Hawaiian Sovereignity up for Vote

[Michelle]

July 17, 2005

Bill Giving Native Hawaiians Sovereignty Is Too Much for Some, Too Little for Others

By DEAN E. MURPHY

HONOLULU, July 15 - Hawaii is once again awash with mainlanders, as summer vacationers delight in its beaches and make themselves feel at home even on distant tropical islands. Breakfast at Starbucks, lunch at Subway, dinner at Red Lobster and a restful night at the Marriott or Hilton.

But most visitors soon discover something profoundly different about the 50th state that the requisite luaus and hula dances only hint at. The 250,000 indigenous people of Polynesian ancestry who are among Hawaii's 1.2 million residents make the state like no other, sustaining a native Hawaiian cultural and linguistic imprint that preceded the arrival of Capt. James Cook by a millennium.

Now, 112 years after United States troops helped overthrow the independent Kingdom of Hawaii and 12 years after Congress apologized for it, that Hawaiian distinctiveness appears close to being formally recognized by the United States government. A bill that for the first time would extend sovereignty to the native Hawaiian people is poised for a vote - and likely approval - in the United States Senate despite opposition from many Republicans who denounce the measure as unworkable and as promoting racial Balkanization.

The bill, the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act, is considered the most significant development for native Hawaiians since statehood in 1959. The measure would give them equivalent legal standing to American Indians and native Alaskans and lead to the creation of a governing body that would make decisions on behalf of the estimated 400,000 native Hawaiians in the United States.

The governing body would also have the power to negotiate with federal and state authorities over the disposition of vast amounts of land and resources taken by the United States when the islands were annexed in 1898, including about 300 square miles of land long ago set aside for use as native homelands and an additional 2,500 square miles scattered throughout the islands being held in trusts.

Haunani Apoliona, a musician who is chairwoman of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, a state agency that would be superseded by the new governing body, said the bill was a long overdue acknowledgment that Hawaiian history did not begin with the arrival of Cook and the British Navy in 1778.

"We were here before Columbus," Ms. Apoliona said. "We were in Hawaii before the Pilgrims."

The House of Representatives has passed earlier versions of the bill and would take up the current one if the Senate passes it, perhaps as early as next week.

The Bush administration has remained largely neutral on the measure, though the Justice Department on Wednesday cast some doubt on the constitutionality of the proposed law, namely whether Congress has the authority to treat native Hawaiians as it does Indian tribes. Assistant Attorney General William E. Moschella said in a letter to Congress that the proposed law also must be amended to include protections for United States military operations in Hawaii and stronger language precluding casino gambling.

Read the rest of it here in the New York Times

[Dr. Shane]

From what I have heard, the Bureau of Indian Affairs has done more harm than good to the Native Americans. One would hope they are not going down the same path with the Hawaiians.

[Neil D]

I concur, Shane. This would only set the Hawaiians back. Better for them if they set about educating the college professors and sharing thier history with Archeologists so as to promote the history and preserve thier way of life.

[Michelle]

I have mixed feelings on the whole issue. Most of the Hawaiians I know would rather just quit being a state and go back to being a sovereign kingdom!

M

[Neil D]

Why is that Michelle?

[Michelle]

Several reasons, I think.

1) Deepseated resentment of haoles (whites) who have changed their way of life. If you go as a tourist, you will be showered with "aloha" and come back thinking this is, indeed, paradise. But the reality is often different.

2) The original missionaries were quite harsh, and many Hawaiians want to "get back" to the indiginous religions (basically animist--just think of Pele and Maui and the stories surrounding them). They feel that something vital was ripped away from them. (which is why the SDA church's 28th fundamental was voted in--the recognition that missionaries can't just go into a place and take away an indiginous religion without meaningfully replacing the important parts with something else.)

3) Related to the second, there has been a vast upsurge in interest in the old religion in the past 10-15 years. THe spirit world is alive and well in Hawaii. I know many people who have seen the marchers (ghost armies), and one of my students lived in a room that was haunted by the ghost of a girl who died or was killed there. She was so freaked out by it, but her parents just laughed at her. Pretty interesting situation for one of our "modern" states.

4) There are a lot of "unresolved" land issues, much like other Native American groups have had.

I'm sure there are more. I haven't lived there in 6 years, but have tried to follow issues as I've found them online.

M

[Stan]

I was surprised to learn, that some there feel their 'liberation from the previous Gov't' was viewed similar to the attempted 'Liberation of Kuwait' by Iraq.

I found it odd, that the Union Jack is part of the state flag.

[]http://www.50states.com/flag/image/nunst016.gif[/]

Hawaii was once an independent kingdom. (1810 - 1893) The flag was designed at the request of King Kamehameha I. It has eight stripes of white, red and blue that represent the eight main islands.

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

2) The original missionaries were quite harsh, and many Hawaiians want to "get back" to the indiginous religions (basically animist--just think of Pele and Maui and the stories surrounding them). They feel that something vital was ripped away from them.

---

Doesn't Pele and Maui have human sacrifices???

On my way to Korea, I stopped in Hawaii, and toured the Island for a day. I seem to vaguely remember the names, and associate bad things to them, but as to exactly what, well, I have forgotten....

Michelle, didn't you used to live there for an extended period? You speak as if you did and you have some background the history with the place...

Quote:

---

(which is why the SDA church's 28th fundamental was voted in--the recognition that missionaries can't just go into a place and take away an indiginous religion without meaningfully replacing the important parts with something else.)

---

It sounds to me like the SDA church [and for that matter, the Christian church in general] needs to do a major evangelizing effort there in Hawaii and surrounding Islands. Doing so, will probably keep Hawaii in the US...

[Bravus]

Similar issues are being worked through with the Aboriginal people in Australia, and no doubt in a number of other areas around the world. I think it's important to note that Hawaii is not thinking of seceding, or anything like it. What is being sought by the Hawaiian people is sovereignty over *themselves* - and although it's potentially problematic, it's also somewhat paternalistic to suggest that they are not able to overn themselves in a way that will advance their own interests.

[Neil D]

" overn themselves "

????

Dontcha mean govern themselves? " overn themselves " sounds like they are gonna kill themselves, as in "off themselves".

[Bravus]

D'oh! Yeah, my brain wrote 'govern' but my fingers were falling down on the job. 'Insufficient caffeine error' apparently... <img src="/ubbtreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

[Halfstep Denise]

Thanks for the article, Michelle!

I lived in Hawaii when it became a state in 1959. There were a lot of people who were not happy on statehood day.

My dad worked for the Adventist Church as a colporteur. He and my mom both had "missionary licenses". After a few years of doing that job, he and my mom both worked at Castle Memorial Hospital, which is an Adventist hospital.

I loved living in Hawaii and even though it's been 40 years since living there, I like to consider it "home". I visited the islands in 1984 and it was nice to be back.

I've heard that one of the towns where we lived had become a center for those who want special rights for Native Hawaiian and it was dangerous for non Hawaiians to be there! Yikes!

When you heard a politician say that the United States doesn't take over another country for expansion, laugh in their face! Read Hawaiian history! I hope the Hawaiians do get some special rights, just like the Native Americans and Native Alaskans!

I'm not crazy about their wanting to go back to ancient Hawaiian religion, which is why I think the Adventist Church needs to boost it's work in the islands, but stay in the background and help the island members do the work.

Aloha!! Denise

[Michelle]

Neil--I lived there from 95-99 on Kauai. I have friends from the church who are very much for Hawaiian sovereignity.

You know, a major evangelistic outreach would be an interesting concept. We tend to think that since it's a state, the people are just like everyone on the mainland. However, I'd say the people are just as steeped in spirits and animism as in many of our "mission" fields. I've really never encountered anything like that.

And, yes, as Denise says, there are places where it would be dangerous to go if you're haole.

M

[Dr. Shane]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Most of the Hawaiians I know would rather just quit being a state and go back to being a sovereign kingdom!

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Some southern states had the same idea about 145 years ago. Things didn't work out so well for them. I think Eddie Money sang a song that said, "I want to go back... but I can't go back I know." That is the reality. The US was in the wrong in the way it took over Hawaii and I think that is pretty much agreed on by historians and modern-day politicians. This current proposal seems to be a way of trying to right a wrong. My only concern is that it will make a bad situation worse.

I think Brother Neil is closer to the right track. Let's make all public universities free for native Hawaiians, make no-interest governement loans available for buying homes and starting small businesses. Let's give them a hand-up and not a hand-out.

[Planey]

Quote:

---

Shane said:

Things didn't work out so well for them.

---

How do you think things would have worked out, though, if the North had just allowed the secession to stand?

Graeme

[Dr. Shane]

I don't know nor will we ever. However I believe the South should have been able to succeed. Early in the nation's history some New England states were considering sucession and President Washington said if they wanted to he would do nothing to stop it.

One of the issues in Hawaii is that the natives are in a minority. So while they may want to succeed, the majority probally want to remain with the US.

Puerto Rico is a terriory of the US and can either become an independent country or become a state. They have voted for both and decided not to go either way. However once they become a state, there is no history of letting them go back to a terriotory or independance.