Ka Wai Ola - Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Volume 3, Number 2, 1 February 1986 — Congressional Bill Asks $1 Billion [ARTICLE+ILLUSTRATION]

Congressional Bill Asks $1 Billion

Hawaiian Reparations: Three Points of View

Ka Wai Ola O OHA' s December, 1985, edition revealed that Hawaii's congressional delegation has eome up with the first draft of a proposed legislative package designed to assist native Hawaiians. One of the cornerstones of the proposal is a bill to provide reparations totaling a billion dollars to be used for Hawaiian programs and land acquisition. Ka Wai Ola O OHA asked three prominent Hawaii residents for their comments and reaction to the proposal. They are H. Rodger Betts, Corporation Counsel, County of Maui; Sam Slom, business consultant and president of Small Business Hawaii; and Hawaii's senior U.S. Sen. Daniel K. Inouye. Here are their edited responses to questions fx>sed by Ka Wai Ola O OHA (KWO). KWO: Mr. Betts, you were one of the three ethnic Hawaiians who served on the Native Hawaiian Study Commission. Why do you think Hawaiians deserve a billion dollars in reparations? Betts: Well I think the billion dollars is the sum that is proposed by the committees in the Congress and they recognize that the Hawaiian Islands were unlawfully taken, the legitimate government of the Queen was illegally usurped, that the overthrow could not have taken plaee except with the aid of the United States government and that this is the price tag that they have placed on the loss of sovereignty that the Hawaiians went through and all the problems that they 've had since. I'm not too sure that a billion dollars is enough. KWO: Senator Inouye, as co-sponsor of the reparations package along with Senator Matsunaga, Representative Akaka and Representative Heftel, why do you feel reparations for Hawaiians are justified? Inouye: History shows that the United States through her agents did at the turn of the century participate and connive in the overthrow of the legitimate government of the Kingdom of Hawaii. And by doing so, they participated in a major change in the lifestyle and for that matter the history of Hawaiian people. When one looks at the Hawaiian people of this day, the statistics coming forth are not only tragic but almost unbelievable — the largest number of dropouts, the highest incidence of diseases, whether it be cancer or Hansen's disease, the lowest number of college graduates, the lowest number of professionals — they're all native Hawaiians. And many of us have contended that over the years there is a direct connection between the present state of affairs for the native Hawaiians and the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii. By this bill, we are not attempting in any way to turn back our clocks and go back to the time of Liliuokalani. Not that, but what we are trying to suggest is that Hawaiians be accorded the same consideration with the same sensitivity as we have over the years accorded other native Americans. They're still doing it for the Indians, mueh has been done with the Alaskans, the Eskimos and I think the time has eome that

some recognition be given that the United States did play some role ,in the unfortunate life of many of the native Hawaiians of this day. KWO: Mr. Slom, few individuals of prominence or credibility in Hawaii are willing to go on record as opposing the concept of reparations for Hawaiians. You are one of those people. Would you explain why you feel there is no basis for such restitution?

Slom: My whole philosophy is I don't believe that any segment of the population is entitled to reparations be it the Japanese, or Eskimos, or Indians, or anyone else because we've got a problem of fixing responsibility if there in fact was a wrong done to a group of people or to individuals. I think that you have a problem with time and you have a problem with responsibility. I for example, don't feel responsible for problems that happened long before I was here and able to do something about them. I would be responsib!e if there is something I see now or that I contribute to. But I think its unfair to try to force people living today to pay for a wrong whieh may have been committed by their ancestors or perhaps by someone with whom they have no eonneehon at all. The other problem with reparations is in the area of help. Do you really help a people if you give them something whieh they may in fact not directly be entitled to? Do you help a people by encouraging them to become dependent on someone else? What we should be doing is to give them opportunities to insure that those mistakes or errors or crimes do not occur again. The solution is not to take from one group of people in order to give to another. The solution is not to convert emotion into monetary damages in order to address a responsibility that is not there. KWO: Senator Inouye, how would you answer those who say "well there may have been wrong committed, but that was back in 1893. Why should I as an American today, who had nothing to do with this, why should I have to pay for that wrong?" Inouye: We are still paying for slavery. And I think it's about time we Americans realize that actions that were taken a century ago may have a direct bearing on our lifestyle of this day. I think slavery is a classic example. Because of the present plight of the native Hawaiians we find taxpayers possibly paying more than they have to. If we were able to up>grade the education, bring about better job opportunities we may have a change in the situation. History shows that the stereotype of the Hawaiians is not only faulty, but false. The stereotype that he's a jolly, happy, lazy person . . . far from it. He was industrious, hard working, brilliant, but yet he was not quite prepared for western civilization. When one considers that in the Hawaiian vocabulary there is no direct word similar to property in the American sense, one ean get an idea of how Hawaiians were deprived of their property.

KWO: Mr. Betts, what is your response to those who say that those of us alive today have no financial or moral responsibility for wrongs whieh may have been committed 93 years ago? Betts: Its been traditional in the United States that the government pay for its wrongs no matter how long ago they occurred. The government has diligently done this with all of the Indians and the Alaskan aboriginal people. And there is no reason why they ought not to do it for the Hawaiians. After all, the United States government did a grievous wrong to a native p>eople. Its hardly equity to say at this point in time, because it happened so long ago — the United States ean walk away from its sins without paying the p>enalty. Our thanks to Mr. Betts, Mr. Slom, and Sen. Inouye for participating in this discussion of a topic vitally important to the Hawaiian community. Ka Wai Ola O OHA is interested in your thoughts on reparations. We hop>e to publish selected letters exploring the pros and cons of the reparations issue. Please restrict letters to a maximum of 200 words. Send them to: Public Information Officer Office of Hawaiian Affairs 567 So. King Street, Suite 100 Honolulu, Hawaii 96813

Sen. Daniel K. Inouye

Samuel Slom

H. Rodger Betts