100 Years of Subjugation

By Derek Ferrar
and Julia Steele
Honolulu Weekly
As printed in the Honolulu Weekly

Wednesday, January 13, 1993

On Tuesday Jan. 17, 1893 – the day that an armed group of businessmen, backed by the U.S. diplomatic representative to Hawaii, 162 Marines and a gunboat, illegally forced Queen Lili’uokalani to give up control of the Hawaiian nation – the queen wrote: “Now, to avoid any collision of armed forces and perhaps the loss of life, I do, under protest and impelled by force, yield my authority until such time as the Government of the United States shall, upon the facts being presented to it, undo the action of its representative and reinstate me and the authority which I claim as the constitutional sovereign of the Hawaiian Islands.”

Today, 100 years later with the growing recognition that the overthrow was an outrageously wrongful act – “an act of war,” as President Grover Cleveland would later describe it – perhaps the time of justice Lili’uokalani hoped for is at hand. No longer is the subject of Hawaiian sovereignty relegated to the fringes of Hawaiian activism. Spurred by the anniversary of the overthrow, increasing numbers of people are re-examining the injustices perpetrated against Hawaii’s indigenous population and the various ways in which they can be addressed. According to recent polls, 46 percent of Hawaii voters asked felt there should be “more restitution” for the wrongs done to Hawaiians, and registered Office of Hawaiian Affairs voters (who must have Hawaiian ancestry) favored some form of sovereignty by more than 2-to-1.

Even individuals actively allied with the state’s status quo – such as Bishop Estate trustee Oswald Stender and the state’s key land man, Department of Land and Natural Resources chairman Bill Paty – are touting some idea of sovereignty. In June of 1990, the state’s Democratic Party recognized the inherent right of Native Hawaiians to self-determination, as have the United Church of Christ of Hawaii, which sent the first missionaries here in 1820; the Episcopal Church; the state’s Republican Party; the Association of Hawaiian Civic Clubs; and other mainstream organizations.

But for all of sovereignty’s value as a consciousness-raising buzzword, confusion reigns regarding the idea of a self-governing Hawaiian nation. What form would sovereignty take? How would it be achieved? What would it do to the lives of Hawaiians? And what about non-Hawaiians?

“Sovereignty is not going to put a Berlin Wall down the middle of Hilo,” says Mililani Trask, the kia’aina, or governor, of Ka Lahui Hawai’i (The Sovereign Nation of Hawai’i), a grassroots organization that has already formed a self-governing structure. “What we’re talking about is the ability to exercise jurisdiction over our lands.”

No one claims a sovereign Hawaiian nation can coalesce overnight; even the groups pushing hardest for self-determination agree that the most important priority now is educating the public on sovereignty issues and options.

Two issues are bound together under the existing concept of Hawaiian sovereignty: redress and restitution for the many financial misdeeds perpetrated by the U.S. and state governments; and self-determination, or sovereignty proper.

Views of the form sovereignty could take vary across a broad spectrum, from Stender’s establishment-oriented opinion that Hawaiian lands should be held in a trust to be administered for the Hawaiian people, to the Ohana O Hawaii’s striking model restoring a constitutional monarchy over the Islands under Queen Kauinui’o Ha’o. But from the diversity of views, two key sovereignty models have emerged as templates for a self-determining Hawaiian nation.

A nation-within-a-nation

The first, and thus far the most explicitly articulated, is the nation-within-a-nation model. Under this model, Hawaiians would be recognized as a self-governing entity by the federal government, much as Native Americans and Eskimos have been. The Hawaiian nation would have authority over the lands taken from the Hawaiian government in 1893. It would (most likely) be independent of state and county governments but would be subject to federal law. The government would have the power to make laws, collect tax, dispense justice, enter into treaties with other nations and perform a variety of other functions inherent in most sovereign bodies. Membership in such a nation would not in any way affect one’s status as a U.S. or State of Hawaii citizen.

For Hawaiians to create an independent nation-within-a-nation under existing federal policy, the federal government must recognize that Hawaiians are a Native American population. The Reagan and Bush administrations adamantly asserted that Hawaiians constitute an ethnic group, not a Native American one. Unless their position is reversed, Hawaiians are not eligible under federal law for the kind of independence already established for over 500 Indian and Alaskan tribes… or even for a host of federal assistance programs.

With the incoming Clinton administration, however, there appears to be hope. In a recent newspaper editorial, Gov. John Waihee wrote, “Hawaiians have received anything but a sympathetic ear in Washington under the last two Republican administrations… With the inauguration of President-elect Clinton, we are anticipating a much more understanding federal administration which will allow us to settle questions of reparations and move forward on the question of political recognition and sovereignty.”

Once Clinton has cleared the way, as he theoretically will, the U.S. Congress will have the authority to deliberate on bills recognizing a Native Hawaiian nation.

Ka Lahui vs. OHA

The two main proponents of the nation-to-nation model are the Office of Hawaiian Affairs and the independent group Ka Lahui Hawaii, which has a functioning government and over 14,000 members. OHA and Ka Lahui clash often.

OHA’s positions on Hawaiian entitlements have been defined by three bills it drafted and subsequently asked Sen. Dan Inouye to introduce on the U.S. Senate floor. The proposed OHA bill that speaks most directly to the sovereignty issue is the Native Hawaiian Recognition and Restoration Act, which calls for the U.S. to recognize the unique status of Native Hawaiians and authorizes the establishment of a Hawaiian government.

Under the proposed act, the form of such a government would be determined by a constitutional convention organized by OHA. Delegates to the convention, elected by Hawaiian voters, would develop an “organic document” to govern Native Hawaiian affairs. That constitution would then need to be ratified by a majority of Hawaiian voters to be valid. Once the U.S. Congress had recognized the nation, it would gain control over all Hawaiian Homelands, 20 percent of the cash value of all public lands of the state and 20 percent of the revenues generated by the rest of the land held by the state (though this last would be designated specifically to benefit those with at least 50 percent Hawaiian blood).

Many grassroots pro-sovereignty groups are opposed to the OHA measures, primarily because OHA, which was created by an amendment to the state constitution and is funded by state money, would have too much control in drafting the constitution.

“OHA was established to undermine us and to co-opt our movement,” says Dr. Kekuni Blaisdell, a former director of the University of Hawaii’s Center for Hawaiian Studies and a leader in the pro-independence group Ka Pakaukau. “Sovereignty resides in our people, not in a state agency. OHA is an agency of an illegally occupying power.”

“I must express my deep disappointment with the [OHA proposal],” Ka Lahui leader Trask wrote in a critique of an early draft of the OHA bill. “It is very clear that your prime concern is shielding the state from direct accountability to the native people and allowing state control of our trust lands and assets.”

OHA chairman Clayton Hee responds that “OHA represents the most well-defined existing constituency of Hawaiians. To say that it doesn’t represent the grassroots, I believe, is inaccurate, because the tens of thousands who participate [in OHA elections] are from all walks of life. Not that OHA should tell anyone what sovereignty should be, but we should be the ones to provide the means so that, through democratic process, the Hawaiian people can decide how a sovereign nation is to be constituted. And so long as there’s no sovereign Native Hawaiian nation, OHA should continue its mandate under the state constitution and laws.”

Ka Lahui’s literature points out, however, that, while OHA talks about “assist[ing] in developing an organic document to govern Native Hawaiian affairs,” Ka Lahui has already drafted such a constitution. Ka Lahui defines sovereignty through five elements: a strong and abiding faith in the akua (spirit); a people with a common culture, language and tradition; a land base upon which people are able to live and practice their cultural traditions; a government that enables self-determination; and an economic base that provides self-sufficiency.

The group drafted its constitution at a convention of 250 Hawaiian delegates in 1987. The group’s system of government is a democratic one, modeled largely after the existing American system. Four branches of government are identified – the executive, legislative, judiciary and ali’i nui (an advisory council composed of descendants of Hawaiian nobility). Representatives are elected; any Hawaii resident with Hawaiian blood is eligible to vote (non-Hawaiians may become honorary citizens of Ka Lahui but may not cast ballots). Ka Lahui’s legislature currently meets twice annually. The group’s approach to achieving sovereignty is to “seek inclusion for the Hawaiian people in the existing U.S. federal policy which affords all Native Americans the right to be self-governing, and to obtain access to the federal courts for review.” Unlike OHA, Ka Lahui’s members believe that a sovereign government should be elected before claims of native entitlement to ceded lands are pursued.

Trask discounts the fears of those non-Hawaiians who worry that they could become disenfranchised by sovereignty. “Take the paranoia out of your minds and look at the issues of civil and human rights,” she urges. “We do not propose to put people into concentration camps. We’re not going to be saying ‘Oh, Uncle, I love you, but Auntie, gee, too bad you one Filipino.’”

Early last year, OHA’s Hee presented the office’s three sovereignty-related bills to Inouye, but after receiving much criticism of the bills from Ka Lahui and other Hawaiian groups, Inouye now says he won’t take any action on any sovereignty measure unless he’s satisfied that it enjoys broad Hawaiian support. “It is my fundamental belief that sovereignty legislation should, and must, be generated by the Hawaiian community itself…” Inouye says. “While I realize that 100 percent consensus is highly unlikely for any particular sovereignty legislation, it is not for me to say what other lesser percentage would suffice. It should, however, at least be a number sufficient to indicate community comfort.”

The complete independence model

More “radical” individuals within the Hawaiian community say that building a nation within a nation is only the first step in the larger process of decolonization. Ka Pakaukau, a group made up of 12 different pro-sovereignty organizations, was founded in October of 1989 specifically in opposition to the OHA nation-within-a-nation blueprint.

“Our definition of sovereignty,” says Ka Pakaukau member Blaisdell, “is that we accept no higher human authority over our lives, our lands, our ocean resources and our future other than ourselves. We will no longer tolerate outsiders having a say over us.” The group is committed to “complete sovereignty” and the total withdrawal of the U.S. government from Hawaii. They see America as an aggressor who invaded Hawaii, thereby committing an act of war; they declare the state and federal governments in Hawaii to be temporary and illegal colonial administrators.

The structure of the independent nation Ka Pakaukau’s members envision is not as firmly in place as Ka Lahui’s. “The form of government will depend on the collective views of the citizenry and their representatives,” says Blaisdell. “It’s inadvisable to spell out the government structure (now). For the present, most of us support Ka Lahui as a government for the initial step. But we are not locked into any specific model.”

Would such a nation admit non-Hawaiians? “If [non-Hawaiians] subscribe to and support our movement, then they are welcome if they are willing to live under our system,” Blaisdell says. “Our traditional cultural belief is of giving and sharing.”
The head of the Institute for the Advancement of Hawaiian Affairs, Hayden Burgess, is also committed to the complete independence of Hawaii. “Why should we be governed by people in Washington D.C. who are using us for military and economic purposes and nothing else?” he asks, “”people who have no knowledge of us or understanding of us?”

Burgess wants to se the Islands completely decolonized, with all of the land returned to the control of the Hawaiian nation. “If someone says to me, ‘Eh brah, we give you Kahoolawe, part of the Big Island and Makua on Oahu – how’s that?’” Burgess says. “I say, ‘What if you had seven kids and they were stolen, and then whoever stole them said, ‘Eh brah, I give you one back and the head of another and a couple of arms of another – is that okay?’”

Unlike most sovereignty proponents, Burgess does not define the issue in terms of Hawaiian blood. “Sovereignty is not a racial issue,” he says. “It’s an issue of cultural identity, of the relationship of people to the land and culture. We can all take part in restructuring the economy and society to be a community we want to live in and to raise our children in. We need an economy of self-sufficiency, of social responsibility and one that respects the culture of the people.”

But Burgess is quick to point out that the injustices suffered by Hawaii’s native population must be addressed by a sovereign nation and that the indigenous population would have certain rights within the nation, including control of immigration, special taxing, policing and educational rights and a voice on land use.

“You need to understand we have been colonized for 100 years. You don’t become decolonized overnight. We need to take the foreign mask off, keep educating ourselves. We’re at the stage of decolonization where we need to exchange and discuss beliefs.”

Which model has a greater mandate? Burgess quotes Immanuel Kant on this question: “It is better to weight the voices than to count the votes.” Sovereignty educator Davianna MacGregor says in workshops she’s been to there is perhaps greater support for a nation-within-a-nation because through this model it’s possible to have the sovereignty and autonomy and yet members may still retain U.S. citizenship. “But it’s too soon to call,” she says. “We don’t want to close off any discussion to other models.”

The nation-within-a-nation model does seem to be within the closest reach, given the extensive precedent for such an arrangement and its non-threatening impact on the non-Hawaiian community. According to one Native American activist, nation-within-a-nation sovereignty has worked well for his tribe, eventually bringing its dependence on federal money down from an initial 90 percent to 10 percent. Deni Leonard told the Honolulu Star-Bulletin on a visit here last year that his tribe had essentially become a self-governing, self-sufficient entity. A similar scenario, he said, is attainable for Hawaiians. Perhaps, as Ka Pakaukau’s Blaisdell hopes, the nation-within-a-nation stage will be a jumping-off point for complete independence.

Wake-up call

In November 1991, a number of groups propounding sovereignty joined together under the umbrella organization Hui Na’auao. Elizabeth Martin, the group’s president, remembers these “people wanted to do these sovereignty workshops, but they didn’t have the funding. So I began as a facilitator to bring the groups together and help them get money.” Martin’s efforts attracted a $364,061 grant from the federal Administration for Native Americans. The stated mandate of Hui Na’auao is to educate people about sovereignty; since the hui’s member organizations are so diverse, workshops represent the full spectrum of views.

The group began conducting workshops in March 1992. Two videos are shown at each workshop: one introducing the different sovereignty groups, another providing an historical overview. The legal, cultural and historical foundations of Hawaiian sovereignty are also discussed. “There’s been a really wonderful response from the community,” says MacGregor, chair of the hui’s education committee, “an eagerness to understand sovereignty. People want to discuss different models, look at the specifics of sovereignty and how it would affect their lives.”

“We have three objectives,” says Martin. “The first is ho’ala, or ‘to awaken’ those who haven’t been interested or involved. We’ve done a lot of that. The second is ho’okahua, through which we study different sovereign nations and look at their successes and failures to determine what we really need. This what we’re doing now, and it’s very exciting. The third is ho’olokahi, which are consensus-building activities.”

In fact, even though Hui Na’auao exists to lay the foundation for a more informed populace, Martin says the exchange of ideas within the group itself has been crucial. “I think that education is the reason the group united,” she says, “but the progress has been in getting people to come to meetings over and over again and talk and understand each other – then they don’t have to bicker with each other in public. This is a safe place for people to work out their differences.”

The hui has also played an important role as a review body for proposed sovereignty legislation. In August, Inouye submitted to the hui members his drafts for federal sovereignty legislation. After some members rebuffed him roundly, saying it was inappropriate for anyone but a non-governmental Native Hawaiian body to propose such laws, Inouye adopted the ready-when-you-are stance he holds today. After the hui gave state Sen. Russell Blair “mixed reviews” on a sovereignty amendment to the state constitution for similar reasons, members formed a Sovereignty Advisory Council to the Legislature.

After the anniversary…

This Sunday, when a century rolls around with justice still not done, the issue of sovereignty will be queen for a day. But if there’s anything that sovereignty advocates agree on, it’s that the 17th is just the beginning. “1993 should be an impetus toward learning,” says Burgess. “We’re in a time of uncertainty, of confusion. But out of the confusion will come education, and out of the education will come commitment, and out of the commitment will come action, and then there’ll be no stopping Hawaiian sovereignty.