Post by Okwes on Jun 2, 2006 8:49:12 GMT -5
Hawaiian bill pursues native rights
BY KIRSTEN SCHARNBERG
Chicago Tribune
www.kansas.com/mld/kansas/news/nation/14706275.htmHONOLULU
<http://www.kansas.com/mld/kansas/news/nation/14706275.htmHONOLULU>
- Long-stalled legislation to grant Native Hawaiians
the same federal recognition and self-governance that
most Native American tribes possess is scheduled to
make it to the Senate floor amid charges that such a
move would intensify racial tensions in the nation's
50th state and further strengthen a growing movement
to secede from the United States.
"I have received assurances from the Senate leadership
that a motion will finally be filed during the first
week of June that would force debate and a vote on my
bill," Sen. Daniel Akaka, D-Hawaii, said in an
interview last week.
The Native Hawaiian Recognition bill, first introduced
in 1999 and known colloquially as the Akaka Bill after
the man who became the first Native Hawaiian to serve
in the U.S. Senate, is by no means assured of passing.
Indeed, the legislation faces an uphill battle,
particularly after a federal civil rights commission
recommended earlier this month that the bill be
rejected because it would be "discriminatory" to the
majority of Hawaii citizens not of Native Hawaiian
ancestry.
But the bill has supporters in both parties. Akaka
says he has the support of most Democrats, and some
Republicans have crossed the political aisle to
co-sponsor the legislation. Hawaii's Republican
governor, Linda Lingle, has made passage of the bill
one of the top priorities of her administration. And
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., has
pledged to file the motion that, if supported by at
least 60 senators, would force what will surely be a
heated debate and vote on the bill.
Yet no debate in Washington can match the controversy
Akaka's bill has spurred here in his home state.
Throughout much of the past decade, activist groups on
all sides of the issue have sprung up, deeply
polarizing people on the issue. One group, Aloha for
All, represents the viewpoint of many non-Native
Hawaiian citizens with its slogans, "Aloha is for
everyone, the Akaka bill isn't," and "All citizens of
Hawaii, whatever their ancestry, are entitled to equal
protection under the law."
Other groups that advocate for the bill have thousands
of members who display yard signs and T-shirts in
every corner of Hawaii that read, "Kau Inoa," a
declaration in the Hawaiian language that indicates
the bearer has registered to become a part of the new
Native Hawaiian government if it is formed. And then
there are hard-liners who advocate an active revolt
against the United States, a nation they say overthrew
their monarchy 113 years ago, annexed them into the
union without the approval of the Hawaiian people and
has been illegal occupiers ever since.
"No one sees this bill in the same light," said
Fuentes Louis, a born-and-raised Hawaii citizen who is
part Native Hawaiian. "That's only going to intensify
when the bill is debated in the Senate for all the
nation to see."
At its core, the Akaka bill would create a separate,
sovereign government for Native Hawaiians, who would
be recognized as an indigenous population that existed
before Hawaii was part of the United States. This new
government would conduct sovereign-to-sovereign
relations with the United States, as many Indian
tribes do today, and have "a place at the table with
the federal government where they can negotiate
concerns whether that be military land use, the
environment or natural resources," Akaka said.
What else the Akaka bill would accomplish and lead to
is the source of much contention.
One of the bill's staunchest supporters, the head of a
Hawaiian affairs body, said its passage would preserve
more than 100 federally funded programs that are
available only to Native Hawaiians, including a trust
that allows them to lease land for $1 a year. They
also hope that gaining indigenous status would protect
other institutions that have faced lawsuits alleging
they are discriminatory and unconstitutional,
including a high-achieving private-school system that
gives such preference to Native Hawaiians that only
two non-native students have been admitted in 40
years.
Even more, advocates of the bill say a sovereign
government would give Native Hawaiians authority over
their own destiny for the first time in three
generations and empower them socially and economically
in ways that would reverse trends resulting in high
percentages of them among the state's unemployed,
homeless and imprisoned.
"Under all those statistics is a deep feeling of being
disenfranchised, a feeling that we have been wronged,"
said Clyde Namu'o. "Literally our country was taken
away from us."
Yet opponents argue with that theory. They contend
that even the history of the argument is flawed,
saying the United States had only a tangential role in
the mostly Hawaiian-led insurrection that led to the
1893 overthrow of the monarchy. They further point out
that 94 percent of Hawaiian voters approved Hawaii
statehood in 1959.
But the core of their battle against the bill is
ideological, not historical. Because a sovereign
Native Hawaiian government would, based on bloodlines,
likely admit into the group Native Hawaiians from
anywhere, opponents of the Akaka bill allege that
non-Native Hawaiian citizens of the state would be
subject to decisions influenced by non-residents. Even
more, they say the bill would segregate the state
based on ancestry and render non-Native Hawaiians
second-class citizens in the state where they pay
taxes.
"Passage of this bill would leave 80 percent of the
population subservient to a hereditary elite
consisting of anyone with ancestry indigenous to the
islands," said H. William Burgess, a lawyer who has
advocated against the Akaka bill and who has lived in
Hawaii for 50 years. "It would allow the breakup of
the state government and a giveaway to this new nation
of public lands, natural resources and some or all of
the government authority of the state."
The bill even has vitriolic criticism from a vocal
segment of Native Hawaiians who say the bill would
legitimize what they see as the prolonged occupation
of their country and deprive them of their right of
self-determination and independence. Many of these
groups want immediate secession from the United
States.
"Many people are telling me, `Enough talk already. We
must riot,'" said Charles Ka'uluwehi Maxwell, a Native
Hawaiian who reluctantly supports the Akaka bill as a
first step toward Hawaiian independence but who says
the bill does not go nearly far enough.
Other groups have asked the United Nations to examine
whether the United States is in violation of
international human rights treaties for "stealing"
Hawaiians' lands.
It is even hard amid all the rhetoric to tell exactly
how Hawaiians - Native or otherwise - feel about the
Akaka bill.
A survey conducted in 2003 by the Office of Hawaiian
Affairs, a quasi-state entity that promotes the native
causes and supports the bill, found that 86 percent of
303 Native Hawaiians and 78 percent of 301 non-Native
Hawaiians believed Native Hawaiians should be
recognized by the United States as a distinct group,
similar to American Indians and Alaska Natives. But a
survey released last week by the Grassroots Institute
of Hawaii, an activist group opposed to the Akaka
bill, found that 2 out of 3 respondents opposed the
organization of a Native Hawaiian sovereign
government.
If the bill does reach the Senate floor - it was
slated for debate last September but scuttled after
Hurricane Katrina forced congressional attention to
shift - several key topics are sure to get the
majority of debate.
Although Akaka has revised his original bill to say
gaming would not be allowed, significant concerns
remain that a sovereign Hawaiian government could
overrule that on their own land. The U.S. Justice
Department has expressed concerns that the bill would
mean Native Hawaiians would not be subject to federal
criminal laws and that it would serve as grounds to
sue the federal government for reparations. The
Department of Defense has expressed worry that a
sovereign Hawaiian government would attempt to take
land now used by the military, which has active
installations in Hawaii for every armed services
branch.
The debate also is likely to focus on an apology bill
passed by Congress in 1993, the 100th anniversary of
the overthrow of Hawaiian Queen Lili'uokalani, and
signed by President Bill Clinton; proponents of
sovereignty say the apology admitted wrongdoing by the
United States in the overthrow and therefore requires
that restitution be made to Native Hawaiians.
And the Senate will address a newly released report
from the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, the
bipartisan federal commission assigned by the
president and Congress to study and collect
information relating to discrimination or a denial of
equal protection of the laws. The commission came out
against the bill, saying it "would discriminate on the
basis of race or national origin and further subdivide
the American people into discrete subgroups accorded
varying degrees of privilege."
The bill's debate and future have high political
stakes for Akaka, a three-term senator facing a tough
midterm election and recently categorized by Time
magazine as one of the nation's five worst senators.
"Nothing about this is going to be easy," the senator
said last week.
BY KIRSTEN SCHARNBERG
Chicago Tribune
www.kansas.com/mld/kansas/news/nation/14706275.htmHONOLULU
<http://www.kansas.com/mld/kansas/news/nation/14706275.htmHONOLULU>
- Long-stalled legislation to grant Native Hawaiians
the same federal recognition and self-governance that
most Native American tribes possess is scheduled to
make it to the Senate floor amid charges that such a
move would intensify racial tensions in the nation's
50th state and further strengthen a growing movement
to secede from the United States.
"I have received assurances from the Senate leadership
that a motion will finally be filed during the first
week of June that would force debate and a vote on my
bill," Sen. Daniel Akaka, D-Hawaii, said in an
interview last week.
The Native Hawaiian Recognition bill, first introduced
in 1999 and known colloquially as the Akaka Bill after
the man who became the first Native Hawaiian to serve
in the U.S. Senate, is by no means assured of passing.
Indeed, the legislation faces an uphill battle,
particularly after a federal civil rights commission
recommended earlier this month that the bill be
rejected because it would be "discriminatory" to the
majority of Hawaii citizens not of Native Hawaiian
ancestry.
But the bill has supporters in both parties. Akaka
says he has the support of most Democrats, and some
Republicans have crossed the political aisle to
co-sponsor the legislation. Hawaii's Republican
governor, Linda Lingle, has made passage of the bill
one of the top priorities of her administration. And
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., has
pledged to file the motion that, if supported by at
least 60 senators, would force what will surely be a
heated debate and vote on the bill.
Yet no debate in Washington can match the controversy
Akaka's bill has spurred here in his home state.
Throughout much of the past decade, activist groups on
all sides of the issue have sprung up, deeply
polarizing people on the issue. One group, Aloha for
All, represents the viewpoint of many non-Native
Hawaiian citizens with its slogans, "Aloha is for
everyone, the Akaka bill isn't," and "All citizens of
Hawaii, whatever their ancestry, are entitled to equal
protection under the law."
Other groups that advocate for the bill have thousands
of members who display yard signs and T-shirts in
every corner of Hawaii that read, "Kau Inoa," a
declaration in the Hawaiian language that indicates
the bearer has registered to become a part of the new
Native Hawaiian government if it is formed. And then
there are hard-liners who advocate an active revolt
against the United States, a nation they say overthrew
their monarchy 113 years ago, annexed them into the
union without the approval of the Hawaiian people and
has been illegal occupiers ever since.
"No one sees this bill in the same light," said
Fuentes Louis, a born-and-raised Hawaii citizen who is
part Native Hawaiian. "That's only going to intensify
when the bill is debated in the Senate for all the
nation to see."
At its core, the Akaka bill would create a separate,
sovereign government for Native Hawaiians, who would
be recognized as an indigenous population that existed
before Hawaii was part of the United States. This new
government would conduct sovereign-to-sovereign
relations with the United States, as many Indian
tribes do today, and have "a place at the table with
the federal government where they can negotiate
concerns whether that be military land use, the
environment or natural resources," Akaka said.
What else the Akaka bill would accomplish and lead to
is the source of much contention.
One of the bill's staunchest supporters, the head of a
Hawaiian affairs body, said its passage would preserve
more than 100 federally funded programs that are
available only to Native Hawaiians, including a trust
that allows them to lease land for $1 a year. They
also hope that gaining indigenous status would protect
other institutions that have faced lawsuits alleging
they are discriminatory and unconstitutional,
including a high-achieving private-school system that
gives such preference to Native Hawaiians that only
two non-native students have been admitted in 40
years.
Even more, advocates of the bill say a sovereign
government would give Native Hawaiians authority over
their own destiny for the first time in three
generations and empower them socially and economically
in ways that would reverse trends resulting in high
percentages of them among the state's unemployed,
homeless and imprisoned.
"Under all those statistics is a deep feeling of being
disenfranchised, a feeling that we have been wronged,"
said Clyde Namu'o. "Literally our country was taken
away from us."
Yet opponents argue with that theory. They contend
that even the history of the argument is flawed,
saying the United States had only a tangential role in
the mostly Hawaiian-led insurrection that led to the
1893 overthrow of the monarchy. They further point out
that 94 percent of Hawaiian voters approved Hawaii
statehood in 1959.
But the core of their battle against the bill is
ideological, not historical. Because a sovereign
Native Hawaiian government would, based on bloodlines,
likely admit into the group Native Hawaiians from
anywhere, opponents of the Akaka bill allege that
non-Native Hawaiian citizens of the state would be
subject to decisions influenced by non-residents. Even
more, they say the bill would segregate the state
based on ancestry and render non-Native Hawaiians
second-class citizens in the state where they pay
taxes.
"Passage of this bill would leave 80 percent of the
population subservient to a hereditary elite
consisting of anyone with ancestry indigenous to the
islands," said H. William Burgess, a lawyer who has
advocated against the Akaka bill and who has lived in
Hawaii for 50 years. "It would allow the breakup of
the state government and a giveaway to this new nation
of public lands, natural resources and some or all of
the government authority of the state."
The bill even has vitriolic criticism from a vocal
segment of Native Hawaiians who say the bill would
legitimize what they see as the prolonged occupation
of their country and deprive them of their right of
self-determination and independence. Many of these
groups want immediate secession from the United
States.
"Many people are telling me, `Enough talk already. We
must riot,'" said Charles Ka'uluwehi Maxwell, a Native
Hawaiian who reluctantly supports the Akaka bill as a
first step toward Hawaiian independence but who says
the bill does not go nearly far enough.
Other groups have asked the United Nations to examine
whether the United States is in violation of
international human rights treaties for "stealing"
Hawaiians' lands.
It is even hard amid all the rhetoric to tell exactly
how Hawaiians - Native or otherwise - feel about the
Akaka bill.
A survey conducted in 2003 by the Office of Hawaiian
Affairs, a quasi-state entity that promotes the native
causes and supports the bill, found that 86 percent of
303 Native Hawaiians and 78 percent of 301 non-Native
Hawaiians believed Native Hawaiians should be
recognized by the United States as a distinct group,
similar to American Indians and Alaska Natives. But a
survey released last week by the Grassroots Institute
of Hawaii, an activist group opposed to the Akaka
bill, found that 2 out of 3 respondents opposed the
organization of a Native Hawaiian sovereign
government.
If the bill does reach the Senate floor - it was
slated for debate last September but scuttled after
Hurricane Katrina forced congressional attention to
shift - several key topics are sure to get the
majority of debate.
Although Akaka has revised his original bill to say
gaming would not be allowed, significant concerns
remain that a sovereign Hawaiian government could
overrule that on their own land. The U.S. Justice
Department has expressed concerns that the bill would
mean Native Hawaiians would not be subject to federal
criminal laws and that it would serve as grounds to
sue the federal government for reparations. The
Department of Defense has expressed worry that a
sovereign Hawaiian government would attempt to take
land now used by the military, which has active
installations in Hawaii for every armed services
branch.
The debate also is likely to focus on an apology bill
passed by Congress in 1993, the 100th anniversary of
the overthrow of Hawaiian Queen Lili'uokalani, and
signed by President Bill Clinton; proponents of
sovereignty say the apology admitted wrongdoing by the
United States in the overthrow and therefore requires
that restitution be made to Native Hawaiians.
And the Senate will address a newly released report
from the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, the
bipartisan federal commission assigned by the
president and Congress to study and collect
information relating to discrimination or a denial of
equal protection of the laws. The commission came out
against the bill, saying it "would discriminate on the
basis of race or national origin and further subdivide
the American people into discrete subgroups accorded
varying degrees of privilege."
The bill's debate and future have high political
stakes for Akaka, a three-term senator facing a tough
midterm election and recently categorized by Time
magazine as one of the nation's five worst senators.
"Nothing about this is going to be easy," the senator
said last week.