Controversy hangs over convention for Hawaiian governance
The historic Na‘i Aupuni constitutional convention convenes Monday with 151 Native Hawaiians charged with setting up the building blocks of a nation.
But some folks are wondering if the time-shortened and crowded convention will be able to produce a governing document or any other meaningful pathway to self-governance.
“I’m not optimistic about what can get done,” said Rowena Akana, the longtime Office of Hawaiian Affairs trustee who will join the four-week convention, or aha, at the Royal Hawaiian Golf Club in Kailua.
With the first week dedicated to educational presentations on constitutional issues, indigenous rights, kingdom law and more, there’s a lot to accomplish in the last three weeks.
And with more than 150 voices potentially wanting to be heard, keeping order may be a challenge. Consider that if every convention participant were given three minutes to speak each eight-hour day, it would leave only enough time for an 18-minute break.
Akana said that judging by some of the discussion in an online forum of convention participants, she’s worried a few dissenters will end up hijacking the conversation and threaten to throw the meeting off its tracks.
“It’s not about culture right now. It’s about government documents,” she said. “It’s about moving forward. We all know about our history. What this is about is seeing what we can do going forward.”
The landmark convention, envisioned by a 2011 act of the state Legislature, was originally planned to take place over eight weeks with 40 delegates elected by nearly 90,000 Native Hawaiians registered by the Native Hawaiian Roll Commission.
But when litigation threatened to block the proceeding for months or even years, Na‘i Aupuni organizers canceled the election and offered all 196 candidates an opportunity to join the aha. The move allowed the group to duck allegations that the balloting violated constitutional restrictions on public elections.
The same argument used to fight an ongoing lawsuit against Na‘i Aupuni — that the effort is a private affair not subject to laws governing state-sanctioned activities — will also allow the convention to proceed with little public scrutiny and media coverage.
The public and the news media will be prohibited from the meeting hall, other than for televising the educational presentations by Olelo community access television in the first week.
Na‘i Aupuni spokesman Lloyd Yonenaka said the closed meeting was a decision by the Na‘i Aupuni board and the convention’s hired moderators, veteran mediator Peter Adler and Linda Colburn, a former OHA administrator, in a move to free the participants from the pressure of being under the public spotlight — although the convention could decide to open on its own later.
For now, the convention will convene behind closed doors from 9 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Mondays through Fridays throughout February.
Participants from Oahu will receive a total of $1,000 in per diem payments, while neighbor island participants will receive $4,000, and those coming from outside the state will get $5,000.
When the convention participants show up Monday morning, they likely will be greeted by sign-carrying protesters.
Protest Na‘i Aupuni, a group of Native Hawaiians formed to oppose the convention, is urging people to picket the meeting. The group accuses the event of being a state-sponsored scheme to establish a puppet government, undercut the independence movement and seize undisputed control of all ceded, or Hawaiian crown, lands.
Sweets Matthews, a longtime Hawaiian activist and supporter of Protest Na‘i Aupuni, said the outcome of the aha has been prearranged to set the stage for formal recognition by the U.S. government.
“This is not true self-determination as defined by the United Nations,” Matthews said in a press release. “Under international law, self-determination is a legal and human right, something the Hawaiian people have been consistently denied by the United States. We, as a people, are supposed to determine who our leaders are and what form of government we want.”
The convention apparently will first answer the question of whether to pursue the establishment of a Native Hawaiian governing entity and, if so, what type of government to establish.
Many of the attendees are expected to fall under the banner of a couple of different factions — those who want federal recognition and those who favor independence.
Akana, the OHA trustee, said that with more than 150 participants, it might take “miraculous effort” to maintain order.
“I don’t want an end result where people are saying, ‘The Hawaiians, they can’t get it together.’ But that’s what it might look like. This is going to be interesting,” she said.
But Jade Danner, a Hawaiian homesteader and convention participant from Waimanalo, maintains a majority of attendees are interested in getting down to work and are committed to creating a governing document.
“I’m excited and encouraged, ready for a positive experience,” she said.
Maui participant Bronson Kaahui said he expects a heated showdown between “separatists” and those who are seeking federal recognition in the convention’s second week, with the last two weeks featuring the writing of a governing document to be put to the registered voters.
“I imagine they will attempt to create a constitution with a legislature, but I support a direct democracy,” Kaahui said.
So does Oahu attendee Zuri Aki, a University of Hawaii law student from Mililani, although he’s not exactly confident of a successful outcome in any case.
“With a vast array of differing views, I imagine it is very likely that the convention will be mired in some degree of discord,” he said.
But he said he’s still hoping the group will rally to reach some common ground and lay the foundation for future conventions. He said he would rather avoid hastily producing an ineffective document that does not satisfy most Native Hawaiians.
Aki said he would like to see pro-independence and pro-federal-recognition factions compromise and establish a temporary or transitional authority that will decide between independence, federal recognition or even something else at a time when more Native Hawaiians are participating.
“Right now, the vast majority of Native Hawaiians are not involved in this process,” he said. “I am of the opinion that no major political decision, like independence or federal recognition, should be made without a much greater participation from the Native Hawaiian community.”
Convention participant Lilikala Kame‘eleihiwa, director of the UH-Manoa Kamakakuokalani Center for Hawaiian Studies, said that in 1987 Ka Lahui Hawaii wrote its first constitution in three days, so this group should be able to put together a fine governing document in one month.
Kame‘eleihiwa is both pro-independence and pro-federal recognition. She acknowledges the realities of life in the U.S. while holding out for the ideal of independence — a goal, she says, that won’t be foreclosed by federal recognition but, rather, helped by it.
“If I had a dollar for every time I told a non-Hawaiian that we still want the country back, and had them look at me as if I were crazy, I would be a rich woman today!” she wrote on a candidate questionnaire.
But independence won’t be achieved without an agreement with the American government, she said.
Kame‘eleihiwa said that as a historian, she has seen the political boundaries on maps change. It was once said that “the sun never sets on the British Empire,” and now it does, she said. Those countries in the empire were told they could never become independent, she said, but when the people of India wanted their country back, there was no stopping them.
“People’s desires and political opinions make for political change, and laws and constitutions are rewritten. That is how the world really works,” the UH professor said.
What’s most exciting about federal recognition, she added, is that when military bases decommission, under U.S. law, federally recognized tribes or native nations get first claims on that base.
“If we Native Hawaiians had had federal recognition status when Barbers Point was decommissioned, we would have been able to control that whole area,” Kame‘eleihiwa said.
Now that the U.S. government is cutting the military budget and there is discussion of closing military bases in Hawaii, Native Hawaiians must have federal recognition to regain those lands, she said, adding that military bases comprise 25 percent of Oahu and have housing, schools and medical clinics “perfect for the Hawaiian nation.”
32 responses to “Controversy hangs over convention for Hawaiian governance”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Why are we still talking about this foolishness? Will these race hustlers ever tire of their cynicism? At long last, sirs (and ladies), have you no sh
Mass confusion. Mind control. Public opinion. The puppet master at work.
Good to see Linda Lingle’s crony, Lloyd Yonenaka, is back on the gravy train again.
Ultimately, for self-determination as defined by the United Nations, there has to be a plebiscite or vote of the people. This so-called convention is a few people being led around by smaller group of people.
Clue: Electorate.
“a 2011 act of the state Legislature”. This was also a vote, rendering that which follows from it without meaning. As to Ka La Hui, when the governor of that entity went back to DC to petition the DOI for recognition, she was told no because the “breeds were trying to get ahead of the bloods”. Conforming to the template is the challenge to the Hawaiians, who were blasted by the Supreme Court for being in denial about their role in screwing the native Hawaiians in the first place. Rowena has long been in denial of the true facts as they are in conflict with her own identity. Independence is the best result of this convention, as it will be a death wish for the Hawaiians manifest, leaving the bloods more free to not be obstructed by them going forward.
BTW, this is a surprisingly good story by Mr Hurley, with few of the usual biases.
I agree. Hurley did a good job. The main flaw in his article is that he forgot to mention my book “Hawaiian Apartheid: Racial Separatism and Ethnic Nationalism in the Aloha State” 27 copies in the Hawaii public library system, or read portions at
http://tinyurl.com/2a9fqa
Support Dr C – it’s an important work of excellent research without which we would be at a loss and the puppeteers would be more facile in acting out their script for a naive audience.
Agree!
The U.S. 9th Circuit will be hearing and deciding the appeal from Akina v the State of Hawaii (OHA) and one of the decisions could be in favor of Akina. Now what? All the time, resources, and results invested into the Aha could be null and void. The rush to get “a” document to the DOI and gaining Pres. Obama’s approval could turn and bite the entire process. And, a shame on the Legislature and Governor approving this fiasco in 2011.
Time will tell. When whatever document is ratified by a plebiscite to follow, the ratification will legitimize the document.
Wilitutu, a plebiscite of Hawaii’s registered voters of some 650,000? I don’t believe something that is unconstitutional in relationship to the U.S. Constitution would pass muster with Hawaii’s voters.
Let the 151 angry voices scream all at once at how the kanaka maoli was robbed of the aina controlled by the then Hawaiian Kingdom king or queen and the alii class by the greedy haole Protestant missionaries and their greedy relatives, cronies and friends.
They are misinformed. The American protestant Mission ended in 1863, 30 years before the warranted overthrow of a corrupt and inept Queen who illegally wanted to end the constitution and install herself as absolute monarch.
Allie, excellent post. That is why the Hawaiian Conference of the UCC rejected the proposal for apology before them at the Central Union Church in 1993, and the next day the Conference pastors were coerced into approving that the Church apologize. The UCC Church was never involved in the overthrow, and a few Hawaiian Congregation pastors were present with the Queen praying for her. What was written and accepted in the Apology Resolution was coerced and thus discredits the Resolution.
1863? Is that when the missionary stole the land from the Hawaiians?
MTN, No, it’s when the Hawaiian Evangelical Association became independent and cut the ties with the Boston based American Missionary Society. Cute, no it was not when the missionary stole any lands. All the lands were allocated in 1840 under Kamehameha III’s Great Mahele.
This is very important, they need to get it together. Form committees and they can voice the concerns from each committee. This is not a me thing, this is an us thing. All of these members are trying to make a difference, and they can, if they treat each other respectfully and don’t bully their way thru it. Good Luck to them!
Bdpapa’s analysis is too narrow. The monthlong meeting is an “us” vs. “them” thing. It’s a bunch of racist ethnic Hawaiians (us — makou) vs. everyone else (kakou). The price of admission to be allowed into this meeting is to have a drop of the magic blood and to put the interests of the “lahui” above everyone else. Everyone else is forcibly excluded. The whole purpose is of the race, by the race, for the race — to figure out what’s the best way for ethnic Hawaiians to screw the other 80% of Hawaii’s people out of as much as possible — independence vs. tribe. Most ethnic Hawaiians are NOT racists — most are proud to be Americans and proud to be fully integrated members of Hawaii’s multiracial rainbow society. That’s why such a small percentage of ethnic Hawaiians signed up directly for the Kana’iolowalu racial registry — only about 20,000 nationwide out of 527,000 in year 2010 or about 580,000 today.
It’s disappointing to see such ill will at a deliberation which should be liberating and empowering. Perhaps the general public should be represented there as well?
Its true. KC loves several things: hearing his own pontification; being condescending; procreating the children of revisionism; under cutting and being pugilistic against ALL native cultures; self-promotion; conservative ideology; and obviously doughnuts, pop tarts and whole milk.
I see your point but my thing was if they going to do this do this by respecting all points of view. I don’t really think they thought out this whole process.
The alpha male Hawaiian is still busy taking over the entire floor time in those meetings.
So what do the Hawaiian want to do with the land if it is returned back to them?
Title to the public lands is set in stone. The US actually almost got it right in 1921 and 1959, thenat the prompting of the ali’i trust big shots greed overwhelmed common sense and then along camerac racialism, feminism and then genderism, etc, etc, etc…..and now we looking at socialism.
I’m kind of skeptical. So many efforts have be skuttled by selfish special interests. There’s hostility towards those who don’t agree with you.
“What’s most exciting about federal recognition, she added, is that when military bases decommission, under U.S. law, federally recognized tribes or native nations get first claims on that base.” “…Native Hawaiians must have federal recognition to regain those lands, she said, adding that military bases comprise 25 percent of Oahu and have housing, schools and medical clinics “perfect for the Hawaiian nation.” Taking handouts of United States developed land and facilities for those wanting independence and separation from the United States government. Ironic.
that law says right of return to the original owners as long as they are not competing with others to buy it. The original owners have first call not a tribal government. lots of ww two land taken has already been returned to the kin of the families it was taken from for war time use. I think she means infrastructure is already in place, the absence of which led to so many years of native Hawaiians not being permitted to occupy their trust lands.
Another noble, persistent, multi-tribal attempt to gain recognition for injustices that were made in the past.
When this process is over Webster will have a new definition of goat rope.
Soap On A Rope.