CRYSTAL BALL CRITICS OF HAWAIIANS

Winona E. Rubin

The future for Native Hawaiians and its impact upon people of Hawaiʻi has been the topic of media attention through feature articles and letters from members of the public, especially concentrated within the past several months. The immediate focus has been on the possible passage of S. 147, Native Hawaiian Government Re-organization Act of 2005, by the U.S. Congress before the end of this year.

There have been dire “crystal ball” predictions as to how badly Hawaiians will treat other people in this state and what major negative outcomes upon the economy of the State of Hawaiʻi and its residents will occur if S.147 is enacted into law. The race issue (not appropriate to this legislation which recognizes Hawaiians as the last of three of a “political class of indigenous peoples” in the U.S.) has muddied the discussion. Fear over changing the status quo for dealing with Hawaiians is being ignited and fanned by myopic opponents of this legislation; and the smoke arising from the flames is clouding matters for the unsuspecting citizens, both Hawaiian and non-Hawaiian.

Concerns from some individuals may be due to: (1) fear of the uncertainty of any change in Hawaiʻi, which may be emotionally translated by some as un-American; (2) lack of knowledge of the specifics of the Bill which results in confusion over what can or cannot happen; (3) desire to finally control the assets of existing Hawaiian public and private Trusts through litigation, which could be blocked by S. 147; (4) interest in acquiring and developing Hawaiian ceded lands by delaying passage of S. 147, which calls for the federal and state governments to negotiate with Native Hawaiians over natural resources and monetary assets; (5) mistrust of anything connected to the federal government and its track record in mishandling of indigenous peoples and minorities through such agencies as the U.S. Departments of Interior, Justice, Education, Defense and others; (6) alienation from any form of government being imposed on Hawaiian decision-making and actions affecting Hawaiians, which detracts from the ultimate goal of some advocates for an Independent Hawaiian Nation; (7) property owners who erroneously think that their private property is in danger of being reclaimed by a Hawaiian governing entity; (8) a mistaken fear of the loss of social security and other current benefits; and (9) those who favor termination of all Hawaiian federal entitlement programs regardless of continuing needs . This list is not comprehensive, but successful opposition to S.147 by these non-supporters will have significant impact on the well-being of Hawaiians and all of Hawaiʻi.

Whatever the reason for opposition, those opposing S.147, in essence, support the following negative consequences.

• Adverse court rulings on pending litigation challenging Hawaiian private and public Trusts (Kamehameha Schools, Queen Liliʻuokalani Trust; Office of Hawaiian Affairs; Hawaiian Homes Commission Act/Department of Hawaiian Home Lands) means Hawaiian Trust assets/resources will be endangered.

• Termination of federal programs for Hawaiians, which are based upon the political status of Hawaiians as one of three indigenous peoples in the United States, will leave the State of Hawaiʻi without resources to address the continuing needs of its host population.

• Direct negotiations by a Native Hawaiian governing entity with federal and state governments on long overdue resolution of Hawaiian issues will not happen; consequently, the erosion of Hawaiian lands and resources will escalate, substantially diminishing assets for future generations of Hawaiians.

• Federal agency attention to Hawaiian concerns will be possibly addressed following current American Indian or Alaska Native guidelines, rather than those specifically designed for Native Hawaiians with input from Hawaiians.

Hawaiians and those who understand the historic basis for Hawaiian rights (as expressed by the 1978 State Constitutional Convention and the voters who adopted the constitutional amendments which recognized Native Hawaiians in the State Constitution) should unite in this important common cause. We cannot allow premature focusing on any specific model for future governance nor questions, which must await future discussion and decisions through Hawaiian electorate ratification, to blind us from taking this basic first step to facilitate whatever our electorate may decide as future next steps.

Regardless of our individual uneasiness with changing the status quo, what has existed since the 1978 Constitutional Convention has not worked as we intended. We must change the paradigm, risk some of the uncertainties, trust in the expertise, values and collective wisdom of the good people of Hawaiʻi nei, and, together take the first step (S.147), a less than perfect but timely step, toward a better Hawaiʻi for us all.

The future well-being of our Hawaiʻi home and its people is at stake. Let us not allow the “crystal ball critics” and “fear mongers” to cloud our ability to see and experience the long term benefits to Hawaiians and all of Hawaiʻi nei. E alu like mai kākou, e nā ʻōiwi o Hawaiʻi. (Let us work together, people of Hawaiʻi.)