Sovereignty for native Hawaiians - thoughts?

[lawyerlee]

Native Hawaiians on brink of sovereignty (http://www.iht.com/bin/print_ipub.php?file=/articles/2005/07/17/news/hawaii.php)
By Dean E. Murphy The New York Times
MONDAY, JULY 18, 2005

112 years after U.S. troops helped overthrow the independent Kingdom of Hawaii and 12 years after Congress apologized for it, that Hawaiian distinctiveness appears close to being formally recognized by the U.S. government. A bill that for the first time would extend sovereignty to the native Hawaiian people is poised for a vote - and likely approval - in the U.S. Senate, despite opposition from many Republicans who denounce the measure as unworkable and as promoting racial Balkanization.

The bill, the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act, is considered the most significant development for native Hawaiians since statehood in 1959. The measure would give them equivalent legal standing to American Indians and native Alaskans and lead to the creation of a governing body that would make decisions on behalf of the estimated 400,000 native Hawaiians in the United States.

The governing body would also have the power to negotiate with federal and state authorities over the disposition of vast amounts of land and resources that were seized by the United States when the islands were annexed in 1898, including about 300 square miles, or almost 800 square kilometers, of land long ago set aside for use as native homelands and an additional 2,500 square miles scattered throughout the islands that is being held in trusts.


Native Hawaiians Seek Self Rule (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4801431)
NPR

Thoughts about this? There was a piece about this on NPR's Morning Edition (the one listed right above), which sparked my interest in the topic. :)

I agree with the Governor of Hawaii who says that it is discriminatory *not* to give native Hawaiians sovereignty because other native groups are treated differently. It is fine and dandy to acknowledge that it was "wrong" to overtake Hawaii by aggression, but I think it is necessary to take that one step further and show that we understand that native Hawaiians have interests unique from those of other Americans because of their unique situation in our national history.

[wendalah]

This is a big issue on the island of Molokai, which is under threat of development (the island has the largest population of native Hawaiians and they are very interested in keeping tourism/development at a minimum level). Very, very interesting topic overall.

[LittleFredPunkinHead]

I agree with the Governor of Hawaii who says that it is discriminatory *not* to give native Hawaiians sovereignty because other native groups are treated differently. It is fine and dandy to acknowledge that it was "wrong" to overtake Hawaii by aggression, but I think it is necessary to take that one step further and show that we understand that native Hawaiians have interests unique from those of other Americans because of their unique situation in our national history.
I didn't know that they weren't given sovereignty like the other groups. I absolutely agree- I think it's probably long overdue.

[villanelle75]

I admit I'm woefully uneducated on this topic and I'm looking forward to the responses from poster who are more knowledgable on the topic. My gut however tells me it's a bad idea. As a nation, we've done messed up things in the past, as have most other naitons. I just don't know that that means we need to seek out every injustice and not only apologize for it and acknowledge that it was horrible, but also to make reparations of seom sort. Should we go to the Southern states and demand that make payements to the families of the homes they seized for troop use in the civil war? It just seems liek quite the slippery slope to me when we try and right wrongs from today's persepctive when they happened in an entirely different context adn when that sor tof thing was acceptabel and we just didn't know better. Of course now, in a modern light, we can see how disgusting it was to give Small Pox covered blankets to the indians and it merits a genuine apology. BUt if we use a modern lens to examine every action of the past, it seem sliek we are bound to find a million things that should have been done differently and it becomes quite the slippery slope.

That's my initial reaction anyway.

[LittleFredPunkinHead]

I think the difference here though, villanelle, is that we've already done the same thing for two other large groups of Native Americans. It's not really providing reparations, but adjusting the decision-making process.

[jennylou]

Interesting indeed.

Can someone explain to me how the governing body works? I mean, if the governing body is used to make decisions, are the people still allowed to vote in our elections? Would they have reservations, like native Americans?

I guess the article just doesn't answer enough for me. On another note, if we do this for them, shouldn't we also do this for the vast amount of Mexican Americans that were here before we formed CA, TX, etc?

[wendalah]

Just on a simplistic note: I would think that they'd have a bigger say in what goes down on their land. In a state like HI where tourism is the biggest industry, it won't be long before overdevelopment happens (it's already happened on Oahu and Maui).

[lawyerlee]

Can someone explain to me how the governing body works? I mean, if the governing body is used to make decisions, are the people still allowed to vote in our elections? Would they have reservations, like native Americans?
I think a lot of the details would still need to be worked out, but we could expect this to work the same as with Indian nations. Basically, people have dual citizenship of an Indian nation and the United States. They are allowed to participate fully in both governments.

On another note, if we do this for them, shouldn't we also do this for the vast amount of Mexican Americans that were here before we formed CA, TX, etc?
Great question. I honest don't know. I suppose one difference is that the nation of Mexico still exists, such that if one wants to be part of that nation, you simply need to move to a different location. With Native Indian, Eskimo, and Hawaiian groups, that would not really be possible because they were entirely conquered.

[mermccau]

I think this sounds wonderful. I personally find it very sad what is going on over in Hawaii and it is about time the culture and people are protected.

(my in laws are "howlies" living in Hawaii)

[mermccau]

Here is, what I think, a good perspective from my MIL...

The Akaka Bill has been big news here for a while. As the Tribune article
pointed out, it is not without controversy among Hawaiians. Passage of the
bill would, in a way, brand them as an indigenous (and second class)
minority and still, when all is said and done, subjects of the USA. Many Hawaiians believe
that passage and acceptance of the bill will forever doom them to quasi-autonomous
status - but never, ever independent.

Of course, being a realist, Hawaii will NEVER be independent again. Too
strategic. What the Akaka Bill will do is let them preserve some of the
race-based initiatives currently in place - but are being challenged - like
the admissions policy of Kamahameha Schools. This will probably end up in
the Supreme Court. But, from where I'm sitting, the schools are funded
totally by a trust fund set up by Queen Emma for the education of Hawaiian
children. The schools receive NO federal fundiing what-so-ever. They should
be able to admit whom they want!!

So, I guess I look on the bill as a mechanism to protect what little they
have been to hold on to.

[paiger]

Has this happened in Alaska w/ the Eskimos? It seems that it would be the same.

[mermccau]

I wonder if it is the same - I do not think so. Hawaii is being over-run from mainlanders and it is diluting the culture. The rich are buying land making it very hard for middle and lower class folks to find housing.

I do not see Alaska being populated in this way.

[lawyerlee]

Has this happened in Alaska w/ the Eskimos? It seems that it would be the same.
Yes, Eskimos have sovereignty.

[Sherb]

Ohhh, I find this topic fascinating.

For law nerds (or just nerds) like me, you can find some of the arguments for and against Hawaiians being treated as sovereign peoples in the briefs in the Rice v. Cayetano case that was before the US Supreme Court about six years ago. I had to argue this in one of my government classes and college and became familiar with the issue.

I suspect that one of the main reasons behind this bill is the Rice case. In that case, the Supreme Court ruled elections to a board that governs a trust for Native Hawaiians could not be restricted to Native Hawaiians without violating the Constitution.

I think that Native Hawaiians should have the same political standing as the other indigenious peoples in our country; to do otherwise would just compound the injustice that started when the Dole Pineapple Co., ohter wealthy landowners and a rogue regiment of soliders overthrew the Hawaiian monarcy.