2007, Volume 5, Number 1
Hawaiian Sovereignty: Which Path Should Be Taken?
Hawaiian Sovereignty: Which Path Should Be Taken?by Michael Johnson
The Hawaiian people have endured many wrongs at the hands of foreigners. They currently make up the lowest portion of many social statistics in their own state. These include statistics on health, education, and poverty (Keppeler 203). Foreign landowners and politicians have been making rules for Hawaiians to live under since the 1800’s. Hawaiians should be given a chance to improve their status. Now, thousands of Native Hawaiians are calling for sovereignty. There are some within this growing movement who feel that anything short of complete sovereignty, including governmental autonomy and land and resource control, would be yet another injustice:
When asked if he’d be willing to settle for Kaho’olawe, plus the Hawaiian Homestead lands and the ceded lands, Burgess replied, ‘If someone stole eight of your children, would you be satisfied if he returned only one and bits and pieces of the other seven?’ (Kamau’u and Keppeler 296)
Hayden Burgess, also known as Poka Laenui, would like to see Hawai’i decolonized and established as an independent nation. The Hawaiian tradition and culture would continue to be the backbone of this new nation. His vision involves extending citizenship to those willing to pledge allegiance to Hawai’i. Then, citizens could vote for the type of government they wish to establish (Kamau’u and Keppeler 296).
Another plan for sovereignty involves a more gradual shift away from U.S. control. Ka Pakaukau and its leader Kekuni Blaisdell advocate Hawaiian independence and complete U.S. withdrawal, “Ka Pakaukau asserts that all acts that brought Hawai’i into its present status were illegal under both international law and the U.S. Constitution…The only remedy is U.S. withdrawal and Hawai’i’s complete independence” (Kamau’u and Keppeler 297). This group seeks a process involving several treaties between representatives of the U.S. government and the Hawaiian people. The first treaty would establish the long-term goal of Hawaiian independence while also recognizing Native Hawaiians as a group with all the same rights as American Indians and Alaskan Native tribes. Subsequent treaties would help create an easier transition into nationhood for Hawai’i. However, not all Hawaiians wish to declare independence from the U.S.
There are some plans for sovereignty which do not include separation from the U.S. The most prominent of these would be Ka Lahui Hawai’i. Mililani Trask and Haunani-Kay Trask are the outspoken leaders of this group. In her essay “Settlers of Color and ‘Immigrant’ Hegemony: ‘Locals’ in Hawai’i” Haunani-Kay Trask explains the objectives of Ka Lahui as follows:
The goals of Ka Lahui Hawai’i are simple: final resolution of the historic claims of the Hawaiian people relating to the overthrow, State and Federal misuse of Native trust lands (totaling some two million acres) and resources, and violations of human and civil rights. (18)
Ka Lahui has drafted a constitution and currently holds over 8,000 citizens. Citizenship is open to all Hawaiians. Non-Hawaiians may obtain honorary citizenship, but they may not vote or hold office. Citizenship in Ka Lahui will not change a person’s status as a U.S. citizen; nor will it affect people’s jobs, retirement funds, or pensions (Mililani Trask 6). Some Hawaiians don’t feel they need to establish a new government. They are content with their current political status, but they are upset with past injustices by the U.S. government. They support measures which would allow Hawaiians as a class to sue the U.S. for reparations and would also like an official apology from the government (Kamau’u and Keppeler 300).
It is fair to say that Native Hawaiians are entitled to much more than an apology from the government of the U.S. The military of the U.S. has been involved in several violations of the rights of Hawaiians. In 1887 the military supported a group of men who forced King Kalakaua to sign a constitution under the threat of gunfire. This constitution is fittingly known as the Bayonet Constitution. The document changed the political landscape of the islands because the constitution “stripped (King Kalakaua) of his executive powers and disenfranchised the majority of Kanaka Maoli by imposing wealth and property qualifications on voters” (Silva 43).
In 1893 when Queen Lili’uokalani tried to reestablish a Hawaiian government, U.S. marines helped to overthrow the new government and establish a provisional government (made up of 13 non-Hawaiians) recognized by the U.S. ministry. This government went on to secure annexation despite the efforts of many Native Hawaiians to prevent such actions.
Congress tried to make up for some wrongdoings by enacting the Hawaiian Homes program in 1921, but sugar interests lobbied for the exclusion of the good agricultural lands used by the plantations. The trust lands ended up being 200,000 acres of some of the worst land in the territories (Keppeler 198). Congress may have started the program with good intentions; however, the legislation was ultimately used to benefit wealthy landowners while trying to silence Native Hawaiians’ requests for land of their own.
There have also been many occasions where Native Hawaiian remains have been dug up, usually during some kind of construction. During the late 1930s and early 1940s remains buried in the sand dunes of the Mokapu Peninsula, on O’ahu, were excavated by the University of Hawai’i, Department of Anthropology. Construction of a Marine Corps Base on Mokapu Peninsula followed the excavation and continued the removal of bones from the burial site. According to Edward Halealoha Ayau, about 3,000 ancestral Native Hawaiians were removed from Mokapu Peninsula from 1915-1990 (2).
The 1988 construction of the Ritz-Carlton Hotel in Maui unearthed about 1,100 ancestral Native Hawaiians from the proposed site for the building at Honokahua. Disinterring such burial sites has far reaching implications for Hawaiian people. The treatment of a person’s bones is of great importance in Hawaiian tradition:
Traditional Native Hawaiians believed na iwi (the bones) to be the primary physical embodiment of a person. Following death, only na iwi were considered sacred, for within the bones resided the person’s mana (spiritual essence). Mana was greatly valued, and Native Hawaiians spent their lives maintaining and enhancing their mana. Thus, supreme care was accorded to iwi following death…Desecration of na iwi resulted in an insult to the ‘uhane (spirit) and trauma and harm to living descendants. (Ayau 1)
After insistent protests against the continued removal of the remains at Honokahua the hotel construction was moved and the ancestral remains were ceremonially reburied. This is a great reason why Hawaiians need to be allowed to establish their own forms of government. Current lawmakers may not fully understand the impacts that issues such as burial rights have on the Hawaiian population. An organization called Hui Malama I Na Kupuna O Hawai’i Nei was created as a result of the Honakahua controversy. Hui Malama is primarily concerned with recovering, correctly reburying, and protecting ancestral remains for the betterment of all Hawai’i. The burials at Honokahua, Mokapu Peninsula, and recently Forbes Cave have all been of concern for Hui Malama. The Forbes Cave controversy has gotten the most attention in the media and has even been debated in the Honolulu Advertiser.
In 2000, 83 artifacts discovered in the Forbes Cave were loaned to the Hui Malama organization by the Bishop Museum under NAGPRA (Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act). Hui Malama planned to redeposit the artifacts in the Forbes Cave. The Bishop Museum apparently knew the organization never planned to return the artifacts to the museum (Conklin 4). Some people feel that all 13 claimants to the artifacts were not given a fair shot at gaining repatriation; others are upset that the artifacts will never be on public display to educate people about Hawaiian history and tradition. Kenneth Conklin makes it clear on his website that he thinks Native Hawaiians aren’t the only people who should discuss these matters:
But in Hawai’i, the Hawaiian culture is the core of what makes Hawai’i distinctive for all Hawai’i’s people, and many who have no Hawaiian blood participate actively in Hawaiian culture; thus, the general population should have a strong voice in helping to decide what happens to Hawaiian cultural artifacts. (5)
This is where Mr. Conklin is inherently wrong. Decisions regarding cultural artifacts and Hawaiian burials are solely the responsibility of Native Hawaiians. It is a privilege that they let others participate in their cultural activities, but participation is not grounds for political inclusion in decision making. Haunani-Kay Trask makes this clear when she speaks of sovereignty, “Of course, the notion that settlers would participate in any form in the sovereignty process is ludicrous. In principle and in practice, Native sovereignty must be controlled by Natives.” The fact that citizens of Hawai’i are calling for a voice in native politics shows a need for a form of self-government among Native Hawaiians. Organizations such as Hui Malama could easily become committees which have elected officials and structured debates concerning artifacts and reburials if they were part of a sovereign Hawaiian government.
A sovereign Hawaiian government, whether linked to the U.S. or not, is essential in the progression of the Hawaiian Islands. It would allow Hawaiians to collectively make decisions they can agree on, or at least be satisfied with the representation they receive for decision making. Issues regarding burial sites, ancient artifacts, land access for religious ceremonies, and Hawaiian Trust fund management would no longer be topics of public debate. Hawaiians, as an indigenous people, have a right to control these matters themselves (Haunani-Kay Trask 16). The desire for autonomy has been made evident by the creation of organizations such as Ka Lahui Hawai’i, Ka Pakaukau, Hui Malama and others. Now, Native Hawaiians are waiting for the political recognition they deserve.
Hawaiians deserve sovereignty with the ability to break away from the U.S. if they choose. The list of grievances enacted upon the Hawaiian people by the U.S. government is long and extensive. Multiple political groups and organizations have already been formed in the pursuit of achieving sovereignty. It is now a question of when sovereignty will occur, rather than if it will occur. Ka Pakaukau seems like the best choice for sovereignty for the islands. It would allow for a gradual shift of power from a U.S. state to an independent nation. The measure would also probably take several years, which would give current residents enough time to decide whether to move or become citizens of the new nation. Most importantly, as an independent nation Hawai’i could control many aspects of life here that will shape the future of the islands. Leaders could set limits on immigration and tourism. This is crucial for slowing the degradation of the finite natural resources found in Hawai’i. The government could establish committees to discuss and decide issues concerning native interests such as burial rights and Hawaiian artifacts. A public relations committee could be created to promote realistic images of Hawai’i in the tourist industry. Most importantly, sovereignty would help give recognition and respect to the Hawaiian people. The knowledge that they control their own affairs would boost the confidence of the entire nation. A strong case has been made for Hawaiian sovereignty. There are many tough decisions that have to be made before sovereignty takes place. When it does take place, then Hawaiians can once again benefit from the land which raised them.
Works Cited
Ayau, Edward Halealoha. “Native Burials: Human Rights and Sacred Bones.” Cultural Survival. 1-4. 7 June 2001
Conklin, Kenneth. “NAGPRA as applied to Hawai’i-Mokapu, Honokahua, Bishop Museum Ka’ai; Providence Museum Spear Rest; Forbes Cave Artifacts; the Hui Malama organization.” Angelfire.com 1-16. 7 August 2006
Kamau’u, Mahealani and H.K. Bruss Keppeler. “What might sovereignty look like?” Price of Paradise. Vol. 2. Ed. Randall Roth. Honolulu: Mutual Publishing, 1992. 294-301.
Keppeler, H.K. Bruss. “Why would the State pay over $100 million in damages to Hawaiians and still go along with demands for ‘sovereignty’?” Price of Paradise. Vol. 1. Ed. Randall Roth. Honolulu: Mutual Publishing, 1992. 195-203.
Silva, Noenoe. “Kanaka Maoli Resistance to Annexation.” Oiwi: A Native Hawaiian Journal Dec. 1998: 40-73.
Trask, Haunani-Kay. “Settler of Color and ‘Immigrant’ Hegemony: ‘Locals’ in Hawai’i.” Amerasia Journal 26:2 (2000): 1-24.
Trask, Mililani. “Ka Lahui Hawai’i: A Native Initiative for Sovereignty.” Turning the Tide: Journal of Anti-Racist Activism, Research and Education 6 (1993): 5-6. 25 Nov. 2006 < http://www.Hawai’i-nation.org/turningthetide-6-4.html>.
This paper was written for English 100.