Ka Wai Ola - Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Volume 24, Number 10, 1 October 2007 — The second overthrow? [ARTICLE+ILLUSTRATION]

The second overthrow?

The continuing and increasingly vigorous attacks on the Hawaiian Home Lands program, the Akaka Bill, the Office of Hawaiian Affairs and federal entitlements for Native Hawaiians have caused me to wonder if we are watching history repeat itself. You all know the history. Before the overthrow, the haole community in the Hawaiian Islands, supported by a small group of Native Hawaiians, festered over their inability to control public affairs and the Hawaiian government. The sugar interests, particularly, needed that control in order to assure lower American tariffs on their exports. They also sought wider fee-simple ownership of land. When it became clear to them that Queen Lili'uokalani was determined to disavow the "bayonet constitution" that they had forced upon King Kalākaua, they formed the "Committee for Annexation" of the islands to the United States. Later, when they learned that the queen was determined to regain control of the government, the group became the "Committee of Safety" and successfully overthrew the lawful government. But after that, strange things happened. Congress developed a public eonscience, and, in 1920, enacted the Hawaiian Homes Act. Despite its shortcomings, that legislation provided at least some relief to Native Hawaiians. In 1959, the statehood Admission Act guaranteed Native Hawaiians a one-fifth share of revenues from ceded lands returned to the state by the Admissions Act. Since then, Congress has enacted considerable legislation that has accorded Native Hawaiians the same kinds of entitlements as enjoyed by American Indians in matters of education, housing and health. In 1980, the state's voting population affirmed the 1978 Hawai'i Constitutional Convention's estab-

lishment of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. These attempts to provide justice to Native Hawaiians have incensed a cabal of libertarians, neo-conser-vatives and so-called "color blind" reactionaries. This group is attempting to engineer another overthrow - this time of those programs. Their actions are akin to those of the Committee of Safety. The crux of their argument is that the Native Hawaiian entitlement programs are based on race, not on the indigenous standing of the Native Hawaiian people; therefore, they are unconstitutional and contrary to the civil rights statutes of the United States. And their movement is not directed only against Native Hawaiians; it is growing in strength across the country in those states where there are programs for improvement of the status of American Indians. I believe the truth of the matter to be that they are deeply troubled because those programs give Native Hawaiians and American Indians sorely needed assistance in gaining the education and skills to compete with those groups that control the economy and the government of the United States. Those programs also provide a means for the indigenous peoples to obtain better housing conditions and improve the condition of their health. But the real irony is the cabal's argument that programs to assist the indigenous peoples within the United States, such as I referred to earlier, are contrary to our country's civil rights statutes. They blithely argue that the entitlements programs discriminate in favor of Native Hawaiians and violate the terms of those statutes. Their argument blatantly ignores the facts of history: that those statutes were enacted to assist minorities, such as Native Hawaiians, in their battles to achieve equality with the white majority. To use the statutes to attack the entitlement programs for indigenous peoples is to stand the law on its head. I cannot close without referring to their argument that they are trying to ensure that we are all "color blind." I'll believe that when they agree that color blind means we all see eaeh other as "brown." m

LEO 'ELELE ■ TRUSTEE M ESSAGES

Walter M. Heen TrustEE, O'ahu