GrassrootWiki - User contributions [en]

Correcting Kinzer

2007-06-27T08:06:30Z

Ken Conklin: /* Sugar planters? */

Stephen Kinzer's book, ''Overthrow: America's Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq'', attempts to trace a line from the Hawaiian Revolution of 1893 to the Iraq War of 2003. Without passing judgment on the material in his book regarding places other than Hawaii, it seems Kinzer has drawn upon a mistaken view of the history of the Hawaiian Islands, and has unfortunately muddied the already brackish waters of the past. This page will help sort out factual errors presented by Kinzer, and hopefully be a reference for clarifying the historical record.

==Sugar planters?==
On page 4, Kinzer states:
<blockquote>''The influence that economic power exercises over American foreign policy has grown tremendously since the days when ambitious planters in Hawaii realized that by bringing their islands into the United States, they would be able to send their sugar to markets on the mainland without paying import duties.''.<ref>Kinzer, Overthrow, p4</ref></blockquote>

Although catchy, and certainly reasonable on its face, his statement suffers from several problems.

The sugar issue in the late 1890s due to the passage of the McKinley Tarriff did not add any import duties to Hawaiian sugar - in fact, it eliminated all duties on all foreign sugar. This did have a deleterious effect in Hawaii, but only because it undermined a previous advantage held by Hawaiian sugar producers granted by the Reciprocity Treaty of 1874. Annexation to the United States was a double-edged sword for Hawaiian sugar, because on the one hand, they would enjoy a 2 cent per pound bounty as "domestic" producers - but then they would also be subject to U.S. labor laws and regulations, whereas under the kingdom they were unfettered by such concerns. A very prominent sugar baron, Claus Spreckels aka "King Spreckels", was a staunch royalist, and to assert that all Hawaiian sugar planters were of one mind on the matter is deceptive.

Richard D. Weigle wrote a piece, [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0030-8684%28194702%2916%3A1%3C41%3ASATHR%3E2.0.CO%3B2-I Sugar and the Hawaiian Revolution] in the February 1947 Pacific Historical Review, stating:

<blockquote>''In actual fact the planters comprised a vigorous bloc of opinion opposing annexation to the United States, and the key to their attitude lies in their dependence upon contract labor. Annexation to the United States would mean conformity to American immigration legislation and the cessation of the influx of laborers from Asiatic countries so necessary to the life of the plantations.''<ref>Wiegle, The Pacific Historical Review, Vol. 16, No. 1. (Feb., 1947), p.47 [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0030-8684%28194702%2916%3A1%3C41%3ASATHR%3E2.0.CO%3B2-I Sugar and the Hawaiian Revolution]</ref></blockquote>

Weigle further states:

<blockquote>''we may at the at the outset discard the thesis that the revolution was an attempt by the Hawaiian planters to secure the domestic bounty...the elusive bounty would not have gone to the Hawaiian planters it its entirety...The planters probably realized that its continuance was extremely uncertain.''<ref>Wiegle, The Pacific Historical Review, Vol. 16, No. 1. (Feb., 1947), p.46-47 [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0030-8684%28194702%2916%3A1%3C41%3ASATHR%3E2.0.CO%3B2-I Sugar and the Hawaiian Revolution]</ref></blockquote>

After closely examining the positions of the eight major sugar planters and investors of 1893, Weigle comes to the conclusion:

<blockquote>''The revolution was certainly not a sugar planters' revolution. Of the eight leading planters in the islands three proved to be actively antagonistic to annexation - Spreckels, Davies, and Isenberg. Irwin preferred the old status in the islands and was away from Hawaii when the monarchy was overthrown. Evidence on Alexander is lacking, but his name is nowhere mentioned in the annals of the revolution. Baldwin opposed unconstitutional action until the last, then joined the annexationists because he felt the need for good government. Spalding, the only unreserved American annexationist among the planters, was out of the islands at the time. Young participated in the revolution, though not as one of the original promoters. Like Baldwin, he based his position on the need for stable government.''<ref>Wiegle, The Pacific Historical Review, Vol. 16, No. 1. (Feb., 1947), p.53 [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0030-8684%28194702%2916%3A1%3C41%3ASATHR%3E2.0.CO%3B2-I Sugar and the Hawaiian Revolution]</ref></blockquote>

==A shocking announcement?==
On page 9, Kinzer states:

<blockquote>''on that January day [January 14, 1893] she convened her cabinet to make a shocking announcement. She would proclaim a new constitution...''.<ref>Kinzer, Overthrow, p9</ref></blockquote>

On the other hand, Liliuokalani, in her own book, insists that her announcement should not have come as a shock to her newly picked cabinet:

<blockquote>''I was surprised when the cabinet informed me that they did not think it advisable for me to take such a step, that there was danger of an uprising, etc. '''I told them I would not have taken such a step if they had not encouraged me.''' They had led me out to the edge of a precipice, and now were leaving me to take the step alone. It was humiliating. I said, "Why not give the people the constitution, and I will bear the brunt of all the blame afterwards." Mr. Peterson said, "We have not read the constitution." '''I told him he had had it in his possession a whole month.'''''<ref>[http://digital.library.upenn.edu/women/liliuokalani/hawaii/hawaii-7.html#B Hawaii's Story by Hawaii's Queen], Appendix B</ref></blockquote>

==The Great Mahele Conspiracy?==
On page 13, Kinzer implicates the Great Mahele as some vast sugar planter conspiracy, stating:

<blockquote>''In the late 1840s, Amos Starr Cooke helped persuade King Kamehameha III, a former student of his, to proclaim a land reform that pulled away one of the pillars of Hawaiian society...By establishing the principle of land ownership, this reform gave ambitious planters, including many missionaries and sons of missionaries, the legal right to buy as much land as they wished.''<ref>Kinzer, Overthrow, p13</ref></blockquote>

Although arguably ending with tragic consequences for commoners, the Great Mahele was by no means a calculated move to dispossess them. Gavan Daws, noted Hawaiian historian states:

<blockquote>''For the foreigners, certainly, it was the beginning of a new era; but for the Hawaiian commoners it was the beginning of the end. '''In their first exercise of free choice they chose to uproot themselves.''' They were liberated at last from the burdensome tax payments to the chiefs that had kept them tied to the land, and most of them found more interesting things to do than grow taro, which required a long time and a lot of hard work...The Great Mahele, the great division, cut the connection, '''because once the commoner was free to buy land he was also free to sell it, and that was a freedom he understood.'''''<ref>Gavan Daws, Shoal of Time, p128</ref></blockquote>

==References==
<references/>

2007-01-17 Akaka Fact Check

2007-01-31T23:05:56Z

Ken Conklin:

'''SEN. AKAKA:''' Mr. President, I rise today with the senior Senator from Hawai'i to introduce the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2007. This bill which is of great importance to the people of Hawai'i, establishes a process to extend the federal policy of self-governance and self-determination to Hawaii's indigenous people. The bill provides parity in federal policies that empower our country's other indigenous peoples, American Indians and Alaska Natives, to participate in a government-to-government relationship with the United States.

{{correction|No other indigenous group in the United States has ever been given the opportunity to create a race-based government out of thin air. The Akaka Bill is equivalent to giving special rights and privileges to every person with even the smallest amount of Native American ancestry to become a part of some super-tribe that has no historical precedent.}}

Mr. President, January 17, 2007, commemorates the 114th anniversary of Hawai'i's beloved Queen Liliuokalani being deposed. Although this event may seem like a distant memory, it is a poignant event that expedited the decline of a proud and self-governing people. The overthrow facilitated Native Hawaiians being disenfranchised from not only their culture and land, but from their way of life. Native Hawaiians had to endure the forced imprisonment of their Queen and witness the deterioration and near eradication of their culture and tradition in their own homeland at the hands of foreigners committed exclusively to propagating Western values and conventions.

{{correction|1=Queen Liliuokalani reigned over the entire multiracial Hawaiian Kingdom, not just Native Hawaiians. By 1890, Native Hawaiians were a minority in the Kingdom, and to assert that they were a "self-governing" racial group distorts the idea of what "self" was. Hawaii people of all races were self-governing during the Hawaiian Kingdom period, and continue to be so today in the State of Hawaii.

Regarding any disenfranchisement from "culture and land", the westernization of the Hawaiian Kingdom began very early in its history, punctuated by seminal events such the destruction of the old kapu religion by King Liholiho Kamehameha II and regent Queen Kaahumanu in 1819, the arrival of missionaries in 1820, the [http://morganreport.org/mediawiki/index.php?title=Kingdom_of_Hawaii_Constitution_of_1840 first constitution of 1840] and the Great Mahele in 1848. Liliuokalani herself was educated by missionaries, and was very much a product of adaptation beyond the ancient traditions of the islands. The entire Hawaiian island chain was unified with the help of John Young, a british sailor and advisor to Kamehameha the Great. To characterize the propagation of Western values and conventions as anything but voluntary is misleading. Contrary to what Senator Akaka implies, most of the big cultural changes had already taken place decades before the monarchy was overthrown.

It is also important to note that the Queen was not imprisoned until two years after the revolution that overthrew her. She was imprisoned because she conspired with Robert Wilcox in an attempted counter-revolution in 1895. The evidence against her included guns and bombs hidden in the flower bed of her private home at Washington Place, plus documents she had already signed appointing cabinet ministers and department heads to the new government she expected to head.
}}

Today I provide my colleagues with a framework to understand the need for this legislation by briefly reviewing (1) Hawai'i's past, ancient Hawaiian society prior to Western contact, (2) Hawai'i's present, the far reaching consequences of the overthrow, and (3) Hawai'i's future.

'''HAWAI'I'S PAST'''

Few know that Hawai'i was originally settled by Polynesian voyagers arriving as early as 300 A.D, who braved immense distances guided by their extensive knowledge of navigation and understanding of the marine environment. Isolation followed the era of long voyages, enabling Native Hawaiians to develop distinct political, economic, and social structures which were mutually supportive. As stewards of the land and sea, Native Hawaiians were intimately linked to the environment and took cautious care in developing intricate methods of agriculture, aquaculture, navigation and irrigation.

{{comment|Of interesting note is the environmental damage done by Native Hawaiians in regards to the once plentiful sandalwood forests of Hawaii. During the initial phases of contact, the rigid hierarchy of chiefdoms allowed the elite of the islands to exploit the commoners, to trade sandalwood for western trinkets. To place ancient Hawaiians on some sort of pedestal of environmental wisdom is sugar-coating history. As with all humans, ancient Hawaiians negatively impacted their surroundings.}}

'''HAWAI'I"S PRESENT'''

With an influx of foreigners into Hawai'i, Native Hawaiian populations plummeted due to the lack of immunity to common Western diseases. Those that survived witnessed foreign interest and involvement in their government grow until Queen Liliuokalani was forced by American citizens to abdicate her right to the throne.

{{correction|A majority of the 13-member Committee of Safety (leaders who organized the Hawaiian revolution) were native-born or naturalized subjects of the Kingdom. Furthermore, many of the revolution's political leaders and militia-men had no American ancestry. In 1893, President Grover Cleveland's "fact finder" to Hawai'i, James H. Blount, wrote in his report that the 5,500 members of Honolulu's Annexation Club at that time included 1,218 Americans (22 percent of the club); 1,022 Native Hawaiians (19 percent); 251 Englishmen (5 percent); 2,261 Portuguese (41 percent); 69 Norwegians (1 percent); 351 Germans (6 percent), along with 328 persons unclassified but making up the balance.}}

This devastated the Native Hawaiian people, forever tainting the waters of their identity and tattering the very fabric of their society. For some this injustice, this wound has never healed, manifesting itself in a sense of inferiority and hopelessness leaving many Native Hawaiians at the lowest levels of achievement by all social and economic measures.

{{comment|Queen Liliuokalani herself, arguably the most wounded of all, found peace and healing. She eventually saw the annexation of Hawaii to the United States as the best thing that ever happened to the Native Hawaiians. She was a true American patriot before her death, giving orders that the U.S. flag should fly permanently over her residence at Washington Place in honor of Hawaiians lost in U.S. military service in World War I. [The U.S. flag still flies there today]}}

Mr. President, 14 years ago the United States enacted the Apology Resolution (P.L.103-150), which acknowledged the 100th anniversary of the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawai'i in which the United States offered an apology to Native Hawaiians and declared its policy to support reconciliation efforts. This is a landmark declaration for it recognizes not only are Native Hawaiians the indigenous people of Hawai'i, but of the urgent need for the U.S. to actively engage in reconciliation efforts. This acknowledgement played a crucial role in initiating a healing process and although progress has been made, the path ahead is UNCERTAIN.

{{correction|1=The "Apology Resolution" was passed as a symbolic gesture, and due to a complete lack of debate was filled with copious inaccuracies, exaggerations and outright falsehoods. See [http://www.hawaiireporter.com/file.aspx?Guid=aefef5f6-a533-486a-9459-691138355dd1 Hawaii Divided Against Itself Cannot Stand].}}

'''HAWAI'I'S FUTURE'''

Frustration has led to anger and festered in the hearts of Hawaii's younger generations, with each child that is taught about this period of Hawaiian history, a loss is relived. It is a burden that Native Hawaiians since the overthrow continue to carry, to know that they were violated in their own homeland and their governance was ripped away unjustly. Despite the perceived harmony, it is the generation of my grandchildren that is growing impatient and frustrated with the lack of progress being made. Influenced by a deep sadness and growing intolerance, an active minority within this generation seeks independence from the United States.

{{comment|The culture of Native Hawaiian victimhood is a recent development, dating back to the first racial-identity movements of the 1970s. King Kauikeaouli Kamehameha III made two attempts to get Hawaii annexed to the United States, in 1849 and 1854. For nearly 60 years, from 1900-1959, Native Hawaiian leaders and Native Hawaiian people worked to turn the Territory of Hawaii into the State of Hawaii. Finally Statehood was approved by a 94% "Yes" vote in the plebiscite of 1959. All the people of Hawaii have enjoyed more rights as part of the United States than they ever had during the Kingdom period. The active, vocal, and miniscule minority seeking passage of the Akaka bill, or independence, is more concerned about having race-based governance and race-based privileges than anything else.}}

It is for this generation that I work to enact this bill so that there is the structured process to deal with these emotional issues.

{{comment|Perhaps Senator Akaka did not intend his speech to be taken as a threat. Nevertheless, that's what it is. First the Senator reminds us of Native Hawaiian historical grievances (which have been grossly exaggerated and vigorously taught to today's youth). Then he tells us about the frustration and anger of this younger generation. Then he issues his warning that bad things are likely to happen unless the Akaka bill passes. This is indeed a threat, comparable to the hoodlum who tells a restaurant manager he'd better pay protection money so there won't be trouble. Schoolchildren learn the hard way, it's better to stand up to the bully than to keep giving him the lunch money. This is not the first time high-profile ethnic Hawaiians have threatened racial conflict as a way of bolstering their political demands.
[http://www.angelfire.com/planet/bigfiles40/restlessnatives.html Click here for other examples.]}}

It is important that discussions are held and that there is a framework to guide appropriate action. For Hawaii is the homeland of the Native Hawaiian people.

{{comment|We should start addressing these emotional issues by educating people about the true history of the Hawaiian Islands, rather than continuing to propagate the revisionism of Native Hawaiian victimhood. Senator Akaka's use of the word "homeland" does a grave disservice to the majority of the people he was elected to represent. Hawaii is not merely the homeland of ethnic Hawaiians. Some Hawaii people with no native blood have 8 generations born and raised in Hawaii, including both Caucasians and Asians.}}

Mr. President, a lack of action by the U.S. will incite and will only fuel us down a path to a DIVIDED Hawai'i. A Hawai'i where lines and boundaries will be drawn and unity severed.

{{comment|Senator Akaka's bill is the most divisive piece of legislation in the history of Hawaii, and perhaps in the history of the United States. Its entire purpose is to authorize creation of a race-based government that would forever divide the people and land of Hawaii along racial lines.}}

However, the legislation I introduce today seeks to build upon the foundation of reconciliation. It provides a structured process to bring together the people of Hawai'i, along a path of healing to a Hawaii where its indigenous people are respected and culture is embraced.

Respecting the rights of America's first peoples, American Indians, Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiians is NOT UN-American. Through enactment of this legislation, we have the opportunity to demonstrate that our country does not just preach its ideas, but lives according to its founding principles. That the United States will admit when it has trespassed against a people and remain resolute to make amends. We demonstrate our character to ourselves and to the world by respecting the rights of our country's indigenous people. As it has for America's other indigenous peoples, I believe the United States must fulfill its responsibility to Native Hawaiians.

{{correction|Being an "indigenous" person of America does not grant the rights asked for by the Akaka Bill in any other case. There are specific qualifications required for tribal membership and recognition, and Native Hawaiians do not qualify on any of these grounds, as noted by the [[Native Hawaiians Study Commission Report]].}}

I ask my colleagues to join me in enacting this legislation which is of great importance to all the people of Hawai'i.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my full written statement and text of this measure be printed in the record.

2007-01-17 Akaka Fact Check

2007-01-18T00:18:02Z

Ken Conklin:

'''SEN. AKAKA:''' Mr. President, I rise today with the senior Senator from Hawai'i to introduce the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2007. This bill which is of great importance to the people of Hawai'i, establishes a process to extend the federal policy of self-governance and self-determination to Hawaii's indigenous people. The bill provides parity in federal policies that empower our country's other indigenous peoples, American Indians and Alaska Natives, to participate in a government-to-government relationship with the United States.

{{correction|No other indigenous group in the United States has ever been given the opportunity to create a race-based government out of thin air. The Akaka Bill is equivalent to giving special rights and privileges to every person with even the smallest amount of Native American ancestry to become a part of some super-tribe that has no historical precedent.}}

Mr. President, January 17, 2007, commemorates the 114th anniversary of Hawai'i's beloved Queen Liliuokalani being deposed. Although this event may seem like a distant memory, it is a poignant event that expedited the decline of a proud and self-governing people. The overthrow facilitated Native Hawaiians being disenfranchised from not only their culture and land, but from their way of life. Native Hawaiians had to endure the forced imprisonment of their Queen and witness the deterioration and near eradication of their culture and tradition in their own homeland at the hands of foreigners committed exclusively to propagating Western values and conventions.

{{correction|Queen Liliuokalani reigned over the entire multiracial Hawaiian Kingdom, not just Native Hawaiians. By 1890, Native Hawaiians were a minority in the Kingdom, and to assert that they were a "self-governing" racial group distorts the idea of what "self" was. Hawaii people of all races were self-governing during the Hawaiian Kingdom period, and continue to be so today in the State of Hawaii.

Regarding any disenfranchisement from "culture and land", the westernization of the Hawaiian Kingdom began very early in its history, punctuated by seminal events such the destruction of the old kapu religion by King Liholiho Kamehameha II and regent Queen Kaahumanu in 1819, the arrival of missionaries in 1820, the first constitution of 1840 and the Great Mahele in 1848. Liliuokalani herself was educated by missionaries, and was very much a product of adaptation beyond the ancient traditions of the islands. The entire Hawaiian island chain was unified with the help of John Young, a british sailor and advisor to Kamehameha the Great. To characterize the propagation of Western values and conventions as anything but voluntary is misleading. Contrary to what Senator Akaka implies, most of the big cultural changes had already taken place decades before the monarchy was overthrown.

It is also important to note that the Queen was not imprisoned until two years after the revolution that overthrew her. She was imprisoned because she conspired with Robert Wilcox in an attempted counter-revolution in 1895. The evidence against her included guns and bombs hidden in the flower bed of her private home at Washington Place, plus documents she had already signed appointing cabinet ministers and department heads to the new government she expected to head.
}}

Today I provide my colleagues with a framework to understand the need for this legislation by briefly reviewing (1) Hawai'i's past, ancient Hawaiian society prior to Western contact, (2) Hawai'i's present, the far reaching consequences of the overthrow, and (3) Hawai'i's future.

'''HAWAI'I'S PAST'''

Few know that Hawai'i was originally settled by Polynesian voyagers arriving as early as 300 A.D, who braved immense distances guided by their extensive knowledge of navigation and understanding of the marine environment. Isolation followed the era of long voyages, enabling Native Hawaiians to develop distinct political, economic, and social structures which were mutually supportive. As stewards of the land and sea, Native Hawaiians were intimately linked to the environment and took cautious care in developing intricate methods of agriculture, aquaculture, navigation and irrigation.

{{comment|Of interesting note is the environmental damage done by Native Hawaiians in regards to the once plentiful sandalwood forests of Hawaii. During the initial phases of contact, the rigid hierarchy of chiefdoms allowed the elite of the islands to exploit the commoners, to trade sandalwood for western trinkets. To place ancient Hawaiians on some sort of pedestal of environmental wisdom is sugar-coating history. As with all humans, ancient Hawaiians negatively impacted their surroundings.}}

'''HAWAI'I"S PRESENT'''

With an influx of foreigners into Hawai'i, Native Hawaiian populations plummeted due to the lack of immunity to common Western diseases. Those that survived witnessed foreign interest and involvement in their government grow until Queen Liliuokalani was forced by American citizens to abdicate her right to the throne.

{{correction|A majority of the 13-member Committee of Safety (leaders who organized the Hawaiian revolution) were native-born or naturalized subjects of the Kingdom. Furthermore, many of the revolution's political leaders and militia-men had no American ancestry. In 1893, President Grover Cleveland's "fact finder" to Hawai'i, James H. Blount, wrote in his report that the 5,500 members of Honolulu's Annexation Club at that time included 1,218 Americans (22 percent of the club); 1,022 Native Hawaiians (19 percent); 251 Englishmen (5 percent); 2,261 Portuguese (41 percent); 69 Norwegians (1 percent); 351 Germans (6 percent), along with 328 persons unclassified but making up the balance.}}

This devastated the Native Hawaiian people, forever tainting the waters of their identity and tattering the very fabric of their society. For some this injustice, this wound has never healed, manifesting itself in a sense of inferiority and hopelessness leaving many Native Hawaiians at the lowest levels of achievement by all social and economic measures.

{{comment|Queen Liliuokalani herself, arguably the most wounded of all, found peace and healing. She eventually saw the annexation of Hawaii to the United States as the best thing that ever happened to the Native Hawaiians. She was a true American patriot before her death, giving orders that the U.S. flag should fly permanently over her residence at Washington Place in honor of Hawaiians lost in U.S. military service in World War I. [The U.S. flag still flies there today]}}

Mr. President, 14 years ago the United States enacted the Apology Resolution (P.L.103-150), which acknowledged the 100th anniversary of the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawai'i in which the United States offered an apology to Native Hawaiians and declared its policy to support reconciliation efforts. This is a landmark declaration for it recognizes not only are Native Hawaiians the indigenous people of Hawai'i, but of the urgent need for the U.S. to actively engage in reconciliation efforts. This acknowledgement played a crucial role in initiating a healing process and although progress has been made, the path ahead is UNCERTAIN.

{{correction|1=The "Apology Resolution" was passed as a symbolic gesture, and due to a complete lack of debate was filled with copious inaccuracies, exaggerations and outright falsehoods. See [http://www.hawaiireporter.com/file.aspx?Guid=aefef5f6-a533-486a-9459-691138355dd1 Hawaii Divided Against Itself Cannot Stand].}}

'''HAWAI'I'S FUTURE'''

Frustration has led to anger and festered in the hearts of Hawaii's younger generations, with each child that is taught about this period of Hawaiian history, a loss is relived. It is a burden that Native Hawaiians since the overthrow continue to carry, to know that they were violated in their own homeland and their governance was ripped away unjustly. Despite the perceived harmony, it is the generation of my grandchildren that is growing impatient and frustrated with the lack of progress being made. Influenced by a deep sadness and growing intolerance, an active minority within this generation seeks independence from the United States.

{{comment|The culture of Native Hawaiian victimhood is a recent development, dating back to the first racial-identity movements of the 1970s. King Kauikeaouli Kamehameha III made two attempts to get Hawaii annexed to the United States, in 1849 and 1854. For nearly 60 years, from 1900-1959, Native Hawaiian leaders and Native Hawaiian people worked to turn the Territory of Hawaii into the State of Hawaii. Finally Statehood was approved by a 94% "Yes" vote in the plebiscite of 1959. All the people of Hawaii have enjoyed more rights as part of the United States than they ever had during the Kingdom period. The active, vocal, and miniscule minority seeking passage of the Akaka bill, or independence, is more concerned about having race-based governance and race-based privileges than anything else.}}

It is for this generation that I work to enact this bill so that there is the structured process to deal with these emotional issues. It is important that discussions are held and that there is a framework to guide appropriate action. For Hawaii is the homeland of the Native Hawaiian people.

{{comment|We should start addressing these emotional issues by educating people about the true history of the Hawaiian Islands, rather than continuing to propagate the revisionism of Native Hawaiian victimhood. Senator Akaka's use of the word "homeland" does a grave disservice to the majority of the people he was elected to represent. Hawaii is not merely the homeland of ethnic Hawaiians. Some Hawaii people with no native blood have 8 generations born and raised in Hawaii, including both Caucasians and Asians.}}

Mr. President, a lack of action by the U.S. will incite and will only fuel us down a path to a DIVIDED Hawai'i. A Hawai'i where lines and boundaries will be drawn and unity severed.

{{comment|Senator Akaka's bill is the most divisive piece of legislation in the history of Hawaii, and perhaps in the history of the United States. Its entire purpose is to authorize creation of a race-based government that would forever divide the people and land of Hawaii along racial lines.}}

However, the legislation I introduce today seeks to build upon the foundation of reconciliation. It provides a structured process to bring together the people of Hawai'i, along a path of healing to a Hawaii where its indigenous people are respected and culture is embraced.

Respecting the rights of America's first peoples, American Indians, Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiians is NOT UN-American. Through enactment of this legislation, we have the opportunity to demonstrate that our country does not just preach its ideas, but lives according to its founding principles. That the United States will admit when it has trespassed against a people and remain resolute to make amends. We demonstrate our character to ourselves and to the world by respecting the rights of our country's indigenous people. As it has for America's other indigenous peoples, I believe the United States must fulfill its responsibility to Native Hawaiians.

{{correction|Being an "indigenous" person of America does not grant the rights asked for by the Akaka Bill in any other case. There are specific qualifications required for tribal membership and recognition, and Native Hawaiians do not qualify on any of these grounds, as noted by the [[Native Hawaiians Study Commission Report]].}}

I ask my colleagues to join me in enacting this legislation which is of great importance to all the people of Hawai'i.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my full written statement and text of this measure be printed in the record.

2006-06-02 OHA Brochure Fact Check

2006-06-04T02:27:08Z

Ken Conklin: /* The Akaka bill does not ... */

Back to [[Correcting Akaka]]

"The Time is Now" is a slick trifold brochure
asking people to support the Akaka bill. It was
mass-mailed in late May and early June. The
brochure features the Hawaiian flag but no
American flag. One reason for the absence of the
American flag is that many Hawaiian activists
believe that the U.S. is illegally occupying
their ancestral homeland and has been the source
of prolonged oppression. To empower such people
by creating a government for them is to empower a
secessionist movement.

=Brochure Contents=
==What is the purpose of the Akaka bill?==
The Akaka Bill, S 147/HR 309, simply asks Congress to reaffirm and provide parity in its federal policy of self-determination and self-governance for indigenous peoples by providing for the reorganization of
the government of the Native Hawaiian people, who along with the American Indians and the Alaska Natives, make up the three groups of native peoples in the United States.

{{correction|No. The bill does not "simply" ask Congress to provide parity. The bill established a process for setting up a government based solely on race, in a place where there has never been such a government. The bill authorizes the new government to negotiate with the federal and state governments for land, money, and political power to be used exclusively by a racial group.

There are NOT "three groups of native peoples in the United States." There are over 560 federally recognized tribes, fiercely independent of each other. some of which formerly fought wars against each other and against the United States. The majority of people who are racially American Indian do not and cannot belong to any tribe. Lumping all American Indians together as one of three "native peoples of the United States" is racial profiling, but does not reflect the political reality that there are hundreds of different tribes with different governments, different laws, and different benefits for members. The "parity" now "enjoyed" by Native Hawaiians is that they have the same status as several hundred other groups of "indigenous people" who have applied for tribal recognition and have been either denied or put off for decades. Senators Akaka and Inouye have had amazing success in fooling Congress into treating ethnic Hawaiians as though they are an Indian tribe; much as a tailor might be praised for making a sow's ear look like a silk purse.}}

==Why is the Akaka bill so important now?==
Since the U.S. Supreme Court decision of ''Rice v. Cayetano'', judicial challenges to existing Hawaiian rights have increased in both number of suits filed and the persistence of the plaintiffs in advancing their cases to the highest court of the land. If these plaintiffs succeed with their racial discrimination suits against programs with a Hawaiian preference, over 150 federal programs and funding vehicles, totaling over $70 million dollars per year, will eventually cease to be available. Funding for programs, services, and entitlements that benefit and improve the lives of Native Hawaiians are at stake. For example, assets and funding of:

*Office of Hawaiian Affairs & $380 million trust fund
*Department of Hawaiian Home Lands & 200,000 acres
*Alu Like, Inc.
*Na Pua No'eau
*Native Hawaiian Legal Corporation
*UH tuition waivers
*Native Hawaiian Education Act
*Native Hawaiian Health Improvement Act
*Federal funding amounting to $1.1 billion over the past 25 years
*Hundreds of community organizations who receive grants totaling $9 million per year from OHA

{{comment|This section is honest about saying the main purpose of the bill is to protect "over 150 federal programs and funding vehicles, totaling over $70 million dollars per year." This section is also correct in saying that if plaintiffs in various lawsuits succeed, those programs "will eventually cease to be available." The reason those lawsuits will eventually succeed is because those programs have always been unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment. Those programs were created only because Senators Akaka and Inouye have served on the Indian Affairs Committee for their entire political careers -- Hawaii is the only State that has both of its Senators on the Indian Affairs committee, despite the fact that there has never been an Indian tribe in Hawai'i. Throughout those many years, whenever a major bill came along to provide federal handouts to genuine Indian tribes, Senators Akaka and Inouye have added "and Native Hawaiians" into the bill. While it's wonderful for the people of Hawai'i to have all those people in other states sending their tax dollars to Hawai'i, it's legally and morally wrong because ethnic Hawaiians are not an Indian tribe. Now the day of reckoning has arrived, and it's time to dismantle those programs.}}

==Is the Akaka bill constitutional?==
Absolutely. The U.S. Constitution provides Congress the authority to give federal recognition to all aboriginal groups in the U.S.

{{correction|That's absolutely false. Nowhere does the Constitution use the word "aboriginal." Nowhere does it say "indigenous." It says Congress has the power "To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes." Everything named in that clause refers to governments, not to racial groups or aboriginal or indigenous people. That clause does not authorize Congress to round up a bunch of widely scattered and thoroughly assimilated individuals who have nothing in common with each other except one small part of their race, and create a government for them. If that were to be allowed, then Congress could also create a new "Nation of Aztlan" consisting of all people in the U.S. who have Mexican ancestry and who live in those parts of the U.S. that formerly belonged to Mexico. The theory is the same.}}

==Is the Akaka bill race-based?==
{{comment|Is the Pope Catholic?}}

The authority for Congress to pass legislation for America's indigenous groups is not based on race but on their existence as a sovereign nation before the existence of the U.S.
{{correction|The trouble is, there was never any government exercising authority over all native Hawaiians and exclusively native Hawaiians; which is what the Akaka bill proposes. Prior to 1810 various Hawaiian islands, and subdistricts on each island, had their own rulers who were often at war against each other. When Kamehameha the Great unified all the islands through bloody conquest and successful intimidation, he used newly-available English guns and ships and English military advisors. Those Englishmen then became high-ranking officials of Kamehameha's government -- John Young, for example, was made Governor of Kamehameha's own home Island of Hawai'i. Throughout the Kingdom's history from 1810 to 1893, most of the cabinet ministers and judges, and many appointed and elected members of the Legislature, were not racially native.

If the Akaka bill purports to re-create or re-organize the government of the once-sovereign and independent nation of Hawai'i, that nation must be fully multiracial just as the Kingdom actually was.}}

==Will the Akaka bill authorize the Native Hawaiian governing entity to conduct gambling?==
No, it will not.

{{correction|That's the same answer that was given during the hearing of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee in February 2005. But several Senators realized that answer was false, and forced an amendment to the Akaka bill to strengthen the language against gambling, before reporting the bill to the floor. At that point the Hawai'i delegation said the bill now had safeguards against gambling. Later, several Senators still were not satisfied,and placed holds on the bill and prevented it from coming to the floor, because they did not believe the safeguards were sufficient. Now comes Senator Akaka with a newly amended bill with allegedly stronger language against gambling. Don't believe him for a moment. He tried to fool the Senators on this point with the original bill, then with the amended bill that came out of committee, then with a new amendment. Don't be fooled yet again.}}

==The Akaka bill does not ...==
*Does NOT legalize gambling.
{{comment|Of course the bill does not specifically legalize gambling. But as noted above, the bill probably includes loopholes large enough for clever, highly-paid lawyers to roll the dice through.}}

*Does NOT permit grabbing or taking of private property or military lands.
{{comment|True, the bill as written does not specifically permit such things. But the bill does explicitly set up a process whereby the new tribal government can negotiate such things with the State and Federal governments. Similar fears have been fulfilled on the mainland. Furthermore, states and Indian tribes have sometimes negotiated agreements to use the state's power of eminent domain to condemn private land and turn it over to a tribe. A recent decision of the U.S. Supreme Court [Kelo] strengthens the ability for state and tribal governments to do such things.}}

*Does NOT alter current government authority, including taxation powers, but does provide for future negotiation over such matters.
{{comment|Yes. This is correctly stated. And it should be very frightening to Hawai'i citizens, who have watched the State Legislature and the county councils already eagerly turning over state and county lands and state money to the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, most recently in the case of huge acreage at Waokele O Puna on Hawai'i Island and all of Waimea Valley on O'ahu. In both cases, a consortium of public and private groups paid large sums of money for the land, OHA contributed a very small portion of the funds, and then the deed was simply handed over to OHA. Imagine how much worse this situation will be when a tribal council similar to OHA is recognized as a government on a fully equal footing with the state and federal governments.}}

*Does NOT authorize secession from the U.S.
{{comment|Of course no bill could ever be passed by Congress to authorize a State to secede from the Union. A civil war was fought over that issue, 1860-1865. However, the Akaka bill is based squarely on the apology resolution of 1993 wherein the U.S. apologizes to "Native Hawaiians" (but not to other subjects of the Hawaiian Kingdom) and takes the blame for the overthrow of the monarchy a century earlier. Senator Slade Gorton objected on the floor of the Senate, saying that the logical consequence of the apology resolution would be secession. Since then, Hawaiian independence activists have repeatedly cited the apology resolution as a confession of a crime under international law, and are calling for U.S. withdrawal from Hawai'i. Senator Akaka himself said on National Public Radio that secession will be something for his grandchildren to decide (note that they are already adults!). OHA has clearly stated on its website that secession is one of the possible eventual outcomes. The Akaka bill greatly empowers those who hold historical grievances and resentment against the United States for occupying their ancestral homeland, depriving them of their traditional culture, and oppressing them. Why should anyone want to empower such sentiments?}}

==Who supports the Akaka Bill?==
*The majority (65%-86%) of Hawai'i's residents, Hawaiians and non-Hawaiians, as confirmed in two credible surveys conducted by a professional research company
{{correction|A [http://akakatalka.grassrootinstitute.org/2006/05/24/survey-results-on-the-akaka-bill/ more credible poll], without leading questions and a larger sample size, has shown that the Akaka Bill is opposed by all the people of Hawaii by a 2-to-1 margin.}}
*The entire Hawai'i Congressional Delegation (Senator Daniel Inouye, Senator Daniel Akaka, Representative Neil Abercrombie, Representative Ed Case)
*Governor Linda Lingle, Lt. Gov. James "Duke" Aiona
*State Attorney General Mark Bennett
*Hawai'i State Legislature
*Mayors of all four county governinents in Hawai'i
*Office of Hawaiian Affairs
*Kamehameha Schools
*Hawai'i Carpenters Union
*Hawai'i Government Employees Association (HGEA)
*Hawai'i State Teachers Association (HSTA)
*International Longshore & Warehouse Union (ILWU)
*Japanese American Citizens League (JACL)
*Filipinos for Affirmative Action
*Tagalog Association of O'ahu, Inc.

''National Supporters:''
*Republican and Democrat Congressional Co-sponsors of the Bill
*American Bar Association
*National Congress of American Indians (NCAI)
*Alaska Federation of Natives (AFN)
*Governors' Interstate Indian Council (GIIC)
*Inter Tribal Council of Arizona
*Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians
*National Indian Education Association
*Tribal Education Departments National Assembly
*Virginia Indian Tribal Alliance For Life
*Japanese American Citizens League (JACL)
*National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP)
*National Coalition of Asian Pacific Americans
*National Organization of Pacific Islanders in America
*Organization of Chinese Americans
*Leadership Conference on Civil Rights
*League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC)
*Mexican Arnericm Legal Defense & Educational Fund
{{comment|Some of the "National Supporters" have clear motives of self-interest which should be seen as red flags warning us NOT to pass the Akaka bill.

National Congress of American Indians (NCAI), Alaska Federation of Natives (AFN), Governors' Interstate Indian Council (GIIC), Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians, National Indian Education Association, Tribal Education Departments National Asasembly, Virginia Indian Tribal Alliance for Life -- All these Indian tribal organizations fear that defeat of the Akaka bill would raise doubts about whether U.S. federal Indian policy might come under closer scrutiny. In particular, the Alaska Federation of Natives is worried that defeat of the Akaka bill would raise doubts about the Constitutional validity of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. Several Alaska native corporations have contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Council for Native Hawaiian Advancement. Hawai'i Senators Akaka and Inouye (both Democrats) have traded votes with Alaska Senators Stevens and Murkowski (both Republicans) whereby Akaka and Inouye vote in favor of drilling for oil in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge in return for Stevens and Murkowski voting for the Akaka bill.

Japanese American Citizens League (JACL), National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), National Coalition of Asian Pacific Americans, National Organization of Pacific Islanders in America, Organization of Chinese Americans -- all of these are focused on race or ethnicity; all see their particular ethnic group as victims of white oppression; all see their particular ethnic group as entitled to reparations for historical grievances, so that passing the Akaka bill would smooth the way for them to get reparations for their own groups.

League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), and Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF) -- These militant organizations seek to defend the "rights" of illegal immigrants; advocate zealously for "open borders" and amnesty for previous law-breaking. They advocate a theory of reconquista, that huge areas of the American Southwest that formerly belonged to Mexico should still be regarded as Mexican territory where people of Mexican ancestry can freely cross the border. Passing the Akaka bill to establish a Nation of Hawai'i would be a precedent for these groups to establish a Nation of Aztlan and take back from the gringos the territory rightfully belonging to La Raza (similar to the Hawaiian term "Ka Lahui").}}

2006-06-02 OHA Brochure Fact Check

2006-06-04T02:20:41Z

Ken Conklin: /* Will the Akaka bill authorize the Native Hawaiian governing entity to conduct gambling? */

Back to [[Correcting Akaka]]

"The Time is Now" is a slick trifold brochure
asking people to support the Akaka bill. It was
mass-mailed in late May and early June. The
brochure features the Hawaiian flag but no
American flag. One reason for the absence of the
American flag is that many Hawaiian activists
believe that the U.S. is illegally occupying
their ancestral homeland and has been the source
of prolonged oppression. To empower such people
by creating a government for them is to empower a
secessionist movement.

=Brochure Contents=
==What is the purpose of the Akaka bill?==
The Akaka Bill, S 147/HR 309, simply asks Congress to reaffirm and provide parity in its federal policy of self-determination and self-governance for indigenous peoples by providing for the reorganization of
the government of the Native Hawaiian people, who along with the American Indians and the Alaska Natives, make up the three groups of native peoples in the United States.

{{correction|No. The bill does not "simply" ask Congress to provide parity. The bill established a process for setting up a government based solely on race, in a place where there has never been such a government. The bill authorizes the new government to negotiate with the federal and state governments for land, money, and political power to be used exclusively by a racial group.

There are NOT "three groups of native peoples in the United States." There are over 560 federally recognized tribes, fiercely independent of each other. some of which formerly fought wars against each other and against the United States. The majority of people who are racially American Indian do not and cannot belong to any tribe. Lumping all American Indians together as one of three "native peoples of the United States" is racial profiling, but does not reflect the political reality that there are hundreds of different tribes with different governments, different laws, and different benefits for members. The "parity" now "enjoyed" by Native Hawaiians is that they have the same status as several hundred other groups of "indigenous people" who have applied for tribal recognition and have been either denied or put off for decades. Senators Akaka and Inouye have had amazing success in fooling Congress into treating ethnic Hawaiians as though they are an Indian tribe; much as a tailor might be praised for making a sow's ear look like a silk purse.}}

==Why is the Akaka bill so important now?==
Since the U.S. Supreme Court decision of ''Rice v. Cayetano'', judicial challenges to existing Hawaiian rights have increased in both number of suits filed and the persistence of the plaintiffs in advancing their cases to the highest court of the land. If these plaintiffs succeed with their racial discrimination suits against programs with a Hawaiian preference, over 150 federal programs and funding vehicles, totaling over $70 million dollars per year, will eventually cease to be available. Funding for programs, services, and entitlements that benefit and improve the lives of Native Hawaiians are at stake. For example, assets and funding of:

*Office of Hawaiian Affairs & $380 million trust fund
*Department of Hawaiian Home Lands & 200,000 acres
*Alu Like, Inc.
*Na Pua No'eau
*Native Hawaiian Legal Corporation
*UH tuition waivers
*Native Hawaiian Education Act
*Native Hawaiian Health Improvement Act
*Federal funding amounting to $1.1 billion over the past 25 years
*Hundreds of community organizations who receive grants totaling $9 million per year from OHA

{{comment|This section is honest about saying the main purpose of the bill is to protect "over 150 federal programs and funding vehicles, totaling over $70 million dollars per year." This section is also correct in saying that if plaintiffs in various lawsuits succeed, those programs "will eventually cease to be available." The reason those lawsuits will eventually succeed is because those programs have always been unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment. Those programs were created only because Senators Akaka and Inouye have served on the Indian Affairs Committee for their entire political careers -- Hawaii is the only State that has both of its Senators on the Indian Affairs committee, despite the fact that there has never been an Indian tribe in Hawai'i. Throughout those many years, whenever a major bill came along to provide federal handouts to genuine Indian tribes, Senators Akaka and Inouye have added "and Native Hawaiians" into the bill. While it's wonderful for the people of Hawai'i to have all those people in other states sending their tax dollars to Hawai'i, it's legally and morally wrong because ethnic Hawaiians are not an Indian tribe. Now the day of reckoning has arrived, and it's time to dismantle those programs.}}

==Is the Akaka bill constitutional?==
Absolutely. The U.S. Constitution provides Congress the authority to give federal recognition to all aboriginal groups in the U.S.

{{correction|That's absolutely false. Nowhere does the Constitution use the word "aboriginal." Nowhere does it say "indigenous." It says Congress has the power "To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes." Everything named in that clause refers to governments, not to racial groups or aboriginal or indigenous people. That clause does not authorize Congress to round up a bunch of widely scattered and thoroughly assimilated individuals who have nothing in common with each other except one small part of their race, and create a government for them. If that were to be allowed, then Congress could also create a new "Nation of Aztlan" consisting of all people in the U.S. who have Mexican ancestry and who live in those parts of the U.S. that formerly belonged to Mexico. The theory is the same.}}

==Is the Akaka bill race-based?==
{{comment|Is the Pope Catholic?}}

The authority for Congress to pass legislation for America's indigenous groups is not based on race but on their existence as a sovereign nation before the existence of the U.S.
{{correction|The trouble is, there was never any government exercising authority over all native Hawaiians and exclusively native Hawaiians; which is what the Akaka bill proposes. Prior to 1810 various Hawaiian islands, and subdistricts on each island, had their own rulers who were often at war against each other. When Kamehameha the Great unified all the islands through bloody conquest and successful intimidation, he used newly-available English guns and ships and English military advisors. Those Englishmen then became high-ranking officials of Kamehameha's government -- John Young, for example, was made Governor of Kamehameha's own home Island of Hawai'i. Throughout the Kingdom's history from 1810 to 1893, most of the cabinet ministers and judges, and many appointed and elected members of the Legislature, were not racially native.

If the Akaka bill purports to re-create or re-organize the government of the once-sovereign and independent nation of Hawai'i, that nation must be fully multiracial just as the Kingdom actually was.}}

==Will the Akaka bill authorize the Native Hawaiian governing entity to conduct gambling?==
No, it will not.

{{correction|That's the same answer that was given during the hearing of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee in February 2005. But several Senators realized that answer was false, and forced an amendment to the Akaka bill to strengthen the language against gambling, before reporting the bill to the floor. At that point the Hawai'i delegation said the bill now had safeguards against gambling. Later, several Senators still were not satisfied,and placed holds on the bill and prevented it from coming to the floor, because they did not believe the safeguards were sufficient. Now comes Senator Akaka with a newly amended bill with allegedly stronger language against gambling. Don't believe him for a moment. He tried to fool the Senators on this point with the original bill, then with the amended bill that came out of committee, then with a new amendment. Don't be fooled yet again.}}

==The Akaka bill does not ...==
*Does NOT legalize gambling.
{{comment|Of course the bill does not specifically legalize gambling. But as noted above, the bill probably includes loopholes through which clever, highly-paid lawyers will find a way to roll the dice.}}

*Does NOT permit grabbing or taking of private property or military lands.
{{comment|True, the bill as written does not specifically permit such things. But the bill does explicitly set up a process whereby the new tribal government can negotiate such things with the State and Federal governments. Similar fears have been fulfilled on the mainland. Furthermore, states and Indian tribes have sometimes negotiated agreements to use the state's power of eminent domain to condemn private land and turn it over to a tribe. A recent decision of the U.S. Supreme Court strengthens the ability for state and tribal governments to do such things.}}

*Does NOT alter current government authority, including taxation powers, but does provide for future negotiation over such matters.
{{comment|Yes. This is correctly stated. And it should be very frightening to Hawai'i citizens, who have watched the State Legislature and the county councils already eagerly turning over state and county lands and state money to the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, most recently in the case of huge acreage at Waokele O Puna on Hawai'i Island and all of Waimea Valley on O'ahu. In both cases, a consortium of public and private groups paid large sums of money for the land, OHA contributed a very small portion of the funds, and then the deed was simply handed over to OHA. Imagine how much worse this situation will be when a tribal council similar to OHA is recognized as a government on a fully equal footing with the state and federal governments.}}

*Does NOT authorize secession from the U.S.
{{comment|Of course no bill could ever be passed by Congress to authorize a State to secede from the Union. A civil war was fought over that issue, 1860-1865. However, the Akaka bill is based squarely on the apology resolution of 1993 wherein the U.S. apologizes to "Native Hawaiians" (but not to other subjects of the Hawaiian Kingdom) and takes the blame for the overthrow of the monarchy a century earlier. Senator Slade Gorton objected on the floor of the Senate, saying that the logical consequence of the apology resolution would be secession. Since then, Hawaiian independence activists have repeatedly cited the apology resolution as a confession of a crime under international law, and are calling for U.S. withdrawal from Hawai'i. Senator Akaka himself said on National Public Radio that secession wil be something for his grandchildren to decide (note that they are already adults!). OHA has clearly stated on its website that secession is one of the possible eventual outcomes. The Akaka bill greatly empowers those who hold historical grievances and resentment against the United States for occupying their ancestral homeland, depriving them of their traditional culture, and oppressing them. Why should anyone want to empower such sentiments?}}

==Who supports the Akaka Bill?==
*The majority (65%-86%) of Hawai'i's residents, Hawaiians and non-Hawaiians, as confirmed in two credible surveys conducted by a professional research company
{{correction|A [http://akakatalka.grassrootinstitute.org/2006/05/24/survey-results-on-the-akaka-bill/ more credible poll], without leading questions and a larger sample size, has shown that the Akaka Bill is opposed by all the people of Hawaii by a 2-to-1 margin.}}
*The entire Hawai'i Congressional Delegation (Senator Daniel Inouye, Senator Daniel Akaka, Representative Neil Abercrombie, Representative Ed Case)
*Governor Linda Lingle, Lt. Gov. James "Duke" Aiona
*State Attorney General Mark Bennett
*Hawai'i State Legislature
*Mayors of all four county governinents in Hawai'i
*Office of Hawaiian Affairs
*Kamehameha Schools
*Hawai'i Carpenters Union
*Hawai'i Government Employees Association (HGEA)
*Hawai'i State Teachers Association (HSTA)
*International Longshore & Warehouse Union (ILWU)
*Japanese American Citizens League (JACL)
*Filipinos for Affirmative Action
*Tagalog Association of O'ahu, Inc.

''National Supporters:''
*Republican and Democrat Congressional Co-sponsors of the Bill
*American Bar Association
*National Congress of American Indians (NCAI)
*Alaska Federation of Natives (AFN)
*Governors' Interstate Indian Council (GIIC)
*Inter Tribal Council of Arizona
*Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians
*National Indian Education Association
*Tribal Education Departments National Assembly
*Virginia Indian Tribal Alliance For Life
*Japanese American Citizens League (JACL)
*National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP)
*National Coalition of Asian Pacific Americans
*National Organization of Pacific Islanders in America
*Organization of Chinese Americans
*Leadership Conference on Civil Rights
*League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC)
*Mexican Arnericm Legal Defense & Educational Fund
{{comment|Some of the "National Supporters" have clear motives of self-interest which should be seen as red flags warning us NOT to pass the Akaka bill.

National Congress of American Indians (NCAI), Alaska Federation of Natives (AFN), Governors' Interstate Indian Council (GIIC), Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians, National Indian Education Association, Tribal Education Departments National Asasembly, Virginia Indian Tribal Alliance for Life -- All these Indian tribal organizations fear that defeat of the Akaka bill would raise doubts about whether U.S. federal Indian policy might come under closer scrutiny. In particular, the Alaska Federation of Natives is worried that defeat of the Akaka bill would raise doubts about the Constitutional validity of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. Several Alaska native corporations have contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Council for Native Hawaiian Advancement. Hawai'i Senators Akaka and Inouye (both Democrats) have traded votes with Alaska Senators Stevens and Murkowski (both Republicans) whereby Akaka and Inouye vote in favor of drilling for oil in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge in return for Stevens and Murkowski voting for the Akaka bill.

Japanese American Citizens League (JACL), National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), National Coalition of Asian Pacific Americans, National Organization of Pacific Islanders in America, Organization of Chinese Americans -- all of these are focused on race or ethnicity; all see their particular ethnic group as victims of white oppression; all see their particular ethnic group as entitled to reparations for historical grievances, so that passing the Akaka bill would smooth the way for them to get reparations for their own groups.

League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), and Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF) -- These militant organizations seek to defend the "rights" of illegal immigrants; advocate zealously for "open borders" and amnesty for previous law-breaking. They advocate a theory of reconquista, that huge areas of the American Southwest that formerly belonged to Mexico should still be regarded as Mexican territory where people of Mexican ancestry can freely cross the border. Passing the Akaka bill to establish a Nation of Hawai'i would be a precedent for these groups to establish a Nation of Aztlan and take back from the gringos the territory rightfully belonging to La Raza (similar to the Hawaiian term "Ka Lahui").}}

2006-06-02 OHA Brochure Fact Check

2006-06-04T02:18:04Z

Ken Conklin: /* Is the Akaka bill race-based? */

Back to [[Correcting Akaka]]

"The Time is Now" is a slick trifold brochure
asking people to support the Akaka bill. It was
mass-mailed in late May and early June. The
brochure features the Hawaiian flag but no
American flag. One reason for the absence of the
American flag is that many Hawaiian activists
believe that the U.S. is illegally occupying
their ancestral homeland and has been the source
of prolonged oppression. To empower such people
by creating a government for them is to empower a
secessionist movement.

=Brochure Contents=
==What is the purpose of the Akaka bill?==
The Akaka Bill, S 147/HR 309, simply asks Congress to reaffirm and provide parity in its federal policy of self-determination and self-governance for indigenous peoples by providing for the reorganization of
the government of the Native Hawaiian people, who along with the American Indians and the Alaska Natives, make up the three groups of native peoples in the United States.

{{correction|No. The bill does not "simply" ask Congress to provide parity. The bill established a process for setting up a government based solely on race, in a place where there has never been such a government. The bill authorizes the new government to negotiate with the federal and state governments for land, money, and political power to be used exclusively by a racial group.

There are NOT "three groups of native peoples in the United States." There are over 560 federally recognized tribes, fiercely independent of each other. some of which formerly fought wars against each other and against the United States. The majority of people who are racially American Indian do not and cannot belong to any tribe. Lumping all American Indians together as one of three "native peoples of the United States" is racial profiling, but does not reflect the political reality that there are hundreds of different tribes with different governments, different laws, and different benefits for members. The "parity" now "enjoyed" by Native Hawaiians is that they have the same status as several hundred other groups of "indigenous people" who have applied for tribal recognition and have been either denied or put off for decades. Senators Akaka and Inouye have had amazing success in fooling Congress into treating ethnic Hawaiians as though they are an Indian tribe; much as a tailor might be praised for making a sow's ear look like a silk purse.}}

==Why is the Akaka bill so important now?==
Since the U.S. Supreme Court decision of ''Rice v. Cayetano'', judicial challenges to existing Hawaiian rights have increased in both number of suits filed and the persistence of the plaintiffs in advancing their cases to the highest court of the land. If these plaintiffs succeed with their racial discrimination suits against programs with a Hawaiian preference, over 150 federal programs and funding vehicles, totaling over $70 million dollars per year, will eventually cease to be available. Funding for programs, services, and entitlements that benefit and improve the lives of Native Hawaiians are at stake. For example, assets and funding of:

*Office of Hawaiian Affairs & $380 million trust fund
*Department of Hawaiian Home Lands & 200,000 acres
*Alu Like, Inc.
*Na Pua No'eau
*Native Hawaiian Legal Corporation
*UH tuition waivers
*Native Hawaiian Education Act
*Native Hawaiian Health Improvement Act
*Federal funding amounting to $1.1 billion over the past 25 years
*Hundreds of community organizations who receive grants totaling $9 million per year from OHA

{{comment|This section is honest about saying the main purpose of the bill is to protect "over 150 federal programs and funding vehicles, totaling over $70 million dollars per year." This section is also correct in saying that if plaintiffs in various lawsuits succeed, those programs "will eventually cease to be available." The reason those lawsuits will eventually succeed is because those programs have always been unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment. Those programs were created only because Senators Akaka and Inouye have served on the Indian Affairs Committee for their entire political careers -- Hawaii is the only State that has both of its Senators on the Indian Affairs committee, despite the fact that there has never been an Indian tribe in Hawai'i. Throughout those many years, whenever a major bill came along to provide federal handouts to genuine Indian tribes, Senators Akaka and Inouye have added "and Native Hawaiians" into the bill. While it's wonderful for the people of Hawai'i to have all those people in other states sending their tax dollars to Hawai'i, it's legally and morally wrong because ethnic Hawaiians are not an Indian tribe. Now the day of reckoning has arrived, and it's time to dismantle those programs.}}

==Is the Akaka bill constitutional?==
Absolutely. The U.S. Constitution provides Congress the authority to give federal recognition to all aboriginal groups in the U.S.

{{correction|That's absolutely false. Nowhere does the Constitution use the word "aboriginal." Nowhere does it say "indigenous." It says Congress has the power "To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes." Everything named in that clause refers to governments, not to racial groups or aboriginal or indigenous people. That clause does not authorize Congress to round up a bunch of widely scattered and thoroughly assimilated individuals who have nothing in common with each other except one small part of their race, and create a government for them. If that were to be allowed, then Congress could also create a new "Nation of Aztlan" consisting of all people in the U.S. who have Mexican ancestry and who live in those parts of the U.S. that formerly belonged to Mexico. The theory is the same.}}

==Is the Akaka bill race-based?==
{{comment|Is the Pope Catholic?}}

The authority for Congress to pass legislation for America's indigenous groups is not based on race but on their existence as a sovereign nation before the existence of the U.S.
{{correction|The trouble is, there was never any government exercising authority over all native Hawaiians and exclusively native Hawaiians; which is what the Akaka bill proposes. Prior to 1810 various Hawaiian islands, and subdistricts on each island, had their own rulers who were often at war against each other. When Kamehameha the Great unified all the islands through bloody conquest and successful intimidation, he used newly-available English guns and ships and English military advisors. Those Englishmen then became high-ranking officials of Kamehameha's government -- John Young, for example, was made Governor of Kamehameha's own home Island of Hawai'i. Throughout the Kingdom's history from 1810 to 1893, most of the cabinet ministers and judges, and many appointed and elected members of the Legislature, were not racially native.

If the Akaka bill purports to re-create or re-organize the government of the once-sovereign and independent nation of Hawai'i, that nation must be fully multiracial just as the Kingdom actually was.}}

==Will the Akaka bill authorize the Native Hawaiian governing entity to conduct gambling?==
No, it will not.

{{correction|That's the same answer that was given during the hearing of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee in February 2005. But several Senators realized that answer was false, and forced an amendment to the Akaka bill to strengthen the language against gambling, before reporting the bill to the floor. At that point the Hawai'i delegation said the bill now had safeguards against gambling. Later, several Senators still were not satisfied,and placed holds on the bill and prevented it from coming to the floor, because they did not believe the safeguards were sufficient. Now comes Senator Akaka will a newly amended bill with allegedly stronger language against gambling. Don't believe him for a moment. He tried to fool the Senators on this point with the original bill, then with the amended bill that came out of committee, then with a new amendment. Don't be fooled yet again.}}

==The Akaka bill does not ...==
*Does NOT legalize gambling.
{{comment|Of course the bill does not specifically legalize gambling. But as noted above, the bill probably includes loopholes through which clever, highly-paid lawyers will find a way to roll the dice.}}

*Does NOT permit grabbing or taking of private property or military lands.
{{comment|True, the bill as written does not specifically permit such things. But the bill does explicitly set up a process whereby the new tribal government can negotiate such things with the State and Federal governments. Similar fears have been fulfilled on the mainland. Furthermore, states and Indian tribes have sometimes negotiated agreements to use the state's power of eminent domain to condemn private land and turn it over to a tribe. A recent decision of the U.S. Supreme Court strengthens the ability for state and tribal governments to do such things.}}

*Does NOT alter current government authority, including taxation powers, but does provide for future negotiation over such matters.
{{comment|Yes. This is correctly stated. And it should be very frightening to Hawai'i citizens, who have watched the State Legislature and the county councils already eagerly turning over state and county lands and state money to the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, most recently in the case of huge acreage at Waokele O Puna on Hawai'i Island and all of Waimea Valley on O'ahu. In both cases, a consortium of public and private groups paid large sums of money for the land, OHA contributed a very small portion of the funds, and then the deed was simply handed over to OHA. Imagine how much worse this situation will be when a tribal council similar to OHA is recognized as a government on a fully equal footing with the state and federal governments.}}

*Does NOT authorize secession from the U.S.
{{comment|Of course no bill could ever be passed by Congress to authorize a State to secede from the Union. A civil war was fought over that issue, 1860-1865. However, the Akaka bill is based squarely on the apology resolution of 1993 wherein the U.S. apologizes to "Native Hawaiians" (but not to other subjects of the Hawaiian Kingdom) and takes the blame for the overthrow of the monarchy a century earlier. Senator Slade Gorton objected on the floor of the Senate, saying that the logical consequence of the apology resolution would be secession. Since then, Hawaiian independence activists have repeatedly cited the apology resolution as a confession of a crime under international law, and are calling for U.S. withdrawal from Hawai'i. Senator Akaka himself said on National Public Radio that secession wil be something for his grandchildren to decide (note that they are already adults!). OHA has clearly stated on its website that secession is one of the possible eventual outcomes. The Akaka bill greatly empowers those who hold historical grievances and resentment against the United States for occupying their ancestral homeland, depriving them of their traditional culture, and oppressing them. Why should anyone want to empower such sentiments?}}

==Who supports the Akaka Bill?==
*The majority (65%-86%) of Hawai'i's residents, Hawaiians and non-Hawaiians, as confirmed in two credible surveys conducted by a professional research company
{{correction|A [http://akakatalka.grassrootinstitute.org/2006/05/24/survey-results-on-the-akaka-bill/ more credible poll], without leading questions and a larger sample size, has shown that the Akaka Bill is opposed by all the people of Hawaii by a 2-to-1 margin.}}
*The entire Hawai'i Congressional Delegation (Senator Daniel Inouye, Senator Daniel Akaka, Representative Neil Abercrombie, Representative Ed Case)
*Governor Linda Lingle, Lt. Gov. James "Duke" Aiona
*State Attorney General Mark Bennett
*Hawai'i State Legislature
*Mayors of all four county governinents in Hawai'i
*Office of Hawaiian Affairs
*Kamehameha Schools
*Hawai'i Carpenters Union
*Hawai'i Government Employees Association (HGEA)
*Hawai'i State Teachers Association (HSTA)
*International Longshore & Warehouse Union (ILWU)
*Japanese American Citizens League (JACL)
*Filipinos for Affirmative Action
*Tagalog Association of O'ahu, Inc.

''National Supporters:''
*Republican and Democrat Congressional Co-sponsors of the Bill
*American Bar Association
*National Congress of American Indians (NCAI)
*Alaska Federation of Natives (AFN)
*Governors' Interstate Indian Council (GIIC)
*Inter Tribal Council of Arizona
*Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians
*National Indian Education Association
*Tribal Education Departments National Assembly
*Virginia Indian Tribal Alliance For Life
*Japanese American Citizens League (JACL)
*National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP)
*National Coalition of Asian Pacific Americans
*National Organization of Pacific Islanders in America
*Organization of Chinese Americans
*Leadership Conference on Civil Rights
*League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC)
*Mexican Arnericm Legal Defense & Educational Fund
{{comment|Some of the "National Supporters" have clear motives of self-interest which should be seen as red flags warning us NOT to pass the Akaka bill.

National Congress of American Indians (NCAI), Alaska Federation of Natives (AFN), Governors' Interstate Indian Council (GIIC), Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians, National Indian Education Association, Tribal Education Departments National Asasembly, Virginia Indian Tribal Alliance for Life -- All these Indian tribal organizations fear that defeat of the Akaka bill would raise doubts about whether U.S. federal Indian policy might come under closer scrutiny. In particular, the Alaska Federation of Natives is worried that defeat of the Akaka bill would raise doubts about the Constitutional validity of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. Several Alaska native corporations have contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Council for Native Hawaiian Advancement. Hawai'i Senators Akaka and Inouye (both Democrats) have traded votes with Alaska Senators Stevens and Murkowski (both Republicans) whereby Akaka and Inouye vote in favor of drilling for oil in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge in return for Stevens and Murkowski voting for the Akaka bill.

Japanese American Citizens League (JACL), National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), National Coalition of Asian Pacific Americans, National Organization of Pacific Islanders in America, Organization of Chinese Americans -- all of these are focused on race or ethnicity; all see their particular ethnic group as victims of white oppression; all see their particular ethnic group as entitled to reparations for historical grievances, so that passing the Akaka bill would smooth the way for them to get reparations for their own groups.

League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), and Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF) -- These militant organizations seek to defend the "rights" of illegal immigrants; advocate zealously for "open borders" and amnesty for previous law-breaking. They advocate a theory of reconquista, that huge areas of the American Southwest that formerly belonged to Mexico should still be regarded as Mexican territory where people of Mexican ancestry can freely cross the border. Passing the Akaka bill to establish a Nation of Hawai'i would be a precedent for these groups to establish a Nation of Aztlan and take back from the gringos the territory rightfully belonging to La Raza (similar to the Hawaiian term "Ka Lahui").}}

2006-06-02 OHA Brochure Fact Check

2006-06-04T02:11:58Z

Ken Conklin: /* Why is the Akaka bill so important now? */

Back to [[Correcting Akaka]]

"The Time is Now" is a slick trifold brochure
asking people to support the Akaka bill. It was
mass-mailed in late May and early June. The
brochure features the Hawaiian flag but no
American flag. One reason for the absence of the
American flag is that many Hawaiian activists
believe that the U.S. is illegally occupying
their ancestral homeland and has been the source
of prolonged oppression. To empower such people
by creating a government for them is to empower a
secessionist movement.

=Brochure Contents=
==What is the purpose of the Akaka bill?==
The Akaka Bill, S 147/HR 309, simply asks Congress to reaffirm and provide parity in its federal policy of self-determination and self-governance for indigenous peoples by providing for the reorganization of
the government of the Native Hawaiian people, who along with the American Indians and the Alaska Natives, make up the three groups of native peoples in the United States.

{{correction|No. The bill does not "simply" ask Congress to provide parity. The bill established a process for setting up a government based solely on race, in a place where there has never been such a government. The bill authorizes the new government to negotiate with the federal and state governments for land, money, and political power to be used exclusively by a racial group.

There are NOT "three groups of native peoples in the United States." There are over 560 federally recognized tribes, fiercely independent of each other. some of which formerly fought wars against each other and against the United States. The majority of people who are racially American Indian do not and cannot belong to any tribe. Lumping all American Indians together as one of three "native peoples of the United States" is racial profiling, but does not reflect the political reality that there are hundreds of different tribes with different governments, different laws, and different benefits for members. The "parity" now "enjoyed" by Native Hawaiians is that they have the same status as several hundred other groups of "indigenous people" who have applied for tribal recognition and have been either denied or put off for decades. Senators Akaka and Inouye have had amazing success in fooling Congress into treating ethnic Hawaiians as though they are an Indian tribe; much as a tailor might be praised for making a sow's ear look like a silk purse.}}

==Why is the Akaka bill so important now?==
Since the U.S. Supreme Court decision of ''Rice v. Cayetano'', judicial challenges to existing Hawaiian rights have increased in both number of suits filed and the persistence of the plaintiffs in advancing their cases to the highest court of the land. If these plaintiffs succeed with their racial discrimination suits against programs with a Hawaiian preference, over 150 federal programs and funding vehicles, totaling over $70 million dollars per year, will eventually cease to be available. Funding for programs, services, and entitlements that benefit and improve the lives of Native Hawaiians are at stake. For example, assets and funding of:

*Office of Hawaiian Affairs & $380 million trust fund
*Department of Hawaiian Home Lands & 200,000 acres
*Alu Like, Inc.
*Na Pua No'eau
*Native Hawaiian Legal Corporation
*UH tuition waivers
*Native Hawaiian Education Act
*Native Hawaiian Health Improvement Act
*Federal funding amounting to $1.1 billion over the past 25 years
*Hundreds of community organizations who receive grants totaling $9 million per year from OHA

{{comment|This section is honest about saying the main purpose of the bill is to protect "over 150 federal programs and funding vehicles, totaling over $70 million dollars per year." This section is also correct in saying that if plaintiffs in various lawsuits succeed, those programs "will eventually cease to be available." The reason those lawsuits will eventually succeed is because those programs have always been unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment. Those programs were created only because Senators Akaka and Inouye have served on the Indian Affairs Committee for their entire political careers -- Hawaii is the only State that has both of its Senators on the Indian Affairs committee, despite the fact that there has never been an Indian tribe in Hawai'i. Throughout those many years, whenever a major bill came along to provide federal handouts to genuine Indian tribes, Senators Akaka and Inouye have added "and Native Hawaiians" into the bill. While it's wonderful for the people of Hawai'i to have all those people in other states sending their tax dollars to Hawai'i, it's legally and morally wrong because ethnic Hawaiians are not an Indian tribe. Now the day of reckoning has arrived, and it's time to dismantle those programs.}}

==Is the Akaka bill constitutional?==
Absolutely. The U.S. Constitution provides Congress the authority to give federal recognition to all aboriginal groups in the U.S.

{{correction|That's absolutely false. Nowhere does the Constitution use the word "aboriginal." Nowhere does it say "indigenous." It says Congress has the power "To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes." Everything named in that clause refers to governments, not to racial groups or aboriginal or indigenous people. That clause does not authorize Congress to round up a bunch of widely scattered and thoroughly assimilated individuals who have nothing in common with each other except one small part of their race, and create a government for them. If that were to be allowed, then Congress could also create a new "Nation of Aztlan" consisting of all people in the U.S. who have Mexican ancestry and who live in those parts of the U.S. that formerly belonged to Mexico. The theory is the same.}}

==Is the Akaka bill race-based?==
{{comment|Is the Pope Catholic?}}

The authority for Congress to pass legislation for America's indigenous groups is not based on race but on their existence as a sovereign nation before the existence of the U.S.
{{correction|The trouble is, there was never any government exercising authority over all native Hawaiians and exclusively native Hawaiians; which is what the Akaka bill proposes. Prior to 1810 various Hawaiian islands, and subdistricts on each island, had their own rulers who were often at war against each other. When Kamehameha the Great unified all the islands through bloody conquest and successful intimidation, he used newly-available English guns and ships and English military advisors. Those Englishmen then became high-ranking officials of Kamehameha's government -- John Young, for example, was made Governor of Kamehameha's own home Island of Hawai'i. Throughout the Kingdom's history from 1810 to 1893, most of the cabinet ministers and judges, and many appointed and elected members of the Legislature, were not native.

If the Akaka bill purports to re-create or re-organize the government of the once-sovereign and independent nation of Hawai'i, that nation must be fully multiracial just as the Kingdom actually was.}}

==Will the Akaka bill authorize the Native Hawaiian governing entity to conduct gambling?==
No, it will not.

{{correction|That's the same answer that was given during the hearing of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee in February 2005. But several Senators realized that answer was false, and forced an amendment to the Akaka bill to strengthen the language against gambling, before reporting the bill to the floor. At that point the Hawai'i delegation said the bill now had safeguards against gambling. Later, several Senators still were not satisfied,and placed holds on the bill and prevented it from coming to the floor, because they did not believe the safeguards were sufficient. Now comes Senator Akaka will a newly amended bill with allegedly stronger language against gambling. Don't believe him for a moment. He tried to fool the Senators on this point with the original bill, then with the amended bill that came out of committee, then with a new amendment. Don't be fooled yet again.}}

==The Akaka bill does not ...==
*Does NOT legalize gambling.
{{comment|Of course the bill does not specifically legalize gambling. But as noted above, the bill probably includes loopholes through which clever, highly-paid lawyers will find a way to roll the dice.}}

*Does NOT permit grabbing or taking of private property or military lands.
{{comment|True, the bill as written does not specifically permit such things. But the bill does explicitly set up a process whereby the new tribal government can negotiate such things with the State and Federal governments. Similar fears have been fulfilled on the mainland. Furthermore, states and Indian tribes have sometimes negotiated agreements to use the state's power of eminent domain to condemn private land and turn it over to a tribe. A recent decision of the U.S. Supreme Court strengthens the ability for state and tribal governments to do such things.}}

*Does NOT alter current government authority, including taxation powers, but does provide for future negotiation over such matters.
{{comment|Yes. This is correctly stated. And it should be very frightening to Hawai'i citizens, who have watched the State Legislature and the county councils already eagerly turning over state and county lands and state money to the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, most recently in the case of huge acreage at Waokele O Puna on Hawai'i Island and all of Waimea Valley on O'ahu. In both cases, a consortium of public and private groups paid large sums of money for the land, OHA contributed a very small portion of the funds, and then the deed was simply handed over to OHA. Imagine how much worse this situation will be when a tribal council similar to OHA is recognized as a government on a fully equal footing with the state and federal governments.}}

*Does NOT authorize secession from the U.S.
{{comment|Of course no bill could ever be passed by Congress to authorize a State to secede from the Union. A civil war was fought over that issue, 1860-1865. However, the Akaka bill is based squarely on the apology resolution of 1993 wherein the U.S. apologizes to "Native Hawaiians" (but not to other subjects of the Hawaiian Kingdom) and takes the blame for the overthrow of the monarchy a century earlier. Senator Slade Gorton objected on the floor of the Senate, saying that the logical consequence of the apology resolution would be secession. Since then, Hawaiian independence activists have repeatedly cited the apology resolution as a confession of a crime under international law, and are calling for U.S. withdrawal from Hawai'i. Senator Akaka himself said on National Public Radio that secession wil be something for his grandchildren to decide (note that they are already adults!). OHA has clearly stated on its website that secession is one of the possible eventual outcomes. The Akaka bill greatly empowers those who hold historical grievances and resentment against the United States for occupying their ancestral homeland, depriving them of their traditional culture, and oppressing them. Why should anyone want to empower such sentiments?}}

==Who supports the Akaka Bill?==
*The majority (65%-86%) of Hawai'i's residents, Hawaiians and non-Hawaiians, as confirmed in two credible surveys conducted by a professional research company
{{correction|A [http://akakatalka.grassrootinstitute.org/2006/05/24/survey-results-on-the-akaka-bill/ more credible poll], without leading questions and a larger sample size, has shown that the Akaka Bill is opposed by all the people of Hawaii by a 2-to-1 margin.}}
*The entire Hawai'i Congressional Delegation (Senator Daniel Inouye, Senator Daniel Akaka, Representative Neil Abercrombie, Representative Ed Case)
*Governor Linda Lingle, Lt. Gov. James "Duke" Aiona
*State Attorney General Mark Bennett
*Hawai'i State Legislature
*Mayors of all four county governinents in Hawai'i
*Office of Hawaiian Affairs
*Kamehameha Schools
*Hawai'i Carpenters Union
*Hawai'i Government Employees Association (HGEA)
*Hawai'i State Teachers Association (HSTA)
*International Longshore & Warehouse Union (ILWU)
*Japanese American Citizens League (JACL)
*Filipinos for Affirmative Action
*Tagalog Association of O'ahu, Inc.

''National Supporters:''
*Republican and Democrat Congressional Co-sponsors of the Bill
*American Bar Association
*National Congress of American Indians (NCAI)
*Alaska Federation of Natives (AFN)
*Governors' Interstate Indian Council (GIIC)
*Inter Tribal Council of Arizona
*Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians
*National Indian Education Association
*Tribal Education Departments National Assembly
*Virginia Indian Tribal Alliance For Life
*Japanese American Citizens League (JACL)
*National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP)
*National Coalition of Asian Pacific Americans
*National Organization of Pacific Islanders in America
*Organization of Chinese Americans
*Leadership Conference on Civil Rights
*League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC)
*Mexican Arnericm Legal Defense & Educational Fund
{{comment|Some of the "National Supporters" have clear motives of self-interest which should be seen as red flags warning us NOT to pass the Akaka bill.

National Congress of American Indians (NCAI), Alaska Federation of Natives (AFN), Governors' Interstate Indian Council (GIIC), Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians, National Indian Education Association, Tribal Education Departments National Asasembly, Virginia Indian Tribal Alliance for Life -- All these Indian tribal organizations fear that defeat of the Akaka bill would raise doubts about whether U.S. federal Indian policy might come under closer scrutiny. In particular, the Alaska Federation of Natives is worried that defeat of the Akaka bill would raise doubts about the Constitutional validity of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. Several Alaska native corporations have contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Council for Native Hawaiian Advancement. Hawai'i Senators Akaka and Inouye (both Democrats) have traded votes with Alaska Senators Stevens and Murkowski (both Republicans) whereby Akaka and Inouye vote in favor of drilling for oil in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge in return for Stevens and Murkowski voting for the Akaka bill.

Japanese American Citizens League (JACL), National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), National Coalition of Asian Pacific Americans, National Organization of Pacific Islanders in America, Organization of Chinese Americans -- all of these are focused on race or ethnicity; all see their particular ethnic group as victims of white oppression; all see their particular ethnic group as entitled to reparations for historical grievances, so that passing the Akaka bill would smooth the way for them to get reparations for their own groups.

League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), and Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF) -- These militant organizations seek to defend the "rights" of illegal immigrants; advocate zealously for "open borders" and amnesty for previous law-breaking. They advocate a theory of reconquista, that huge areas of the American Southwest that formerly belonged to Mexico should still be regarded as Mexican territory where people of Mexican ancestry can freely cross the border. Passing the Akaka bill to establish a Nation of Hawai'i would be a precedent for these groups to establish a Nation of Aztlan and take back from the gringos the territory rightfully belonging to La Raza (similar to the Hawaiian term "Ka Lahui").}}

2006-06-02 OHA Brochure Fact Check

2006-06-04T02:04:00Z

Ken Conklin: /* What is the purpose of the Akaka bill? */

Back to [[Correcting Akaka]]

"The Time is Now" is a slick trifold brochure
asking people to support the Akaka bill. It was
mass-mailed in late May and early June. The
brochure features the Hawaiian flag but no
American flag. One reason for the absence of the
American flag is that many Hawaiian activists
believe that the U.S. is illegally occupying
their ancestral homeland and has been the source
of prolonged oppression. To empower such people
by creating a government for them is to empower a
secessionist movement.

=Brochure Contents=
==What is the purpose of the Akaka bill?==
The Akaka Bill, S 147/HR 309, simply asks Congress to reaffirm and provide parity in its federal policy of self-determination and self-governance for indigenous peoples by providing for the reorganization of
the government of the Native Hawaiian people, who along with the American Indians and the Alaska Natives, make up the three groups of native peoples in the United States.

{{correction|No. The bill does not "simply" ask Congress to provide parity. The bill established a process for setting up a government based solely on race, in a place where there has never been such a government. The bill authorizes the new government to negotiate with the federal and state governments for land, money, and political power to be used exclusively by a racial group.

There are NOT "three groups of native peoples in the United States." There are over 560 federally recognized tribes, fiercely independent of each other. some of which formerly fought wars against each other and against the United States. The majority of people who are racially American Indian do not and cannot belong to any tribe. Lumping all American Indians together as one of three "native peoples of the United States" is racial profiling, but does not reflect the political reality that there are hundreds of different tribes with different governments, different laws, and different benefits for members. The "parity" now "enjoyed" by Native Hawaiians is that they have the same status as several hundred other groups of "indigenous people" who have applied for tribal recognition and have been either denied or put off for decades. Senators Akaka and Inouye have had amazing success in fooling Congress into treating ethnic Hawaiians as though they are an Indian tribe; much as a tailor might be praised for making a sow's ear look like a silk purse.}}

==Why is the Akaka bill so important now?==
Since the U.S. Supreme Court decision of ''Rice v. Cayetano'', judicial challenges to existing Hawaiian rights have increased in both number of suits filed and the persistence of the plaintiffs in advancing their cases to the highest court of the land. If these plaintiffs succeed with their racial discrimination suits against programs with a Hawaiian preference, over 150 federal programs and funding vehicles, totaling over $70 million dollars per year, will eventually cease to be available. Funding for programs, services, and entitlements that benefit and improve the lives of Native Hawaiians are at stake. For example, assets and funding of:

*Office of Hawaiian Affairs & $380 million trust fund
*Department of Hawaiian Home Lands & 200,000 acres
*Alu Like, Inc.
*Na Pua No'eau
*Native Hawaiian Legal Corporation
*UH tuition waivers
*Native Hawaiian Education Act
*Native Hawaiian Health Improvement Act
*Federal funding amounting to $1.1 billion over the past 25 years
*Hundreds of community organizations who receive grants totaling $9 million per year from OHA

{{comment|This section is honest about saying the main purpose of the bill is to protect "over 150 federal programs and funding vehicles, totaling over $70 million dollars per year." This section is also correct in saying that if plaintiffs in various lawsuits succeed, those programs "will eventually cease to be available." The reason those lawsuits will eventually succeed is because those programs are unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment. Those programs were created only because Senators Akaka and Inouye have say on the Indian Affairs Committee for trheir entire political careers -- the only State that has both of its Senators on the committee -- despite the fact that there has never been an Indian tribe in Hawai'i. And throughout those many years, whenever a bill comes along to provide federal handouts to genuine Indian tribes, Senators Akaka and Inouye have added "and Native Hawaiians" into the bill. While it's wonderful for the people of Hawai'i to have all those people in other states sending their tax dollars to Hawai'i, it's legally and morally wrong because ethnic Hawaiians are not an Indian tribe. Now the day of reckoning has arrived, and it's time to dismantle the race-based nature of those programs. Hopefully these programs for health and education needs, will find new life after the race-based components are removed, and serve all the people of Hawaii regardless of ethnicity.}}

==Is the Akaka bill constitutional?==
Absolutely. The U.S. Constitution provides Congress the authority to give federal recognition to all aboriginal groups in the U.S.

{{correction|That's absolutely false. Nowhere does the Constitution use the word "aboriginal." Nowhere does it say "indigenous." It says Congress has the power "To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes." Everything named in that clause refers to governments, not to racial groups or aboriginal or indigenous people. That clause does not authorize Congress to round up a bunch of widely scattered and thoroughly assimilated individuals who have nothing in common with each other except one small part of their race, and create a government for them. If that were to be allowed, then Congress could also create a new "Nation of Aztlan" consisting of all people in the U.S. who have Mexican ancestry and who live in those parts of the U.S. that formerly belonged to Mexico. The theory is the same.}}

==Is the Akaka bill race-based?==
{{comment|Is the Pope Catholic?}}

The authority for Congress to pass legislation for America's indigenous groups is not based on race but on their existence as a sovereign nation before the existence of the U.S.
{{correction|The trouble is, there was never any government exercising authority over all native Hawaiians and exclusively native Hawaiians; which is what the Akaka bill proposes. Prior to 1810 various Hawaiian islands, and subdistricts on each island, had their own rulers who were often at war against each other. When Kamehameha the Great unified all the islands through bloody conquest and successful intimidation, he used newly-available English guns and ships and English military advisors. Those Englishmen then became high-ranking officials of Kamehameha's government -- John Young, for example, was made Governor of Kamehameha's own home Island of Hawai'i. Throughout the Kingdom's history from 1810 to 1893, most of the cabinet ministers and judges, and many appointed and elected members of the Legislature, were not native.

If the Akaka bill purports to re-create or re-organize the government of the once-sovereign and independent nation of Hawai'i, that nation must be fully multiracial just as the Kingdom actually was.}}

==Will the Akaka bill authorize the Native Hawaiian governing entity to conduct gambling?==
No, it will not.

{{correction|That's the same answer that was given during the hearing of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee in February 2005. But several Senators realized that answer was false, and forced an amendment to the Akaka bill to strengthen the language against gambling, before reporting the bill to the floor. At that point the Hawai'i delegation said the bill now had safeguards against gambling. Later, several Senators still were not satisfied,and placed holds on the bill and prevented it from coming to the floor, because they did not believe the safeguards were sufficient. Now comes Senator Akaka will a newly amended bill with allegedly stronger language against gambling. Don't believe him for a moment. He tried to fool the Senators on this point with the original bill, then with the amended bill that came out of committee, then with a new amendment. Don't be fooled yet again.}}

==The Akaka bill does not ...==
*Does NOT legalize gambling.
{{comment|Of course the bill does not specifically legalize gambling. But as noted above, the bill probably includes loopholes through which clever, highly-paid lawyers will find a way to roll the dice.}}

*Does NOT permit grabbing or taking of private property or military lands.
{{comment|True, the bill as written does not specifically permit such things. But the bill does explicitly set up a process whereby the new tribal government can negotiate such things with the State and Federal governments. Similar fears have been fulfilled on the mainland. Furthermore, states and Indian tribes have sometimes negotiated agreements to use the state's power of eminent domain to condemn private land and turn it over to a tribe. A recent decision of the U.S. Supreme Court strengthens the ability for state and tribal governments to do such things.}}

*Does NOT alter current government authority, including taxation powers, but does provide for future negotiation over such matters.
{{comment|Yes. This is correctly stated. And it should be very frightening to Hawai'i citizens, who have watched the State Legislature and the county councils already eagerly turning over state and county lands and state money to the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, most recently in the case of huge acreage at Waokele O Puna on Hawai'i Island and all of Waimea Valley on O'ahu. In both cases, a consortium of public and private groups paid large sums of money for the land, OHA contributed a very small portion of the funds, and then the deed was simply handed over to OHA. Imagine how much worse this situation will be when a tribal council similar to OHA is recognized as a government on a fully equal footing with the state and federal governments.}}

*Does NOT authorize secession from the U.S.
{{comment|Of course no bill could ever be passed by Congress to authorize a State to secede from the Union. A civil war was fought over that issue, 1860-1865. However, the Akaka bill is based squarely on the apology resolution of 1993 wherein the U.S. apologizes to "Native Hawaiians" (but not to other subjects of the Hawaiian Kingdom) and takes the blame for the overthrow of the monarchy a century earlier. Senator Slade Gorton objected on the floor of the Senate, saying that the logical consequence of the apology resolution would be secession. Since then, Hawaiian independence activists have repeatedly cited the apology resolution as a confession of a crime under international law, and are calling for U.S. withdrawal from Hawai'i. Senator Akaka himself said on National Public Radio that secession wil be something for his grandchildren to decide (note that they are already adults!). OHA has clearly stated on its website that secession is one of the possible eventual outcomes. The Akaka bill greatly empowers those who hold historical grievances and resentment against the United States for occupying their ancestral homeland, depriving them of their traditional culture, and oppressing them. Why should anyone want to empower such sentiments?}}

==Who supports the Akaka Bill?==
*The majority (65%-86%) of Hawai'i's residents, Hawaiians and non-Hawaiians, as confirmed in two credible surveys conducted by a professional research company
{{correction|A [http://akakatalka.grassrootinstitute.org/2006/05/24/survey-results-on-the-akaka-bill/ more credible poll], without leading questions and a larger sample size, has shown that the Akaka Bill is opposed by all the people of Hawaii by a 2-to-1 margin.}}
*The entire Hawai'i Congressional Delegation (Senator Daniel Inouye, Senator Daniel Akaka, Representative Neil Abercrombie, Representative Ed Case)
*Governor Linda Lingle, Lt. Gov. James "Duke" Aiona
*State Attorney General Mark Bennett
*Hawai'i State Legislature
*Mayors of all four county governinents in Hawai'i
*Office of Hawaiian Affairs
*Kamehameha Schools
*Hawai'i Carpenters Union
*Hawai'i Government Employees Association (HGEA)
*Hawai'i State Teachers Association (HSTA)
*International Longshore & Warehouse Union (ILWU)
*Japanese American Citizens League (JACL)
*Filipinos for Affirmative Action
*Tagalog Association of O'ahu, Inc.

''National Supporters:''
*Republican and Democrat Congressional Co-sponsors of the Bill
*American Bar Association
*National Congress of American Indians (NCAI)
*Alaska Federation of Natives (AFN)
*Governors' Interstate Indian Council (GIIC)
*Inter Tribal Council of Arizona
*Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians
*National Indian Education Association
*Tribal Education Departments National Assembly
*Virginia Indian Tribal Alliance For Life
*Japanese American Citizens League (JACL)
*National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP)
*National Coalition of Asian Pacific Americans
*National Organization of Pacific Islanders in America
*Organization of Chinese Americans
*Leadership Conference on Civil Rights
*League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC)
*Mexican Arnericm Legal Defense & Educational Fund
{{comment|Some of the "National Supporters" have clear motives of self-interest which should be seen as red flags warning us NOT to pass the Akaka bill.

National Congress of American Indians (NCAI), Alaska Federation of Natives (AFN), Governors' Interstate Indian Council (GIIC), Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians, National Indian Education Association, Tribal Education Departments National Asasembly, Virginia Indian Tribal Alliance for Life -- All these Indian tribal organizations fear that defeat of the Akaka bill would raise doubts about whether U.S. federal Indian policy might come under closer scrutiny. In particular, the Alaska Federation of Natives is worried that defeat of the Akaka bill would raise doubts about the Constitutional validity of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. Several Alaska native corporations have contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Council for Native Hawaiian Advancement. Hawai'i Senators Akaka and Inouye (both Democrats) have traded votes with Alaska Senators Stevens and Murkowski (both Republicans) whereby Akaka and Inouye vote in favor of drilling for oil in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge in return for Stevens and Murkowski voting for the Akaka bill.

Japanese American Citizens League (JACL), National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), National Coalition of Asian Pacific Americans, National Organization of Pacific Islanders in America, Organization of Chinese Americans -- all of these are focused on race or ethnicity; all see their particular ethnic group as victims of white oppression; all see their particular ethnic group as entitled to reparations for historical grievances, so that passing the Akaka bill would smooth the way for them to get reparations for their own groups.

League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), and Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF) -- These militant organizations seek to defend the "rights" of illegal immigrants; advocate zealously for "open borders" and amnesty for previous law-breaking. They advocate a theory of reconquista, that huge areas of the American Southwest that formerly belonged to Mexico should still be regarded as Mexican territory where people of Mexican ancestry can freely cross the border. Passing the Akaka bill to establish a Nation of Hawai'i would be a precedent for these groups to establish a Nation of Aztlan and take back from the gringos the territory rightfully belonging to La Raza (similar to the Hawaiian term "Ka Lahui").}}

Main Page

2006-06-04T01:57:13Z

Ken Conklin:

=Featured Content=
==Native Hawaiians Study Commission Volume I==
A wikified version of the final NHSC majority report of June 23, 1983

The Native Hawaiians Study Commission was created by the Congress of the United States on December 22, 1980 (Title III of Public Law 96-565). The purpose of the Commission was to "conduct a study of the culture, needs and concerns of the Native Hawaiians." The Commission published and released to the public a Draft Report of Findings on September 23, 1982. Following a 120-day period of public comment, a final report was written and submitted on June 23, 1983 to the U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and to the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs.
===[[How to use the NHSC webpages effectively|TO THE READER: HOW TO USE THE NHSC WEBPAGES EFFECTIVELY]]===
(Reading, Downloading, Searching, Citing)

===Individual Sections===
*[[NHSC Executive Summary]]
*[[NHSC Conclusions And Recommendations]]
*[[NHSC Demographics]]
*[[NHSC Health And Social Services]]
*[[NHSC Education]]
*[[NHSC Housing]]
*[[NHSC Ancient History To The Reciprocity Treaty]]
*[[NHSC Native Hawaiian Culture]]
*[[NHSC Native Hawaiian Religion]]
*More sections will be listed after they are edited.
===[[NHSC Volume I Full Page List]]===
(to see photos and text of individual pages)
===[[Instructions for NHSC Editors]]===
===[[NHSC and the Akaka Bill]]===

==[[Correcting Akaka]]==
(1) A daily discussion of Akaka's remarks on the Senate floor in May 2006 regarding S. 147, with helpful historical corrections and commentary. 
(2) Comments and corrections to a brochure mass-mailed by OHA asking support for the Akaka bill. 
(3) Comments and corrections to dissenting opinions of 2 members of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights regarding the USCCR report on the Akaka bill.

Main Page

2006-06-04T01:54:51Z

Ken Conklin:

=Featured Content=
==Native Hawaiians Study Commission Volume I==
A wikified version of the final NHSC majority report of June 23, 1983

The Native Hawaiians Study Commission was created by the Congress of the United States on December 22, 1980 (Title III of Public Law 96-565). The purpose of the Commission was to "conduct a study of the culture, needs and concerns of the Native Hawaiians." The Commission published and released to the public a Draft Report of Findings on September 23, 1982. Following a 120-day period of public comment, a final report was written and submitted on June 23, 1983 to the U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and to the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs.
===[[How to use the NHSC webpages effectively|TO THE READER: HOW TO USE THE NHSC WEBPAGES EFFECTIVELY]]===
(Reading, Downloading, Searching, Citing)

===Individual Sections===
*[[NHSC Executive Summary]]
*[[NHSC Conclusions And Recommendations]]
*[[NHSC Demographics]]
*[[NHSC Health And Social Services]]
*[[NHSC Education]]
*[[NHSC Housing]]
*[[NHSC Ancient History To The Reciprocity Treaty]]
*[[NHSC Native Hawaiian Culture]]
*[[NHSC Native Hawaiian Religion]]
*More sections will be listed after they are edited.
===[[NHSC Volume I Full Page List]]===
(to see photos and text of individual pages)
===[[Instructions for NHSC Editors]]===
===[[NHSC and the Akaka Bill]]===

==[[Correcting Akaka]]==
(1) A daily discussion of Akaka's remarks on the Senate floor in May 2006 regarding S. 147, with helpful historical corrections and commentary. 
(2) Comments and corrections to dissenting opinions of 2 members of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights regarding the USCCR report on the Akaka bill. 
(3) Comments and corrections to a brochure mass-mailed by OHA asking support for the Akaka bill.

2006-05-17 Linda Lingle Fact Check

2006-05-29T01:39:54Z

Ken Conklin:

Back to [[Correcting Akaka]]

The following is a letter from Linda Lingle to Senator Bill Frist, written regarding the Akaka Bill.

=Linda Lingle's Letter with corrections=
May 15, 2006

The Honorable Bill Frist 
United States Senate 
509 Hart Senate Office Bldg 
Washington, DC 20510 

Aloha Senator Frist:

I am writing to again urge your support for a prompt and favorable Senate floor vote for S.147, the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2005. I also believe recent misguided action by the United States Commission on Civil Rights makes it even more important that the Senate take action on this measure. I have enclosed with this letter a list of what I believe to be the major flaws in the USCCR's report on the bill.
{{correction|Given the strong stance of the USCCR, it seems even more important that the Senate vote down Akaka's bill. See [[2006-05-17 Mark J. Bennett Fact Check]] for corrections to the alleged flaws in the USCCR's report.}}

As I have shared with you in the past, widespread support for this measure in Hawai`i stems from a realization that S.147 is both fair and just. The United States has three separate groups of indigenous peoples – American Indians, Native Alaskans (Aleuts and Eskimos) and Native Hawaiians. Two of these groups enjoy broad federal recognition as Native peoples. Native Hawaiians have been regarded as Native peoples for purposes of numerous federal Indian programs but do not enjoy the same sort of federal recognition as American Indians and Alaska Natives. It is a very simple matter of justice and fairness that Native Hawaiians receive the same treatment that America's other indigenous peoples enjoy. There is no basis, in law or justice, to deny them this fair treatment.
{{correction|The Akaka Bill seeks to create a tribe out of nothingness, create a racial government where none has ever existed in the history of mankind. Native Americans do not all belong to a single racial tribe - there are special laws and regulations regarding what is required for recognition, and Native Hawaiians do not meet those requirements.}}

I believe the report issued by a deeply polarized Civil Rights Commission is based on a grossly flawed understanding of the history of Hawai`i and of the law itself. Describing S.147 as a race-based preference ignores the historical relationship over the past 150 years that existed between the former Kingdom of Hawai`i, the native people of our islands, and the United States, and ignores clear Supreme Court precedent—Congress's recognition of indigenous peoples is political, not racial. I also note that the one American Indian on the Commission voted "no" on the report and is expected to file a formal dissent.
{{correction|In Rice v. Cayetano, the Supreme Court made clear that using ancestry as a proxy for race in the case of Native Hawaiians was unconstitutional.}}

Moreover, Native Hawaiians were governed by their own leaders and their own laws prior to Western contact. The United States recognized the Hawaiian Kingdom as a sovereign nation and entered into treaties with the Kingdom as far back as 1826. When Hawai`i was annexed, the government of the former kingdom was subordinated to the federal government. Therefore, the relationship had been and has continued to be political, not racial, in nature.
{{correction|Although prior to 1778 various Native Hawaiian groups were governed by their own leaders and laws, the unification of Hawaii occured through the actions of Kamehameha the Great, and non-Native Hawaiian advisors. From the moment the Kingdom was finally unified in 1810 until it ended in 1893, there was never any government (such as the Akaka bill proposes) that was exclusively for natives. Non-natives helped create the Kingdom, helped it prosper, and participated fully as appointed cabinet ministers, as heads of the executive departments, as voters, as appointed and elected members of the Legislature, and as judges. Kamehameha appointed John Young to be the first governor of his own home island of Hawaii. To create a government restricted to ethnic Hawaiians where none had ever existed before is racist.}}

Unfortunately this relationship was neither adequately, correctly, nor fairly reflected in the analysis conducted by the Civil Rights Commission staff.
{{correction|The USCCR listened to testimony from experts on both sides, and came to the only reasonable conclusion given the facts.}}

As additional background on this issue, I am enclosing a copy of the testimony I gave to the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs in March of last year, as well as the testimony of our State Attorney General to the USCCR.

I also note that the original bill, and the amended version that will be offered by Senator Akaka based on negotiations last summer with the administration, will not allow Native Hawaiian gambling in Hawai`i, will not allow any denial of civil rights, will not lead to secession (the very idea is nonsense), and will not result in any other negative consequences for Hawai`i.
{{correction|See the [[Akaka Substitute Comparison]] for a detailed analysis of the differences between the current S.147 and the proposed changes. Note that none of the changes alter the primary USCCR concern, which is that the Akaka Bill enshrines racial discrimination into law.}}

I know that there are many pressing national issues that confront you and the Senate each day. S.147, while not of such national importance, has enormous implications for Hawai`i, the people of my state, and to me personally.

I finish where I began. S.147 is not about race or racial preferences. It is about fairness – fairness for Native Hawaiians and for Hawai`i and her people. Therefore, I humbly ask for your vote in support of S.147 for the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2005 when it comes to the Senate floor.

Sincerely,

LINDA LINGLE

{{break}}

On Sunday May 28, 2006 Tom Macdonald published a letter-to-editor specifically noting that Governor Lingle is mistaken when she says the Akaka bill "will not lead to secession" (and she even adds for emphasis: "the very idea is nonsense.") Tom Macdonald's letter is copied below. Anyone concerned about this issue should also read a webpage providing detailed evidence that secession is indeed contemplated:

{{correction|"The Akaka Bill And Secession: The Hawaiian Government Reorganization bill (Akaka bill) is seen by its supporters as a step toward total independence for all of Hawai'i"
http://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/AkakaSecession.html}}

{{correction|Honolulu Star-Bulletin, Sunday, May 28, 2006
http://starbulletin.com/2006/05/28/editorial/letters.html

Governor gives false assurance on secession

Governor Lingle's May 15 letter to Republican U.S. senators claims that passage of the Akaka Bill will "not lead to secession" from the U.S. by a newly-formed sovereign Hawaiian government. She says "the very idea is nonsense."

Perhaps the governor is not aware of the following:

» Until recently, the OHA Web site stated on its Hawaiian governance page: "What form of government will be established? The ultimate form of government -- be it total independence, nation-within-a-nation or free association -- must be decided upon and ratified by the Hawaiian people.

"What's the difference between independence, nation-within-a-nation, and free association? Independence: This model would mean complete legal and territorial separation from the United States and the re-establishment of the Hawaiian nation state."

» On July 8, 2005, OHA Trustee Rowena Akana stated on National Public Radio that "if the majority of Hawaiian people want secession, then that's the way we'll go."

» Also in July 2005, Senator Akaka responded evasively on NPR to a question about the possibility of secession, saying "that is something I leave for my grandchildren to decide."

Supporters of the Akaka Bill appear to have realized that the idea of secession was a public relations disaster, so they have been keeping the issue flying under the radar. But it is clear that an attempt at secession by any new Hawaiian nation is a distinct possibility, regardless of Lingle's assurances to the contrary.

Tom Macdonald
Kaneohe
}}

Conclusions: Wrapping up the May 2006 Akaka Corrections

2006-05-27T03:07:43Z

Ken Conklin:

Editorial comment by Kenneth R. Conklin, Ph.D.

Senator Akaka promised to speak about the Akaka bill on the floor of the Senate every day until the bill came to the floor for debate. He did give a short speech every day for five days, but then stopped. He stopped after he reported an agreement with Senator Frist that a cloture petition would be introduced and the bill would be heard the week of June 5.

The fact that Senator Akaka stopped after only five days clearly shows his promise to speak every day was actually a threat: schedule the bill or else the Senate will be forced to listen to me every day! As soon as Senator Frist met Senator Akaka's demand, there were no more speeches. Senator Akaka's behavior is very "un-Hawaiian." The Hawaiian word for Senator Akaka's behavior is "maha'oi" -- rude; disrespectful; barging in.

Senator Akaka had plenty of opportunities every day to speak. That's why there's an item in the list of Akaka corrections for every day the Senate was in session for the remainder of May -- to provide examples showing that other Senators had no difficulty speaking on a great variety of different topics not related to the main topic under discussion in the Senate. Placing those "corrections" for each day Senator Akaka did NOT speak is like placing an empty chair on the stage for a debate where one of the principals refuses to appear.

Why did Senator Akaka stop speaking? The answer is simple. He does not really want to call attention to his bill. He does not want Senators or the general public to study the bill or even to think about it. If he wanted people to learn about the bill, he could and SHOULD have used his right to speak about it every day.

Senator Akaka passed up a chance every day to "educate" his colleagues and all America about the Akaka bill. The reason why is obvious -- he doesn't want them to learn what's in the bill; and he doesn't want to invite opponents to to engage in honest, open debate. He hopes to pass the bill with as little debate as possible, by trading votes with other Senators on other topics even when those Senators would probably oppose the Akaka bill on principle. Most Republican Senators who agreed to vote-trading deals and signed on to support the Akaka bill probably regret their decision the more they learn about the bill. They would probably like to avoid actually casting the vote they pledged to Senator Akaka in return for Akaka and Inouye agreeing to oil drilling in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge, for example. By forcing the bill to come to the floor, Senator Akaka forces honorable Senators to cast a vote they pledged but find distasteful.

2006-05-26 Akaka Fact Check

2006-05-27T03:01:44Z

Ken Conklin:

Back to [[Correcting Akaka]]
=No speech given today=
On Monday May 8, Senator Lamar Alexander gave a speech urging his colleagues to oppose the Akaka bill, citing the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights report as a good reason for opposing it.

On Monday, May 8 Senator Akaka responded to Senator Alexander's speech.

Senator Akaka promised to give a speech every day the Senate is in session to explain why his bill should be passed.

<blockquote>'''I will be coming to the floor to talk about my bill every day until we begin debate on the bill. I will use every day to talk about what my bill does and does not do, and to respond to the outright mistruths that have been spread about the legislation. I will use every day to help share Hawai'i's history with my colleagues as the opponents to this legislation have taken it upon themselves to rewrite the tragedies of Hawaii's history in a manner that suits them for the purposes of opposing this legislation. - Senator Akaka, May 8, 2006'''</blockquote>

Friday May 26, 2006, although debate has not begun on S.147, Senator Akaka failed yet again to give such a speech. He had plenty of opportunity to do so.

First thing in the morning the Senate confirmed the nomination of General Hayden to be the new director of the CIA, and also confirmed the nomination of a federal circuit court judge which had previously been filibustered for three years. But following those votes, individual Senators were then able to take the floor for speeches on whatever topics they chose.

For example, Senator Robert Byrd (D, WV) spoke for 51 minutes during the early part of today's session, on topics completely unrelated to pending legislation. He spent about 2 minutes memorializing former Senator Lloyd Bentsen, who died yesterday, followed by 16 minutes speaking about Memorial Day and its origins. He then spent an additional 31 minutes speaking about his recently deceased wife Irma. He commemorated their marriage of 68 years, 9 months, and 24 days, whose 69th anniversary would have been May 29. Senator Byrd later returned for 2 more minutes of memorializing his wife Irma, receiving unanimous consent to enter into the record at the end of his previous remarks the lines of a poem he said was the favorite of himself and his wife: "If I Should Ever Leave You."

Senator Byrd consumed 51 minutes. There's no reason Senator Akaka could not also have consumed 51 minutes to "educate" fellow Senators and the American people about the Akaka bill. But Senator Akaka was nowhere to be seen or heard from.

Correcting Akaka

2006-05-27T02:53:16Z

Ken Conklin: /* Corrections */

=Introduction=
Senator Akaka has promised to speak daily regarding [http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:S.147.RS: S. 147], aka the Akaka Bill. Coming on the heels of a [http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/060504NatHawBriefReport.pdf damning report] released by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, it represents a new tactic for a troubled bill. As time permits, we will analyze Senator Akaka's remarks, and hope to present readers with timely corrections to historical errors Senator Akaka makes, as well as additional commentary that may be helpful in understanding the issues.

==Background==
;[http://morganreport.org/mediawiki/media/2/2d/Cm060120.pdf January 20, 2006 USCCR meeting transcript]:Hearings before the USCCR, including testimony from both pro-S.147 and anti-S.147 experts.
;[http://morganreport.org/mediawiki/media/4/43/60504_Draft_Report_USCCR.pdf May 4, 2006 USCCR draft report recommending against the Akaka bill]:Draft report including a [[USCCR Akaka Findings|findings section]].
;[http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/060504NatHawBriefReport.pdf May 4, 2006 USCCR final report recommending against the Akaka bill]:Final report with findings section redacted after complaint from 2 of the commissioners. See [[USCCR Akaka Findings]] for details on the findings.
;[[Akaka Substitute Comparison]]:Detailed comparison between the current version of S.147 actually before the Senate, and an allegedly proposed version addressing some, but not all, of the concerns raised by the U.S. Department of Justice. Senator Akaka posted the trial balloon on his Senate website in September 2005 with great fanfare, but has never formally introduced it in the Senate. A few days later in September the DOJ issued a statement that the trial balloon still does not resolve important issues. Senator Akaka now complains that the U.S. Civil Rights Commission considered only the version actually pending in the Senate, and did not consider his allegedly amended version. Interestingly, the trial balloon was not different from the actually-pending bill on the issues of concern to the Civil Rights Commission, as can be seen by comparing the two versions.
;[[Hawaii on the chopping block]]:Discussion of S.147 and its possible impacts.
;[http://starbulletin.com/2006/05/13/editorial/commentary.html Commission’s findings clarify position on Akaka Bill]:Commentary piece from May 13, 2006 Honolulu Star Bulletin
;[http://rpc.senate.gov/_files/Jun2205NatHawSD.pdf Why Congress Must Reject Race-Based Government for Native Hawaiians]:PDF explaining how S.147 offends basic American values.

==Corrections==
Correcting errors of fact and interpretation in Senator Akaka's speeches and other politicians in support of Akaka's bill. Point-counterpoint, and further analysis.

*[[2006-05-08 Akaka Fact Check]]
*[[2006-05-09 Akaka Fact Check]]
*[[2006-05-10 Akaka Fact Check]]
*[[2006-05-11 Akaka Fact Check]]
*[[2006-05-12 Akaka Fact Check]]
*[[2006-05-15 Akaka Fact Check]]
*[[2006-05-16 Akaka Fact Check]]
*[[2006-05-17 Mark J. Bennett Fact Check]]
*[[2006-05-17 Linda Lingle Fact Check]]
*[[2006-05-17 Akaka Fact Check]]
*[[2006-05-18 Akaka Fact Check]]
*[[2006-05-19 Akaka Fact Check]]
*[[2006-05-22 Akaka Fact Check]]
*[[2006-05-23 Akaka Fact Check]]
*[[2006-05-24 Akaka Fact Check]]
*[[2006-05-25 Akaka Fact Check]]
*[[2006-05-26 Akaka Fact Check]]
*[[Conclusions: Wrapping up the May 2006 Akaka Corrections]]

2006-05-25 Akaka Fact Check

2006-05-26T15:30:08Z

Ken Conklin: /* No speech given today */

2006-05-25 Akaka Fact Check

2006-05-26T07:27:23Z

Ken Conklin:

Correcting Akaka

2006-05-26T07:22:28Z

Ken Conklin: /* Corrections */

2006-05-24 Akaka Fact Check

2006-05-25T07:08:54Z

Ken Conklin:

Correcting Akaka

2006-05-25T07:00:25Z

Ken Conklin: /* Corrections */

2006-05-23 Akaka Fact Check

2006-05-24T02:58:44Z

Ken Conklin:

Back to [[Correcting Akaka]]
=No speech given today=
On Monday May 8, Senator Lamar Alexander gave a speech urging his colleagues to oppose the Akaka bill, citing the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights report as a good reason for opposing it.

On Monday, May 8 Senator Akaka responded to Senator Alexander's speech.

Senator Akaka promised to give a speech every day the Senate is in session to explain why his bill should be passed.

<blockquote>'''I will be coming to the floor to talk about my bill every day until we begin debate on the bill. I will use every day to talk about what my bill does and does not do, and to respond to the outright mistruths that have been spread about the legislation. I will use every day to help share Hawai'i's history with my colleagues as the opponents to this legislation have taken it upon themselves to rewrite the tragedies of Hawaii's history in a manner that suits them for the purposes of opposing this legislation. - Senator Akaka, May 8, 2006'''</blockquote>

But today, May 23, 2006, although debate has not begun on S.147, Senator Akaka failed yet again to give such a speech.

Tuesday May 23 offered plenty of opportunity for Senator Akaka to give a speech on the Akaka bill.

Most speeches were about the comprehensive immigration bill that has occupied the Senate for more than a week. Many roll call votes were taken on various amendments to that bill. But there were also quorum calls when nobody was speaking.

At the end of the day Senator Larry Craig (R, ID) spoke for 10 minutes on the violation of the privacy of several million veterans when a computer containing their data was stolen from the home of a VA staffer. And Senator Mary Landrieu (D, LA) spoke about the start of this year's hurricane season and recalling what happened last year because of Hurricane Katrina.

Thus it is clear that any Senator who wished to speak on any topic was able to do so, either during the numerous quorum calls or at the end of the day. Senator Akaka never spoke, although he did cast votes on amendments to the immigration bill.

Perhaps Senator Akaka is out of ideas, or has finally been mollified by the promise of a cloture vote after the Memorial Day recess.

If Senator Akaka speaks on the issue again, we will provide more fact checking of what he says.

Correcting Akaka

2006-05-24T02:49:46Z

Ken Conklin: /* Corrections */

NHSC and the Akaka Bill

2006-05-23T20:18:57Z

Ken Conklin:

The Native Hawaiians Study Commission was created by the Congress of the United States on December 22, 1980 (Title III of Public Law 96-565). The purpose of the Commission was to "conduct a study of the culture, needs and concerns of the Native Hawaiians." The Commission published and released to the public a Draft Report of Findings on September 23, 1982. Following a 120-day period of public comment, a final report was written and submitted on June 23, 1983 to the U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and to the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs.

The NHSC examined the history of Hawai'i and the current conditions (1980) of Native Hawaiians. One purpose of the commission was to explore whether Native Hawaiians have special needs, and what those needs might be. Another purpose of the commission was to explore whether the United States has any historical, legal, or moral obligation to meet the special needs of Native Hawaiians by providing them with political sovereignty or race-specific group rights.

The commission found that Native Hawaiians have higher rates than other ethnic groups for indicators of dysfunction in health, education, income, etc. The commission concluded that the U.S. has no obligation to remedy those problems in any way other than the usual assistance given by government to all people afflicted with difficulties.

Portions of the "Conclusions and Recommendations" section of the NHSC final report focus on topics of special interest regarding the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization bill, S.147 and H.R.309 in the 109th Congress.

1. There is no historical, legal, or moral obligation for the U.S. government to provide race-based reparations, assistance, or group rights for Native Hawaiians.

2. Affirmative outreach is appropriate to ensure Native Hawaiians are given the assistance they need; but race-based or racially exclusionary programs are not recommended. Native Hawaiians may be disproportionately afflicted by some specific medical or social problems. Native Hawaiians should receive affirmative outreach to ensure they are aware of and receive help from existing programs open to all needy people. When considering what new programs government should sponsor, care should be taken to target some of those new programs to areas of concern which disproportionately afflict Native Hawaiians. However, the NHSC carefully worded its recommendations to avoid proposing race-based or racially exclusionary programs or group rights.

Following are some quotes from the "Conclusions and Recommendations" section of the NHSC report. These particular quotes are highlighted because of their relevance to the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization bill under consideration in the 109th Congress (also known as S.147 and H.R.309, informally called the "Akaka bill"). The full set of conclusions can be found on pp. 23-32 of the report. The conclusions regarding lack of a federal trust relationship with Native Hawaiians, and lack of any obligation to pay reparations, are more fully explored in the section entitled "Existing Law, Native Hawaiians, and Compensation" found on pp. 333-370 including 198 footnotes citing both Kingdom of Hawaii and U.S. government actions and legal decisions.

{{break}}

THERE IS NO HISTORICAL, LEGAL, OR MORAL OBLIGATION FOR THE U.S. TO GIVE RACE-BASED REPARATIONS, GROUP RIGHTS, OR POLITICAL SOVEREIGNTY TO NATIVE HAWAIISNS

"To summarize the Commission's findings with regard to the overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy: Based upon the information available to it, the Commission concluded that Minister John L. Stevens and certain other individuals occupying positions with the U.S. Government participated in activities contributing to the overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy on January 17, 1893. The Commission was unable to conclude that these activities were sanctioned by the President or the Congress. In fact, official government records lend strong support to the conclusion that Minister Stevens' actions were not sanctioned." (page 29)

"Besides the findings summarized above, the Commission concludes that, as an ethical or moral matter, Congress should not provide for native Hawaiians to receive compensation either for loss of land or of sovereignty. Reviewing the situation generally, including the historical changes in Hawaii's land laws and constitution before 1893, the Hawaiian political climate that led to the overthrow, the lack of authorized involvement by the United States, and the apparent limited role of United States forces in the overthrow, the Commission found that on an ethical or moral basis, native Hawaiians should not receive reparations." (page 29)

"The relations between the United States and Hawaii up to the time of annexation were relations between two separate, sovereign nations, not between a sovereign and those subject to its sovereignty." (page 25)

"Generally, the most likely possible theories for the award of compensation to native groups for loss of land were aboriginal title or recognized title doctrines." (page 25)

"The law has developed specific tests for establishing aboriginal title: the group must be a single land-owning entity; there must be actual and exclusive use and occupancy of the lands; the use and occupancy must be of a defined area; the land must have been used and occupied for a long time before aboriginal title was extinguished. Additionally, title must have been extinguished by the government of the United States, not by another body, such as the government of Hawaii before the United States annexed Hawaii. Finally, some law must give the native group, here the native Hawaiians, a right to compensation for loss of aboriginal title. The Commission finds that the facts do not meet the tests for showing the existence of aboriginal title." (pp. 25-26)

"Even if the tests had been met, the Commission finds that such title was extinguished by actions of the Hawaiian government before 1893, and certainly before annexation, which was the first assumption of sovereignty by the United States." (page 26)

"Finally, even if these tests had been met, neither the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution nor current statutes provide authority for payment of compensation to native Hawaiians for loss of aboriginal title." (page 26)

"The law also has developed specific legal requirements for compensation of loss of lands by recognized title. The Commission examined the question of whether treaties and statutes, the Joint Resolution of Annexation, or the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provide a basis for payment under the theory of recognized title, and concluded that no basis exists." (page 26)

"The Commission examined whether a trust or fiduciary relationship exists between the United States and native Hawaiians and concluded that no statutes or treaties give rise to such a relationship because the United States did not exercise sovereignty over the Hawaiian Islands prior to annexation, and the Joint Resolution of Annexation, No. 55 (July 7, 1898) did not create a special relationship for native Hawaiians." (page 26)

"The Commission considered whether native Hawaiians are entitled to compensation for loss of sovereignty, and found no present legal entitlement to compensation for any loss of sovereignty." (page 26)

{{break}}

AFFIRMATIVE OUTREACH BUT NO RACE-BASED OR RACIALLY EXCLUSIONARY PROGRAMS

The commission recommended that government programs be targeted to deal with problems that disproportionately affect Native Hawaiians, to ensure that they receive the help they especially need. But notably the commission did not recommend singling out a specific racial group for benefits that would exclude other groups. Benefits are to be given to all individuals afflicted with a particular problem, regardless of race; and if Native Hawaiians are disproportionately afflicted then they will receive a disproportionate share of the benefits of such programs without any need for programs limited by race.

The "Conclusions and Recommendations" section of the NHSC report makes clear that there should be special outreach to Native Hawaiians to ensure that they are made aware of government programs from which they could get assistance, and to ensure that new and existing programs be focused on problems that disproportionately affect Native Hawaiians. But the Commission's recommendations never propose to create race-based programs exclusively for Native Hawaiians. Here are some quotes illustrating the careful wording of recommendations for affirmative outreach but avoiding race-based or racially exclusionary programs:

"[C]onsideration should be given to a wide variety of Federal programs that are already available or that could be made available to help address specific needs. Private, local, and State officials in Hawaii should take the initiative to become aware of available programs, secure and disseminate information on them, and ensure that native Hawaiians have equal access to those programs." (page 28)

"The Commission recommends: ... Making sure that Federal programs for vocational training funded through block grants are targeted to groups most in need, including native Hawaiians. ...
Initiating efforts to ensure that information on specific Federal programs (for example, supplemental food program for women, infants, and children) is disseminated through native Hawaiian organizations, and recruit eligible native Hawaiians to participate in these programs.
Ensuring that a fair share of Federal block grant monies are directed toward alleviating specific health problems, including those of concern to native Hawaiians, such as infant mortality and child and maternal care. Giving higher priority to native Hawaiian sites in considering nominations for the National Register of Historic Places; activating the State Historic reservation Plan and revising, in consultation with native Hawaiians, the plan in an effort to ensure protection of ancient Hawaiian artifacts and sites." (page 29)

"The Commission also recommends that the heads of all Federal departments and agencies act to ensure that the needs and concerns of native Hawaiians, to the extent identified and defined in the Commission's Report, be brought to the attention of their program administrators; that these administrators consult officials in Hawaii for further guidance on specific programs; and, once this guidance is received, consider actions that could be taken to ensure full and equal access by native Hawaiians to various assistance programs." (page 30)

2006-05-22 Akaka Fact Check

2006-05-23T01:36:40Z

Ken Conklin:

Back to [[Correcting Akaka]]
=No speech given today=
On Monday May 8, Senator Lamar Alexander gave a speech urging his colleagues to oppose the Akaka bill, citing the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights report as a good reason for opposing it.

On Monday, May 8 Senator Akaka responded to Senator Alexander's speech.

Senator Akaka promised to give a speech every day the Senate is in session to explain why his bill should be passed.

<blockquote>'''I will be coming to the floor to talk about my bill every day until we begin debate on the bill. I will use every day to talk about what my bill does and does not do, and to respond to the outright mistruths that have been spread about the legislation. I will use every day to help share Hawai'i's history with my colleagues as the opponents to this legislation have taken it upon themselves to rewrite the tragedies of Hawaii's history in a manner that suits them for the purposes of opposing this legislation. - Senator Akaka, May 8, 2006'''</blockquote>

But today, May 22, 2006, although debate has not begun on S.147, Senator Akaka failed yet again to give such a speech.

Monday May 22 offered plenty of opportunity for Senator Akaka to give a speech on the Akaka bill.

Most speeches were about the comprehensive immigration bill that has occupied the Senate for more than a week. A vote was taken on an amendment to station National Guard troops along the border with Mexico.

There were also many quorum calls, when no Senators were speaking.

During one of those quorum calls Senator Mitch McConnell (R, KY) spent ten minutes (2:25-2:35 PM Washington time) giving a speech to honor the memory of a soldier who died in Iraq. Senator McConnell returned and spoke (3:50-4:00 PM) about the recent explosion at a mine in Kentucky that killed several miners (McConnell is proposing a bill dealing with mine safety and rescue). Senator Sessions also spoke on mining issues. The Senate then resumed speeches on amendments to the immigration bill. At the end of the day Senators Arlen Specter (R, PA) and Jeff Sessions (R, AL) both gave eulogies for a judge who recently died; and Senator Sessions spoke further on the immigration bill.

Thus it is clear that any Senator who wished to speak on any topic was able to do so, either during the numerous quorum calls or at the end of the day. Senator Akaka never spoke, although he did cast a vote on an amendment to the immigration bill.

Perhaps Senator Akaka is out of ideas, or has finally been mollified by the promise of a cloture vote after the Memorial Day recess.

If Senator Akaka speaks on the issue again, we will provide more fact checking of what he says.

Correcting Akaka

2006-05-23T01:24:52Z

Ken Conklin: /* Corrections */

How to use the NHSC webpages effectively

2006-05-22T22:28:35Z

Ken Conklin:

DOWNLOADING THE ENTIRE DOCUMENT, OR PARTICULAR SECTIONS, OR INDIVIDUAL PAGES

The preliminary pages are contained in one pdf file, while pages 1-497 are contained in another pdf file. Major sections of the report are available separately; each section can be read on-line or downloaded in printer-friendly format. Individual pages can be seen one by one in a format that offers the text alongside the photograph showing that page as it was scanned.

Creating two pdf files was done so that the pdf page number will be the same as the actual page number at the bottom of the original document. That makes it easy to find any particular page by using the table of contents, and also easy to give a correct citation of the page number when quoting from the document.

THE ENTIRE FINAL MAJORITY REPORT, COMPRISING PAGES 1-497 (but not including the preliminary pages), can be downloaded by clicking here: Its full URL is 
http://wiki.grassrootinstitute.org/mediawiki/media/9/97/1-497.pdf 
and its abbreviated URL, useful for printed documents and e-mails, is: http://tinyurl.com/rxd7n

PRELIMINARY PAGES include the cover, transmittal letter, names of commissioners and staff members, preface, detailed TABLE OF CONTENTS, detailed list of tables and list of charts. The pdf with all these preliminary pages can be downloaded by clicking here: Its full URL is 
http://wiki.grassrootinstitute.org/mediawiki/media/b/bb/Cover-xvi.pdf 
and its abbreviated URL, useful for printed documents and e-mails, is: 
http://tinyurl.com/m8zou

MAJOR SECTIONS of pages are listed on the front page of this website, under the same title each section has in the table of contents. Not all sections are listed yet -- only those sections are listed which have been edited to correct OCR errors and to look pretty for easy reading. To read a particular section on-line, click on its title. To create a printer-friendly version of that section (which can be copied and pasted or actually printed), use the toolbox on the left-hand side of the screen, near the bottom, and click on "printable"

INDIVIDUAL PAGES include both the scanned photograph and its text. The text is provided in edited form after editing is done. At any time before that page is reached by editors, the text remains in unedited raw form lacking paragraph breaks or table columns. Each individual page can be seen by clicking on its page number in the "Full Page List" available by clicking here:

SEARCHING can be done that covers the entire majority report (including unedited pages). A search window can be found on the front page of this website, at the left-hand side, near the bottom. Type key words or phrases (or copy and paste them) into the search window.

CITATIONS for footnotes might follow this example:

"The Commission finds that the facts do not meet the tests for showing the existence of aboriginal title. Even if the tests had been met, the Commission finds that such title was extinguished by actions of the Hawaiian government before 1893, and certainly before annexation, which was the first assumption of sovereignty by the United States. Finally, even if these tests had been met, neither the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution nor current statutes provide authority for payment of compensation to native Hawaiians for loss of aboriginal title. The Commission examined whether a trust or fiduciary relationship exists between the United States and native Hawaiians and concluded that no statutes or treaties give rise to such a relationship because the United States did not exercise sovereignty over the Hawaiian Islands prior to annexation, and the Joint Resolution of Annexation, No. 55 (July 7, 1898) did not create a special relationship for native Hawaiians. The Commission considered whether native Hawaiians are entitled to compensation for loss of sovereignty, and found no present legal entitlement to compensation for any loss of sovereignty." (Final report of the Native Hawaiians Study Commission, presented to Congress June 23, 1983, pp. 25-26, as found at http://tinyurl.com/rxd7n )

BACKGROUND ABOUT THE PROCESS USED (explaining why editing was necessary, how it was done, and why there are problems for the reader and researcher)

The Native Hawaiians Study Commission report (NHSC) was published in 1983, before computers were used routinely for creating electronic documents and before the age of the internet.

To convert the document into electronic form and place it on the internet, and make the text capable of being copied and searched, required several steps.

First each page had to be photographed by a scanner. But a photograph of printed words is not a text document. To make it into a text document whose contents can be copied as text, and whose words can be found by a search engine, it was necessary to use an optical character reader (OCR).

There are not many hardcopies of the NHSC report available, and those are often in very poor condition. Some pages are faded; some are missing an entire column of text along a right or left margin. In such cases editors had to use their best judgment to make an intelligent guess about missing letters and digits which weren't available for the scanner to see. Another source of problems comes when the OCR converts the scanned photograph into text. Every OCR makes errors when a smudge on the page gets translated as a letter or number which isn't really there, or when one letter or number looks too much like a different one and gets translated incorrectly. Human editors not possessing the original hardcopy had to compare the text produced by the OCR against the photograph produced by the scanner in order to correct such OCR errors, and also had to make an intelligent guess to insert letters or digits missing even from the original hardcopy.

Each individual page has both the photograph produced by the scanner and also the text produced by the OCR. Pages not yet edited have the text as originally produced by the OCR with no corrections; and also containing no paragraph breaks or italics or formatting of charts and tables. Pages which have been edited might still contain occasional typographical errors, but at least the editors have made them look pretty by inserting paragraph breaks and by lining up the columns contained in charts.

How to use the NHSC webpages effectively

2006-05-22T22:16:04Z

Ken Conklin:

DOWNLOADING THE ENTIRE DOCUMENT, OR PARTICULAR SECTIONS, OR INDIVIDUAL PAGES

The preliminary pages are contained in one pdf file, while pages 1-497 are contained in another pdf file. Major sections of the report are available separately; each section can be read on-line or downloaded in printer-friendly format. Individual pages can be seen one by one in a format that offers the text alongside the photograph showing that page as it was scanned.

Creating two pdf files was done so that the pdf page number will be the same as the actual page number at the bottom of the original document. That makes it easy to find any particular page by using the table of contents, and also easy to give a correct citation of the page number when quoting from the document.

THE ENTIRE FINAL MAJORITY REPORT, COMPRISING PAGES 1-497 (but not including the preliminary pages), can be downloaded by clicking here: Its full URL is

and its abbreviated URL, useful for printed documents and e-mails, is:

PRELIMINARY PAGES include the cover, transmittal letter, names of commissioners and staff members, preface, detailed TABLE OF CONTENTS, detailed list of tables and list of charts. The pdf with all these preliminary pages can be downloaded by clicking here: Its full URL is

and its abbreviated URL, useful for printed documents and e-mails, is:

MAJOR SECTIONS of pages are listed on the front page of this website, under the same title each section has in the table of contents. Not all sections are listed yet -- only those sections are listed which have been edited to correct OCR errors and to look pretty for easy reading. To read a particular section on-line, click on its title. To create a printer-friendly version of that section (which can be copied and pasted or actually printed), use the toolbox on the left-hand side of the screen, near the bottom, and click on "printable"

INDIVIDUAL PAGES include both the scanned photograph and its text. The text is provided in edited form after editing is done. At any time before that page is reached by editors, the text remains in unedited raw form lacking paragraph breaks or table columns. Each individual page can be seen by clicking on its page number in the "Full Page List" available by clicking here:

SEARCHING can be done that covers the entire majority report (including unedited pages). A search window can be found on the front page of this website, at the left-hand side, near the bottom. Type key words or phrases (or copy and paste them) into the search window.

CITATIONS for footnotes might follow this example:

"The Commission finds that the facts do not meet the tests for showing the existence of aboriginal title. Even if the tests had been met, the Commission finds that such title was extinguished by actions of the Hawaiian government before 1893, and certainly before annexation, which was the first assumption of sovereignty by the United States. Finally, even if these tests had been met, neither the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution nor current statutes provide authority for payment of compensation to native Hawaiians for loss of aboriginal title. The Commission examined whether a trust or fiduciary relationship exists between the United States and native Hawaiians and concluded that no statutes or treaties give rise to such a relationship because the United States did not exercise sovereignty over the Hawaiian Islands prior to annexation, and the Joint Resolution of Annexation, No. 55 (July 7, 1898) did not create a special relationship for native Hawaiians. The Commission considered whether native Hawaiians are entitled to compensation for loss of sovereignty, and found no present legal entitlement to compensation for any loss of sovereignty." (Final report of the Native Hawaiians Study Commission, presented to Congress June 23, 1983, pp. 25-26, as found at **** )

BACKGROUND ABOUT THE PROCESS USED (explaining why editing was necessary, how it was done, and why there are problems for the reader and researcher)

The Native Hawaiians Study Commission report (NHSC) was published in 1983, before computers were used routinely for creating electronic documents and before the age of the internet.

To convert the document into electronic form and place it on the internet, and make the text capable of being copied and searched, required several steps.

First each page had to be photographed by a scanner. But a photograph of printed words is not a text document. To make it into a text document whose contents can be copied as text, and whose words can be found by a search engine, it was necessary to use an optical character reader (OCR).

There are not many hardcopies of the NHSC report available, and those are often in very poor condition. Some pages are faded; some are missing an entire column of text along a right or left margin. In such cases editors had to use their best judgment to make an intelligent guess about missing letters and digits which weren't available for the scanner to see. Another source of problems comes when the OCR converts the scanned photograph into text. Every OCR makes errors when a smudge on the page gets translated as a letter or number which isn't really there, or when one letter or number looks too much like a different one and gets translated incorrectly. Human editors not possessing the original hardcopy had to compare the text produced by the OCR against the photograph produced by the scanner in order to correct such OCR errors, and also had to make an intelligent guess to insert letters or digits missing even from the original hardcopy.

Each individual page has both the photograph produced by the scanner and also the text produced by the OCR. Pages not yet edited have the text as originally produced by the OCR with no corrections; and also containing no paragraph breaks or italics or formatting of charts and tables. Pages which have been edited might still contain occasional typographical errors, but at least the editors have made them look pretty by inserting paragraph breaks and by lining up the columns contained in charts.

NHSC and the Akaka Bill

2006-05-22T22:13:06Z

Ken Conklin:

Main Page

2006-05-22T22:09:33Z

Ken Conklin:

=Featured Content=

==Native Hawaiians Study Commission Volume I==
A wikified version of the final NHSC majority report of June 23, 1983

The Native Hawaiians Study Commission was created by the Congress of the United States on December 22, 1980 (Title III of Public Law 96-565). The purpose of the Commission was to "conduct a study of the culture, needs and concerns of the Native Hawaiians." The Commission published and released to the public a Draft Report of Findings on September 23, 1982. Following a 120-day period of public comment, a final report was written and submitted on June 23, 1983 to the U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and to the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs.

*[[TO THE READER -- HOW TO USE THE NHSC WEBPAGE EFFECTIVELY]]
(Reading, Downloading, Searching, Citing)

*[[NHSC Executive Summary]]
*[[NHSC Conclusions And Recommendations]]
*[[NHSC Demographics]]
*[[NHSC Health And Social Services]]
*[[NHSC Education]]
*[[NHSC Housing]]
*[[NHSC Ancient History To The Reciprocity Treaty]]
*[[NHSC Native Hawaiian Culture]]
*[[NHSC Native Hawaiian Religion]]
*More sections will be listed after they are edited.

*[[NHSC Volume I Full Page List]]
(to see photos and text of individual pages)

*[[Instructions for NHSC Editors]]

==[[NHSC AND THE AKAKA BILL]]==

==[[Correcting Akaka]]==
A daily discussion of Akaka's remarks regarding S. 147, with helpful historical corrections and commentary.

2006-05-19 Akaka Fact Check

2006-05-19T23:59:21Z

Ken Conklin:

Back to [[Correcting Akaka]]
=No speech given today=
On Monday May 8, Senator Lamar Alexander gave a speech urging his colleagues to oppose the Akaka bill, citing the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights report as a good reason for opposing it.

On Monday, May 8 Senator Akaka responded to Senator Alexander's speech.

Senator Akaka promised to give a speech every day the Senate is in session to explain why his bill should be passed.

<blockquote>'''I will be coming to the floor to talk about my bill every day until we begin debate on the bill. I will use every day to talk about what my bill does and does not do, and to respond to the outright mistruths that have been spread about the legislation. I will use every day to help share Hawai'i's history with my colleagues as the opponents to this legislation have taken it upon themselves to rewrite the tragedies of Hawaii's history in a manner that suits them for the purposes of opposing this legislation. - Senator Akaka, May 8, 2006'''</blockquote>

But today, May 19, 2006, although debate has not begun on S.147, Senator Akaka failed yet again to give such a speech.

Friday May 19 offered plenty of opportunity for Senator Akaka to give a speech on the Akaka bill; but he was nowhere to be seen.

Mondays and Fridays in the Senate are slow days, because many Senators prefer to take a 4-day weekend. This Friday was typical. Senators knew on Thursday that there would be no votes taken on Friday, and that those Senators wishing to speak could discuss their issues freely and have their speeches entered into the record. The Senate was in session from 10 AM to about 1:15 PM (Washington D.C. time). Most speeches were about the comprehensive immigration bill that has occupied them for the entire week.

At about 11:45 AM, during a quorum call (a pause when nobody is speaking), Senator Ron Wyden (D, OR) reeived "unanimous consent" (nobody present to make objection!) to speak on a different topic. He spent about 20 minutes speaking about energy legislation. He has previously made numerous attempts, including a 4 hour speech on one recent occasion, to force a vote on his amendment to the energy bill to eliminate subsidies to the oil companies whereby they are excused from paying royalties to the U.S. government for their oil drilling on government lands. Wyden's speech of 20 minutes on a topic unrelated to the immigration bill shows that Senator Akaka could have done the same thing.

At about 1 PM there were no more speeches waiting to be given, so Senator Frist by "unanimous consent" opened the floor to any Senator who wished to speak "as if in morning business" for up to ten minutes on any topic. Frist himself then spoke for 10 minutes about the economy, and tax cuts. He then noted that nobody else wanted to speak, and by "unanimous consent" he adjourned the Senate until 1 PM Monday. Thus, Senator Akaka missed another opportunity to speak about the Akaka bill. Will he speak on Monday? Stay tuned!

Perhaps Senator Akaka is out of ideas, or has finally been mollified by the promise of a cloture vote after the Memorial Day recess.

If Senator Akaka speaks on the issue again, we will provide more fact checking of what he says.

Correcting Akaka

2006-05-19T23:56:09Z

Ken Conklin:

2006-05-18 Akaka Fact Check

2006-05-19T08:26:37Z

Ken Conklin:

Back to [[Correcting Akaka]]
=No speech given today=
On Monday May 8, Senator Lamar Alexander gave a speech urging his colleagues to oppose the Akaka bill, citing the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights report as a good reason for opposing it.

On Monday, May 8 Senator Akaka responded to Senator Alexander's speech.

Senator Akaka promised to give a speech every day the Senate is in session to explain why his bill should be passed.

<blockquote>'''I will be coming to the floor to talk about my bill every day until we begin debate on the bill. I will use every day to talk about what my bill does and does not do, and to respond to the outright mistruths that have been spread about the legislation. I will use every day to help share Hawai'i's history with my colleagues as the opponents to this legislation have taken it upon themselves to rewrite the tragedies of Hawaii's history in a manner that suits them for the purposes of opposing this legislation. - Senator Akaka, May 8, 2006'''</blockquote>

But today, May 18, 2006, although debate has not begun on S.147, Senator Akaka failed to give such a speech. There was plenty of time with quorum calls when nobody was using the Senate floor. Although Senators were very busy debating a very controversial comprehensive immigration reform act, and numerous amendments, there was also time at the end of the day when any Senator who wished to speak was invited to take the floor before adjournment.

During a pause in the continuing debate on the immigration reform bill, Senator Lugar (R, IN) found time to introduce an amended version of the "Free Flow of Information Act" (totally unrelated to the immigration bill). Clearly Senator Akaka could have introduced the amended version of his bill -- an amendment he says he plans to introduce eventually, which has been posted on his website since September 2005. (When the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights issued its report on the Akaka bill, Senator Akaka complained that they had not considered the "amended" bill -- even though Senator Akaka has never officially introduced it in the Senate after 8 months of languishing, and even though the changes from the official bill are irrelevant to the conserns expressed by the USCCR).

During the debate on immigration reform legislation on May 18, 2006 Senator Akaka was given 25 minutes of floor time to speak on his proposed amendment to the immigration bill that would provide U.S. veterans benefits and special immigration privileges to Filipinos who fought alongside Americans in World War 2 in the Philippines during the Japanese occupation. Substantially less than 25 minutes were spent for Senator Akaka's speech (including brief supporting remarks from Senator Kennedy); and then the Akaka amendment was agreed to by unanimous consent. However, Senator Akaka did not take any time on May 18 to speak on the Akaka bill S.147 nor to introduce his own alleged amendment to it.

Perhaps Senator Akaka is out of ideas, or has finally been mollified by the promise of a cloture vote after the Memorial Day recess.

If Senator Akaka speaks on the issue again, we will provide more fact checking for the general public.

Correcting Akaka

2006-05-19T08:12:51Z

Ken Conklin:

2006-05-17 Akaka Fact Check

2006-05-18T00:26:12Z

Ken Conklin:

Correcting Akaka

2006-05-18T00:19:58Z

Ken Conklin: /* Corrections */

Correcting Akaka

2006-05-18T00:19:05Z

Ken Conklin: /* Corrections */

2006-05-17 Linda Lingle Fact Check

2006-05-18T00:16:23Z

Ken Conklin:

2006-05-17 Mark J. Bennett Fact Check

2006-05-17T21:32:07Z

Ken Conklin:

Back to [[Correcting Akaka]]

As reported in the [http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?d2f7ba94-0f47-4979-8c40-a32f072735e5 Hawaii Reporter], this is a "Brief Response" sent by the State Attorney General Mark Bennett to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.

Of particular note is his attempt to use existing Congressional programs racially targeted towards Native Hawaiians as an excuse for having more race-based legislation. If anything, it shows that not only should the Akaka bill be voted down, but the existing race-based programs for Native Hawaiians should be scrutinized, and challenged in the courts.

=Brief Response=
1. The Commission's report and its conclusion evidence a complete lack of understanding of this country's longstanding practice of dealing specially with its native peoples. It ignores the undisputed history of suffering, and political and cultural devastation foisted upon the Native Hawaiian people. And under the guise of lessening discrimination, it ironically ends up effecting the most patent discrimination by denying the Native Hawaiian people the recognition and self-governing structure that virtually all other native peoples have had for decades.
{{correction|A history of suffering, political and cultural devastation does not entitle racial groups to separate self-government. African-American slaves certainly fit that description, but we don't establish racially exclusive governments for them.

The answer to racial oppression has never been the imposition of racial privilege - it has been the imposition of equality. Although the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was inspired by the poor treatment of African-Americans, it did not assert special privilege for them - it demanded equal rights for everyone.}}

2. The report wrongly suggests the Akaka Bill creates a race-based government and segregates people by race. In fact, participation in the Native Hawaiian Governing Entity is limited to descendants of the native indigenous people of the Hawaiian Islands, a status Congress has itself characterized as being non-racial, and which is consistent with over a century of United States Supreme Court precedent upholding the special status of this country's other native peoples. Native Hawaiians, like Native Americans and Alaska Natives, have been recognized by Congress as having a special political relationship with the United States.
{{correction|Although Congress may have characterized it as being non-racial, examination by the USCCR, as well as the decision of the courts in Rice v. Cayetano prove otherwise.}}

3. The Commission's emphasis on the Supreme Court's Rice v. Cayetano decision plainly misses the mark, as Rice made no distinction whatsoever between American Indian tribes and Native Hawaiians. Rice therefore provides no justification for denying Native Hawaiians the same recognition other Native Americans long ago received.
{{correction|The Rice v Cayetano decision most definitely did distinguish between American Indian tribes and Native Hawaiians. The Court ruled by a vote of 7-2. The ruling included extensive disccussion leading up to this excerpt: "If Hawaii's restriction were to be sustained under Mancari we would be required to accept some beginning premises not yet established in our case law. Among other postulates, it would be necessary to conclude that Congress, in reciting the purposes for the transfer of lands to the State--and in other enactments such as the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act and the Joint Resolution of 1993--has determined that native Hawaiians have a status like that of Indians in organized tribes, and that it may, and has, delegated to the State a broad authority to preserve that status. These propositions would raise questions of considerable moment and difficulty. It is a matter of some dispute, for instance, whether Congress may treat the native Hawaiians as it does the Indian tribes. Compare Van Dyke, The Political Status of the Hawaiian People, 17 Yale L. & Pol'y Rev. 95 (1998), with Benjamin, Equal Protection and the Special Relationship: The Case of Native Hawaiians, 106 Yale L. J. 537 (1996). We can stay far off that difficult terrain, however." }}

4. Hawaiians are not asking for "special" treatment -- they're simply asking to be treated the same way all other indigenous Americans are treated in this country. Congress has recognized the great suffering American Indians and Alaska Natives have endured upon losing control of their native lands, and has, as a consequence, provided formal recognition to those native peoples. Hawaiians are simply asking for comparable recognition, as the native peoples of the Hawaiian Islands who have suffered similar hardships, and who today continue to be at the bottom in most socioeconomic statistics.
{{correction|Other "indigenous" Americans are not given separate race-based governments. Many people with Native American and Native Alaskan blood are not part of tribal entitites, as well as other "indigenous" peoples in places like Guam and Puerto Rico. S.147 goes well beyond the tribal recognition that any "indigenous" group has.}}

5. The Constitution gives Congress broad latitude to recognize native groups, and the Supreme Court has declared that it is for Congress, and not the courts, to decide which native peoples will be recognized, and to what extent. The only limitation is that Congress may not act "arbitrarily" in recognizing an Indian tribe. Because Native Hawaiians are not only indigenous, but also share with other Native Americans a similar tragic history of dispossession, cultural disruption, and loss of full self-determination, it would be "arbitrary" to not recognize Native Hawaiians.
{{correction|Native Hawaiians do not share the same history as Native Americans. They were not dispossessed of their lands, moved to reservations, denied citizenship, and kept separate. They have enjoyed more self-determination during their time with the U.S. than under any Kingdom government. From 1900, they dominated the Territorial Legislature, and took full part in the government of Hawaii.

Robert Wilcox, hero of the Native Hawaiian people (and rebel leader twice over), spoke to Aloha 'Aina and Hui Kalai'aina (the two major Native Hawaiian political clubs in 1900) upon returning from lobbying efforts to ensure equal rights in the Organic Act of 1900, and said, "The question of the restoration of the Monarchy is gone from us forever. We are now a people, however, who can vote. You all know we have two-thirds of the votes in this country." He also advised against racial loyalties, saying, "We are all Americans. We should not consider personality."

Native Hawaiians took up his call, disbanded the political clubs formerly opposed to annexation, and formed the Hawaiian Independent Party (later called the Independent Home Rule Party). They participated in the political process as equals, with their motto "Equal rights for the People". Eventually, the Home Rule Party split, and most Native Hawaiians joined the Republican Party with Prince Kuhio, but even then, they were exercising their inherent rights to sovereignty.}}

6. The commission suggests that Native Hawaiians do not fall within Congress's power to deal specially with "Indian Tribes," because Native Hawaiians cannot be deemed "Indian Tribes," given the lack of a continuously existing self-governing entity. If Native Hawaiians do not have a continuously existing self-governing structure today, it is only because the United States participated in the elimination of that self-governing entity, by facilitating the overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom, and later annexing the Hawaiian Islands. Unlike other Native Americans who were allowed to retain some measure of sovereignty, Congress did not leave Native Hawaiians with any sovereignty whatsoever. It cannot be that the United States' complete destruction of Hawaiian self-governance prevents Congress from ameliorating the consequences of its own actions by trying to restore some small measure of sovereignty to the Native Hawaiian people. (Note: the terms "Indian" and "tribe" at the time of the framing of the Constitution simply referred to distinct aboriginal inhabitants of our frontiers, which Native Hawaiians surely are.)
{{correction|Native Hawaiians were given the right to vote with the Organic Act of 1900, and participated as equals in the Territory government, and in State government. Their right to self-governance has only been increased as a result of annexation to the United States.

And unlike Native Americans, Native Hawaiians were not distinct aboriginal inhabitants - they were fully integrated as part of a multi-racial Kingdom, with no distinctions made between races. They were an internationally recognized Kingdom, whose constitution proclaimed that all people were "of one blood".}}

7. The commission ignores the fact that Congress has already recognized Native Hawaiians to a large degree, by not only repeatedly singling out Native Hawaiians for special treatment, either uniquely, or in concert with other Native Americans, but by acknowledging on many occasions a "special relationship" with, and trust obligation to, Native Hawaiians. In fact, Congress has repeatedly stated that "the political status of Native Hawaiians is comparable to that of American Indians." The Akaka Bill simply takes this recognition one step further, by providing Native Hawaiians with the means to re-organize a formal self-governing entity, something Native Americans and Native Alaskans have had for decades.
{{comment|Perhaps the race-based recognition of Native Hawaiians by Congress should be examined more closely, and corrective action taken to eliminate unconstitutional racial preferences in government.}}

8. The commission suggests that because the government of the Kingdom of Hawaii was itself not racially exclusive, that it would be inappropriate to recognize a governing entity limited to Native Hawaiians. This objection is absurd. The fact that Native Hawaiians, over one hundred years ago, were enlightened enough to maintain a government that was open to participation by non-Hawaiians, should not deprive Native Hawaiians today of the recognition they deserve. Indeed, it is quite ironic that those who oppose the Akaka Bill as racist would use Native Hawaiians' historical inclusiveness as a reason to deny Native Hawaiians the recognition other native groups receive. (Note: American Indian tribes have often included non-Indians within their tribes, too, yet non-Indian tribal members have been permissibly excluded from having special status.).
{{correction|The fact that Native Hawaiians had an enlightened, multi-racial government should make it even more important to continue their noble aims. It is quite ironic that those who assert that they are advocating for equality would ignore the example of equality practiced by the Kingdom of Hawaii, and create a race-based government where none has ever existed in the history of mankind.}}

9. The commission also expresses concern that there is nothing to ensure that the Native Hawaiian Governing Entity will protect civil rights, but in fact the Secretary of the Interior must certify that civil rights are protected before certifying the organic governing documents.

10. In sum, there is simply no legal or moral distinction between Native Hawaiians and American Indians or Alaska Natives, that would justify denying Native Hawaiians the same treatment other Native American groups in this country currently enjoy. As a result, the commission's reasoning poses a threat to American Indians and Alaska Natives as well, which perhaps explains in part why these groups are overwhelmingly in support of the Akaka Bill.
{{correction|There are legal distinctions between various Native Americans, some of whom enjoy tribal status, and others who don't. Native Hawaiians simply do not meet the same requirements as tribal governments do.}}

11. Formal recognition will help preserve the language, identity, and culture of Native Hawaiians, and ultimately ensure the survival of this great people. The commission turns a blind eye to the sufferings of the Native Hawaiian people, and attacks a bill that merely seeks to provide some remedy for that suffering.
{{correction|The language, identity, and culture of Native Hawaiians does not require a separate race-based government. The increase of Hawaiian language fluency, cultural revival such as Hokulea and hula, have all happened without race-based government. There is no doubt that it would continue.}}

2006-05-16 Akaka Fact Check

2006-05-17T01:29:38Z

Ken Conklin:

Correcting Akaka

2006-05-17T01:26:15Z

Ken Conklin:

=Introduction=
Senator Akaka has promised to speak daily regarding [http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:S.147.RS: S. 147], aka the Akaka Bill. Coming on the heels of a [http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/060504NatHawBriefReport.pdf damning report] released by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, it represents a new tactic for a troubled bill. As time permits, we will analyze Senator Akaka's remarks, and hope to present readers with timely corrections to historical errors Senator Akaka makes, as well as additional commentary that may be helpful in understanding the issues.

==Background==
;[http://morganreport.org/mediawiki/media/2/2d/Cm060120.pdf January 20, 2006 USCCR meeting transcript]:Hearings before the USCCR, including testimony from both pro-S.147 and anti-S.147 experts.
;[http://morganreport.org/mediawiki/media/4/43/60504_Draft_Report_USCCR.pdf May 4, 2006 USCCR draft report recommending against the Akaka bill]:Draft report including a [[USCCR Akaka Findings|findings section]].
;[http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/060504NatHawBrefReport.pdf May 4, 2006 USCCR final report recommending against the Akaka bill]:Final report with findings section redacted after complaint from 2 of the commissioners. See [[USCCR Akaka Findings]] for details on the findings.
;[[Akaka Substitute Comparison]]:Detailed comparison between the current version of S.147 actually before the Senate, and an allegedly proposed version addressing some, but not all, of the concerns raised by the U.S. Department of Justice. Senator Akaka posted the trial balloon on his Senate website in September 2005 with great fanfare, but has never formally introduced it in the Senate. A few days later in September the DOJ issued a statement that the trial balloon still does not resolve important issues. Senator Akaka now complains that the U.S. Civil Rights Commission considered only the version actually pending in the Senate, and did not consider his allegedly amended version. Interestingly, the trial balloon was not different from the actually-pending bill on the issues of concern to the Civil Rights Commission, as can be seen by comparing the two versions.
;[[Hawaii on the chopping block]]:Discussion of S.147 and its possible impacts.
;[http://starbulletin.com/2006/05/13/editorial/commentary.html Commission’s findings clarify position on Akaka Bill]:Commentary piece from May 13, 2006 Honolulu Star Bulletin

==Corrections==
Correcting errors of fact and interpretation in Senator Akaka's speeches. Point-counterpoint, and further analysis.

*[[2006-05-08 Akaka Fact Check]]
*[[2006-05-09 Akaka Fact Check]]
*[[2006-05-10 Akaka Fact Check]]
*[[2006-05-11 Akaka Fact Check]]
*[[2006-05-12 Akaka Fact Check]]
*[[2006-05-15 Akaka Fact Check]]
*[[2006-05-16 Akaka Fact Check]]

2006-05-15 Akaka Fact Check

2006-05-16T09:00:45Z

Ken Conklin:

On Monday May 8, Senator Lamar Alexander gave a speech urging his colleagues to oppose the Akaka bill, citing the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights report as a good reason for opposing it.

On Monday, May 8 Senator Akaka responded to Senator Alexander's speech.

Senator Akaka promised to give a speech every day the Senate is in session to explain why his bill should be passed.

But today, May 15, Senator Akaka failed to give such a speech. There was plenty of time with quorum calls when nobody was using the Senate floor. Perhaps Senator Akaka is out of ideas.

Correcting Akaka

2006-05-16T08:55:36Z

Ken Conklin:

=Introduction=
Senator Akaka has promised to speak daily regarding [http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:S.147.RS: S. 147], aka the Akaka Bill. Coming on the heels of a [http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/060504NatHawBriefReport.pdf damning report] released by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, it represents a new tactic for a troubled bill. As time permits, we will analyze Senator Akaka's remarks, and hope to present readers with timely corrections to historical errors Senator Akaka makes, as well as additional commentary that may be helpful in understanding the issues.

==Background==
;[http://morganreport.org/mediawiki/media/2/2d/Cm060120.pdf January 20, 2006 USCCR meeting transcript]:Hearings before the USCCR, including testimony from both pro-S.147 and anti-S.147 experts.
;[http://morganreport.org/mediawiki/media/4/43/60504_Draft_Report_USCCR.pdf May 4, 2006 USCCR draft report recommending against the Akaka bill]:Draft report including a [[USCCR Akaka Findings|findings section]].
;[http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/060504NatHawBrefReport.pdf May 4, 2006 USCCR final report recommending against the Akaka bill]:Final report with findings section redacted after complaint from 2 of the commissioners. See [[USCCR Akaka Findings]] for details on the findings.
;[[Akaka Substitute Comparison]]:Detailed comparison between the current version of S.147 actually before the Senate, and an allegedly proposed version addressing some, but not all, of the concerns raised by the U.S. Department of Justice. Senator Akaka posted the trial balloon on his Senate website in September 2005 with great fanfare, but has never formally introduced it in the Senate. A few days later in September the DOJ issued a statement that the trial balloon still does not resolve important issues. Senator Akaka now complains that the U.S. Civil Rights Commission considered only the version actually pending in the Senate, and did not consider his allegedly amended version. Interestingly, the trial balloon was not different from the actually-pending bill on the issues of concern to the Civil Rights Commission, as can be seen by comparing the two versions.
;[[Hawaii on the chopping block]]:Discussion of S.147 and its possible impacts.
;[http://starbulletin.com/2006/05/13/editorial/commentary.html Commission’s findings clarify position on Akaka Bill]:Commentary piece from May 13, 2006 Honolulu Star Bulletin

==Corrections==
Correcting errors of fact and interpretation in Senator Akaka's speeches. Point-counterpoint, and further analysis.

*[[2006-05-08 Akaka Fact Check]]
*[[2006-05-09 Akaka Fact Check]]
*[[2006-05-10 Akaka Fact Check]]
*[[2006-05-11 Akaka Fact Check]]
*[[2006-05-12 Akaka Fact Check]]
*[[2006-05-15 Akaka Fact Check]]

Correcting Akaka

2006-05-11T01:04:04Z

Ken Conklin: /* Introduction */