Thursday, October 15, 2015

Where I Find Hope in Na'i Aupuni and Hawaiian Self-Governance

There was a time when I once believed in the independence of Hawai‘i as a nation-state. I stood steadfast in my arguments that Hawai‘i deserved to be an independent nation returned after the U.S. realized the law passed to annex the Hawaiian Islands went against their very own rules. Nothing short of pure independence could or should ever be accepted, I thought.

Then I went to law school.

I learned a lot of things in law school. I learned the racist origins of the U.S. (founding father George Washington penned a letter that used the phrase, “Savage as the Wolf.” It outlined a strategy to push American Indian peoples further inland, like you would drive a wolf into the forest, to deprive them of food and kill them off). I learned the shameful legal basis for the extinguishment of native title to land (called the Discovery Doctrine). I learned that “public good” and “reasonable person” are defined by the dominant group in power (often white men of privilege when the most important legal doctrines were being developed). I also learned that the dominant will abandon previous arguments, flip-flop on theoretical bases, whatever they need to uphold the status quo — most often at the price of indigenous peoples and their lands, resources and rights.

I shed a good number of tears in law school. I questioned the very make up of my DNA, every syllable of my thoughts. It was a rough time in my life.

In the end, I came out with a different viewpoint. I understood that political realities matter as much as, if not more than, the legal realities of a situation. I learned that you can’t just beat someone at their own game to win. It’s a much more complex process that takes time and multiple disruptions in a cycle that perpetuates power and privilege.

Perhaps this education — this privilege — was why I was not fearful when I first heard of Act 195 during the 2011 legislative session. It passed with little fanfare. And, in 2012, when I learned of the subsequent Native Hawaiian Roll Commission, I signed up. It wasn’t a big deal to me. I read the statute which put the ball in motion. I understood the political and legal realities it was creating. I decided to sign up so I could have a say in what the next steps for the Hawaiian people would be.

When my mom asked me what it was about, I told her that all the act said was that you were signing up to participate in a subsequent process — to have a say in what came next. That was how I understood Act 195; it is still how I understand the statute.

As the ball continued to roll and we moved from 2011 into 2014, my job became to cover these issues as a journalist. I took great interest in knowing what was next for the Hawaiian people. I was at the Office of Hawaiian Affairs for the March 6, 2014 vote which approved $3.97 million toward nation-building efforts.

I remember the night of the vote I met a friend for dinner. I explained to her what I had witnessed and my understanding of what was going on. I was almost giddy with excitement.

Since that March 6 vote more than a year and a half ago, I have found a lot of different ways to explain what the process means to me. “Sky’s the limit,” I would say to folks. We, as Hawaiians, are not limited to any predetermined outcome. We can have our cake and eat it too (isn’t the point of having cake after all?).

Now, as we get closer to the Na‘i Aupuni election, things are getting heated. Hawaiians are taking down Hawaiians. I saw a comment on one thread criticizing community leaders who supported DOI rule-making to provide a pathway to Hawaiians for federal recognition. Below his pointed comment was a noose hanging from the tree. I screen-captured it so I could show people how low we had real gotten.

I’ve seen community leaders and people I call friends and acquaintances suggesting that supporting the reorganization of the Hawaiian people through Na‘i Aupuni as being a part of the problem. It is without any critical discussion of how each of us — whether as employees of the state of Hawai‘i and its agencies or as taxpayers taking advantage of public utilities and services — participates in what opponents call the occupier’s government.

I have seen other community leaders, friends and acquaintances suggest the decision to sign the roll and participate in the election of ‘Aha delegates is out of fear. I have racked my brain over and over again. I cannot find a single point in my decision to be a part of this process where I acted out of fear. Maybe it’s the privilege I’ve had from going to law school where I learned from prominent indigenous scholars who have made real-world changes for people around the world. That could very well be. I’m very fortunate for that education.

At the end of the day though, when I look back at my decisions to sign up for the roll, to make a conscious decision to cover Hawaiian politics and nation-building as a journalist and to, at one point, work for an organization supporting these efforts, the only thing I can think of is hope. I have always only ever had hope for the Hawaiian people.

I look at law school classmates, working for their tribes, villages and nations. I know they all face challenges internally and externally. I know at least some of them worry about relying on racist legal precedence to argue for greater exercise of sovereignty for their peoples and governments.

I also see tribes, villages and nations who are breaking new legal and political grounds. One friend, Attorney General of his tribe, has helped his tribe gain legal jurisdiction over non-Indians, something unheard of in Federal Indian Law. I see pictures of classmates’ children and family beaming with pride after participating in a traditional ceremony.

I know there is pain. I also know that there is hope. None of these amazing native individuals would be doing what they’re doing for their people if they didn’t believe in fighting for something better.

When I have looked at this process, I have only ever seen opportunity. I see an opportunity to gain practice in governing ourselves (and on someone else’s dime perhaps?). I see an opportunity to legally and politically demand a seat at every table that affects our people and our Hawai‘i. I see the negotiation of unsettled claims — not lands — claims to wrongs that have been done against us and that continue to be engrained in the systems that govern us. I see economic opportunity in being able to set our own rules and regulations within the U.S. or outside of it. I see opportunity in having greater control over our cultural capital so that our children never have to cry over the loss of our language and practices.

For me — for us as Hawaiians — like my friends and classmates, there is sadness. But, there is also hope. I have hope for our people. I have hope in our potential to move the needle. I have hope in our ability to disagree respectfully and not trample on each other’s good intentions. I have hope that we can find a place for everyone. I have hope that we are proud of what we are and what we have always been. I have hope for our future and everything we can achieve together.

35 comments:

  1. Please read California v. Nevada, 477 U.S. 125 (1980), relating to the Doctrine of Acquiescence over riding law, and how that Doctrine affects our issues of inherent sovereignty and claims to our national lands under the Kingdom of Hawaii.

    If we acquiesce are we not then "waiving" those long standing issues of inherent sovereignty and national land claims?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Aloha De mont. I'm not familiar with the case you cited. But, a cursory read leads me to think the case is not applicable to Hawaiians' land rights. Our rights to land are, in my opinion, founded in our sovereign rights as indigenous people recognized by the U.S. constitution and in the UNDRIP (and other international declarations dealing with indigenous rights). Neither California nor Nevada's property rights are grounded in the same kind of sovereignty.

      Those are just my initial thoughts.

      Delete
    2. Aloha Ke'opu,

      Please view this video, which explains that we are not indigenous people: https://vimeo.com/142326302

      Mahalo, Paka

      Delete
    3. Isaac, we're going to have to agree to disagree. I believe we are an indigenous people. This belief is not ill-informed. It's based on formal education and professional experience. I wish wet could see eye to eye, but it doesn't seem possible.

      Delete
  2. "We, as Hawaiians, are not limited to any predetermined outcome. We can have our cake and eat it too (isn’t the point of having cake after all?)."

    The USA sending its Department of Interior (DOI) to the Hawaiian Islands in 2014, without also sending its Department of State (DoS), does mean Hawaiians are limited to a predetermined outcome if an Act 195 governing entity is created and then recognized by the DOI.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think you need to take you head out of the books and open your eyes honey. There is so much proverty on reservations, enough to make your head spin. Have you ever seen any thriving one's ?cause when American Indian thrives america turns the rules, take back lands and push them back to start over. My husband is in the military, I've seen many reservations full of proverty drugs and alcohol rape just the way america wants it.... you are not any different america will do it to you too my brown not white sister.....money will come and go, but you can't eat money, you can't feed it to you children? America is broken the america you known...our lands are rich and our oceans plentiful take that away, you dead. Never sign the paper of the wicked. I stand with our Queen and our Ku'e forever. Goodluck saling us out....we not going to set back and take it in the butt no more....soon to be President Mrs. Clinton will set us free, as her husbands acknowledged during his term.

      Delete
    2. I think you need to take you head out of the books and open your eyes honey. There is so much proverty on reservations, enough to make your head spin. Have you ever seen any thriving one's ?cause when American Indian thrives america turns the rules, take back lands and push them back to start over. My husband is in the military, I've seen many reservations full of proverty drugs and alcohol rape just the way america wants it.... you are not any different america will do it to you too my brown not white sister.....money will come and go, but you can't eat money, you can't feed it to you children? America is broken the america you known...our lands are rich and our oceans plentiful take that away, you dead. Never sign the paper of the wicked. I stand with our Queen and our Ku'e forever. Goodluck saling us out....we not going to set back and take it in the butt no more....soon to be President Mrs. Clinton will set us free, as her husbands acknowledged during his term.

      Delete
    3. I have been to different reservations and nations. I've seen poverty and crime, much like I have seen poverty and crime in the neighborhood in Chicago where I lived. I've also seen economic successes (concert venues, hotels, restaurants, etc.). I don't think any of that experience came from books.

      I think perhaps you should have a fuller understanding of indigenous people and actually talk with people and visit yourself. I also think you should be very realistic about the problems we face here in Hawai'i for Hawaiians and how we are addressing (and not addressing) those problems.

      Delete
    4. In May of last year, Dr. Crabbe sent a letter to John Kerry, asking for the DoS to answer the question regarding the continued existence of the Hawaiian state. The letter sat in his office for an entire week before the OHA BOT rescinded it. Would it be naive to presume that the letter was never opened and read?

      This was followed one week later by Dr. Crabbe's press conference that received widespread news coverage in the Hawaiian Islands. Are we supposed to believe that the US government was not aware of this? A few months later, the DOI hastily announced its schedule of public hearings throughout the islands. Are we supposed to believe that Dr. Crabbe's letter had nothing to do with triggering that historically unprecedented move?

      The vast majority of verbal testimony at the DOI hearings requested the DoS. Why did the US choose not to honor that request? If we can have our cake (tribal recognition) and eat it too (independence), then wouldn't that require the US to be impartial to both? How does sending the DOI and not also sending the DoS suggest that the US would be impartial to both? How does DOI disqualification of the verbal testimony not suggest that the US will construe tribal recognition as acquiescence to settle our claim to independence?

      If the sky is the limit, then shouldn't we have access to both the DOI and DoS, instead of the DoS refusing to talk to us? Do you remember when John Kerry gave a speech at the East-West Center in August of last year? Why did he not address the question about Hawaii's legal status? The following month, Williamson Chang sent a letter to Eric Holder, asking for the DOJ to answer the question. No response was received.

      In light of the above sequence of events, do you sincerely believe that tribal recognition will be a stepping stone to full independence (decolonization or de-occuaption), rather than an additional barrier?

      Delete
    5. I do believe that -- if we demand it. Nothing will come to us if we wait to be asked.

      I also would recommend you go back and read the verbal testimony again. I was surprised to see that there were far fewer unequivocal opposing testimony than I remember. There were angry people, but that could be said of those who supported the rule and opposed it. I would urge you to re-read the transcripts. I'd also recommend looking into the written testimony. The viewpoints are much more varied.

      Delete
    6. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    7. You have confidence in your belief that tribal recognition won't close the door to independence, but where is the evidence to suggest that the U.S. would let it to go that way?

      In 2013, the US showed up at the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, and said the following:

      "The U.S. Constitution and other U.S. laws contain provisions on how our government interacts with Native American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian communities and provisions for the redress of their grievances. To assist the Native Hawaiians in this endeavor, Congress formally established an Office of Native Hawaiian Relations within the U.S. Department of the Interior.

      "As such, while the United States appreciates the interest shown by the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous issues, we view the question of our relationship with the Native Hawaiian community as a domestic one, as we do our relationship with the other tribal communities that exist within our borders."

      Full document: goo.gl/iznyw

      It should be obvious that the U.S. is going to make it harder for us to restore independence after they federally recognize a Native Hawaiian Tribe. The U.S. is not going to view it as a stepping stone to independence, but rather a final settlement.

      If you believe in this stepping stone idea, then it certainly won't be the U.S. that offers it as a stepping stone. They will instead use it as an additional barrier to independence. The only chance you have for the stepping stone argument is if enough countries can be persuaded to pass a UN resolution demanding reipscription of the Hawaiian Islands to the list of non-self-governing territories. That would put us in the position that Tahiti is currently in.

      Alternatively, it is entirely possible that U.S. tribal recognition of Hawaiians would make the international community less compelled to support Hawaiian independence than it is currently. So, it would be another way in which tribal recognition could backfire on independence.

      I think your belief that tribal recognition will somehow pave the way for independence is based on blind faith, like a Hail Mary pass. I think the only hope you have is for an unprecedented crisis of rising expectations, following tribal recognition, which is so large that the US cannot contain it, and the international community could not ignore it. Personally, I am not willing to take a gamble on that possibility by supporting Hawaiian tribal recognition.

      Delete
    8. So if not this gamble then what?

      No matter what we will have to negotiate with the U.S. I agree it won't be easy and, in fact, it might get more difficult. But we've got to give it a shot. Why not "practice" organization and negotiation now? The better we get the more we escalate our demands. To have federal recognition, you must at the table with the U.S. To have independence you must also sit down at the table with the U.S., no? So when should we be sitting down at the table?

      Delete
    9. Hawaiian history has a track record of de-occupation, which happened in 1843. There is a track record of independence for two millennia, with formal recognition of independence beginning in 1843, making the Hawaiian Kingdom the first non-European member of the Family of Nations. There is a track record for decolonization, when Hawai'i was put on the United Nations list of non-self-governing territories in 1946, which lasted for 13 years.

      What track record does Hawaiian history have for U.S. tribal recognition? 12 years of failure before finally dying in the U.S. Congress. Previous incarnations of Na'i Aupuni which all failed.

      Therefore, Hawaiian history contains no evidence to suggest that U.S. tribal recognition has a higher probability of success that decolonization or de-occupation. This is why you are looking to U.S. history with Native Americans for your inspiration. However, that is not a valid comparison to Hawai'i which is different in so many ways.

      Unlike the 49 U.S. states, there is no annexation treaty for Hawai'i, which means annexation and statehood are invalid. There is no precedent in U.S. history in which a member of the Family of Nations, being a multi-ethnic nation-state, was transformed and reduced to an aboriginal tribe.

      The status quo is the lesser of two evils compared to U.S. tribal recognition, which will preclude rather than facility independence (decolonization or de-occupation). The U.S. won't let us anywhere near its DoS but has instead been force-feeing us with the DOI, which is in turn force-feeding us with its proposed rule-making. There is no self-determination in that.

      If the DoS and the DOI were both sent to the Hawaiian Islands in 2014, then I might believe that tribal recognition would not preclude independence. The fact that only the DOI was sent shows beyond a reasonable doubt that the U.S. intends to use tribal recognition as a final settlement of Hawaiian sovereignty. They will construe it as a form of acquiescence that brings an end to their occupation.

      The mad dash to force tribal recognition is an acknowledgment by the U.S. that no annexation treaty implies that Hawai'i is occupied. If the U.S. wasn't worried about this legal status, they would not have bothered to send the DOI to the Hawaiian Islands last year. They want to turn Hawaiians into American Indians so that they can write off Hawaiian independence.

      The likelihood of independence will be decreased by tribal recognition, not increased by it. That is why the status quo is the lesser of the two evils. The rush to force tribal recognition demonstrates that word is getting out about Hawaii's legal status, and the U.S. is trying to act before it's too late. In other words, independence will only become more probable as a function of time, because the reality that Hawai'i is occupied will become more widely accepted with time.

      If creation of a "governing entity" is stopped, then we're in a better negotiating position for independence. We'll have a better chance of sitting down at the table with the DoS. We'll have the time needed to form a central authority and seek recognition as a state in the United Nations. We'll have more time to recruit support from the international community. That is why the current status quo is superior to U.S. tribal recognition.

      Delete
    10. The DOI rule clarifies we do not meet the definition of American Indian or Indian tribe, so I don't think I would use the term tribal recognition. It is a political relationship between the U.S. and Hawai'i they're offering. It's similar to what exists for many American Indian tribes and Alaska Native villages / corporations, but it is a distinctive type of relationship.

      I would also caution against seeing intent as extinguishing Hawaiian rights. The status quo affords the federal and state governments to extinguish Hawaiian indigenous rights -- e.g. The sale of ceded lands, Rice v. Cayetano, etc. There is no need whatsoever to create a political relationship to extinguish rights. There is however a need to create a political relationship to preserve rights, reduces and privileges. If a political relationship were in place, it would protect against at least judicial encroachment on many rights.

      I also am very interested in this idea of creating s "central authority" to seek recognition internationally. How is this any different from what Na'i Aupuni is doing? All the process is doing is trying the process toward forming governing entity, which could function as a "central authority." It seems you and I want the same thing...the organization to seek recognition and negotiate at the domestic or international levels. So why do we disagree on this process?

      Delete
    11. *preserve rights, resources and privileges that is...darn autocorrect!

      Delete
    12. I use the term "tribal recognition" loosely, instead of "federal recognition." We already achieved U.S. federal recognition of Hawaiian independence in 1844. So, I say "tribal recognition" to distinguish from the international "federal recognition" that we have already achieved. Sometimes, I will use the term "governing entity" instead of "tribal recognition." I use these for lack of a better concise description, not as derogatory terms. In 2013, the U.S. went to the UNPFII and called it "Native Hawaiian Tribe," but I'm looking for fewer words and syllables.

      I would caution against believing that the USA is trustworthy enough to not use tribal recognition against our bid for independence. There is no guarantee that DOI recognition would make it harder for entitlements to be taken away, since the DOI doesn't control the Supreme Court. The ulterior motive for the U.S. to go down this road is not in the best interest of Hawaiian independence. Otherwise, like I keep saying, they would have sent both the DoS and the DOI to the Hawaiian people last year. The fact that they didn’t shows how impartial they are.

      The U.S. didn't sent the DOI out of the goodness of its heart. It was done because word is getting out that Hawai'i is occupied. So, they need to do something quick to remedy it before too many people catch on. Otherwise, why has it taken 115 year for the U.S. to sent its DOI? The end of Obama's second term is also giving them a sense of urgency.

      How is a central authority different than Na'i Aupuni? Was the PLO formed through a process created by an Israeli law? A Hawaiian central authority would seek independence, which the constraints of Act 195 and DOI rule-making doesn't allow. If you don't think it would be any different, then conversely, why do you need to work through an American law to form your "governing entity"?

      Delete
    13. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in Kahawaiolaa wanted to find in favor of upholding a native Hawaiian's claim, but said it could not because there's no political relationship. It urged, and just shy of directed, DOI to undergo an inquiry to see if there should be a political relationship. That is what they're doing. That and the urging of Hawaiians is why they proposed a rule. There is all the evidence in the world that the existing political structure will continue to degrade Hawaiians' rights, privileges and resources. There is no evidence that the administrative process necessarily precludes movements toward independence, especially given that it would mean we are not capped by U.S. law (e.g. Seeking international recognition from other countries is not bound by U.S. law). I agree we should be careful and cautious when we sit down at that table, but I don't think we should use speculation as a reason not to sit down.

      I would also caution against comparing Hawai'i to Palestine. The differences are too pronounced to make it a good comparison. I would also caution against conflating Na'i Aupuni with state law. They were not formed from statute. They are an independent non-profit. The fact that they are using government-sanctioned registries does not negate their independence. There are many examples of American Indian and Alaska Native groups using, in part, rolls and census lists to organize. It does not mean they were created out of state of federal law. They have inherent sovereignty, and that's where they organize from.

      Delete
    14. It's easy to say that we are not capped by U.S. law, but you had no comment when I showed you the statement of the U.S. at the UNPFII in 2013, where they refer to the creation of a "Native Hawaiian Tribe." I would call it untrustworthiness on the part of the United States, rather than speculation on my part.

      How am I speculating any more than you are? You're speculating that DOI recognition won't make it harder than independence. I showed you the historical track records of independence, decolonization, de-occupation, and "a reorganized Native Hawaiian governing entity" in the Hawaiian Islands. Your speculation has less experimental probability than mine, and you can't use the historical experiences of Native Americans for your experimental probability because that lacks validity.

      Palestine and Hawai'i are both occupied, which makes my comparison valid. Explain to me how Native Americans are a more valid comparison to Hawaiian subjects than Palestinians?

      Na'i Aupuni was created by Act 195, an American law, and is governed by Act 195. Na'i Aupuni board members were handpicked by OHA, which is a state agency. Never mind that they are using occupier-sanctioned registries, which is bad enough. They are using a law of the occupier and seeking DOI recognition from the occupier. Hawaiians are not American Indians or Alaskan Natives. The U.S. has no annexation treaty to be calling us that, or grouping us with them.

      You're obviously hellbent on Hawaiians becoming Native Americans through Na'i Aupuni and DOI recognition, and I'm not going to talk you out of it. Likewise, you are never going to talk me into it. Agreeing to disagree appears to be the only common ground you and I are going to find.

      Delete
    15. Correction in second sentence of second paragraph: won't make it harder to restore independence.

      Delete
    16. What makes you think that Na'i Aupuni was created from statute? Maybe you should talk to the board. That's not what they will tell you nor is there any enacting statute. The only program act 195 enacts is NHRC. If there's another statute you'd like to point me to, I'd be happy to look at it.

      I don't tend to go tit for tat on points because it becomes adversarial and there are sides and a winner, and for me the only winner should be an informed lāhui making decisions that will protect our rights, privileges, resources, lands and health. It wasn't to sidestep a question. I, in fact, agreed we should be careful and cautious when sitting down at the table with the U.S.

      I'm also a little disappointed that instead of agreeing to disagree you used words like hellbent and assigned arguments to me that I never actually said. I feel very strongly about Hawaiian reorganizing. I think that Na'i Aupuni could be a way to reorganize. I also feel strongly about us moving forward as a people politically domestically and internationally. The fact that we can't agree is what it is. But if there's nothing else you take away from my post, I hope it's this sentence: "I have hope in our ability to disagree respectfully and not trample on each other’s good intentions. I have hope that we can find a place for everyone."

      Delete
    17. Kala mai, these sentences, not single sentence.

      Delete
    18. This whole process is being carried out in the absence of an annexation treaty, which is exasperating to myself and others. This means that the debate is going to get heated at points, especially as the "governing entity" gets closer to reality. Understanding that, nation-within-a-nation (NWN) proponents like you need to have tolerance as much as an opponent like me must disagree respectfully. Seems reasonable to me, what do you think?

      According to you, I used words like "hellbent." What are these other words that you're referring to, in addition to “hellbent"? Or are you jumping on a single instance?

      I feel very strongly against reorganizing. Why does the U.S. take upon itself to assume that the Hawaiian nation must be "reorganized"? Why don't they say "restored" instead? Why don't they at least give the option of both? When they say "reorganized," what it is saying is that, "We the United States will not let you restore the Hawaiian Kingdom, so we're going to turn you into a Native American tribe instead." It's doublespeak, not to mention criminal.

      I can agree to assume good faith and work toward a third alternative, if that is even possible in this case. This Friday, if the federal judge rules against the election, the tables will turn and NWN proponents will be willing to make greater concessions to independence activists opposed to Na’i Aupuni. If the federal judge rules in favor of the election, perhaps it will be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

      Delete
    19. I never ever once said I oppose independence. In fact, I've talked about how to get there. The path I envision might be different than what you think. But, no matter what I say, it seems you're not hearing me. I do not believe it is nation-within-a-nation or independence or nothing else. In fact, I think that is one of the biggest issues with conversations like these. No matter how many times I say I'm okay with both, it seems I'm not heard. I feel strongly it's not an either or. I hope you can hear that and accept that.

      Instead of focusing on the federal rule, let's focus on what I said. I never said the Hawaiian nation needs reorganizing. I said Hawaiians need reorganizing. I'm extremely concerned that most of my responses to you consist of correcting the assumptions you're making and the arguments you're assigning to me. If we're going to continue to have this conversation, I need you to accept what I'm saying at face value. You can question it, but you can't change what I'm saying to fit in a box. It's neither fair not productive.

      It's also interesting you (and other independence advocates?) are relying on the supreme court. I'd rather us talk it over asking Hawaiians who are willing to listen, build and grow.

      Delete
    20. You believe in going through DOI to get to independence somehow. I believe in circumventing the DOI to get to independence. I do believe that if we create a governing entity for the DOI to federally recognize, that there is a strong possibility that it will be an either or.

      Why do we have to be reorganized rather than organized? Reorganized implies that we're going to do away with what we had. How do you know that a majority of the Lahui wants to be reorganized rather than organized? When American laws use the term “reorganize” it is a euphemism for transforming a nation-state into a Native American tribe, despite the absence of an annexation treaty for validation.

      Just because I postulated that a ruling in favor of the election could be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court doesn't imply that I'm relying on that court.

      I too believe in dialogue between Hawaiians across the entire spectrum. However, we don’t need to do so under the auspices of Act 195 and the DOI. In 1897, we were able to reach a consensus and sign the anti-annexation petitions without a process created by an American law or federally recognized by the DOI.

      Is it fair to those of us opposed to Act 195 and DOI, to demand that Na’i Aupuni be the forum for this conversation? What if it was the DoS instead. Would that be fair to those Hawaiians seeking DOI recognition?

      Delete
    21. You can believe it's an either or all you want. I would hope that these kinds of conversations would help you understand and maybe even empathize with another viewpoint. But, it's okay if you don't and we agree to disagree on that point. It's not okay to assign me your values despite me repeatedly correcting you.

      As for the organize vs. reorganize, that's simply semantics. I say reorganized because it honors the organization we had a Hawaiian people to effect political change as recently as Kūhiō's time and as long ago as millennia away. If you want to say organize versus reorganize that's fine. I'm not going to argue over two letters.

      It's fine to oppose Na'i Aupuni as a forum to have these discussions, but I do think it's important not to conflate that process with the DOI rule that was proposed. They are two different and distinct processes. There are some who oppose one and not the other. This blog post was about the Na'i Aupuni process, not the DOI rule.

      I do actually worry about only sitting down with the DoS. Aside from the political reality that they wouldn't do so, I think even in theory it's problematic. Lands that the U.S. currently believes it controls come under DOI. DoS‘s function would not allow us to discuss what lands would come to us and what lands wouldn't. The political reality is that U.S. sees anything to do with Hawai'i as a domestic issue, so their division of duties would require that issues of land go to DOI. We'd have to go through them first either way if we want to protect our land right now and in the near future.

      One thing I wonder about independence without federal recognition first is what is the timeline? What are the next steps? The international community won't hand over a nation-state to a group with no government -- forget about the fact that it's from a country with one of the largest economies, armies and politics power. So what's next? How do we get there? And how do we make sure our people and land are protected until then?

      Delete
    22. Is my suspicion, that DOI is not either or, without justification based on U.S. history with Native Americans? I don’t see any historical example of U.S. federal recognition being an intermediate step to a restored nation-state.

      Like I said, I think many participating in Na’i Aupuni have good intentions. It is the trust in DOI recognition that I am opposed to. Act 195 says the following:

      “The purpose of this Act is to recognize Native Hawaiians as the only indigenous, aboriginal, maoli population of Hawai‘i. It is also the State’s desire to support the continuing development of a reorganized Native Hawaiian governing entity and, ultimately, the federal recognition of Native Hawaiians.”

      In other words Act 195, which Na’i Aupuni has its umbilical cord attached to, is hardwired for DOI recognition.

      DOI recognition wasn’t needed for the Ku’e Petitions to stop the annexation treaty. I follow that example in which we should end the occupation without pursuing temporary recognition by the DOI.

      I agree that the U.S. sees this as a domestic issue, which is what I have been saying all along. However, I don’t believe in reinforcing that perception by consenting to DOI rulemaking. I’m not convinced that we would have to go through the DOI no matter what.

      I’m not against the independence delegates who plan to stop DOI recognition. Short of that, I’m open to the possibility of getting the DOI to endorse a declaration that their recognition won’t be construed as acquiesence or otherwise prejudice our claim to full independence (decolonization or de-occupation).

      What is the timeline for the governing entity to be created and what are its next steps? We don’t know because it has not been created yet. So, why are independence advocates being held to this higher standard where we’re expected to have a completed blueprint before pursing initiating the independence process? Na’i Aupuni didn’t need a complete blueprint for its governing entity before it could proceed. It seems like a double-standard.

      Williamson Chang is one of the delegate candidates. Have you read his personal statement?

      “I believe the delegates must 1) Come to a Consensus on the History of Hawaii 2) Establish a "Hawaiian Authority" much like the Palestinian Authority with a Secretary General, A General Assembly and a Secretariat which shall be the Nation in Waiting 3) Under a Compact with the State of Hawaii establish a Court of Hawaiian Affairs where any person can bring grievances without bar by statute of limitations, laches, standing, mootness, or other doctrines as to past and present grievances of any legal nature as to which the Courts of Hawaiian Affairs are free to choose Kingdom Law, Common Law, International Law to resolve and compile such claims. the Hawaiian Authority would, for a period of fifteen years, serve as a transition to a nation-state, recovering governmental powers over that period, negotiating reparations claims with the United States and State of Hawaii, entering into compacts or agreements with other nations, as well as becoming signatories to international treaties as to Human Rights, political rights, self-determination. During this 15 year period claims will be compiled and a massive study will be undertaken as to best arrangements for governance.”

      That is one of the best transition plans I’ve seen for independence. Have you seen the Proclamation Decreeing Provisional Laws, presumably written by Keanu Sai, on his Hawaiian Kingdom Blog?

      http://hawaiiankingdom.org/blog/proclamation-decreeing-provisional-laws

      Delete
    23. Just because no nation has used it as a stepping stone, does not preclude it from being one. No one has tried and failed, so I can't say it's impossible. I also will note that tribes have used that relationship to enforce indigenous rights at the international level. And in that instance, federal recognition has allowed international recognition of indigenous rights of a given people, which is pretty cool.

      We did not need recognition to defeat the annexation bill. Despite defeating that bill, the political reality still existed and the joint resolution passed to annex Hawai'i. The defeat is huge for our people, but it did not stop the political reality from occurring. The U.S. executive wanted to acquire Hawai'i, so it did. I learn from that example that there is never a "too late" if we can sway the political realities in our favor. I also learned that political realities matter more than legal ones at times. We didn't need recognition to defeat the bill, but we need to look at the whole picture -- U.S. still took control.

      I would encourage you to include in a comment for a DOI rule that no rule, whether you support it or not, should acquiesce future rights or settle future claims. Our inherent sovereignty must be upheld. That's something, it seems, you and I can agree on.

      I don't think it's a double-standard to ask independence advocates what the timeline and next steps are. There's a clear "plan" and set of steps for anyone supporting a relationship between the U.S. and Hawaiians -- it's laid out on the rule and it's been outlined in the Akaka Bill. There are also hundreds of tribes, villages and corporations whose experience provides a guide to the next steps. If independence advocates expect someone to abandon the certainty of those outlined steps, then I think it's fair to expect a similar plan.

      I see Prof. Chang's transition. Does he expect that authority to come out of the Na'i Aupuni process? It's not really clear. I'd appreciate clarification there.

      Delete
    24. That was from Prof. Chang's Na'i Aupuni bio, so I'm sure he was trying to keep it brief. He does elaborate to some extent in a recent video: https://youtu.be/05xRcrzmiDk

      Prof. Chang has been good about answering questions on his Facebook timeline.

      I will never agree to Kānaka Maoli being likened to Native Americans for federal recognition. It is not a valid comparison in my opinion, based on various lines of evidence of how different we are from them. Therefore, since I cannot accept the premise of similarity, I cannot accept U.S. federal recognition of Native Americans as a blueprint for our Lāhui.

      Last month, I submitted an extensive comment to DOI against their proposed rule-making, which did express my concern that they would construe federal recognition as acquiescence to extinguish the Hawaiian state.

      If you are using “our inherent sovereignty” as a legal term restricted to indigenous rights, then I disagree. Above and beyond our rights affirmed by UNDRIP, is the presumption of state continuity for our sovereignty and independence as a multi-ethnic nation-state under international law.

      I understand your point about a political reality being distinct from the legal status of the Hawaiian Islands in the absence of an annexation treaty. However, that will not sway me to support DOI rulemaking or federal recognition of tribal status invented for Kānaka Maoli as “Native Hawaiians.”

      I’m not against the support of indigenous rights for Kānaka Maoli, but I am against submitting to federal recognition as an avenue to protect those rights, given the likelihood that the U.S. intends to construe it as a final settlement of Hawaiian sovereignty.

      Delete
    25. I actually think the best response to your thoughts are captured in Rob Williams answer from a forum last year. He talks about the, then-advanced, proposed rule-making and its relation to other native peoples in the continental U.S. and Alaska. The video should cue up, but in case it doesn't, his response starts at 9:58.
      https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=blDlvGet9QY&t=9m58s&feature=youtu.be

      I think it's important to note also that you don't have to support the rule to argue in the alternative, i.e. I don't want the rule, but if you don't listen to me and make a rule, it shouldn't include a, b, or c provisions. It's a common legal strategy that does not bias other claims.

      Delete
    26. Mahalo for sharing. The video was already cued when it opened.

      It's too bad that Francis Boyle didn't stick around at that summit to reply to the same question that Rob Williams answered. Then an even more informed opinion could be made regarding Williams' position. Whenever someone says that DOI recognition won't create a barrier to independence, it is not the U.S. saying that. Rob Williams is not the United States. I must therefore decide whether to take his word for it.

      In theory, I agree that DOI recognition won't necessarily hinder the pursuit of independence. However, I maintain that the U.S. has already spoken on this issue through both words and actions. Terri Robl at the UNPFII in 2013, gave a direct statement from the United States regarding its stance on Hawaiian sovereignty, which views us as a "Native Hawaiian Tribe," in her own words, within U.S. borders.

      In 2014, the U.S. sent the DOI instead of also sending the DoS.

      In 2015, the DOI disqualified the verbal testimony rather than forwarding it to the DoS, so that the DoS could come to the Hawaiian Islands and reply to that testimony. Instead, that verbal testimony has effectively gone into the circular file. Had the U.S. instead decided to hold public meetings with representatives from both the DOI and DoS, I would be more inclined to have faith in the DOI rule-making effort.

      Another problem with OHA’s Kamau a Ea summit last year is who they handpicked for it. If they had Maivan Clech Lam, Kuhio Vogeler, Mililani Trask, Jon Osorio, Keanu Sai, or Williamson Chang, for example, it would have balanced out the two who were conducting the Q&A section.

      The same misgivings with DOI recognition that I have is also shared by people like Jon Osorio, Williamson Chang, and Maivan Lam. If the U.S. or international community perceives the outcome of Na’i Aupuni with DOI recognition as integration into the United States, it will preclude their support for Hawaiian state indepedence.

      Maivan Clech Lam recently gave a perfect reply to the statement you provided from Rob Williams. Click on the following link and listen from 01:11:50 to 01:13:39.

      http://livestream.com/accounts/311605/events/4403735/videos/101538548

      Also, did you watch the Panel Discussion On Kānaka Maoli Self-Governance last week at UH law school?

      http://oiwi.tv/liveevents/panel-discussion-on-kanaka-maoli-self-governance-october-22-2015

      I watched the entire event, and agree with Dr. Osorio, who reflects my position.

      Delete
  3. The part I'm hung up on is the No Treaty of Annexation part.
    With No Treaty isn't Hawaii STILL a Sovereign state???
    Occupation is the Understanding of our pass. Kue Petitions.
    How many Sovereign Countries DO you know of that became Indian Tribes???

    ReplyDelete
  4. The part I'm hung up on is the No Treaty of Annexation part.
    With No Treaty isn't Hawaii STILL a Sovereign state???
    Occupation is the Understanding of our pass. Kue Petitions.
    How many Sovereign Countries DO you know of that became Indian Tribes???

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There are more than 200 Indian nations, all of whom were sovereign before the discovery doctrine and forced removal.

      But that aside, without a treaty of annexation, sure there was no annexation that followed U.S. law, but what is the political reality? Other nation-states actively recognize Hawai'i as part of the U.S. I feel like it's also safe to say the U.S. feels the same.

      It's sad and, honestly, it still hurts. I would rather have my eyes wide open and move forward understanding the political and legal realities than have our hard work fall on deaf ears.

      Delete