federalism and the rights of indigenous p-1

7/30/2019 Federalism and the Rights of Indigenous P-1

1/52

Federalism and the Rights of IndigenousPeoples

A Hawaiian Perspective

Pk Laenui

Respondent to Papers PresentedAt the Conference on Federalism & the Rights of Indigenous Peoples:

Comparative Perspectives and Strategies

January 9 10, 2007William S. Richardson School of Law

Table of ContentI. Introduction: ...............................................................................................................................1II. Hawaiìs Story...........................................................................................................................6

A. Hawaiì's early history a background...................................................................................6B. The recycling of Hawaiì 1900 - 1959:.................................................................................14

III. PROCESSES OF DECOLONIZATION.................................................................................28A. Phase One: REDISCOVERY AND RECOVERY ..............................................................28B. Phase Two: MOURNING.....................................................................................................33C. PhaseThree: DREAMING.....................................................................................................36

D. Phase Four: COMMITMENT..............................................................................................38E. Phase Five: ACTION...........................................................................................................43IV. A New Federalism Structure Respecting Rights of Indigenous Peoples ................................45

1. Territory: ...........................................................................................................................452. Population: ........................................................................................................................453. Economy: ..........................................................................................................................464. Political Arrangement: ......................................................................................................465. International Stature:..........................................................................................................486. National Security: .............................................................................................................487. Property Ownership:..........................................................................................................508. Outstanding Claims Post Colonization:.............................................................................51

V. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................51

I. Introduction:The conference Federalism and the Rights of Indigenous

Peoples: Comparative Perspectives and Strategies examined the colonialstructures brought into indigenous territories in North America (Canada andthe United States of America), Hawaiì (United States of America), Australia,


2/52

and New Zealand. The definition of federalism under examination isgenerally that as defined by the colonial powers. For example, thefederalism within the United States of America, is the Federal or centralgovernment at the center, with the States, District of Columbia, theunincorporated territories such as American occupied Samoa, and Guam,

and the Commonwealth territories of Puerto Rico, and the NorthernMarianas, making up the periphery. Much of the discussion revolved aroundthe centers management of the Indigenous questions. As such, discussionof Indigenous Peoples breaking out of the grasp of the centers control, is notgiven sufficient thought in such conferences.

A Pacific Islanders story from Kanaky (aka New Caledonia) appears to ring true forIndigenous peoples in many other parts of the Pacific and throughout indigenous, or what hasbeen known as the 4th, world. This story came to me by way of the late Yann Uregei, advocatefor the rights of the Kanak people and the independence of Kanaky. We met in the mid 1980sin Suva, Fiji at a conference sponsored by the Law Association of Asia and the Pacific.

Following the passage of these many years, some details may have been altered by my retellingit. For any inaccuracies, of course, I take full responsibility. This is the story I remember:

The people in my village in Kanaky are very hospitable, taking great joy in welcoming

friends and strangers alike. One day, a Kanak man resting on the front porch of his house saw a

stranger, a Frenchman, walking down the footpath that crosses the front of his house. When theFrenchman came closer to the house, the Kanak stood up and invited the Frenchman into the

house to rest and take some refreshments. The Frenchman accepted this invitation, entered the

house, and sat at the table for the refreshments. After the Frenchman was through eating anddrinking, he approached the Kanak to pay for the cost of his meal. The Kanak, taken aback,

declined any payment, explaining that he had only wanted to share the hospitality of the house

by his invitation and sharing of what humble food he had. The Frenchman was happy becausehe got a free meal. The Kanak was also happy to have been able to have someone appreciate his

culture.

The following day, the Frenchman came down the same footpath, bringing along withhim two friends. The Kanak was not on the porch this day, so the Frenchman decided that

rather than standing on ceremony, he would simply invite himself and his companions into the

house, and wait at the table to be served. The Kanak, walking through his house, was surprisedto find three Frenchmen in his home, sitting at his table waiting to be served with refreshments,

thinking what strange social customs these strangers practice. But his culture of hospitality

soon overcomes his astonishment, and he provides these guests with refreshments. When they

are done with their food and drink, rather than leaving the home, they remain at the table inanimated conversation, observing how comfortable this Kanaks house is, built for the particular

weather of New Caledonia, and the possibilities for this house. Finally, they approach the

Kanak inquiring how many people live in the home, (two-the Kanak and his wife) and where dothey sleep? Again the Kanak is surprised by the inquiry, but still able to overcome the

awkwardness of these strangers behaviors, he takes them to a small back room and shows them

his and his wifes sleeping quarters.

2


3/52

The first Frenchman declared that they liked the room, and they wanted to move into the

room.

The Kanak, surprised by this declaration, asks, If you move into my room, where would

my wife and I sleep?

The Frenchman suggested they might enjoy the kitchen, or better yet, perhaps the porch!

The Kanak takes this as a serious insult which goes far beyond the boundaries of

hospitality. He speaks in a loud, harsh voice, demanding that they get out of his house or he will

throw all three of them out. He prepares to fight the Frenchmen and they prepare in kind.

But one Frenchman steps between the Kanak and the others, and proclaims, Let us not

resort to violence. Lets act as civilized men. Let us be rational beings. Let us be orderly.

Democratic. Lets take a vote!

The practice of transmigrating the colonizing nations population into the territories ofthe indigenous peoples has been common in many territories. It is more insidious, more subtle,and more long lasting than an outright landing and takeover. Whether by a resort to arms, aresort to the ballot box, the destruction of their environment, or the whittling away of indigenouspeoples culture and their robust social structures, the imprint of colonization upon indigenouspeoples have been disastrous.

Another Pacific Islander, Professor of Psychology and advocate for theintegrity of native wisdom is the late Virgilio Enriques1, a native son of thePhilippines discusses the process of colonization. The contribution from

Professor Enriques is taken from his discussions with the author in Waiànae,Hawaiì in the mid 1990's. Only portions of these discussions were recorded.Professor Enriques has since passed on. The author confesses to havingrepeated, expanded and expounded on this conversation over the years.The following words are mine, built upon the foundation given to me byProfessor Enriques:

The colonization of indigenous peoples generally follows five steps.Not all steps are found in the colonization of all indigenous peoples, andthere may be variations in experiences, but generally, here are my thoughts:

Step 1) Denial and Withdrawal: When a colonizing people first comeupon an indigenous people, the colonial strangers will immediately look uponthe indigenous as a people without culture, no moral values, nothing of any

1 The critique provided by Professor Enriques was aired on Hawaii Public Radio program entitled A Second Glance on April 17,1993. Copy of the program is available for $12 (U.S.) from the Hawaiian National Broadcast Corporation, 86-641 Puùhulu Rd.Waiànae Hawaiì 96792 via U.S.A.

3


4/52

social value to merit kind comment. Thus, the colonial people deny the veryexistence of a culture of any merit among the indigenous people.

Indigenous people themselves, especially those who develop a closerrelationship with the newcomers, gradually withdraw from their own cultural

practices. Some may even join in the ridicule and the denial of the existenceof culture among the native people. They may become quickly convertedand later lead in the criticism of indigenous societies.

Step 2) Destruction/Eradication: The colonists take bolder action,physically destroying and attempting to eradicate all physicalrepresentations of the symbols of indigenous cultures. This may include theburning of their art, their tablets, their god images, the destruction of theirsacred sites, etc. At times, the indigenous people themselves mayparticipate in this destruction - some may even lead in the destruction.

Step 3) Denigration/Belittlement/Insult: As colonization takes astronger hold, the new systems which are created within indigenoussocieties, such as churches, colonial style health delivery systems, educationsystems and new legal institutions, will all join to denigrate, belittle, andinsult any continuing practice of the indigenous culture. Churches will styleindigenous religious practices as devil worship and condemn thepractitioners to physical torture or their souls to hell. Colonially trainedmedical practitioners will refer to the indigenous doctors as witches if theirmedicine is successful and ignorant superstitious fools if their medicine fails.The education system will substitute colonial heroes for indigenous ones,colonial histories for indigenous ones, colonial languages for indigenous

ones. The new legal institutions will criminalize the traditional practices, finethe practitioners and may declare illegal the possession of traditionallysacred or healing materials.

Here, even symbols of evil must be imported by the colonizer in orderfor evil to gain legitimacy within the society. Thus, we find in manycolonized societies, the importation of Dracula, Halloween, or otherrepresentations of evil through the colonial societies literature or legends, allthe while alluding to the Indigenous peoples representations of evil as moreignorant superstitions.

Step 4) Surface Accommodation/Tokenism: In this stage ofcolonization, whatever remnants of culture have survived the onslaught ofthe earlier steps are given surface accommodation. They are tolerated as anexhibition of the colonial regimes sense of leniency to the continuingignorance of the natives. These practices are called folkloric, ofshowingrespect to the old folks and to tradition. They are given token regard.

4


5/52

Step 5) Transformation/Exploitation: The remnant of the traditionalculture, which simply refuses to die or go away is now transformed into theculture of the dominating colonial society. A Christian church may now usean indigenous person as a priest, permitting the priest to use the indigenouslanguage, to incorporate some indigenous terms and practices, within the

churchs framework of worship. Indigenous art, which has survived may gainpopularity and now forms the basis for economic exploitation. Indigenoussymbols in print may decorate modern dress. Indigenous musicalinstruments may be incorporated into modern music. To support indigenouscauses within the general colonial structure may become the popularpolitical thing to do so the culture is further exploited. This exploitation maybe committed by indigenous as well as non-indigenous peoples.

The opening story of Yann Uregeis Kanaky and the subsequent analysis of VergilioEnriques stages of colonization are told in the descriptive model of the situation of IndigenousPeoples. In the Kanaky story, another chapter of that story is in the writing, a chapter describing

the re-inscription at the United Nations of Kanaky upon the list of places to be decolonized.Discussions have taken place and appear to be continuing over who should constitute theself in the future exercise of self-determination.

Professor Enriques stages of colonization is today being joined by another model, one ofvisioning what can and should become of the future of Hawaiì a model of the five stages ofdecolonization (at Part II). Within that model of decolonization is consideration over the selfquestion, like that being addressed in Kanaky.

The Hawaiì story put forth here challenges the common story about Hawaiì and theNative Hawaiians as seen through the perspective of the Federal Government and the federalist

who parcel out governmental powers in terms of the center and the peripheries. This is a story ofHawaiìs independence movement and of the native Hawaiians rights under a new federalism,one within a Hawaiì territory which has finally decoupled from the United States of America.

5


6/52

II. Hawaiìs Story

A. Hawaiì's early history a background

Hawaiì's ancestors journeyed throughout the vast Pacific, guided by stars, the rising sun,

clouds, birds, wave formation, and flashing lights from the water's depth. They touched uponmany lands including the most isolated landmass in the world - Hawaiì.

They continued commerce with cousins of the Pacific many years after arriving inHawaiì. They had infrequent contacts with Japan, Great Turtle Island (today "North America"),South America and other Pacific rim places. Hawaiì remained relatively unknown to Europeuntil the 25th of January 1778 when James Cook, Captain of the British Navy's ships Resolutionand Discovery arrived. Making his third voyage into the Pacific, this time to find a northwest orsoutheast passage to the East Indies, Cook arrived to find a highly-developed Hawaiian society.

He was welcomed in friendship and then welcomed again when he returned from

exploring the arctic region nine months later. In an unfortunate misunderstanding, Cookattempted to apply violence once too often upon the Hawaiian people. He tried to recover aknife removed from his ship and several boats left tied to a buoy the night before, by holding theprimary chief, Kalaniopuù, as ransom. Lower chiefs interceded, objecting to Kalaniopuù'sgoing with Cook. Cook proceeded to beat a native with the butt of his musket, fired a shot,which injured one and fired again killing another. Retreating to his boats waiting a few yards offshore, his men on the boats fired at the natives in the crowd on shore. Cook's company on landalso opened fire on the Hawaiians. As Cook entered the water, one chief stepped behind him andplanted an iron dagger between his shoulders. Another struck him on the head with a club.Cook fell, more natives rushed in and ended his further exploration for a northwest passage andhis life.2

Following soon thereafter, Hawaiì was cast into world attention by Cooks contact withHawaiì. During the reign of Kamehameha I, 1779 - 1819, Hawaiì was trading with China,England and the United States. Hawaiì was dealing with other nations as well on a regularbasis. In 1840, King Kamehameha III, Kauikeauoli, introduced the first written Constitution thatcontained a Declaration of Rights, also called the Hawaiian Magna Charta. Upon thepromulgation of this document, the Hawaiian state passed from an absolute monarchy to aConstitutional monarchy, recognizing the equality of all people before the law. On November28, 1843 Great Britain and France joined in a Declaration recognizing Hawaiì's independentstatehood and pledged never to take it as a possession. When the United States was invited tojoin this declaration, J.C. Calhoun, U. S. Secretary of State, replied that the President adhered

completely to the spirit of disinterestedness and self-denial which breathed in that declaration.

2 Gavan Daws, Shoal of Time, UH Press 1968, pp 20-23; Captain Cook's Final Voyage: TheJournal of Midshipman George Gilbert, UH Press 1982, at pp. 99 et seq and 103 et seq; Hawaii:An uncommon history, Edward Joesting, 1972,W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., at Chapter 3,p.25 et seq.

6


7/52

"He had already, for his part", Calhoun pointed out, "taken a similar engagement in the messagewhich he had already addressed to Congress on December 31, 1842."3

By 1887, Hawaiì had treaties and conventions with Belgium, Bremen, Denmark, France,the German Empire, Great Britain, Hamburg, Hong Kong, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, New South

Wales, Portugal, Russia, Samoa, Spain, the Swiss Confederation, Sweden and Norway, Tahiti,and the United States.4 Hawaiì was a member of one of the first international organizations, theUniversal Postal Union. Approximately a hundred diplomatic and consular posts around theworld were established.5

Immigrants from all parts of the world came to Hawaiì. Early sailors to Hawaiì choseto remain in the islands rather than returning to Europe. Many of the early Portuguese left theirwhaling ships and sought refuge with Hawaiian families. They married into Hawaiian familiesand became part of the Hawaiian society.6 Chinese and Japanese laborers came to work on sugarplantations or accompanied such workers. Some missionary family members remained inHawaiì even after the formal mission was terminated, taking up important roles in Hawaiian

society.

7

Many others, including those of African, Polynesian, and other European descentsestablished their homes in Hawaiì. As they did this, many renounced their former citizenshipand took up Hawaiian citizenship.8

Hawaiian literacy was among the highest of the world. Hawaiì had telephones andelectricity built into its governing palace, Ìolani, prior to the U.S.'s White House. Multi-lingualcitizens abounded. Hawaiian leaders had excellent comprehension of world and politicalgeography. King Kalakaua was the first Head of State to circle the world in a visit of nations in

3 Dispatch from Pageot, French representative in Washington, to Guizot, French minister ofForeign affairs, No.55, June 11, 1844, AMAE (Paris), Etats Unis, Vol. C.

4 Treaties and Conventions Concluded between the Hawaiian Kingdom and Other Powerssince 1825, Elele Book, Card, and Job Print., 1887.

5 Directory and Handbook of the Kingdom of Hawaii, F.M. Hustat, 1892

6 Interview with Herbert Carlos, A Second Glance, Hawaiian National Broadcast Corporationaired over Hawaiì Public Radio Oct. 2, 1993 w/ host Pk Laenui.

7 Interviews with Dr. Alfred Castle, Professor of History, Hawaiì Pacific University,President of the Samuel N. and Mary T. Castle Foundation, 6th generation missionary family inHawaiì, A Second Glance, July 11 & 18, 1992, Hawaiian National Broadcast Corporation, aired

over Hawaiì Public Radio w/ host Poka Laenui.

8 John Ricord swore allegiance to Kamehameha III and was named attorney general for thekingdom. He remained in Hawaiì from 1844 to 1847. Hawaii, An uncommon history, EdwardJoesting, 1972; In the first (1840) constitution of Hawaiì, "the people" are undistinguished interms of electing representatives. In the second (1852) constitution, (Art. 78), a distinction isnow made between "subjects of His Majesty, whether native or naturalized," (emphasis added)and "denizen of the Kingdom."

7


8/52

his plan to weave a tapestry of international economic and political alliances to assure Hawaiianindependence. By 1892, Hawaiì was a vibrant multi-racial, multi-cultural nation engaged inintellectual and economic commerce throughout the world.

Over the years since the formation of single state from various island chiefdoms in 1810

until 1893, Hawaiì underwent many changes in its political formation, in its economy, in itspopulation make-up, in its educational quality, and in its international presence. Hawaiì wasundergoing its course of development, unfolding into its future based on its own internal culture,hopes and dreams for its future.

Two powerful forces interrupted this practice of self-determination. One called itself themissionary party, aligning themselves with their ancestors who had become very influential inthe religious, political and economic development of these islands since the first boatload ofChristian missionaries in 1820. The second was from the expansionist segment of the UnitedStates of America. They conspired to deprive the Hawaiian people of their independent nation-state.

It is important to identify two men in particular who were at the head of the missionaryparty. Lorrin Thurston was the grandson of one of the first missionaries, Asa Thurston. SanfordDole was the son of Daniel Dole, another early missionary.9 As early as 1882, Lorrin Thurstonhad already exchanged confidences with leading American officials on the matter of Hawaii'stakeover. In fact the United States Secretary of the Navy assured Thurston that theadministration of U.S. President Chester A. Arthur would look with favor upon a takeover inHawaiì. In 1892, in another visit to the United States, Thurston again received the sameassurance from the administration of U.S. President Benjamin Harrison.10

In January, 1893, Thurston organized twelve of his associates to form the "Committee ofPublic Safety" and arranged an immediate visit to the American Minister plenipotentiary inHawaiì, John L. Stevens, to conspire for the overthrow of Liliùokalani.

Little convincing was necessary for Stevens was already one of the foremost advocatesfor a U.S. takeover of Hawai i. Appointed in June, 1889 as the U.S. Minister plenipotentiary, hearrived in Hawaiì on September 20 of that year and regarded himself as having a mission tobring about annexation of Hawaiì to the United States. His letters to Secretary of State JamesG. Blaine, beginning less than a month after his arrival reflect his passion to take Hawaiì for theUnited States.11

After three years of encouraging the taking of Hawaiì, Stevens writes back toWashington on March 8, 1892, for instruction of how far he may deviate from established

9 Daws, Supra note 2, p.242

10 Daws p.266

11 53rd Congress 2 Sess., House of Representatives, Ex. Doc. no. 488


9/52

international rules and prece dents in the event of an orderly and peaceful revolutionarymovement, setting forth a step-by-step prediction of future events.

On November 19, 1892, he writes to the Secretary of State, arguing that those favoringannexation in Hawaiì are qualified to carry on good government, "provided they have the

support of the Government of the United States." He continued, "[H]awaii must now take theroad which leads to Asia, or the other, which outlets her in America, gives her an American civi-lization, and binds her to the care of American destiny. . . .To postpone American action manyyears is only to add to present unfavorable tendencies and to make future possession moredifficult."

He called for "bold and vigorous measures for annexation. I cannot refrain fromexpressing the opinion with emphasis that the golden hour is near at hand. . . . So long as theislands retain their own independent government there remains the possibility that England or theCanadian Dominion might secure one of the Hawaiian harbors for a coaling station. Annexationexcludes all dangers of this kind."12

Thus, when Thurston met with Stevens on January 15, 1893, the "golden hour" hadarrived. It was agreed that United States marines would land under the guise of protectingAmerican lives (the missionary partys). The "missionary" party would declare themselves the"provisional government." This puppet government would immediately turn Hawaiì over to theUnited States in an annexation treaty. The missionary party would be appointed local rulers ofHawaiì as a reward. The United States would obtain the choicest lands and harbors for theirPacific armada.

On January 16, 1893, over 160 American marines and navy bluejackets landed inpeaceful Honolulu armed with Gatling gun, Howitzer cannons, double cartridge belts filled withammunition, carbines and other instruments of war. The U.S.S. Boston, with the latest high-techweaponry, had its guns leveled straight at the palace, a mere few hundred yards away. Theprotest by Hawaii's Queen that such landing was a breach of treaty and international law wassimply ignored. The troops marched along the streets of Honolulu, rifles facing the Queen'spalace.

The following day, the resident conspirators numbering 18, mostly Americans, sneakedto a government building a few yards from where the American troops lodged the night before.There, an American lawyer who had been a resident of Hawaiì less than a year previousproclaimed they were now the government of Hawaiì. Calling themselves the "provisionalgovernment" and selecting Sanford Dole president, they were to exist for the explicit purposeand until terms could be arranged with the U.S. for annexation.

Before the full declaration had been read, the U.S. marines marched into the building toprotect and support them. American Minister Plenipotentiary and commander of all U.S. forcesin Hawaii, John L. Stevens, gave them immediate recognition as the government of Hawaii as

12 "Cleveland's Address to Congress, 18 December 1893," Richardson, A Compilation of TheMessages and Papers of the Presidents: 1789-1908, Vol. IX (1908).

9


10/52

had been planned. He then joined in their demand that the Queen surrender under threat of warwith the U.S.13

The landing of the U.S. marines is now a matter of history. The queen yielded herauthority, trusting to the "enlightened justice" of the United States, expecting that a full

investigation would be conducted and the U.S. government would restore the constitutionalgovernment of Hawaiì.14

She wrote:I, Liliùokalani, by the grace of God and under the constitution of the Hawaiian

Kingdom, Queen, do hereby solemnly protest against any and all acts done against

myself and the constitutional Government of the Hawaiian Kingdom by certain persons

claiming to have established a Provisional Government of and for this Kingdom.

That I yield to the superior force of the United States of America, whose minister

plenipotentiary, his excellency John L. Stevens, has caused United States troops to be

landed at Honolulu and declared that he would support the Provisional Government.

Now, to avoid any collision of armed forces and perhaps the loss of life, I do,under this protest, and impelled by said force, yield my authority until such time as the

Government of the United States shall, upon the facts being presented to it, undo the

action of its representative and reinstate me and the authority which I claim as the

constitutional sovereign of the Hawaiian Islands.

On January 18, 1893, the day after Liliùokalani yielded, the "provisional government",forbade any of the Queen's supporters from boarding the only ship leaving Hawaiì and rushedoff to Washington to obtain annexation. By February 16, 1893, a treaty of annexation washurriedly negotiated, signed and presented by President Harrison to the United States Senate forratification.

However, Grover Cleveland replaced Harrison before the Senate voted. Meanwhile, theQueen's emissaries managed to sneak to the United States traveling as businessmen and uponreaching Washington pleaded with Cleveland to withdraw the treaty and conduct the promisedinvestigation.15

James H. Blount, formerly the Chairman of the House Foreign Relations Committee, wasappointed special investigator. After several months of investigation, Blount exposed theconspiracy. Cleveland subsequently addressed Congress declaring:

13 East Wind Magazine, Vol. III, No. 1 Spring/Summer 1984, "Hawaiian Sovereignty,"article by Poka Laenui.

14 Hawaiis Story by Hawaiis Queen Liliùokalani, Mutual Publishing, Honolulu, HI, 1990at pages 387-388.

15 Attorney Paul Neumann and Prince David Kawananakoa were the Queen's representatives.See Joesting, note 9, at p.239.

10


11/52

By an act of war, committed with the participation of a diplomatic representative

of the United States and without authority of Congress, the Government of a feeble butfriendly and confiding people has been overthrown. A substantial wrong has thus been

done which a due regard for our national character as well as the rights of the injured

people requires we should endeavor to repair. . . .

[Lili`uokalani] knew that she could not withstand the power of the United States,

but believed that she might safely trust to its justice. [S]he surrendered not to theprovisional government, but to the United States. She surrendered not absolutely and

permanently, but temporarily and conditionally until such time as the facts could be

considered by the United States [and it can] undo the action of its representative and

reinstate her in the authority she claimed as the constitutional sovereign of the HawaiianIslands.

In summarizing the events, Cleveland wrote:

The lawful Government of Hawai`i was overthrown without the drawing of a

sword or the firing of a shot by a process every step of which, it may be safely asserted,is directly traceable to and dependent for its success upon the agency of the United States

acting through its diplomatic and naval representatives.

But for the notorious predilections of the United States Minister for annexation,the Committee of Safety, which should be called the Committee of Annexation, would

never have existed.

But for the landing of the United States forces upon false pretexts respecting the

danger to life and property the committee would never have exposed themselves to the

pains and penalties of treason by undertaking the subversion of the Queen's Government.

But for the presence of the United States forces in the immediate vicinity and in

position to afford all needed protection and support the committee would not haveproclaimed the provisional government from the steps of the Government building.

And finally, but for the lawless occupation of Honolulu under false pretexts by the

United States forces, and but for Minister Stevens' recognition of the provisionalgovernment when the United States forces were its sole support and constituted its only

military strength, the Queen and her Government would never have yielded to the

provisional government, even for a time and for the sole purpose of submitting her caseto the enlightened justice of the United States.

[T]he law of nations is founded upon reason and justice, and the rules of conductgoverning individual relations between citizens or subjects of a civilized state are equally

applicable as between enlightened nations. The considerations that international law is

without a court for its enforcement, and that obedience to its commands practically

11


12/52

depends upon good faith, instead of upon the mandate of a superior tribunal, only give

additional sanction to the law itself and brand any deliberate infraction of it not merely

as a wrong but as a disgrace.16

Cleveland refused to forward the treaty to the Senate as long as he remained President.

Liliùokalani was advised of the President's desire to aid in the restoration of the status existingbefore the lawless landing of the United States forces at Honolulu if such restoration could beeffected upon terms providing for clemency as well as justice to all parties. In short, the pastshould be buried and the restored government should reassume its authority as if its continuityhad not been interrupted.17 The Queen, first protesting that such a promise from her wouldconstitute an unconstitutional act and was therefore beyond her powers to grant, later acceded tothe demands for general amnesty upon the return of the powers of government.18

The Provisional Government was immediately informed of this decision and asked toabide by Cleveland's decision, yielding to the Queen her constitutional authority; to which itrefused. In doing so, they protested Cleveland's attempt to "interfere in the internal affairs" of

their nation, declaring themselves citizens of the Provisional Government, thus beyondCleveland's authority. A short time before, they had relied upon their American citizenship andthus justified the landing of U.S. marines to protect their lives!

Cleveland, though filled with principled words, left the U.S. troops in Hawaiì's harborsto protect American lives.

The "provisional government" was under international criticism for being a governmentwithout the support of its people, existing, in fact, without a constitution or other fundamentaldocument to afford even the appearance of legitimacy. Faced with the predicament of anAmerican administration which would not condone the conspiracy, yet would not abandonAmerican lives in Hawaiì evidenced by the remaining American war ships in Honolulu Harbor,they devised a plan to restructure themselves to appear as a permanent rather than a provisionalgovernment. When a new American president came to office, the restructured government wouldact as the vehicle to place the conspiracy back on course.

A constitution giving them permanence and validity had to be drafted. Dole, acting asPresident of the Provisional Government, announced a constitutional convention of thirty-sevendelegates, nineteen, selected by him, and the remaining eighteen elected. The candidates andvoters for these eighteen positions were first required to renounce Queen Liliùokalani and swear

16 See Cleveland's Address to the Joint Houses of the United States Congress, December 18,1893,

17 Gillis, James Andrew, The Hawai ian Incident, Books for Libraries Press, p.87-88, 1970.

18 Liliùokalani, Supra note 14, p. 245-25112


13/52

allegiance to the provisional government.19 Less than 20% of the otherwise qualified votersparticipated in their election.

A "Constitutional Convention" was held. A document substantially as submitted by Doleand Thurston was adopted. The constitution of the "Republic of Hawaiì" claimed dominion

over all lands and waters of Hawaiì. It claimed all citizens of Hawaiì automatically its citizen.Foreigners who supported the new regime could vote; citizens loyal to the Queen could not; andbecause the Japanese and especially the Chinese supported Liliùokalani, they were, as a groupdisenfranchised. Further, only those who could speak, read and write in English or Hawaiian andexplain the constitution, written in English, to the satisfaction of Dole's supporters could vote.

On July 4, 1894 while Americans were celebrating their independence day by firing theircannons from their war ships in Honolulu Harbor, Dole ascended the steps of Ìolani Palace andproclaimed the Constitution and thus the "Republic of Hawaiì" into existence. In so doing, hedeclared all of the government lands and the crown lands and all the waters of the Hawaiiannation was now the Republic's. All Hawaiian citizens were automatically considered citizens of

the Republic. No vote was taken on the matter.

Liliùokalani had lost her throne for considering altering the constitution by fiat, allegedthe missionary party. Now, circumstances having altered the players, the conspiratorsinvoked the name of liberty and did substantially the same thing. 20

When William McKinley replaced Cleveland as President, Dole's group rushed toWashington to complete the conspiracy. With a "Constitution" in hand declaring they governedHawaiì, the "Republic of Hawaiì" ceded "absolutely and without reserve to the United States ofAmerica all rights of sovereignty of whatsoever kind in and over the Hawaiian Islands. . ." A"treaty of annexation" was signed.

Realizing the "treaty" could not get the 2/3 Senate approval required of the U.S. Constitu-tion,21 the conspirators circumvented that requirement and settled for only a joint resolution ofCongress. The Newland Resolution of July 7, 1898 was passed22over the outcry of the vastmajority of people in Hawaiì.23

19 Daws, Supra Note 2, p 2 80-281, Hawaii--A History, Kuykendall, Ralph S., p.183.

20 Daws, Supra Note 2, p. 281.

21 Article 2, 2 U.S. Constitution.

22 Newlands Resolution of July 7, 1898; 30 Stat. 750; 2 Supp. R.S. 895.

23 Memorial Statement adopted by a Mass Gathering on Oct. 8, 1897 addressed to thePresident, the Congress and the People of the United States of America. The mass petitionsobtained by two civic organizations, Hui Aloha àina and Hui Kalaiàina contained up to 39,000names, protesting annexation of Hawai i by the United States. It is commonly know today as theKuè Petition.

13


14/52

The United States now asserted its authority, backed by its military force, over Hawaiì.It soon established the government of the "Territory of Hawaiì"24 under which the President ofthe United States rather than the people of the territory, would select the territorial governor.

As these events were happening, Liliùokalani engraved her plea to the American people:

Oh, honest Americans, as Christians hear me for my down-trodden people! Theirform of government is as dear to them as yours is precious to you. Quite as warmly as

you love your country, so they love theirs. [D]o not covet the little vineyards of Naboth's

so far from your shores, lest the punishment of Ahab fall upon you, if not in your day inthat of your children, for "be not deceived, God is not mocked." The people to whom

your fathers told of the living God, and taught to call "Father," and whom the sons now

seek to despoil and destroy, are crying aloud to Him in their time of trouble; and He will

keep His promise, and will listen to the voices of His Hawaiian children lamenting fortheir homes.25

Her plea fell on a deaf people.

And so we find the closing of the chapter of Hawaiì as a free and unoccupied nation.Hawaiì was now to undergo years of American brainwashing, colonization and militaryoccupation. These were to be the pay-off years for the conspirators.

B. The recycling of Hawaiì 1900 - 1959:

Hawaiì underwent traumatic changes affecting every aspect of life. Sanford Dole wasappointed territorial governor by the U.S. President. He provided government positions andlucrative government contracts for friends. He was later appointed Federal District Court Judge,a lifetime tenure. Monopolies in shipping, finance and communications developed. The Big

Five, a coalition of five business entities, all finding their roots in the missionary party,controlled every aspect of business, media and politics in Hawaiì. Beginning with sugar, theytook steps to control transportation, hotels, utilities, banks, insurance agencies, and many smallwholesale and retail businesses. When they teamed up with the Republican Party, the UnitedStates Navy and high government officials, there was virtually nothing they couldn't exploit.

The ever-present U.S. Navy took more than a hand in this tyranny. When a Navyofficer's wife, Thalia Massie, left a party one night intoxicated and unescorted, later declaringherself raped, the obvious suspect, another Navy officer found with his pants zipper open, semenstains present and marks of blood upon his clothing, was released after questioning and placed inmilitary custody on the Admiral's boat, never again to be seen in Hawaiì by police officers.

Yet, three Hawaiians were subsequently arrested and amid conflicting and contradictoryevidence, were tried for the rape of a military white woman. The jury acquitted each defendant.

24 The Organic Act of April 30, 1900, C 339, 31 Stat 141.

25 Liliùokalani p.373-374.14


15/52

One evening soon after their acquittal, one of the three Hawaiian defendants was foundmurdered in the car of some navy men. Trial eventually followed in which guilty verdicts werereturned for all, only to find each sentence commuted by the Governor, appointed by thePresident of the United States and controlled by the U.S. Navy. For murder of Mr. Kahahawai,the defendants spent an hour sipping tea on the balcony of Ìolani Palace, then were escorted to

Pearl Harbor, where a Navy vessel took them back to the U.S.26

The myth of the superiority of the Anglo-Saxon race was continuously propagated.27George Washington, Ben Franklin and Tom Jefferson were the fathers of our country and theheroes of modern democracy. Christopher Columbus, Leif Erickson and Ferdinand Magellanwere supreme navigators and discoverers. The roots of science, technology, logic, philosophy,law and religion all grew out of Europe and America. We were shown no native heroes, taughtno native systems of knowledge, given no encouragement to gain pride in our own ancestry.Instead, native practices were oftentimes belittled and forbidden.

The customs and traditions and even the cultural names of the people were suppressed in

this recycling effort. The great makahiki celebrations honoring Lono, an important god of peace,harvest, agriculture and medicine were never observed or mentioned in the schools. Instead,Christmas was celebrated with plays and pageants. People were coaxed into giving childrenAmerican names having no ties with our ancestors; names which described no physical sub-stance, spiritual sense or human mood; names which could not call upon the winds or waters, thesoil or heat; names totally irrelevant to the surroundings.

The arts and sciences of Hawai i's ancestors were driven to near extinction. Theadvanced practice of healing through the medicines of plants, water, or massage, or just theuttered word, were driven into the back countryside. The science of predicting the futurethrough animal behaviors, cloud colors, shapes and formations of leaves on trees werediscounted as superstitions and ridiculed as old folks tales. The Hawaiian culture was beingground to extinction.28

26 Interview with William Isaacs in 1980 who assisted in the Prosecution of the defendants forthe murder of Joseph Kahahawai. He descends from a family strongly supportive of QueenLiliùokalani. He and four other young part-Hawaiians went off to law schools across the UnitedStates and upon returning home, took the judiciary examination to practice law, all of themconsistently failed, after years of testing, by scores of to 1 point. When asked to examine theresults, their requests were continually denied by the legal bar. Mr. Isaacs died in 1994 as thelast District Court practitioner who was never licensed to practice in the Territorial or the StateCircuit or Supreme Courts. He was licensed to practice in the U.S. Federal District Court.

27 Interviews over the years with Charles Kaùhane, 1968, Stanley Hara, 1968, WilliamIsaacs, 1984, Nalu Simeona, 1970-1988, Nadao Yoshinaga, 1966-1968.

28 Interviews with Daniel Hanakahi, 1980-1990; A.K. Chong aka Sam King Sheong akaSamuel Chong 1980-1986; Gregory Kalahikiola Naliìèlua Keawe, 1978-1988; Ephriam Makua,1974-1982; Pilahi Paki, 1978-1985; Mary Kawena Pukuì, 1973; Louis Àila, 1974-1975; NedBurgess, 1968-1982; Arthur Cathcart, 1982; Arthur Chun, 1982-1984; Harry Kunihi Mitchell,

15


16/52

A massive brainwashing program was begun to convince Hawaiians that the UnitedStates was the legitimate ruler and that the Hawaiians were no longer Hawaiians but Americans.

The term Hawaiian was redefined as a racial rather than a national term. Large numbers

of citizens of Hawaiì who had no Hawaiian blood were identified no longer as Hawaiians, but asChinese, Korean, English, Samoan, Filipino, etc. The divide and conquer tactic was employedeven among the Hawaiì race, by the U.S. Congress when it defined "native Hawaiians" (at least50% of the aboriginal blood), as being entitled to special land privileges thus depriving others oflesser "blood."29

Children were forced to attend American schools, and there taught to pledge theirallegiance to the United States, trained in the foreign laws, told to adopt foreign morality, trainedto compete and stand out above one's peers rather than to share and uplift one another, to speakno language but the foreign (English), and to adopt the foreign (American) lifestyle. Officialgovernment proceedings were to be conducted in English and not the Hawaiian language. In the

schools and college campuses, the language of Hawaiì was forbidden and in later years, found,if at all, taught in the foreign language departments.

Transmigration took place. The United States government controlled that program.Hawaiì witnessed a tide of Americans bringing with them a barrage of cultural, moral, religiousand political concepts. Hawaiians were "persuaded" into mimicking these newcomers' ways,idolizing their heroes, and adopting their living styles. As Americans infiltrated, they tookchoice jobs with government agencies and management positions with business interests. Theybought up or stole, through the manipulation of laws applied by them, much of the lands andresources of Hawaiì. They gained power in Hawaiì, controlled greater chunks of the economy,controlled the public media, entrenched themselves in politics, and joined in the brainwashing ofthe Hawaiians to believe they were Americans.

The military turned Hawaiì into its Pacific fortress converting Pearl Harbor from acoaling and fueling station to a major naval port. It bombed valleys (Makua, Kahanahaiki,Waikane) and took a major island (Kahoòlawe) for its exclusive use as a target range. At will ittossed families out of homes, destroying sacred Hawaiì heirlooms and built instead navalcommunication towers emitting radiation and ammunition depots hiding nuclear weapons(Lualualei). It declared martial law at will, violating even the U.S. constitution,30 and imposedmilitary conscription over Hawaiian citizens.

1984-1988; David Roy, 1984-1985; Marie (Aunty Momi) Ruane, 1977-1993; Nalu Simeona,1970-1988.

29 Title 2: 201(7), Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, 1920, Act of July 9, 1921, 42 Stat108.

30 Hawaiì Under Army Rule, J. Garner Anthony, UH Press, 195516


17/52

Freedom of trade was stopped. The U.S. Congress assumed control over foreignrelations. Hawaiians could buy only American goods or U.S. approved foreign goods. The BigFive, five major corporations with interlocking directorates, all traceable to the missionaryfamilies and the revolution of 1893, controlled all shipping!

Every aspect of Hawaiì was Americanized. Military show of strength was constant.Trade was totally controlled. Education and media was regulated. The secret ballot was a farce.

Hawaiì, that melting pot of cultures, races, languages and lore changed from a reality toan advertisement slogan for politicians and merchants.

D: Hawaiian Statehood 1959

Finally, after three generations of brainwashing, "Hawaiians" were asked to becomeequal Americans! The United States placed the following question to the "qualified" voters inHawaiì: Shall Hawaiì immediate ly be admitted into the Union as a State?

"Qualified" voters were Americans who were residents of Hawaiì for at least 1 year.The U.S. provided the vote for thousands of American citizens brought in through itstransmigration program, through military assignments, and through generations of socializationof Hawaiian citizens. The Hawaiian "self" which carried the ancestry, the history and theconsciousness of the Hawaiian nation was now replaced by an altered "self". Those who resistedthat American alteration, who refused to succumb to foreign domination and insisted on not aUnited States but a Hawaiian citizenship could not vote.31

The U.S. government not only altered the "self," but also manipulated and limited the"determination" options, which should have been made available. In its posing the "statehood"question so adeptly, the U.S. government simply foreclosed any real choice of "determination"by limiting Hawaiì to either remaining a territory of the United States or becoming a "State"within its union. One way or the other, Hawai i was trapped into remaining under thedomination of the United States. The question, "Should Hawai i be independent?" was neverasked.

The result of this maneuver was that the qualified Americans chose Statehoodoverwhelmingly.

In 1996, during a television interview with William F. Quinn, former governor of theHawaiì territory in 1959, appointed by the President of the United States, he confessed to hisignorance of the international requirement of providing choices to the colonized people of theterritory as set forth under U.N. Charter, Article 73.32

31 The Politics of Forgetting & Remembering (Hawaiian Statehood Revisited), Pk Laenui,Institute for the Advancement of Hawaiian Affairs, January 14, 1998, Republished in ReclaimingIndigenous Voice & Vision, Edited by Marie Battiste, UBC Press 2000, p. 50 - 53

17


18/52

Hawaiì thus became a member of the union of states, its fate said now to be sealed in apermanent political bond to the United States of America under a theory of non-secession of U.S.States, citing as authority, the war between the States a century earlier.

E: Growing international awareness in Hawaiì

The promotion of decolonization by the U.N., especially in the more recent period, hasnot been lost to the people of Hawaiì. Other events, closer to home, impacting upon Hawaiianawareness of international rights are the emergence of independent Pacific nations.

Beginning with Western Samoa 1962, the Pacific Ocean saw the explosion ofindependence, marking the Pacific map with new nations such as Fiji, Nauru, Tuvalu, Kiribati,Papua New Guinea, Cook Islands, Niue and Vanuatu. After a 10 year lull since theindependence of Vanuatu, we have seen the emergence of American territories of Micronesiainto full nationhood. In September 1991, the Republic of the Marshall Islands and the FederatedStates of Micronesia became members of the United Nations. The struggle of the

Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas for greater clarity in its relations to its former colonialruler, the attempt by the Republic of Belau to achieve independence without U.S. militarypresence, and the developing demands in Guam to application of international standards of self-determination, leading to the right to select emergence as a sovereign independent nation are allstruggles not lost to the Hawaiì public.

Before the implosion of the Soviet Union, the emergence of the nations of Latvia, Estoniaand Lithuania, previously fully integrated into the Soviet Union, but within a few months,welcomed into membership of the United Nations, are experiences which also add to the debateof Hawaiian sovereignty and self-determination.

These international activities reflecting a world momentum toward self-determinationchallenge the notion that once becoming a member of the union of the United States, no state

18


19/52

may secede from that union. These activities, instead, support the proposition that the right to

19


20/52

self-determination is a continuing right, never consumed by its previous exercise.33

1: Cultural rejuvenationThis international awareness has been coupled with a renewed sense of defiance against

further cultural suppression of Hawaiì's indigenous culture. During the 1960's, Hawaiì

witnessed the unfolding drama in the U.S. of the black struggle for equality, including the riots inWatts, the marches and the bus boycotts, the voter registration drives, and the massive rallies inWashington D.C. The American Indian Movement's activities also caught the attention ofHawaiì. Those civil rights movements, however, were soon overshadowed by the Vietnam war.Many Hawaiì citizens became directly involved in that war. By the end of the 1960's, a changedattitude towards the U.S. government had come about. The shining U.S. image was tarnished.

Many in Hawaiì came out of the 1960's with greater sensitivity for racial identity andpride in the cultural heritage of Hawaiì. There came a greater willingness to challengegovernments, either individually or in organizations.

Hawaiian music took on new vigor. Hula halau (training schools and repositories of theHawaiian dance) gained wider prestige and membership, canoe clubs became more popular,interest in the Hawaiian language took hold, as well as practice in the natural medicines ofHawaiì, and familiarity with Hawaiì's history. Hawaiian names were being used prominentlyand with greater insistence in the public. This cultural rejuvenation was joined by people ofmany different races in Hawaiì.

Land for native Hawaiians soon became another focus of contention. Kalama Valley onOàhu and the eviction of farmers there sparked a wave of challenges to the system. Themovement to protect the island, Kahoòlawe, from military bombing expanded the target ofprotest to the previously "sacred" military establishment.

A plethora of new Hawaiian organizations came into being. The issue of Hawaiiansovereignty and self-determination was a natural outgrowth of the disenchantment withHawaiian social and economic conditions. The Sovereignty for Hawaiì Committee was formed,advocating Hawaiian independence in the local schools, along the beaches and at businessluncheons, regionally within the Pacific, among international non-governmental organizations

20


21/52

and within the United Nations.34 The combination of all of these factors brought about a newconsciousness of injustice - the denial of the Hawaiian nation of its right to decolonization.

By the second half of the 1970's, the sovereignty challenges were being made moreexplicit. In a highly publicized trial in 1977 of a reputed Hawaiì underworld leader, the very

jurisdiction of the State Courts to sit in judgment over a Hawaiian citizen was raised. The BlountReport, President Cleveland's address to Congress, the Newlands Resolution annexing Hawaiìto the United States, and other historical documents and events were openly referred to in thecourt proceedings. The presiding Circuit Court Judge, John Lanham, upon hearing Cleveland'smessage to Congress, shook his head, exclaiming that the disclosures made by Cleveland weresimply unbelievable! Wide public attention was given to the case.

Following that trial, the defense attorney in that case, Hayden F. Burgess, challenged theauthority of the United States District Court to force him to serve as a juror on the argument thathe was not a U.S. but a Hawaiian citizen. More publicity was given to this assertion ofcitizenship and challenge to the court's jurisdiction. Soon after, the evictions of predominantly

native Hawaiians from Sand Island, followed by evictions at Makua Beach, then at Waimanalo,all challenged the jurisdiction of the courts to try Hawaiian citizens. A multitude of people wereasserting their Hawaiian citizenship, denying the attribution of U.S. citizenship to themselves.

Those eviction cases reflected another direction of growing Hawaiì consciousness. The"ceded lands", originally lands in the inventory of the government of Hawaiì subsequentlyceded to the United States by the Republic of Hawaiì, was challenged as nothing more thanstolen lands. In the Makua Beach eviction case, before a packed courtroom, the State's expertwitness, when asked to trace the title of those lands stated it was simply State policy that forthose lands, no such tracing was necessary. The court than ruled that the evidence wasconclusive that the Republic of Hawaiì had proper title of these lands to cede them to the UnitedStates.

2: Continued challengesMany more challenges to U.S. rule in Hawaiì are coming to public notice. In the

schools, children are refusing to join in the morning flag pledge of allegiance to the UnitedStates, to stand for the "national" anthem, etc. People are refusing to file tax returns or to payincome taxes. More and more defendants charged with criminal offenses are denying thejurisdiction of American courts over them. Poets and song writers are producing new works ofHawaiian national patriotism.

3: U.S. Apology -- finally!

21


22/52

The U.S. Congress passed and on November 23, 1993, President Bill Clinton signed

22


23/52

Senate Joint Resolution 19,35 a formal apology by the United States for the overthrow of theKingdom of Hawaii. However, the apology was directed to the native Hawaiians and not to thecitizens of Hawai`i. It is obvious that the apology is simply preparatory to further legislative andexecutive action limited to treating native Hawaiians as native Americans and not for the purpose

23


24/52

of according the full measure of human rights and fundamental freedoms encompassed in

24


25/52

international law.36

4: Local movement for Self-Determination formalizedThe Hawaiì State Legislature, as the decade of the 1990's appeared, concluded that the

issue of Hawaiian sovereignty was indeed a subject of great importance. It began the

formalizing of this process by first creating a Sovereignty Advisory Commission in 1991 toprovide advise to the legislature on how to deal with this subject. In 1993, the legislature createda new body, the Hawaiian Sovereignty Advisory Council consisting of council membersnominated from among the several organizations calling for one or another form of Hawaiiansovereignty. Than HSAC combed the communities of Hawaiì to obtain input on the process bywhich the people would like to proceed in this process of self-determination. That councilreported its conclusion that a question should be put to the Native Hawaiian people if they wouldlike to elect delegates to propose a native Hawaiian form of government. The State legislatureadopted the recommendation, appointed an elections council, and provided funds, matched byanother State agency, the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, to place the plebiscite question. A votewas taken resulting in an overwhelming support to the election of delegates.

An independent, non-governmental organization was formed to carry on the process ofelecting delegates and providing necessary support to the convention. An election of delegatesproceeded, followed by the convening of the members of the Native Hawaiian Convention, alsoknown as the Àha Hawaiì oiwi. That convention has most recently produced two conceptual

25


26/52

models for further consultation with the people, one calling for complete independence from the

26


27/52

United States of America and the second, for an integration relationship with the United States. 37

While these processes are taking place in Hawai`i, the Federal government has alsoproceeded with an attempt to shut down this self-determination process. Before the U.S.

27


28/52

Congress are concurrent bills38 to mold the right to self-determination into an expression onlyamong the Native Hawaiian race within the confines of the United States in a nation-within anation, integration relationship. This end result is being touted as the fulfillment of theexpression of self-determination of the Hawaiian nation. Thus, we have the U.S. clouding andconfusing the right of self-determination by again misdirecting the self through the limitation

of only a race of people, the Native Hawaiians, instead of all the Hawaiian subjects and theirdescendants who have suffered the ravages of colonization. They are also misdirecting thedetermination by declaring that the placement of these Native Hawaiians into a NativeAmerican category of folks in a nation within a nation relationship is sufficient and completesatisfaction of self-determination. These steps taken by the United States not only fails to meetthe sacred trust obligation of Article 73, U.N. Charter, but actually deters from the autochthonousprocess of self-determination taking place in Hawaiì.

III. PROCESSES OF DECOLONIZATION

Similar to the approach taken by Professor Enriques in his descriptionof the phases of Colonization, (Introduction) I suggest five distinct phases ofa people's decolonization. These are: 1) Rediscovery and Recovery, 2)Mourning, 3) Dreaming, 4) Commitment, and 5) Action. Each phase can beexperienced at the same time or in various combinations. Like the steps ofcolonization, these phases of decolonization do not have clear demarcationsbetween each other.

A. Phase One: REDISCOVERY AND RECOVERYThis phase sets the foundation for the eventual decolonization of the

society.

People who have undergone colonization are inevitably suffering fromconcepts of inferiority in relation to their historical cultural/socialbackground. They live in a colonial society, which is a constant andoverwhelming reminder of the superiority of the colonial society over that ofthe underlying indigenous one.

Many different causes may bring a person or a society to enter thestage of rediscovery and recovery. It may be curiosity, accident,desperation, escape, coincidence, or fate.

As a volunteer member of the United States military, I came across abook, found at a military base library in Hawaiì, written by QueenLiliùokalani, which started my entry into this phase of decolonization.Whether by accident or fate, I was curious enough to take it from the shelfand examine those words left by Hawaiìs Queen about 55 years before,telling of the conspiracy and overthrow of the Hawaiian nation. Once comingupon these words, I could not let the matter alone. I had to take up my own

28


29/52

study of my history I had never known before. I read and interviewed everysource of information I could find on Hawaiìs history and Hawaiian culturalfoundations.

The Hawaiian society has been in this phase since the late 1960's as

greater sensitivity for racial identity and pride as well as the growth ofdistrust for the government of the United States of America developed. Theblack struggle for equality in civil rights and the American Indian struggle forfundamental freedoms and recognition as the first people of the land, eventhe growing challenge to the righteousness of the U.S. war in Viet Namplayed a major part in bringing home to Hawaii since the 60's this recoveryand rediscovery stage. Those challenges to the U.S. government and theoperation of its society showed to us in Hawaiì that this great Americansociety was not so great after all!

Information of agents of the United States in the latter 1800's

conspiring with residents in Hawaiì, many of whom were American citizens,of American military spying all the while pretending to have no interest ingrabbing Hawaiì, of the landing of U.S. troops and acting as the militarysupport for a puppet governments overthrow of the Hawaiian nation, beganto appear in Hawaiì. The disbelief and yet the complete inability toovercome the information stunned the general society. This is reflected inan interruption by Circuit Court Judge John Lanham in the first criminal case

29


30/52

in modern time challenging the courts jurisdiction over a Hawaiian citizen39.While the defense counsel read from the U.S. Congressional Record President

30


31/52

Clevelands message to the U.S. Congress40 confessing to a litany ofaggressive acts, the judge said this was the most fantastic story he had everheard, yet he could not deny the events having happened, especially whenthese are words taken out of the Congressional record, coming from thePresident of the United States. Lanham was no neophyte to Hawaiì, having

married a native Hawaiian woman, served in the State legislature for manyyears, and at the time, sitting as a judge in the State Circuit Court.

This phase has continued, not only in the historical and politicalawareness of the U.S. armed invasion and overthrow of the Hawaiian nation.New vigor in Hawaiian music and literature, both traditional and modern,added substantially to this recovery. Social and political activities took onnew momentum. Hawaiians were now willing to stand up against membersof Hawaiìs Supreme Court in their appointment of trustees to the BishopEstate Trust, a non-profit entity designed to educate native Hawaiianstudents, with extensive assets of land throughout Hawaiì. There were new

challenges to evictions of native Hawaiians from beaches and valleys andchallenges to the abuse of the island of Kahoòlawe as a U.S. militarybombing range. As this platform of discontent and awareness began tobuild, a plethora of new organizations emerged, pushing to the forefront theillegality of the overthrow of Hawaii.

This phase of rediscovery and recovery has not ended. Many peopleare still "getting up to speed", not knowing much of the details, but generally

31


32/52

acquiescing to the overall theme of a grand illegality having occurred in

32


33/52

Hawaii 100 years ago - the theft of the Hawaiian nation.41

This phase of rediscovery of ones history and recovery of onesculture, language, identity, etc. is fundamental to the movement fordecolonization. It forms the basis for the further steps to follow.

One of the dangers in this phase is the elevation of form oversubstance, of dealing with a traditional culture from the perspective of aforeign culture. Indigenous people themselves can abuse their own culture,especially when they have been so long and completely separated from thepractice or appreciation of their traditional culture that they now see andtreat this culture from the perspective of the foreign one. This danger mayinclude those who have taken on the trappings of their "traditional" culture,wearing forests of leaves and flowers on their heads, speaking theindigenous language which they learned at colonial colleges, and otherwiseplaying the foreigner's concept of the indigenous person. Theatrics which

make good media clips could eventually be mistaken for substance.

The difference, therefore, between the final stage of colonization -exploitation, and the initial stage of decolonization - rediscovery & recovery,must be carefully distinguished. Caution must be taken in letting mediaselect for the colonized people the leadership or the identification of theircultural root.

B. Phase Two: MOURNINGA natural outgrowth of the first phase is the mourning - a time when a

people are able to lament their victimization. This is an essential phase of

healing. Even in individual tragedies where one is a victim of some crime,

33


34/52

has experienced death of a close loved one, suffered from a sexual assault,

34


35/52

the victim must be permitted a time of mourning.42

As a young member of the U.S. military, plodding through the moundsof history and recovering from a loss of native identity, I experienced greatanger, wanting to blow-up the colonial system, take up arms to drive that

very same military out of my native home. Others have expressedthemselves in very similar ways, finding that they had been lied to for somany years while in the educational systems in Hawaiì. Their anger andfrustration have ranged from flying chairs across a room to roaming streetswanting to beat Americans, to contemplating para-military action.

In Hawaiì, the symbolic mourning of the loss of the Hawaiian nationhas taken place in the centennial observation of the overthrow at ÌolaniPalace in the gathering of over 10,000 people. The observations over theweek-end of January 16 and 17, 1993 in which people came from all parts ofHawaii and returned from parts of the world served as a focal point for

35


36/52

mourning of most of those touched in one or another way by the overthrow.43

Many more remained at home but were tied to their radios, televisions ornewspapers as reports were made of the Palace events.

It is difficult to generalize how long a people remain in the mourning

phase. Like individual responses to tragedies, societal mourning depends onthe circumstances. Perhaps, when there does not seem to be anyalternative to the present condition, the mourning seems to be the only thingto do. Thus, an extended period of mourning may be experienced.

The mourning stage can also accelerate the earlier stage ofrediscovery and recovery. People in mourning often immerse themselvestotally in the rediscovery of their history making for an interesting interplaybetween these two phases, both feeding upon one another.

This phase may also be expressed in great anger and a lashing out at

all symbols of the colonizer. A sense of justified violence, either in words oraction, can lull some into remaining in this phase, milking every advantageof the innocence of one's victimization. This abuse of the mourning phasecan turn into an attempt to entrench the colonization in order to continue themourning, the anger, the hating and the division of people. Some people arehappy to go no further than the mourning, finding sufficient satisfaction inlong term grumbling. People can get "stuck in the awfulizing" of their victimhood. Some build a career upon it.

C. PhaseThree: DREAMING

This phase is the most crucial for decolonization. Here is where the fullpanorama of possibilities are expressed, considered through debate,consultation, and building dreams on further dreams which eventuallybecomes the flooring for the creation of a new social order.

It is during this phase where people colonized are able to explore theirown cultures, their own aspirations for their future, considering their ownstructures of government and social order which encompass and expressestheir hopes.

So crucial is this phase that it must be allowed to run its full course. If

the dreaming is cut short by any action plan or program designed to create aremedy meeting the perception of the issue at a premature stage, the resultcan prove disastrous.

I liken this phase to the formation of a fetus in a mother's womb. Thatfetus must be allowed its time to develop and grow to its full potential. To

36


37/52

attempt to rush the process, bringing baby out earlier than its natural time,could prove dangerous if not disastrous.

An examination of the Pacific as well as the world's decolonizationpattern may be helpful. There are many instances in which people who

underwent "decolonization" merely underwent a change in position of thecolonizer. See, for example, the constitutions of the newly emerged Pacificisland nations as well as African nations. Do they reflect more closely thesocial and legal culture of the immediate preceding colonizer or of theindigenous culture? Are those documents truly reflective of the hopes andaspirations of the people previously colonized? Or do they represent thecolonial mentality, which pervades the society at the time of foreigndeparture? Were they written or advised by colonial experts coming from amind set of Western political structures or were they drafted by the peoplethemselves?

True decolonization is more than simply replacing indigenous orpreviously colonized people into the positions held by colonizers.Decolonization includes the reevaluation of the political, social, economicand judicial structures themselves, and the development, if appropriate, ofnew structures, which can hold and house the values and aspirations of thecolonized people.

In Hawaii, the dreaming is now vibrant. One on-going process is calledthe Native Hawaiian Convention, where delegates elected only by nativeHawaiians, are convening to review all aspects of self-determination and willmake recommendations to the native Hawaiian population. This convention

will explore the full range of choices from remaining integrated within theUnited States of America to complete independence from the United States.

Other organizations are also attempting to address the self-determination question as well. Some have gone so far as to declarethemselves the government pro tem pending success in achievinginternational recognition as an independent nation. Others are gatheringand forming coalitions to promote continuing discussion on Hawai`is future.Still others are dedicated to remaining part of the United States but havingthe indigenous people given formal recognition and equivalent treatment asmany American Indian tribes, a nation within a nation approach.

As the intensity in the debate of Hawaii's future gains greatermomentum, there is a matching hunger for solid background information andnew visions upon which the dreaming can be built. Some of the areas nowbeing explored include:

a) Ramifications of Hawaiian Sovereignty upon the following:

37


38/52

- Tourism, -Population control- Military presence, -International trade & business- Diversified Agriculture-Control over ocean resources- Taxation -Land relationship

b) International legal principles which apply to the Hawaii case, inparticular, the principles of decolonization, indigenous peoples' rights,and ocean governance seen from new economic, environmental andpolitical world arrangement perspectives.

c) Review of other cases in which people have exercised self-determination, both as indigenous people's movements and as broadermovements of decolonization.

d) Identification and description of various models of nationhood.

e) Methods and processes by which non-indigenous concerns andcontributions can be incorporated into the overall study of Hawaiiansovereignty.

Hawaii however, continues to face the threat of rushing the dreaming.Now that the topic of Hawaiian Sovereignty has "caught on" as one of theforemost political issues of the day, many are demanding immediate action,with a belief that reflection and introspection are not worth the time andeffort in the development of a new social order. Those expressingimpatience and even ridicule over the dreaming process often call for veryshort-sighted goals, measured generally by materialistic gains. Thus, there

is an immediate call for lands, dollars and a "sovereign" nation whosejurisdiction and powers are fully within the United States Congress orSupreme Court. Long term planning for the future of Hawaii in relation tothe Pacific and the world is not included in such plans for an immediateremedy.

D. Phase Four: COMMITMENT

In the process of dreaming, the people will have the opportunity toweigh the voices rather than becoming caught up with counting votes orbullets. They will be able to wade through the cult of personalities, family

histories, and release themselves from shackles of colonial patriotism. Theywill now be ready for commitment to a single direction in which the societymust move. This phase will culminate in people combining their voices in aclear statement of their desired direction. There is no single "way" orprocess for a people's expression of the commitment. In fact, over time, thecommitment will become so clear that a formal process merely becomes apro forma expression of the people's will.

38


39/52

It can be difficult to distinguish between an early termination of thedreaming phase from the start of the commitment phase. In Hawaii, wehear the call for a Hawaiian convention to create a founding document of theHawaiian nation. In several corners of the society, this call is being made by

bodies that include the Hawaii legislature, semi-autonomous organizationssuch as the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, and even the umbrella organizationsupporting Hawaiian sovereignty education, Hui Na`auao. All such calls for aprocess must be carefully scrutinized and questioned as to whether thesecalls are consistent with the desire to allow the full process of decolonizationto take place or to cut the dreaming short and force a premature resolutionof historical injustices, thus limiting the losses of those whose interests arethreatened in the decolonization process.

In recent years, the Hawai`i legislature and the Office of HawaiianAffairs put up funds to conduct a vote among Native Hawaiians on whether

or not to elect delegates to a Native Hawaiian Convention to propose a form

39


40/52

of Hawaiian governance44. Suspicion was raised over the fact that fundingfor this process came from the State of Hawai`i, that the process wastherefore tainted and not truly a self-determining process contemplated ininternational law. The international policies well established by the UnitedNations, however, does call for governments to provide necessary resources

40


41/52

to assist the people in their exercise of self-determination45. The vote wastaken in which any person over the age of 18, irrespective of their residence,regardless of whether incarcerated or under other civil disabilities, werepermitted to participate. Among native Hawaiians throughout the world,22,294 voted yes and 8,129, no, a 73% response in favor of electing

delegates to a convention. A second step was taken in January 1999 electingsuch delegates to a Native Hawaiian Convention. That convention is nowproceeding.

41


42/52

Several organizations claim they individually represent the HawaiianNation. They have gone forward and formed their national organizationalstructure, put in place their national leaders, and now proceed to speak forthe nation. They try to be first in the action phase. Such elitists

substitutes for a quick solutions for the decolonization process deprives thepeople a participatory role in the formation of their own social order.

32 Dialogue, a television program hosted by Professor Dan Boylan, University of Hawaiì,West Oahu Campus, with guests William F. Quinn, William S. Richardson, Mahealani Kamauù,and Pk Laenui. Transcript of the program available from Pk Laenui.

33 A Second Glance w/ Russell Barsh, hosted by Pk Laenui, Hawaiì Public Radio, Nov. 6,20, 27, and Dec. 4, 1993

34 The Sovereignty for Hawaiì Committee, generally operated as part of the World Councilof Indigenous People. That committee has since been incorporated into the Institute for theAdvancement of Hawaiian Affairs, 86-641 Puùhulu Rd., Waiànae, HI 96792.

35 PL 103-150 107 Stat. 1510,

36 Poka Laenui, public comment at Mabel Smythe Auditorium, HSAC meeting with ProfessorFrancis Boyle, Dec. 28, 1993; A 2nd Glance w/ Aò Pohaku Rodenhurst & Esther Kiaàina, Dec.18, 1993, Hawaiì Public Radio.

37 Booklet from the International Relations Committee of the Native Hawaiian Conventionused for consulting with the native Hawaiian people on the matter of self-determination.Available by contacting the author at 86-641 Puùhulu Rd., Waiànae, HI 96792,[email protected]

38 Senate Bill 2899 and House Bill 4909, 106th Congress, 2d Session

39 State of Hawaiì vs. Wilford N. Pulawa, trial in 1977-1978 of the reputed Hawaiìunderworld leader on charges of double kidnap and murder. Jury reached a not-guiltyverdict.40 "Cleveland's Address to Congress, 18 December 1893," Richardson, A Compilation of

The Messages and Papers of the Presidents: 1789-1908, Vol. IX (1908)

41 Both the Hawaiì State Legislature and the United States Congress have admitted tothe illegality of the overthrow of the Hawaiian Nation. House Concurrent Resolution 147 ofthe Hawaiì State Legislature 1991, Act 359 of the Hawaiì Legislature 1993, Joint Resolutionof Apology, U.S. Senate Concurrent Resolution 19, PL 103-150 107 Stat. 1510, Signed byPresident Clinton on November 23, 1993.

42 The Oglala Lakota nation has the "Wiping of the Tears" ceremony to accomplish the same need formourning. Source: Interview with Birgil Killstraight, A Second Glance, ibid, April 11, 199243 This event has been preserved by 9 hours audio cassette album Three Days in January The Overthrow ofthe Hawaiian Nation available for $49.95 through the Hawaiian National Broadcast Corporation, 86-641 Puùhulu


43/52

E. Phase Five: ACTION

This phase can be properly taken only upon a consensus ofcommitment reached in the 4th phase. Otherwise, the action taken cannottruly be said to be the choice of the people colonized.

But the reality of many situations does not allow for such a methodical,patient, time consuming process of the four earlier phases. When a peopleare under physical attack, when a people are finding their children torn fromtheir homes for reeducation in colonial societies, when people are beingremoved from their traditional lands in droves, action may be called for priorto the societys completion of the dreaming phase. But that kind ofresponsive action to colonizations onslaught is not the action spoken ofhere. The responsive action is one for survival. The action called for in the5th phase of decolonization is not a reactive but a pro-active step taken uponthe consensus of the people.

The 5th phase action may incorporate the full spectrum from a call toreason on one end to a resort to arms on the other. Under appropriate timesand in the appropriate manner, all of such actions are sanctioned byinternational law46. But the decolonization environment has so drasticallychanged in the last 30 years that the action phase today must includeconsideration beyond what has been historically undertaken to achieveindependence. While the first thought for independence would have been tograb the rifle and march against the colonizer, it seems the new weapons aredictated by technological development. The fax machine, computer,television, radio and newsprint are perhaps more effective in executing the

long battle plan. Those new weapons notwithstanding, the rifle, it's beenargued, may still be necessary to defend those other media of expressions.

Rd., Wai`anae, HI 96792.

44 The Hawaiian Sovereignty Advisory Council followed by the Hawaiian SovereigntyElections Commission were funded by the State of Hawai`i, and the Office of HawaiianAffairs.45 Chapter XI, Article 73, United Nations Charter; International Covenant on Economic,Social and Cultural Rights and on Civil and Political Rights, Annex to GA Res. 2200 (XXI) of16 Dec. 1966; Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations

and Cooperation Among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, annexto GA Res. 2625 on 24 October 1970; ILO Convention 169 Concerning Indigenous and TribalPeoples in Independent Countries (1989)46 American Declaration of Independence, 1776; French Declaration des Droit de leHomme et du Citoyen of August 6, 1789, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 3rdPreambular paragraph, (1948), Declaration on the Granting of Independence to ColonialCountries and Peoples, GA Reso. 1514 (1961), U.N. Charter, Article 51; Declaration onPrinciples of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and co-operation among Statesin Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, UN GA Res. 2525 (XXV),


44/52

Not only have the methods of executing upon these commitmentschanged, the arenas of contests are now not as geographically defined asbefore. To speak before a national congress or an appropriate body of theUnited Nations may be far more effective than to storm a mountain topwithin ones homeland in an armed battle.

This section on decolonization concludes with some propositions.These propositions are very specific in terms of the processes of colonizationand decolonization based upon two indigenous individuals (V. Enriques andP. Laenui) observations from their own colonial and decolonizingexperiences. These phases are presented here as distinct from one another,in a very clear sequence. Yet, the reality of colonization and decolonizationis not so clear. For illustration purposes, these steps are presented in asequence. In practice, we oftentimes see combinations of these socialchanges. We see them occur in individuals at different times as they do in

the general society - some individuals far ahead or behind in the process.The process of decolonization, for example, has actually begun in Hawai i,where the general society has now gone through several years of the phaseof recovery and rediscovery. In 1978, during the first criminal trial in which aNative Hawaiian defendant refused to dignify the court by entering a plea ofguilty or not guilty to the governments charges, and challenged the courtsjurisdiction to sit in judgme

federalism and the rights of indigenous p-1

Documents