Former Taiwanese President Tours Cornell (in National News) Youth Commission Report Critical of S.F. Schools (in Bay Area News) Does China Deserve to Host the Olympics? (in Business) Yoshiki Watanabe's Reunion (in A&E) Emil Amok: Your Liberty Interests Affirmed Here (in Opinion)

Related: • Main Feature: Do Native Hawaiians Count? • Washington Journal: Justice for Native Hawaiians • Lead Editorial: Payback Time

Do Native Hawaiians Count?

Committee urges federal recognition of indigenous status

By Associated Press Wires

Helen O’Connor grew up on Molokai, where she says her family “got food from the oceans and the mountains.” Like her parents, most of the locals were farmers. But as government land awards dwindled, earning a living became increasingly difficult.

“Previously, native Hawaiian people received 150 acres,” she says. “Now that’s lowered to 25 acres, barely enough for subsistence. Twenty-five acres is only enough for 2.5 cows.”

Times changed. Educated people came to Molokai, O’Connor recalls. “They were sent to teach us, but instead they used us to get what they needed,” she says. “They used the people to get the land and to do their jobs, jobs they didn’t want to do.”

As a single mother with a uncertain future, O’Connor left Molokai — for a $10 an hour job in Oahu. She talked to her parents and son before making the decision to go. She left him with her parents. “I needed to make an income to take care of my children,” she says. “We did not have the same opportunities as other places with higher economic levels.”

Today, O’Connor, 53, is a community health worker at the Waianae Coast Comprehensive Medical Center in Oahu. She supports federal recognition of Native Hawaiians because, she says, “Americans took everything from us. The U.S. government overthrew our government.”

Polynesian islanders arrived on the Hawaiian islands some 1,000 years ago. In the late 1700s, Hawaiians numbered somewhere between 400,000 to 1 million. But as contact with Europeans increased, Hawaii’s native population plummeted, dipping to 71,000 by 1853.

The latest Census indicates the group makes up 6.6 percent of the population with 80,137 people. That figure, however, does not include all mixed-race Hawaiians. And other surveys show they constitute 20 percent of the state’s population. It is estimated that fewer than 6,000 full-blooded Hawaiians remain.

With the unstable population and a culture that is in jeopardy of being decimated, Native Hawaiian advocates are pushing for federal recognition of the people. Some are calling for Hawaiian independence.

How We Got There

This statue of King Kamehameha I stands in the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C. He unified the Hawaiian islands and played a significant role in inviting relations and trade with the United States. Photo courtesy of americaslibrary.gov

For hundreds of years, Hawaii was divided among four high chiefs. In 1810, the islands were unified under Kamehameha I. During that time, Hawaii as a nation, entered into treaties with more than 15 other countries, including the United States. Throughout the century, there were attempts to colonize the people, through U.S. government action and religious missionaries.

On January 17, 1893, a small group of businessmen — who were looking for a way to lift sugar tariffs — dethroned the Hawaiian queen Lili’uokalani, with backing by three companies of the U.S. marines. They seized crown lands and ended Hawaii’s independence. A year later, the same group declared the land the Republic of Hawaii. Then-President Grover Cleveland ordered an investigation, which found U.S. diplomatic and military representatives had abused their power. Cleveland called on them to reinstate the monarchy. His orders, though, went largely ignored.

The provisional government seized control of almost 2 million acres, which was later ceded to the U.S. government. In 1894, the islands were annexed as a U.S. territory. By the end of the century, most of Hawaii’s land was owned by Westerners.

“The takeover of Hawaii, the violations in international law are far more extensive than those against the Native Americans,” says Poka Laenui, director of the Institute for the Advancement of Hawaiian Affairs. “Even today, the U.S. is treating the issue of Hawaii as an indigenous issue rather than a human rights issue.”

In 1959, Hawaii’s voters chose to become a state, rather than remaining a territory, despite the opposition of Native Hawaiians.

For the Rights of Native Hawaiians

By the 1970s, the disparities between Native Hawaiians and other groups demanded action. The state established the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA) in 1978. OHA helps pay for scholarships, subsidized mortgages, business loans and other benefits for Native Hawaiians. Most programs require individuals to have 50 percent or more Hawaiian blood for eligibility. Furthermore, OHA administers a trust fund, which includes 1.2 million acres of public lands, and adopted the 1920 federal Hawaiian Commission Act that set aside 200,000 acres to provide house lots and agriculture lands. In recent years, OHA has wielded much power, allocating some $25 million annually and overseeing the fund worth $300 million.

OHA also established that its nine board members were to be elected by Native Hawaiian voters.

By 1993, it was clear Native Hawaiians were gaining a voice. In commemoration of the 100th anniversary of the overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy, then-Gov. John D. Waihee III, the state’s first governor of Hawaiian ancestry, folded the U.S. flag, and in its place raised the Hawaiian flag over the state capital. Furthermore, U.S. Congress passed a joint resolution, which was signed by then-President Bill Clinton, apologizing to Native Hawaiians for the United States Navy’s actions.

Also that year the state legislature adopted an act that recognized Native Hawaiians and created the Hawaiian Sovereignty Advisory Committee. The act was amended, creating the Hawaii Sovereignty Elections Council “to determine the will of the indigenous Hawaiian people to restore a nation of their own choosing.” In 1996, 70 of Native Hawaiians voters said yes to the question of whether they should “elect delegates to propose a Native Hawaiian Government.”

With their increasing clout, however, came backlash.

Emergency Situation

Urgent action is needed to establish federal recognition of Native Hawaiians similar to that given American Indian tribes, the Hawaii Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights said in a report released last week.

“[Without] explicit federal recognition of a Native Hawaiian governing entity, or at least a process for ultimate recognition thereof, it is clear that the civil and political rights of Native Hawaiians will continue to erode,” the report said.

The report will go to the commission for consideration.

Commission member Yvonne Lee was on hand when the committee, made up of 10 Hawaii residents, released its 54-page report at the state Archives Building adjacent to Iolani Palace, the former home of the Hawaiian monarchy. At the same time, committee Chairman Charles Kauluwehi Maxwell Sr. of Maui delivered a briefing on the report to the commission in Washington.

In addition to having the federal government accelerate efforts to formalize a political relationship with Native Hawaiians, the committee recommended implementing last fall’s recommendations from the Justice and Interior Department on a reconciliation process for Hawaiians.

They included giving Native Hawaiians self-determination over their own affairs within federal law, a government-to-government relationship between Hawaiians and the federal government and having the Department of Justice’s Office of Tribal Justice maintain a dialogue with Native Hawaiians.

The committee also recommends expanding social and economic programs for Native Hawaiians, including more funding for education, job training, medical services, housing, cultural centers and language immersion programs.

Those services are imperative for the community’s survival. Native Hawaiians are the largest racial group with families below the poverty level, with families on public assistance, and with individuals 200 percent below the poverty level, according to the report. While some 6.4 percent of the state’s work force is unemployed, for Native Hawaiians the figure is 10.8 percent. Furthermore, just 50 percent of Native Hawaiians between 18 and 24 years old, have graduated from high school.

Native Hawaiians also experience poor health, states the report. Those between 36 to 65 years old are 1.3 times more likely to suffer from heart disease compared to any other racial group. Hawaiians, 35 years and older, constitute 44 percent of all cases of diabetes recorded in the state. Even more disturbing — they account for 73 percent of the deaths among those under 18 years old.

Rice v. Cayetano

The Hawaii Advisory Committee’s report comes in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Rice v. Cayetano ruling last year that the Hawaiians-only voting requirement for the Office of Hawaiian Affairs was unconstitutional racial discrimination.

On April 25, 1996, Harold Rice, a white rancher, challenged the voting restriction as unconstitutional under the 15th Amendment. The case went to the Supreme Court and in early 2000, it ruled favor of Rice. According the majority opinion, a state may not use race or ancestry as the basis for special voting privileges, even for the purpose of righting historical wrongs against native peoples. Under the decision, Hawaii’s practice of allowing only Native Hawaiians to elect the OHA trustees was found unconstitutional.

Though the ruling dealt only with voting restrictions, the justices’ broad opinion called into question the benefits themselves, administered by OHA.

Justices said “OHA elections…are the affair of the state of Hawaii.” Therefore, voting must be opened to all Hawaii citizens, not just those who trace their ancestry to the Polynesians who lived there before the arrival of James Cook in 1778. Moreover, though Native Americans are eligible to hold special elections, the court declared that being Hawaiian is a racial category, not a political status like many Native Americans tribes have.

With that decision, more people recognized the importance of obtaining federal recognition and status as native indigenous people.

More Lawsuits

On July 13, 2000, a new threat came from a federal lawsuit brought by Honolulu resident Patrick Barrett, a non-Hawaiian, who is challenging the constitutionality of programs such as the OHA and the Department of Hawaiian Homelands. Barrett says that Article 12 of the state Constitution, which establishes the Hawaiian programs, discriminates on the basis of race and therefore violates the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Barrett’s lawsuit seeks a declaratory judgement and a preliminary injunction against OHA’s continued operation. Cayetano has said state attorneys will defend OHA’s constitutionality. Currently, U.S. District Judge David Ezra in Honolulu is reviewing a motion by the Office of Hawaiian Affairs to dismiss the lawsuit.

Also at stake in the federal lawsuits is OHA’s claim before the state supreme court that the state owes OHA 20 percent of all state revenues over a 15-year period from Honolulu International Airport landing fees, the Waikiki Duty Free store, Hilo Hospital and various state housing projects. OHA contends it never has been given its fair share of revenues from ceded lands as required by the 1987 state constitutional amendment.

Recognition

In its report, the Hawaii Advisory Committee noted the failure thus far of U.S. Sen. Daniel Akaka’s, D-Hawaii, bill in Congress to recognize Native Hawaiians as aboriginal, indigenous, native people with whom the United States has a unique political and legal relationships.

The law is especially crucial in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision on Rice v. Cayetano by preserving federal programs for Native Hawaiians. It recognizes Native Hawaiians as an indigenous people and establishes an Office for the Special Trustee for Native Hawaiian Affairs within the Department of the Interior.

“Whether or not Congress eventually adopts recognition legislation, the executive branch should pursue all measures within its power to effectuate reconciliation with Native Hawaiians,” the report said.

Poka Laenui favors independence. He agrees with the bill’s “move to secure indigenous rights among Native Hawaiians.” However, he says many U.S. legislatures are “still working with the fantasy that the United States is exempt from international law. It is ingrained in [those who oppose the bill].” Nevertheless, he believes if the bill were to pass, President George W. Bush may sign it.

“I believe President Bush wants to treat Native Hawaiians properly, like Native Americans. He’s looking at it from the perspective of a cowboy. I do see him going along with it.”

Laenui, himself, isn’t 100 percent in favor of the bill, however. He says it would not allow for self-determination.

“People who trace their roots to colonial history should be asked whether they want to be a part of the United States,” he says. “In 1975, I would say around 1 percent of the population would support independence. Today, perhaps 30 to 35 percent in Hawaii would support it.”

Asked why the movement has gained support, he replies: “Historical justice.”

“Economically and in terms of national security and cultural development, independence would give us back our full potential.”