This blog is about Hawaii's status as an independent country under prolonged illegal occupation by the United States, and the history, culture, law & politics of the islands.
Gov. Abercrombie today signed into law SB1520, which was created by the state legislature as a state-level substitute for the Akaka Bill once the Republicans took over Congress and it became apparent that the window had closed for any hope of a federal recognition bill passing any time soon.
It spends several pages recounting the history of the state’s relationship with Native Hawaiians, including mention of “the Sovereignty Advisory Council, the Hawaiian Sovereignty Advisory Commission, the Hawaiian Sovereignty Elections Council, and Native Hawaiian Vote, and the convening of the Aha Hawai’i ‘Diwi (the Native Hawaiian Convention)” which were all variations on the same theme, the state trying to facilitate some process for “Native Hawaiians” to organize a government. They had with varying levels of participation and none of them actually resulted in much as far as ongoing process or established institutions, but they were part of an evolving dialogue and educational process. But we really have been through this before already, for good and bad, and I get a bit of deja vu with this bill. Even with OHA itself, OHA is described in this bill as a “trust vehicle to act on behalf of Native Hawaiians until a Native Hawaiian governing entity could be reestablished…” and before Rice v. Cayetano there was already a roll of eligible voters in the OHA election, with basically the same criteria, which was just a subset of the whole state election roll.
Anyway, then it has the formal statement of recognition.
The Native Hawaiian people are hereby recognized as the only indigenous, aboriginal, maoli people of Hawaii.
The bill then establishes “a five-member Native Hawaiian roll commission within the office of Hawaiian affairs” appointed by the governor and nominated by “qualified Native Hawaiians and qualified Native Hawaiian membership organizations.” One member must come from each of the four counties, with one member at-large. The commission then compiles and publishes a roll which
shall serve as the basis for the eligibility of qualified Native Hawaiians whose names are listed on the rolls to participate in the organization of the Native Hawaiian governing entity.
and
is intended to facilitate the process under which qualified Native Hawaiians may independently commence the organization of a convention of qualified Native Hawaiians, established for the purpose of organizing themselves.
Then it has the disclaimers, including ”
Nothing in this chapter is intended to serve as a settlement of any claims against the State of Hawaii, or affect the rights of the Native Hawaiian people under state, federal, or international law.
So that’s the bill.
Here’s the AP initial breaking news article and the state senate news release in the Molokai Dispatch. There’s also an op-ed piece in the UK Guardian by J Kēhaulani Kauanui which expresses an opposing argument from a pro-independence perspective.
Update: here’s the full report from the Star-Advertiser.
(I’ll share some of my own thoughts about the bill when I get together soon.)
COME
Celebrate, Remember, Confront and Continue
20 years of advocacy
With Keahi Felix
July 15, 1991 – July 15, 2011
ANAHOLA documentary film and WAHINE NOA book signing: at Books, Nooks and Crannies – July 15 – 6:00 PM
14 Waianuenue Avenue, Hilo, Hawai‘i
(mauka of Koehnen’s Interiors)
808. 961.1110
On this American Independence Day weekend, in a Star-Advertiserop-ed piece NHLC attorneys David Kauila Kopper and Camille Kalama take a look at the kingdom/state motto “Ua mau ke ea o ka ‘āina i ka pono” and it’s origin and deeper meaning, and what that tells us about the Hawaiian perception of sovereignty and independence for the people and the land.
Join Hanalaei Fergustrom and Hawaiian Nationals this weekend!
Iolani Palace grounds at the ahu
July 2, 2011 – Saturday, 10 am – 4 pm
July 3, 2011 – sunday, 10 am – 4 pm
For a talk story on
Past/Present/Future
Connecting points of resistance
Honoring our ancestors
Building on the truth of our history
Proposed outcomes:
Statement (document) of
1) resistance to fake history (so-called annexation, statehood, federal
recognition, state recognition)
2) honoring of our queen and our ancestors who defended their country
3) desire to rebuild a nation based on truth and pono behavior
For more information, call Hanalei at (808) 938-9994
This Memorial Day FSRN re-visits “In Memorium” a documentary on the history of Hawai’i that is little-known by most people in the United States.
Located 25-hundred miles west of the California coast, Hawai’i became known as the 50th state in 1959. Hawai’i is also home to the largest US military command center and to massive tourism and real estate development industries. But native Hawaiians are largely excluded from the material benefits enjoyed by the industries that have taken over huge swathes of the island chain.
It’s a situation that didn’t happen overnight…but it’s a history that isn’t often taught in American classrooms.
Join us today as FSRN’s Anne Keala Kelly brings us “In Memorium” and walks us through the history of Hawai’i and what the act of remembering means for many Hawaiians.
UPDATE: MAY 27, 2011 — On May 26, 2011, Plaintiff filed a Civil Notice of Appeal from the Opinion and Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider Order Granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a Supplemental Complaint entered on April 6, 2011. Since United States government officials are parties in the lawsuit, there is a 60 day window to file an appeal from the date of the Order. Appeals from the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., will take place at the U.S. District Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The sole issue on appeal is the U.S. District Court’s application of the political question doctrine, which it says prevents it from adjudicating Plaintiff’s lawsuit.
The fundamental issue on appeal will center on whether or not a U.S. President can withdraw recognition of Hawaiian state sovereignty after a previous U.S. President afforded explicit recognition of Hawaiian state sovereignty on July 6, 1844, thereby creating, as the U.S. District determined, a political question until Hawaiian state sovereignty is re-recognized by a subsquent U.S. President. The Plaintiff maintains that international law prevents a recognizing state from de-recognizing another state’s sovereignty, because recognition of state sovereignty is a political act with legal consquences. International law, however, does not prevent a recognizing state from de-recognizing another state’s government, which is often referred to as diplomatic recognition. Example: The United States recognized Cuba’s state sovereignty in 1925, but derecognized the Castro government in 1961. The withdrawal of the recognition of Castro’s government was not a withdrawal of the United States’ recognition of Cuban state sovereignty. Cuba continued to exist as a sovereign state, despite the derecognition of the Castro government.
Fivemembers of a native Hawaiian sovereignty group on Maui are being accused of luring unsuspecting clients with bold talk and official looking documents.
A twenty-five count indictment unsealed in U.S. District Court Thursday alleges the group committed various fraud and tax offenses through a debt assistance program that relied on falsified documents.
[…]
The defendants operated under the trade names Hawaiiloa Foundation, Ko Hawaii Pae Aina and The Registry.
The last remaining court challenge to Kamehameha Schools’ admissions policy giving preference to native Hawaiians came to an end yesterday when the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the case of four unidentified students who contended the practice violates federal civil rights laws.
This article in today’s Travel section of the San Francisco Chronicle
If, like me, you believe no place is heaven on earth, you won’t be surprised to learn that San Francisco-based Global Exchange is promoting a new Reality Tour — a program usually associated with Third World destinations such as Afghanistan, Guatemala or Vietnam — to Hawaii, one that promises to uncover all sorts of trouble in paradise.
Loss of indigenous sovereignty? Check. Militarization? Check. Cultural and environmental degradation? Well, you get the picture. But do you really need to join a tour group to discover those pressing concerns — which Global Exchange says are “rarely mentioned by the media, the travel industry or the local government” — or to have meaningful encounters with island residents working to reverse or mitigate them?
Since the first Reality Tour doesn’t debut until Dec. 16-23, 2011, it may be a little premature as well as uncharitable to answer those questions with “uncheck.” But I can note tour highlights as described in the Global Exchange press release, with my suggestions for do-it-yourselfers (and think-for-yourselfers) in the interim. Like the Reality Tour, I’ll keep the focus on Oahu, but be aware all of the islands provide windows into past and current conflicts — for those willing to see them.
It continues with several recommendations for politically interested travelers, including this tidbit:
And anywhere you see a Hawaiian flag flying upside down, or a yellow, green and red “Kanaka Maoli” flag, you’ll find a supporter of Hawaiian sovereignty. While you won’t find widespread agreement on what that means, exactly, if you ask respectfully and listen carefully, you’ll at least learn about the passion the subject inspires on all sides.
Actually, anywhere you see a Hawaiian flag without a U.S. flag, you’ll find a supporter of sovereignty. Out here in East Maui, there are many Hawaiian flags flying right-side up but by themselves.
As for President Obama, Nixon v. Fitzgerald would give immunity to the President from lawsuits, but President Obama can’t claim to be a bona fide President since the U.S. Constitution requires the President to be a natural born citizen. Since President Obama was born in the Hawaiian Kingdom, and not born in the United States, he is a President de facto (in fact). Nixon v. Fitzgerald only applies to Presidents de jure (by law). I am not claiming Barack Obama is not a U.S. citizen, because he is by his mother (jus sanguinis). He is, however, not a natural born citizen (jus soli), which is a constitutional requirement to be President. During occupations of a country, international law prevents individuals from acquiring the citizenship of the occupied state through birth on the soil (jus soli) and can only acquire citizenship from their parents (jus sanguinis).
Now that the “birthers” biggest argument—that Obama wasn’t born in Hawaii—has been even further discredited than it was already, I wonder if they will latch on to the idea that Obama isn’t a natural-born citizen because Hawaii was not truly part of the United States at the time. It’s a serious argument made for completely different reasons, but they may find it convenient for their purposes as well. That would put them in the seemingly uncomfortable position of agreeing with the argument that the U.S. presence in Hawaii is indeed an occupation…
