Ka Wai Ola - Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Volume 25, Number 2, 1 Pepeluali 2008 — Tvranny and iwi exposed [ARTICLE+ILLUSTRATION]

Tvranny and iwi exposed

By Alika Pae Silva Editor's note: Alika Poe Silva is Kahu Kulāiwi, Koa Mana, Kupukaaina o Wai'anae wahi pana, O'ahu, Hawaiian Naūonal. The views expressed in this eommunity forum do not necessarily reflect the views of the Office of Hawaiian Ajfairs. Re: Federal law Section 106 traditional cultural property (TCP) Model Paradigm versus the Sites Model, and why TCPs are hidden in the State of Hawai'i's Environmental Law! Aloha and mahalo 'ohana for your support in our series of concerns. Original inhabitant kūpuna practiced aloha 'āina, they lived it and knew and taught us traditions and moral values that would benefit the entire world. Both the U.S. military and State of Hawai'i play an iimnoral shell game concerning our 'ohana's burial sites and nahonal treasures. The procedures of historic preservation in Hawai 'i are an ill illusion, whieh is conducted according to what they eall the Sites Model. It does not truly serve the interest of the Hawaiian people and/or environment. As it is practiced in the State of Hawai'i (SOH), in fact, "historic preservation" should be more accurately called "historic mitigation." Facts show, the Sites Model primarily serves the interests of corporate developers and prolonged illegal military oeeupation — not Hawaiians, preservationists or preservation. We are not suggesting that all developers or developments are bad, simply that we should onee and for all dispense with the illusion that the system is designed primarily to preserve and protect cultural and natural resources! Rather, it is designed to inunorally facilitate development for corporate profits and militarism by way of "mitigation." (See TCP Model Study by OHA.) We certainly have a global and a realistic perspective of what is possible and at stake for generations to eome. Remember, 'ohana,

the Ku'e Petition of 1897-1898 is solid consensus against the illegal oeeupahon. Times change, what is considered lawful or acceptable has changed drastically throughout U.S. corporate and military history. (See photo.) For example, at the start of the illegal military oeeupahon of Hawai'i by the U.S. govermnent in 1893, it was illegal for AfricanAmericans and women to vote. One ean think of similar examples of once-legal practices that are no longer acceptable to society (cf. Brown 1970; Churchill and Venne; Pakenham 1991). State TCP language — contrary to widespread opinions, TCPs are defined in the SOH historic preservation and environmental law, although the relevant language needs to be revised, tightened up and clarified. As with federal law and guidelines, upon whieh the state laws and administrative rules are based, TCPs are simply another kind of "historic property" that must be assessed and docmnented. As with all other types of "historic property," mitigation may be necessary if a TCP is adversely affected by a proposed undertaking (i.e., development project of some kind). Project redesign and avoidanee is one kind of mitigation. The ironies of the current situation are that the State Historic Preservation Division is so haphazard, we are unahle, in a timely and efficient manner, to quantify the following statement, whieh we know by experience to be true: that is, virtually only one TCP has been documented in Hawai'i, and there are approximately 30,000 historic properties that were assessed and eligible for inclusion on the State Register of Historic Places to date. Hawaii Revised Statute Chapter 6E ("Historic Preservation") — the pmpose of HRS 6E is to declare and describe the state's constitutional conunitment to a Historic Preservation Program in Hawai'i. Specific language regarding the procedures and practice of historic preservation is located not in the law, but in the administrative rules

(HAR), whieh act as guidelines to implementing the law. There are two relevant sets of historic preservation rules in the HAR: 13-275 and 13-264. It may surprise the reader to learn that the tenn "TCP" does not appear in either of these two sets of rules, or anywhere else in HRS 6E or any other set of historic preservation rules in Hawai'i. As we have

shown above, however, the definition of TCP occurs in both HAR 13-275 andHAR 13-264. To reiterate, according to both sets of rules, a "historic property" may be eligible for inclusion on the historic register under criterion "e," whieh states that it has

"an important value to the native Hawaiian people or to another ethnic group of the state due to associations with cultmal practices onee carried out, or still carried out, at the property or due associations with traditional beliefs, events or oral accounts — these associations being important to the group's history and euhmal identity.

The only mention of TCP in State of Hawai'i law is purposely hidden in enviromnental law. This is not an insignificant issue. It is a laek of morality by the United States deliberately playing their shell game to force assimilation of Hawaiians. Dear 'ohana, what would our Queen Lili'uokalani say? Set Hawai'i free, America! 'Ohana, raise your voice and eall upon OHA to ensme that the term "traditional euhmal property" (TCP) be written into their administrative rules (HAR 13-275, 13-264 and 13-284) and, note their specific status and nnportance into their law until om Hawaiian Kingdom is restored. We have more to talk about regarding TCP law and facts aboutmorality. Mahalo nuito KWO. Remember, 'ohana, eall OHA and raise yom voice, for our Hawaiian Nation State, illegally occupied in 1893 and to date! Akua lako 'ohana. Stay tuned for part four. This is the third in a series of commentaries. I

KŪKĀKŪKĀ • COMMUNIĪY FDRUM

What is considered lawful or acceptūble hos changed dramatically throughout histoiy, ūs exemplified in fhis 1 829 slavery ad.