(c) Copyright 2017
Kenneth R. Conklin, Ph.D.
All rights reserved
INDEX OF NEWS REPORTS AND COMMENTARIES FROM JUNE 1 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2017
June 1, 2017: OHA trustee Keli'i Akina monthly column in OHA newspaper tells OHA to improve transparency and accountability; focus on bread-and-butter issues and not nation-building; and be more careful about spending money.
June 7: Chairman Rob Bishop of the U.S. House committee that has jurisdiction over Indian tribe legislation continues raising questions about tribal sovereignty and federal Indian policy concerning taking land into trust for tribes not recognized before 1934 (Supreme Court ruled in "Carcieri" that the Department of Interior cannot do that). Tribal leaders are worried.
June 11:
(1) Indian Country Today "Kawahinekoa Aiwohi speaks on the difficult history of Native Hawaiians"
(2) Several public college campuses have ahu [so-called altars, but actually rockpiles] recently built and flying Hawaiian flags upside down in protest against "124 years of genocide continuing on the Hawaiian community."
June 13: The bill in Congress to reauthorize housing money for Indian tribes leaves out "Native Hawaiians" for the first time; Hawaii Sens and Reps protest, claiming discrimination [WOW!]
June 18: Ken Conklin, letter to editor in Hilo newspaper says sovereignty rockpiles on college campuses are 3-dimensional graffiti and should be removed.
June 21: Article in "Indian Country Today" compares tribes against mere ethnic minorities (no ethnic government and no right to organized ethnic self-determination) and asks whether the U.S. might be on the brink of entering a new period of tribal "termination."
July 1, 2017: Peter Apo, regular trustee editorial in OHA monthly newspaper, says OHA should step away from nation-building efforts and focus on core mission identified in Statehood Act of 1959 and state Constitutional amendment that created OHA in 1978, to work for "betterment of conditions of Native Hawaiians."
July 25: Trump Department of Interior is cutting money for tribes to consolidate lands and will make it more difficult for land to transfer into trust and reversed some Obama-era changes by widening the window for local and state governments to appeal transfers, from 30 days to six years. ... Policy shift somewhat resembles the era of tribal termination.
July 26: Commentary on U.S. House subcommittee hearing of July 13 regarding Bureau of Indian Affairs procedures for taking land into trust for tribes, rights of localities to object, and whether federal government is illegitimately creating new tribes (Carcieri issue).
August 17: Description of major Native Hawaiian trust funds with huge holdings of land and money [which could become the core of a tribal "nation"].
Aug 20:
(1) President of Tax Foundation of Hawaii think tank describes resistance from State of Hawaii Department of Hawaiian Homelands against forking over 5% of its "special funds" as an administrative fee the way all government agencies must do;
(2) A gang of Hawaiian secessionists stages a rally at the statue of President William McKinley demanding the removal of the statue from grounds of McKinley High School (imitating demands for removal of Confederate statues in the South).
Aug 28: Memo to Ryan Zinke, Secretary of U.S. Department of Interior, asking him to repeal 43CFR50 -- Procedures for reestablishing a formal government-to-government relationship with the Native Hawaiian community. This is in response to Secretary Zinke's request for comments to help identify federal regulations to be rescinded or modified as part of President Trump effort to streamline government and make America great again.
September 1, 2017: OHA trustee Rowena Akana calls for unity to ratify proposed constitution for Hawaiian tribe, and recalls previous demonstration of unity in 2003 march protesting federal court decision to force Kamehameha School to enroll a Caucasian student
Sept 13: Pushers of congressional bill to give federal recognition to six Virginia tribes are using similar strategies to what was done with the Akaka bill during 2000-2012, such as bundling the bill with other bills, and including language to ease jurisdictional conflicts and to prohibit the tribes from having gambling casinos.
Sept 15: Very humorous 2-minute video provides the usual twisted history supporting the leftwing assertion that the U.S. stole Hawaii from the natives.
Sept 18: OHA gives $1.5 Mil to Council for Native Hawaiian Advancement, supposedly to support (ethnic) Hawaiian focused charter schools. But CNHA has no experience in education; and CNHA's primary mission is to support creation of a Hawaiian tribe.
Sept 21: Rep. Rob Bishop (R-Utah), the chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, introduced H.R. 3744, the Tribal Recognition Act last week. While the bill establishes standards for the Bureau of Indian Affairs to research petitions submitted by tribes seeking recognition, it bars the executive branch from making decisions on those petitions. "The Secretary may not grant federal acknowledgment (or reacknowledgment) to any Indian group," the bill states, referring to the Secretary of the Interior.
Sept 26: Trump administration won't object if the legislative branch, rather than the executive, decides whether a particular group is worthy of a government-to-government relationship with the United States.
Sept 29: The federal government on Friday sued the government of Guam and the Chamorro Land Trust Commission, stating the Chamorro Land Trust Act violates the federal Fair Housing Act. The lawsuit states Guam has compared the Chamorro Land Trust to the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, which created homesteads for eligible native Hawaiians. But the Hawaii program was created by an act of Congress, the lawsuit states, to provide benefits to a native community.
But the Chamorro Land Trust Act was neither enacted by Congress nor implemented pursuant to authority established by Congress, the lawsuit states.
October 7-8, 2017: "Turtle Talk" publicizes Linda Zhang article in Asian Pacific American Law Journal entitled "Re-Building a Native Hawaiian Nation: Base Rolls, Membership, and Land in an Effective Self-Determination Movement." Ken Conklin replies in letter to editor.
Oct 9: Retired Senator Dan Akaka, in newly published memoir, says that he considers the 1993 Apology Bill, in which the U.S. apologized for the overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy, as one of his greatest pieces of legislation. And even though his so-called Akaka Bill, giving Native Hawaiians federal recognition, never passed, the former senator says the Native Hawaiian Roll Commission is now the best path forward. "We really need to legally get on the laws of the United States," said Akaka.
Oct 25: Letter to editor urges Trump to proclaim executive order to restore Hawaii as independent nation.
Oct 26: News report says church bells will ring on November 11 to commemorate 100th anniversary of death of Lili'uokalani.
November 2017 issue of Hillsdale College's "Imprimis" has a major article entitled "The Problem of Identity Politics and Its Solution." Although there is no mention of Hawaii, the article clearly explains why supporters of Hawaiian tribalism or Hawaiian independence are nearly all left-wing ideologues, while opponents of Hawaiian sovereignty are nearly all politically conservative supporters of traditional American values.
November 2017 issue of the American Bar Association Journal feature article "Ho'o Lahui -- To Form a Nation: Native Hawaiians wage an ongoing battle to organize themselves into a sovereign nation." describing history of overthrow, annexation, Rice v. Cayetano, and attempt to elect delegates to constitutional convention to create a Hawaiian tribe.
Nov 5: Washington Post big article: "Native Hawaiians again seek political sovereignty with a new constitution"; Colonization of these Pacific islands -- and eventual statehood nearly 60 years ago -- has always been a bitter subject for Native Hawaiians, the only indigenous group in the United States that does not have political sovereignty.
Nov 19: Honolulu Star-Advertiser puff-piece about Dan Akaka's recently published memoir about his political career and disappointment over failure of the Akaka bill
December 3, 2017: Letter compares race-nationalist Confederate statues with Hawaiian nationalist statues, Lili'uokalani cult, and OHA-sponsored proposed race-based constitution; urges racial equality, unity, aloha.
Dec 5: Ka Lahui Hawaii [radical Hawaiian sovereignty group founded by Mililani Trask and Haunani-Kay Trask] letter to OHA regarding OHA strategic plan to transfer assets to the Hawaiian tribe expected to get federal recognition under U.S. Dept of Interior regulation 43CFR50 proclaimed in Federal Register on October 14, 2016.
Dec 8: Elaine Willman, retired head of Citizens Equal Rights Alliance, open letter to Russell Begaye, President of Navajo Nation, regarding his claims on CNN that "For Native Americans this (America) is our land. Every inch of it, every mountain, every stream, every water that is out there is ours. It's Native American country ... America is Indian Country, and so every non-Indian out there is a guest of Native Americans in this country' and that's how they should act, so if you're a guest in our country that's how you should act." The issues Ms. Willman addresses in this message are clearly relevant to claims that Native Hawaiians are the rightful owners of all the lands and waters of Hawaii, that non-Native Hawaiians are merely guests in their ancestral homelands, and that the U.S. has no legitimate sovereignty or jurisdiction in Hawaii because there was (allegedly) no Treaty of Annexation. Hawaiian sovereignty activists have been inspired by, and are following the lead of, American Indians in their anti-Americanism and their twisted version of history.
Dec 27: Kaua'i newspaper reports federal judge has blocked the State of Arizona from banning ethnic studies courses in the schools -- the Hispanic studies courses in Arizona are like Hawaiian Studies courses in Hawaii, pushing skewed history and racial separatism. Arizona is fighting back against brainwashing the kids with anti-American and anti-white propaganda; but Hawaii seems delighted to sponsor such courses. Ken Conklin created a webpage about the law in 2010 when it was passed.
Dec 28:
(1) Looking ahead to the Hawaii state legislature which convenes in mid-January, including a conference in the state capitol auditorium sponsored by the racial supremacist Ka Lahui political action committee;
(2) OHA publishes its financial annual report in its monthly newspaper for January
(3) OHA trustee Keli'i Akina writes his own report card to the voters touting his accomplishments in his first year, including working against tribal nation-building and spending the money instead on projects related to ethnic Hawaiian education, healthcare, and housing.
END OF INDEX
==================
BEGIN FULL TEXT OF ALL ITEMS IN THE INDEX, FROM JUNE 1 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2017
https://issuu.com/kawaiola/docs/kwo0617_web
Ka Wai Ola (OHA monthly newspaper), Vol. 34, No. 6, June 2017, page 20
Monthly column by OHA trustee at-large Keli'i Akina
also reprinted in
http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/ArticlesMain/tabid/56/ID/19807/Message-to-OHA-lsquoClean-up-your-Actrsquo.aspx
Hawaii Free Press, June 12, 2017
Na Leo O Na Kanaka: OHA Beneficiaries Speak Out!
by OHA Trustee Dr Kelii Akina, PhD, June, 2017, Ka Wai Ola
Since my election as trustee at large in the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, I've been impressed by the role our beneficiaries play in guiding OHA to fulfill its mandate to serve the Hawaiian people. Beneficiaries from all walks of life have spoken out with deep aloha and yet critical concern for the direction of OHA. These voices have ranged from Germaine Meyers, a Hawaiian Homesteader from Nanakuli to the heiress Princess Abigail Kawananakoa. It's thrilling to see the engagement of stakeholders who care deeply about Hawai'i and her people. As I listen, three messages for the trustees have been articulated loud and clear.
1. Clean up our act!
Beneficiaries are calling for higher levels of transparency and accountability, as demonstrated by their presence at our board meetings, and their engagement with other state agencies and the courts over a variety of concerns. These concerns include the way we contract and procure vendors, exercise oversight of our LLCs, and make available information the public has the right to access. It is my daunting responsibility to serve as chair of the special Audit Advisory Committee, tasked with setting up the most thorough audit for fraud, waste and abuse in OHA's history. I am grateful for the kokua and commitment to the audit, demonstrated by fellow trustees and OHA staff who love and work on behalf of the Hawaiian people. This special audit can only succeed as a team effort.
2. Spend OHA's funds on what Hawaiians really need.
Beneficiaries look at the conditions of the Hawaiian people. They see homelessness, a Hawaiian homes waiting list of over 26,000, and some of the worst indicators of health and other social ills. OHA is clearly not the cause of these problems, but our people look to OHA as the solution for these problems. Increasingly, OHA's spending priorities have come under scrutiny by beneficiaries.
Nationhood, or political self-determinism, may be a cherished value for some in the Hawaiian community, but most Hawaiians see OHA as having a different kuleana. Most want OHA to prioritize what Trustee Bob Lindsey calls ''bread and butter issues."
As Trustee Lindsey wrote in the July 2016 edition of Ka Wai Ola: "Our lahui, when surveyed in 1978 (OHA's founding) and recently (four months ago) have made it clear; 'bread and butter' issues (education, health, housing and jobs) are what's important to them. It wants OHA to focus on these issues. In 2016, the majority of respondents see nation building as a bottom of the barrel issue. OHA must refocus, reboot and rethink its basic priorities if it is to be in alignment with the wishes of our people."
3. Tighten our belts.
As the cost of living rises in Hawai'i, sending many locals away and impoverishing others, beneficiaries have voiced that they want to see OHA spending each dollar efficiently. Spending outside of our means will not accomplish the mission of OHA. To that extent, it's been gratifying to see beneficiaries weigh in on OHA's budget process, to encourage tightening our belts and cutting back on anything that is not necessary in order to preserve that which is necessary.
At the same time, we have been urged to do everything possible to grow the resources OHA has, such as Kaka'ako Makai, in order to increase the wealth available to serving the Hawaiian people. Many are watching eagerly to see how we develop and manage our investments.
Clearly, OHA's beneficiaries play a significant role in shaping the direction of this institution, and, rightly so. They are the voices to which we must listen. They are the reason OHA exists.
-----------------------
https://indiancountrymedianetwork.com/news/politics/rep-rob-bishop-angers-house-colleagues-handling-indian-affairs/
Indian Country Today, June 7, 2017
Rep. Rob Bishop Angers House Colleagues Over His Handling of Indian Affairs
Natural Resources chairman appears intent on quashing pro-tribal House legislation and relations
by Rob Capriccioso
After a May 24 hearing that called into question fundamental tenets of tribal sovereignty and federal recognition of tribes, some U.S. House members and staffers are expressing concern that U.S. Rep. Rob Bishop (R-UT), chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, is ignoring Indian voices as he attempts to shrink tribal sovereignty and federal trust and treaty responsibilities. He is also unnerving colleagues on his side of the aisle who have long been engaged on Indian issues.
"There are slights being felt," said one House staffer who asked not to be named because their boss, a Republican, sometimes works with Bishop. "The congressman's decisions are causing some heartburn."
Bishop's Natural Resources Committee includes the Subcommittee on Indian, Insular and Alaska Native Affairs, chaired by U.S. Rep. Doug LaMalfa (R-CA), and the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, chaired by U.S. Rep. Raul Labrador (R-ID). All Natural Resources subcommittees also have U.S. Rep. Don Young (R-AK), former chairman of the Indian subcommittee, sitting on them as an emeritus member, so his views tend to be inserted into numerous conversations.
Republican and Democratic officials who work closely with members of both subcommittees said they were "surprised" and "confused" as to why Bishop encouraged the May 24 hearing, titled "Examining Impacts of Federal Natural Resources Laws Gone Astray," to take place within Labrador's oversight subcommittee without any tribal leaders invited to testify, and with seemingly little coordination with LaMalfa's Indian subcommittee. The hearing ended up largely being an attack on components of tribal sovereignty and recognition related to the Indian Reorganization Act (IRA) of 1934, as well as the federal land-into-trust process for tribes at the Department of the Interior.
Bishop's communications office had a clear hand in framing Labrador's hearing, as it was Bishop's main Natural Resources Committee – not Labrador's subcommittee – that put out a press release prior to the hearing blasting the IRA and the Interior Department's decisions related to placing land into trust for all federally recognized tribes, regardless of their recognition date. In the recent past, individual subcommittees have put out their own press releases.
"The IRA limited the [Interior] Secretary's ability to put land into trust only to Indians who were members of tribes 'now under federal jurisdiction' as of the IRA's enactment in 1934," Bishop's press release said. "However, despite this clear statutory prohibition, the federal government has routinely placed land into trust for members of tribes that were recognized after enactment of the IRA."
Bishop's release further quoted California's Napa County Supervisor Diane Dillon as saying that bureaucrats within Interior have "abused" the IRA, "to completely strip state and local governments of their authority over local land use, with little to no regard for state and local concerns." Dillon shared similar anti-tribal testimony at the hearing.
The only Indian witness who testified at the hearing was Kendra Pinto, a Navajo Nation citizen, who was asked to speak about oil and gas development. She was not warned by Bishop or Labrador to be prepared to discuss and defend the IRA or Interior's current trust land policies.
Rep. Tom Cole (R-OK), one of only two Native Americans in Congress, is said by those who know him to be perturbed by Bishop's latest actions. Cole has attempted to explain treaty and trust obligations to House members like Bishop and Labrador, and he has introduced two versions of legislation in the current Congress that make clear that the IRA was intended to help all tribes, regardless of federal recognition date, to be able to have lands placed into trust for them by Interior.
Bishop is currently holding both of Cole's bills in limbo.
"We're not really sure what Congressman Bishop is up to," said another House staffer regarding a recent letter Bishop sent to newly hired Interior Associate Deputy Secretary James Cason that asked Cason to limit tribal off-reservation gaming and freeze Obama administration decisions related to tribal lands. Cason, when previously at Interior under President George W. Bush, often tried to curb tribal recognition, gaming, and sovereignty.
Bishop's office has not responded to requests for comment on his handling of Indian affairs and the concerns of his colleagues.
Indians who have appeared before the current Subcommittee on Indian, Insular and Alaska Native Affairs, have had positive things to say about LaMalfa's leadership there.
Gary Davis, executive director of the Native American Financial Services Association (NAFSA), said the organization has been encouraged by LaMalfa's willingness to meet with stakeholders and learn about issues affecting Indian country at large, including tribes and tribal entities' involvement in the financial services sector.
"Our hope for Chairman LaMalfa is that he does everything in his power to elevate the importance of sovereignty across Indian country -- from resource development on tribal lands to how tribes fit into the 21st Century digital economy," said Davis, who personally met with LaMalfa in late February.
LaMalfa is attempting to do just that, telling ICMN that he considers his chairmanship of the Subcommittee on Indian, Insular and Alaska Native Affairs "one of my top priorities."
"Specifically, I know there is a dire need for infrastructure improvements in tribal communities," LaMalfa said. "As things stand, Indian Health Service facilities are not properly equipped for modern day medical practices. At the same time, tribal communities are also in need of updated water and sewage infrastructure, educational improvements, and more capital investment."
LaMalfa is also expressing concern about efforts to cut funding to tribes, in an analogous way to what Cole has done while sitting on the House Appropriations and Budget Committees.
"The current level of funding does not give us much flexibility, so we have our work cut out for us," LaMalfa said. "Northern California alone is home to more than a dozen federally recognized tribes. As chairman, it is my goal to increase funding for infrastructure improvements and work to achieve a better quality of life for the tribes in my district, as well as those across the United States."
At the same time, LaMalfa now must contend with his boss, Rep. Rob Bishop, tinkering on Indian affairs issues in other Natural Resources subcommittees in ways that displease the very tribal constituents that LaMalfa appears to want to assist. On top of that, Young's shadow in this area looms large, and he has never been known to hold back his strong opinions on Indian and Alaska Native issues. Young's staff says the congressman vows to be supportive of LaMalfa's efforts to assist tribes.
Said Davis, "While it would be impossible for anyone to replicate Chairman Young's decades of experience in and knowledge of federal Indian policy, Chairman LaMalfa is off to a good start and taking the right steps to ensure his subcommittee addresses the critical issues facing our communities."
-------------------
https://indiancountrymedianetwork.com/history/people/meet-native-hawaii-catelin-kawahinekoa-aiwohi/
Indian Country Today, June 11, 2017
Meet Native Hawai'i: Catelin Kawahinekoa Aiwohi
Kawahinekoa Aiwohi speaks on the difficult history of Native Hawaiians
by Dennis W. Zotigh
To celebrate Asian Pacific American Heritage Month at the National Museum of American Indian in May, NMAI interviewed Catelin Kawahinekoa Aiwohi, a Native Hawaiian who works in Washington, D.C. The museum frequently invites interesting and accomplished Native individuals to share a little about their lives and work. Their responses offer insights beyond what's in the news to the ideas and experiences of Native people today.
Please introduce yourself and, if you can, give us your Hawaiian name and its English translation.
I'm Catelin Kawahinekoa Aiwohi. The name Kawahinekoa was given to me at birth by my tūtū, or grandmother. It means "the brave, fearless woman" or "the woman warrior."
Where did you grow up, and where in Hawai'i do you call home?
I was born in Wailuku on the island of Maui, and that is where I call home.
What Hawaiian community are you affiliated with?
In 1920 Congress made a commitment to house the increasingly landless and homeless Hawaiian community after they had been displaced from lands they'd occupied for generations. The Hawaiian Homes Commission Act of 1920 was passed to help Native Hawaiians reconnect to the land and improve their economic situations by leasing homesteads on which they could live and farm. I grew up on the Paukukalo Hawaiian Homestead on Maui, part of the 200,000 acres of land that Congress appropriated then.
You've also held a pageant title in Hawai'i.
In 2012 I won the Miss Maui Scholarship Pageant and became a goodwill ambassador for the island of Maui. During my year of service I was a spokesperson for the Children's Miracle Network, raising funds for the Kapi'olani Women's and Children's Hospital.
What is a significant point in history from your Native community that you would like to share?
Kaho'olawe is the smallest of the eight main islands in the Hawaiian Archipelago. From 1941 to 1994, the island and its surrounding waters were under the control of the U.S. Navy. This area was used by the navy and United States' allies as a live-fire training area. A decade-long struggle by the people of Hawai'i succeeded in stopping the bombing of Kaho'olawe and helped to spark the rebirth and spread of Native Hawaiian culture and values. In 1994 Congress conveyed the island back to the State of Hawai'i. The Hawai'i State Legislature had already established the Kaho'olawe Island Reserve Commission (KIRC) in 1993. Its mandate is to manage Kaho'olawe, its surrounding waters, and its resources, in trust for the general public and for a future Native Hawaiian sovereign entity.
What issues are the Hawaiian people facing at this point in time?
Of the nation's three major indigenous groups -- American Indians, Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiians -- we are the only one that currently lacks a government-to-government relationship with the United States. The long history of Native Hawaiians to recover our lost lands, abundant resources, and moreover our ability to self-govern, as a legal sovereign, has been blocked by both political and public policy conscription for over 120 years. The disparity in the federal treatment of Native Hawaiians has caused questions about the legitimacy of Native Hawaiian programs, services, and preferences, resulting in lawsuits threatening our assets and our ability to use them as they were intended.
Is your language still spoken on your homelands?
The incorporation of Hawai'i into the United States at the turn of the 20th century included the extension of a policy against indigenous languages used as the medium of education. What had earlier been a flourishing system of education through the Hawaiian language was closed, and legal barriers to using the Hawaiian language in education were only removed 90 years later, in 1986. By that time fewer than 50 children under the age of 18 were proficient in Hawaiian, and Native Hawaiian educational achievement had plummeted.
A small group of Hawaiian educators began a plan to revitalize the language by focusing their efforts on the best chances the language had for survival: the keiki (children) of Hawai'i. The educators decided to create Pūnana Leo (language nest) preschools -- Hawaiian-language immersion schools that would rely heavily on involvement from parents and community members to stay afloat. The first Pūnana Leo was established at Kekaha, Kaua'i, in August 1984, with subsequent schools opening in Hilo, Hawai'i, and Honolulu, O'ahu, the following year.
This started a revitalization movement that has been extremely successful, serving as a model to other indigenous communities in similar straits. According to the 2011 census, the number of fluent speakers of Hawaiian had risen to a reported 24,000, including 2,000 native speakers. The 'Aha Pūnana Leo has been one of the leading organizations in the Hawaiian language revitalization movement, and there are now a number of immersion schools and programs throughout the state. In the University of Hawai'i system, Hawaiian language classes are offered at all 10 campuses, and the number of second-language speakers continues to grow.
What cultural activities or events did you participate in Hawai'i?
I have danced hula since the age of 6. My kumu (teachers) were very influential in my upbringing and early development. They instilled in me a set of beliefs based upon our familial and cultural experiences, ultimately solidifying my identity as a Native Hawaiian woman. This identity has motivated me to travel through life confident in the key elements of what it means to be a wahine (woman) as part of a vibrant and flourishing culture. There could have been many other outlets and ways for a six-year-old's energy, emotions, and dreams, to take concrete form, but it was hula that allowed my creative dreaming to happen and those ceremonies and rituals that helped center my thoughts and behaviors.
It was also hula that taught me the history of our female gods, including Haumea, goddess of childbirth, war, and politics. I truly believe that this early understanding -- an understanding that came from these powerful female ancestors -- largely contributed to my spiritual and mental health and overall well-being.
What are some ways you stay in contact with your culture while living in Washington, D.C.?
I strive to cultivate and embody the values of the Hawaiian community in my everyday life:
Kuleana, to view your responsibilities as a privilege and honor, to accept responsibility as a duty, not in pursuit of reward, but because it is the right thing to do.
Ha'aha'a, to be unpretentious and to exude a sense of humility. The word can also be used to describe a degrading and lowly state, but this is not an expression of the value. As a value, ha'aha'a is a sign of strength through humility.
Ho'omau, to having perseverance and endurance. To be unceasing and committed to achieving a goal or completing a difficult task.
What message would you like to share with the Hawaiian youth who may be interested in coming to Washington to live?
Our ali'I (monarchy) and appointed representatives conducted numerous diplomatic missions to Washington. Princess Ka'iulani (1873–99) was only 17 years old when she left school in England to travel here to meet with federal officials to prevent the passage of the Annexation Treaty. Prior to her departure, the princess outlined her purpose: to plead for my throne, my nation, and my flag. After meeting with Ka'iulani, President Grover Cleveland removed the treaty from consideration, although it was ultimately adopted by his successor.
Much has changed since then, but the importance of our presence here remains. As laws are being crafted and implemented every day, we cannot assume that our leaders, even those in the highest positions of authority, have had the opportunity to learn and understand the unique history of Native Hawaiians. It is important that we are here to ensure that the contributions of Native Hawaiians, as well as our unique challenges, are kept at the forefront.
------------------
http://www.hawaiitribune-herald.com/news/local-news/tale-two-ahu
Hawaii Tribune-Herald [Hilo}, June 11, 2017
A tale of two ahu
By KIRSTEN JOHNSON Hawaii Tribune-Herald
Hilo colleges are taking different approaches to two on-campus ahu -- or stone altars -- which a student group claims it constructed to bring attention to "124 years of genocide continuing on the Hawaiian community."
Kalaniakea Wilson, a University of Hawaii at Manoa doctorate student, told the Tribune-Herald he is a leader of a statewide group of students called Ahahui Hae Hawaii, or the Hawaiian Flag Society.
He said the group -- comprised of Hawaiian and non-Hawaiian students -- is responsible for erecting an ahu at least two years ago at the University of Hawaii at Hilo. The ahu, located near the Campus Center, was built in response to student arrests on Mauna Kea, he said.
In late 2015, Wilson said group members constructed a similar ahu located near the front entrance of Hawaii Community College.
Each ahu at the Hilo campuses feature an upside-down Hawaiian flag, which Wilson said is an "internationally recognized symbol" of a nation in distress.
He said students also constructed inverted-flag ahu at UH-Manoa and Kauai Community College. He said the group ultimately wants to bring attention to "illegal acts of war from Jan. 16, 1893, by the U.S. government."
"That's the student message," Wilson said. "We need this resolved; 124 years is too long."
But the ahu haven't come without some controversy. Last school year, a UH-Hilo student anonymously contacted the Tribune-Herald and said he felt threatened by the UH-Hilo ahu structure's statement -- specifically the inverted flag -- and questioned why it was allowed to remain on campus permanently.
HCC also has received "whistle-blower complaints" about its ahu, Chancellor Rachel Solemsaas told the Tribune-Herald recently, which have come from students, faculty, community members and "veterans who feel disrespected."
Administrators at both campuses say they've engaged "extensively" with several of the students who claim responsibility and are now following guidance from their campus Native Hawaiian councils.
UH-Hilo said it has largely left the structure -- flag and ahu -- in place.
Campus administrators say they are treating the flag and ahu as a "single installation," as they believe both were constructed at the same time. The campus has "never removed the flag on the ahu and (has) no plans to do so," Gail Makuakane-Lundin, UH-Hilo interim executive assistant to the chancellor, told the Tribune-Herald in a message.
HCC, meanwhile, has treated the flag and ahu separately. The campus consulted with its Native Hawaiian council, which determined removing the flag -- considered a "form of free speech" -- would not be disrespectful of Hawaiian culture, spokesman Thatcher Moats said in an email.
HCC officials believe the flag was added after the ahu was constructed. The ahu is considered separate as a "symbolic structure," Moats said.
Since April, HCC has removed more than a dozen flags from the ahu, each time notifying the student group "where (the flag) is, and that they are free to pick it up," Solemsaas said.
HCC is now developing a campus policy to better address the issue. The goal is to protect free speech rights while establishing an appropriate "time, place and manner" to display exhibits in the future, Solemsaas said.
"Our position is not to take sides, I want to make that clear," Solemsaas said.
"Our position is to make sure we provide a civil and respectful venue where people can practice their constitutional rights of free speech (while adhering) to our mission as a learning environment and not (negatively) impacting student learning."
The student group isn't quite on board, however. Wilson said the group views each flag removal as a "federal violation."
He said about 25 flags have been removed from ahu at UH campuses around the state, and he believes some ahu have also been "vandalized." For example, he previously sent the Tribune-Herald a photo that appeared to show an American flag stuck in the HCC ahu. He said that photo was taken at the beginning of the 2016-17 school year.
UH's free expression policy states that on-campus, free speech activities cannot "interfere with or disrupt the education process or other scheduled activities."
The policy gives campus chancellors discretion to designate one or more on-campus "forum areas" for "public speech activities."
Campus chancellors also have authority to develop "campus specific guidelines" designating "time, place and manner for free speech and other constitutionally guaranteed expressive activities."
The policy encourages chancellors to seek input from campus organizations and staff when developing those free speech guidelines.
Email Kirsten Johnson at kjohnson@hawaiitribune-herald.com.
** Ken Conklin's online comment:
These rockpiles are nothing more than 3-dimensional graffiti littering our government college campuses. The people who erected them should be treated as vandals, same as teenagers who spray-paint their gang tags on walls. The graffiti should be removed, and the vandals should be prosecuted. Congratulations to anyone who uses the rockpile as a flag-holder to fly the U.S. flag. If Hawaiian sovereignty activists assert a free-speech right to fly the upside-down Hawaiian flag from the rockpile, then exactly the same free-speech right pertains to flying the U.S. flag. To read about the cleanup of a similar rockpile at Iolani Palace a few years ago, put the following title into Google, including the quote marks:
"Iolani Palace Rockpile -- Religious Shrine Or Political Symbol?"
[Newspaper does not allow URL links in comments. The webpage essay is at
https://www.angelfire.com/hi5/bigfiles3/IolaniRockpile.html
]
** See letter to editor on June 18.
--------------------
http://www.civilbeat.org/2017/06/hawaii-leaders-say-state-is-under-attack-with-loss-of-federal-funds/
Honolulu Civil Beat, June 13, 2017
Hawaii Leaders Say State Is Under 'Attack' With Loss Of Federal Funds
The proposed reauthorization of a housing bill leaves out annual funding of up to $13 million for Native Hawaiians.
By Chad Blair
Millions of dollars in federal funding for Native Hawaiian housing programs may be in jeopardy.
Hawaii's U.S. senators and representatives on Tuesday jointly criticized legislation before the Senate Indian Affairs Committee that does not reauthorize as much as $13 million a year for the state's indigenous population, even though about $700 million would go to Native American housing annually.
The Bringing Useful Initiatives for Indian Development Act of 2017 would reauthorize all Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act programs except for those related to Native Hawaiians.
"By omitting Native Hawaiian housing programs, the BUIILD Act strikes a blow not only to the 37,000 Native Hawaiians who would benefit from their inclusion, but also over 500,000 Native Hawaiians in our country," Sen. Mazie Hirono said in testimony before the committee.
Hirono continued: "But this is about much more than just stripping out Native Hawaiian housing programs from a bill. At a time when we see 'us against them' perspectives rising in our country, we cannot allow 'divide and conquer' tactics to undermine collaborative efforts to bring people together."
The BUILD Act was introduced by Sen. John Hoeven, a Republican from North Dakota. A summary of the bill says it is intended to "improve the housing conditions and promote useful land uses within tribal communities."
The bill would extend until 2025 provisions of the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996.
For years, Native Hawaiians have received funding under the act in acknowledgement that there exists a special relationship between them and the U.S. government -- even though Hawaiians are not recognized federally in the way that Native Americans and Alaska Natives are.
But Hoeven's bill leaves Native Hawaiians out of the reauthorization.
The funding, ranging from $9 million and $13 million annually, has come in blocks grants and home loan guarantees.
'A Slippery Slope'
Rep. Colleen Hanabusa echoed Hirono's concerns about the omission in the new legislation, arguing that the bill is part of a larger assault by the Republican-controlled federal government.
"I think the main point is that it shows what happens to native peoples, people of color, people who can be subject to discrimination with certain laws," she said Tuesday. "This is an example, and it is almost like the start of a slippery slope. We have already seen this with the Muslim travel ban. I hope that is not the total tenor we are dealing with, but that's the concern."
Hanabusa, Hirono, Sen. Brian Schatz and Rep. Tulsi Gabbard submitted testimony to the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, stating that they "strongly oppose" the measure.
"The housing needs faced by our native communities are among the worst in the country," they wrote.
They cited the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act of 1920 as clear evidence that the federal government has a "unique trust responsibility to promote the welfare of the aboriginal, indigenous people" of Hawaii.
To abandon the "bipartisan progress" that has been made on helping native communities with their housing needs "would be a grave mistake ... This simply is not the way forward," they stated in the joint testimony.
In her own testimony in front of the Indian Affairs Committee, where Schatz is a member, Hirono said: "The history of our government's treatment of native people is not a proud one. For Native Hawaiians, this includes the illegal overthrow of the Hawaiian Monarchy in 1893. Today, Native Hawaiians – like other native peoples across the country – continue to face high levels of poverty, lower educational attainment, and affordable housing. For those who do not recognize Native Hawaiians as an indigenous people or oppose Native Hawaiian programs, I would ask that you learn more about their history and experience."
Hanabusa said that, when Hawaii's Dan Inouye and Dan Akaka were serving in the Senate, reauthorization for the Native Hawaiian housing programs was routine.
She said their departure (Inouye died in late 2012 and Akaka retired in 2013), combined with the current Republican control of all three branches of government, has "strengthened the hand" of conservative groups who do not recognize Native Hawaiians as a class akin to Native Americans and Alaskan Natives.
Some, she said, have tried to argue that the 1920 Hawaiian Homes Commission Act no longer stands, "which is not true at all," Hanabusa said.
Meanwhile, the use of the funding by the state Department of Hawaiian Home Lands was criticized earlier this year by Schatz. The agency didn't produce any new housing units for Native Hawaiians in the previous fiscal year, even though it has $38 million in unspent federal funds.
There are also other Native Hawaiian groups seeking federal support for housing initiatives, including the the Sovereign Councils of the Hawaiian Homelands Assembly, which is affiliated with the Council for Native Hawaiian Advancement, a coalition of more than 150 Native Hawaiian organizations.
DHHL and CNHA representatives could not be reached for comment Tuesday.
Dishonoring Akaka, Inouye?
Hanabusa struck a hopeful note that the funding programs for Hawaiians would be reinstated. If not, she said that, if thee matter goes to court, Hawaii may have in its favor the fact that John Roberts, the chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, represented the state in Rice v. Cayetano.
While Rice prevailed in that 2000 case, which lead to non-Hawaiians voting and running in Office of Hawaiian Affairs elections, Hanabusa said Roberts understands and respects the unique historical circumstances of Hawaii's indigenous people.
Hawaii might also be helped by Republican senators like Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, a state with its own significant native population and one that has often sided with Hawaii on federal issues important to both states.
Murkowski is a member of the Indian Affairs Committee chaired by Hoeven.
Schatz said he believes Hawaii is under enemy fire.
"By leaving out Native Hawaiians, this bill is an attack on my state and my people," he said in his own testimony. "It dishonors the legacies of Dan Inouye and Danny Akaka. And it threatens the future work of this committee."
-------------------------
http://www.hawaiitribune-herald.com/commentary/your-views/your-views-june-18-0
Hawaii Tribune-Herald, Sunday June 18, 2017, Letter to editor
Remove ahu
In response to your article, "A tale of two ahu" (Tribune-Herald, June 11):
Some anti-American sovereignty activists have built rock piles on government land (college campuses). They use the rock piles as bases for poles to display the Hawaiian flag upside-down, protesting "124 years of genocide continuing on the Hawaiian community."
If someone used paint or crayon to write gang tags on the wall of a campus building, the graffiti would be promptly removed and the vandal(s) would be arrested. The same would be done even if the graffiti contained religious or political symbols.
Calling a rock pile an "ahu" makes it sound like an altar deserving respect. But no. It's merely a piece of three-dimensional graffiti, placed there by hooligans behaving like animals scent-marking their turf. Of course, they did not apply for a permit from a government they consider not valid.
In case someone thinks this nonsense must be allowed as an expression of free speech, then it also must be allowed for patriotic Americans to place an American flag in the rock pile, using a taller pole. Or build a new rock pile using colored rocks to make an American flag. The rocks could be quarried from the heads of the administrators of these colleges.
A rock pile was built at Iolani Palace in 1993 on the 100th anniversary of the revolution that overthrew Hawaii's corrupt monarchical government. It remains there 24 years later, although someone tried to clean it up in 2006. It's on land belonging to the state of Hawaii. No permit was ever issued.
Are college administrators ready to see their rock piles standing for decades to come, flags or no flags, with more built nearby to protest additional issues?
Kenneth R. Conklin
Kaneohe, Oahu
---------------------
https://indiancountrymedianetwork.com/history/events/indian-nations-fear-return-termination-policy/
Indian Country Today, June 21, 2017
Should Indian Nations Fear the Return of Termination Policy?
Any new termination policy legislation would require Congressional action
Duane Champagne
If anything brings Indian nations together to rally for treaty and self-government rights, it is the threat of termination or the return of termination policy. Few Americans have a clear understanding of Native American history and policy. And few have any background in the history and legal supports for tribal self-government and the role of Indian nations within the U.S. federal system. The present administration tends to view people of color as freeloading ethnic or minority groups.
The actions to reduce federal aid and support for poor and needy citizens is often a cover for reducing support for ethnic minority groups even though most people who gain support from government programs are not minority group members. The casting of Indians as a needy ethnic group suggests that the administration does not understand Indian history and policy. Or, if it does, it is looking to abandon support for tribal government as part of the U.S. federal government based on treaties and federal statutes.
In the late 1940s and 1950s, such a position was known as termination policy, which is the severing of treaty rights and obligations between federal and tribal governments. Indian nations and allies rallied to reject termination policy during the 1950s by gathering state support to vote down acts of Congressional legislation designed to terminate specific tribal nations. Congress has power over Indian affairs and policy. Indian policy is based on the sum total of bills about Indian issues that are passed through Congress. Since 1970, American Presidents have accepted President Richard Nixon's policy of self-determination that upheld tribal and federal government relations based on treaties. As forms of local government, tribal governments were supported by federal contracts made with a wide range of federal government agencies.
Tribal governments have for the last 50 years acted as de facto local governments over reservation and trust lands. Presidents and Congress treated Indian governments as local forms of government similar to the federal, state, and county-city governments that form the different levels of U.S. government. Through treaties and Congressional laws, American Indians enjoy limited powers of self-government. The powers of self-government do not derive from the United States, but are powers of government that are held from time immemorial before the formation of the U.S. Congress recognizes all powers of government inherent in tribal governments, as long as the powers of government are not explicitly taken away by a Congressional act.
A President can change the flow of resources and administrative purpose and policy direction, but presidents do not have the power to terminate tribal governments. Tribal governments fought against termination policy throughout the history of the United States. Indian nations resist any reduction of tribal political powers of self-government, and resist the tendency toward reduction to the status of ethnic minority group. Ethnic and racial groups do not have rights to self-government, tribal citizenship, and their rights are based on the civil rights granted within the Constitution.
Any new type of termination policy would require an explicit act of Congress. Often through the years there have been Indian termination bills offered by various members of Congress. Usually those attempts have been repudiated by the large majority of Congressional members. Tribal governments have a right to federal revenues because tribal governments manage a local form of government, acknowledged in policy, treaties, and Congressional statutes. Tribal governments strive for economic development, preservation of trust land, cultural continuity, and full freedoms within U.S. and tribal traditions.
If tribal governments are successful, they are never dismantled because they solved the problem of ethnic minority poverty. That is not their purpose. Rather, tribal governments continue and look to strive for greater cooperation with U.S. government agencies, exercise self-government, and carry on various forms of traditional cultural expression. While respecting U.S. citizenship and Constitutional rights, Indians believe that tribal rights and traditions should be preserved, respected, and supported by the United States.
------------------------
https://issuu.com/kawaiola/docs/kwo0717_web
Ka Wai Ola [OHA monthly newspaper], July 2017, page 28, regular monthly trustee editorial
Reinventing OHA Part 2
by Peter Apo, Trustee, O'ahu
In my last column I set forth seven recommendations for Trustees to consider in order to hit the reset button on the way we manage beneficiary business and maximize our proficiency in carrying out our fiduciary duty in ways that clearly allow us to determine what is it we're supposed to be doing, what's working, what's not, and how do we fix the things that aren't working.
The first two initiatives I call for are (1) revisiting the constitutional intent of OHA and (2) retrofitting OHA's overarching vision and mission statements.
A review of the constitutional language that created OHA in 1978 and the legislatively constructed language of Chapter 10 of the Hawai'i Revised Statutes that spell out OHA's authority loom important, not so much for what they say, but for what they do not say.
For the past 37 years since 1980, most OHA Trustees have seemed to presume that the notions of political sovereignty, political self-determination, and the politics of nation-building were fundamental to the purpose for which OHA was created. A considerable amount of resources has been committed to nation-building since OHA's inception. Yet nowhere in either the constitutional language that created OHA, or in Chapter 10 of the Hawai'i Revised Statutes, are these concepts mentioned.
To be clear, my intention is not to invalidate OHA's pursuit of self-determination or nation-building but simply to suggest that trustees self-reflect on our priorities based on the language of the constitution and Chapter 10.
What I hope might emerge from my call for OHA to revisit, clarify, and perhaps amend its currently stated vision and mission is that the process will yield a realignment of OHA's strategic plan with an eye toward a restructuring of OHA's governing model.
Personally, I continue to support political self-determination. But, OHA need not continue to be the elephant in the living room on this political objective.
For those who pursue federal recognition (which does not preclude seeking independence) there is a new center of gravity that emerged from the 'Aha process last year that yielded a constitution that needs to be ratified by some form of an electorate free of OHA influence.
For those who seek independence, and there are at least a dozen organizations competing for the high ground on that political objective, there is little agreement on how best to unify those of that persuasion in order to bring clarity on what a "restored" Hawaiian nation might look like. But I wish them well.
Then there is a third alternative, with a significant percentage of Hawaiians in favor of the status quo. Some are essentially happy with their way of life. Others hope to protect millions of dollars in federal entitlement programs now in play that may be threatened by political redesignation of Hawaiians as aboriginal peoples of Hawai'i.
All of the above is subjective and I stand to be corrected, criticized, or enlightened except for my final observation. Everything on the table for discussion is rooted in the language of section 5-f of the Hawai'i Admissions Act that spells out that the trust responsibility of the state of Hawai'i is to engage in the active pursuit of the "betterment of conditions of Native Hawaiians." OHA owes its existence to this provision and has an obligation to clearly live up to its promise.
------------------
http://www.hcn.org/articles/tribes-cobell-under-trump-tribal-land-initiatives-may-take-a-hit
High Country News, July 25, 2017
Under Trump, tribal land ownership is not a priority
Hearings and Interior statements signal a step back for tribes trying to acquire lands.
by Anna V. Smith
During President Barack Obama's eight-year tenure, tribal sovereignty, the power by which tribes govern themselves, was a prime concern. But under the Trump administration, that may change. There are several indicators of this shift, including proposed budget cuts to the Interior Department's Bureau of Indian Affairs and the de-prioritization of major land initiatives.
Within the first six months of President Donald Trump's administration, the Department of Interior has renewed its interest of energy development and tribal land privatization. That differs starkly from Obama policies, which focused on both acquiring and consolidating land for tribal nations. One of the most ambitious efforts to that end, the Land Buy-Back Program, will not continue under Trump.
The Land Buy-Back Program sought to end a process called fractionation, which continually splits land ownership among tribal descendants and makes the land difficult to use for development or agriculture. Using part of the $1.9 billion for tribes under the so-called Cobell settlement, some 2 million acres of land were returned to tribal governments under Obama. But with the majority of that money already spent to defray fractionation, the new direction at the Interior Department will not put additional funds towards the program, according to James Cason, the associate deputy secretary for the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
Further worrying tribal leaders are two recent hearings held by the House Committee on Natural Resources, over both the Cobell settlement and another land policy, called land-to-trust, which dictates the procurement of land by the Interior Department that is then held in trust for tribes by the federal government, effectively creating a new parcel of reservation land not subject to state or local taxes or jurisdiction.
In a hearing on the Land Buy-Back Program in May, the House Subcommittee on Indian, Insular and Alaska Native Affairs questioned Cason on the efficacy of the program. Cason, who worked for the BIA under the George W. Bush administration, which fought hard against the Cobell Settlement, is now in charge of the buy-back program. Cason told the subcommittee the program was not working to reduce fractionation, and suggested the funds be distributed to fewer tribes, especially those with cheaper land in rural areas.
While that approach might lessen the federal burden from fractionation, it won't help tribes like the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, whose land prices are high due to its proximity to Palm Springs, California. Regardless of how Congress decides to spend the remaining money for land buy-backs, the Trump administration says it will not continue funding the program, meaning tribal land will continue to fractionate generation by generation, making consolidation harder. "Perhaps no administration was more aggressive than the Obama administration in acquiring land into trust," says Gabe Galanda, a Seattle-based tribal law attorney and member of the Round Valley Indian Tribes of California. "Now we're starting to see the Trump administration vigorously react to that." The administration's attitudes toward the buy-back program will be a "bellwether" on how it will also handle trust lands, Galanda says.
Another bellwether can be found in a July hearing addressing trust lands. In that hearing, a subcommittee for tribal affairs examined whether the land-to-trust program was following the law. At issue is the Obama administration's approach to land-to-trust. Under Obama, Interior followed the policy for tribes that were established after 1934, the year of the Indian Reorganization Act, which established the land-to-trust policy. That has drawn criticism from Obama's opponents, who say the law was only meant to address pre-1934 tribes, not tribes that were federally recognized after that year.
At the July hearing, Republican witnesses said the process as conducted under the Obama administration was causing hardships on towns near reservations. Fred Allyn III, the mayor of Ledyard, Connecticut, which encompasses the Mashantucket Pequot Reservation, called his town a "host community" that was losing tax revenue to the policy, as it ramped up law enforcement around the reservation. There was also discussion of the federal government "creating" tribes.
Such testimony "not only lacks facts but is also dangerous" in its representation of tribes, Kirk Francis, president of the United South and Eastern Tribes and Chief of the Penobscot Indian Nation, the only Native American witness, told the subcommittee. "Fringe, out-of-date views have no place in a congressional hearing room," said ranking Democrat Raúl M. Grijalva, Ariz., in a statement following the hearing. "We saw a jaw-dropping display of ignorance today."
Taken together, the House hearings signal a broader shift in attitude toward tribes, their land and sovereignty issues. That's already beginning to play out at the Department of the Interior, which last week proposed criteria that will make it more difficult for land to transfer into trust and reversed some Obama-era changes by widening the window for local and state governments to appeal transfers, from 30 days to six years.
The hearings also resemble a federal attitude toward tribal lands half a century old. "All of these hearings in the last several months are basically a reinvigoration of what we used to call termination in the '50's and '60's," says Matthew Fletcher, director of the Indigenous Law & Policy Center at Michigan State University. The hearings indicate a chipping away at the trust relationship between the U.S. and tribes, which means tribal lands could see less sovereign protection, which some experts see as the first step towards increased energy development.
Further to that, Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke, who has in the past touted Trump's "America First" approach to energy development, recently suggested that tribes should consider incorporating, a move that would help privatize tribal lands and reduce land held in trust by the federal government. At a National Tribal Energy Summit in May, Zinke said many tribes would prefer to incorporate and leave trust lands behind. His statement holds little traction with many tribes, however, because incorporating means losing tribal sovereignty, something Grijalva echoed in his House testimony.
The House hearings and Zinke's statements add up to a shift in attitude under Trump. After eight years of self-determination through restoration of tribal lands, tribal nations are finally in a place to manage things like leasing regulations without the help of the federal government, Fletcher says. "Just as we're getting to the point where the Department of Interior and the United States is making that happen in a realistic way, you get a new administration that's talking about throwing everything out with the kitchen sink."
Anna V. Smith is an assistant editor at High Country News. Follow @annavtoriasmith
--------------------
https://indiancountrymedianetwork.com/news/politics/native-voices-ignored-house-committee-ponders-changes-indian-trust-land-policy/
Indian Country Today, July 26, 2017
Native Voices Ignored as House Committee Ponders Changes to Indian Trust Land Policy
'We should have a higher standard for Native American policy hearings than a panel of non-Native witnesses with axes to grind,' says Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-AZ)
Renae Ditmer
The generally nonpartisan Subcommittee on Indian, Insular and Alaska Native Affairs took a sharp turn to the right at its July 13 oversight hearing, entitled, Comparing 21st Century Trust Land Acquisition with the intent of the 73rd Congress in Section 5 of the Indian Reorganization Act.
The Secretary of the Interior holds "exceptionally broad authority to acquire land in trust for Indians" under the 83-year-old Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (IRA), according to a memorandum distributed before the hearing by Subcommittee Chairman Doug LaMalfa (R-CA).
But Section 19 of the IRA, which states that only members of tribes "recognized and now under federal jurisdiction" could acquire trust land, created a legal quagmire in 2009 when the Supreme Court held to a literal and controversial interpretation of "now" in Carcieri v. Salazar.
Since then, according to LaMalfa in his memo, "...the Secretary may no longer use the IRA to acquire trust land for any post-1934 tribe without specific authorization from Congress."
LaMalfa's interpretation is at odds with a 2014 legal opinion issued by the Obama administration that defined "'now under federal jurisdiction' in a manner that allows the Interior Department to indeed continue to place land into trust for tribes recognized after 1934.
Of note, post-Carcieri, federal courts have not reversed any land-into-trust acquisitions made by Interior for tribes recognized after 1934, despite several challenges from localities in multiple venues.
While tribes generally supported the Obama administration's opinion, a majority of tribes have continued to call for Congress to fix Carcieri by ensuring through legislation that all tribes, regardless of recognition date, are treated equally.
The hearing sought input on how this policy fix might look.
Although ostensibly an information-gathering session to determine whether Congress should revise policy on Indian trust land acquisition, ranking member of the Natural Resources Committee Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ) characterized the hearing instead as an attempt to attack tribal sovereignty and self-determination by questioning the legitimacy of tribes that have received federal recognition since 1934, and by extension, their ability to acquire land to place into trust.
"This hearing isn't even an attempt to seek information – it's a forum for repeating anti-Native talking points," Grijalva said, adding that House Natural Resources] Chairman Rob Bishop (R-UT) "has a long history of opposing tribal sovereignty and attempting to weaken federal recognition for Native Americans."
Grijalva lamented the lack of Indians representing their positions on land acquisition at the hearing, with three of the four witnesses speaking on behalf of the federal or local governments and only one speaking on behalf of tribes. "We should have a higher standard for Native American policy hearings than a panel of non-Native witnesses with axes to grind," he said.
What were those "axes?" Largely state and local governments backed by the federal government seeking to limit or have a direct say in how tribes develop their trust land.
James Cason, associate deputy secretary of the Department of the Interior, testified, "Overall, land-into-trust acquisitions are uncontested transfers that often have local support," but he also raised alarm, saying, "off-reservation lands that are acquired through the fee-to-trust process have the potential to raise jurisdictional uncertainties in local communities, as well as complicating [sic] land-use planning and the provision of services."
Also problematic for Cason were declines in tax revenues non-Indian governments might experience as assessable land is removed from their jurisdiction, or as tribes changed their economic development plans post acquisition that created additional competition or uncertainties for the surrounding communities.
"This possibility has prompted questions regarding what role the department could play in establishing land use restrictions to half certain lands from being used for gaming," Cason testified.
The lone tribal witness, Kirk Francis, president of the United South and Eastern Tribes (USET) and chief of the Penobscot Nation, reminded the subcommittee, "The IRA's main purpose was and is to facilitate tribal nation self-governance, self-determination, and self-sufficiency in order to improve the lives of Indian people....Regaining a land base is essential to the exercise of tribal self-government."
It is also a key component of national sovereignty, with all the rights and privileges as well as challenges that come with it. To get there, Francis proposed "a clean Carcieri fix," something USET has been lobbying for over the past eight years.
"We think that this reaffirms what we already know – that trust land acquisition and regaining homelands should apply to all tribes," he said.
Mayor Fred Allyn III, of Ledyard Connecticut, focused largely on the how harmful "the preemption of state and local taxation of non-Indian economic activities on Indian lands" have on state and local governments.
"The shortfall in the town's budget increases every time the federal government takes more land into trust," Allyn testified. He offered two fixes: objective standards to govern the trust acquisition decision and procedures that ensure genuine consideration of the impacts on surrounding communities. He also maintained, "the BIA refuses to consider the cumulative impact of trust acquisitions, and every new request is treated in isolation,..." Lastly, Allyn called for "the Secretary's authority to take land out of trust" to be confirmed, especially "if the proposed land use changes after trust acquisition to a land use that was not considered in the original decision, or to stop the new land use from occurring until a new review is conducted."
Left unsaid was whether Ledyard should return the favor when his town undertakes economic development or approves land-use development projects, as well as whether he believes that tribes near Ledyard – or any other non-Indian jurisdiction – should be able to nullify a land acquisition in a non-Indian community or to prevent a land-use project.
Pouring gas on the fire was Anchorage attorney Donald Mitchell who has appeared before Congressional committees and subcommittees a dozen times over the past 40 years. In a tone that took several subcommittee members aback, Mitchell made two highly controversial – and highly inflammatory – arguments predicated on the contentious assumption that Congress and Interior were "creating tribes."
First, Mitchell contended, "the U.S. Constitution grants Congress – not the Secretary of the Interior, and certainly not [the BIA] – exclusive plenary power to decide the nation's Indian policies." For him, that brings into question "whether the members of tribes that Congress and the BIA created after the date of enactment of the IRA should be included within the purview of the first definition of the term "Indian in section 19 of the IRA so that the BIA can acquire land for those tribes...."
Second, Mitchell argued that "Section 5 of the IRA is an unconstitutional delegation of authority to an executive branch agency." Essentially, he would like to see Congress revisit the definition of the term "Indian" and redefine it if necessary. At the same time, he would like to see Congress reexamine the Secretary of the Interior's "unfettered authority to take into trust the title to land located outside the boundaries of Indian reservations that were in existence on June 18, 1934." He'd prefer to see land acquisition in the hands of Congress.
While subcommittee members generally defended the status quo, they could see room for improvement in land acquisition policy, though mostly in facilitating it for tribes.
In Bishop's (R-UT) words, "what we'd really like to get are written recommendations on how to create coherent land acquisition policy." Members also vigorously defended tribal sovereignty and refuted Mitchell's allegation that Congress was "suddenly and instantaneously creating Indian tribes."
Francis rejected not only Mitchell's notion of "[tying] federal acknowledgement to being under federal jurisdiction," but called out the "delegitimizing of tribes" as "insulting and dangerous."
LaMalfa concurred, reiterating that "the government doesn't create a tribe!"
But the government does approve tribal trust land acquisition policies. LaMalfa concluded, "Are we in balance after eighty years? How can we clean up the process, and how can we make it more timely?"
--------------------
http://www.civilbeat.org/2017/08/how-princes-embattled-fortuness-embattled-fortune-could-become-a-massive-native-hawaiian-charity/
Honolulu Civil Beat, August 17, 2017
How A Princess's Embattled Fortune Could Become A Massive Native Hawaiian Charity
Four other trusts, derived from the wealth of Native Hawaiian royalty, support a wide range of philanthropies and hold vast business interests.
By Nick Grube and Stewart Yerton
Depending how the legal fight over Abigal Kawananakoa's $215 million fortune turns out, the 91-year-old princess's foundation could enter the pantheon of Native Hawaiian trusts that today wield tremendous wealth and power on the islands.
These fortunes, often referred to as alii trusts, are derived from the massive land holdings and business interests of Hawaiian royalty. The trusts have billions of dollars in assets that help fund a wide range of philanthropic causes benefiting Native Hawaiians.
The best known and largest of these four trusts are the Kamehameha Schools and Queen's Hospital.
In a similar vein, Kawananakoa has said she wishes to leave much of her estate to the descendants of Native Hawaiians who lived here centuries before the English explorer James Cook ever set foot on the islands.
"I've always known what to do with it," Kawananakoa said in a 2007 interview with KITV. "I've always wanted to help the Hawaiian people."
Kawananakoa, who many believe would be queen if Hawaii were still a kingdom, has already set up an independent charitable organization. The Abigail K. K. Kawananakoa Foundation plans to provide scholarships, healthcare and legal advice to Native Hawaiians, as well as preserve Native Hawaiian art, language, music and history.
The collective influence of the existing trusts stretch throughout the islands, from funding the state's largest hospital to leasing prime real estate for hotels and resorts to reimagining Honolulu's urban landscape.
"If you follow the money from these organizations, their collective distribution throughout the community is huge," said Peter Apo, an elected trustee of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. "Collectively, it's billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of acres of land."
Apo said much of the money generated by and through the various Native Hawaiian trusts is color blind as it percolates throughout the economy and creates jobs for many non-Hawaiians.
Former Hawaii Gov. John Waihee, the only U.S. governor of Native Hawaiian ancestry, said the trust money also provides benefits that would otherwise be covered by taxpayers through government entitlement programs.
"Any one of these trusts are major employers and economic engines for the state of Hawaii," Waihee said. "To the extent that they provide services to Native Hawaiians they leverage the existing social networks and services. By taking care of Native Hawaiians, that allows public monies to be used for other people."
At this point it's still uncertain where Kawananakoa's fortune -- and how much of it -- will fall in the spectrum of the other Native Hawaiian trusts.
Oswald Stender, a former trustee of OHA and of the Bishop Estate, which has rebranded itself as Kamehameha Schools, says Kawanakoa is known for her gift giving. That includes her long-standing support of Iolani Palace, where she literally pays to keep the lights on.
Anything more she can do after she passes away, he said, will only add to that legacy.
"If she believes that people need help then she's going to help them," Stender said. "She's been very generous to provide funds for a lot of Hawaiian causes. That's probably what she's trying to do now is leave some of her wealth to continue that work that she's been doing all these years."
Here's a brief look at the four trusts:
Kamehameha Schools
The largest of the trusts is the Estate of Bernice Pauahi Bishop.
Branded as Kamehameha Schools, after the educational institutions it supports, the trust's mission is to "fulfill Pauahi's desire to create educational opportunities in perpetuity to improve the capability and well-being of people of Hawaiian ancestry."
Kamehameha Schools was established under Pauahi's will in 1887 and is now one of the largest K-12 schools in the United States.
Drive through Waikiki and you'll see major Kamehameha Schools assets such as the Royal Hawaiian Hotel and Royal Hawaiian Center retail palace, which are built on Kamehameha Schools land leased to private operators. This is the same land that many of Hawaii's ruling elite chose for their own homes.
The institution also owns and operates properties such as Windward Mall, and has been heavily involved in the redevelopment of Kakaako, spearheading projects like the trendy Salt retail complex.
It's all part of a portfolio that had net assets of $8.4 billion at the end of 2014, according to the estate's most recent available nonprofit tax return.
Kamehameha Schools, which gives preference to students of Hawaiian ancestry, reported program service expenses of $295.9 million in 2014.
Kamehameha Schools has faced its share of controversy, most notably a high-profile investigation two decades ago by the Hawaii Attorney General into abuses by trustees. Chronicled in an essay published 20 years ago this month and later the book Broken Trust, the investigation led to a sweeping reform of the trust's administration.
The Queen's Hospital
While Pauahi focused on education, Queen Emma and King Kamehameha IV focused on health care. In 1850, King Kamehameha III created the Royal Board of Health, establishing a public health department before one had been created in any state.
In 1859, they established The Queen's Hospital, located on Punchbowl Street not far from Iolani Palace and the historic Kawaiahao Church.
Now called Queen's Medical Center, the hospital is still the state's largest private hospital and part of the sprawling Queen's Health Systems, including hospitals on Hawaii Island and Molokai.
Queen's Medical Center's mission remains to "fulfill the intent of Queen Emma and King Kamehameha IV to provide in perpetuity quality health care services to improve the well-being of Native Hawaiians and all the people of Hawaii."
The center reported program expenses of $907.5 million for 2014, with revenues of just over $1 billion. It reported net assets of $632.1 million at the end of 2014, according to its most recently available nonprofit tax return.
Queen Liliuokalani Trust
The Liliuokalani Trust was founded in 1909 for the benefit of orphan and destitute children with preference given to Native Hawaiian children.
As with Pauahi's trust, Queen Liliuokalani's includes major Waikiki landmarks, such as the Pacific Beach Hotel and Waikiki Beach Marriott Resort & Spa.
The money supports youth services to address social challenges facing young Hawaiian children and their families, such as teen pregnancy, youth incarceration and homelessness.
The trust reported spending $17 million on program services in 2015, according to its annual report, and reported net assets of $254.9 million.
Lunalilo Home
Finally, there's the Lunalilo Home, established by the will of High Chief William Charles Lunalilo, who died in 1874.
The land for the home once consisted of 21 acres in Makiki, makai of what is now Roosevelt High School. But in 1927, the trust subdivided and sold the prime real estate and moved the home to Maunalua on the slopes of Koko Head.
As of 2015, Lunalilo Home's net assets had dwindled to $12.9 million, and the home reported $2.1 million in expenses related to direct charitable activities for the year. The home provides room and board, dietary services and limited medical and nursing care to individuals.
Two Noteworthy Siblings
In addition to the alii trusts, there are two quasi-governmental organizations established to benefit the Hawaiian people.
In 1920, the U.S. Congress passed the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act to "enable native Hawaiians to return to their lands in order to fully support self-sufficiency for native Hawaiians and the self-determination of native Hawaiians."
The act, which was promoted by Hawaii's congressional delegate Prince Jonah Kuhio Kalanianaole, established homestead lands for Native Hawaiian.
The act was later incorporated into the Hawaii State Constitution, allowing the establishment of the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands. The agency listed net assets of $802 million in 2015.
DHHL spent $52.8 million for homestead services, land development, home construction and land management, as well as administrative and support services, in 2015.
Delegates to Hawaii's Constitutional Convention of 1978 established the Office of Hawaiian Affairs "to address historical injustices and challenges arising out of those circumstances."
OHA was granted the power to administer public lands, excluding DHHL homestead property, for the benefit of Native Hawaiians.
The organization supports programs to promote responsible land stewardship, preserve Hawaiian culture, foster economic self-sufficiency and improve health and education of Native Hawaiians. OHA has worked to establish and obtain federal recognition for a Native Hawaiian government.
As of 2015, OHA was Hawaii's 13th largest landowner, owning or leasing some 28,000 acres, including Waimea Valley, the former Gentry Pacific Design Center and property in Kakaako valued at $200 million obtained as part of a settlement with the state over revenues due to OHA.
OHA reported assets of $574.8 million as of June 30, 2016. The organization reported expenses of $54.5 million for the year.
--------------------
** Ken Conklin's note: Both OHA and the Department of Hawaiian Homelands have often refused to release information about the salaries they pay their staffers, and often refuse to comply with State laws regarding open meetings and procurement procedures. They argue that their expenditures of "trust funds" or ceded land revenues are autonomous decisions of quasi-sovereign entities comparable to Indian tribes. If a Hawaiian tribe gets federal recognition, all tribal decision-making could then be done in private without state government scrutiny or publicity; but it's also possible that the tribe could no longer receive handouts from the state, in the same way that states do not give money to other states or foreign nations. Tribes get money and services from the federal government, not from the states.
http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/ArticlesMain/tabid/56/ID/20129/The-Grand-Skim-of-Things-Part-3.aspx
Hawaii Free Press, August 20, 2017
The Grand Skim of Things, Part 3
by Tom Yamachika, President Tax Foundation Hawaii
We continue our discussion about the 5% charge assessed against special funds in Hawaii government, also known as the "Central Services Skim." Last week, we examined the exemptions from the skim and the danger that the funds who are paying the assessments can claim that they are being gouged. This week, we look at the one State department that has funds with no exemption, and refuses to pay it: the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands (DHHL).
When the State Auditor published recommendations in 1994 relating to the Central Services Skim, it included one saying that DHHL wasn't paying it but should. DHHL published a rebuttal arguing that the Central Services Skim assessments violated the Hawaii Constitution, the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act of 1920 (HHCA), and our Admission Act; and that the funds were trust funds to be used exclusively for the benefit of native Hawaiians. DHHL's most recent audited financial statements, for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2016, indicates that it still doesn't believe it has to pay. The financial statements estimate that the cumulative total assessments that it has refused to pay is about $24 million.
With that, we examine the arguments DHHL has made.
Concerned about the condition of the native Hawaiian people, Congress enacted the HHCA to set aside about 203,500 acres of ceded lands for native Hawaiian homesteads. Section 213 of the HHCA established several funds, including the Hawaiian home administration account, the Hawaiian home operating fund, the Hawaiian home receipts fund, the Hawaiian home trust fund, and the native Hawaiian rehabilitation fund. As originally enacted, all five were special funds. Act 27 of 1998 purported to reclassify four of them as trust funds.
When the State of Hawaii was admitted to the United States in 1959, section 4 of the Admission Act provided that the HHCA would be adopted as a provision of the Hawaii Constitution, provided "that all proceeds and income from the 'available lands', as defined by said Act, shall be used only in carrying out the provisions of said Act."
In 1978, the Hawaii Constitutional Convention, worried about the chronic underfunding that the Hawaii Legislature had given DHHL for many years, recommended a constitutional amendment that required state government to appropriate "sufficient sums" to fund it. The effect of that constitutional provision is now being litigated in the court system in a case named Nelson v. Hawaiian Homes Commission. The court decisions so far have indicated some willingness to force the Legislature to appropriate more money to DHHL than it historically had received.
DHHL's arguments appear to be both textual and practical. It first argues that the texts of the HHCA, Hawaii Constitution, and laws prevent the diversion of HHCA assets to purposes other than those authorized by those laws. It then says that DHHL has been fighting for years to have the Legislature fund it adequately as the Hawaii Constitution requires, and the Central Services Skim would force many more dollars to go in the wrong direction.
The textual arguments do not seem to be airtight. Section 213(f) of the HHCA expressly allows the Hawaiian home administration account money to pay for "salaries and other administration expenses of the department in conformity with general law applicable to all departments of the State." If DHHL is deriving benefits from central services provided by other state departments, that language would allow the account to pay for them. The more general argument about the funds being bound to a specific purpose doesn't seem to hold up; the funds need to continue to exist, the programs they support need to employ people, and the people need to be hired and paid. If the funds are accepting benefits from State central services, it is fair that those benefits be paid for. Even the federal agencies administering the transportation-related funds allow their funds to pay for central state government expenses for this reason.
The more interesting question, however, is the practical one. If the State ultimately is found to have been shortchanging DHHL unconstitutionally, then it will have to make things right. Consideration for any central services benefits DHHL received would be proper, but the overall shortfall, which appears to be considerable, may be enough to justify, at least to some degree, DHHL's refusal to fork over the skim amount.
Related:
The Grand Skim of Things (Part 1)
http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/ArticlesMain/tabid/56/ID/20067/The-Grand-Skim-of-Things-Part-1.aspx
The Grand Skim of Things, Part 2
http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/ArticlesMain/tabid/56/ID/20094/The-Grand-Skim-of-Things-Part-2.aspx
----------------------
http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/36177476/hawaiian-activists-renew-efforts-to-remove-mckinley-statue-in-midst-of-anti-racist-rallies
Hawaii News Now (3 TV stations), Sunday, August 20th 2017
Activists want McKinley statue removed, saying it's a symbol of Hawaiian oppression
By Jobeth Devera, Reporter
HONOLULU (HawaiiNewsNow) -
Hawaiian activists are standing in solidarity against racism and hate displayed during a violent rally in Charlottesville, VA last weekend.
Dozens marched down King Street on Sunday chanting, carrying signs and holding the Hawaii state flag upside down, representing a nation in distress.
They then gathered around the statue of President William McKinley at McKinley High School.
"He led the takeover of Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Philippines and Cuba," said Khara Jabola-Carolus, co-founder of AF3IRM Hawaii. "His legacy is painful for people of color in Hawaii and throughout the pacific."
** Ken's note: Khara Jabola-Carolus is the "partner" of State Representative Kaniela Ing, who is chairman of the Hawaiian Affairs Committee. A few months ago she gave birth to his baby.
The high school roped off the oval lawn that holds bronze statue in anticipation of Sunday's protest, but it wasn't enough to stop activists from surrounding it.
"President William McKinley is our Robert E. Lee to pacific islanders," Jabola-Carolus said.
"We are not assimilating to white supremacy," said activist Grace Caligtan. "We are not holding our tongues to make you comfortable. We are speaking the truth and speaking it in volumes."
The peaceful demonstration prompted Honolulu police and the school's vice principal to arrive, though no one was arrested.
"As long as they come and do things near the statue, we just didn't want to see any graffiti or possibly pulling it down, that was a big concern," said Ricky Price, one of four vice principals at McKinley High School.
Past movements to remove the statue and rename McKinley High have tried and failed, but activists say they plan to re-launch a petition to finally get the job done.
---------------------
Memo to Ryan Zinke, Secretary of U.S. Department of Interior, asking him to repeal 43CFR50 -- Procedures for reestablishing a formal government-to-government relationship with the Native Hawaiian community. This is in response to Secretary Zinke's request for comments to help identify federal regulations to be rescinded or modified as part of President Trump effort to streamline government and make America great again.
SUMMARY OF LESS THAN 5000 CHARACTERS FOR REGULATIONS.GOV, TO INTRODUCE PDF FILE CONTAINING THE COMPLETE COMMENT
DOI-2017-0003
To: Secretary Ryan Zinke,
U.S. Department of Interior
August 28, 2017
From: Kenneth R. Conklin, Ph.D.
Re: Repeal of Obama midnight regulation 43 CFR Part 50 --
Procedures for reestablishing a formal government-to-government relationship with the Native Hawaiian community.
Dear Secretary Zinke,
Please find a way to rescind 43 CFR Part 50 -- Procedures for reestablishing a formal government-to-government relationship with the Native Hawaiian community.
The "Final Rule" was published in the Federal Register on October 14, 2016, and took effect on November 14.
Because this was a "midnight regulation" finalized in the closing weeks of the Obama administration, the easiest way to rescind it would be to use the Congressional Review Act. However, it seems likely that the time limit for CRA has already expired. It would be wonderful if a simple executive order could repeal it, under President Trump's 2-for-1 rule (repeal two existing regulations for every new one). But 43CFR50 was adopted through a process that included a round of public hearings in Hawaii and several states, and two periods of written comments; thus a similar process might be necessary to repeal it.
43CFR50 is the Obama administration's executive order implementing the provisions of the failed Hawaiian Government Reorganization bill (known informally as the Akaka bill) that was active in Congress for 13 years (2000-2012) -- the bill in radically different forms was passed by the House in three different Congresses but was blocked in the Senate by holds from individual Republican Senators as well as a 2-day Republican filibuster with many hours of floor debate on a failed motion to proceed. Although the bill repeatedly failed in Congress throughout its 13 year history, despite about $33 Million in lobbying and advertising, President Obama and his Department of Interior proclaimed it into law.
43CFR50 is gross overreaching by the Obama administration, violating the separation of powers. The Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 envisioned allowing the Department of Interior to grant federal recognition to tribes that already existed at that time; it does not allow the DOI to create new tribes out of thin air. Ethnic Hawaiians were never organized as a tribe. The Kingdom of Hawaii was an internationally recognized multiracial nation in which Caucasians and Asians with no native blood were subjects (citizens) of the Kingdom with full voting and property rights, by virtue of being born in Hawaii or taking an oath of loyalty to the King. At various times most cabinet ministers, nearly all department heads, and perhaps one-third of the Legislature had no native blood. But now comes 43CFR50 proposing to create a tribe exclusively based on race. There was never a unified government ruling the entirety of the Hawaiian islands where either the government or its citizenry was racially exclusionary.
If the rule is not repealed, it will remain on the books as a "sleeper" from now and forever, allowing federal recognition of a Hawaiian tribe to happen suddenly whenever a small percentage of ethnic Hawaiians might choose to satisfy the rule's requirements and whenever a future President and DOI Secretary are Democrats.
Small percentage? It should be noted that in Census 2000 there were 401,000 people nationwide who checked the box as having "Native Hawaiian" ancestry, while in Census 2010 there were 527,000 of them. According to 43CFR50, all of them nationwide are eligible to join the Hawaiian tribe. A reasonable extrapolation of the population growth to the end of 2016 would put the number of "Native Hawaiians" at 600,000.
The DOI rule would allow federal recognition to be granted if as few as 30,000 of them vote yes in a referendum -- small percentage indeed! (five percent).
The Akaka bill had the support of every Democrat in the House and Senate for 13 years, and was blocked only by courageous Republicans including a 2-day Senate filibuster. The concepts of racial separatism and ethnic nationalism for Hawaii are Democrat creations during a history of 124 years, which Republicans have blocked. 43CFR50 is a creation of the Obama administration in cahoots with an overwhelmingly Democrat legislature and Congressional delegation from Hawaii. We need Republicans to once again rescue Hawaii and the U.S.A.!
This has been a summary limited to 5000 characters. For the complete detailed comment including extensive references to authoritative sources, please read the attached pdf file which is also available at
https://big11a.angelfire.com/AskZinkeRepeal43CFR50Aug2017.pdf
---------------------
https://issuu.com/kawaiola/docs/kwo0917_web
OHA monthly newspaper for September 2017, page 23
The Time Has Come Again For Solidarity
Let us make room for all voices and respect each other's views no matter how different they are from our own.
by Rowena Akana, Trustee at Large [regular monthly column]
'Ano'ai kakou ... Many of us still mark August 20, 2003 as a black day in Hawaiian history when a federal court judge forced Kamehameha Schools to enroll a non-Hawaiian student. This act was so egregious that on September 7, 2003, the Trustees and staff of OHA marched side-by-side down Kalakaua Avenue with more than 5,000 supporters of Native Hawaiian rights in a powerful show of unity.
The marchers included representatives from Kamehameha Schools, Hawaiian Ali'i Trusts, Royal Benevolent Society members, and sovereignty advocates. Also showing their support were many non-Hawaiians. The march was organized by the 'Ilio'ulaokalani Coalition and ended in a rally at the Kapi'olani Park Bandstand. It was encouraging to see that people who often found themselves on opposite sides regarding nationhood could come together to support justice for all Native Hawaiians.
THE 'AHA
On February 26, 2016, the majority of the Na'i Aupuni 'aha participants voted to adopt The Constitution of the Native Hawaiian Nation. Again, it was moving to see people who were often on opposite sides of an issue come together for the good of the whole. There were several participants that frequently came to OHA to protest our positions on nationhood and yet we were all able to put those differences aside and finally draft the governing documents needed to restore our nation.
The governing documents drafted during the 'aha must be voted on and approved by the Hawaiian people before they can be implemented. The Hawaiian people currently have the opportunity to examine the documents before deciding whether to accept them. Once the provisions of the governing documents are ratified, they can finally be implemented and the officers and legislative arm of the nation will be selected.
What we face today as Hawaiians, the indigenous people of our lands, is no different than what occurred over 100 years ago. We are still fighting to protect our culture, rights to our lands, and our entitlements. Times may have changed but people are still the same. Greed is still the motivation behind efforts to relieve us of whatever entitlements we have left. The fight is even more difficult now that our enemies have become more sophisticated in ways to manipulate us and the law.
We are one people. We cannot afford to be divided, not when so much work remains to be done.
The struggle to regain our sovereign rights requires unity and the strength of numbers.
As the federal court decision regarding Kamehameha Schools proved, the future of OHA and other Hawaiian Trusts are certainly at risk. Hawaiian leaders will have to work together and use whatever resources that are necessary to protect those last remaining Hawaiian Trusts.
Let us work together for the cause of nationhood. Let us agree on the things that we can agree to and set aside the things we differ on and move forward together for the future generations of Hawaiians yet to come.
We cannot continue to let others decide our future. We will be one nation and one people.
"I appeal to you...that there be no division among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same purpose." I Corin- thians 1:10
Let us embrace each other's views no matter how different they are from our own. Only then can we be as our Queen wished... 'ONIPA'A, steadfast in what is good!
Aloha Ke Akua.
-----------------------
** Note from website editor Ken Conklin: The following article is highly relevant to the history of how various versions of the Akaka bill tried for 13 years to get federal recognition for a Hawaiian tribe. Note how the recognition bill for Virginia tribes tries to avoid criticism by including restrictions on the proposed tribe regarding gambling, jurisdictional conflict, and taking land into trust; and how a strategy of bundling the recognition bill with other bills was used as a strategy.
https://www.indianz.com/News/2017/09/13/federal-recognition-bill-for-six-tribes.asp
Indianz.com, September 13, 2017
Federal recognition bill for six tribes in Virginia inches another step forward
It's been more than two decades since Congress passed a stand-alone federal recognition bill but six tribes in Virginia are hoping to turn the tide in their favor.
The tribes welcomed the first European settlers at Jamestown more than 400 years ago. They signed some of the first treaties with foreign nations and some even settled on the first Indian reservations in what is now known as the United States.
Despite the long history, the Chickahominy Tribe, the Chickahominy Indian Tribe - Eastern Division, the Upper Mattaponi Tribe, the Rappahannock Tribe, the Monacan Nation and the Nansemond Tribe are not formally acknowledged by the federal government. A bill slowly making its way through Congress could finally change the situation -- that's if it becomes law.
The House passed H.R.984, the Thomasina E. Jordan Indian Tribes of Virginia Federal Recognition Act, by a voice vote on May 17. The bill took another step forward on Wednesday, when it was approved by the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs with unanimous support.
"The committee's vote today is an important step in bringing six Virginia tribes closer to receiving federal recognition," Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Virginia) and Sen. Mark Warner (D-Virginia), two supporters of the tribes, said in a joint press release on Wednesday. "This bill gives Virginia's tribes access to the educational and health care services they deserve and allows members of these tribes to properly pay tribute to their ancestors."
The action brings the tribes closer to success than at any point in the last decade. A prior version passed the House in 2009 but it stalled in the Senate, where it never came to a committee vote.
H.R.984, on the other hand, is the first to clear those same hurdles. But getting the bill over the finish line in the 115th Congress is another story.
While the House in the past has embraced tribal recognition bills, they are almost always controversial due to concerns about gaming, jurisdiction and land-into-trust. So even if they clear the chamber, they usually die in the Senate.
The Virginia tribes are hoping to avoid the pitfalls with H.R.984. The bill includes an airtight prohibition on gaming and imposes limits on the lands that might be placed in trust by the Bureau of Indian Affairs should they gain federal recognition.
But there's no guarantee the conditions will help the bill in the Senate, where conservative lawmakers have routinely held up other tribal recognition bills. Some of those same lawmakers have even held up bills that are tangentially related to recognition, such as housing programs for Native Hawaiians, who also lack formal acknowledgment by the federal government.
The obstacles explain why the last tribes that gained federal recognition through the legislative process did so when Bill Clinton was president. Congress passed stand-alone recognition bills in the mid-1990s for three tribes in Michigan and another in Alaska.
Two more tribes, one in California and another in Oklahoma, gained federal recognition when they were included a large "omnibus" Indian bill in December 2000. It happened to be one of the last bills signed into law by Clinton before he left office a month later.
With stand-alone bills seemingly doomed to fail, the "omnibus" or bundling approach has re-surfaced in connection with the Virginia tribes. During the last session of Congress, Republicans added their bill to a larger package that would have stripped the BIA of its authority to make decisions on federal recognition petitions.
But that bill never advanced due to widespread opposition in Indian Country, as well as opposition from Democrats and the Obama administration. A key Republican essentially admitted he was putting tribes and the opposite party on the spot by bundling all of the efforts together.
Yet there still seems to be some nostalgia for the "omnibus" approach. Sen. Jon Tester (D-Montana) was prepared to add provisions to extend federal recognition to the Little Shell Tribe of Chippewa Indians to H.R.984 but withdrew his amendment at the business meeting on Wednesday.
"I want to make sure these tribes in Virginia are able to get their recognition" without muddying up the debate, Tester said. The Little Shell Tribe had been a part of the doomed recognition bill in the last session of Congress.
Despite dropping his amendment, Tester said he plans to "push hard" to secure justice for the tribe, whose federal status is the subject of S.39, the Little Shell Tribe of Chippewa Indians Restoration Act, as well as a federal recognition petition at the BIA.
"We stand together in this fight," added Sen. Steve Daines (R-Montana), another member of the committee.
"They've waited far too long to be formally acknowledged by the fed government," Daines said of the tribe. "We need to correct this injustice."
H.R.984, which can now be considered on the Senate floor, was one of three bills approved at the business meeting on Wednesday.
---------------------
https://www.civilized.life/articles/secret-history-hawaii-statehood/
Civilized Life [online humor/sarcasm magazine], September 15, 2017
The Secret, Somewhat Racist History of How Hawaii Became a State
By Joseph Misulonas
For most people, Hawaii being part of the United States is just completely logical. But for many years, the island operated as a sovereign nation with its own rulers and government. So how did that change?
The folks at Adam Ruins Everything, a television show on TruTV where host Adam Conover exposes the truth behind many aspects of our society, decided to tackle the history of Hawaii. And while it may surprise people to learn that grass skirts and tiki bars have nothing to do with Hawaiian culture, the history behind it's statehood will be even more shocking.
But now we give them three votes in the electoral college, so it's all good, right?
[A 2-minute video is embedded, which is also available on YouTube]
https://youtu.be/CzYM4ZpSDJg
----------------------
http://hawaiiindependent.net/story/holding-hawaiian-education-hostage
Hawaii Independent, September 18, 2017
Holding Hawaiian education hostage
OHA is poised to award vital education monies to a non-profit with non-existent expertise in supporting the mission of Hawaiian education and a track record of strong-arming the Hawaiian community into supporting its political views.
by Healani Sonoda-Pale
It's Monday morning and my 12-year-old son wakes me up because he thinks I'm behind schedule and he doesn't want to be late to school. He goes through his morning routine, checking on my progress once in awhile. He barks out, "Mom!" if he feels I'm moving too slow. As I'm driving him to school, he looks back and forth between me and the clock frustrated because I'm not moving faster. And I literally have to explain to him that I can't drive over the cars in traffic just so that he can get to school on time.
Looking back on my days as a reluctant student, being dragged to school by my mom "against my will," all I can think is, "wow, things have really changed. Public education is no longer a one-size fits all deal."
He's only 12 years old, but my son's enthusiasm and excitement about going to school has been cultivated through decades of hard work by visionaries; educators who recognized a huge hole in the school system and filled it with research-based and community-driven, culturally relevant approaches to education.
My son's school, Halau Ku Mana (HKM) New Century Charter school, located in central Honolulu, is a product of these visionaries, along with 16 other public Hawaiian Focused Charter Schools (HFCS) in Hawai'i. They help fill the need for holistic approaches to education where parents, students, governing board members and teachers play an active role in meeting the diverse learning styles and needs of students. And their results are transformative.
My son was a quiet, hardworking student when he attended a traditional Department of Education (DOE) school. However, since transferring to HKM three years ago, he has found his voice and is part of a learning 'ohana outside of home. Historically, Hawaiian students have had limited success in the standard public school classroom. They have some of the lowest retention and educational attainment statistics in the state. But HFCS represents a unique opportunity to build upon the strengths of students by connecting them with their culture, and to forge a new path toward educational success aboard the same canoe. Recently, though, HFCS stakeholders became aware that this canoe might be in jeopardy of being hijacked by an outside, politically-focused entity.
OHA Funding
Because the HFCS system receives, at most, 60 percent of the per-pupil funding that traditional DOE schools receive from the State of Hawai'i, funding has always been an obstacle that the resilient HFCS have always managed to overcome. Since at least 2004, the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA) has played a pivotal role in the success of these schools, providing the HFCS with millions to help make up for the shortfall in the per-pupil funding. OHA was created for the betterment of native Hawaiians and its funds are desperately needed for HFCS. Many of these schools do not serve lunch and have no permanent facilities. Because approximately 80 percent of HFCS students are of Hawaiian ancestry, OHA usually provides funds through the fiscal sponsorship of Kanu O Ka 'Aina Learning 'Ohana (KALO), an organization with over a decade's experience working with and for HFCS statewide from the ground up.
On September, 6, 2017 many HFCS parents, watching an OHA Community meeting in Kona, found out that the 1.5 million dollar OHA grant for these schools was awarded to the Council for Native Hawaiian Advancement (CNHA), a non-profit with a loaded political agenda. With the unveiling of this information, OHA Chair Collette Machado expressed shame and claimed to be "hoodwinked" into approving monies for CNHA. CNHA's mission, which is to "enhance the cultural, economic, political and community development of Native Hawaiians" makes no mention of education anywhere. Many Charter Schools are opposed to CNHA receiving the OHA grant on their behalf without having consulted with HFCS stakeholders. In a recent school wide letter to parents, HKM Principal, Brandon Bunag, stated:
As an organization, CNHA has been absent from ongoing discussions and advocacy and out of touch on our priorities as a collective. I, along with many other Hawaiian-focused charter school po'o [principals], are concerned that should this contract between OHA and CNHA be finalized, we will be forced into a relationship with an organization that is not aligned with our values as a school and is ill-equipped to advance Hawaiian education.
With this news, some HFCS parents and staff have begun to organize and voice opposition to CNHA holding the purse strings for 17 schools, putting the educational success of 4,223 students into the hands of an inexperienced, politically charged organization. Hundreds of letters are being sent to OHA Trustees and the Chief Executive Officer asking them not to finalize the grant and to review the awards process. The concerns are not only with the misalignment of visions and missions, but the lack of trust when dealing with an organization that has not bothered to build relationships with many of the schools they plan to "serve." CNHA's expertise in the culturally responsive education provided by our Charter Schools is non-existent.
As both an educator and a parent, this unbalanced, uninvited partnership between HFCS and CNHA causes me concern on two levels. The first is that, as noted, CNHA has no experience in dealing with education. But the second is that the way in which CNHA has gone about inserting itself into the realm of education mirrors the way the organization has forced many Hawaiians to submit to its agenda of federal recognition. As a parent, I worry that the future of my son's education, and that of thousands of other students enrolled in HFCS, will be held hostage by CNHA by tying the futures of these keiki to its long-standing political agenda of advancing federal recognition.
The fear-mongering and hostage-style tactics the CNHA has used within the Hawaiian community are well documented. In August 2014, the Native Hawaiian Education Council (NHEC), which is authorized under the Federal Native Hawaiian Education Act (NHEA), was pressured by CNHA representative into supporting the proposition of a Department of Interior (DOI) Rule that would create a pathway for a federally recognized Native Hawaiian nation. A NHEC representative was literally threatened: told that, without such a rule, funding for NHEC would disappear, and future advocacy (real or imagined) by the CNHA for NHEC to receive funds would stop. The council did not budge on its democratically agreed upon decision to not take a stance on the DOI Rule and decided instead to remain focused on their educational mission which is to "provide guidance and direction of Native Hawaiian resources to government agencies." Despite threats of losing their funding by the CNHA, the NHEC continues to receive their annual funds authorized by the NHEA.
The cloud of community mistrust that hangs over the leadership of the CNHA came about after years of such shady tactics and activities -- from secretly working for an oil lobbying non profit, Arctic Power, to building vacation rentals under the guise of community-based recreational purposes. On May 10, 2013, the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands (DHHL) sent then-CNHA CEO Robin Danner a cease and desist letter for construction of illegal structures and rental activities at the Kumu Camp project in Anahola, Kaua'i, built on Hawaiian Home Lands. The violations cited in that letter included failing to pay DHHL for the use of their water meter, failing to apply for a county zoning/building permit and offering the camp for "other uses than was intended." And now we are being asked to trust them with $1.5 million in Hawaiian Charter School monies?
Although I may not agree with CNHA's politics and tactics, there can be no doubt that they have made a huge impact in the Hawaiian community in many areas. However, something smells fishy when the CNHA is awarded an HFCS grant instead of an organization such as KALO, which has a long history of serving the HFCS well and a mission and vision that is aligned with HFCS. With no consultation with HFCS parents or schools, CNHA applied and was granted 1.5 million dollars of OHA monies that are crucial to the success and survival of HFCS. This puts an already venerable population at risk.
As an active parent of a Charter School student, my concern is for the educational attainment and overall well-being of Charter School students like my son, who have found joy in learning through the progressive and relevant approaches to education, which are HFCS's strengths. The future of our children's education is too important to put in the hands of the CNHA, an organization with a history of using less-than-savory means to achieve their political ends. If they are allowed to take control of these monies, those means could include holding Hawaiian education hostage.
--
M. Healani Sonoda-Pale is a parent of a Halau Ku Mana New Century Charter School student and an educator currently working at the University of Hawai'i at Manoa as a Student Support Specialist. She resides in Kuli'ou'ou on O'ahu with her husband and two children.
** Conklin's online comment
Congratulations on a well-written and informative essay calling attention to a scandal-in-the-making. CNHA is a consortium of wealthy, powerful institutions that was originally created for the primary purpose of pushing the Akaka bill. By the way, the keynote speaker at the first annual CHNA convention, on September 11, 2002, was the newly hired UH President Evan Dobelle, who got the job through Inouye's political influence; and his speech was all about pushing for tribalization. Dobelle had barely gotten off the airplane; it was his first speaking engagement.
Although there has been no Akaka bill since 2012, we all know about the U.S. Department of Interior "regulation" whereby a Hawaiian tribe can be created. And we all remember how OHA's attempt to provide funding for a tribal convention to write a tribal constitution was shot down by the U.S. Supreme Court.
The tribalists are looking for megabucks to hold a tribal election and ratify the proposed constitution. Bishop Estate (Kamehameha Schools) doesn't want to risk losing its tax exempt status by financing a political process; so it seems that OHA is now trying to funnel money through CNHA just as OHA tried to do a couple years ago by creating dummy non-profits before the courts blocked OHA's scheme.
Na'i Aupuni Foundation and Akamai Foundation were created by OHA and got all their funding from OHA, which is one of the main reasons why the U.S. Supreme Court issued an injunction blocking the election of delegates to the constitutional convention (because a government agency [OHA] is forbidden from financing a race-based election). But CNHA was not created by OHA and gets lots of money from other institutions besides OHA, so I guess OHA figures it can get away with using CNHA in the same way it previously tried to use Na'i Aupuni Foundation and Akamai Foundation. E maka'ala kakou!
----------------------
https://www.indianz.com/News/2017/09/21/key-republican-revives-bill-to-strip-bur.asp
Indianz.com, Thursday, September 21, 2017
Key Republican revives bill to strip Bureau of Indian Affairs of recognition powers
A key Republican lawmaker is once again pushing a bill that requires all tribes seeking federal recognition to go through Congress.
Rep. Rob Bishop (R-Utah), the chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, introduced H.R. 3744, the Tribal Recognition Act last week. While the bill establishes standards for the Bureau of Indian Affairs to research petitions submitted by tribes seeking recognition, it bars the executive branch from making decisions on those petitions.
"The Secretary may not grant federal acknowledgment (or reacknowledgment) to any Indian group," the bill states, referring to the Secretary of the Interior.
Instead, the measure asserts that Congress -- through its "plenary and exclusive" authority over Indian affairs -- shall be responsible for recognizing a government-to-government relationship between the United States and a particular tribe. So, even after going through the BIA's process, a petitioning group must clear more hurdles before its status can be resolved.
Those additional hurdles would include finding a friendly lawmaker to introduce a recognition bill, securing a hearing on the bill and finding votes in the House and the Senate on said bill. Judging by the past record of the legislative branch -- Congress hasn't passed a stand-alone recognition bill since the mid-1990s -- hopeful tribes might never see an end to the already lengthy process.
That's one of the reasons why Indian Country opposed a prior version of Bishop's bill. Tribal advocates said putting power solely in the hands of Congress would further complicate an already controversial issue.
"Too much is at stake for the federal recognition process to be politicized," said Brian Patterson, a citizen of the Oneida Nation who was serving as president of United South and Eastern Tribes when Bishop's committee held one of two hearings on a prior version of the bill back in December 2015.
H.R. 3744, the new bill, is now up for a hearing next week. And two other items on the agenda illustrate why tribal advocates have been concerned about the role of Congress in federal recognition matters.
H.R. 3535, the Ruffey Rancheria Restoration Act, would restore federal recognition to the Ruffey Rancheria. The tribe, based in California, was among the dozens whose status was terminated by Congress in the 1950s.
But the bill doesn't merely reaffirm the tribe's status. It also imposes limits on the tribe's ability to join the Indian gaming industry by requiring the tribe to submit land-into-trust applications within five years, instead of the 25 years required by the BIA's so-called Section 20 regulations.
H.R.3535 also limits the tribe to seeking lands within a 25-mile radius of its former reservation or within 25 miles of "culturally significant sites." While the Section 20 regulations offer the same mileage standard, they also recognize situations in which a strict limit might not be applicable. A tribe, for example, can seek land in areas where its citizens live or in areas that are a "commutable distance" from its headquarters.
At least the Ruffey Rancheria, also known as the Etna Band of Indians, would be able to engage in gaming if the bill became law. That can't be said for the Lumbee Tribe, whose federal status has been in limbo for more than a century.
H.R.3650, Lumbee Recognition Act, includes a complete ban on gaming. Although tribal leaders have accepted the restriction, it hasn't helped them secure passage of prior bills in Congress.
"The Lumbee Tribe will be entitled to the same rights, benefits, and privileges as any other American Indian tribe, including the right to have lands taken into trust," Chairman Harvey Godwin, Jr., who recently met with White House staff to discuss federal recognition, said in a post on Facebook.
The Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, which operates two casinos in the state, also remains strongly opposed to the bill. Eastern Cherokee leaders have been making repeated trips to Washington, D.C,. in the past month to counter Godwin's lobbying efforts, which have closely followed in the North Carolina media.
"The Lumbee recognition bill has some staggering implications for our tribe," Eastern Cherokee Chief Richard G. Sneed said in a report published in The One Feather, the tribe's newspaper. "The increase in competition for federal funding will grow exponentially if the Lumbee and their estimated 50,000 members gain recognition. This will impact our housing and roads money among other federal funds which are dwindling with the proposed budget."
In contrast, groups that gain recognition through the BIA aren't subject to limits on the land-into-trust process. They are also free to engage in gaming so long as they satisfy the Section 20 criteria.
Still, there are situations in which tribes cannot seek recognition from the executive branch. The Ruffey Rancheria needs an act of Congress because its status was previously revoked by Congress. Some terminated tribes have gone to federal court to regain their recognition although litigation doesn't always result in success.
For decades, the Lumbees were barred from going through the BIA due to an interpretation of a termination-era law that describes their people as "Indians" but denies them the services and benefits associated with full federal recognition.
A legal opinion issued in the final full month of the Obama administration, however, opened the door for the tribe to seek federal acknowledgment through the so-called Part 83 process. The Trump team has left the December 2016 opinion in place even as it has reconsidered and rescinded other opinions.
The BIA's formal acknowledgment process began in 1978. Since then, 18 tribes have secured federal recognition while a much larger number, 33, have been denied, according to the agency's list of decided cases.
Congress, on the other hand, hasn't passed a stand-alone recognition bill since 1994, according to a 2001 report from the Government Accountability Office. Two tribes gained recognition in 2000 when they were included an "omnibus" Indian bill that became law during the last full month of the Clinton administration.
During more recent debates on recognition bills, Republican lawmakers have boasted of their opposition to legislative recognition. Ironically, Republicans are now the sponsors of the only recognition bills that are advancing in the 115th session of Congress.
Next week's hearing takes place next Tuesday, September 26, before the House Subcommittee on Indian, Insular and Alaska Native Affairs, which is part of the larger House Natural Resources Committee. A witness list hasn't been posted online.
"This is the next step in bringing Lumbee recognition up for a vote," Rep. Robert Pittenger (R-North Carolina), the sponsor of H.R.3650, said in a press release. "The Lumbee Tribe has sought full federal recognition since 1888. We are working closely with the Lumbee Tribe and other leaders to ensure a strong showing next Tuesday."
House Subcommittee on Indian, Insular and Alaska Native Affairs Notice:
Legislative Hearing on 3 Tribal Recognition Bills (September 26, 2017)
https://www.indianz.com/m.asp?url=https://naturalresources.house.gov/calendar/eventsingle.aspx?EventID=402853
Department of the Interior Solicitor Opinion:
Reconsideration of the Lumbee Act of 1956 (December 22, 2016)
https://www.indianz.com/News/2017/08/02/m-37040.pdf
--------------------
https://www.indianz.com/News/2017/09/26/trump-administraton-willing-to-defer-to.asp
Indianz.com, September 26, 2017
Trump administration willing to defer to Congress in federal recognition matters
Change is in the air as the Trump administration opens the door to a controversial bill that would strip the Bureau of Indian Affairs of its federal recognition powers.
In his first appearance on Capitol Hill, a senior BIA official did not fully endorse H.R.3744, the Tribal Recognition Act. But John Tahsuda, a citizen of the Kiowa Tribe who joined the Trump team barely four weeks ago, said the agency was willing to defer to Congress when it comes to tribal recognition matters.
While Tahsuda, whose official title is Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs, asserted that the BIA has "statutory authority" to recognize tribes, he outlined a shift in thinking at the Department of the Interior that is at odds with prior Democratic and even Republican policies. He said the new administration won't object if the legislative branch, rather than the executive, decides whether a particular group is worthy of a government-to-government relationship with the United States.
"It is the department's current position that affirmative Congressional recognition more directly aligns the formal recognition of tribes with the assignment of rights derived by the recognition decision," Tahusda told the House Subcommittee on Indian, Insular and Alaska Native Affairs on Tuesday afternoon.
The somewhat muddied statement -- it was neither an endorsement nor a repudiation of the premise of H.R.3744 -- was followed by equally ambiguous positions on two other bills that were also brought up during the hearing. Tahusda refused to say outright whether the Trump administration supports legislative recognition for the Lumbee Tribe and the Ruffey Rancheria, sometimes referred to as the Etna Band of Indians.
"We support Congress's efforts to change that ... if that's what Congress chooses to do," Tahsuda said when asked about H.R.3650, the Lumbee Recognition Act. He offered the same lukewarm response to H.R. 3535, the Ruffey Rancheria Restoration Act.
The lack of clarity brought a rebuke from a lawmaker whose territory lies thousands and thousands of miles from Indian Country. Rep. Gregorio Sablan (D-Northern Mariana Islands), who noted that he was the only Democrat who supported a prior version of the Tribal Recognition Act, accused Tahsuda of providing misleading and unhelpful testimony.
"You can't even give us a yes or no answer," Sablan said in an incredulous tone.
"You're here to testify on behalf of the executive branch and you wont -- it's not that you can't -- you won't give us a yes or no answer," Sablan added.
But a key Republican thought Tahsuda's responses were music to his ears. With H.R.3744, Rep. Rob Bishop (R-Utah), the chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, is asserting the "plenary and exclusive" powers of Congress when it comes to Indian affairs.
"It is nice to have an administration that is willing to come to Congress and work with us," said Bishop, who introduced the bill on September 12.
Despite the Trump team's stance, Bishop's bill faces considerable obstacles. Democrats and tribal leaders -- none of whom were invited to testify about H.R.3744 -- believe the federal recognition process will become even more politicized if left in the hands of Congress.
"It's reckless to remove the administrative authority altogether," said Rep. Norma Torres (D-California), the top Democrat on the House Subcommittee on Indian, Insular and Alaska Native Affairs. "Doing so will only consolidate power in the hands of a few members of Congress, resulting in even [more] delays and difficulties for tribes in leaving these important decisions to politics."
When it comes to tribal recognition, the legislative branch indeed has a paltry record. Congress hasn't passed a stand-alone recognition bill since 1994, according to a 2001 report from the Government Accountability Office. Two tribes gained recognition in 2000 when they were included an "omnibus" Indian bill that became law during the last full month of the Clinton administration.
In comparison, the BIA has recognized 18 tribes since 1978, when the administrative acknowledgment process officially began. The agency has denied recognition to another 33 groups, according to a list of decided cases.
The process is extremely time-consuming and costly, both for the government and petitioning groups. It took the Pamunkey Tribe, the most recent to win acknowledgement through the BIA, seven years to secure a decision. Others have waited longer, even decades.
Republican and Democratic administrations have attempted to streamline the process, with little success. The most recent reforms to the so-called Part 83 process came during the Obama era -- Bishop's bill would nullify them and replace them with a different set of standards.
Tahsuda acknowledged complaints about those changes, which were open to extensive tribal consultation and public comment. But he said they aren't on the Trump administration's agenda. "At this point in time, we have no plans to revisit those," Tahsuda told Bishop. "Certainly they went through a full review process."
There are situations in which tribes cannot go through the BIA's process. Tribes whose federal relationship was terminated by Congress must ask Congress to restore it. The Ruffey Rancheria falls in that category.
"For us, restoration is not a political issue," said Tahj Gomes, an attorney who serves as chairman of the California-based tribe. "It's not a partisan issue. It is a question of necessity and of justice."
The Lumbee Tribe is in a similar yet unique situation. During the termination era, Congress identified the Lumbees in North Carolina as "Indians" yet denied them the benefits associated with federal status.
For decades, the BIA believed the law barred the tribe from seeking recognition through the executive branch. Near the end of the Obama administration, the top legal official at Interior reversed course on that issue but Chairman Harvey Godwin, Jr., said the process would take too long.
"From this day going forward, it would take 20 years,"Godwin testified. Two other tribes, both located in Texas, that were in similar situations as his people have had their federal status clarified by Congress, he noted.
Despite Congress's lack of action on recognition in the last two decades, there has been a shift on Capitol Hill. Republicans who once boasted of blocking prior recognition vehicles are now the proud and eager champions of such bills. Secretary Ryan Zinke, Interior's new leader, was once the sponsor of a recognition bill when he represented Montana in Congress.
"Now as the Secretary, I have to make sure that process is fair, transparent and not unduly influenced," Zinke said in March after he joined the Trump administration.
House Subcommittee on Indian, Insular and Alaska Native Affairs Notice:
Legislative Hearing on 3 Tribal Recognition Bills (September 26, 2017)
https://www.indianz.com/m.asp?url=https://naturalresources.house.gov/calendar/eventsingle.aspx?EventID=402853
Department of the Interior Solicitor Opinion:
Reconsideration of the Lumbee Act of 1956 (December 22, 2016)
https://www.indianz.com/News/2017/08/02/m-37040.pdf
** 27 minutes of opening statements, with Questions and Answers, are available individually, embedded in the Indianz.com article.
Rep. Rob Pittinger (R-North Carolina)
John Tahsuda / Bureau of Indian Affairs
Tahj Gomes / Ruffey Rancheria
Harvey Godwin / Lumbee Tribe
Q&A
** The entire hearing of almost 2 hours can be viewed on YouTube at
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=24&v=20lr-ZpwY88
---------------------
http://www.pireport.org/articles/2017/09/29/federal-government-sues-chamorro-land-trust-saying-it-discriminates
Federal Government Sues Chamorro Land Trust Saying It Discriminates
In contrast to the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act the Chamorro Land Trust Act 'was neither enacted by Congress nor implemented pursuant to authority established by Congress, the lawsuit states
By Steve Limtiaco
HAGATNA, Guam (Pacific Daily News, September 29, 2017) -- The federal government on Friday sued the government of Guam and the Chamorro Land Trust Commission, stating the Chamorro Land Trust Act violates the federal Fair Housing Act.
The Chamorro Land Trust holds public land for the benefit of the island's indigenous Chamorros, who are allowed to apply for residential and agricultural leases of that property. The Land Trust Commission also leases some of the land for commercial use to non-Chamorros, to generate revenue to benefit the Land Trust and its programs.
"The provisions of the (Chamorro Land Trust Act) and the manner of their implementation by the Commission and its Administrative Director constitute discrimination on the basis of race or national origin in violation of the Fair Housing Act," states the lawsuit, filed in the District Court of Guam.
'They don't understand'
Gov. Eddie Calvo said the lawsuit was disappointing, but not unexpected.
"It's clear that they don't understand or don't care about the reason behind the creation of the Chamorro Land Trust's Commission," Calvo stated in a news release. "We must allow the native inhabitants of this land the opportunity to build a home and live on their native land – and I have no compunction about fighting this out in court."
The lawsuit states Guam has compared the Chamorro Land Trust to the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, which created homesteads for eligible native Hawaiians. But the Hawaii program was created by an act of Congress, the lawsuit states, to provide benefits to a native community.
"In contrast, the (Chamorro Land Trust Act) was neither enacted by Congress nor implemented pursuant to authority established by Congress," the lawsuit states.
Lt. Gov. Ray Tenorio said that in addition to native Hawaiians, Alaskan natives and native Americans also have programs to protect their indigenous rights.
"Maybe that's because they have an actual voting representative in Congress, whereas we have not been allowed the right of representation," Tenorio said.
Discrimination
As an example of how the program discriminates against non-Chamorros, the lawsuit states, "At least one non-Chamorro resident of Guam, an African-American man, lost the home he built on a (Chamorro Land Trust Act) plot after his wife, a Chamorro resident who received the CLTA plot, passed away."
The lawsuit states that during a hearing on the man's claim, the administrative director and commissioners "inquired into whether he was 'a person that's qualified to apply,' and specifically, whether he was 'blood Chamorro' or an 'outsider' who was 'married to a local girl.' The commission subsequently ruled against his application, evicting him from his marital home."
The lawsuit asks the federal court to prohibit local government officials from refusing to rent or sell dwellings to any person based on race or national origin. The lawsuit also calls for monetary damages to people harmed, as well as a civil penalty.
Complaint filed
A lawsuit has been expected after a formal discrimination complaint against the government of Guam over the Chamorro Land Trust program was filed with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Tamuning resident Christopher Fowler alleges he wasn't allowed to participate in the Chamorro Land Trust Program because he's Caucasian, according to the complaint.
According to Fowler's statement to HUD, when he applied for a lease at the Land Trust's office in Tamuning back in February, the receptionist informed him that only Chamorro residents and their descendants are eligible.
Attorney General Elizabeth Barrett-Anderson has said Guam doesn't intend to reach a settlement over the issue and plans to have it decided in court.
The Office of the Attorney General on Friday didn't comment on the merits of the case. "The complaint will be thoroughly reviewed once it has been served," said attorney general spokeswoman Carlina Charfauros.
Guam Pacific Daily News.
** Ken Conklin's note: If successful, this lawsuit could set a precedent for attacking the racial entitlement programs in Hawaii that are funded by state or county but are not enacted by Congress. Indeed, it could also be used to attack what happens in other States which have state-recognized Indian tribes which lack federal recognition, if those States or their counties give government money to the state-recognized tribes beyond any programs which Congress might have enacted.
---------------------
https://turtletalk.wordpress.com/2017/10/07/new-scholarship-on-native-hawaiian-nation-building/
Turtle Talk, October 7, 2017
New Scholarship on Native Hawaiian Nation-Building
by Matthew L.M. Fletcher
Linda Zhang has published "Re-Building a Native Hawaiian Nation: Base Rolls, Membership, and Land in an Effective Self-Determination Movement" in the Asian Pacific American Law Journal.
http://escholarship.org/uc/item/39t1k0fx
-----------
https://historymystery.kenconklin.org/2017/10/08/comments-on-linda-zhang-re-building-a-native-hawaiian-nation/
The Mystery of Hawaiian History blog, October 8, 2017
Letter to editor by Kenneth R. Conklin, Ph.D. in response to
Linda Zhang, "Re-Building a Native Hawaiian Nation: Base Rolls, Membership, and Land in an Effective Self-Determination Movement," Asian Pacific American Law Journal, Vol 22, No. 1, 2017, pp. 69-93.
http://escholarship.org/uc/item/39t1k0fx
I would like to set the record straight regarding a few errors of fact and interpretation in Linda Zhang's essay "Re-Building a Native Hawaiian Nation."
1. Alleged invasion of Iolani Palace by U.S. troops during the Hawaiian revolution of 1893
At the bottom of page 70 Ms. Zhang states the following falsehood: "Then, in 1893, American troops seized I'olani Palace, the home of Queen Lili'uokalani and the center of the Hawaiian monarchy ..." Her only citation for that assertion is an internet link from 2005 which is now dead, where the underlying blogsite continues to publish only highly one-sided propaganda pushing the concept of Hawaiian independence.
The truth is that on January 16, 1893 there were 162 U.S. sailors who landed in Honolulu as a peacekeeping force because of anticipated violence between an armed militia of local men seeking to overthrow the government, and the government's forces. Their orders were to protect American lives and property and to prevent rioting and arson. 808 pages of sworn testimony before the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs in February 1894, in open session and under severe cross-examination, shows that the peacekeepers never invaded the Palace grounds and, indeed, did not take over any buildings nor in any way provide help to the rebels. See the Morgan Report at
http://morganreport.org
Even the Blount Report, much ballyhooed by Hawaiian sovereignty activists, makes no claim of any invasion of Palace grounds by U.S. troops.
Unfortunately the 2009 movie "Princess Kaiulani" (originally titled "The Barbarian Princess") falsely shows such a scene. The webpage for a future film "The Islands" by Tim Chey indicates that there will be a similar scene. Both films, of course, are produced with story lines intended to sell lots of tickets by spectacularly distorting historical fact in ways that will appeal to current sentiments. Portraying U.S. troops invading the Palace is pure propaganda which only serves to incite racial strife and anti-Americanism.
2. Alleged statistical evidence of Native Hawaiian victimhood in poverty, incarceration, and health
Page 71, near the top, says "Since then, studies have shown that Kanaka Maoli, or Native Hawaiians, continue to have some of the highest rates of poverty, incarceration, school drop-out rates, and display several negative indicators of health."
This assertion has been repeated so many times, both in the popular media and in academic "studies", that people now believe it. This victimhood claim is cited by tycoons of the Hawaiian grievance industry who benefit from hundreds of millions of dollars in government and philanthropic grants; and also cited by politicians seeking to arouse public sympathy for efforts to create a Hawaiian tribe. The assertion arises from statistical malpractice, whose perpetrators must surely be aware that they are engaging in a scam. Two of the main points debunking the assertion are as follows:
(a) According to Census 2010 the median age of ethnic Hawaiians in Hawaii is 26 while the median age of everyone else in Hawaii is 42. That 16 year age gap explains why incomes of Native Hawaiians are significantly lower than incomes of other ethnic groups. It also explains why Native Hawaiians have higher rates of incarceration and longer sentences than other ethnicities -- not because of their ethnicity but because of the huge age gap. Drug abuse, spouse abuse, and crime -- especially violent crime -- are the sins of young people far more than middle-age people.
(b) Virtually all so-called Native Hawaiians have mixed ancestry. Perhaps 3/4 of them each have at least 3/4 of their heritage being Asian or Caucasian rather than Hawaiian. But when someone is a victim of poverty, incarceration, disease, etc. and is asked "What are you?" they are classified as "Native Hawaiian" AND ONLY AS NATIVE HAWAIIAN even if their native blood quantum is only a small fraction of their ancestry. Someone who is mostly Caucasian or Asian should have his victimhood attributed to one of those racial groups rather than to Native Hawaiian. The most accurate way to award victimhood tally marks to ethnic groups would be to give a fraction of a tally mark to each ethnicity in a victim's heritage equal to the fraction of that ethnicity in his genealogy. But social scientists apparently consider it politically incorrect to ask victims for ethnic percentages; and tycoons of the Hawaiian grievance industry do not want to be robbed of the victimhood claims they use in grant applications; and researchers excuse their malpractice by saying that if they award victimhood tally marks to the highest percentage in a victim's heritage then there would be too few Native Hawaiians to be statistically significant.
For a detailed analysis and examples of both points (a) and (b) see "Native Hawaiian victimhood -- malpractice in the gathering and statistical analysis of data allegedly showing disproportionate Native Hawaiian victimhood for disease and social dysfunction." at
http://tinyurl.com/j3aolqg
3. The proposed Native Hawaiian constitution is both racist and fascist
Linda Zhang's article tries to portray the Hawaiian sovereignty movement as benign. For example, she says on page 77 "Part A(i) of the membership criteria is based on the lineage model. The criterion is broad enough to include 'non-Hawaiians who were citizens of the Hawaiian Kingdom and therefore have a rightful place in the citizenry,' thereby avoiding a potential constitutional challenge under Rice v. Cayetano." But the actual wording of Part A(i) says "An individual who is a descendant of the aboriginal peoples who, prior to 1778, occupied and exercised sovereignty in the Hawaiian Islands" -- which clearly would NOT include people with no native blood who were subjects (citizens) of the Kingdom; and thus it is clearly a racial requirement and cannot avoid running afoul of Rice v. Cayetano.
A claim to racial supremacy is displayed in the proposed constitution for a future federally recognized Hawaiian tribe adopted on February 26, 2016. That constitution also demands race-based ownership and control of all the lands and waters of Hawaii, as though nobody else has rights. Up front the preamble says "we join together to affirm a government of, by, and for Native Hawaiian people" [i.e., of the race, by the race, and for the race], and "affirm our ancestral [i.e., race-based] rights and Kuleana to all lands, waters, and resources of our islands and surrounding seas." So what will become of the 80% of Hawaii's people who have no native ancestry? The constitution asserts the same sort of "blood and land" concept as found in other fascist governments -- Native Hawaiians are descendants of the gods and brothers to the land in a way nobody else can ever be who lacks a drop of Hawaiian native blood.
See "Hawaiian religious fascism" at
http://tinyurl.com/j4o2cdj
The proposed tribal constitution passed by the Na'i Aupuni convention on February 26, 2016 is available at
http://tinyurl.com/zegptkr
----------------------
Oct 9: Retired Senator Dan Akaka, in newly published memoir, says that he considers the 1993 Apology Bill, in which the U.S. apologized for the overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy, as one of his greatest pieces of legislation. And even though his so-called Akaka Bill, giving Native Hawaiians federal recognition, never passed, the former senator says the Native Hawaiian Roll Commission is now the best path forward. "We really need to legally get on the laws of the United States," said Akaka.
TV news report of interview:
http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/36557574/in-his-new-memoir-sen-akaka-comes-out-in-support-of-thirty-meter-telescope
Hawaii News Now [3 TV stations], Monday, October 9th 2017
In his new memoir, Sen. Akaka comes out in support of Thirty Meter Telescope
By Mahealani Richardson, Anchor/Reporter
HONOLULU (HawaiiNewsNow) -
Former U.S. Sen. Dan Akaka believes Mauna Kea is sacred. He also believes the Thirty Meter Telescope should be built on it.
In his new memoir, "One Voice: My Life, Times and Hopes for Hawaii," the 93-year-old expresses his support for the controversial project.
"When it comes to a place like TMT, in a way it relates to the moving of Hawaiians to find Hawaii," said Akaka in an exclusive one-on-one interview.
Besides jobs and educational opportunities, Akaka believes TMT will help Native Hawaiians reconnect with their culture and past by expanding knowledge of the stars and universe.
"It's part of their culture to search and look for new places," he said.
After years of legal wrangling, the state Land Board has approved a permit for TMT, though the issue is likely to head to the state Supreme Court.
Native Hawaiian groups suing to block the project believe only practitioners of the mountain have legal standing. They've criticized Gov. David Ige for a lack of leadership, but Akaka isn't one of them.
"I wouldn't say he wasn't strong enough. I would say he's being careful and caring about the feeling of the people of Hawaii," Akaka said.
Meanwhile, in his book, Akaka says that he considers the 1993 Apology Bill, in which the U.S. apologized for the overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy, as one of his greatest pieces of legislation.
And even though his so-called Akaka Bill, giving Native Hawaiians federal recognition, never passed, the former senator says the Native Hawaiian Roll Commission is now the best path forward.
"We really need to legally get on the laws of the United States," said Akaka.
Five years into retirement, Akaka still maintains his trademark style of politics.
"The world really needs aloha because aloha is a power that brings people together," he said.
----------------------
http://www.hawaiitribune-herald.com/commentary/your-views/your-views-october-25
Hawaii Tribune-Herald, October 25, 2017 [Hilo], letter to editor
Restore Hawaii
If President Donald Trump thinks peace is achievable in Israel's hostile environment, he can certainly conceive of the solution to restore Hawaii. Exercising an executive order, he'd rival Abraham Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation.
World-changing possibilities, Trump's position could be for such a time as this. Despite naysayers, he's proven anything is possible.
Restoring the Hawaiian nation is viable. Establishing righteous precedents, many of the logistics are relatable to domestic and international affairs.
Biblical principles are culturally appropriate for land distribution, governance and integrating people. It includes criteria for loving resident aliens, protection of property and dual citizenship.
In November 1917, Queen Lili'uokalani died. Her faith in God to restore Hawaii lives on.
Lili'uokalani's book concludes, "As they deal with me and my people, kindly, generously, and justly, so may the Great Ruler of all nations deal with the grand and glorious nation of the United States of America."
Michele Lincoln
Lahaina, Maui
----
** Ken Conklin's online comment:
Michele Lincoln: An executive order by a President only has the power to fill in procedural details of how to carry out laws passed by Congress. An executive order cannot wipe out or overturn a law passed by Congress. In 1897 Hawaii offered a Treaty of Annexation, and in 1898 Congress passed a law accepting that offer. You would like a magic bullet to undo 120 years of history. Not gonna happen. And thank goodness. The people of Hawaii overwhelmingly support us being the 50th State. A few malcontents like you will not change that. You can dream whatever you want. But for the rest of us your dream would be a nightmare, and you cannot force the rest of us to comply.
-----------------------
http://www.hawaiitribune-herald.com/news/community/celebrating-her-life-and-legacy-bells-toll-100th-anniversary-lili-uokalani-s-death
Hawaii Tribune-Herald, October 26, 2017 [Hilo]
Celebrating her life and legacy: Bells to toll on 100th anniversary of Lili'uokalani's death
Friends of Lili'uokalani Gardens has joined statewide efforts to mark the 100th anniversary of the death of Lili'uokalani, former queen of Hawaii.
Churches and temples throughout the islands will be tolling their bells at 8:30 a.m. Nov. 11 in her honor.
In Hilo, a 100th memorial service is scheduled for 3-5 p.m. Nov. 11 at Church of the Holy Apostles, 1407 Kapiolani St. Overflow and assisted parking will be available.
The Holy Apostles service will draw upon the funeral program of 1917, which was officiated by the Right Rev. Henry Bond Restarick, bishop of Honolulu at St. Andrew's Cathedral where the queen was a member of the congregation. Officiating at the Hilo memorial service will be the Right Rev. Robert L. Fitzpatrick, current bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Hawaii.
The public is invited.
For more information, contact event chairwoman Noe Noe Wong-Wilson by email noenoe@hilo.net.
----
** Ken Conklin's online comment
The Lili'uokalani Cult -- A scary but true Halloween story
Hawaiian secessionists try to inspire winners for 21st Century battles by conjuring the ghosts of 19th Century losers
Queen Lili'uokalani has become a cult figure. Hawaiian sovereignty activists worship her in an uncritical, mystical way similar to how Catholics worship the Virgin Mary. Some say her spirit lives at Iolani Palace or Washington Place, some say she lives at Mauna Ala (the Royal Mausoleum) or at her statue on the Capitol grounds; but all say she lives forever in the hearts of 527,000 Native Hawaiians (Census 2010). Other cult heroes include about 350 men arrested, including 189 put on trial, for the Wilcox attempted counterrevolution of 1895. This year at least one published essay says Hawaiians should try that again.
The activists have been working hard to make the general population of Hawaii think of Lili'uokalani as a noble, virtuous leader who was unjustly and illegally overthrown, who exercised non-violence in her peaceful surrender, who wrote beautiful music while imprisoned in her own Palace, and who behaved like a saint in forgiving those wicked haoles who dethroned her with the help of an armed invasion by the United States.
Lili'uokalani's 175th birthday on September 2, 2013 provided an excuse for an unusually aggressive propaganda campaign aimed at stirring anti-U.S. and anti-haole resentment, and determination to restore Hawaii as an independent nation under ethnic Hawaiian control.
Those are the title and first three paragraphs of a detailed webpage. This newspaper does not allow internet URLs in online comments. But it's easy to find the webpage. Just google "liliuokalani cult"
---------------------------
** Note by Ken Conklin: November 2017 issue of Hillsdale College's "Imprimis" has a major article entitled "The Problem of Identity Politics and Its Solution." Although there is no mention of Hawaii, the article clearly explains why supporters of Hawaiian tribalism or Hawaiian independence are nearly all left-wing ideologues, while opponents of Hawaiian sovereignty are nearly all politically conservative supporters of traditional American values.
https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/the-problem-of-identity-politics-and-its-solution/
Imprimis [Hillsdale College], November 2017, Vol. 46, No. 11
The Problem of Identity Politics and Its Solution
by Matthew Continetti
Editor-in-Chief, Washington Free Beacon
[Matthew Continetti, the editor-in-chief of the Washington Free Beacon, received his B.A. from Columbia University. Prior to joining the Beacon, he was opinion editor of the Weekly Standard. The author of The K Street Gang: The Rise and Fall of the Republican Machine and The Persecution of Sarah Palin: How the Elite Media Tried to Bring Down a Rising Star, Continetti's articles and reviews have appeared in The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, the Financial Times, the Los Angeles Times, and The Washington Post.
The following is adapted from a speech delivered at Hillsdale College on October 24, 2017, during a two-week teaching residency at Hillsdale as a Pulliam Distinguished Visiting Fellow in Journalism.
The beginnings of identity politics can be traced to 1973, the year the first volume of Alexander Solzhenitsyn's Gulag Archipelago -- a book that demolished any pretense of communism's moral authority -- was published in the West. The ideological challenge of socialism was fading, its fighting spirit dwindling. This presented a challenge for the Left: how to carry on the fight against capitalism when its major ideological alternative was no longer viable?
The Left found its answer in an identity politics that grew out of anti-colonialism. Marx's class struggle was reformulated into an ethno-racial struggle -- a ceaseless competition between colonizer and colonized, victimizer and victim, oppressor and oppressed. Instead of presenting collectivism and central planning as the gateway to the realization of genuine freedom, the new multiculturalist Left turned to unmasking the supposed power relations that subordinated minorities and exploited third world nations.
The original battleground was the American university, where, as Bruce Bawer writes in The Victims' Revolution: The Rise of Identity Politics and the Closing of the Liberal Mind,
The point [became] simply to "prove" -- repetitively, endlessly -- certain facile, reductive, and invariably left-wing points about the nature of power and oppression. In this new version of the humanities, all of Western civilization is not analyzed through the use of reason or judged according to aesthetic standards that have been developed over centuries; rather, it is viewed through prisms of race, class, and gender, and is hailed or condemned in accordance with certain political checklists.
Under the new leftist dispensation, the study of English became the application of critical and literary theory to disparate texts so as to uncover the hidden power relations they concealed. The study of history became the study of social history or "people's history," the record of Western Civilization's oppression of various groups. And popping up everywhere were new departments of "studies": African-American Studies, Women's Studies, Queer Studies, Chicano Studies, Gender Studies, and so on. "What these radicals blandly call multiculturalism," wrote Irving Kristol, "is as much a "war against the West" as Nazism and Stalinism ever were. Under the guise of multiculturalism, their ideas -- whose radical substance often goes beyond the bounds of the political into sheer fantasy -- are infiltrating our educational system at all levels."
This revolution in American universities was accomplished swiftly and largely outside the public eye. What little resistance the radicals met was vanquished with accusations of racism. It was not until the late 1980s, with Jesse Jackson's presidential campaigns, the battle over the Stanford core curriculum, and the publication of Allan Bloom's The Closing of the American Mind, that the rise of identity politics on campus and the idea of "political correctness" became a page one story. By that time, however, it was too late. Alumni, trustees, and parents had no recourse. The American university was irrevocably changed.
There have been liberal critics of identity politics through the years. In 1991, historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. published The Disuniting of America: Reflections on a Multicultural Society. Schlesinger noted that the Soviet Union had collapsed in a heap of warring nationalities and that the state of Yugoslavia was in the process of doing the same, and asked whether America would be next. Presenting America as a nation of nations, a shared national culture whose diverse citizenry is united behind principles of liberty and equal justice, Schlesinger quoted Jean de Crèvecoeur's 1782 Letters from an American Farmer: "He is an American, who leaving behind him all his ancient prejudices and manners, receives new ones from the new mode of life he has embraced, the new government he obeys, and the new rank he holds. ... Here individuals of all nations are melted into a new race of men."
In 2004, Harvard political scientist Samuel Huntington published Who Are We? Huntington examined the stunning immigration, both legal and illegal, from Mexico and argued that it was undermining longstanding notions of American national identity. America, Huntington said, has both a creed and a culture. The creed is formulated in the founding documents of our nation and in the speeches of Abraham Lincoln. The culture derives from the Anglo-Protestant settlers who first peopled North America. Huntington worried about a "hispanicization" of American culture.
This book was controversial, to say the least. Nor was it without weaknesses. It is hard for this descendant of Irish and Italian immigrants to accept the notion that America's culture is monolithically Anglo-Protestant. Furthermore, Huntington tended to underestimate the importance of the creed in shaping the culture. But such criticism should not obscure the fundamental point: Huntington, a Democrat who advised Hubert Humphrey's 1968 presidential campaign, shared the same concerns one finds today among Trump supporters about immigration's effect on American society.
This year another liberal academic, Columbia humanities professor Mark Lilla, has taken up the banner. "Identity politics on the left," he writes, "was at first about large classes of people ... seeking to redress major historical wrongs by mobilizing and then working through our political institutions to secure their rights. But by the 1980s, it had given way to a pseudo-politics of self-regard and increasingly narrow, and exclusionary self-definition that is now cultivated in our colleges and universities. The main result has been to turn people back onto themselves, rather than turning them outward towards the wider world they share with others. It has left them unprepared to think about the common good in non-identity terms and what must be done practically to secure it -- especially the hard and unglamorous task of persuading people very different from themselves to join a common effort."
Lilla exhorts Democrats to replace identity liberalism with civic liberalism in the mode of Franklin Roosevelt. That Lilla's opponents wasted no time in labeling his argument as racist is a testament to how divided the Left is on this issue.
Despite these intellectual dissidents, the Democratic Party and liberal elites appear committed to the idea that multiculturalism and identity politics, combined with the changing demographics of America, will bring about an enduring Democratic national majority. The two victories of Barack Obama strengthened their assumptions and set the template for Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign. Lilla notes, for example, that a visitor to Clinton's website could open tabs related to ethnic, religious, and sexual minorities, but not one related to a shared vision of American community.
This approach has had catastrophic consequences for the Democratic Party. "The fatal conclusion the Clinton team made after the Michigan primary debacle," Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg writes, "was that she could not win white working-class voters, and that the 'rising electorate' would make up the difference. She finished her campaign with rallies in inner cities and university towns. Macomb [County, Michigan] got the message."
But the Democrats' theory behind support for identity politics rests on shaky assumptions. Liberal journalist John B. Judis, who helped originate the theory with his book The Emerging Democratic Majority, has recanted his thesis. "The U.S. census makes a critical assumption that undermines its predictions of a majority-nonwhite country," he writes. "It projects that the same percentage of people who currently identify themselves as 'Latino' or 'Asian' will continue to claim those identities in future generations. In reality, that's highly unlikely."
Intermarriage and assimilation will affect immigrants from these groups just as they have affected other immigrant groups. What's more, voting allegiances can change as newcomers are integrated into the majority. There is also the problem that, as Democrats become more closely identified with identity politics, non-minority voters may swing even more decisively to Republicans -- continuing the trend we saw in 2016.
Democrats fooled themselves into thinking that identity politics won Obama his two terms when in fact precisely the opposite had occurred. Obama made his debut on the national stage in the summer of 2004, during the Democratic National Convention that nominated John Kerry for president. The only reason anyone remembers that convention is because of Obama's keynote address, where he repudiated the division of American society and famously said, "There's not a black America and white America and Latino America and Asian America; there's the United States of America." From the start, Obama's appeal on the campaign trail was to the noblest and most unifying aspects of the American political tradition.
This didn't last. Shortly before Obama was reelected, he gave an interview where he said his top priority in a second term would be immigration reform that included an amnesty for illegal immigrants. The reason, he explained, was that Hispanic turnout would win him victory. Here Obama was wrong. Targeted appeals to Hispanic and black voters did not win him reelection. What won him reelection were his attacks on Mitt Romney for not understanding the economic condition of working Americans.
The most significant and effective advertisement of the 2012 campaign was a testimonial from a factory worker who had been laid off during one of Romney's corporate downsizings. What came to be known as the "coffin ad" drove a wedge between the Republican nominee and the voters on whom Republican victory depended. Four years later, when the Republicans nominated a very different sort of candidate, these voters switched allegiances and backed Donald Trump.
It is no accident that identity politics is most rampant today in the academy, in entertainment, in the media, in Silicon Valley, and in corporate boardrooms. Identity politics is a veneer over the class politics that truly defines our society, and education is the best prism through which to view class in America today. Higher levels of education are not only correlated with higher incomes and better life prospects, but also with a greater acceptance of the theories behind identity politics -- including the idea, rejected last year by the voters of the rural Midwest, that they are the beneficiaries of white privilege.
The condescension of liberal elites toward the white working class, evangelical Christians, gun owners, and supporters of immigration control and cultural assimilation is as pronounced as it is repulsive. It is summed up in Hillary Clinton's writing off of so many voters last year as belonging in a "basket of deplorables" -- the converse of Mitt Romney's similarly destructive class-based dismissal of the 47 percent of Americans who do not pay income taxes. (They don't pay income taxes because they don't make enough money to qualify.)
Liberals seem blind to the connection between the high levels of income inequality they criticize and what they would otherwise call the hegemonic discourse of identity politics. This is why Clinton's comment that breaking up the big banks would do nothing for the minority groups at the base of her campaign was so revealing. It might not do anything for them as members of identity groups, but perhaps it would help them as workers and as citizens.
Ensconced in affluent city centers and tony suburbs, liberal elites tell themselves that identity politics will carry them to the progressive future of their dreams. They appear utterly unaware that the radical cultural transformation they support -- not to mention the insulting, dismissive, and self-righteous way they meet opposition to their designs -- is seen from outside their bubble as provocative.
As political analyst Sean Trende has written: "Consider that over the course of the past few years, Democrats and liberals have: booed the inclusion of God in their platform at the 2012 convention ... endorsed a regulation that would allow transgendered students to use the bathroom and locker room corresponding to their identity; attempted to force small businesses to cover drugs they believe induce abortions; attempted to force nuns to provide contraceptive coverage; forced Brendan Eich to step down as chief executive officer of Mozilla due to his opposition to marriage equality; fined a small Christian bakery over $140,000 for refusing to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding; vigorously opposed a law in Indiana that would provide protections against similar regulations -- despite having overwhelmingly supported similar laws when they protected Native American religious rights -- and then scoured the Indiana countryside trying to find a business that would be affected by the law before settling upon a small pizza place in the middle of nowhere and harassing the owners."
We tend to view these stories as examples of the culture war. They are more than that: they are examples of a coastal, metropolitan, highly schooled upper class warring against the traditions and freedoms of a middle American, exurban and rural, lower-middle and working class with some or no college education. In short, examples of a privileged few attempting to impose their will on a recalcitrant majority.
Here is Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg again: "Obama's refrain [of building "ladders of opportunity" for those left behind in the economic recovery] was severely out of touch with what was happening to most Americans and the working class more broadly. In our research, "ladders of opportunity" fell far short of what real people were looking for. Incomes sagged after the financial crisis, pensions lost value, and many lost their housing wealth, while people faced dramatically rising costs for things that mattered -- health care, education, housing, and child care. People faced vanishing geographic, economic, and social mobility. ... At the same time, billionaires spent massively to influence politicians and parked their money in the big cities whose dynamism drew in the best talent from the smaller towns and cities."
The result of this class conflict is an America in danger of coming apart. "Liberals must take seriously Americans' yearning for social cohesion," writes Peter Beinart in The Atlantic Monthly. But despite the efforts of liberals like Beinart and Lilla, the Left faces obstacles to stitching America back together. The wealthiest and most energetic segments of the Left are committed to multiculturalism on the one hand and transnationalism on the other. What is more, the Left rejects the natural rights theory of the American Founding at the core of our tradition.
What has traditionally held Americans together is the idea that each of us is made in the image of our Creator and endowed with certain unalienable rights. But not only that idea. We are also held together by the culture that emanates from the intermingling of dynamic peoples and unchanging principles. To combat identity politics, we must emphasize an American nationalism based on both a commitment to the ideals of the American Founding and a shared love of our national history and culture -- a history and culture of individual freedom and religious pluralism, resistant to centralized authority and ever expanding into new frontiers and new possibilities.
The American people are united by our creed of freedom and equality, and also by our habits, our manners, our national language, our territorial integrity, our national symbols -- such as the National Anthem, the Flag, and the Pledge of Allegiance -- our civic traditions, and our national story. We should tell that story forthrightly and proudly; we should continue our traditions of local government and patriotic displays; we should guard the symbols of our heritage against attack; and we should recognize that the needs of our citizens take priority.
We should also remember the words of a great American nationalist, Abraham Lincoln, at the close of his First Inaugural Address: "We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.
---------------------
http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/native_hawaiians_wage_an_ongoing_battle_to_organize_into_a_sovereign_nation
American Bar Association Journal, November 2017 [article posted online late October 2017]
Ho'o Lahui -- To Form a Nation: Native Hawaiians wage an ongoing battle to organize themselves into a sovereign nation.
BY LORELEI LAIRD
Native Hawaiians have been considered Americans for more than 100 years. But they haven't forgotten the original sin that created their state.
That sin -- the forcible ouster of the Hawaiian monarchy -- has some Native Hawaiians waging a legal battle to this day to regain some measure of independence.
Under the monarchy, American and European businesspeople had prospered. But they wanted control in this land of paradise. So in 1887, they assembled a militia and forced King David Kalakaua at gunpoint to sign the Kingdom of Hawaii Constitution, nicknamed the "Bayonet Constitution," which reduced his power and increased the power of wealthy, white landowners.
See our gallery with images from Hawaii's history.
http://www.abajournal.com/gallery/to_form_a_nation
When the king's sister, Queen Lili'uokalani, inherited the throne a few years later, she was determined to reverse this imbalance of power by writing a new constitution. But backers of the Bayonet Constitution got word of the plan. On Jan. 16, 1893, they gathered their militia across from her palace. The U.S. minister to Hawaii, John L. Stevens, ordered about 160 armed American troops to come ashore -- ostensibly to protect American property, but most of the troops set up camp near the palace.
At dusk the next day, fearing a war, the queen gave up her throne. "Now, to avoid any collision of armed forces -- and perhaps the loss of life -- I do, under this protest and impelled by said forces, yield my authority," Lili'uokalani wrote.
Despite good relations between the United States and the kingdom, American leadership never intervened actively to reverse the overthrow. The United States annexed Hawaii in 1898 -- without the consent of its people or its former queen -- and declared it a state in 1959.
But Native Hawaiians haven't forgotten that they were once independent. They've been trying to regain that independence for decades -- especially since the 1970s, when there was a renaissance of interest in Hawaiian culture. The state's Office of Hawaiian Affairs was established in 1978 to support sovereignty; former Hawaii Sen. Daniel Akaka, a Democrat, introduced yearly bills to achieve it; and islanders have tried several times to organize a vote on whether to form a Native Hawaiian government.
But those votes have been challenged repeatedly -- and in 2000, one of those challenges resulted in a U.S. Supreme Court precedent that has stymied self-governance efforts since then. Rice v. Cayetano held that under the 15th Amendment, which expressly says states may not deny any citizen the right to vote based on race or color, a Hawaii state agency may not hold elections only for Native Hawaiians.
That means current efforts are in danger. A 2016 constitutional convention, called an 'aha in the Hawaiian language, produced a proposed constitution for a Native Hawaiian government, whose form and relationship to the United States is not yet settled. But the 'aha also got organizers sued for violating Rice. That forced them to rely on private funding to ratify the constitution. As of December 2016 (the most recent data provided), organizers had only a little more than an eighth of the money they need. Opponents of the effort are watching closely for anything they think is illegal.
"We are actively involved in making sure that we're ready to go if this rears its head again," says Robert Popper, director of Judicial Watch's Election Integrity Project. "There is going to be a serious ... problem no matter how they structure this, and we are dedicated to making that argument."
INDIGENOUS ENOUGH
Rice highlighted a quirk of Native Hawaiians' legal status: They're an indigenous people of the United States, but federal Indian law doesn't apply to them. Hawaii was admitted to the Union well after most Indian law was written, and no one has sought to include Native Hawaiians after the fact. That's fine with some Native Hawaiians, who dislike being lumped in with mainland tribes. But if Hawaiians had a tribal-style government, Rice might have come out differently. The Supreme Court has held that Indian status is a political affiliation with a tribe rather than a racial category.
However, Native Hawaiians are still legally a bit different from other Americans, says Melody Kapilialoha MacKenzie, a professor at the William S. Richardson School of Law at the University of Hawaii at Mānoa who directs its Ka Huli Ao Center for Excellence in Native Hawaiian Law. Congress has passed more than 150 laws addressing Native Hawaiians in some way, she says -- some of which include them with American Indians and Alaska Natives.
Among those laws are several creating benefits programs. Funded by land held in trust by the state government, they provide inexpensive homesteads, small-business loans, college scholarships and more. That's needed in some segments of the community; Native Hawaiian poverty runs higher than average for the state. And Rice may threaten it all.
"In my perception, Rice v. Cayetano kind of sent the whole movement into a tailspin," says Davis Price, a nonpracticing attorney who works for the Office of Hawaiian Affairs and participated in the 'aha. "The fear was all the programs established up to that point that were set up to benefit Native Hawaiians were going to get taken out as a result of that ruling."
Indeed, many of those programs were challenged in court after Rice. These challenges have largely failed for lack of standing, MacKenzie says -- but nobody expects them to stop.
For some Native Hawaiians, the answer is federal recognition as a separate quasi-sovereign government. This would not require them to form a mainland-style tribe but give the Native Hawaiian government the same kind of sovereign-within-a-sovereign relationship to the federal government. The ABA supported this with Resolution 108B in 2006, which envisioned it as a way of protecting Native Hawaiian benefits. A rule finalized last fall by the federal Department of the Interior created a pathway for recognition of a Native Hawaiian government, if one should be formed.
Former Gov. John Waihe'e says federal recognition is a tool for reaching three important ends: protecting Native Hawaiian institutions, allowing Native Hawaiians to manage their own resources, and permitting them to decide their own future as a people.
For example, he says, why should the state of Hawaii manage the Hawaiian Homes Commission? "They haven't done a good job," Waihe'e says. "Perhaps Hawaiians can do a better job."
But the Native Hawaiian community's opinion on federal recognition is deeply divided. Some prefer full sovereignty, even if it means secession from the United States -- which some consider an illegal occupier of Hawaiian land. A Native Hawaiian government might be able to draw on trust lands set aside for Native Hawaiians, as well as the private financial trusts that benefit the Hawaiian people. But that's assuming the federal government would be willing to let Native Hawaiians go.
Noelani Goodyear-Ka'opua, a political science professor at the University of Hawaii at Mānoa, would prefer a process that includes complete independence as an option. More importantly, she says, she's concerned that the push for federal recognition is mostly coming from political elites and the state itself, rather than from the Native Hawaiian community.
"There was stunningly little real, genuine education about what this process would look like, what it should do or any sort of debate on the ground," she says. "When people don't know what's going on, they're not going to just jump on the bandwagon."
Because of this controversy, the organization that threw the 'aha, the Na'i Aupuni, expressly did not advocate any particular form for a proposed Native Hawaiian government. However, backers of full independence argued that the the group was associated with too many members of the political establishment who do support federal recognition. (That includes Waihe'e, whom the ABA Journal reached via an organization related to the Na'i Aupuni.)
Price, who is less concerned with the form of government than the needs of Native Hawaiians, says the pro-independence side worries that federal recognition advocates will do anything to protect Native Hawaiian programs -- even give up the right to seek independence. That's led to a lot of mudslinging, he says. "I feel like my role, and really my generation's role, is to sift through all the mud and try to figure out a path forward," Price says. "And that's why I participated in the 'aha."
ALOHA 'OE
Meanwhile, not every Native Hawaiian wants any kind of Native Hawaiian government. The lead plaintiff in the lawsuit challenging the Na'i Aupuni election was Keli'i Akina, president and CEO of the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, a conservative think tank. He was joined by five others, three of whom also are Native Hawaiians.
Price considers these to be largely outside forces, supported by mainland political groups -- but they successfully derailed the Na'i Aupuni voting. Akina argued that the Na'i Aupuni was having a state election in which only people of certain races may vote, just like in Rice. This violated the 15th Amendment, plaintiffs said, and also the 14th Amendment's due process and equal protection clauses, the Voting Rights Act and more. The Na'i Aupuni was a state actor because it was using the OHA grant money to pursue one of the affairs office's explicitly stated goals, according to the lawsuit.
Popper says this is unconstitutional and offensive.
"To just lightly set [constitutional provisions] aside because someone has an idea about how they could create a governmental entity for their own purposes, to lightly have a voter roll where people ... are told that they can't [vote] because they're the wrong race -- to have that in this country in 2017 is so offensive," he says.
Popper, who came to Judicial Watch from the Voting Section of the Department of Justice's civil rights division, thought the case was "a slam dunk." But it was never fully decided. The case was tied up in appeals after the district court declined to issue a preliminary injunction against the voting, saying the Na'i Aupuni was a private organization that had a private vote.
That decision in Akina v. Hawaii triggered an appeal to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at San Francisco in June 2016, as well as an emergency injunction by the Supreme Court to stop the vote counting. But long before oral arguments, the Na'i Aupuni canceled the election and invited all the candidates to be delegates. On Aug. 29, 2016, the 9th Circuit ruled that the issue was therefore moot.
Both sides are slightly disappointed that the appeals court never reached the merits of the case. Former Gov. Waihe'e says organizers thought they had a strong case -- especially after Judge J. Michael Seabright's ruling -- but didn't want to tie up the effort in court. Popper says a December 2016 ruling from the 9th Circuit, on voting in the Northern Mariana Islands, suggests that the appeals court would have sided with the plaintiffs.
They might have another chance. Popper says if the ratification vote is privately funded, the voter roll organizers used for the delegate election -- which was created by the state of Hawaii -- raises many of the same constitutional issues. If a vote is held using another roll, he says, Judicial Watch still might object to any bid to seek recognition from the Department of the Interior, on statutory and constitutional grounds.
It's not clear whether a majority of Native Hawaiians -- who compose 6 to 26 percent of the state's population, according to the 2010 census and depending on how you define "Native Hawaiian" -- would seek recognition. The DOI surveyed Native Hawaiians before it made its recognition rule and concluded from written testimony that a majority was in favor. But political science professor Goodyear-Ka'ōpua made a study of oral testimony at the Interior meetings on the islands and says the vast majority was against the rule.
It's not because the community is apathetic, she says. During the meetings, Native Hawaiians were turning out in force to protest a proposed new telescope on Mauna Kea, a dormant volcano on Hawaii's Big Island that's considered to be a sacred site.
"You saw this kind of amazing activation and mobilization," Goodyear-Ka'ōpua says. "The DOI and Na'i Aupuni process was a complete opposite. ... People were not engaging in that process, and there was a reason for that."
OHA's Price thinks those viewpoints can and should reconcile. Ultimately, the people must decide. "This is meant to be taken back to the community and then to let the community decide," he says. "Yes or no, it's going to be up to the Native Hawaiian people."
----
** Ken Conklin's comment posted online at 8:59 CDT on Thursday October 26, 2017:
At about 9:45 AM EDT on Thursday 10/26 I tried to post a comment providing links to important historical documents and analyses. The following notice appeared on my computer when I pushed the "submit" button: "The form you submitted contained the following errors
Computer says your input might be spam, so it will be moderated first."
So it will be interesting to see whether the "moderators" post my comment timely.
The links provided photos of 19 letters from Kings, Queens, Emperors, and Presidents of 19 nations formally recognizing the Republic of Hawaii as the rightful successor government to the monarchy; full text of the Treaty of Annexation and analysis of how it was approved; book about the history of the overthrow and annexation written by historian at the Naval Institute; historical narrative of the path from Kingdom to Statehood; and book entitled "Hawaiian Apartheid: Racial Separatism and Ethnic Nationalism in the Aloha State."
** Text of attempted comment:
In response to comments already posted, and more that are sure to come from Hawaiian sovereignty activists, here are some suggested readings:
During the two days following the Hawaiian revolution of 1893 overthrowing the monarchy, all the local consuls of foreign nations having consulates in Honolulu sent letters to the revolutionary Provisional Government granting de facto recognition to it. In July 1894 the Provisional Government created a Constitution for a permanent Republic of Hawaii. During the following six months President Dole received the letters of full diplomatic recognition he had requested. The archives of the State of Hawaii has the original letters addressed to President Dole personally signed by kings, queens, emperors, and presidents of at least 20 nations on 4 continents, written in 11 languages, formally granting full diplomatic recognition de jure to the Republic as the rightful government of the nation of Hawaii. Among the signers were Queen Victoria of England, two Princes of China on behalf of the Emperor, the Tsar of Russia, the King and Queen of Spain; the President of France, the President of Brazil, and yes, even President Grover Cleveland. A couple years later the Emperor of Japan personally signed a letter to President Dole raising the Japanese consulate to the status of Legation -- a status never enjoyed by the Kingdom.
Photographs of the letters of recognition have been placed on a webpage at
https://www.angelfire.com/big11a/RepublicLettersRecog.html
"Treaty of Annexation between the Republic of Hawaii and the United States of America (1898). Full text of the treaty, and of the resolutions whereby the Republic of Hawaii legislature and the U.S. Congress ratified it. The politics surrounding the treaty, then and now"
https://www.angelfire.com/big09a/TreatyOfAnnexationHawaiiUS.html
In 2011 a major book was published by a highly respected historian who analyzed the Hawaiian revolution and annexation, and Grover Cleveland's attempt to overthrow President Dole and restore the Hawaiian monarchy. He gave special attention to Japanese immigration, Japanese diplomatic and military involvement in opposing annexation, and the normalcy of using joint resolution as the method of annexation. See Book Review of William M. Morgan Ph.D., PACIFIC GIBRALTAR: U.S. - JAPANESE RIVALRY OVER THE ANNEXATION OF HAWAII, 1885-1898 (Annapolis: Naval Institute Press, 2011), including numerous lengthy quotes from each chapter in the book.
https://www.angelfire.com/big09/PacificGibraltarBookReview.html
"Hawaii Statehood -- straightening out the history-twisters. A historical narrative defending the legitimacy of the revolution of 1893, the annexation of 1898, and the statehood vote of 1959"
https://www.angelfire.com/big09a/StatehoodHistUntwistedFull.html
For an analysis of the current situation regarding Hawaiian sovereignty, see this book: "Hawaiian Apartheid: Racial Separatism and Ethnic Nationalism in the Aloha State." Detailed Table of Contents, and entire Chapter 1, are at:
http://tinyurl.com/2a9fqa
-------------------
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/native-hawaiians-again-seek-political-sovereignty-with-a-new-constitution/2017/11/05/833842d2-b905-11e7-be94-fabb0f1e9ffb_story.html?utm_term=.5e4bf3ba758a
Washington Post, November 5, 2017
Native Hawaiians again seek political sovereignty with a new constitution
By Brittany Lyte
WAILUA, Hawaii -- Colonization of these Pacific islands -- and eventual statehood nearly 60 years ago -- has always been a bitter subject for Native Hawaiians, the only indigenous group in the United States that does not have political sovereignty.
Decimated in number after the Western world first occupied the archipelago and later feeling marginalized within the federal bureaucracy, Native Hawaiians are now pushing hard to create their own nation, seeking the type of self-governance Native American tribes across the country established long ago.
A group that includes politicians, police officers, fast-food workers and farmers has drafted a new constitution and plans for a ratification vote. Support has come from residents on every island here, as well as from members of the Hawaiian diaspora in such places as Washington, Vietnam and Sweden.
Leaders are working to raise $2.5 million and have joined with a consortium of advocacy groups to spur the nation-building effort. Over potluck suppers in Honolulu and at an assembly of more than 300 people in Anchorage, Native Hawaiians have come together to study what could become the touchstone of their self-determination: an eight-chapter constitution that lays the foundation for a democracy with executive, legislative and judicial branches.
Their hope is that this time, a Hawaiian nation has a real shot.
"I've been involved in the sovereignty movement my whole life, and when Hawaiians get together to talk about sovereignty, it usually involves a lot of fighting and yelling, and nothing gets done," says Brendon Kalei'aina Lee, 47, who served as chairman at last year's constitutional convention. "Never before have I seen people with so many different viewpoints willing to sit down and work together."
In an overly warm conference room at a Hilton hotel on Kauai earlier this year, Robin Danner, an advocate for Native Hawaiian sovereignty, plunged down a list of perks indigenous Hawaiians could get by standing up their own government.
Free health care. Reacquisition of stolen lands. Greater influence in Hawaii state politics. New programming designed to tackle the socioeconomic ills disproportionately faced by Hawaii's indigenous people -- homelessness, substance abuse, incarceration, obesity and low high school graduation rates.
"It's not just a sexy slogan," explained Danner, who co-founded the Council for Native Hawaiian Advancement. "Sovereignty is improving the lives of people in our community. This is about creating jobs. This is about addressing diabetes."
A government by and for Native Hawaiians, Danner said, could codify the ancient Hawaiian practice of hanai, a custom lacking legal protection in which a child gains a second set of adoptive parents without diminishing ties to their birthparents. It could seek to formalize a government-to-government relationship with the United States -- or any other foreign nation -- as well as prioritize preserving the near-extinct Hawaiian language.
A voice rose from the audience: "What does Trump think about this?"
"Fortunately, we don't need President Trump for any of this," Danner said. "What matters is what we think. No one can give us sovereignty except ourselves."
Native Hawaiians are the descendants of the original Polynesians who built a society on the islands more than 1,000 years ago, arriving on double-hulled voyaging canoes they navigated by following the stars. After British explorer James Cook landed in Hawaii in the late 1770s -- he was killed there in 1779 while attempting to kidnap the king of Hawaii Island -- Europeans began visiting regularly, and many of the Hawaiians were killed off by unfamiliar diseases.
The United States played a role in tearing down the Hawaiian monarchy, overthrowing the kingdom and forcing Queen Lili'uokalani to abdicate the throne in January 1893. Hawaii became a state in 1959.
In more recent years, the Native Hawaiian population has been rising steadily, according to the U.S. Census. In 2000, there were 401,162 people across the United States who identified as Native Hawaiian alone or in some combination of other races; by 2010, that number had grown to 527,077, an increase of 31 percent. Of the 1.4 million people living in Hawaii in 2010, about 80,000 identified as Native Hawaiian alone and 210,000 identified as Native Hawaiian in some combination of other races. The combined group made up 21 percent of the state's residents.
Despite the growth, the Native Hawaiian population lags behind other ethnicities in wealth and assets. Native Hawaiian families in 2013 had a median income of $72,762, the lowest of all major ethnic groups in the state, according to data by the Office of Hawaiian Affairs.
This is not the first time a group of Native Hawaiians has sought support for a governing document to improve their circumstances. Mahealani Wendt, 70, the former executive director of the Native Hawaiian Legal Corporation, participated in three earlier efforts to compose a constitution. All were doomed by a lack of funding and support among Native Hawaiian voters, she said.
"There is fatigue," Wendt said. "I was hoping my mother would still be alive when we finally got a government, but my mom has passed away, and now I'm thinking I'm going to be dead and it's still not going to happen. I see opposition from within our community, and I see opposition from outside of it -- these are strange bedfellows. But ultimately I think there comes a time when you just have to fish or cut bait. Take the vote. If the vote is not successful, you start again."
But adding to the momentum now is a new opportunity for Hawaiians to grow their political independence by seeking an official nation-to-nation relationship with the United States. The rulemaking that allows it, announced last year by the U.S. Interior Department, does not attempt to reorganize a native government or dictate its structure. It allows Hawaiians to create a government of their choosing, with an option to vet it against the newly established eligibility requirements for federal recognition.
The Interior Department started accepting requests for federal recognition from Native American groups in 1978, but that pathway to self-determination was previously off limits to Native Hawaiians.
Federal recognition is harshly criticized by some Hawaiians who aspire to strip themselves completely of U.S. law and influence instead of operating within the U.S. system. Advocates for total independence hope to win an international court order that would call on the U.S. to forfeit its political and military presence in the Hawaiian islands.
As evidence, they point to a 1993 joint resolution known as the Apology Bill, in which Congress demonstrated a "deep regret to the Native Hawaiian people" for the overthrow of the kingdom there. The legislation recognized the illegality of the United States' role in forcing Queen Lili'uokalani out.
One challenge to the national self-governance movement is the debate from within about how the government would operate and form relationships with others once sovereignty is achieved. All three of the groups hosting workshops across the islands are pro-federal recognition, which has made many in the total independence camp wary of participating in the nation-building process.
Yet until Hawaiians erect their own government, how it would interact with the United States and others is all fantasy, said Michelle Kauhane, a writer of the constitution who has been traveling to present it to Native Hawaiian communities.
"Before you go about establishing a relationship with another government, you want to establish sovereignty for yourself," Kauhane said. "Whether anybody recognizes us or not, there's nothing that prevents us from standing up our government, enforcing our laws and exercising our sovereignty muscles. Folks get very wrapped up in discussing the destination without building the vessel. As a result, nothing gets done and we remain oppressed."
Small sovereignty groups already exist in the islands, but their legitimacy is often called into question because of low membership and a lack of recognition by the U.S. government.
"Being unrecognized is weak," Danner said. "If I form a government and no other government recognizes it, then we're really no more than a club hiding out in the bushes."
One such group is the Nation of Hawaii, formed in 1994 by Native Hawaiian activist Dennis "Bumpy" Kanahele. Before he acquired a state lease for the 45-acre compound that serves as the Nation of Hawaii's land base, Kanahele, in a gesture of defiance, led 300 people in the occupation of a popular east Oahu beach. A 15-month standoff with law enforcement ended when Hawaii Gov. John D. Waihee offered a trade for peace: A $3,000-a-year land parcel on which Kanahele and his supporters, many of them homeless, could exercise a measure of sovereignty.
Today the Nation of Hawaii has about 70 resident members. The group does not limit its membership to Native Hawaiians, since people of all ethnicities were governed by the Hawaiian Kingdom at the time of the overthrow.
Kanahele was one of 152 participants in last year's constitutional convention. He decamped before the vote that adopted the document.
"That was like a 20-day cleanse," said Kanahele, who is in the process of launching Aloha Coin, a virtual currency for the Nation of Hawaii. "People there were just learning about nation-building. They have no idea how to be responsible for 100 people, 200 people, 1,000 people. Their nation is in the four corners of the classroom. They are more theory; we are out here leading by example."
---------
** Ken Conklin's online comment:
Hawaiian religious fascism -- A twisted version of a beautiful creation legend provides the theological basis for a claim that ethnic Hawaiians are entitled to racial supremacy in the governance and cultural life of the Hawaiian islands.
http://tinyurl.com/j4o2cdj
The proposed tribal constitution passed by the Na'i Aupuni constitutional convention on February 26, 2016 is available at
http://tinyurl.com/zegptkr
Do Native Hawaiians really have the worst statistics for diseases, poverty, and social dysfunction? Two quick facts: (1) According to Census 2010, the median age for Native Hawaiians in Hawaii is 26, while the median age for everyone else in Hawaii is 42. So of course on average they have lower income and higher rates of crime and incarceration -- not because of racial discrimination or bad genes, but because those are the problems of youth. (2) Nearly all so-called "Native Hawaiians" are of mixed race, and the great majority of them have more than 3/4 of their ancestry from Europe or Asia, not from native Hawaiians. But when someone is a victim of disease or poverty and has even just one drop of Hawaiian blood, the authors of victimhood studies chalk up one full tally mark for "Native Hawaiian" victimhood and zero tally marks for any of his other races. That's clearly statistical malpractice, but it brings in hundreds of millions of dollars in racial entitlement programs to provide help for the tycoons of the Hawaiian grievance industry to provide "help" for these poor, downtrodden "victims."
See detailed webpage analyzing this scam "Native Hawaiian victimhood -- malpractice in the gathering and statistical analysis of data allegedly showing disproportionate Native Hawaiian victimhood for disease and social dysfunction. How and why the Hawaiian grievance industry uses bogus statistics to scam government and philanthropic organizations, politicians, and public opinion."
http://tinyurl.com/j3aolqg
--------------------
http://www.staradvertiser.com/2017/11/19/features/akaka-defends-affable-political-style-in-new-memoir/
Honolulu Star-Advertiser, November 19, 2017
Akaka defends affable political style in new memoir
Review by David Shapiro, Special to the Star-Advertiser
Dan Akaka was 52 when first elected to public office, winning a U.S. House seat in 1976.
Few would have thought it was the beginning of a 36-year career in Congress -- 14 years in the House and 22 in the Senate -- that would span six presidents and carry into a new century.
Akaka, 93, recounts the journey in his new memoir, "One Voice: My Life, Times and Hopes for Hawai'i," written with Honolulu Star-Advertiser journalist Jim Borg.
The book dispels the popular notion that Akaka, who grew up in Pauoa as the youngest of eight kids in a religiously devout Hawaiian family, was a laid-back guy who just went with the flow.
He was an unusually ambitious young man; after serving in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers near the end of World War II, he became a teacher aiming to work his way up to superintendent of education. He made it to principal and a staff position in the superintendent's office before Gov. John A. Burns recruited him to head the state economic opportunity program.
Gov. George Ariyoshi tapped him to run for lieutenant governor in 1974, a race Akaka lost, but two years later he became the first Native Hawaiian elected to Congress since Jonah Kuhio Kalanianaole was a territorial delegate.
The Akaka debate will always be about how effective he was with his affable style in a shark-infested Congress. Notice didn't come easily in the long shadow of Hawaii's senior senator, Daniel K. Inouye.
Time magazine once named Akaka one of the least-effective senators, calling him "a master of the minor resolution and the bill that dies in committee."
Quoting the slam in his book, Akaka defends himself by saying Time "misread my style, which was not to go out and yell and argue with people but rather to talk to them personally, the Hawaiian way of working with people even when we disagree.
"Because I worked quietly, a journalist could look at me and say, 'Hey this guy doesn't do anything.'"
His Hawaiian way brought him an outpouring of love from both sides of the aisle when he retired in 2012, with Democratic Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada describing him as "the kindest, gentlest person I have ever served in this body with."
But Congress isn't a sentimental place and love gets you only so far; colleagues never gave him a vote on his signature "Akaka Bill" for Native Hawaiian recognition.
The argument over effectiveness will never be settled, but his book is an expansive record of what drove Akaka during those 36 years.
At 640 pages, most readers will probably find it 200 pages too expansive.
"One Voice" offers few juicy new details about the momentous issues and big personalities Akaka dealt with during his political career. There's little introspection or threading together of the big picture.
He's quiet on controversies such as his defense of million-dollar Bishop Estate salaries, and he tries so hard to be gracious to rivals such as Pat Saiki and Ed Case that the drama of those elections is lost.
But within a sometimes tedious year-by-year account of his service is enough substance to glean a good sense of Akaka's legacy.
He co-founded the Congressional Space Caucus with unlikely GOP partner Newt Gingrich, and the alliance led to passage of the Commercial Space Act, crucial to keeping America in orbit after NASA retired the space shuttle.
Akaka sponsored the Whistleblowers Protection Act, a key advance toward greater government transparency.
He was a leading advocate for veterans and among the first to recognize and do something about the post-traumatic stress many brought home from U.S. misadventures abroad.
The box on your credit card statement explaining the real cost of interest is called the "Akaka box" because of his long battle to get it enacted.
Akaka engineered final approval of Hawaii's H-3 freeway in the House after litigation almost killed it, and the Hawaiian Apology Resolution he sponsored in 1993 will be the basis for any gains Native Hawaiians make on self-determination.
He didn't shy away from tough votes, standing in the minority against the Iraq war, creation of the Department of Homeland Security and the Defense of Marriage Act.
You can argue about whether these things were good or bad for Hawaii and the nation, but you can't fairly say Akaka didn't do anything.
If "One Voice" reads like a victory lap on a long and notable life, who would begrudge him?
---------------------
http://www.thegardenisland.com/2017/12/03/opinion/letters-for-sunday-december-3-2017/
The Garden Island [Kaua'i], Sunday December 3, 2017
Move forward with racial equality
Robert E. Lee led a secessionist Confederacy. He lost the Civil War, but proud Southerners built statues of him celebrating their heritage while defiantly saying "The South shall rise again." Today we deplore those sentiments, calling them race-nationalist.
A revolution overthrew the Hawaiian monarchy. But proud Hawaiians today keep building new statues of their kings and queens, decorating old statues with lei; creating hulas, plays and films celebrating them. The cult of Lili'uokalani venerates her as though she is still queen, asserting that an independent nation shall rise again.
In February 2016, a month-long meeting paid for by our state-government agency OHA (Office of Hawaiian Affairs) adopted a race-nationalist proposed constitution which says only ethnic Hawaiians can be citizens, and they collectively own all the lands and waters of Hawaii. Asians and Caucasians would be ruled under Jim Crow laws, just like in the Southern states after reconstruction.
Activists say they love the queen because she was the last head of state. Wrong! Sanford Dole presided over a continuing internationally recognized independent nation of Hawaii for three times as long as she did. But he was Caucasian, therefore cannot be venerated.
Let's respect the past, but move forward with racial equality, an undivided state government unified with the U.S.A., and aloha for all.
Kenneth R. Conklin, Ph.D., Kaneohe, Oahu
--------------------
http://freehawaii.info blog, December 5, 2017
KA LAHUI HAWAI'I
POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE
** On Ka Lahui letterhead
[to] OFFICE OF HAWAIIAN AFFAIRS BOARD
December 5. 2017
Regarding: Agenda Item [I]. A. B, & C Workshop on Office of Hawaiian Alfairs (OHA) Strategic Plan and Closure of OHA
Aloha Chair Machado and Trustees,
The Ka Lahui Hawaii Political Action Committee (KPAC) has concerns regarding the current OIIA
strategic plan that calls for the transfer of assets and monies to the new governing Hawaiian entity aka the Na'i Aupuni Nation that has yet to ratify their illegitimate constitution. The Na'i Aupuni constitution was written behind locked gates and drafted by a handful of unelected delegates in 10 days in a State sponsored process that provided little to no education for Hawaiian communities. Furthermore, the process that created this constitution has caused division and strife in Hawaiian communities and among families.
If OHA is considering setting up a new strategic plan for 2018-2020, KPAC respectfully submits the following suggestions:
1. Process: The process for the creation of a strategic plan should start and end with the Lahui.
Input should solicited from the lahui (aka beneficiaries) at every stage of the process for
strategic planning.
2. Priorities: The Strategic plan should make the bread and butter issues like housing, healthcare,
jobs, education, resource management and cultural stewardship its priorities instead of dumping
monies into a federal recognition scheme via the Department of Interior (D0I) that has gone
nowhere and gives Hawaiians nothing except Kaho'olawe.
3. Kokua: KPAC offers its services and help with ensuring that OHA's next steps toward Strategic
Planning includes the diverse voices of our people so that OHA's next steps are aligned with
Lilhui and not with the conflicting interests of the State of Hawai'i. corporations and political
parties.
Respectfully submitted,
M. Healani Sonoda-Pale
Chair, KPAC
www.kalahuihawaiipoliticalactioncommittee.org l tel 808.372.2512
---------------------
** Note from website editor Ken Conklin: Elaine Willman is retired head of Citizens Equal Rights Alliance. The issues she addresses in this message are clearly relevant to claims that Native Hawaiians are the rightful owners of all the lands and waters of Hawaii, that non-Native Hawaiians are merely guests in their ancestral homelands, and that the U.S. has no legitimate sovereignty or jurisdiction in Hawaii because there was (allegedly) no Treaty of Annexation.
http://thiswestisourwest.com/index.cfm/in-the-news/an-open-letter-to-navajo-nation-president-russell-begaye/
This West is Our West, December 8, 2017
AN OPEN LETTER TO NAVAJO NATION PRESIDENT, RUSSELL BEGAYE
From Elaine Willman, MPA
"For Native Americans this (America) is our land. Every inch of it, every mountain, every stream, every water that is out there is ours. It's Native American country... America is Indian Country, and so every non-Indian out there is a guest of Native Americans in this country' and that's how they should act, so if you're a guest in our country that's how you should act." (Navajo Nation President, Russell Begaye, Nov. 28, 2017, live on CNN)
Dear Russell,
I have had to settle my feelings down for days to even start this letter. Your November 28, 2017 comments on CNN hit my Last Straw Button.
As one who has cherished my family's Indian ancestry and the colorful, proud and rich history of all Native Americans, I found myself conflicted with an ongoing desire to continue this respect, torn apart when you spit in the face of every fellow American, me included. Worse, your condescending statement renders the United States wrong from its origin, assumes the non-existence of the United States and would render the voice of all other Americans irrelevant and silent. Every federal dime your tribal government has annually received from American taxpayers since the early 1800s to the present time should therefore be returned to the guests who have never owed you anything, in the first place.
All the economic benefits, schools and colleges, the technology conveniences of electricity, automobiles, medical equipment, flat-screen TV's, cell phones, laptops, slot machines--must necessarily be discarded from "Indian Country" lands as these life-enhancing products created by other cultures are non-Indian clutter created by the guests you hold in such disdain.
Historically since the growth of this still very young United States, American Indians are the only ethnicity to receive ongoing federal support: tax-exempt land and businesses, annual funding, and special preferences of every stripe. As example, when America was only sixty-six years old in 1855; five years even before the Civil War and throughout major Wars and international threats, conditions on the ground across America were as follows:
In 1855 President Franklin Pierce sent Washington Territory Governor Isaac Stevens across the West to execute Treaties with Indian tribes, that paid cash for land, created private and protected land spaces for Indians, provided annual dollars, blacksmiths, schools, doctors, etc. for American Indians.
In 1855 after the earlier Louisiana Purchase the Presidents and Congress were saying "Go West Young Man" to settle and develop the continental United States. Young man was given absolutely nothing from the federal government, except a hope. Young Man put what he had in a wagon, headed to the unknown, staked out and built a homestead, then more homesteads, then roads, schools, churches, communities...Young Man built the West and this amazing United States with rugged individualism and zero charity from the federal or any government.
In 1855, two years before the country was educated with Harriett Beecher Stowe's Uncle Tom's Cabin, Black Americans were still being bought, sold and used as cattle, not even considered human. It would be over another hundred years before Black Americans even received Civil Rights and segregation was brought to its knees.
Before and long after 1855, immigrants from all country's coming to America were welcomed, were provided nothing and were expected to contribute to the young growing United States by first respecting its very existence and unlimited blessings, values and laws.
The only residents of this country to constantly receive the bounty, annual beneficial assistance, protections, cash payments for lands, race-based special preferences is...yep, folks like you, Russell, who continue to stick a thumb in the eye to this country and its people that sustain you. I have never heard the Native American word for "thank you," or perhaps, "Enough." It's just disdain for all other cultures, and Give Us More.
Here's the irony: All the annual billions of dollars over two centuries, land and benefits enjoyed by now 567 tribal governments in the United States are directly and solely from the goodness of the Heart of the American People and those they elect. No such benefits or even tribal government existence is contemplated in America's U.S. Constitution. The Constitution provides no preference to who was here first or last. The Constitution requires compensation (no takings) for lands (i.e. all treaties, Louisiana Purchase of 1803, Gasden Purchase 1853, Alaska Purchase 1867).
There is not a single word or text within the four corners of the U.S. Constitution where its Framers ever contemplated the existence of tribal governments in the United States. Not one word. Everything Indian tribes receive from the United States is outside of the U.S. Constitution, and inside the Good Heart of America's guests. With incessant ingratitude from Indian Country, I think us guests should be done with all that. Since at least 2004 and recently in various rulings, Justice Clarence Thomas has questioned the "Plenary" authority of Congress over Indians and tribal governments under the Indian Commerce Clause, or the Supremacy Clause. On November 27, 2017 Justice, Clarence Thomas wrote the following in an unusual and striking Dissent objecting to the High Court's failure to take up an important case:
"...the Indian Commerce Clause does not appear to give Congress the power to authorize the taking of land into trust under the (Indian Reorganization Act) IRA. Even assuming that land transactions are "Commerce" within the scope of the Clause....Under our precedents, Congress has thus obtained the power to take any state land and strip the State of almost all sovereign power over it "for the purpose of providing land for Indians." 25 U. S. C. §5108. This means Congress could reduce a State to near nonexistence by taking all land within its borders and declaring it sovereign Indian territory. It is highly implausible that the Founders understood the Indian Commerce Clause, which was virtually unopposed at the founding, as giving Congress the power to destroy the States' territorial integrity...Indeed, they would have been shocked to find such a power lurking in a Clause they understood to give Congress the limited authority "to regulate trade with Indian tribes living beyond state borders." When our precedents permit such an absurd result, something has gone seriously awry. It is time to fix our error." Justice Clarence Thomas, November 27, 2017 in Dissent against Denial of Writ of Certiorari in Town of Vernon vs. U.S.
https://www.courthousenews.com/thomas-outraged-in-dissent-to-oneida-land-dispute/
So why is important that I get this message to you, Russell? Because you still have the respect of those you call guests. However, your preference for apartheid, race-based governance and Indian Country blended with animosity for the United States has opened an even uglier door for this country. The tribalism of Middle Eastern countries and Sharia law is finding your separatist "Indian Country" successes inviting and attractive for bringing more international tribal factions into the United States. Former President Obama and Congress have even acknowledged the common, communal and cultural similarities between American and Middle Eastern tribal cultures, The Hearth Act of 2012 now encourage partnerships with America's tribes and Turkey and Saudi Arabia. Many tribes are currently conducting leadership and student exchanges with Turkey and Saudi Arabia.
There is a reason the Forgotten Man that you call guests in America has called for massive federal change to take back this country and Make America Great Again. It is difficult to be 'One nation under God' with 567 separate tribal governments within our fifty Constitutional states. When one keeps kicking sand in our face, we eventually get the message. You just delivered it, front and center on CNN. No one stole your land, there's no absolute certainty that "you were here first." Life changed for all of us on September 17, 1789 with the formation of the United States Constitution government. I was born in 1943 in Portland, Oregon. I am as native and indigenous to the United States as an American citizen as you are--no more, no less. The United States of America is not Indian Country.
Most sincerely,
Elaine Willman,
Ronan, MT
toppin@aol.com
--------------------
http://www.thegardenisland.com/2017/12/27/news/federal-judge-blocks-arizona-from-banning-mexican-american-studies-classes/
The Garden Island [Kaua'i], Wednesday, December 27, 2017, 8 p.m.
Federal judge blocks Arizona from banning Mexican-American studies classes
By Associated Press
A federal judge on Wednesday blocked the state of Arizona from enforcing a controversial law banning ethnic studies courses, bringing near a close a seven-year battle over teaching about Mexican-Americans in Tucson public schools.
Wallace Tashima, a federal appeals court judge sitting in the district court in Arizona, said in his injunction that state legislators who passed the ban in 2010 violated the Constitution.
The decision came in a lawsuit brought by students in 2010 against the state's board of education. Supporters of ethnic studies said the law, which banned courses designed primarily for students of a particular ethnic group, was racist and targeted Mexican-Americans.
Tashima said the ban was "not for a legitimate educational purpose, but for an invidious discriminatory racial purpose and a politically partisan purpose."
Tashima also said the state could not keep funding from schools for not obeying the ban. The state's threat to withhold more than $14 million led Tuscon to drop its Mexican-American studies program in 2012.
The judge added that the state cannot lead "any inspections or audits of any program, curriculum or course" to check whether a school district is following the 2010 law.
A former teacher in the Tucson program, Curtis Acosta, celebrated on Twitter. "This! Happy New Year, mi gente (my people)!" he wrote.
Richard Martinez, an attorney who represented the teachers and students in the lawsuit, said "the judge gave us precisely what we asked for."
The Tucson district has not said whether it will revive the curriculum, which helped spur similar educational programs in schools around the country. The Arizona attorney general's office has also not said whether it will appeal the injunction.
When the law passed, activists protested it as a symbol of anti-Latino sentiment, and said the state was using racism against Mexican-Americans to sow political divisions. It was all the more controversial because it came to be the same year as the widely protested SB 1070 law, which required police to determine the immigration status of people arrested or detained when there was "reasonable suspicion" they were not in the U.S. legally.
The injunction follows an August ruling from Tashima in which he said the law was unconstitutional and racially motivated. He not did not issue an injunction against it until Wednesday.
In August, Tashima said the law violated the equal protection clause of the Constitution by discriminating against Latinos and violating students' First Amendment "right to receive information and ideas."
Tashima also criticized John Huppenthal and Tom Horne, the former Arizona state superintendents of public instruction who pushed to pass the ban.
"Defendants were pursuing these discriminatory ends in order to make political gains," the judge wrote. "Horne and Huppenthal repeatedly pointed to their efforts against the (Mexican-American studies) program in their respective 2011 political campaigns, including in speeches and radio advertisements. The issue was a political boon to the candidates."
** Ken Conklin's online comment: Here are the first several paragraphs of a webpage about the Arizona law which I wrote in 2010-2011:
https://tinyurl.com/2vas5tm
A new law took effect in January 2011 which prohibits ethnic studies courses in the public schools and charter schools from being used as propaganda factories to build racial solidarity and anti-Americanism. The law targets courses which attract primarily students of any particular ethnicity, where the curriculum fosters hatred toward other racial groups by portraying them as oppressors -- courses that promote anti-American, secessionist attitudes by describing America as invader and occupier of the ethnic homeland.
What? Did local media last year fail to report a law enacted by the Hawaii legislature or Congress? Will we now see a major cleanup of racial hate-mongering and anti-Americanism in the "Hawaiian-focus" charter schools, Hawaiian language immersion schools, the "Hawaiian studies" curriculum throughout all the public schools and perhaps even the University of Hawaii and community colleges?
No. The law was passed by the Arizona legislature because of concerns over the "La Raza" curriculum in that state's public school ethnic studies courses. Instead of taking the usual American History course required for graduation, students substitute a special ethnic-branded "studies" course: Mexican-American, African-American, Asian-American, or Native-American studies.
The new law is neutral on race and ethnicity. It does not single out the Mexican-American studies program. But of course the group loudly protesting is the one that knows it faces drastic consequences because it is the one whose "studies" curriculum violates the law. The La Raza curriculum teaches that nearly all Mexican-Americans have at least one drop of Mayan or Aztec blood, making them "indigenous" people with special rights under "international law." The states of Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, and California, along with parts of other states, were formerly part of Mexico until the U.S. staged an armed invasion, took over their lands, and incorporated the lands and people into America without their consent and without compensating them. La Raza teaches that the "illegal immigrants" invading America by the millions have every right to enter the U.S. as part of a "reconquista" because "We did not cross the border, the border crossed us. This is our homeland. It's the Anglos who are the illegal invaders."
The La Raza curriculum is dangerous because it fuels Mexican nationalist hatred toward America, and racial hatred toward Anglos (Caucasians), in the hearts and minds of Mexican-American teenagers; and it serves these evil purposes with the use of taxpayer dollars.
Anyone who wondered whether the first paragraph of the present essay was describing Hawaii has good reason to be confused, because the claims for reparations and sovereignty being made by Mexican-Americans sound very similar to the claims asserted by Hawaiian sovereignty activists -- claims which are the main focus of the U.S. apology resolution to Native Hawaiians in 1993, and repeated in every version of the racial separatist Akaka bill as its main moral justification. (See note below regarding "Hawaiian Nationalism, Chicano Nationalism ..."). There are close similarities between the La Raza curriculum and the Hawaiian Studies curriculum in the way they foster ethnic nationalism, anti-Americanism, and racial hatred toward Caucasians.
---------------
http://www.ililani.media/2017/12/the-2018-hawaii-state-legislature-is.html
Iliana Media, December 28, 2017
The 2018 Hawaii State Legislature is Imminent
by Henry Curtis
The Hawaii State Legislature opens on the third Wednesday of January. This year it is January 17.
Some people think it will be a productive session, with the Kuleana Academy's new candidate recruitment and training program, with the 2018 elections looming, and with a Civil Beat poll showing overwhelming support for a Constitutional Convention, which is put on the ballot in years ending in 8.
Voters voted for a Constitutional Convention in 1968 and 1978, but rejected a Constitutional Convention in 1988, 1998, and 2008. Will 2018 be the year voters say that change is needed.
Others think that the 2018 Legislative session will be contentious but not productive. Colleen Hanabusa wants to replace Governor David Ige. The Hawaii House leadership of Scott Saiki and Sylvia Luke appears to be backing Hanabusa. Giving victories to David Ige will not be in everyone's interest.
A poll last summer found only 20% support for the Governor having a second term. That is slightly more than half of the percent of people across the nation who support President Trump.
Hawai'i quietly released the "Hawai'i Sea Level Rise Vulnerability and Adaptation Report" last week.
"Over the next 30 to 70 years, as sea level rises, homes and businesses located on or near the shoreline throughout the State will become exposed to chronic flooding. Portions of coastal roads may become flooded, eroded, impassible, and potentially irreparable, jeopardizing access to and from many communities. The flooding of hotels and transportation systems would impact the visitor economy and thus impact the people whose livelihoods depend on tourism. The impact of sea level rise on O'ahu is greater than all of the other islands combined due to the size of the population and extensive urbanization of vulnerable coastal areas."
The informal pre-opening legislative committee information gathering period starts on December 29, 2017.
The day before the Legislature officially opens, two conferences will be held at the Capitol: the Hawai'i Bioeconomy - Biotechnology Conference and the Kanaka Maoli Legislative Priorities 2018.
The latter will be presented in room 224, from 8:30 am-12:30 pm. The event is sponsored by Ho'omana Pono Political Action Committee and the Ka Lāhui Hawai'i Political Action Committee.
Presentations will be made by the two Political Action Committees, Native Hawaiian Legal Corp (NHLC), Hui Kū Like Kākou, Holomua Pu'uhonua, Native Hawaiian Health Task Force, and the Community Alliance on Prisons.
The presentations will focus on presenting priorities of the Lāhui Kanaka to the Hawai'i State Legislature and State Agencies including the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA) and the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands (DHHL).
DeMott Conner is cofounder of the Ho'omana Pono Political Action Committee. The entity is registered with the state. The organization was organized as a "political lobbyist and fundraiser to support Native Hawaiian Rights and to support candidates who support Native Hawaiians."
The Ka Lāhui Hawaiʻi Political Action Committee (KPAC) web site
https://kalahuihawaiipoliticalactioncommittee.org/2016/02/12/ka-lahui-hawaii-political-action-committee/
states that the organization "is a Hawaiian political watchdog organization that was formed to monitor legislation that impacts Native Hawaiian people and our National Lands. The KPAC is a national standing committee of Ka Lāhui Hawaiʻi, an ʻōiwi initiative for Hawaiian self-governance formed by and for Native Hawaiians without the interference of the State or Federal governments or its agencies."
Ka Lāhui failed to follow new federal and state charity rules imposed a few years ago, and their non-profit tax status was revoked. Their PAC is not currently registered with the Hawai'i DCCA business registration division.
----------------
The OHA annual report (money, money, money) is an insert in the January issue of the OHA monthly newspaper. The annual report is beautifully produced and easy to read, content can be copy/pasted as text. The report is available separately (10 megabytes) here:
https://19of32x2yl33s8o4xza0gf14-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/ANNUALREPORT_2017-Web.pdf
-----------------
http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/ArticlesMain/tabid/56/ID/20835/Kelii-Akina-One-Year-at-OHA-a-Report-Card.aspx
Hawaii Free Press, December 28, 2017
Kelii Akina: One Year at OHA -- a Report Card
By Dr Kelii Akina PhD
Report Card on My First Year in Office
This month marks one year since my swearing in as Trustee at-Large of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. It's a good time to reflect on whether I have followed through on the promises I made to my voters and and all citizens of Hawaii.
From the outset, I committed myself to doing three things for the sake of the Hawaiian people: First, ensure a full and independent audit of OHA. Secondly, guide OHA towards financial sustainability as well as growth. Third, watch to make sure OHA funds are not misspent but rather used to meet the real needs of Hawaiian people.
Auditing OHA
I was instrumental in ensuring that an independent audit of OHA, targeting fraud, waste, and abuse, will begin in early 2018. This independent audit, which goes beyond the scope of OHA's routine financial audits and state legislative audits, will help restore accountability and integrity to OHA. Many individuals worked hard to make this audit possible, and I am grateful that my proposal was approved unanimously by all nine Trustees. I am also grateful that I was appointed to my first leadership position as chairman of the Audit Advisory Committee. Demonstrating its full commitment, the Board of Trustees authorized $500,000 for this independent audit, sufficient to attract a highly qualified firm in a nationwide search. We estimate that the audit will be completed by mid-2018 and will address areas of concern to beneficiaries.
Fiscal Sustainability
A serious concern I have raised stems from OHA's own financial consultants reporting that the Native Hawaiian trust fund was being depleted at a rate of approximately five to six percent annually. At that rate, the intergenerational equity of the fund was in jeopardy. Immediately, when I became a trustee, I produced and distributed a report to the trustees entitled, "Crucial Recommendations for Fiscal Sustainability." (You can contact my office for a copy.) My report provides a game plan to ensure long-term financial sustainability for a strong OHA, so that it can accomplish its mission of bettering the conditions of the Hawaiian people. That game plan, which guides my interactions with the board on financial matters for OHA, is as follows:
Protect the trust - Reduce annual spending and create new policies for controlling the budget.
Grow the trust - Ensure that OHA follows sound investment strategies and develops resources like the 30 acres it owns in Kaka'ako.
Properly spend the trust - Spend only on OHA's mission to serve the Hawaiian people.
Proper Spending
OHA commissioned a scientific survey in 2015 which revealed that the Hawaiian people ranked OHA as the least reputable of all Hawaiian organizations. The survey also showed that Hawaiians did not want OHA to be spending its resources on nation-building but instead on real bread and butter issues such as housing, jobs, education, and health care for Hawaiians - not political efforts. Up until then, OHA had spent millions of dollars on pursuing the unsuccessful Akaka bill and failed Hawaiian registry programs such as Kana'iolowalu and Na'i Aupuni. In keeping with the will of OHA's beneficiaries and constitutional mandate, I have worked hard to keep OHA on track and focused on delivering resources that Hawaiians need.
Looking back, it's been an incredible year. Without engaged community members, supporters and my outstanding staff, our accomplishments would not have been possible. Mahalo nui! I am humbled to serve the people of Hawaii.
If you appreciate this report, please consider a year-end gift to my campaign fund.
E Hana Kakou/ Let's work together... and have a blessed Christmas season!
================
Send comments or questions to:
Ken_Conklin@yahoo.com
You may now
OR
SEE MORE INFORMATION OPPOSING THE CONCEPT OF THE HAWAIIAN GOVERNMENT REORGANIZATION BILL (2000-2012)
OR
GO BACK TO OTHER TOPICS ON THIS WEBSITE
(c) Copyright 2017 - 2018 Kenneth R. Conklin, Ph.D. All rights reserved
