Ka Wai Ola - Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Volume 16, Number 10, 1 October 1999 — Chicago Tribune lebate: Lum answers Chāvez [ARTICLE+ILLUSTRATION]

Chicago Tribune lebate: Lum answers Chāvez

has established a trust responsibility." The facts suggest otherwise. ĪHE FIRST-known contact between the Polynesian people of Hawai'i and Europeans eame in 1778, when Capt. James Cook first landed on the islands. Hawai'i became a U.S. possession in 1898, following the overthrow of the hereditary monarchy that ruled the islands. The 1 .8 million acres of land previously owned by the crown were ceded to the U.S. govemment at that time and set aside in trust to "be used solely for the benefit of the inhabitants of the Hawaiian Islands for educational and other purposes." When Hawai'i became a state in 1959, the U.S. ceded back the lands to the new state to be used for any of five general purposes, including the betterment of the conditions of indigenous Hawaiians. For almost 20 years, the fimds generated by the public land trust were administered to benefit all Hawaiians, regardless of race. But in 1978, the Hawai'i state constitution was amended to provide assistance from these funds to only two groups of people defined solely by their racial ancestry. The Justice Department rationalizes that because only certain Hawaiians ean benefit from these funds, those same people should be the only ones to choose tmstees to administer the funds. Imagine if this rationale were applied to other election contexts. Should voting in school-board elections be restricted to people with children enrolled in pubhc sc;iools? Should renters be prohibited from voting to i'ecide property-tax issues? lt's time the Clinton administration stopped tiying to divide people by race. Let's hope that's the message the Supreme Court will deliver when it take up this case this fall. ■

Native Hawaiians' trail of tears Kēhaulani Lum Chicago Tribune Aug. 24, 1999 AT FIRST glance, it is easy to understand how Linda Chavez might find the Justice Department's support for the rights of Native Hawaiians to elect their own representatives a tad discriminatory COnly the 'natives' ean vote" Aug. 4). On its face, allowing Native Hawaiians, whose ancestors settled the island archipelago as early as 600 A.D., to hold their own elections distinct from that of the general electorate has the appearance of race preference. After all, the selection of trustees of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, the semiautonomous agency charged with the responsibility of administering the Native Hawaiian tmst, is determined solely by those residents of the state of Hawai'i who identify themselves,as descendants of the island's early inhabitants. And, being that Native Hawaiians are a distinct race of people, one might readily assume, as Chavez does, that they are being afforded special privileges on the basis of their race. But such a conclusion ean only be drawn if one wantonly ignores the eenturies of systematic oppression exacted on a onee peaceful nation and the historic underpinnings that form the basis for the unique relationship between Native Hawaiians, the state of Hawai'i, and the United States. As U.S. Solicitor General Seth P. Waxman observes, "The United States has a trust obligation to indigenous Hawaiians because it bears a responsibility for the destiuction of their govemment and the uneonsented and uncompensated taking of their lands." When viewed in this proper context, as Chavez irresponsibly fails to do, it is vividly clear that the right of Native Hawaiians to elect their own leaders is an act of justice, not race. The plight of the Hawaiian people is perhaps one of America's best kept secrets, the truth long relegated to the closet and replaced with eomie images of carefree, lusty natives in grass skirts and plastic leis. Onee numbering over a million, but today, barely a quarter of that, Hawaiians, like Native American Indians, Alaskan Eskimos and Aleuts, have endured their own trail of tears. A highly organized, self-sufficient, subsistent people with a sophisticated language, culture and rehgion prior to the arrival of the first westemers, Native Hawaiians have been made castaways on their own distant shores, the umbili-

eal link to their ancestral lands severed by the descendants of missionaries "who eame to do good, and ended up doing quite well." Some two-thirds of the population have been driven from their homeland over the last century, forced to seek shelter and sustenance on foreign soil.

ONE HUNDRED years after the eoup d'etat of their monarchy by a group of American businessmen backed by U.S. naval forces-an illegal "act of war" condemned by then-President Grover Cleveland-Hawaiians are less the idyllic figure under swaying palm trees and more the portrait of an impoverished underclass stripped of their land, their language, and their way of hfe. In "America's healthiest state," Native Hawaiians suffer the ravages of aleohohsm, unemployment, suicide, low life-expectancy and homelessness worse than that of the country's great inner cities. Programs designed for their "rehabilitation" have been grossly under funded and mismanaged by the state government, with lands set aside for their resettlement over 75 years ago yet laying fallow. Countless Hawāiians have died without ever having received their promised plot of land. And, even as the state's 1959 constitution mandated that a portion of the revenues generated by lands taken from the Hawaiian people, and ceded to the government, be set aside for their betterment, twen-ty-four years passed before the first payment was made. Today, despite several judicial rulings upholding Hawaiians rights, the goveniment continues to withhold full payment, whieh in real terms represents less than 1 percent of the state's annual budget. Additionally, the few tradition-

al gathering and cultural rights whieh the people preserve, based on centuries of pre-contact subsistence practice, are increasingly threatened by off-shore real estate speculators and their "friends" in the legislature anxious to develop tony resorts and muhi-million dollar playgrounds for the rich and famous. Now, with Rice vs. Cayetano, even the Hawaiians' fundamental right to choose their own leaders is under siege. Yet, as a testament to the kindred spirit of a non-violent nation, like their ancestors who fervently protested America's annexation of their country, many Hawaiians maintain faith in a moial United States that will one day fully restore their status as a self-deter-mined people. And, there is reason for hope. In 1993, Congress passed and the President approved Pubhc Law 103-150, whieh "apologizes to Native Hawaiians on behalf of the people of the United States for the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawai'i on January 17, 1893 with the participation of agents and citizens of the United States, and the deprivation of the rights of Native Hawaiians to self-determination" and further "...expresses its commitment to acknowledge the ramifications of the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawai'i, in order to provide a proper foundation for reconciliation between the United States and the Native Hawaiian people." It is a vital step on the long road to recovery. As "leaders of the free world." Americans are quick to condemn human rights violations in far corners of the world, like Tibet, Kosovo, Jerusalem, China, South Africa and beyond. Yet all the while, within its own borders, captive people still yearn to breathe free." ■ Mahalo, Kēhau, for giving voice to the special and urtique history of our ancestors. You eeho profound sentiments and mana'o of our kūpuna, our 'ohana and all who support justice and fair treatment for indigenous people. E ho'omau kākou. Trustee Apoliona, Trustee DeSoto, Trustee Machado ■ Editor's note: Beneficiaries ean also read a response to the Chavez article by OHA's Puhlie Information Office at www. OHA. org/messages.html

[?]

TRUST EE MESSAGES

|»T?īT>T7>» WĒSSsa3SSSSaĒm

[?]