Archive for the ‘Racism’ Category

Portraits of Traitorous Overthrowers Must Go

Monday, February 15th, 2010

By: OHA TRUSTEE ROWENA AKANA

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.

How the state ripped the heart out of Waikiki:

Friday, September 15th, 2006

DLNR values the dollar over Hawaiian-owned business, despite the fact that tourism is dependent on our unique Hawaiian Culture and Aloha spirit

By: TRUSTEE ROWENA AKANA

Source: September 2006 Ka Wai Ola o OHA Column

`Ano`ai kakou…  Barry Napoleon established Hawai’i's first beach concession in 1952 on the sands of Waikiki Beach.  Although competitors moved in and the beach boys jockeyed for position, the tourists still saw the best O’ahu had to offer.  Surfing lessons, canoe rides, or just plain talking story, the Waikiki Beach Boys personified the spirit of aloha.  Then, Barry experienced first-hand how the state only gives lip service about our “aloha spirit.”

Barry said that from 1982 to 1984, he paid $400 a month to Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR) for an 8 by 12-foot space in front of the Hilton Hawaiian Village.  The DLNR took control of the beach concession stands after they saw the profits that could be made and began selling permits.  

Problems for Barry began when he complained to the DLNR about alleged criminal activity out of his mainland competitor’s concession.  Three days later, the DLNR revoked his permit and confiscated his equipment, saying he had violated the conditions of his rental agreement by encroaching on several inches past his allotment of sand.  

In 1985, he found a new home at the Waikiki Shores.  Barry was paying the owner $15,000 a month for ground-floor space fronting the beach.  The DLNR found out and evicted him.  Barry won a temporary restraining order so he could prove his permits were valid.  The DLNR ignored the court order and again confiscated his equipment.  Without his business, Barry could not earn enough money to press his case.  Earlier that same year, his two nephews tried to reopen a beach concession.  The state quickly tore it down.  Barry Napoleon was 65 years old at the time. He had spent the better part of his life on the beach at Waikiki and now the state took his livelihood in favor of mainlanders.

Eleven years later, it seems that DLNR is back at it again.  On July 26, 2006, Mary Vorsino of the Honolulu Advertiser wrote that after 29 years and thousands of students, Clyde Aikau closed his surfing school and concession stand at Duke Kahanamoku Beach in Waikiki and ended the only business he’s ever known.  Clyde, the brother of legendary surfer Eddie Aikau, was forced to let go of his 10 employees, which he hopes will find work as surf instructors with Hilton Hawaiian Village.  The Hilton is taking over the concession stand.  It is unbelievable to me that DLNR didn’t even give Aikau the courtesy of a break in the rent because of his expertise and tenure.

Vorsino quoted DLNR Chairman Peter Young as saying that Aikau has only himself to blame.  “We did not tell anybody what rent to suggest other than a minimum, and then it was competitive,” Young said. “We would hope they would evaluate their respective business plans and bid responsibly.”

I was shocked at the callousness and insensitivity of Young’s comments.  Where is his sympathy for struggling Hawaiian-owned businesses?  Like the tragedy with Barry Napoleon, DLNR seems to be once again putting the almighty dollar ahead of protecting the real reason people come to Hawaii – our unique Hawaiian culture and the Spirit of Aloha.  Marketing campaigns can’t sell what doesn’t exist.  

I believe that OHA needs to investigate whether we should take control over the beach boy concessions at Waikiki Beach.  OHA could then ensure that the beach boys are culturally sensitive and that preferences are given to Hawaiian owned businesses.  After all, the beaches are considered submerged lands and are, therefore, ceded lands. 

Tourists from around the world remembered Barry and other beach boys like him for one simple reason: they were genuine.  They were Hawaiian.  Let’s bring that authenticity back to Waikiki Beach.  Imua e Hawai’i nei…

The Hawaiians’ Phantom Menace

Tuesday, August 15th, 2006

By: OHA Trustee Rowena Akana

Source: Ka Wai Ola o OHA, August 2006

In early June, the trustees traveled to Washington D.C. to witness the long awaited vote on S. 147, also known as the Akaka Bill, in the U.S. Senate. What should have been a historic event quickly turned into a frustrating experience. Listening to Senators from the South speak against the bill, calling it “racist legislation,” made me want to jump out of the gallery and scream, “HYPOCRITES!” Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN) shockingly said that granting federal recognition for Native Hawaiians could lead to Mormons, the Amish, and Hasidic Jews seeking their own federal recognition! It was clear that his goal was to lump all Hawaiians together with other minorities so he could argue that we all need to be treated equally. The problem with this argument is the undisputed fact that Hawaiians are indigenous people, similar to Native Americans and Native Alaskans who are already recognized. Senator Alexander is clearly discriminating against Hawaiians. So who’s the real racist?

When the vote was finally taken, we were shy by four votes. Two Democratic Senators were out sick and thanks to arm-twisting by Senate Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) at least three Republicans switched their vote at the last minute. Senator Frist told them that their leadership positions would be in jeopardy if they supported the Akaka bill and they choose to protect their political careers rather than keep their promises to Senators Akaka and Inouye.

At the end of that sad day, I was assured of two things: First, racism and ignorance is alive and well in the U.S. Senate. Second, partisan politics has ruined Congress. The trustees later learned that the Republicans were bitter with the Democrats for voting against their Estate Tax bill the day before. Killing the Akaka bill was just payback. I left Washington with a feeling of disgust and disdain for our so-called leaders of America.

With so many important issues that need to be dealt with in the world and at home, these career politicians proved they are only preoccupied with keeping the status quo and furthering their political careers. They use inflammatory issues like gay rights, flag burning, and immigration to detract us from the real issues of importance like New Orleans, North Korea, Iran, and Iraq. Is it any wonder why Americans are losing respect for their leaders and canít believe a word they say?

As bad as the Southern Senators were, nothing was worse than seeing Clarence Ching, a former OHA Trustee, sitting next to William Burgess, the lawyer who has consistently sued OHA, the State, and Hawaiian Homelands to break up all Hawaiian entitlements. The same William Burgess who has lobbied Congress to kill the Akaka bill and has called Hawaiians who favor federal recognition “racists.” And let’s not forget about State Senator Sam Slom, the only member of the State Legislature to vote “no” on the Akaka Resolution (HCR 56, SD1) of 2005. He was also there with Burgess. It is just bizarre that a Republican state senator would so vigorously oppose a bill that the Republican Governor so strongly supports. Not to mention the fact that all of Hawai’i's other elected officials including the Mayors from all counties and the state legislature also supported federal recognition in a non-partisan effort. It is egregious that one elected official felt his opinion was more important than all of the state’s other elected officials. Since when does a single opinion become more important than the will of the people?

Where and when did this opposition to Hawaiian sovereignty begin? Some rumors have been circulating that it was started years ago by a prominent Kama’aina who called a meeting of other like-minded people to his home to discuss how they could band together and prevent the Bishop Estate, the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands, and OHA from becoming too powerful. After all, with control over vast tracts of land and revenues from ceded lands, Hawaiians could one day dominate the State, and this is a frightening thought for some. While I have no evidence that this long standing rumor is true, I have been thinking very seriously about it lately, especially after what I witnessed in Washington.

After the fall of the Bishop Estate Trustees, all of their cases were later thrown out of court, but it was too late to save most of their reputations. Now we find ourselves embroiled in more lawsuits to take out OHA and Hawaiian Homes. So, could the rumor be true? I think the question to ask is who is paying for all of the lawsuits that Mr. Burgess has filed? Perhaps then we may have the clues to who is behind the movement to ensure Hawaiians never regain sovereignty and that all Hawaiian entitlements are erased.

Hawaiian cultural and natural resources exploited

Saturday, July 15th, 2006

By: TRUSTEE ROWENA AKANA

Source: July 2006 Ka Wai Ola o OHA Column

`Ano`ai kakou…  On March 2, 2006, I wrote University of Hawai’i President David McClain to request that UH abandon its patents on three varieties of Hawaiian taro.  I was disappointed that the University ignored Hawaiian cultural sensitivities by patenting a variety of taro that was developed through centuries of selective breeding by our native Hawaiians ancestors.  To make matters worse, the three patented Hawaiian taro are now exclusively licensed by the University, which forces farmers to pay a 2% royalty on gross sales of taro and prevents them from breeding or conducting research on the plants.  I urged President McClain to develop a strong policy that will ensure that our unique Hawaiian cultural and natural resources are not exploited. 

According to media reports, the University is currently researching ways to gain an exemption to its policy of automatically patenting new strains of taro.  UH’s vice chancellor for research and graduate education, Gary Ostrander, said the university “has come to both recognize and appreciate the unique place that taro occupies in the lives and culture of indigenous peoples and in particular our Native Hawaiian community.”  Ostrander said that while the institution has not determined how it will do so, “we can unequivocally state the intention of Manoa to make an exception to the process relating to patenting and licensing surrounding taro.” (Advertiser, May 17, 2006)

According to Ostrander, the issue is not a simple one for UH to resolve.  The three patented taro have been bred to be resistant to a fungal leaf blight and under UH union contracts, it must be protected through a patent.  He also said that if the university doesn’t obtain a patent, a commercial entity could easily obtain one and control the release of the hybrid.  “Manoa now must find a way to simultaneously be responsive to our faculty, their union, potential predatory commercial patents, and of no less importance, our greater Native Hawaiian community,” he said. (Advertiser, May 17, 2006)

While I understand that this issue will not be easy for the University to resolve, they must realize that time is critical and we can’t let this drag-on endlessly.  We must not allow Hawaiian intellectual properties to be left unprotected for even another day. 

One effective way to make this issue a priority within UH is to keep it in the public eye through protests.  Respected Hawaiian activist Walter Ritte has taken the lead by helping to build a stone memorial on the UH-Manoa lawn as a reminder of the connection between taro and Hawaiian culture.  He also helped to chain and lock the main entrances to the University’s School of Medicine in Kaka’ako, 15 minutes before the monthly UH Board of Regents meeting was scheduled to begin.  He stationed men dressed in white and yellow malos at the entrances to symbolically place a kapu on the building.

The protests shouldn’t be limited to just UH.  I sent letters to Senate President Robert Bunda and House Speaker Calvin Say in the last legislative session about this issue but, in the end, nothing happened.  Proposals were introduced to limit laboratory research and growth of genetically modified taro and coffee until mid-2011, and ban all work on genetically modified Hawaiian varieties of taro.  Unfortunately, these proposals went no-where.

It is important to note that the University has consistently taken license to capture Hawaiian resources without compensation to Hawaiians.  For example, the telescopes on Mauna Kea and the giving contracts to research companies to explore Hawaiian waters.  We need to seek legislation next year to make it illegal for the University to continue doing this without regulation.

With the election season coming up in the next few months, we need to make the protection of Hawaiian intellectual property rights an important campaign issue.  Our legislators need to know that we’re not going to sit idly by as the last of our valuable resources are stolen and controlled by a selfish few.  Imua e Hawai’i nei…

Akaka Bill Update…

Wednesday, February 15th, 2006

By: OHA TRUSTEE ROWENA AKANA

Source: February 2006 Ka Wai Ola o OHA Column

`Ano`ai kakou…  On January 11th, I was invited to speak about the merits of the Akaka Bill at the Small Business Hawaii’s annual conference.  Also speaking was Akaka Bill detractor Sandra Burgess, who is one of the plaintiffs in the Arakaki lawsuit and wife of William Burgess, the owner of the anti-Akaka bill website Aloha For All.  I was grateful for the opportunity to address this auspicious group because if I hadn’t, they probably would have only heard Burgess’ false, fear mongering, and downright racist remarks.

It was clear that the SBH audience had very little knowledge of Hawai`i’s annexation or the reasons for the passage of the Apology Bill that President Clinton signed into law in 1993.  With less than ten minutes to speak, I briefly covered how the Apology Bill set into motion a process for reconciliation between the Native Hawaiians and the United States, which is the whole purpose of the Akaka Bill. 

Then it was Burgess’ turn to speak.  Here are just a few of the things she said:  (1) She asked whether it was fair to non-Hawaiian businesses if Hawaiian businesses paid no taxes; (2) She asked whether we are all Americans and why should Hawaiians be different; (3) She said that if the Akaka bill passes, non-Hawaiians will have to face the question of returning all of their lands; (4) She said that federal recognition will give Hawaiians more power and money to corrupt our State and Federal elected officials who already can’t say “no” to Hawaiians.  She even said our Governor is misguided for her support of the Akaka bill; and (5) She said that the Akaka Bill sets up a separate class of people.

I was appalled by Sandra Burgess’ ridiculous statements.  She gave no facts to support her position and basically told the audience that the world would end if the Akaka Bill passes.  I did my best to explain in my one-minute rebuttal that the Akaka Bill:  (1) Doesn’t allow Hawaiians to be exempt from state or federal taxes; (2) Doesn’t allow Hawaiian-owned businesses to have an unfair advantage over non-Hawaiian businesses; (3) Doesn’t allow Hawaiians to expel non-Hawaiians or the military from their lands; (4) Doesn’t set up a separate class of people; and (5) Whatever documents are created by the new government must be reviewed by the Department of the Interior and any settlements would have to be approved by the state and federal governments.  This allows for checks and balances.

Listening to Sandra Burgess opened my eyes to her and her group’s true motives.  They want to create an “US AGAINST THEM” mentality by scaring people into believing the Akaka Bill will hurt them.  Let me be absolutely clear that it is not Native Hawaiians who are creating this kind of fearful atmosphere. 

We must all find a way to come together, both Hawaiians and Kama’aina united in our common goal, to counter this divisive attitude and stop the noxious seeds of hate that the Burgess’ group is planting from taking permanent root in Hawai’i.  Imua e Hawai’i nei…

A non-Hawaiian who appreciates the Aloha of the host culture

Saturday, October 15th, 2005

By: OHA Trustee Rowena Akana

Source Ka Wai Ola o OHA, October 2005

‘Ano’ai kakou… While the Arakaki plaintiffs may see the recent 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision regarding their lawsuit as a victory, we here at the Office of Hawaiian Affairs were pleased that the 9th Circuit actually denied them any standing regarding the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands and ceded land revenues. That just leaves OHA’s matching funds from the state, which I feel is a pretty ridiculous argument since OHA is a state agency and uses those funds to operate — just like any other state agency.

I believe the Arakaki lawsuit is just another one of a long series of challenges that Hawaiians have had to overcome since 1893. As with those many hurdles in the past, so shall the Hawaiian community come together once again and work diligently to overcome it.

In these challenging times, I truly appreciate the non-Hawaiians who have had the courage to step forward and speak in support of their Hawaiian friends and neighbors. People like Robbie Alms, who thoroughly impressed me with his speech during the Kamehameha Schools’ Unity Rally on Saturday, August 6, 2005 at ‘Iolani Palace.

Alms spoke from the heart when he said that he has never felt deprived because he could not attend the Kamehameha Schools. He sincerely felt that his friends who were able to attend were blessed, but their blessing involved no loss on his part. He knew that there were plenty of other options available to him.

Alms talked about how he was taught by his parents that “we all receive gifts but not necessarily the same gifts, and that we should celebrate the gifts we receive, not covet the gifts of others.” I feel it is a real shame that none of the Arakaki plaintiffs seem to have learned this from their parents. Alms felt that the 9th Circuit Court decision forces Kamehameha Schools to give him a very special gift that he was not intended to receive. He emphatically said that he does not need or want it.

Alms stressed that he does not feel “trammeled” by the Kamehameha Schools admissions policy; but he does feel trammeled when such legalisms “take precedence over the health of our islands’ social fabric.”

Alms also showed great insight when he said that laws designed to “lift the yoke of slavery from black Americans” are now being used as weapons to harm Native Hawaiians. I absolutely agree with his point that the law is being used to condemn our special heritage with the harsh and ugly words of “civil rights violation.” Another excellent point he made is that the 9th Circuit seems to erroneously think that diminishing Native Hawaiians will somehow build a healthy and pono society.

Alms ended his speech by encouraging Hawaiians and non-Hawaiians to call upon our court system to live up to its highest purposes and values, and to call upon our community to stand up for Kamehameha Schools. He said that our very future depends upon honoring our unique history and the very special institutions that that heritage has given us. In his words, “We all need to honor the Princess’ gift just as she meant it to be honored.”

I would like to send out a warm mahalo nui loa to all of the non-Hawaiians out there, like Robbie Alms, who continue to speak out for the Hawaiian community in its time of need. As for the Arakaki lawsuit, make no mistake, none of the programs currently working to assist disadvantaged Native Hawaiians will ever fall victim to its terrorization by the likes of Thurston Twigg-Smith, H. William Burgess, and their ilk. Imua e Hawai’i nei…

The need for compromise & unity

Thursday, September 15th, 2005

By: TRUSTEE ROWENA AKANA

Source: September 2005 Ka Wai Ola o OHA Article

`Ano`ai kakou…  In late July, the trustees returned from another disappointing trip to lobby for the passage of the Akaka bill in Washington, D.C.  The bill has enough votes to pass the U.S. Senate, but unfortunately, several Republican Senators used last-minute political gamesmanship to prevent the bill from reaching the Senate floor for voting.  After witnessing these underhanded tactics, I am amazed that anything can get done in Washington.

The Senators that oppose the Akaka bill are obviously relying on false information being provided by Akaka bill opponents such as Thurston Twigg-Smith (who is part of the Arakaki lawsuit and whose ancestor helped orchestrate the overthrow), H. William Burgess (also with the Arakaki lawsuit and the anti-OHA organization Aloha for All), and Richard Rowland (Grassroot Institute of Hawai’i).  These people want us to believe that they are fighting for equality, but I believe they are actually motivated by racism.

To make matters worse, Washington has become so politically divided along party lines that neither side is willing to work together and hammer out a bill that all sides can live with.  It seems as if the Democrats and Republicans have lost the art of compromise. 

Years ago, Washington used to be a different place.  As Jack Valenti (President Lyndon B. Johnson’s Administration) described it, members of Congress built relationships based on trust.  The party in power understood that the role of the opposition was to oppose and didn’t take their criticism personally.  The minority party knew that just because you opposed an issue didn’t mean you couldn’t compromise.  No party could ever get everything they wanted.  That’s not how politics works.  Politics depends on compromise.

Here at home, the time has come for Native Hawaiians who support and oppose the Akaka Bill to come together in the spirit of compromise.  Native Hawaiians who oppose the Akaka bill need to realize that if they want to form an independent Hawaiian nation, they can – even if the Akaka bill were passed into law.  The bill does not give any position on the ultimate form of Native Hawaiian governance.  It only requires the Federal Government to recognize a trust relationship with our people.  More importantly, it would give us the ability to protect our trust assets until our governing entity is formed.

All of us can agree that we cannot build a nation without assets.  Native Hawaiian opponents of the Akaka bill must understand that there can be no final judgment in the federal courts if Congress approves the Akaka bill.  The bill offers strong protection to all of our Hawaiian trusts from the constant threat of lawsuits.  That’s why I have always supported the bill.

What we face today as Hawaiians is no different than what occurred over 100 years ago. We are still fighting off assaults on our culture, rights to our lands, and racism.  Only now, we are being called racists because we want to protect our entitlements.  Times have not changed much, people are still the same and racism is still the motivation behind the move to relieve us of whatever entitlements we have left.  The only thing that has changed is the sophistication used to manipulate us and the law.

Let us begin to work together for the cause of recognition.  Let us begin to agree on the things that we can agree to and set aside the things we differ on and move forward together for the future generations of Hawaiians yet to come.

We are one people.  We cannot afford to be divided, not when so much work remains to be done.  The struggle to regain our sovereign rights requires unity and the strength of numbers.  As the recent federal court decision regarding Kamehameha schools proves, the future of OHA, the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands, and all of the Hawaiian Trusts are certainly at risk.  We must work together and combine our influence so that we can do what is necessary to pass the Akaka bill.

Let us be as our Queen wished…  ONIPA’A, steadfast in what is good!

“I appeal to you… that there be no division among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same purpose.”  I Corinthians 1:10

The Time Has Come For Solidarity

Wednesday, October 15th, 2003

TRUSTEE ROWENA AKANA

October 2003 Ka Wai Ola o OHA Column

`Ano`ai kakou…  On Sunday, September 7, 2003, the Trustees and staff of OHA marched side-by-side down Kalakaua Avenue with more than 5,000 supporters of Native Hawaiian rights in a powerful show of unity.  The marchers included representatives from Kamehameha Schools, Hawaiian Ali’i Trusts, Royal Benevolent Society members, and sovereignty advocates.  Also showing their support were many non-Hawaiians, the most prominent being Governor Lingle.  The march was organized by the ‘Ilio’ulaokalani Coalition and ended in a rally at the Kapi’olani Park Bandstand where we were holding our Family Day celebration.

Many of us will mark August 20, 2003 a black day in Hawaiian history as a federal court judge forced Kamehameha Schools to enroll a non-Hawaiian student.  This act is so egregious that it may be the inciting incident that will finally galvanize Hawaiians to unite and fight for their rights.

It was encouraging to see that both supporters and opponents of the Hawaiian federal recognition were able to come together to march.  It showed that even though we may not agree on federal recognition, we can still come together to support justice for Native Hawaiians.

What we face today as Hawaiians, the indigenous people of our lands, is no different than what occurred over 100 years ago. We are still fighting off assaults on our culture, rights to our lands and racism. Only now, we are being called racists because we want to protect our entitlements. Times have not changed much, people are still the same and greed is still the motivation behind the move to relieve us of whatever entitlements we have left. The only thing that has changed is the sophistication used to manipulate us and the law.

We are one people. We cannot afford to be divided, not when so much work remains to be done. The struggle to regain our sovereign rights requires unity and the strength of numbers.

As the recent federal court decision regarding Kamehameha schools proves, the future of OHA and other Hawaiian Trusts are certainly at risk. Hawaiian leaders will have to work together and use whatever resources that are necessary to protect existing Hawaiian Trusts.

Let us begin to work together for the cause of recognition. Let us begin to agree on the things that we can agree to and set aside the things we differ on and move forward together for the future generations of Hawaiians yet to come.

We cannot continue to let others decide our future.  We will be one nation and one people.

Let us be as our Queen wished…..ONIPA’A, steadfast in what is good!

“I appeal to you….that there be no division among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same purpose.”  I Corinthians 1:10

Racism Comes to Hawaii Vis-à-vis Freddy Rice

Saturday, April 15th, 2000

By: Trustee Rowena M.N. Akana
April 2000

Source: Ka Wai Ola o OHA

Mr. Rice’s attorneys are riding high on the hog vis a vis their 15th amendment win in Rice vs. Cayetano. However, what the media has not reported is that Mr. Rice was the pawn used by the white, racist, and elitist group Campaign for A ColorBlind America (CCBA) to further its agenda to reverse any affirmative action initiatives and laws regarding the protection of native peoples’ rights.

The CCBA has written briefs that helped to overturn at least 10 Supreme Court cases about minorities and Native Americans. With the Rice case under his belt, CCBA executive Marc Levin announced that the organization would now pursue the elimination of other Hawaiian trusts and entitlements. CCBA is motivated by their belief that by the year 2020, minorities will control all of America, and whites will no longer be the controlling class. For this racist group, being a member of a minority group and being oppressed is unfathomable.

Echoing Mr. Levin’s sentiments is former attorney John Goemans, who plans to continue his fight to infiltrate the 50th state with overt racism and white supremacy. Although he is no longer licensed to practice law in Hawaii, Mr. Goemans has publicly stated that he intends to use the Rice victory as ammunition against programs that the Hawaiian people hold dear. Mr. Goemans says he is planning these attacks because “…all government programs, state and federal, for native Hawaiians are race based, presumptively unconstitutional, and up for challenge.”

With that said, it should not come as a surprise that CCBA is aiding Mr. Goemans in his quest to strip our people of what is historically due to us. According to the CCBA’s website (http://www.equalrights.com), it “assisted Goemans with his appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court and filed an amicus brief at the Supreme Court.”

Mr. Goemans, along with others who challenge Hawaiian entitlements, should refer to the U.S. brief filed in the Supreme Court on behalf of OHA and the state that declares that Hawaiians are equal to Native Americans and Native Alaskan peoples. Therefore, any entitlements that Hawaiians enjoy cannot be considered race-based, but rather, political status entitlements as the native people of this land.

The Rice ruling underscores the need to build consensus on the issue of self-determination so that OHA can move forward as an agency that is “quasi- sovereign” rather than an arm of the state. One of the methods by which self-determination can be accomplished for our people is through federal legislation that would afford native Hawaiians the same special status as Native Americans now enjoy. We Hawaiians are at a juncture where we are able to restructure a nation that takes into consideration what is best suited for us. We have progressed insofar as to possess the ability to hold jurisdiction and control over our resources and lands. We do not need the state to decide these things for us.

Our Hawaiian voices need to be heard at the state legislature, and in the U.S. Congress. We must get involved in the legislative process, or risk having this process decided for us. To have others decide for us, strips Hawaiians of autonomy and the ability to decide for ourselves what is best for us.

This ruling should be a wake-up call for not just Hawaiians, but for the entire state. As a state, we need to stomp out any hint of racism. And as a Hawaiian community we need to tell our story and get the message out so that history will not be repeated for our future generations.

Hawaiians and Maoris Have Much in Common

Tuesday, April 1st, 1997

By: Trustee Rowena Akana
Tuesday, April 1, 1997

Source: Honolulu Advertiser; Letter to Editor

Your March 22nd front-page article on unsettled Maori claims makes an interesting contrast with your March 24th editorial urging our Legislature to stand up to the Office of Hawaiian Affairs when we assert our own claims on behalf of native Hawaiians.

Substitute “Hawaiian” for “Maori” in the March 22nd story and you have written a pretty good account of the shameful way Polynesian people were treated here as well as in New Zealand.

The ceded-lands trust was intended by the U.S. government to somewhat redress this treatment. While I agree that the 20 percent share mandated to us by the Legislature is an arbitrary allocation not specified in the Admissions Act, it is too little, not too much, given the fact that these islands were once ours, just like New Zealand was the Maoris’ and was taken by force.

In this context, it was unfair of you to characterize Trustee Frenchy DeSoto’s proposed solution to the state’s pleading poor as being unreasonable or even as a demand.

Has it not occurred to you that we Hawaiians, like one of the Maoris quoted in the article, also are tired of being the “good nigger, master?”