What was given to them was that they were insignificant, their children didn't count as productive citizens and that their male counterparts were the lesser. Did people not know that Department of Hawaiian Home Land (DHHL) forbade native Hawaiian women to hold leases? That was just the very edge of outright mean treatment from those professional and assimilated Hawaiians. Regardless and for the next four years, I sat and watched wives living on DHHL beg Council of Hawaiian Organizations to stop the crime of stealing ceded land monies for themselves for the next four years. It was no longer only about education, it was about the program it self continuing to exist. All involved in the 70s knew than and now were aware that if they continued their plight of the 'usage' of ceded land monies for themselves and outside of the 'bloodquantum' all would be lost!
The Anglo-Saxon such as John Van Dyke and University of Hawaii Law School--sought the opportunity for their land reform. Who really owns the crown lands, became an assertion embedded into the 1812 history dealings with Kamehameha I trade agreements and Boston business men Nathan and Jonathan Winship children of Jonathan, Sr., a wealthy ship owner of Brighton, Massachusetts.
The native women of DHHL with no voice again sought issue with COHO over the gathering rights that they themselves native Hawaiian women used to supplemented their table food. Gathering limu, shoreline fishing and stream gathering was a way to increase the volume of food to feed their families. Growing gardens and chickens were also too necessary to survive their spouses’ unemployment times.
What had happened in the 1920s the Woman Suffrage became grounding for the university to reform land usage and their state's land court decisions. The Anglo-Saxon women and their COHO supporters volleyed violently with native Hawaiian women that were raising their children on DHHL during the 70s. These women from the Hawaii's League of Voters did many counter punches with native Hawaiian women. For many of them, native Hawaiian women did not vote, therefore, voting was not their power hand.
Native Hawaiian women power was in raising their children on DHHL. For the Anglo-Saxon Women--power and voting lay within their social Hawaiian Civic Club which was a powerful tool. Native Hawaiian women on DHHL got caught in this web of normal distribution of 'votes' and general public necessities.
Basically, what seems as a solution to native Hawaiian women according to Alapaki Nahale-a is that they the native Hawaiian women should raise their children in a fisherman's shack, or a 'Kauhale'. Is this a solution for the 40,000 on the wait list--it seems so!
In 1974, the wait list for Hawaiian Homestead was considered insignificant at 3,000. In five to ten years from today, that list of native Hawaiians will reach 100,000 wait listed families. A common kitchen facility for multi families is not only a proposal that is insulting, but it generates unforeseen social 'ills' that would be life threatening for our Na Kupuna with 50% plus bloodquantum. For our Na Kupuna which I have experienced would not have a voice to cohesively stabilize their family unity. The normal distribution will out caste the Na Kupuna from their central and natural place within the family unit. State social services will instantly displace the wisdom of our elderly. DHHL state access to an elderly social security check to pay for the 'lean too' a design to replace a dwelling design of a single family home is the directors approach to property tax exemptions.
The 'lean too' or common area on DHHL may seem normal to outside Anglo Saxon-but is it really? There are other factors of power in play. The recent Happy Hawaiian Recreational Fishermen--a shoreline management recommendations are hardly the match up for what native Hawaiian women practiced in the 70s and times before that. To preserve the common areas as non taxable, but belonging to DHHL as the tax exempt entity does not give solutions to the Na Kupuna heredity of gifted family members. A fisherman's shack lacks dignity and basically is insulting!
Given the higher probability there may be higher numbers of civility at the voting booth are what is to be expected by the Women League of Voters. Families in a political sense are swing voters. It is not uncommon to give a few paid organizers a body of volunteers the power to move people to a social rally in the Hawaiian community. It is of my opinion given my experience of the 70s--what the actual goal is for native Hawaiian women are to replace their educational contention for a 'lean too' on DHHL. I strongly believe that the Judges can be persuaded to note that there is equality achievement among native women at the voting booth. Poorly argued I agree, however, democracy is preserved
Final Briefs In Hawaii SCOTUS Case: Is The Hawaiian Homes Property Tax Exemption Racial Discrimination?
Robert Thomas
At its December 9, 2011 conference, the U.S. Supreme Court will consider whether to review Corboy v. Louie, No. 11-336 (cert. petition filed Sep. 15, 2011). That's the case seeking review of the Hawaii Supreme Court's opinion which concluded that challengers to the property tax exemptions conferred on lessees of Hawaiian Homesteads lacked standing to bring suit.
Some background. Only "native Hawaiians" are eligible to lease homestead land, and thus only those possessing the appropriate blood quantum are entitled to the property tax exemptions. The Hawaii court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction, holding the petitioners lacked standing to challenge the exemption since they had not sought homestead leases (leases for which they were ineligible because they are not native Hawaiians).
The challengers filed a cert petition (posted here), asking the Court to review this Question Presented:
In Rice v. Cayetano, 528 U.S. 495 (2000), this Court held that a state classification of voters according to whether they are "any descendant of not less than one-half part of the blood of the races inhabiting the Hawaiian Islands previous to 1778" was an impermissible racial classification under the Fifteenth Amendment. Respondents have employed the same classification to determine whether a taxpayer is eligible for certain long-term leases that entitle lessees to significant tax exemptions. No equivalent exemption is available to petitioners because they do not fall within that racial classification.
Petitioners paid their taxes under protest and then sought refunds from their respective counties on the ground that their tax bills resulted from a racial classification inconsistent with the Constitution. The Hawaii courts declined to apply Rice or subject the classification to strict scrutiny. The question presented here is:
Whether the Hawaii courts erred in failing to recognize that petitioners have standing to seek a refund of their own taxes and that the Equal Protection Clause precludes a State or municipality from creating tax exemptions that are available only to members of a certain race.
Because the petition draws into question the constitutionality of the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act and the constitutionality of a part of the Hawaii Admission Act, the U.S. Solicitor General was served a copy, but the SG has not weighed in.
Here are all of the briefs filed in the case:
- The cert petition
- State of Hawaii's Brief in Opposition
- Petitioners' Reply Brief
We'll keep following this case. Look for the results of the Court's conference on December 12, 2011.
Replies