Senator Inouye says he has had hearings in Hawai‘i, and that Hawai-
ians supported the bill, but it’s not the same bill it was years ago when
we were dealing with the first draft written by Hawaiians. The truth is
that the reason the support for the original bill was so great was because
Hawaiians wrote the first bill and were allowed to testify at hearings in
Hawai‘i. In Hawai‘i, Senator Dan Inouye made a list of who could testify,
and not more than four groups in opposition were allowed to testify. I
found this out quite a bit later from Aunty Gladys Brandt. I didn’t know
that this happened.
nn: Did you testify on the bill?
mt: Yes, but the way I got to testify was not by invitation from Inouye.
The way I got to testify was I wrote to a senator who came down to
Hawai‘i years ago. He later ran for vice president, a Republican from Ari-
zona, Senator John McCain. I wrote to Senator John McCain. I met him
on Moloka‘i. He and his wife came, we had a meeting over there, and she
was just shocked to find a small group of us from Ka Lähui holding up
signs. The hearing on Moloka‘i excluded Hawaiian people. After that, I
always went to see Senator McCain. He told me, “If I ever get the Chair,
we’ll move something for Hawaiians.”
When the hearing happened on the first bill, Senator Inouye’s clerk, Pat
Zell, told me that I couldn’t testify. I wrote to Senator McCain and his
clerk called me and said, “Senator McCain is taking a position that you
will testify and a memo has gone out requesting that you be allowed to
testify.” That’s how I got to speak. I didn’t know that there were other
Hawaiians who wanted to testify as well. Aunty Gladys Brandt told me
that when she received the notice to prepare testimony she also learned
who was on the list. All the other hearings that they had on the neighbor
islands in Hawai‘i didn’t count. Senator Inouye said the only “official”
one was over there in Washington dc, and the excuse was that Senator
Dan Akaka was having a back operation, so neighbor island hearings
were not “official.”
Then the second version of the “Akaka Bill” came out. No hearings
were held for the Congressional Record in Hawai‘i on the second or sub-
sequent versions of the bill. This second “Akaka Bill” was different from
the first bill. They are all called the “Akaka Bill.” So, they are very craftily
manipulating the Congressional Record. The only people who went up to
testify were the state oha trustees, the state governor, and the state
Department of Hawaiian Home Lands. Nobody who opposed had a
dialogue • wong-wilson 153
chance to participate directly. Nobody could get funding to travel to
Washington dc.
nn: Can you discuss the current version of the bill, s 344?
mt: We have to ask ourselves the question, “Can we salvage anything?”
What we have now in the bill is that the adult Hawaiians will have an
election for an interim government, and the adult Hawaiians will then
certify the list of names, or roll, that the Secretary of Interior will create.
The federal census says there are about 400,000 Hawaiians in the United
States. We know that of the nearly 240,000 Hawaiians who live in
Hawai‘i, 70 percent are age eighteen or older. If 70 percent of the Hawai-
ians who reside on the continent are adults, we have potentially 280,000
Hawaiians scattered across the archipelago and all over the United States.
How the hell are 280,000 people going to get organized and put together
an election? They need to raise the funds, coordinate the election, and
how are they going to certify the roll? How can 280,000 individuals liv-
ing thousands of miles apart implement the bill? Well, those with the
money and those with the organizational mechanisms who are working
with Washington dc will carry the ball by default. Who will that be? oha
and cnha.
When you look at what’s actually happening now, the bill is poorly
written. Who’s making the decisions? Who’s going to certify the roll? The
bill says the adult Hawaiians will. Who’s going to do the elections? The
bill says the adult Hawaiians will.
The nation is not 280,000 individual adult Hawaiians. How can they
establish an enrollment process? The efforts of oha and cnha to enroll
Hawaiians are limited to Hawaiian Home Lands, service agency groups,
and the US continent. And you know, there are so many definitions of
Hawaiians in this bill, you don’t know if you are “native,” “aboriginal,”
or “indigenous.” How many definitions do we need? oha and cnha
claim they want to start out with an “inclusive” definition, but by the time
we get to the roll, we have a definition of Native Hawaiian that is limited
to those who qualify for Hawaiian Home Lands.
“Native Hawaiian” is defined in three parts. The general definition is:
Native Hawaiians are the indigenous, native people, direct lineal descen-
dants of those who resided here in 1893, who exercised sovereignty, and
whose ancestors were eligible for Hawaiian Home Lands in 1921. In
order to meet this definition, the only people automatically included were
those who were on the state’s Hawaiian Home Lands list. Even the Wall
154 the contemporary pacific • 17:1 (2005)
Street Journal has run articles on how the Hawaiian Home Lands were
awarded to those with political pull. The bill says that only these Hawai-
ians who can prove that their ancestors occupied and exercised sover-
eignty in Hawai‘i prior to 1893 can participate. It is unclear how Hawai-
ians are expected to prove this. It is doubtful that any Hawaiian has an
election ballot stub from their great-grandfather.
Do you know the story of our Royal Hawaiian Band? There was a
famous Royal Hawaiian Band. And then, in 1893, suddenly, the Royal
Hawaiian Band was no more. Why? Because the members of the Royal
Hawaiian Band would not sign the oath of loyalty, and because they
never signed, the Royal Hawaiian Band was disbanded; they wouldn’t
swear an oath of loyalty against the queen in support of the US provi-
sional government. So the oath of loyalty was signed by haoles and trai-
tors to the queen. It is doubtful that any Hawaiian today can prove they
exercised sovereignty by supporting the overthrow! How many Hawaiians
do you think will do research to come up with their “proof”? How many
Hawaiians do you think can do this?
nn: What can we do as individual Hawaiians to change this process?
mt: What strategy do we take as Hawaiians? Do we boycott it? Do we
participate and try to counter-organize? We could make our own roll. We
could run independent candidates. We could run Kingdom candidates. We
could get a hundred Hawaiians to sign up and then we could write a con-
stitution. I know, because I wrote a constitution for Ka Lähui Hawai‘i, and
we went through several constitutional conventions. Ka Lähui has a damn
good constitution, but is anybody going to be there to talk about it? A
boycott is just what the United States wants. They want the leaders who
are on the pork-barrel line to be the leaders of this nation. Do we go along
with it? Are we getting co-opted by participating in the process that we
know ourselves has already excluded our people? How the hell can we
participate in the damn thing? How can we not participate in it, know-
ing where it is going, looking at the poverty of our people? What are we
supposed to do? Just in the last two months, several groups have been
involved in this discussion. We haven’t made the Congressional Record
about where our people are on this issue. We haven’t had the chance to
testify on these bills. Just in the last few months, several groups have been
involved in this discussion.
When oha and cnha announced they were enrolling people into the
“Akaka” nation on 17 January 2004, many Hawai‘i leaders moved to
dialogue • wong-wilson 155
oppose the effort. A working group on self-determination was formed to
counter the oha /cnha effort with a proposal for a community-based
coalition to support sovereignty rather than the flawed “Akaka Bill.” On
28 February 2004, at a meeting between the oha-appointed cnha Advi-
sory Council and the Native Hawaiian Working Group on Self-Determi-
nation, Hawaiian leaders rejected the advisory body and supported the
creation of a community-based coalition. The oha board, however, con-
tinues to support exclusivity and has spent an estimated three million dol-
lars lobbying for the measure. In March 2004, oha began a series of
“Hawaiian Parties” on the US continent, featuring free food and Hawai-
ian music, for anyone willing to enroll in the “Akaka” nation.
* * *
Postscript: The “Akaka Bill” continues to languish in the US Senate. Another
version of s 344 was drafted for introduction to the US Congress, but as of July
2004, the bill had not been reintroduced for a floor vote. Supporters are con-
cerned that the bill is being purposely stalled by opponents who have convinced
some Senators to withhold their support. [For more on the “Akaka Bill,” see the
article by J Këhaulani Kauanui, this issue, pages 1–27.]
Notes
1 The Rice case is a lawsuit, which prevailed in the US Supreme Court, claim-
ing that the Hawaiians-only voting policy for trustees of the Office of Hawaiian
Affairs constituted racial discrimination. In 2000, the oha trustees chose to
resign en masse. State Governor Benjamin Cayetano named interim trustees,
including the first non-Hawaiian on the board. Mililani Trask lost her subsequent
bid to regain a seat on the board.
2 The “Akaka Bill” refers to federal legislation that proposes to provide fed-
eral recognition for Native Hawaiians. Several versions of the bill have been cir-
culated in the community for comment. A current version of s 344 proposes to
establish US federal recognition for Native Hawaiians and to set up a process for
creating a Native Hawaiian governing entity.
3 Alu Like, Inc, is a Native Hawaiian organization that provides health and
social support services to Native Hawaiian communities.
4 In 1978, the Hawai‘i State Legislature convened a constitutional conven-
tion. It was most noted for creating a series of legislative bills that established
Native Hawaiian programs and rights, including the Office of Hawaiian Affairs.
The Con-Con has not been convened since.
156 the contemporary pacific • 17:1 (2005)
5 The State of Hawai‘i claimed ownership of Sand Island, a ten-acre dredged
landfill used as a seaplane runway during World War II. In 1979, over 100 Hawai-
ian families who maintained a fishing lifestyle there were evicted from their homes
by the state, to make way for development. This conflict brought the issue of the
state’s abuse of the Ceded Lands Trust to the forefront of public attention.
6 The term “ceded lands” refers to Crown lands that were claimed by the Pro-
visional Government after the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawai‘i. These lands
were subsequently transferred to the Republic of Hawai‘i and eventually were
incorporated into the State of Hawai‘i under the Statehood Act in 1959. These
lands, which consist of approximately two million acres, are supposed to be held
in trust for the Native Hawaiian people and are not supposed to be sold, traded,
or otherwise disposed of by the State of Hawai‘i. Many Native Hawaiian groups
have criticized the State of Hawai‘i for breaching the trust by illegally selling and
transferring these assets. Twenty percent of the revenues from ceded lands are
supposed to be paid to the Office of Hawaiian Affairs; however, the state has
failed to account for all of the assets and revenues from the Ceded Lands Trust
and is several million dollars in arrears. The issue has not been reconciled.
7 Frenchy DeSoto was instrumental in forming the Office of Hawaiian Affairs
and served as trustee for twenty years, since its beginnings. She resigned from
office in 2000 along with all the other trustees, in response to the federal Supreme
Court determination that non-Hawaiians should be allowed to vote and run in
the oha trustee elections.
8 In 1921, the US Congress approved the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act
of 1920, which set aside approximately 200,000 acres of land for the rehabilita-
tion of native Hawaiians. Homesteaders are required to prove that they have a
minimum of 50 percent native Hawaiian blood.
9 The 1993 “Apology Resolution” (Public Law 103-150, signed by President
Bill Clinton) in part recognizes that “the indigenous Hawaiian people never
directly relinquished their claims to their inherent sovereignty as a people or over
their national lands to the United States, either through their monarchy or
through a plebiscite or referendum” and “apologizes to Native Hawaiians on
behalf of the people of the United States for the overthrow of the Kingdom of
Hawaii on January 17, 1893 with the participation of agents and citizens of the
United States, and the deprivation of the rights of Native Hawaiians to self-
determination.” The resolution calls for the reconciliation process to begin.
10 The Council for Native Hawaiian Advancement was formed in May 2001
to promote the advancement of Native Hawaiians through empowerment and
informational initiatives.
ians supported the bill, but it’s not the same bill it was years ago when
we were dealing with the first draft written by Hawaiians. The truth is
that the reason the support for the original bill was so great was because
Hawaiians wrote the first bill and were allowed to testify at hearings in
Hawai‘i. In Hawai‘i, Senator Dan Inouye made a list of who could testify,
and not more than four groups in opposition were allowed to testify. I
found this out quite a bit later from Aunty Gladys Brandt. I didn’t know
that this happened.
nn: Did you testify on the bill?
mt: Yes, but the way I got to testify was not by invitation from Inouye.
The way I got to testify was I wrote to a senator who came down to
Hawai‘i years ago. He later ran for vice president, a Republican from Ari-
zona, Senator John McCain. I wrote to Senator John McCain. I met him
on Moloka‘i. He and his wife came, we had a meeting over there, and she
was just shocked to find a small group of us from Ka Lähui holding up
signs. The hearing on Moloka‘i excluded Hawaiian people. After that, I
always went to see Senator McCain. He told me, “If I ever get the Chair,
we’ll move something for Hawaiians.”
When the hearing happened on the first bill, Senator Inouye’s clerk, Pat
Zell, told me that I couldn’t testify. I wrote to Senator McCain and his
clerk called me and said, “Senator McCain is taking a position that you
will testify and a memo has gone out requesting that you be allowed to
testify.” That’s how I got to speak. I didn’t know that there were other
Hawaiians who wanted to testify as well. Aunty Gladys Brandt told me
that when she received the notice to prepare testimony she also learned
who was on the list. All the other hearings that they had on the neighbor
islands in Hawai‘i didn’t count. Senator Inouye said the only “official”
one was over there in Washington dc, and the excuse was that Senator
Dan Akaka was having a back operation, so neighbor island hearings
were not “official.”
Then the second version of the “Akaka Bill” came out. No hearings
were held for the Congressional Record in Hawai‘i on the second or sub-
sequent versions of the bill. This second “Akaka Bill” was different from
the first bill. They are all called the “Akaka Bill.” So, they are very craftily
manipulating the Congressional Record. The only people who went up to
testify were the state oha trustees, the state governor, and the state
Department of Hawaiian Home Lands. Nobody who opposed had a
dialogue • wong-wilson 153
chance to participate directly. Nobody could get funding to travel to
Washington dc.
nn: Can you discuss the current version of the bill, s 344?
mt: We have to ask ourselves the question, “Can we salvage anything?”
What we have now in the bill is that the adult Hawaiians will have an
election for an interim government, and the adult Hawaiians will then
certify the list of names, or roll, that the Secretary of Interior will create.
The federal census says there are about 400,000 Hawaiians in the United
States. We know that of the nearly 240,000 Hawaiians who live in
Hawai‘i, 70 percent are age eighteen or older. If 70 percent of the Hawai-
ians who reside on the continent are adults, we have potentially 280,000
Hawaiians scattered across the archipelago and all over the United States.
How the hell are 280,000 people going to get organized and put together
an election? They need to raise the funds, coordinate the election, and
how are they going to certify the roll? How can 280,000 individuals liv-
ing thousands of miles apart implement the bill? Well, those with the
money and those with the organizational mechanisms who are working
with Washington dc will carry the ball by default. Who will that be? oha
and cnha.
When you look at what’s actually happening now, the bill is poorly
written. Who’s making the decisions? Who’s going to certify the roll? The
bill says the adult Hawaiians will. Who’s going to do the elections? The
bill says the adult Hawaiians will.
The nation is not 280,000 individual adult Hawaiians. How can they
establish an enrollment process? The efforts of oha and cnha to enroll
Hawaiians are limited to Hawaiian Home Lands, service agency groups,
and the US continent. And you know, there are so many definitions of
Hawaiians in this bill, you don’t know if you are “native,” “aboriginal,”
or “indigenous.” How many definitions do we need? oha and cnha
claim they want to start out with an “inclusive” definition, but by the time
we get to the roll, we have a definition of Native Hawaiian that is limited
to those who qualify for Hawaiian Home Lands.
“Native Hawaiian” is defined in three parts. The general definition is:
Native Hawaiians are the indigenous, native people, direct lineal descen-
dants of those who resided here in 1893, who exercised sovereignty, and
whose ancestors were eligible for Hawaiian Home Lands in 1921. In
order to meet this definition, the only people automatically included were
those who were on the state’s Hawaiian Home Lands list. Even the Wall
154 the contemporary pacific • 17:1 (2005)
Street Journal has run articles on how the Hawaiian Home Lands were
awarded to those with political pull. The bill says that only these Hawai-
ians who can prove that their ancestors occupied and exercised sover-
eignty in Hawai‘i prior to 1893 can participate. It is unclear how Hawai-
ians are expected to prove this. It is doubtful that any Hawaiian has an
election ballot stub from their great-grandfather.
Do you know the story of our Royal Hawaiian Band? There was a
famous Royal Hawaiian Band. And then, in 1893, suddenly, the Royal
Hawaiian Band was no more. Why? Because the members of the Royal
Hawaiian Band would not sign the oath of loyalty, and because they
never signed, the Royal Hawaiian Band was disbanded; they wouldn’t
swear an oath of loyalty against the queen in support of the US provi-
sional government. So the oath of loyalty was signed by haoles and trai-
tors to the queen. It is doubtful that any Hawaiian today can prove they
exercised sovereignty by supporting the overthrow! How many Hawaiians
do you think will do research to come up with their “proof”? How many
Hawaiians do you think can do this?
nn: What can we do as individual Hawaiians to change this process?
mt: What strategy do we take as Hawaiians? Do we boycott it? Do we
participate and try to counter-organize? We could make our own roll. We
could run independent candidates. We could run Kingdom candidates. We
could get a hundred Hawaiians to sign up and then we could write a con-
stitution. I know, because I wrote a constitution for Ka Lähui Hawai‘i, and
we went through several constitutional conventions. Ka Lähui has a damn
good constitution, but is anybody going to be there to talk about it? A
boycott is just what the United States wants. They want the leaders who
are on the pork-barrel line to be the leaders of this nation. Do we go along
with it? Are we getting co-opted by participating in the process that we
know ourselves has already excluded our people? How the hell can we
participate in the damn thing? How can we not participate in it, know-
ing where it is going, looking at the poverty of our people? What are we
supposed to do? Just in the last two months, several groups have been
involved in this discussion. We haven’t made the Congressional Record
about where our people are on this issue. We haven’t had the chance to
testify on these bills. Just in the last few months, several groups have been
involved in this discussion.
When oha and cnha announced they were enrolling people into the
“Akaka” nation on 17 January 2004, many Hawai‘i leaders moved to
dialogue • wong-wilson 155
oppose the effort. A working group on self-determination was formed to
counter the oha /cnha effort with a proposal for a community-based
coalition to support sovereignty rather than the flawed “Akaka Bill.” On
28 February 2004, at a meeting between the oha-appointed cnha Advi-
sory Council and the Native Hawaiian Working Group on Self-Determi-
nation, Hawaiian leaders rejected the advisory body and supported the
creation of a community-based coalition. The oha board, however, con-
tinues to support exclusivity and has spent an estimated three million dol-
lars lobbying for the measure. In March 2004, oha began a series of
“Hawaiian Parties” on the US continent, featuring free food and Hawai-
ian music, for anyone willing to enroll in the “Akaka” nation.
* * *
Postscript: The “Akaka Bill” continues to languish in the US Senate. Another
version of s 344 was drafted for introduction to the US Congress, but as of July
2004, the bill had not been reintroduced for a floor vote. Supporters are con-
cerned that the bill is being purposely stalled by opponents who have convinced
some Senators to withhold their support. [For more on the “Akaka Bill,” see the
article by J Këhaulani Kauanui, this issue, pages 1–27.]
Notes
1 The Rice case is a lawsuit, which prevailed in the US Supreme Court, claim-
ing that the Hawaiians-only voting policy for trustees of the Office of Hawaiian
Affairs constituted racial discrimination. In 2000, the oha trustees chose to
resign en masse. State Governor Benjamin Cayetano named interim trustees,
including the first non-Hawaiian on the board. Mililani Trask lost her subsequent
bid to regain a seat on the board.
2 The “Akaka Bill” refers to federal legislation that proposes to provide fed-
eral recognition for Native Hawaiians. Several versions of the bill have been cir-
culated in the community for comment. A current version of s 344 proposes to
establish US federal recognition for Native Hawaiians and to set up a process for
creating a Native Hawaiian governing entity.
3 Alu Like, Inc, is a Native Hawaiian organization that provides health and
social support services to Native Hawaiian communities.
4 In 1978, the Hawai‘i State Legislature convened a constitutional conven-
tion. It was most noted for creating a series of legislative bills that established
Native Hawaiian programs and rights, including the Office of Hawaiian Affairs.
The Con-Con has not been convened since.
156 the contemporary pacific • 17:1 (2005)
5 The State of Hawai‘i claimed ownership of Sand Island, a ten-acre dredged
landfill used as a seaplane runway during World War II. In 1979, over 100 Hawai-
ian families who maintained a fishing lifestyle there were evicted from their homes
by the state, to make way for development. This conflict brought the issue of the
state’s abuse of the Ceded Lands Trust to the forefront of public attention.
6 The term “ceded lands” refers to Crown lands that were claimed by the Pro-
visional Government after the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawai‘i. These lands
were subsequently transferred to the Republic of Hawai‘i and eventually were
incorporated into the State of Hawai‘i under the Statehood Act in 1959. These
lands, which consist of approximately two million acres, are supposed to be held
in trust for the Native Hawaiian people and are not supposed to be sold, traded,
or otherwise disposed of by the State of Hawai‘i. Many Native Hawaiian groups
have criticized the State of Hawai‘i for breaching the trust by illegally selling and
transferring these assets. Twenty percent of the revenues from ceded lands are
supposed to be paid to the Office of Hawaiian Affairs; however, the state has
failed to account for all of the assets and revenues from the Ceded Lands Trust
and is several million dollars in arrears. The issue has not been reconciled.
7 Frenchy DeSoto was instrumental in forming the Office of Hawaiian Affairs
and served as trustee for twenty years, since its beginnings. She resigned from
office in 2000 along with all the other trustees, in response to the federal Supreme
Court determination that non-Hawaiians should be allowed to vote and run in
the oha trustee elections.
8 In 1921, the US Congress approved the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act
of 1920, which set aside approximately 200,000 acres of land for the rehabilita-
tion of native Hawaiians. Homesteaders are required to prove that they have a
minimum of 50 percent native Hawaiian blood.
9 The 1993 “Apology Resolution” (Public Law 103-150, signed by President
Bill Clinton) in part recognizes that “the indigenous Hawaiian people never
directly relinquished their claims to their inherent sovereignty as a people or over
their national lands to the United States, either through their monarchy or
through a plebiscite or referendum” and “apologizes to Native Hawaiians on
behalf of the people of the United States for the overthrow of the Kingdom of
Hawaii on January 17, 1893 with the participation of agents and citizens of the
United States, and the deprivation of the rights of Native Hawaiians to self-
determination.” The resolution calls for the reconciliation process to begin.
10 The Council for Native Hawaiian Advancement was formed in May 2001
to promote the advancement of Native Hawaiians through empowerment and
informational initiatives.
Replies
But read this part taken from above "Well, those with the
money and those with the organizational mechanisms who are working
with Washington dc will carry the ball by default. Who will that be? oha
and cnha.
When you look at what’s actually happening now, the bill is poorly
written. Who’s making the decisions? Who’s going to certify the roll? The
bill says the adult Hawaiians will. Who’s going to do the elections? The
bill says the adult Hawaiians will.
The nation is not 280,000 individual adult Hawaiians. How can they
establish an enrollment process? The efforts of oha and cnha to enroll
Hawaiians are limited to Hawaiian Home Lands, service agency groups,
and the US continent. And you know, there are so many definitions of
Hawaiians in this bill, you don’t know if you are “native,” “aboriginal,”
or “indigenous.” How many definitions do we need? oha and cnha
claim they want to start out with an “inclusive” definition, but by the time
we get to the roll, we have a definition of Native Hawaiian that is limited
to those who qualify for Hawaiian Home Lands."
The military already asserted their 'inclusive' policy on May 10th(?) 2011, I believe that is where we are headed for budgeting the clean up as a UXO Native Hawaiian Veterans, LLC.