DENNIS ODA / DODA@STARBULLETIN.COM State Sen. Sam Slom, holding a U.S. flag, and state Rep. Barbara Marumoto, dressed as the Statue of Liberty, faced protesters who said Iolani Palace was the wrong place for yesterday's statehood celebration.
Protesters say the event was held at the "scene of a crime" By Diana Leone dleone@starbulletin.com
A small group marking Hawaii's statehood anniversary yesterday was confronted by protesters who said the grounds of Iolani Palace were the wrong place for the celebration.
Clashing views of Hawaii history were evident as about 50 native Hawaiians and supporters with a public address system shouted at a similar number of American flag-waving Statehood Day celebrants trying to sing "The Star-Spangled Banner" without accompaniment.
The statehood group carried American flags, including the "Don't Tread on Me" flag of the American Revolutionary War.
Protesters carried Queen Liliuokalani's Hae Kalaunu crown flag and had posted banners such as "De-occupy Pae Aina O Hawaii" or "Kuokoa Kanaka Maoli Independence."
The event was organized by state Sen. Sam Slom (R, Hawaii Kai), who said the palace grounds were "exactly the right place because this is where statehood was declared" on Aug. 21, 1959.
Slom, president of Small Business Hawaii, said he promoted the event through e-mails and media announcements, and that "anyone was welcome to come."
Several protesters said they were there because they found Slom's choice of the Iolani Palace grounds, viewed as the heart of the Hawaiian monarchy, as provocative and insulting.
"This is a sacred spot, which is the seat of our government," said Kekuni Blaisdell, a longtime Hawaiian sovereignty activist, of the importance of Iolani Palace.
Before the 10 a.m. start time of Slom's event, a male protester with a microphone urged the statehood celebration be held at the state Capitol instead.
"This is the scene of a crime," said another protester, Karen Murray. "The queen was held captive up there," she said, pointing to the upper story of the palace.
Among those gathered with Slom were H. William Burgess, who challenged the constitutionality of the state Office of Hawaiian Affairs and Hawaiian Homes Commission Act in federal court, and Kenneth Conklin, whose lawsuit successfully opened OHA trustee positions to non-Hawaiians.
DENNIS ODA / DODA@STARBULLETIN.COM Pam Smith and Keli'i Collier clashed as friends held on to Collier.
Burgess, who said he remembers Statehood Day as a day of rejoicing in Hawaii, called the protest part of "the politics of racial grievance."
The total number celebrating statehood with Slom appeared to be fewer than 50, not including the Kalani High School Band, which he had invited to play.
The band left the event before it started and without playing their instruments after being heckled by protesters.
"We should not be here. We don't have to subject our students to that kind of situation," one adult with the band said as the students were escorted away.
Slom tried to make a short speech about the significance of Statehood Day but could hardly be heard over protesters shouting comments such as, "We have less freedom now. We had more freedom in our own kingdom."
Though there were moments of heated argument and boisterous shouting, the hour-long encounter between the two sides had moments of civility as well.
"I'm not attacking you as a person," protester Kamana Beamer told Slom. "I'm attacking America's occupation of Hawaii."
Beamer said he considers himself to have dual citizenship of both the United States and the kingdom of Hawaii.
DENNIS ODA / DODA@STARBULLETIN.COM A group marking Hawaii's statehood clashed yesterday with a group objecting to the observance of the anniversary on the grounds of Iolani Palace. Above, H. William Burgess and his wife, Sandra Puanani Burgess (at left with back to camera), had words with Hanaloa (no last name given) as Dexter Kaiama tried to separate the two arguing sides.
At one point a protester put his hand on city spokesman Bill Brennan's shoulder as if to push him, while asking the statehood celebrators to leave. Brennan stood his ground and asked the man to take his hand away.
Protester Baron Ching has no Hawaiian blood, but said his Chinese grandfather protested the annexation of Hawaii as an American territory because of American treatment of Chinese and Japanese.
Ching said the Hawaiian protesters might "yell a little bit and wag fingers," but he noted that in 113 years of objections to annexation, "there has been not one single act of violence."
State Rep. Barbara Marumoto (R, Waialae-Kahala) wore a Statue of Liberty costume to the event, which she said she expected would be "lighthearted."
Instead, she said, afterward, "I was very upset" at the behavior of the protesters. "They were directing a lot of their remarks at the students, and it was unseemly behavior to address it at the students.
"If they wanted to direct it at Sen. Slom, that's fair game," Marumoto said, "but the students were really victims in this situation. It was very sad."
As the two groups began to disperse, there were signs of aloha, too.
The white-mustachioed Burgess, his blue dress shirt wet with sweat, was sharing an animated but friendly conversation with a long-haired protester wearing a red Hawaiian sovereignty T-shirt as the two sat in the shade of Iolani Palace.
DENNIS ODA / DODA@STARBULLETIN.COM After the statehood group started to pack up, the protesters formed a circle to chant.
.
Historical prospective.
What often captures our interest is a claim by individuals who see themselves as disadvantaged. Given no facts, we instinctively champion them. It is our nature.
The Akaka bill, in its claim of Hawaiian sovereignty, takes advantage of our sympathetic nature. It does this by presupposing that there are ills in the Hawaiian community which sovereignty will alleviate. Before considering the substantive complaints, we must first determine what or who is eligible for sovereignty.
Sovereignty can only be granted to an existing political entity, as an American Indian tribe. It is not available to a collection of individuals who have gripes against the government, imagined or real. To slip under this screen, the Akaka bill claims that Hawaiians are a tribe, comparable to the self-governing American Indian tribes. In examining this claim, we must separate fact from fancy.
Since American Indians are the model for sovereignty, we begin by considering the Pilgrims’ relationship with the indians. The settlers came to set up colonies independent of, and separate from, the Indian communities. The settlers did not become members of the Indian tribes, were not subject to tribal law and certainly did not participate in the governance of any tribe. Likewise, the Indians played no part in the governance of the settlers’ communities. In addition, there was scarce socialization and very little intermarriage. To this day, the Indian tribal nations have maintained their ethnic identity and political integrity. The United States recognizes them as such. There are no non-Indian members of any Indian tribe.
Hawaii presents the reverse picture. Beginning with the reign of Kamehameha the Great, there was only one nation. During the reign of Kamehameha III, it was made clear by the Constitution of 1840 and the Declaration of Rights of 1839 that the Kingdom included both Hawaiian and non-Hawaiian on equal terms. There was no Hawaiian-only tribe. The Declaration of Rights of 1839 says that "God hath made of one blood all nations of men...." and refers to rights, "given alike to every man...." Equal rights to all, without reference to ethnicity, is the proud tradition of Kamehameha III.
Persons born in Hawaii were citizens, and citizenship for newcomers was easily obtained. There was extensive inter marriage among all races, including Hawaiians. Furthermore, a great many non-Hawaiians worked for the monarchy and served at the highest levels of government.
Thus, history tells us that the Akaka bill’s "recognition" of a present-day Hawaiian-only tribe is pure fiction. If there is a tribe, it is our present multiracial community. It is the successor to the Territory of Hawaii, the Republic of Hawaii and the Kingdom of Hawaii, and in 1959, with Statehood, we, together with our Hawaiian component, gained sovereignty.
From the time Hawaii was annexed through statehood, many Hawaiians have become its leaders. We have had Hawaiians or part-Hawaiians as:
Delegates to congress prior to statehood, Governor of the State of Hawaii (and one in the making) Delegates to Hawaii’s constitutional convention Lieutenant governors, Judges and Members of the Hawaii Supreme Court, including a Chief Justice, U.S. Senator, Chief judge of the United States District Court, Mayors, U.S. Marshals Numerous members of the State legislature and county counsels. Many department heads and employees of the State and county governments.
Through this participation, Hawaiians have enjoyed and exercised sovereignty in the State of Hawaii. They have also been citizens of the freest nation on earth, a nation which excels all others in providing unlimited opportunities.
The proponents of the Akaka bill now seek to reverse the proud tradition of Kamehameha III. If they succeed in obscuring history, then what would be the bill’s real impact? Whether it’s about land or a collection of amorphous ills, ultimately, it will be about money and special privilege. Worse yet, it could be about a gambling casino.
What are the ills that sovereignty is suppose to alleviate? Some of the bill’s proponents assert that Hawaiians are over represented in negative socioeconomic statistics such as health, poverty, homelessness, child abuse and neglect and criminal activity. If that is so, then Hawaiians should get a greater share of resources, but only consistent with their proportional greater need. However, the ultimate effect of the Akaka bill will be to allocate public resources to address these negatives for Hawaiians only, and to exclude the poor and disadvantaged of other races. This would be racially divisive, contrary to the principals of both our State and federal constitutions, and contrary to our proud tradition of equal rights. Ironically, in its spirit, it is also un-Hawaiian.
Wall Street Journal Editorial "Aloha, Apartheid".
To all Senators: Aloha
We're about to reach the moment of truth on the Akaka bill (S. 147 Native Hawiian Government Reorganization Act of 2005). There is a cloture motion set for hearing in the Senate on September 6, 2005. If 60 votes support the motion for cloture, then the Akaka bill will be debated, hopefully amended and then voted on. This radical bill must not pass.
Below is John Fund's Aloha, Apartheid from the Wall Street Journal of August 8, 2005.
Here are are photos of two signs on display Saturday August 6, 2005 at Iolani Palace illustrating why Hawaiian living treasure Rubellite K. Johnson (quoted in John Fund's editorial) laments that more people in Hawaii are giving up on integration and listening to those with "hate in their hearts."
Can anyone honestly believe the Akaka bill would bring us together?
A court strikes down a race-based policy in Hawaii, while Congress considers enshrining one.
HONOLULU--For the seven million people who vacation in Hawaii every year, it is a magical island destination. For its 1.2 million residents, the 50th state is, in the words of its senior senator, Daniel Inouye, "one of the greatest examples of a multiethnic society living in relative peace."
But that peace is fraying as tensions rise over a bill the U.S. Senate will vote on next month that would create an independent, race-based government for Native Hawaiians. What some see as redress for past injustices, others see as the creation of a racial spoils system that could treat neighbors differently depending on whether or not they have a drop of native blood.
A Saturday rally of several thousand people here brought the state's divisions to the surface in raw terms. The protestors were angry at a decision last week by the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals striking down the Hawaiians-only admissions policy of the exclusive private Kamehameha Schools. The court ruled that the policy violated federal civil rights laws by imposing "an absolute bar to admission of those of the non-preferred race." Supporters of the racial preference policy say any change will reduce the chances of Native Hawaiians, many of whom are from poor backgrounds, getting a good education.
Amid a sea of upside-down state flags and signs challenging the legitimacy of the U.S. government in Hawaii, school trustee Nainoa Thompson told the crowd that the Kamehameha schools are "the last hope of the Hawaiian people." Donna Downey, one of those attending the rally, told me that the court decision was only the latest example of "greedy" people trying to "take all the privileges" now accorded to Native Hawaiians.
No one denies that Native Hawaiians have grievances from the prestatehood era, when the islands were controlled by big sugar and pineapple plantation owners who gave the rights of natives short shrift. But nearly a half century after statehood it is naive to think that federal civil rights laws don't apply to the islands simply because of the 2,500 miles of water separating them from the mainland.
Cooler heads have advised Kamehameha trustees that they should return to the original wording of the 1884 will of Hawaii's Princess Bernice Pauahi Bishop, which established the school. The Ninth Circuit ruling noted that the princess's will did not "require the use of race as an admission prerequisite" and indeed stipulated that instruction should be in English.
"The school is now backed by a $6.2 billion trust that is more than enough money to fund scholarships for anyone they wanted to admit while at the same time charging full tuition to non-Native Hawaiians," says Bobbie Slater, a former teacher at Kamehameha. But instead the school plans to appeal the Ninth Circuit ruling. Eric Grant, a California lawyer who is representing a student challenging the Kamehameha admissions policy, says the school has rejected suggestions that it admit the boy, now entering his senior year, pending outcome of the appeal. Last Friday he said he got a call from the school and "the trustees didn't give me a reason; they just said no--or rather, they said, 'Hell no.' " Mr. Grant says the school's behavior reminds him of the late George Wallace standing in the schoolhouse door.
Far from recognizing the school's weak legal position, almost every politician in the state has scrambled to stand in solidarity with it. Gov. Linda Lingle, a Republican, introduced herself at the rally on Saturday as a "haole"--a foreigner--angry at the court ruling. But she carefully skirted the issue of whether or not the school's admissions policy violated civil rights law. "Regardless of the legal basis for this position, this is not a just position," she told the crowd. She later told the Honolulu Advertiser that she believed the school's admissions policy is "not about race, it's about a political relationship between the Hawaiian people and the American government."
Noting that many students at the Kamehameha school are 95% white or Chinese and only 5% Hawaiian, the governor claims "the school is a perfect example of the great diversity" of the state. She says the Ninth Circuit ruling makes it all the more imperative for Congress to pass a bill by Sen. Daniel Akaka that would create a separate "government entity" for Native Hawaiians. Then entities such as Kamehameha would have more protection from civil rights lawsuits.
But the very fact that so few students at the Kamehameha school are recognizably Native Hawaiian raises the issue of how much a separate government as envisioned by the Akaka bill is possible or desirable. While everyone in the state professes to admire Polynesian culture and many ethnicities study it, only about 240,000 of Hawaii's people classify themselves as Native Hawaiians. Just 5,000 or so--less than 0.5% of the state's population--are of pure native blood. Over 90% of self-described natives are more than half some other ethnicity.
But that hasn't stopped an explosion in funding for those who have Native Hawaiian blood. Anyone with even one drop of blood qualifies for Office of Hawaiian Affairs programs and have access to exclusive schools such as Kamehameha. Haunani Apoliona, chairman of the board of trustees of the state's Office of Hawaiian Affairs, told me that passage of the Akaka bill is essential to expand to help the 18% of Native Hawaiian families with children who are living in poverty.
But she has also told National Public Radio that if the bill passes, the new "native Hawaiian governing entity" will enter into discussions with the state and federal governments "as to any transfer of land and/or natural resources and/or any other assets." Such talk prompted the Grassroot Institute, a local free-market think tank, to take out a newspaper ad last Saturday showing all the lands it said "are on the table for transfer to the new government."
All of the talk about privileges and land transfers saddens Rubellite Johnson, a scholar who has been named a "Living Treasure of Hawaii" for her work in translating early Hawaiian-language documents. Born in 1932 to a Native Hawaiian family on Kauai, Ms. Johnson helped establish the Hawaiian studies program at the University of Hawaii and taught there for many years. "It doesn't promote harmony to expect others today to pay you constantly for what was wrong back then," she told me. "When does it stop?"
Ms. Johnson laments that more people in Hawaii are giving up on integration and listening to those with "hate in their hearts." She says much of the history taught at her old university and now used to justify the Akaka bill is "a distortion of the truth." For example, her studies convince her that the U.S. was "not directly involved" in the forced abdication of Queen Liliuokalani in 1893 and that indeed much of the Hawaiian monarchy supported the annexation of the islands. She believes that "rather than talk about how haoles stole the land, people should take responsibility for their own actions and work with others of good will to better themselves."
While her advice might be the best way to preserve the famous "aloha" spirit and racial harmony for which Hawaii is justly famous, current trends are moving towards further politicization and polarization. If the Akaka bill creating a separate race-based government in Hawaii becomes law, look for other racial and ethnic groups on the mainland to view it as a model for their own bids for political spoils.
New Statewide Survey: 2 to 1 Oppose Akaka Bill.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Richard O. Rowland Tel: 808-864-1776
July 14, 2005 Email: grassroot@hawaii.rr.com
New Statewide Survey: 2 to 1 Oppose Akaka Bill
HONOLULU, HI – After its sample 10,000 home survey last week, Grassroot Institute of Hawaii (GRIH) commissioned a new comprehensive telephone survey by ccAdvertising of the remaining 280,000 homes in the call universe in the State of Hawaii. The results are now in:
67% of Hawaii residents responding to the question are against the Akaka bill (S. 147 / H.R. 309).
Hawaii’s Congressmen have been telling us and their colleagues that Hawaii’s residents support the bill, yet our newest comprehensive survey indicates that:
64.5% of residents in Rep. Case’s district are against it.
70.2% in Rep. Abercrombie’s district are against it.
Many prominent names appeared in a recent two full page OHA ad supporting the bill, but our survey shows:
71.24% of Rep. Marcus Oshiro’s 39th State House District are against it. 65.52% of Senator Fred Hemmings’ 25th State Senate District are against it.
Even Native Hawaiians are sharply split. Almost 48% oppose it.
81.63% of Hawaii residents oppose preferences for people groups based on race.
In the 2004 Presidential election, automated pollsters, using innovated systems like ccAdvertising’s, predicted actual election results better, faster and less expensively than the old way. One finding of this latest poll should be of concern to politicians who support the breakup of the State of Hawaii (and perhaps ultimately the breakup of other states and the United States) which would result from the Akaka bill.
45% of Hawaii residents are less likely to vote for an elected official who supports the bill.
Sunshine is the best disinfectant in this democracy. In the interest of full and open discourse, the State Capitol auditorium has been reserved on July 23 and 26. Last week GRIH’s attorney Bruce Fein challenged Governor Lingle or Attorney General Mark Bennett to debate the Akaka bill and its consequences for Hawaii and the United States. No response has been received.
“Our Governor and Congressional delegation are spending our tax dollars lobbying Senators from other states while ignoring their own constituents,” said Richard Rowland, President of GRIH.
“They must serve the public by having an open debate in Hawaii and at the minimum require a plebiscite of all Hawaii voters before Congress even considers this bill.”.
AKAKA BILL LINGLE'S SUPPORT OF POTENTIAL CHAOS BAFFLING
How can Gov. Lingle support the Akaka bill? How can giving those with any amount of Hawaiian blood a status not allowed those without Hawaiian blood benefit the state of Hawai'i? Declaring Hawaiians a separate "tribe" even though they are interspersed throughout the state creates all kinds of questions
Neighbors using the same services, utilities and schools may have a very different status. One will pay taxes and charges, while the other, as a member of the "tribe," may be able to "negotiate" these taxes and charges. How can the governor know where these "negotiations" may lead? In the meantime, those without any Hawaiian blood would probably pick up these tabs.
Gov. Lingle's strong support of the Akaka bill absolutely baffles me. Shouldn't she represent all of us?
It is one thing for Governor Lingle to personally support the Akaka bill. But to lobby Washington at our expense, for a race-based bill opposed by two-thirds of Hawaii's people, seems the height of chutzpah.
I don't know whether the bill's outcome will be as disastrous as anticipated, but when its supporters ignore us and stifle debate in Hawaii, I am suspicious.
Where is the will of the people? We need an informational program and a local plebiscite. If Hawaii's people support the bill, so be it. If not, Congress will know what we, not Lingle, want. And if Congress fails to respect our wishes, auwe!
John M. Corboy Mililani
*****
Most residents oppose passage of Akaka bill
Many of us find it quite odd that Hawaii's politicians are so devoted to the Akaka bill "Lingle pushing Akaka bill," Star-Bulletin, July 6).
A recent online (unscientific) poll conducted by the Star- Bulletin showed that Hawaii's people are opposed to this race-based legislation. A very fresh poll by Election Research has found that more than two-thirds of Hawai residents opposed the bill as of last week.
Isn't there a story here that the news media won't cover? All of Hawaii's politicians are behind a bill that almost all of Hawaii's people oppose. Can this only happen in Hawai, or can it happen in other states where the news media refuse to serve the public interest?
