Ka Wai Ola - Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Volume 11, Number 2, 1 February 1994 — Experts disagree with Boyle's claims [ARTICLE]

Experts disagree with Boyle's claims

Boyle's speech brought up a number of important issues and some of his points needs clarification, according to both cultural and legal experts. His suggestion that Hawaiians govern themselves using "tradition-ally-based" kūpuna councils ignores the fact that Hawaiians had republican traditions based on British and American customs before the Overthrow, and in pre-contact times Hawaiians did not govern themselves with kūpuna councils but had ali'i who would use kāhuna (experts) to provide guidance in various affairs of the state, OHA culture officer Plkake Pelekai explains that, "Eaeh island had its ruling ali'i who in turn had a kahuna who advised on all matters. The belief was he (the kahuna) had gone to the gods to gain his knowledge. What usually happened was there was a eouneil of chiefs - not kūpuna or kāhuna." Concerning Hawaiian rights under international law, Boyle appeared to laek a clear understanding of the native Hawaiian situation. OHA counsel and UH law professor Jon Van Dyke points out that Hawaiians, under international law, do have the right to vote on their future but adds t'ne Illinois lawyer's suggestion that Hawaiians proclaitn independence ignores the fact that Hawaiians presently do not agree on whieh course to take. Some favor comp!ete independence and others, like OHA and Ka Lāhui, support building an aulonomous nation within a nation. "The thing one should question is his link between the wrong tbat was committed and seeking independence. ... The (Hawaiian) eommunity is divided on the issue." Van Dyke points out Boyle's assertion that the Overthrow was illegal. while accurate, eouki nol be argued in court because of the Statute of Limitations. However, Van Dyke said, the U.S. Cdngress could pass a statute authorizing such a suit . I . I