the talk of the state allowing casinos on Hawaiian home lands may undercut years of assurances in Washington, D.C., by Inouye and U.S. Sen. Daniel Akaka that federal recognition for Native Hawaiians would not lead to gambling as it has on Indian reservations. … [G]ambling bill pending before the House Finance Committee would give the Hawaiian Homes Commission the authority to allow casinos on Hawaiian home lands. … The Native Hawaiian federal recognition bill — known as the Akaka bill — prohibits gambling by a new Hawaiian governing authority that would negotiate with the state and federal governments over land use and cultural issues. Inouye and Akaka added the prohibition, aides say, to answer critics who have suggested that federal recognition is a potential back door to legalized gambling. … State Rep. Mele Carroll, D-13th (E. Maui, Moloka’i, Lana’i), the chairwoman of the House Hawaiian Affairs Committee, who introduced the gambling bill, said she supports federal recognition and does not want to interfere with the debate in Washington. But she added that she wants Hawaiians to have a discussion about casino gambling as a potential revenue source. ‘They know that my intent is not to take away from the Akaka bill,’ Carroll said.”

Results of the Zogby poll are at

http://tinyurl.com/yczuo3q

The Office of Hawaiian Affairs was invited to send a spokesperson to give a speech and answer questions, but at the last minute OHA backed out. Ten-minute speeches opposing the Akaka bill were given by civil rights activist Jere Krischel and by ethnic Hawaiian sovereignty activist Leon Siu.

Jere Krischel published an essay based on his speech, at

http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?2f8cd402-479f-4abf-8361-c05d53a93c38

An audio podcast of the speech by Jere Krischel is at

http://www.grassrootinstitute.org/system/attachments/39/2010-01-15_Akaka_Panel_-_Jere_Krischel.mp3

And an audio podcast of the speech by Leon Siu is at

http://www.grassrootinstitute.org/system/attachments/40/2010-01-15_Akaka_Panel_-_Leon_Siu.mp3

Even though the book itself is worthless, this review provides some interesting information about the sovereignty movement. We enjoy hearty laughter at the irrational thought process of some sovereignty activists and the absurdities they put forward as truth. Folks might also be surprised by the criminal activities some activists engage in as part of their effort to rip the 50th star off the flag by undermining the sovereignty of the United States in the State of Hawaii through tax evasion, filing fake legal documents, and refusing to comply with licensing regulations.

The book also addresses numerous widely scattered topics that seem popular among conspiracy theorists who wear tinfoil hats to prevent the Martians from reading their minds. Many Hawaiian sovereignty activists seem attracted to conspiracy theories. The book review identifies some of those topics briefly.

The book does make some substantive claims regarding alleged illegality of the revolution of 1893, the annexation of 1898, and the statehood vote of 1959. All the substantive claims are rebutted by a series of well-documented webpages whose links are provided at the end of the book review.

Please read the book review at
http://tinyurl.com/lhc3zv

http://tinyurl.com/ctbopx

Sullivan’s book review in the context of other materials about the ceded lands and the recent Supreme Court decision:

http://tinyurl.com/chbkpx