Ka Wai Ola - Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Volume 17, Number 9, 1 September 2000 — Arakaki vs. State [ARTICLE]

Arakaki vs. State

A suit filed in federal court seeks to dismiss OHA trustees, deny beneficiaries and dissolve the organization as unconstitutional. But the trustees, beneficiaries and OHA already have their own constitutions that helped develop their nation and preserve its customs and practices. Clearly, mueh native support is seen in the giant petition of 1897 to oppose annexation and to retain the constimtional government. The question is what constimtion the suit is referring to, the legitimate one eonceived and bora in Hawai'i or the one visited upon the native vested interest holders? An answer might be found in the 1993 Apology Bill. Vested refers to interests generations of natives earned by sailing thousands of miles arriving with only a handful of the strong and skilled; retracing those voyages to bring back the needed products to make the land productive and habitable; then battling to unify the islands and found that nation under their own constimtions for decades until the 1893 armed intervention. The natives are still here; they never abandoned their rights. The lawsuit reveals the eomplainants have abandoned their origins and heritage and vested interests. It further obliges natives to pursue a goal to be vigilant and seek proper treaty relations with other nations. Louis Buzzy Agard delegate, Native Hawaiian Convention, Honolulu What is missing from the recent lawsuit seeking to overturn the requirements for OHA trustee is aloha, the recognition of respect and responsibility, ancestors and history, and the spirimal connection that binds us, as people of this 'āina. It is sad that Ken Conklin, William Burgess and their compatriots hide their insecurities as settlers, and their laek of aloha in this land behind an invented legal history, as well as an Aloha4All banner that tries to pretend we Hawaiians do not have aloha for all, but that they do. The new carpetbaggers, now advocate for the abolition of "preferepces" for Native Hawaiians. For them, preferential treatment has given Hawaiians a decided advantage, despite our high rates of incarceration, illness, hospitalization and early death! They seek not "equality" but the maintenance of their privilege and position, and the continued suppression of history. But in the

process, they stifle also the aloha whieh they have enjoyed and whieh calls them to this plaee, our sacred plaee. As representatives of their culture they are the epitome of Americanism, whieh is abhorrent to our Hawaiian lifestyle and to our aloha. Nevertheless, we urge a continuation of that whieh sets us apart and makes us dif¥erent, and extend our aloha without reservation - to all, whether they deserve it or not. Lynette Cruz Honolulu

>-fzā— "i ./ n n > ./ A" n / i/ - ' 11 L L n n U L U