Jaded Views is the on-going series that answers the the question: What is she thinking? Jaded Views Part 5: Jade Danner Jones John, youre like that ditzy girlfriend abused women have who just keep telling her to leave her abusive husband, but dont help her figure out how to do it safely. Those kinds of girlfriends get abused women killed. Of course the abused woman should leave, the question is always how and when. Actual domestic violence advocates encourage battered women to have a plan--an identified safe-house, to leave when the husband is not home, to file restraining orders, and to take precautionary measures before leaving to ensure that the battered woman doesnt get killed in the process of leaving. Not to mention, battered women are rarely successful in kicking their abuser out of the home...so they have to be willing to let go of the house. So, to extend that analogy to the Kingdom of Hawaii, what exactly is the plan? Because leaving the house is not an option (assuming the Kingdom wants to live in Hawaii), and getting the husband to leave requires an ability to force him to go, and not come back. The big problem with your entire first paragraph is the same problem battered women face--the batterer does not care what they think, let alone what they want. In fact, in this case, the United States not only views Hawaii as a room in its own house, the State of Hawaii thinks that room is its room, and so do a lot of people living in that room today. No matter the aspersions you cast at federally-recognized tribes, that doesnt change the fact that those seeking independence now have no plan for making the U.S. leave. And if it isnt clear to everyone by now, the United States could give a hoot about world opinion. The U.S. does condemn Russia in the face of its illegal annexation of Hawaii. The US does maintain its support of Israel. The US doesnt care about saving face with the UN enough to let Hawaii go, and anyone who argues it does is not paying attention. Heck, Saddam Hussein threw the history of Hawaii in the face of the United States at the UN before the first Gulf War as justification for his actions with Kuwait, and reason the UN couldnt intervene. Bush I laughed, and still invaded, along with other countries serving as UN peace-keeping forces. Then, 13 years later, Bush II manufactured reasons to invade Iraq again, and this time, Hussein lost his life, so did his sons, and so did a lot of other Iraqi people. Their country is in rubble, and any group that wants to is wreaking new havoc in their streets as the U.S. pulls out. So much for righteousness as a shield. Its going to take more than slogans to get free of the United States, and a lot more critical thinking to overcome all obstacles, and frankly, its going to take leaving when the timing is right. In the case of Hawaii, I have already outlined the potential future circumstances when it may actually be achievable to leave without getting killed. In the meantime, I encourage proponents of independence to start doing as I do, and distinguish that there were two harmed parties in the overthrow. First, the Kingdom of Hawaii, as an internationally recognized government whose citizenry included Native Hawaiians, but not exclusively. Second, the Native Hawaiian people, as an indigenous people with the continuing right to self-governance. By advancing the distinction, the Kingdom reserves the ability to say that recognizing the inherent right of the Native Hawaiian people to self-determination, and under federal policy, to self-governance, does not in any way settle the claims of the Kingdom. The Kingdom can then point to the Apology Resolution to support this case, as in that federal law, the United States acknowledges its role in the overthrow, but only apologizes to the Native Hawaiian people. By doing so, even the United States acknowledged there are two distinct harmed parties--the Kingdom and the Native Hawaiian people. While the Kingdom folks are working to pull together a better plan for forcing the United States to leave our island home, a federally-recognized Native Hawaiian government can be exercising authorities that address critical needs in our community and helping to dig ourselves out of our present ditch. If the policy on self-determination has, in your mind, resulted in further assimilation then I would argue that you guys arent doing it right. Because primarily, assimilation happens in the minds of the people, not in the external institutions they happen to find themselves in at any given moment in time. I trust that my people will not be seduced by the assimilation tactics, and have a strong enough connection to our culture, ourselves, and homeland to keep us rooted in who we are, who we have always been, as a people. In terms of your assertions that the improvements in Indian country are a result of gaming, well, the Harvard Project on American Indian Economic Development says otherwise, and in multiple studies. They say that though gaming has contributed resources, but when they look at gaming and non-gaming tribes, they are seeing improvement among all. They cite the federal policy on self-determination as the key change agent for those communities. You can visit their site at hpaied.org/ for more research-based information. As for what could happen to Native government powers in some future court challenge that hasnt happened yet, sure, that could happen. And it could happen that a bus is going to hit your car when its parked in the street, and it could happen that a meteor will fall from the sky and obliterate your house. The issue isnt what could happen. The issue is what is the likelihood of it happening, and what will you be left with if it does. I have already made my case on these issues, so no need to repeat here. The DOI is not going to slice and dice the Native Hawaiian people down to multiple tribes, John. The proposal has always been for a single, unified Native Hawaiian government. Personally, I think we should organize by moku, so 7 or 8 Native Hawaiian governments, or by the pre-Kamehameha divisions of Kingdoms, so 4 Native Hawaiian governments. Still, the talk for the last 20 years, in our community, and at the federal level, has been that we are a single indigenous people, and therefore, we should only have a single federally-recognized Native government. I would be surprised if the DOI diverged from the single government theory in rule making, if we get there, but if they do, then well certainly have another chance to flood them with comments. And even after that, if we dont like the rule they establish, we dont have to walk through that door. Again, if federal recognition is so bad, I question why you arent spending more of your time encouraging federally-recognized tribes to give up the status. I mean, I would think that if the status is so bad, it would be an easy sell in Indian Country, especially since clearly theyre living with the same abusive man as us. Maybe you are encouraging them to give it up, but your message is falling on deaf ears. I dont know. But it could be happening, right? Finally, it doesnt matter if you have seen no indication that Hawaiians would be a minority in their own independent nation or kingdom, the cumulative effect of allowing everyone in Hawaii to be a citizen of the Kingdom and in fact, opening the door to anyone from anywhere to become a citizen through a process of naturalization is that we, the indigenous Native Hawaiian people, will continue to be a minority in our own homeland. If you dont believe me, check out what Dr. Lilikala Kameeleihiwa has to say on the topic. You can read her statement at kanaiolowalu.org/ under news. Oh, and John, please tell Mary Alice that in response to her statement, My own resolution introduced at last year’s AHHC convention would give citizenship to all descendants of Ku’e Petition signers. Did the Association of Hawaiian Civic Clubs adopt that resolution? In any event, giving the descendants of the Kue petitions citizenship doesnt mean exclusive citizenship, and her resolutions not giving them anything anyway, as the Kue petitions were signed by the Native Hawaiian people alive in 1897, and their descendants are already eligible for citizenship in the Kingdom, should it ever be restored. It is interesting that a few lines later she says, Under an independent Hawai’i we will by default depend on the support of the majority of the people in the first place-we cannot achieve independence and hold it otherwise. That means the Native Hawaiian people will still be a minority among all the people of Hawaii, and that is a problem to effecting the Native Hawaiian will in our own homeland. Have a good night, John.
Posted on: Thu, 07 Aug 2014 17:18:47 +0000