Source: February 2010 Ka Wai Ola o OHA Column

As difficult as it is to believe that in this day and age, and with all of the history that has been revealed regarding the unjust nature of the overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom, large, framed portraits of Provisional Government officials are still being displayed in the rotunda of Ali’iolani, the headquarters of the State’s Judiciary.  Specifically, the portraits include Albert Francis Judd, who was Associate Justice from 1874-1881 and Chief Justice from 1881-1900, and Walter F. Frear, who was Associate Justice from 1893-1900 and Chief Justice from 1900-1907.

The display of such portraits is an affront to many Native Hawaiians and gives the appearance that the State of Hawaii approves of the overthrow.  The portraits also perversely give legitimacy to the Provisional Government which has clearly caused great harm to Native Hawaiian people, culture, and self-determination.

History has proven unequivocally that the Provisional Government of Hawaii was established illegally, immorally, and unjustly in 1893 following the treacherous overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii.

The Provisional Government ruled Hawaii during the period between the overthrow and when they declared themselves the Republic of Hawaii on July 4, 1894.  Anyone who accepted an official position within the illegal Provisional Government were traitors to the Kingdom and, by remaining in office, perpetuated the great harm brought upon Native Hawaiians by the overthrow.

Soon after the overthrow, President Cleveland appointed U.S. Commissioner James H. Blount to investigate the events surrounding the overthrow.  The “Blount Report,” as it is now commonly know, was part of the 1893 United States House of Representatives Foreign Relations Committee Report provided the first official evidence that United States was complicit in the illegal overthrow.  The Blount Report concluded that the U.S. diplomatic and military representatives in Hawaii had abused their authority and were responsible for the change in government.

President Grover Cleveland himself described the acts leading up to the overthrow as an “act of war” and acknowledged that the government of the Kingdom of Hawaii, with its peaceful and friendly people, had been overthrown.  On December 18, 1893, President Cleveland sent a message to Congress calling for the restoration of the monarchy. 

The Provisional Government protested President Cleveland’s efforts to restore the monarchy and continued to hold onto power and pursued annexation to the United States.  They even successfully lobbied the US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations to conduct a new investigation into the events leading to the overthrow in order to challenge the Blount Report’s findings.

The policies of the Provisional Government were far more restrictive than those of the Kingdom of Hawaii, including denying citizenship to Chinese immigrants.  They also restricted voting to only 4,000 people, which was down from the 14,000 people under the Bayonet Constitution.  This led to the Blount Report’s conclusion that if the question of annexation were put to a popular vote, it would be “defeated.”

I encourage everyone to support OHA’s Concurrent Resolution in this legislative session which urges the State to remove the portraits of any Provisional Government official which are being displayed in a position of honor in state buildings.

Aloha pumehana.

Source: December 2009 Ka Wai Ola o OHA Column

On October the 11, 2009, Father Damien was canonized by Pope Benedict XVI in St. Peters Basilica in Vatican City, Rome.  Saint Damien was born Joseph De Veuster on January 3, 1840 in Tremelo, Belgium into a large family.  His parents were farmers and merchants and it was expected that Joseph would take over the family business after his oldest brother decided to enter the congregation of the Scared Hearts of Jesus and Mary.  However, this was not to be. 

In 1859, Joseph entered the novitiate in Louvain, Belgium, the same religious order that his brother had entered, where he took the name of Damien.  In 1863, his brother became ill and could not leave on a mission to the Hawaiian Islands.  Joseph obtained permission from the Superior General to take his brother’s place.

Joseph arrived in Honolulu on March 19, 1864 where he was ordained to the priesthood the following May 21^st.  In learning about Saint Damien and the struggles he endured as a priest living in Kalawao, Molokai, or what is now known as Kalaupapa, I can truly say that no one in this lifetime could have survived the harsh and cruel conditions there with the same grace and compassion.

Damien’s arrived at a time when the Hawaiian Monarchy was struggling with the dilemma of what to do about the outbreak of Hansen’s Disease that was quickly spreading throughout the islands.  It was decided that all those who were infected be isolated on the island of Molokai in the remote area of Kalawao.

The entire Catholic Mission led by Bishop Louis Maigret was concerned about the abandonment of the “lepers.”  He asked for volunteers who would take turns administering aide to them and four priests volunteered.  Damien was first to leave on May 10, 1873.  After seeing the harsh conditions in Kalawao and how seriously ill the patients were, he asked the Bishop’s permission to remain indefinitely on Molokai.  Thus, Damien spared the other priests from exposure to the disease.

On October 1, 2009, I traveled along with a Hawaii delegation on a pilgrimage to Belgium and to Rome to honor Father Damien.  We visited Father Damien’s hometown of Tremelo where the people of the town embraced us.  I can now truly understand where the kindness and compassion that father Damien had for our Hawaiian people came from. 

“We are reminded through the life lessons exemplified by Father Damien that we are each given an opportunity while we are on God’s earth to try and make a difference in someone’s life no matter how big or how small.  It only matters that we try.”

To Father Damien, people were people, and his service to his God meant to serve all of God’s people.  We are reminded through the life lessons exemplified by Father Damien that we are each given an opportunity while we are on God’s earth to try and make a difference in someone’s life no matter how big or how small.  It only matters that we try.

We walked along the same streets that he walked and entered his boyhood home which is now a small museum.  Touring the century old town with its quaint streets and beautiful classical buildings was an unforgettable experience.  At the end of a Mass held in Tremelo, the Bishop of Belgium said, “Thank you Hawaii, we gave you a priest and you gave us back a Saint. We are forever linked together as one people.”

On October the 6^th, our group arrived in Rome and our hotel was very near Saint Peters Square and the Vatican.  Upon arrival, I was acutely aware of the stark contrast between the smaller towns of Belgium and the hustle and bustle of Rome.  I also found it interesting how Rome’s ancient history and architecture deeply intertwined with the modern city.

It is fascinating how parts of ancient Rome continue to exist in modern times as they did centuries ago.  I walked upon the same cobblestone streets that Romans in ancient times traversed.  What is astonishing is that a large city like Rome has not widened its streets to accommodate automobiles.  Cars and motorcycles regularly zip in and out of narrow streets made for horses and foot traffic.  To add to the congestion, Romans regularly double and triple park their cars.

Almost every building in Rome has ornate architecture and statues.  The 600 churches within the city are decorated with beautiful paintings on both the walls and ceilings.  St. Peters Basilica is the most beautiful church I have ever seen.  St. Peter is buried underneath the Basilica.  Located nearby is the Sistine Chapel where Michelangelo spent more than half of his life painting the magnificent ceiling.  Everything that you have ever read about in school is there before you.

Despite the many distractions, we did not forget the reason we all made our pilgrimage to Rome — the canonization of our beloved Father Damien.  On October 11^th, we lined up at St. Peters square at 6:30 am to ensure we got seats before the program began.  The gates opened at 8:15 am and by that time there were 60,000 people waiting to get into the Square and many more coming in tour buses and walking in large groups.  Suddenly, they all rushed towards the gate with a determined look in their eyes.  There was much pushing, shoving, and shouting in different languages as everyone scrambled to get one of the limited number of seats available.  Thankfully, no one was trampled.

The Mass began at 8:30 am.  The King and Queen of Belgium, the Royals of Italy, Senator Daniel Akaka and Lt. Governor Duke Aiona were but a few of the many dignitaries  in the audience.  Participants included the Brothers and Fathers of the Scared Heart Order of Connecticut, Los Angeles, the Philippines, and the Northern Marianas, who were all led by Bishop Silva of Honolulu.  St. Peters Basilica was packed to its brim with visitors from everywhere in the world, with thousands more listening and watching on the jumbo screens in the square.  All told, there were as many as 100,000 people there.  Before we knew it, like a blink of an eye, the Mass was over and Father Damien had become Saint Damien.

Our next stop is the thriving community of Assisi, about three hours outside of Rome.  We traveled through farm country and lots of open spaces.  It was a sharp contrast to Rome.  Finally, high on the mountain top of Assisi, we witnessed the birth place of Saint Francis.  The view was breathtaking.  We then visited St. Francis’s Church and his tomb.  Beautiful, centuries old buildings were still being used as merchant shops and homes.  We stopped long enough to get some heavenly sweet gelatos.  There really is no such thing as a bad meal in Italy.  The smells, the deserts, the wines, the people, the excitement of the cities and its energy were invigorating.

Next, our group attended a Hawaiian Mass at St. Paul’s church in Rome presided over by Bishop Silva and the Priests of the Scared Hearts Order including the Honorable Father Lane Akiona, Father Gomes, Father Jonathan, Father Preston, Father Bruce, and others. Special dances by our Halau and our choir made this Mass very special.  St. Paul’s church is one of the most visited churches in Rome and second in size only to St. Peters Basilica. 

The next day, we say aloha to Rome and head back to Hawaii. 

The final Aloha and Mahalo to St. Damien took place on the grounds of Iolani Palace on November 1st.  Belgium dignitaries and our own Princess Abigail Kawananakoa exchange their gratitude and love for St. Damien.  In this final farewell, the Princess shares some intimate letters that were written between Queen Kapiolani, King David Kalakaua and Princess Liliuokalani with St. Damien.

Princess Liliuokalani first visited Kalaupapa on September 15, 1881.  She witnessed the patients’ swollen, half-shut eyes, the black scabs and running sores, their mutilated members, and their gangrenous hands and feet.  Some of the sufferers hid their wounds under bloodstained bandages; others let their wounds show as though they no longer thought of them.  Princess Liliuokalani burst into tears when she recognized some of them.  She attempted to speak, but could not.  She wanted to see everything at the site including the housing, the hospital, the orphanages, the churches, the rectory and the stores.  She left with a broken heart.

Father Damien wrote to Queen Kapiolani about the plight of the Hawaiian people whom he cared for and appealed to her to send provisions.  In a June of 1884 letter, Queen Kapiolani wrote, “Dear father Damien, I am awaiting your approval of the allotment of clothes for the lepers and the number to be supplied.  The giving of the clothes for he lepers are being withheld until I hear from you.  With best wishes to you and our beloved lepers, Kapiolani.”

On July 30, 1884, Damien responded, “I was honored to receive your letter. To execute your loving orders I put myself right to work.  I have visited the homes and saw with my own eyes their needs, and inquired of their pain.  Here is a list of Kalawao.  The list for Kalaupapa I will mail next week.  My respectful greetings to the King.  Your humble servant.”

On August 6, 1884, Father Damien wrote, “To the Royal mother of the people in suffering Queen Kapiolani, greetings.  Your letter is in the hands of your obedient servant.  I have fulfilled your requests.  I have finished the catalogue of names of the sick people imploring the mercy of their mothers.  Through the Board of Health you will receive a list of all of the people who are living here with their date of birth.  A kind request for myself and my large family to you, O princess, when all of the freight is ready to be shipped, tell the head Sister, Sister Marianne, to board the ship with you in order to select a site for the establishment of the sisters at Kalawao.”

It is clear from these writings that Father Damien enlisted the aide of not only the Royal family but also the support of anyone who would listen.  He then used whatever materials he could find to build houses, churches and hospitals for the patients.  Against all odds he formed a sense of community and provided much needed services such as baptisms and marriages.  In one of his writings he wrote: “My greatest happiness is to serve the Lord in these poor sick children, rejected by others.”

Today, as it was then, the world now rejects the less fortunate of all kinds such as the victims of AIDS and other diseases, abandoned children, disoriented youth, abused women, neglected elderly, oppressed minorities and the homeless.  In Damien, we see the Good Samaritan, who stopped to give aide to the sick and to those who had been cast aside by society. Damien is and will remain for all of us a servant of the human spirit and person, a servant of humanity that needs to live but more importantly needs reason for living.

This is the Damien challenge to all of us today.  Can we find the Good Samaritan in us?

Source: April 2006 Ka Wai Ola o OHA Column

`Ano`ai kakou…  One issue that I have really pushed hard for at the state capitol is a bill to exempt Kuleana lands from property taxes.  Many Hawaiian families, who have been caring for their Kuleana lands for generations, are now facing sky-rocketing property taxes because of luxury resorts and shopping malls being built next-door.  The issue first came to my attention several years ago when a family came to OHA and asked that we take custody of their Kuleana land until they were able to save up enough money to pay off their back taxes.  If something isn’t done soon, more Kuleana Lands could fall out of Hawaiian hands.

A brief history of Kuleana Lands:  According to Kumu Pono Associates LLC’s website (www.kumupono.com), in 1848, as a result of the Mahele, all land in the Kingdom of Hawai‘i was placed in one of three categories:  Crown Lands (for the occupant of the throne); Government Lands; and Konohiki Lands (Kuleana Act, 1850). 

Ownership rights to all lands in the kingdom were “subject to the rights of the native tenants;” those individuals who lived on the land and worked it for their subsistence and the welfare of the chiefs (Kanawai Hoopai Karaima… {Penal Code} 1850:22).  The 1850 resolutions in “Kanawai Hoopai Karaima no ko Hawaii Pae Aina,” authorized the newly formed Land Commission to award fee-simple title to all native tenants who occupied and improved any portion of Crown, Government, or Konohiki lands.

After native Hawaiian commoners were granted the opportunity to acquire their own parcels of land through the Mahele, foreigners were also granted the right to own land in 1850, provided they had sworn an oath of loyalty to the Hawaiian Monarch.  In order to receive their awards from the Land Commission, the hoa‘aina (native tenants) were required to prove that they cultivated the land for a living.  They were not permitted to acquire “wastelands” (e.g. fishponds) or lands which they cultivated “with the seeming intention of enlarging their lots.”  Once a claim was confirmed, a survey was required before the Land Commission was authorized to issue any award.

The lands awarded to the hoa‘aina became known as “Kuleana Lands.” All of the claims and awards (the Land Commission Awards or L.C.A.) were numbered, and the L.C.A. numbers remain in use today to identify the original owners of lands in Hawai‘i.  By the time of its closure on March 31, 1855, the Land Commission issued only 8,421 kuleana claims, equaling only 28,658 acres of land to the native tenants (cf. Indices of Awards 1929).

According to the Overview of Hawaiian History by Diane Lee Rhodes, many of the kuleana lands were later lost.  The list of reasons include:  (1) Native tenants mostly received lands that lacked firewood or were too rocky and unsuitable for farming.  (2) A number of kuleana were sold by dishonest land agents before the farmers could get a survey.  (3) The land commissioners delayed getting notices to landholders.  (4) Prices were out of reach for commoners.  (5) Finally, foreigners evicted legitimate kuleana owners without due process.

Since most of the Kuleana lands were carved up and taken away or abandoned, the impact on tax revenues would be extremely minimal so there should be no reason why this legislation shouldn’t pass.  Unfortunately, both the House and Senate Kuleana land bills went nowhere this session.  The House refused to even hear the bill despite my pleas to the Committee on Hawaiian Affairs chairman, Representative Scott Saiki.

The bill got a hearing on the Senate side, thanks to the Judiciary and Hawaiian Affairs committee chairman, Senator Colleen Hanabusa, but the bill came up one vote short of passing.  I met with Senator Donna Mercado Kim, who voted no on the bill, to try to convince her to support the bill, but she insisted that we should go to each county and ask for the exemption individually, which makes no sense.  Why should we go to each county when one bill passed by the legislature can make the exemption law for the entire state? 

I am currently working to get a city ordinance passed at the Honolulu City Council.  Bill #25 was introduced on March 15, 2006.  If you or someone you know is living on Kuleana lands and are descendent of the original owners, I implore you to consider testifying.

We must put an end to the injustices done to the caretakers of Kuleana lands for the past 150-years once and for all.  If something is not done soon, the very last Kuleana lands that have survived will finally fall out of Hawaiian hands.  Protecting what’s left of Kuleana Lands will help preserve Hawai’i’s rich history and culture.

Source: August 2005 Ka Wai Ola o OHA Column

`Ano`ai kakou…  As an advocate for better health care for all Hawaiians, especially our kupuna, and as the Chair of the Native Hawaiian Health Task Force, I am very pleased to announce that on June 23, 2005, the Board of Trustees approved a grant of $300,000 to help fund the Kupuna Continuing Care Assurance Program which will be administered by Lunalilo Home over the next two years.  The program is designed to help make residential care, respite care, adult day care, and outreach nutritional services (hot meals delivered to a kupuna’s home) more affordable for Native Hawaiian kupuna.  

Lunalilo Home was established in 1883 by the will of High Chief William Charles Lunalilo to care for poor, destitute, and infirmed Hawaiians, with preference given to the elderly.  Lunalilo Home has been operating out of its present site at Maunalua since 1927.  Operations continued until 1997 when it temporarily suspended operations to undergo a major renovation to its aging two-story structure.  OHA helped fund major portions of this renovation work and operations resumed in August 2001.

The new Kupuna Continuing Care Assurance Program will allow Lunalilo Home to subsidize the residential care of kupuna in financial need.  The program is part of a long-term plan by Lunalilo Home to establish partnerships with other organizations so that they may expand their elder care services and assist more kupuna than it is currently able to serve.  An estimated 16,000 Hawaiian kupuna in the state may benefit from respite care alone. 

As most of you know, the cost of long-term care for the elderly has risen dramatically in recent years.  Families are finding that a kupuna’s Health Plan benefits (private or Medicare) are not enough to cover the cost of long-term care.  More and more families are forced to pay for costs out of their pockets or end up doing without long-term residential care for their kupuna.

Of the 38 current residents in Lunalilo Home, approximately 30 of them are only able to partially afford the cost of care or receive government assistance for health and financial needs.  Lunalilo Home partially subsidizes the cost of care for these residents through various fundraisers.  

The state’s older population is also increasing and aging at a rapid rate.  Between 1990 and 2000, the 60 years or older population increased by 19%, compared to about 9% nationally.  During the same period, the population of Hawaiians 85 years or older increased nearly twice as fast as the national average (68.9% vs. 37.6% U.S.).

An estimated 207,001 persons in Hawaii, or 17 percent of the state’s population, were 60 years or older in 2000, higher than the national average of 16.3%.  Hawaii ranks 20th nationally in the percentage of older persons (60+) residing in the state.  About 17,564 persons, or about 1% of the state’s population, were 85 years or older in 2000.

Roughly 5.5% of the state’s population over 60 years of age is Native Hawaiian.  About 75% of Hawaii’s total kupuna population (ages 60+) resides on Oahu.  An estimated 114,872 family caregivers reside in the state and provide about 107 million hours of care giving per year at an estimated value in 1997 of about $875 million.

Lunalilo Home estimates it could provide services to 167 Native Hawaiian kupuna per day for two years with the $300,000 grant it received from OHA.  The Home will also be able to expand their much needed adult day care services to assist working caregivers and hot meal services through “Meals-on-Wheels.”

After a lifetime of dignity, independence, and hard work, our kupuna deserve access to affordable elder care.  If not, we will run the risk of prematurely losing their wisdom at a time when the Hawaiian community needs it the most.  Thanks to the teamwork of OHA and Lunalilo Home, something substantial is being done to assist this vulnerable part of our population.  Imua e Hawai’i nei…

February 2003 Ka Wai Ola Article

I dedicate this month’s column to pay tribute to a great lady, Gladys Kamakakuokalani ‘Ainoa Brandt.  To everyone who knew her she was “Aunty Gladys.”  I was one of those fortunate enough to know her and be a part of her life for a brief moment in time.  Her thoughts, her wit, and her great sense of humor made an important difference in my life.

In her lifetime, Aunty Gladys was raised with the children of the royal family and witnessed the end of the monarch era and Queen Lili’uokalani’s funeral.  Aunty Gladys was one of the precious few of our Kupuna who witnessed these events and lived to see the new millennium.  Most people will write about Aunty Gladys’ many achievements as an educator, but her contributions go beyond education and into the arts and public service.  She served on the boards of countless community organizations and was active in the cancer society until she passed away.  Most of all, Aunty Gladys should be noted for her inspiration, energy and tireless commitment to Hawaiian causes.

[In 1997,] at the age of 91, Aunty Gladys was appointed by Governor Ben Cayetano to finish out the term of OHA Trustee Billie Beamer.  Not only did she keep up with us, but she had the energy and productivity of board members half her age.  Her presence on our board table was felt by board members and administrative staff alike.  Aunty Gladys’ contributions to OHA included her leadership on OHA’s Education Foundation and the Kupuna Health Task Force.   She also served as OHA’s policy chair.  In 2000, she was appointed to the board once again by the Cayetano Administration as an interim Trustee and served for two months until the November elections.

Aunty Gladys was always there to do her part when called upon, especially when it came to Hawaiian issues.  I will always cherish the wonderful hours I spent with her as she shared her famous stories.  In October of 2002, I asked, “Aunty Gladys, why haven’t you ever written a book about all of your experiences?”  There was a pause, and then she said, “Others have tried to get me to do that but, if I did, I would have to tell the whole truth and name names for the book to be truthful and I think even though much time has passed, it would open old wounds and I feel it is best to let the past be the past.”  There was a sense of sadness in her voice.

On December 20, 2002, I called Aunty Gladys to wish her a happy holiday season and told her that I would be spending the holidays on the mainland.  She said, “Great, have a good time, but let me share this with you:  Recently I had dinner at a good friend’s home and they were all Republicans who proceeded to chide me about the commercial I had done for the Democratic candidate for Governor.  Well I said with a straight face to them, ‘Did you hear that there will be no nativity scene in Washington DC this year?’  And they responded, ‘Really?’  ‘Is it because of 9-11?’  No, I replied, ‘it’s because they have a whole stable of Jackasses but they can’t find three wise men!’”

This is the wonderful Gladys Brandt I will remember.  Someone who could laugh at herself.  Someone who had a wit that could match the best scholars.  Someone who loved her Hawaiian people and gave of herself without complaint or reward.  I will miss you Aunty Gladys.  I wish you God speed.

No two words have so captured the attention of this archipelago’s residents as “land” and “sovereignty”. Despite developments since the 100-year anniversary of the 1893 illegal overthrow of the Hawaiian Monarchy, as well as the United States’ apology and admission of the illegality of the overthrow, many people do not grasp what either word means or will mean for their future.

The general goal of sovereignty advocates is the transfer of control of Hawaiian Home Lands and ceded lands directly to a native Hawaiian government. Currently, the state and federal government hold in trust about 1.2 million acres of land for the benefit of Hawaiians. Yet, the first people to these lands have seen very few benefits.

Hawaiian Home Lands are scattered tracts comprising about 197,075 acres, which Congress set aside in 1920 for native Hawaiian homesteaders. Ceded lands are the remains of an estimated 1.8 million acres of public, private and crown land illegally annexed by resolution from a provisional government to the United States in 1898.

Hawaiian land, once farmed communally, is now some of the most expensive real estate on Earth. Housing prices, driven up by mainland retirees and foreign speculators, are out of reach for Hawaiians living, working and raising families in the islands.

Hawaiian waters, once kept in ecological balance with humans through a complex kapu system, are now oversold to the highest bidder, or treated as a toilet for raw sewage.

Hawaiian culture, once a living history of genealogy, geography, and spirituality, was nearly obliterated by Calvinist missionaries and is usually obscured with tourist-pleasing luaus.

Today, 70-80,000 people (depending on the source) – of Hawaii’s more than one million residents are full-blooded Hawaiians. One fifth, or about 225,000 people claim some Hawaiian blood. Yet Hawaiians remain the poorest, sickest, least educated, worst housed, and most frequently imprisoned segment of Hawaii’s population.

Since Kamehameha the Great, foreigners have enjoyed some measure of control over Hawaiian land. The concept of land ownership was foreign to Hawaiians. How can you own what belongs to God? The king and his chief provided land grants to the people–some of them outsiders, who chose to grow large tracts of crops to be sold overseas, rather than to be eaten at home.

In 1825, when 12-year-old Kamehameha III ascended to the throne, the Council of Chiefs adopted the western practice of inheritance after the death of a king. However, foreigners, protective of their agricultural interest, sought more secure forms of land tenure. They and their governments applied considerable pressure on the young king.

In 1840, the year he drew up Hawaii’s first constitution, Kamehameha III granted the right to property by declaring that all land belonged to the chiefs and the people, with the king as trustee. In 1848, true ownership of land came to Hawaii, when the king accepted a land apportionment plan, called the Great Mahele, or division.

The Mahele completed the transition from a feudal redistribution land system to a fee simple land ownership system, by dividing the land among the king, government, chiefs and the people. The land was split into three parts: about 1 million acres of crown lands to which the king held title; 1.5 million acres of government lands for public use; and, the remaining 1.5 million of Konohiki lands set aside for individual ownership by the chiefs and the people.

The Mahele was an unmitigated disaster for the maka’ainana, the people of the land, or commoners. While the king intended to make available one-third of Hawaii’s lands to maka’ainana, they received much less than one percent of the total land. The maka’ainana’s land holdings and rights were further diluted in 1850, with the passage of additional legislation which authorized ownership and conveyance of the land, regardless of citizenship.

The stage was set for a massive land grab by Westerners. In the next half century, with a population no larger than 2,000, Westerners took control of most of Hawaii’s land, and manipulated the economy for their own profit.

Many Native Hawaiians pleaded with their last elected monarch, Queen Lili’uokalani, to protect the sovereignty of Hawaii. At the urging of her people, the queen attempted to regain some of the monarchy’s power, which had been lost during the reign of her predecessor and brother, King Kalakaua through the Bayonet Constitution.

Her efforts to change Hawaii’s Constitution and cabinet unnerved a group of the wealthiest American merchants and sugar planters. These men wanted to be part of the United States to avoid high import tariffs. So, backed by a contingent of 162 U.S. Marines, the businessmen imprisoned the queen, and took over the islands, including the acreage that was supposed to be available to the maka’ainana.

Despite Lili’uokalani’s steadfast belief that the United States government would honor its treaties with the Kingdom and reject the provisional government, Hawaii went from a sovereign nation to an American colony in five years. In 1898, under President William McKinley, Hawaii was annexed to the United States constellation, along with Puerto Rico, Guam and the Philippines.

President Grover Cleveland, who had opposed the coup, but failed to reverse it, wrote after leaving office: Hawaii is ours. But as look back upon the first steps in this miserable business, and as I contemplate the means to complete this outrage, I am ashamed of the whole affair.”

Meanwhile, the provisional government sold chunks of crown and Konohiki lands to fellow merchants and planters. When the islands were annexed illegally to the United States, Hawaii’s government acknowledged that this acreage (now 1.8 million acres) belonged to Native Hawaiians, and ceded it with the stipulation that it be held in trust for Native Hawaiians. The federal government summarily lopped off about 20 percent of the land for its own use, mostly for military bases and parks.

By 1920, the plight of the true inhabitants, Native Hawaiians, had become desperate. The population had dropped as much as 96 percent. Some scholars estimate that a one-time population of 1 million Hawaiians in pre-contact Hawaii had plummeted to 40,000.

However, a bill was being prepared that would allow Native Hawaiians to lease a small sliver of their former land. The Hawaiian Homes Commission Act began as a well meaning effort by Prince Jonah Kuhio, the Hawaiian territorial delegate to Congress, who saw urban slums and disease rapidly killing off Hawaiians, and hoped that returning Hawaiians to their aina, their agricultural land, could save them. In 1920, he said: “The Hawaiian race is passing, and if conditions continue to exist as they do today, this splendid race of people, my race, will pass from the face of this earth.”

No sooner did Prince Kuhio float his plan in Congress than it was co-opted by pineapple and sugar planters, who saw it as a way to secure their own uncertain futures. Their leases on 26,000 fertile acres were about to expire, and a general homestead law threatened to transfer their lucrative holdings to other hands.

So the planters struck a deal with territorial politicians: Get rid of general homesteading, allow us to keep our lands, and in exchange, you may allot 200,000 acres of “fourth class” lands to native Hawaiians for homestead. This land was arid, inaccessible, soilpoor, without infrastructure, and otherwise unfit for cultivation. Before long, Hawaiians abandoned agrarianism, and the bulk of homestead awards became simple house lots.
The sugar planters ensured that the Hawaiian Home Lands’ first executive was an ally. Its executive secretary was George Cooke, of Castle & Cooke, one of the Big Five plantation powers. The planters even pushed the 50 percent Hawaiian blood requirement, believing that interracial marriages would dilute the native population to extinction.

After statehood in 1959, responsibility for managing the homestead program was transferred from the federal government to the state Department of Hawaiian Home Lands (DHHL). Because the state failed to appropriate sufficient funding, until recently, the DHHL’s main source of revenue to manage and improve the land was income from general use leases granted non-Hawaiians on land “not immediately needed” for homestead. As a result, DHHL leased more land to non-Hawaiians than to Hawaiians.

For decades, the administration of the Hawaiian Home Lands trust went unquestioned. Subsequent investigations revealed mismanagement of the trust by both the federal and state governments. DHHL estimates that territorial and state governors issued between forty and sixty executive orders, which set aside Hawaiian Home Lands for military use. In 1978, a federal district court ruled that all governors’ executive orders were illegal.

In 1984, Governor Ariyoshi rescinded nearly thirty of these illegal acts, covering 30,000 acres. The Hawaii Attorney General also decreed that the U.S. Navy’s occupation of 1,400 acres of prime homelands near Honolulu was a “fundamental breach of trust”.

Rather than evicting the offending land users, which included state and federal agencies, the DHHL opted for monetary settlements totaling less than $10 million.

As of June 30,1997, only 6,428 homestead leases were awarded statewide, representing a mere 20.5 percent of the total Hawaiian Home Lands property. Meanwhile there are an estimated 29,162 qualified applicants on the Hawaiian Homes waiting list, many of whom have been waiting for forty years or more. Many have died waiting.

In 1959, when the Admissions Act turned responsibility for the remaining 1.5 million acres of ceded lands over to the new State of Hawaii, the federal government “retained” several hundred thousand acres for its national parks and military installations. Today, more than 100 facilities crowd the eight Hawaiian Islands, a land area approximately the size of Rhode Island and Connecticut combined. All the military bases occupy some ceded lands, and at least six occupy Hawaiian Home Lands, without consent or compensation.

Responsibility for these ceded lands rests with the Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR). For the state’s first twenty years, DLNR managed ceded lands without scrutiny. Among other abuses, it allowed use of ceded lands by other state departments without compensation. It also executed a slew of summary land swaps.

State and federal laws already mandate that Hawaiians receive priority for water, to support development, traditional agriculture, and gathering rights over subdivisions, hotels and golf courses — promises seemingly forgotten. The state’s Commission on Water Resources has ignored the “Hawaiian Rights” clause of the water code, the clause that guarantees adequate reserves of water for current and foreseeable development of Hawaiian Home Lands.

At the 1978 Constitutional Convention, the state admitted that it was derelict in its duty to provide for the Hawaiian community. The Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA) was created to receive 20 percent of all revenue generated by ceded lands for use for the benefit of Hawaiians.

Between 1980 and 1990, instead of 20 percent, OHA only received about $12.5 million in such proceeds. In 1993, OHA received $129 million from the state in settlement of those claims, including interest for back payment of monies owed by the state from 1980 – 1990, during the Waihee Administration.

In 1994, OHA initiated litigation to require the state to pay OHA past due amounts owed to Hawaiians that were not included in the $129 million settlement. In October 1996, Judge Heely granted OHA’s motion for partial summary judgment. The State filed an appeal. In December 1998, the Hawaii Supreme Court directed the parties to try to resolve the matter expeditiously. Negotiations continue.

As indigenous and first people to these islands, Hawaiians have essentially been under siege since foreign contact. In November 1993, President Clinton signed a Joint Resolution, which recognized the illegal procedure by which Hawaii was annexed to the United States, and apologized to Native Hawaiians on Behalf of the United States for the Overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii. This legal recognition has offered Hawaiians a unique opportunity to lead a renewed battle for the resurrection of the powerful principle of sovereignty. Sovereignty is not a foreign concept to Hawaiians, to Native Americans, or to states in general.

To the great nineteenth century orator, Stephen Douglas, states incorporated legally into the Union were co-equal and sovereign unto themselves. In his celebrated debates with Lincoln (echoing the Declaration of Independence, which states that “these United States are, and of right ought to be Free and Independent States”), Douglas said:

“THIS GOVERNMENT WAS MADE UPON THE GREAT BASIS OF THE SOVEREIGNTY OF THE STATES, THE RIGHT OF EACH STATE TO REGULATE ITS OWN DOMESTIC INSTITUTIONS TO SUIT ITSELF, AND THAT RIGHT WAS CONFERRED WITH THE UNDERSTANDING AND EXPECTATION THAT INASMUCH AS EACH LOCALITY HAD SEPARATE INTERESTS, EACH LOCALITY MUST HAVE DIFFERENT AND DISTINCT LOCAL DOMESTIC INSTITUTIONS, CORRESPONDING TO ITS WANTS AND INTERESTS.”

Native governments have formed under the federal government through the Department of the Interior. There are hundreds of recognized nations within the territorial United States, in which the United States is but one. The others consist of American Indians. If it is OK for American Indians to form sovereign nations, why not Hawaiians? Failure to do so would, in fact, be discrimination against Hawaiians.

As indigenous people, Hawaiians are seeking recognition from the federal government of their right to sovereignty and self determination. Hawaiians have no desire to be dependent on the state or federal government. If Hawaiians had control of their lands, they could take care of their own people. They would not be a drain on the economy. There would be no homeless Hawaiians.

Fundamental to any sovereignty concept is control over land. Hawaiians have never prospered on land held on their behalf, but outside their reach. Lands at issue consist of the 1.2 million acres currently under the control of the state and federal government, as well as lands set aside as Hawaiian Home Lands. Hawaiians are not talking about privately owned land.

The apology resolution signed by Congress and President Clinton directs the Federal government to come to terms with the “ramifications” of the overthrow of Queen Liliuokalani. Among those “ramifications” are questions of the ownership and management of the former Crown Lands. From the overthrow in 1893, until the recent opinion by state Attorney General Margery S. Bronster authorizing the sale of public trust lands, each new link of the chain binding title of the ceded lands to the State of Hawaii binds the state to a legal fiction. Attorney Hayden Aluli is right to warn “buyer beware,” for a variety of legal and historical reasons.

The 1893 overthrow broke an 1849 treaty of “perpetual peace and amity” between the United States and the Kingdom of Hawaii. The landing of 162 fully armed marines with field artillery by Minister Stevens violated article six of the United States constitution, which states that “treaties shall be supreme law of the land.” President Cleveland and leading members of his administration clearly recognized that the Provisional Government had no existence beyond that granted by Minister Stevens, acting in his official capacity. Secretary of State Gresham concluded that “the legitimate government was in full possession and control of the palace, the barracks and the police station” when Minister Stevens recognized the paper government of Sanford Dole and Lorrin Thurston.

Queen Liliuokalani yielded authority to the United States, not to the Provisional Government. Most likely, she anticipated a repeat of 1843 when the Hawaiian sovereign temporarily yielded power to an overzealous British representative, whose government firmly disavowed his actions immediately upon learning of them and reinstated the King to his full power. Because at no time did the Queen yield to the Provisional Government, the islands remained under the temporary jurisdiction of the United States, invalidating the claims of the Provisional Government that Federal orders to reinstate Queen Liliuokalani equalled an “inadmissible interference in the domestic affairs of Hawaii.”

The Republic of Hawaii never became sovereign either. In spite of feeble attempts to dress the Republic of Hawaii in the trappings on constitutional and democratic legitimacy, they never achieved a status of sovereign consistent with international law. When President Dole convened a Constitutional Convention in 1894, he took the precaution of personally appointing a majority of the 37 delegates by himself. Candidates for the remaining slots, as well as all voters, had to take an oath of allegiance to the Provisional Government and not to the Queen. Less than 20% of previously qualified voters bothered to participate in this election, indicating a far narrower base of popular support than that called for by international law.

A principle of international law know as the “unequal treaty doctrine” states that treaties imposed on weaker states by stronger ones with coercion and the threat of force are voidable according to international law, as defined in such documents as the Covenant of the League of Nations, the Charter of the United Nations and the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. According to this idea, the Newlands Resolution annexing Hawaii is a violation of international law.

The Court of Claims ruled against Queen Liliuokalani in the case of Liliuokalani v. United States thwarting her attempt to recover the Crown Lands. If, as the court ruled, title to the ceded lands vested with the office of the sovereign and not with the person, then the highly suspect transfer of political power makes their title all the less secure, and would imply that the entire body of lands remain recoverable by a reinstated sovereign Hawaiian government.

The many legal and historical events listed above are just some of the reasons that title to the ceded lands remains highly clouded today. Even if, for the purposes of argument, the state is considered to hold secure title as trustees of the ceded lands, the history of the implementation of Public Land Trust responsibilities is not a happy one. Countless examples can be found of breach of the trust provisions laid out in the Newlands Resolution, the Organic Act, the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, the Admission Act and the 1978 amendments to the State Constitution that came out of the Constitutional Convention.

We all know the unfortunate attitude of the executive branch towards ceded land entitlements and what a burden Governor Cayetano thinks they place on the state. A pending court case on the Leiali’i housing development near Lahaina will soon reveal the attitude of the judicial branch as well. We also know, from the introduction of Representative Say’s bill to end ceded land revenues to the Office of Hawaiian Affairs and from the early demise of two bills proposing a limited moratorium on the sale and lease of ceded lands, that the legislative branch is not too keen on entitlements either. The time has come for everyone interested in preserving the integrity of the ceded lands to urge their legislators to move a moratorium bill next year, until questions of legal title and the relationship of the lands to a future sovereign entity are finally settled.