Ka Wai Ola - Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Volume 17, Number 8, 1 ʻAukake 2000 — Nationhood, OHA and a side order of Rice [ARTICLE+ILLUSTRATION]

Nationhood, OHA and a side order of Rice

T'S WORTH saying again that Freddy Rice has done everyone a favor. You remember that the Supreme Court ruled that all voters ean vote in the OHA elections. Reasonably, one could understand the logic that someday non-Hawaiians may be able to run for OHA tmstee. It's only a

matter 01 time - and a lawsuit has already been filed. So while the delegates to the 1978 Constitutional Convention and the 1980 Legislature may have erred (according to the Supreme Court), we have the opportunity to find other means

of moving Hawaiians (and nonHawaiians) forward to a better prosperity. In a word, that opportunity is status. Status and official recognition from the federal government as in the legislation proposed by Senator Daniel Akaka.

Today, more than 550 indigenous groups of people have already attained recognition from the federal government. While status may not be the panaeea to problems some people eonhnue to endure, stams has its opportunities. For example, many programs funded by Congress ean continue unimpeded.

The Department of Hawaiian Home Lands, a Congressional initiative in 1920, presently is an entitlement for Hawaiians. Alu Like, a federal, state and OHA-funded eeonomie development agency for Hawaiians

ean continue. Papa Ola Lōkahi, a health organization funded by the federal govemment, ean continue. And there are other programs. At minimum, those who eontinue to oppose programs designed to assist Hawaiians will

have to refocus their targets if, and when, status and recognition by the federal government is attained. Unfortunately, there is a miseoneepūon that only Hawaiians benefit from these programs. We forget that nearly every one of us, non-Hawaiian and Hawaiian, is connected. Hawaiians have married non-Hawaiians and therefore, when that Hawaiian is afforded a privilege (like hous-

ing), the non-Hawaiian (and his or her extended family) also benefits. Many homesteaders today are married to non-Hawaiians. Many children of non-Hawaiians married to Hawaiians benefit from the Kamehameha Schools whieh gives preference to Hawaiian children. Many non-Hawaiians benefit when their Hawaiian spouse is trained by Alu Like in starting a business. And when that business is successful everybody benefits through additional tax revenue generated by that business. NonHawaiians benefit from health care afforded to their children or their spouse through early intervention health programs, cancer screening programs or pre-natal programs offered through Hawaiian health agencies. Many Hawaiians married to non-Hawaiians have relatives who receive benefits through government or OHA programs. For example, OHA funds the Native Hawaiian Legal Corporation whieh htigates matters where land is under dispute. Needless

to say, non-Hawaiians who are related through maniage, or are part of an extended family, benefit if the Hawaiian is able to prove his or her right to land ownership. The real question is whether one beheves Hawaiians are entitled to benefits at ah. The answer to that is whether one beheves the United States is obligated to Hawaiians for the unlawful taking of a kingdom. Evidently Congress and the president of the United States beheve so. Ah one needs to do is read the Joint (Apology) Resolution passed by Congress and signed into law by President Chnton in 1993. So whhe OHA may not be that vessel for a "Hawaiians only" prerogative, that does not diminish the obligation of the United States to repair the taking of a nation in 1893. In point of fact, the Rice case hastens the proper consttuction of a Congressional action whieh wih put to rest the efforts of those who beheve Hawaiians are not entitled to a penny in restitution, reparation or justice. And for that Freddy Rice is to be thanked. ■

'While status may not be the panaeea to problems some people continue to endure, status has its opportunities.'

I ,||||P i|j^B

TRUSTEE MESSAGES

[?]