Akaka Bill
My sister's take on the Akaka Bill:
my good buddy Keola asked me for some scoops on the Akaka Bill, I tagged some of you other guys who have asked me in the past the same thing. this is just one person's opinion--i speak only for myself. that being said, here is the link to the actual and current version of the bill so you can read it for yourself! http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:S.381:
the official title of this bill is the "Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act" and it seeks to federally recognize Native Hawaiians with a status similar to federally recognized American Indian tribes. the hope is to establish a governing body with which Hawaiians can represent their own interests, and with which Hawaiians can negotiate with Federal and State governments. (more on this later) sounds like a federal version of OHA who i personally feel do not represent well the interests of Hawaiians. (settling on the 'ceded' lands issue--not in our best interest.. using the terminology "ceded"--doesn't inspire confidence in OHA)
ok, that being said. i'm gonna first start with a couple intuitive oppositions and then follow up with some of the problems i have with the specifics of the bill.
first and foremost and most importantly Hawaii never legally merged with the U.S. If we can't agree on that, well, I don't know--it's just historical fact. There were 2 attempts to pass treaties of annexation, which were both defeated. (one by the Ku'e petitions of nearly 38,000) of our kupuna who said a loud and clear 'a'ole to annexation. the document that the US claims annexed Hawaii is the Newlands Resolution which was joint resolution of the US congress. This was/is a domestic policy that only had jurisdiction within the US. In those days it was clear as day that Hawai'i was an independent and sovereign nation through treaties and the establishment of embassies around the world. most importantly it was in the early 1840s that the US formally recognized Hawai'i's status as an independent state--so there was no question that a domestic policy of the US did not have application in a foreign country (the Hawaiian Kingdom). given all of that, the attempt to give Hawaiians a status similar to that of American Indians is not a fit--because our history with the US is different. That being said, being a federally recognized tribe in america is kinda a raw deal too, as native peoples on the continent are still struggling with the choice to either assimilate/americanize or die out. In 1993, the US Congress passed the so-called "Apology Resolution" Hyperlink to http://www.hawaii-nation.org/publawall.html: admitting and apologizing for its role in the illegal overthrow of the Hawaiian Government. in OPPOSITION to the resolution, senator Gorton from WA said "the logical consequences of this resolution would be independence". Yet the akaka bill places further under the bureaucracy of the US. The Hawaiian governmental entity that could be created under the akaka bill would put Hawaiians under the jurisdiction of the state, department of the interior, and the federal government. The fact that we would be under state jurisdiction is a key point. This is why they say this bill gives us a status SIMILAR to that of native americans. Native American tribes can negotiate directly with the federal government--a status that states hate. Writing Hawaiians to be under state jurisdiction will allow a precedence to be set so that other Native peoples will no longer be able to 'talk' directly with the federal government.
Okay, moving on.. the Akaka Bill identifies Hawaiians ONLY by ethnicity and ignores the fact that the citizenry of the Hawaiian Kingdom were/are multi-ethnic. this does not address the issue of someone who is Hawaiian by nationality, but not by ethnicity.
There has only been ONE week of hearings in Hawaii on the Akaka Bill 9 YEARS AGO.. the attendees were overwhelmingly in opposition to the bill. Here's a video (the only one i've seen) of what happened there. Hyperlink to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUnoPWCHsZU&feature=related please, forgive all the reinstated Hawaiian government promotion, the video was created by one of their members. if you have time, try watch the whole thing, pretty good! oreta your aunty dawn is in this one at 8:49. click on part 7 to see the hearings that took place in DC, how different. they didn't report ANY opposition to the bill. it reminds me of annexation attempts--it was well known that the people didn't want it, so they NEVER put it to a popular vote.. i think something similar is going on here.. actually if you stick with it, part 8 has an american indian uncle (russell means) who came to share about what federal recognition has done for his tribe.
okay, and now on to some specifics of the bill..
first line: "(1) The Constitution vests Congress with the authority to address the conditions of the indigenous, native people of the United States."
--this places the power in US Congress, not with Hawaiian people
second line: "(2) Native Hawaiians, the native people of the Hawaiian archipelago which is now part of the United States, are indigenous, native people of the United States."
--i have a serious problem with those last 6 words.
as i'm going through the bill again, i have so many problems it's too much to really cut and paste here.
(19) This Act provides for a process within the framework of Federal law for the Native Hawaiian people to exercise their inherent rights as a distinct aboriginal, indigenous, native community to reorganize a Native Hawaiian government for the purpose of giving expression to their rights as native people to self-determination and self-governance.
--what it does NOT say is that this bill will only allow for a government UNDER the federal gov't, without asking Hawaiian people if that in fact is our desire. they are already setting parameters for us to operate in. like the uncle said in the video "we'll be as free as a bird in a cage".
"(8) NATIVE HAWAIIAN GOVERNMENT- The term `Native Hawaiian government' means the citizens of the government of the Native Hawaiian people that is recognized by the United States under the authority of section 7(d)(2) of this Act."
--so what.. if i'm not a citizen of the federally recognized hawaiian government then i don't count?
in reference to the link i provided the the text of the bill, i can't find the part that is really scary.. in 2007 they added provisions to the bill that took away the right for Hawaiians to bring suit against the government. they also inserted language to protect and exempt the US military--which means that the 25% of their military bases that sit on crown lands, are non-negotiable. this blog is kinda getting away from me.. keola, reel me in! :) is this what you wanted me to talk about? there are tons and tons of forums that have been put up on youtube and/or olelon.net let me know if you'd be interested in checking some of those out. this bill is so confusing because there are new iterations every year and they're hard to keep track of. back in 2007 after some of these scary provisions were added, many of the OHA trustees said that it was scary, and they were uneasy and that our fears are FOUNDED--but that they were going to stay the course and support the bill. HAH? that makes no sense to me. k, i could really go on and on, but i feel like this has been convoluted enough.. my apologies.
as mr. slagel once said to me.. "the akaka bill is securing 5% of what you need, to keep from losing everything." i can't buy into that kind of compromise!
my good buddy Keola asked me for some scoops on the Akaka Bill, I tagged some of you other guys who have asked me in the past the same thing. this is just one person's opinion--i speak only for myself. that being said, here is the link to the actual and current version of the bill so you can read it for yourself! http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:S.381:
the official title of this bill is the "Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act" and it seeks to federally recognize Native Hawaiians with a status similar to federally recognized American Indian tribes. the hope is to establish a governing body with which Hawaiians can represent their own interests, and with which Hawaiians can negotiate with Federal and State governments. (more on this later) sounds like a federal version of OHA who i personally feel do not represent well the interests of Hawaiians. (settling on the 'ceded' lands issue--not in our best interest.. using the terminology "ceded"--doesn't inspire confidence in OHA)
ok, that being said. i'm gonna first start with a couple intuitive oppositions and then follow up with some of the problems i have with the specifics of the bill.
first and foremost and most importantly Hawaii never legally merged with the U.S. If we can't agree on that, well, I don't know--it's just historical fact. There were 2 attempts to pass treaties of annexation, which were both defeated. (one by the Ku'e petitions of nearly 38,000) of our kupuna who said a loud and clear 'a'ole to annexation. the document that the US claims annexed Hawaii is the Newlands Resolution which was joint resolution of the US congress. This was/is a domestic policy that only had jurisdiction within the US. In those days it was clear as day that Hawai'i was an independent and sovereign nation through treaties and the establishment of embassies around the world. most importantly it was in the early 1840s that the US formally recognized Hawai'i's status as an independent state--so there was no question that a domestic policy of the US did not have application in a foreign country (the Hawaiian Kingdom). given all of that, the attempt to give Hawaiians a status similar to that of American Indians is not a fit--because our history with the US is different. That being said, being a federally recognized tribe in america is kinda a raw deal too, as native peoples on the continent are still struggling with the choice to either assimilate/americanize or die out. In 1993, the US Congress passed the so-called "Apology Resolution" Hyperlink to http://www.hawaii-nation.org/publawall.html: admitting and apologizing for its role in the illegal overthrow of the Hawaiian Government. in OPPOSITION to the resolution, senator Gorton from WA said "the logical consequences of this resolution would be independence". Yet the akaka bill places further under the bureaucracy of the US. The Hawaiian governmental entity that could be created under the akaka bill would put Hawaiians under the jurisdiction of the state, department of the interior, and the federal government. The fact that we would be under state jurisdiction is a key point. This is why they say this bill gives us a status SIMILAR to that of native americans. Native American tribes can negotiate directly with the federal government--a status that states hate. Writing Hawaiians to be under state jurisdiction will allow a precedence to be set so that other Native peoples will no longer be able to 'talk' directly with the federal government.
Okay, moving on.. the Akaka Bill identifies Hawaiians ONLY by ethnicity and ignores the fact that the citizenry of the Hawaiian Kingdom were/are multi-ethnic. this does not address the issue of someone who is Hawaiian by nationality, but not by ethnicity.
There has only been ONE week of hearings in Hawaii on the Akaka Bill 9 YEARS AGO.. the attendees were overwhelmingly in opposition to the bill. Here's a video (the only one i've seen) of what happened there. Hyperlink to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUnoPWCHsZU&feature=related please, forgive all the reinstated Hawaiian government promotion, the video was created by one of their members. if you have time, try watch the whole thing, pretty good! oreta your aunty dawn is in this one at 8:49. click on part 7 to see the hearings that took place in DC, how different. they didn't report ANY opposition to the bill. it reminds me of annexation attempts--it was well known that the people didn't want it, so they NEVER put it to a popular vote.. i think something similar is going on here.. actually if you stick with it, part 8 has an american indian uncle (russell means) who came to share about what federal recognition has done for his tribe.
okay, and now on to some specifics of the bill..
first line: "(1) The Constitution vests Congress with the authority to address the conditions of the indigenous, native people of the United States."
--this places the power in US Congress, not with Hawaiian people
second line: "(2) Native Hawaiians, the native people of the Hawaiian archipelago which is now part of the United States, are indigenous, native people of the United States."
--i have a serious problem with those last 6 words.
as i'm going through the bill again, i have so many problems it's too much to really cut and paste here.
(19) This Act provides for a process within the framework of Federal law for the Native Hawaiian people to exercise their inherent rights as a distinct aboriginal, indigenous, native community to reorganize a Native Hawaiian government for the purpose of giving expression to their rights as native people to self-determination and self-governance.
--what it does NOT say is that this bill will only allow for a government UNDER the federal gov't, without asking Hawaiian people if that in fact is our desire. they are already setting parameters for us to operate in. like the uncle said in the video "we'll be as free as a bird in a cage".
"(8) NATIVE HAWAIIAN GOVERNMENT- The term `Native Hawaiian government' means the citizens of the government of the Native Hawaiian people that is recognized by the United States under the authority of section 7(d)(2) of this Act."
--so what.. if i'm not a citizen of the federally recognized hawaiian government then i don't count?
in reference to the link i provided the the text of the bill, i can't find the part that is really scary.. in 2007 they added provisions to the bill that took away the right for Hawaiians to bring suit against the government. they also inserted language to protect and exempt the US military--which means that the 25% of their military bases that sit on crown lands, are non-negotiable. this blog is kinda getting away from me.. keola, reel me in! :) is this what you wanted me to talk about? there are tons and tons of forums that have been put up on youtube and/or olelon.net let me know if you'd be interested in checking some of those out. this bill is so confusing because there are new iterations every year and they're hard to keep track of. back in 2007 after some of these scary provisions were added, many of the OHA trustees said that it was scary, and they were uneasy and that our fears are FOUNDED--but that they were going to stay the course and support the bill. HAH? that makes no sense to me. k, i could really go on and on, but i feel like this has been convoluted enough.. my apologies.
as mr. slagel once said to me.. "the akaka bill is securing 5% of what you need, to keep from losing everything." i can't buy into that kind of compromise!