Here is my Jade Danner conversation continued. A 6 hour time diference got this coming to me after bedtime. Her comments do offer insight into her jade view on independence and the compromised path she is pursuing. • Jade Danner Jones Hahaha. So youre sharing our conversations too, huh John? Classic. • 6:31am Jade Danner Jones Well, you can share this too, then. The reality is, there is no clear, achievable path to independence from where we sit now. De-occupy? That requires the United States to willingly comply, or it requires the United States to be forced to comply. There is no force in the world that can make the United States do what it does not want to do right now. The U.S. has 11 aircraft carriers--the country with the next highest number has 2, so expecting the international community to force the United States out is unrealistic. So, that means you have to get them to go willingly. Regardless of whether people reading this post think Hawaii is not a state, the United States certainly considers Hawaii among its 50 stars, and many people in Hawaii do too. So convincing the United States to willingly leave Hawaii will take an extraordinary amount of work, and it wont be on some de-occupation theory. Not just because the U.S. has needed Hawaii for its military domination in the world for the last 150 years, but because acknowledging that Hawaii was never a state would mean the unraveling of every federal law enacted since 1959. Thats just not going to happen. But there may be a future time when the US no longer needs Hawaii to dominate militarily and the entire states population wants to become an independent state. In that possible future, there may be a path to independence, but that would require a constitutional amendment to allow for secession, particularly if that amendment could be distinguished from other states so as not to set a bad precedent, in terms of other states ability to leave the Union. A Civil War was fought on this very principle, so if people think convincing the U.S. to let go of Hawaii is going to be easy, they are mistaken. Not impossible, but certainly no one alive today is going to see that potential future reality. Now, Keanu knows that if the argument is that anything the United States does (including statehood) has no force in Hawaii, and hasnt for the past 120 years, then neither will the federal recognition of the Native Hawaiian right to self-governance under federal law. At any time in the future, when we are able to get a Secretary of State to the table and negotiate the terms of de-occupation, the fact that there was a federally-recognized Native government shouldnt matter, because as Keanu argues, federal law has no force or effect in Hawaii. The truth is, Keanu cant get the Secretary of State to the table, and even if he does, the Secretary of State currently lacks the power to give him what he seeks. Not even the President currently possesses the Constitutional authority to unmake a state. Hence the need for a constitutional amendment. I have never said the U.S. doesnt owe us for the overthrow and every resulting ill-effect the Native Hawaiian people have suffered, and continue to suffer because we are governed by laws not suited to our culture. No Native Hawaiian, aka kanaka, believes that. What I have said, and what I will continue to say, is the U.S. wont let Hawaii go without a fight. If speaking the truth about this fact makes me unpopular, so be it. Better to be unpopular and actually helping our people to move forward than to be popular by encouraging them to be willfully blind to the real challenge of getting what they seek. I am not in love with the United States, I am in love with Native Hawaiian self-determination and self-governance. But just as I would never tell a battered woman to ignore the fact that her husband will beat her up if she tries to leave, I am not going to tell Hawaiians that leaving the United States is simple. It is not simple, and it requires a sound plan that accounts for what the United States is likely to do. No proponent of independence has articulated an actual plan to achieve an independent state. I read Keanus plan...all the important details are missing. Beyond the functional difficulties of securing an independent state, the other problem I have with proposals for independence is that NONE of them argue that the Native Hawaiian people should be specifically advanced by that model. In fact, all of them argue that every single person in Hawaii today, and any person in the world who wanted to, would be eligible for citizenship in the restored Kingdom. If the Kingdom was restored tomorrow, the Native Hawaiian people would remain a minority in our own homeland, and the laws we would live under as a result, would likely be no different than the ones we live under today, with one big difference. All of the federal set-asides for Native Hawaiians currently held by the State of Hawaii would be gone. Im not just talking about money, Im talking about land. In 1921, at the behest of Prince Jonah Kuhio Kalanianaole, Congress enacted the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, setting aside more than 200,000 acres of federal lands for Native Hawaiian homesteading. While the Act is not perfect, and certainly it has been poorly managed by the State and territorial governments, the fact remains that 9,000 people have received awards of land under that federal program. They have raised their families there, and the State of Hawaii holds title to those lands, which technically, makes them public lands. Under an independent Hawaii, those lands would revert to the government of Hawaii, not the people living on them, and that government very well could decide people have to buy the land at fair market value, or forfeit it. In present values, most Hawaiian Home Lands would be valued at a fair market rate, just for the land, at half a million dollars, or whatever that would translate to in Kingdom money. There are more than 23,000 people still waiting on a list to receive an award, and most likely, if the Kingdom existed today, they would get nothing. Now, perhaps the Chinese, Japanese, Portuguese, Haole and even Native Hawaiians (who dont yet qualify for those awards) dont care about losing the Hawaiian Home Lands, but I do, and so do most people living on homesteads today. I will admit, I dont understand Alapake Heanus position, as he is a homesteader, and advocating total independence today, as it has been talked about by Keanu and others, would result in his own home becoming up for grabs, but...to each his own, I guess. So, my failure to advocate for independence is as a result of the independence movements failure or refusal to answer the only question I care about. How will the Native Hawaiian people, na kanaka, be better off in that proposed world? Because being a minority in our own homeland has not serve us well, and compared to other states, Native Hawaiians have a relatively large say in the the government decisions in Hawaii today. We are 20% of the electorate, and have more than a dozen members of the Hawaii State Legislature, not to mention many of the State cabinet members are Native Hawaiian. Even with all that, our ways are not honored as they should be because other people who live in Hawaii have a say in how things go. A federally-recognized Native Hawaiian government would give us an enforceable power to regulate our own internal matters--make laws about child custody, civil disputes, and even handle criminal matters involving our people on our own lands. In the face of statistics like 70% of all youth incarcerated in Hawaii are Native Hawaiian, I think who made the law, who judged the crime, and who determined the sentence makes a huge difference to Hawaiian families. Federally-recognized tribal governments have jurisdiction over their members and run drug-courts, determining what happens to people convicted of drug offenses. With the high rates Native Hawaiians in jail for first-time drug offenses today, I think we could make good use of the power to bring those people into Native Hawaiian drug courts and keep them out of state prisons. Federally-recognized tribal governments have the power to effect adoptions that are consistent with their own cultures--for us, that would mean we could make hanai a legal relationship, not just a cultural custom that we practice. That power alone would change the lives of many Native Hawaiians. So John, I mourn what happened in Hawaii 121 years ago as much as any other Native Hawaiian, but I am not willing to leave my children in the precarious position they exist in today, with all the odds stacked against them, for a hope of an independent state that has no plan for making that hope real, and very little chance of changing anyones life before I am in the ground. Federal recognition of a Native Hawaiian government is a real possibility that can be achieved in the next 5-10 years if the Native Hawaiian people want it, and it will make a huge difference in the lives of many Native Hawaiians. It is not the everything solution, and there will be challenges, but its a heck of a lot more control in our own affairs than we have now. • 6:47am Jade Danner Jones In terms of people responding to my back of the bus comment, I dont think there is a black person alive today that would argue that in terms of civil rights, they are in a far better position today than their grandfathers were in the 1950s. Are there still deep disparities? Of course. There is a legacy of generational poverty and disenfranchisement that isnt solved overnight, or even in a single lifetime. These problems werent created overnight, and they wont be solved overnight either. Healing takes time, John, and change is slow to come, but it is coming. • 7:37am Jade Danner Jones You never did answer my questions, by the way, John. How have your people fared in terms of state removal of their children without the protections of ICWA? How has being an unrecognized Native people given legal weight and effect to your traditions and customs? By voluntary compliance to those customs? Have your fellow Kanienkehaka had trouble practicing those customs in the face of conflicting state and federal law? I bet they have, especially if those customs are in any way conflicting with state and federal regulations. Are eagle feathers important to your people? Im sorry, but I dont know very much about Kanienkehaka culture. I would imagine that you and your fellow Kanienkehaka are subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the state and federal laws, and even if you fight them, you are not guaranteed to win, and certainly not on the basis of your own cultural authority to make the laws. Since you brought up casinos, has your tribe opened one? I mean, I know youre unrecognized, but that also means you are not bound by the terms of IGRA. I see the St. Regis Mohawk have a casino, so I assume theres no cultural opposition to gaming, but then again, each community is different. While I support every tribes right to decide for themselves the issue of gaming, Im not sure I would support us engaging in that enterprise. Although it would certainly be a great source of revenue for our government, and maybe even yield enough for per capita payments for the people, there are a lot of societal issues that accompany gaming As you point out, IGRA would control, and in Hawaii, the functional effect would be no gaming. No matter, our people will have other economic development opportunities because of our location. As to your questions about conditions on the reservations, Ill say this. Of course they are not perfect, but they are improving. Some tribes started in deep deep socio-economic ditches, much deeper than the Native Hawaiian people find ourselves in today, and so the notion that federal recognition will lead to poorer conditions than we have now is pure fiction. All tribes have made progress, some more than others, under the federal policy of self-determination through self-governance, and the Native Hawaiian people could use those powers to improve our own conditions as well. I do find it strange that the problems you cite with federally-recognized tribes are the Native leaders themselves. If your reason for opposing a federally-recognized Native government is that you fear your own people, well, that says something about you. If thats also the case for some of the folks in Hawaii who agree with you, then perhaps that explains the desire to include non-Hawaiians in the governance of our islands...I dont know. Personally, I dont think that being a minority in our own country, with a majority of the government being run by non-Hawaiians is any different than what we have now, but again, to each his own. Maybe theres something magical in a name change, but I doubt it. • 8:49am Jade Danner Jones Okay, John, so Ive reviewed your video speech, and I dont disagree with a single statement you made. The Native Hawaiian people are a people, whether or not we have an organized government, and whether that government is recognized by anyone, including the United States. You and I agree that we define ourselves collectively. The weird thing about you telling Native Hawaiians not to pursue this thing with the DOI is, you were presenting at a conference to fix the federal recognition process for other indigenous peoples. Why do you advocate the federally-recognized rights of tribes, if there is nothing there worth getting? I mean, the focus of your talk was that indigenous nations need to recognize themselves and each other, regardless of any federal relationship. I agree with that point. But you did NOT say to that crowd, a room filled with indigenous nations seeking federal recognition, that they should NOT pursue a federally-recognized government-to-government relationship. I mean, the speaker that came before you, and the speaker that came after you have both been pursuing federal recognition for decades. Yet you did not advise them not to pursue it. But that is what you are saying to my people. Why is pursuing a recognized government-to-government relationship okay for the Shinnecock people, and not the Native Hawaiian people? Because if there is nothing good about having in a federally-recognized Native government, why are you advocating with the White House to fix a taxation problem for the Senaca nation, which is federally-recognized. I didnt hear you say you told Jodi Gillette to solve a problem for the Shinnecock Nation, which is not recognized. And if federal recognition is so bad, then why havent you advocated that the Seneca give it up? I mean, clearly you have access to their leadership if you walked into a White House meeting with them. Why havent you advocated that your wifes tribe give up their federal recognition? Clearly, because the United States already has a recognized trust responsibility to the Native Hawaiian people, which is more than the Shinnecock have, you cant accuse us of simply wanting federal dollars--we already have them, and have had them for decades. And you cant accuse us of wanting gaming, its not on the table for us because Hawaii prohibits all forms of gaming and IGRA would control. So maybe what were after, John, is the real power to have fights with the State over whether they can tax our goods in our own lands, instead of the default position, which is they can and do. Or maybe we want the power to have the U.S. Supreme Court tell the State we get to determine what happens to our children when the state sticks them in the foster care system, like it just did yesterday for Alaska Natives. Or maybe we want the power to develop our own land-use policies consistent with our own cultural values, regardless of what the state or counties say. And maybe, just maybe, we want to be able to manage our own assets, instead of the state, so that we can finally get all the people waiting for a homestead lease off the list and onto the land, and then we can finally ask the federal government to drop the blood quantum requirements and allow all our people to live on those lands. Maybe the reason you dont want the Native Hawaiian people to be recognized is that, as tribal populations go, we are a large Native people, and there is understandable concern in Indian Country, where you live, that if were federally-recognized well suck up all the available federal resources in an already limited pot. No worries on that front, John. We already have separate programs established for our benefit at the fed. We just want to be able to exercise some autonomy in our own affairs, and not have to fight the state and federal governments every step of the way to do it.
Posted on: Wed, 06 Aug 2014 16:18:38 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015