DOCSLIB.ORG

Reproductions Supplied by EDRS Are the Best That Can Be Made from the Original Document

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Reproductions Supplied by EDRS Are the Best That Can Be Made from the Original Document DOCUMENT RESUME ED 457 279 UD 034 419 AUTHOR Pilla, Thomas V. TITLE Reconciliation at a Crossroads: The Implications of the Apology Resolution and "Rice v. Cayetano" for Federal and State Programs Benefiting Native Hawaiians. Summary Report of the August 1998 and September 2000 Community Forums in Honolulu, Hawai'i. INSTITUTION Hawaii Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil rights. PUB DATE 2001-06-00 NOTE 70p. AVAILABLE FROM U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Western Regional Office, 300 North Los Angeles Street, Suite 2010, Los Angeles, CA 90012. Tel: 202-376-8110. PUB TYPE Historical Materials (060) Reports Descriptive (141) EDRS PRICE MF01/PC03 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS *Civil Rights; *Ethnicity; Federal Government; Federal Legislation; *Hawaiians; *Indigenous Populations; Pacific Americans; Political Issues IDENTIFIERS Apologies; Hawaii; *Reparations ABSTRACT This report focuses on a 1998 community forum that examined the impact of the 1993 Apology Resolution enacted to recognize the 1893 overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy, subsequent meetings in 2000 with Na Kupuna (Hawaiian elders), and a 2000 community forum to collect information on concerns of Native Hawaiians and others regarding the impact of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Rice v. Cayetano on Native Hawaiians. Seven sections include: "Introduction and Background" (social cohesion and conflict; cultural identity); "The Past That Haunts: A History of Hawaiian Annexation" (political and cultural transformation; international domination and overthrow); "Hawai'i Today: Diversity and Disparity" (Hawaiian ethnicity, demographics, and socioeconomics); "The Path to Reconciliation and Reparation" (legislative attempts and determining the parameters of reconciliation); "Reconciliation at a Crossroads: Implications of the Rice Decision" (the Native Hawaiian vote and public comment on the Supreme Court's decision); "Recognition Legislation before Congress: A Safe Harbor?"; and "Conclusions and Recommendations" (the federal government should accelerate efforts to formalize political relationships between Native Hawaiians and the United States, and state and federal funding to improve the conditions of Native Hawaiians should be increased). A list of forum panelists is appended. (SM) Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document. Hawaii Advisory Committee to theU.S. Commission on Civil Rights Reconciliation at aCrossroads: The Implications of the ApologyResolution and Rice V. Cayetano for Federal and State ProgramsBenefiting Native Hawaiians Summary Report of the August1998 and September 2000 Community Forums in Honolulu, Hawai'i U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Office ot Educational Research andImprovement EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) /Thisdocument has been reproducedas received from the person or organization originating it. 0 Minor changes have beenmade to improve reproduction quality. Points of view or opinions statedin this document do not necessarily represent official OERI position or policy. June 2001 A fact-finding report of the Hawaii Advisory Committee to theU.S. Commission cm Civil Rights prepared for the information and consideration of the Commission. Statementsand recommendations in this report should not be attributed to the Commission, but only to participants atthe community forums or to the Advisory Committee. The United States Commission on Civil Rights The United States Commission on Civil Rights, first createdby the Civil Rights Act of1957,and reestablished by the United States Commission on Civil Rights Actof1983, isan independent, bipartisan agency of the Federal Government. By the terms of the1983act, as amended by the Civil Rights Commission Amendments Act of 1994, theCommission is charged with the following duties pertaining to discrimination or denials of the equalprotection of the laws based on race, color, religion, sex, age,disability, or national origin, or in the administration of justice: investigation of individual discriminatory denials of the right to vote;study and collection of information relating to discrimination or denials of the equal protectionof the law; appraisal of the laws and policies of the United States with respect todiscrimination or denials of equal protection of the law; investigation of patterns or practicesof fraud or discrimination in the conduct of Federal elections; and preparation and issuance of publicservice announcements and advertising campaigns to discourage discrimination or denialsof equal protection of the law. The Commission is also required to submit reports to the Presidentand the Congress at such times as the Commission, the Congress, or the President shall deemdesirable. The State Advisory Committees An Advisory Committee to the United States Commission on CivilRights has been established in each of the50states and the District of Columbia pursuant to section105(c)of the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and section 3(d) of the Civil Rights Commission AmendmentsAct of 1994. The Advisory Committees are made up of responsible persons who serve withoutcompensation. Their functions under their mandate from the Commission are to: advise theCommission of all relevant information concerning their respective states on matters within thejurisdiction of the Commission; advise the Commission on matters of mutual concern in the preparationof reports of the Commission to the President and the Congress; receive reports, suggestions,and recommendations from individuals, public and private organizations, and public officials upon matters pertinent to inquiries conducted by the State Advisory Committee;initiate and forward advice and recommendations to the Commission upon matters in which the Commissionshall request assistance of the State Advisory Committee; and attend, asobservers, any open hearing or conference that the Commission may holdwithin the state. This report is available on diskette in ASCII and WordPerfect 5.1 for persons with visual impairments. Please call (202) 376-8110. Hawaii Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission onCivil Rights Reconciliation at a Crossroads: The Implications of the Apology Resolution and Rice v.Cayetano for Federal and State Programs Benefiting Native Hawaiians Summary Report of the August 1998 and September 2000 Community Forums in Honolulu, Hawai`i 4 Letter of Transmittal Hawaii Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights Members of the Commission Mary Frances Berry, Chairperson Cruz Reynoso, Vice Chairperson Christopher Edley, Jr. Yvonne Y. Lee Elsie Meeks Russell G. Redenbaugh Abigail Thernstrom Victoria Wilson Les Jin, Staff Director Attached is a report from the Hawaii Advisory Committee based upon acommunity forum held August 22, 1998, to collect information on the impact of the 1993Apology Resolution enacted to recognize the 1893 overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy,and subsequent meet- ings with Na Kfipuna held September 28, 2000, and a communityforum convened September 29, 2000, to collect information on concerns of Native Hawaiiansand others on the impact of the U .S. Supreme Court decision in Rice v. Cayekmo on Native Hawaiians.All meetings were held in Honolulu, the capital of Hawai`i. Commission Vice ChairpersonCruz Reynoso and Commission members Yvonne Y. Lee and Elsie Meeks joined the HawaiiAdvisory Commit- tee in the September 2000 effort. The issue of Native Hawaiian sovereignty and the impact of the 1893overthrow is com- plex. The passage of over 100 years and the migration of various peoples tothe territory and later, the island state of Hawafi, has compounded the impact. What was clearfrom the 1998 presentations was the need for continued dialogue and a concerted effort byNative Hawai- ians to outline the essential parameters of reconciliation. While this dialogue wastaking place, Rice v. Cayetano was working its way through the federal court systemand eventually found its way to the U.S. Supreme Court. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Rice v. Cayetano that a voting procedure allowingonly Native Hawaiians to vote for members of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs violated the15th Amendment of the Constitution, which prohibits race-based exclusion from voting. Whilethe decision was lauded by some, Native Hawaiians complained that it overlooked the historical facts of what the Apology Resolution acknowledged as the illegal overthrow of their constitu- tional monarchy over a hundred years ago. The Rice decision has occurred during a flourish- ing movement for self-determination and self-governance, fueling feelings of anger andfrus- tration within the Native Hawaiian community. At its meeting of March 30, 2000, the Hawaii Advisory Committee determined itshould conduct an open,meeting on the impact of the Rice decision. Because of questions regarding equal protection and the constitutionality of purported "race-based entitlement programs" evoked by the Rice decision, the Hawaii Advisory Committee further determined that it should request involvement of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. The Commission decided that it would assist the Advisory Committee in obtaining information at an open session through the participation of members of the Commission. Many participants at the open meeting voiced their opinion that the decision negates at- tempts to remedy past inequities and impinges efforts to assist Native Hawaiians insuch areas as education, employment, and health care. Others suggestedthat the decision affirms constitutional guarantees for equality. The Advisory Committee appreciates the
Load more

Recommended publications
  • An Analysis of Hawaiʻi‟S Cultural Impact Assessment Process As a Vehicle of Environmental Justice for Kānaka Maoli
    Innovation or Degradation?: An Analysis of Hawaiʻi‟s Cultural Impact Assessment Process as a Vehicle of Environmental Justice for Kānaka Maoli Elena Bryant* INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ 231 I. PROVIDING A FRAMEWORK: ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE FOR KĀNAKA MAOLI COMMUNITIES ........................................................ 235 A. Incorporating Environmental Justice into Hawaiʻi‟s EIS Process: Racializing Environmental Justice ........................... 236 B. Defining the “Injustice” ........................................................... 238 C. The Enactment of Natural and Cultural Resource Protections as a Mechanism for Restorative Justice for Kānaka Maoli ..... 244 II. THE CULTURAL AND HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF WIND AND WATER TO KĀNAKA MAOLI .............................................................. 245 A. Kumulipo: Kānaka Maoli‟s Source of Origin .......................... 246 B. “I paʻa i ke Kalo ʻaʻole ʻoe e puka; If it had ended with the Kalo you would not be here.” ................................................... 247 C. Cultural Significance of the Wind ............................................. 248 D. Cultural Significance of the Sea ............................................... 250 III. THE PUSH TO “GO GREEN”: HAWAIʻI‟S INTERISLAND WIND PROJECT ........................................................................................... 252 A. Hawaiʻi Clean Energy Initiative: Moving Hawaiʻi Towards Energy Self-sufficiency ............................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Office of Hawaiian Affairs V. HCDCH
    Courts in the "Age of Reconciliation": Office of Hawaiian Affairs v. HCDCH Eric K. Yamamoto* and Sara D. Ayabe** I. THE OVERVIEW To heal the persisting wounds of historic injustice,' governments, communities, and civil and human rights groups throughout the world are shaping redress initiatives around some form of reconciliation. Many of the initiatives are salutary.2 All are fraught with challenges. In Asia, Japan reluctantly faces continuing demands from victims of its World War II military atrocities. Following the abolition of racial apartheid in South Africa, in order to rebuild the country, the new government-centered Truth and Reconciliation Commission pursued reconciliation between those perpetrating human rights violations and those badly harmed-a formal process * Fred T. Korematsu Professor of Law and Social Justice, William S. Richardson School of Law, University of Hawai'i. ** William S. Richardson School of Law, University of Hawai'i, J.D. 2011. We appreciate Troy Andrade's valuable assistance in reviewing the section on Native Hawaiian history. We are indebted to Susan Serrano for her insightful research and incisive analysis in co-authoring with Professor Yamamoto an amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court in the OHA case. We have drawn upon that brief in crafting this article. 1 Eric K. Yamamoto & Ashley Obrey, Reframing Redress: A "Social Healing Through Justice" Approach to Native Hawaiian-United States and Indigenous Ainu-Japan Reconciliation Initiatives, 16 ASIAN AM. L.J. 5 (2009). 2 There are two prominent recent precursors to contemporary redress efforts. In Europe, German, French, and Swiss banks paid reparations to Holocaust survivors and their heirs for misappropriating assets of Jewish bank account holders during World War II.
    [Show full text]
  • AMERICA's ANNEXATION of HAWAII by BECKY L. BRUCE
    A LUSCIOUS FRUIT: AMERICA’S ANNEXATION OF HAWAII by BECKY L. BRUCE HOWARD JONES, COMMITTEE CHAIR JOSEPH A. FRY KARI FREDERICKSON LISA LIDQUIST-DORR STEVEN BUNKER A DISSERTATION Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of History in the Graduate School of The University of Alabama TUSCALOOSA, ALABAMA 2012 Copyright Becky L. Bruce 2012 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ABSTRACT This dissertation argues that the annexation of Hawaii was not the result of an aggressive move by the United States to gain coaling stations or foreign markets, nor was it a means of preempting other foreign nations from acquiring the island or mending a psychic wound in the United States. Rather, the acquisition was the result of a seventy-year relationship brokered by Americans living on the islands and entered into by two nations attempting to find their place in the international system. Foreign policy decisions by both nations led to an increasingly dependent relationship linking Hawaii’s stability to the U.S. economy and the United States’ world power status to its access to Hawaiian ports. Analysis of this seventy-year relationship changed over time as the two nations evolved within the world system. In an attempt to maintain independence, the Hawaiian monarchy had introduced a westernized political and economic system to the islands to gain international recognition as a nation-state. This new system created a highly partisan atmosphere between natives and foreign residents who overthrew the monarchy to preserve their personal status against a rising native political challenge. These men then applied for annexation to the United States, forcing Washington to confront the final obstacle in its rise to first-tier status: its own reluctance to assume the burdens and responsibilities of an imperial policy abroad.
    [Show full text]
  • House Concurrent Resolution
    HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ~ 6 TWENTY-SEVENTH LEGISLATURE, 2013 IN H.D. 1 STATEOFHAWAII HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION COMMEMORATING THE TWENTIETH ANNIVERSARY OF PUBLIC LAW 103-150, RECOGNIZING THE PROGRESS MADE TOWARDS RECONCILIATION AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN SELF-GOVERNANCE AND SELF-DETERMINATION, REAFFIRMING THE STATE’S COMMITMENT TO RECONCILIATION WITH NATIVE HAWAIIANS FOR HISTORICAL INJUSTICES, URGING THE FEDERAL GOVERI~JMENT TO ADVANCE RECONCILIATION EFFORTS WITH NATIVE HAWAIIANS, AND SUPPORTING EFFORTS TO FURTHER THE SELF-DETERMINATION AND SOVEREIGNTY OF NATIVE HAWAIIANS. 1 WHEREAS, in 1993, the United States Congress passed Public 2 Law 103-150 (the “Apology Resolution”), acknowledging and 3 apologizing for the critical role of United States diplomats, 4 military forces, and citizens in the overthrow of the sovereign 5 Kingdom of Hawai’i; and 6 7 WHEREAS, the Apology Resolution confirms that the actions 8 of United States agents in the overthrow and occupation of the 9 Hawaiian government violated treaties between the United States 10 and the sovereign Kingdom of Hawai’i, and norms of international 11 law; and 12 13 WHEREAS, the Apology Resolution confirms that one million 14 eight hundred thousand acres of crown and government lands were 15 thereafter ceded to the United States without consent or 16 compensation to the Native Hawaiian people or their sovereign 17 government, as a result of the United States’ annexation of 18 Hawai’i; and 19 20 WHEREAS, the Apology Resolution recognizes that the Native 21 Hawaiian people never relinquished their claims to their 22 inherent sovereignty as a people or of their national lands 23 throughout the overthrow, occupation, annexation, and admission 24 of Hawai’i into the United States; and HCR6 HD1 HMS 2013-3122 ~ H.C.R.
    [Show full text]
  • Music and Identity Ofthe Cultural Renaissance of Hawai·I A
    -022.\ CONNECT BACK TO DIS PIACE: Music and Identity ofthe Cultural Renaissance ofHawai·i A '!HESIS SUBMITTED TO '!HE GRADUATE DIVISION OF '!HE UNIVERSI1Y OF HAWAI·I IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF '!HE REQUIREMENTS FOR '!HE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS IN PACIFIC ISLAND STUDIES MAY 2005 By Andrea A Suzuki Thesis Conunittee: Kater1na Teaiwa. Chairperson George Teny Kanalu Young Jonathan K. 050110 Acknowledgements First and foremost I have to thank my parents. especIally Daddy MIke for the opJX>rtun1ties that they have gtven me and their sUpJX>rt gtven to my endeavors. I have to also thank Daddy Mitch for hIs sUPJX>rt and h1s stortes about "h1s days". I want to especIally thank my mom, an AM.A 1n her own rtght, for all ofher devoted time and sUPJX>rt. Secondly, I would l1ke to gIve my deepest thanks to Mel1nda Caroll wIthout whom th1s jOurney would have been a lot more d1ff1cult. Thankyou for your suggestions, your help, and your encouragement. I would also l1ke to thank my comm11tee, Katertna Tea1Wa, Kanalu Young, and John Osorto for their sUpJX>rt and theIr efforts 1n the completion ofth1s project. I'd l1ke to thank all ofthose that gave their time to me, tell1ng me their stortes. and allowtng me to share those stortes: Jeny Santos, Owana Salazar, Aunty CookIe, Uncle Cyr11. Hemy KapollO, John Demello. Gaylord Holomal1a, Keaum1k1 Akut. Peter Moon, and Joe Atpa. I'd l1ke to gIve my appreciation to the Pac1ftc Island StudIes Program that guIded me every' step ofthe way. F1nallly. I'd 11ke to thank all my frIends for their encouragement and tolerance ofmy 1nsan1ty, espec1ally Kamuela Andrade, for gJ.1nn1ng and beartng It and Kau1 for beIng my personal cheering section.
    [Show full text]
  • Analyzing the Obama Administration's Efforts of Reconciliation with Native
    Michigan Journal of Race and Law Volume 22 2017 Legacy in Paradise: Analyzing the Obama Administration’s Efforts of Reconciliation with Native Hawaiians Troy J.H. Andrade William S. Richardson School of Law, University of Hawai’i at Mānoa Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjrl Part of the Administrative Law Commons, Indian and Aboriginal Law Commons, Law and Race Commons, and the President/Executive Department Commons Recommended Citation Troy J. Andrade, Legacy in Paradise: Analyzing the Obama Administration’s Efforts of Reconciliation with Native Hawaiians, 22 MICH. J. RACE & L. 273 (2017). Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjrl/vol22/iss2/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Michigan Journal of Race and Law by an authorized editor of University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. LEGACY IN PARADISE: ANALYZING THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION’S EFFORTS OF RECONCILIATION WITH NATIVE HAWAIIANS Troy J.H. Andrade* This Article analyzes President Barack Obama’s legacy for an indigenous people—nearly 125 years in the making—and how that legacy is now in consid- erable jeopardy with the election of Donald J. Trump. This Article is the first to specifically critique the hallmark of Obama’s reconciliatory legacy for Native Hawaiians: an administrative rule that establishes a process in which the United States would reestablish a government-to-government relationship with Native Hawaiians, the only indigenous people in America without a path toward federal recognition.
    [Show full text]
  • In Honolulu's Christ Church in Kailua, Which Will Repeat Next Hemenway Theatre, UH Manoa Campus: Wed
    5 The Fear Factor 8 Pritchett !ICalendar 13 Book Bonanza l!IStraight Dope Volume 3, Number 45, November 10, 1993 FREE Interview by JOHN WYTHE WHITE State Representative DaveHagino has spent 15 years fighting the system he's a partof- and theparty he belongs to. !JiORDERS BOOKS & MUSIC· BORDERS BOOKS & MUSIC· BORDERS BOOKS & MUSIC· BORDERS BOOKS & MUSIC· BORDERS BOOKS & MUSIC· BORDERS BOOKS & MUSIC· BORDERS BOOKS 8 ,,,, :,..: ;o 0 0 � �L � w ffi 8 Cl 0 ;,<; 0::: w 0 il,1.. � SELECTION: w 2 No Comparison 00 Cl 0::: i0 co co 0 ;o 0 -- -- co�:. 0 0 7' $�··· C nw oco ;o· · 0 m � co 0 0 w7' ::c: :::: C w 0:co 0 ;o 0 m � co 0 0 ci: � $ C w Borders® Books &Music. n ;o8 0 m The whole idea behind Finda book or music store the new Borders Books w;o co .- Borders Books & Music is to &Music. 0 with more titles and 0 w7' create an appealing place with Welcome to the new � $ we'll shop there. C more selection. So we brought Borders Books &Music. w () 100,000 in over book titles, more times the average store. Borders co 0 than 5 times the average bookstore. especially excels in classical and ;o It 0 CD m .r::;"' � OJ ;o What that means is that Borders jazz recordings. 0 E w (.) "' i co .r::; 'l' CD I 0 E 0 offersmore history, more com­ Borders also carries the area's (!) 0 """' 7' H-1 Fwy. w puters, more cooking. More of broadest selection of videotapes, � Waikele/Waipahu Exit 7 ::::: C everything, not just more copies including classic and foreign films.
    [Show full text]
  • America Practices Its Imperial Power
    Name: Date: Period: . Directions: Read the history of Hawaii’s annexation and the Queen’s letter to President McKinley before answering the critical thinking questions. America practices its Imperial Power Hawaii was first occupied by both the British and the French before signing a friendship treaty with the United States in 1849 that would protect the islands from European Imperialism. Throughout the 1800s many missionaries and businessmen travel to Hawaii. Protestant missionaries wished to convert the religion of locals and the businessmen are interested in establishing money making sugar plantations. Hawaii was a useful resource to the United States not only because of its rich land, but because of its location as well. The islands are located in a spot that U.S. leaders thought was ideal for a naval port. This base, Pearl Harbor, would give America presence in the Pacific Ocean and create a refueling port for ships in the middle of the ocean. When Queen Liliuokalani took the thrown in 1891 she wanted to limit the power that American business have in Hawaii. America also changed the trading laws, making it extremely expensive for the Hawaiian plantations to export their sugar product back to the mainland. In 1893 these plantation owners, led by Samuel Dole and with the support of the United States Marines revolt against the Queen and forced her into surrendering the thrown. With American businessmen in control, they set up their own government appointing Samuel Dole as governor. With plantation owners in control, it was in their best interest for their business trade to become a part of the United States and they requested to be annexed.
    [Show full text]
  • Center for Hawaiian Sovereignty Studies 46-255 Kahuhipa St. Suite 1205 Kane'ohe, HI 96744 (808) 247-7942 Kenneth R
    Center for Hawaiian Sovereignty Studies 46-255 Kahuhipa St. Suite 1205 Kane'ohe, HI 96744 (808) 247-7942 Kenneth R. Conklin, Ph.D. Executive Director e-mail [email protected] Unity, Equality, Aloha for all To: HOUSE COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY For hearing Tuesday, March 19, 2019 Re: SB 1451, SD1, HD1 RELATING TO STATE HOLIDAYS. Recognizes La Ku‘oko‘a, Hawaiian Recognition Day, as an official state holiday. (SB1451 HD1) TESTIMONY IN OPPOSITION It is both funny and sad to see that so many legislators have signed their names in support of this bill, which is deceptively named and would be bad policy. Pandering to anti-American secessionists is a very bad idea. This bill is not about memorializing a success of diplomacy from 1843, it's about supporting a highly divisive cult of activists who want to enlist you as a partisan in an ideological civil war which threatens to rip the 50th star off our flag. SB1451,SD1,HD1 La Ku'oko'a Page !1 of !7 HSE JUD 3/19/19 Maybe you'll step away from this bill when you see how your predecessors in the 2007 legislature were lied to and fooled by the same gang now pushing this bill, and then those legislators were justly ridiculed for their pandering. The following points are proved in detail later in this testimony. Please take the time to read the details. 1. The word "ku'oko'a" does NOT mean "recognition" -- it means "independence". Look it up in the dictionary. Also apply, to two other bills, this lesson on how easy it is to fool you legislators about the meaning of Hawaiian words -- I refer to SB195 and SB642, which would make it law that if a bill "was originally drafted in Hawaiian and the English version was translated based on the Hawaiian version, the Hawaiian version shall be held binding." 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Native Hawaiians Study Commission.: Report Onthe TITLE , Culture, Needs and Concerns of Nativehawaiians
    DOCUMENT RESUME ED 254 609 UD 024'136 Native Hawaiians Study Commission.: Report onthe TITLE , Culture, Needs and Concerns of NativeHawaiians. Final ort. Volume II.Claims of Conscience: A Dissenting Study\ofs the Culture, Needs andConcerns of Native HawaiianS. , INSTITUTION Department of the Interior,Washington, D.C. PUB DATE 23 Jun 83 ° NOTE 194p.; For Volume Iof the final-report, see UD 024 135. PUB TYPE Reports -'Researcb/Technical (143r EDRS PRICE MF01/PC08 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS Federal Legislationl *Federal,StateRelationship; *Hawailans,"Legal Responsibility; *Needs Assessment; *State History; *Trust Responsibility (Government); United States History IDENTIFIERS *Hawaii; *Land Rights ABSTRACT , Volume II of the final report of theNative ftwaiians Study Commission (NHSC) on the culture,needs, and concerns of native Hawaiians, this book contains a formaldissent to the conclusions and recommendations presented in Volume I madeby three of the NBSC commissioners. Its principal criticism'is.that Volume 'I fails to address the' underlying intent of thecommissioned. study:. (1) to ssoss-the American involvementin the take-over of the Kingdom of Hawaii; (2)`based,on the findingregarding'American participation in the coup.etatWe of. 1893, to ascertainwhether American culpability 'for injuries or damages suffered. :.by Native Hawaiians existedrand (3) to advise about how toapproach. *lid answer any such.Native 'Hawaiian claims. This volume of the :eportfurther states that critical support is lacking for Volume\I'sargument that the United
    [Show full text]
  • A Brief History of the Hawaiian People
    0 A BRIEF HISTORY OP 'Ill& HAWAIIAN PEOPLE ff W. D. ALEXANDER PUBLISHED BY ORDER OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE HAWAIIAN KINGDOM NEW YORK,: . CINCINNATI•:• CHICAGO AMERICAN BOOK C.OMPANY Digitized by Google ' .. HARVARD COLLEGELIBRAllY BEQUESTOF RCLANOBUr.ll,' , ,E DIXOII f,'.AY 19, 1936 0oPYBIGRT, 1891, BY AlilBIOAN BooK Co)[PA.NY. W. P. 2 1 Digit zed by Google \ PREFACE AT the request of the Board of Education, I have .fi. endeavored to write a simple and concise history of the Hawaiian people, which, it is hoped, may be useful to the teachers and higher classes in our schools. As there is, however, no book in existence that covers the whole ground, and as the earlier histories are entirely out of print, it has been deemed best to prepare not merely a school-book, but a history for the benefit of the general public. This book has been written in the intervals of a labo­ rious occupation, from the stand-point of a patriotic Hawaiian, for the young people of this country rather than for foreign readers. This fact will account for its local coloring, and for the prominence given to certain topics of local interest. Especial pains have been taken to supply the want of a correct account of the ancient civil polity and religion of the Hawaiian race. This history is not merely a compilation. It is based upon a careful study of the original authorities, the writer having had the use of the principal existing collections of Hawaiian manuscripts, and having examined the early archives of the government, as well as nearly all the existing materials in print.
    [Show full text]
  • 2:15 Pm Dirksen Senate Office Building
    United States Senate Committee on Indian Affairs Chairman Byron Dorgan August 6, 2009 – 2:15 pm Dirksen Senate Office Building Testimony of Robin Puanani Danner President & Chief Executive Officer Council for Native Hawaiian Advancement S. 1011 - Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2009 1 Aloha Chairman Dorgan, Vice Chairman Barrasso, Senator Inouye, Senator Akaka and other Members of the Committee. Thank you for your invitation to provide testimony on behalf of the Council for Native Hawaiian Advancement regarding the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2009, S.1011. My name is Robin Puanani Danner. I am native Hawaiian and a resident of Hawaiian Home Lands, the trust lands created under the enactment of the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act of 1920. I submit this testimony in my capacity as President of the Council, founded to unify Native Hawaiian groups and organizations to promote the cultural, economic and community development of Native Hawaiians. Similar in purpose to the Alaska Federation of Natives and the National Congress of American Indians, CNHA achieves its mission through a strong policy voice, capacity building and connecting resources to the challenges in our communities. Today, CNHA has a membership of 102 Native Hawaiian organizations. We are governed by a 15- member board of directors elected by our member organizations. I would like to express CNHA’s strong support for S. 1011 with revisions. As President of CNHA, I have worked for many years with extraordinary Native leaders and others to improve the opportunities and resolve challenges faced by Native Hawaiians. This legislation, first introduced in 2000 is perhaps the single most important piece of public policy to advance solutions from within our communities and in partnership with the federal government and state of Hawaii.
    [Show full text]