Ceded-lands settlement would be precedent?


Jerry Burris has a column about the OHA's proposed so-called ceded lands settlement. He says:
If approved by the Legislature, the state will have formally acknowledged it owes land and cash exclusively to Hawaiians, and Hawaiians alone, as their due share of the income the lands have generated over all these years.

It doesn't matter that the amounts are relatively minor. A precedent would have been struck.

As some have already signaled, this agreement takes care of one issue but leaves open the larger matter of whether Hawaiians are owed further compensation for loss of lands because of the 1893 overthrow and later annexation by the United States. That's where the big stakes come into play.

Resolution of those matters will most likely await the emergence of a Hawaiian "government" or political entity, either through the Akaka Hawaiian recognition bill in Congress or through some other, more organic process.

But when that day comes, and if lawmakers approve the Lingle-OHA deal, people will be able to point to 2008 as the moment when government officially recognized (and paid) Hawaiian claims for losses traced to the overthrow of the kingdom.

Again setting aside that by international standards it should be Hawaiian nationals as a whole, not just Native Hawaiians, but just considering the issue within the framework of U.S. domestic law and native rights policy, what about 1920 Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, which set aside about 800,000 acres of land exclusively for Native Hawaiians and set up a trust fund? What about the 1980 constitutional amendment which created OHA and set aside 20% of the 5(f) so-called ceded lands revenues in the first place, based on the 1959 Admissions Act? While this settlement is about the fact that OHA wasn't fully paid what may have been owed according to the constitution, OHA has been paid some of these revenues over the years. I think internal U.S. law is the wrong venue and just Native Hawaiians are the wrong party, but even if you look it from within that context, I don't see how Burris can say that this proposed settlement would be the first time the "government officially recognized (and paid) Hawaiian claims for losses traced to the overthrow of the kingdom."


Posted: Wed - January 23, 2008 at 11:28 AM    
   
 
Categories
XML/RSS Feed
Search
World Court Case DVD
Larsen Case on DVD
Larsen DVD
Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom at the
Permanent Court of Arbitration
The Hague, 2001
DVD Mini-Documentary & Booklet
Order your copy
FREE HAWAII STICKERS
Free Hawaii
Over at the Free Hawaii blog, Koani Foundation is giving away "Free Hawaii" stickers and pins, and will post photos of them displayed in interesting places. Spread them far and wide!
HAWAII DOCUMENTS
HAWAII LINKS
HAWAII BLOGROLL
HAWAII FORUMS
HAWAII PODCASTING
PROGRESSIVE BLOGROLL
TV Worth Watching
The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
The Colbert Report
NOW with David Brancaccio
Foreign Exchange with Fareed Zakaria
Countdown with Keith Olbermann
Russell Simmons presents Def Poetry
Real Time with Bill Maher
Washington Journal on C-Span
PBN Friday with Howard Dicus
Portfolio
Archives
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
Browse archives by date
CURRENT IMAGE
Support Organ Donation
DONATE LIFE
Comments powered by
Weblog Commenting by HaloScan.com
TECHNORATI
Add to Technorati Favorites
SUPPORT THIS BLOG
If you find this weblog valuable, please consider making a secure donation via PayPal to support its ongoing maintenance:

Mahalo!
Or contact me about sponsoring this blog in exchange for space in the Sponsored Links area above.
Statistics
Total entries in this blog:
Total entries in this category:
Published On: Jan 24, 2008 10:00 AM
Powered by
iBlog


©