Independence and Indigenousness

I want to try to clarify something and stimulate some more discussion.

There are two separate issues that I mainly cover in this blog, which are related, but are actually separate arguments.

One is Hawaii's occupation/independence, which is a political and international legal question, and is related to the status of Hawaiian nationals/subjects/citizens, who are defined politically.

The other is the manner in which we as a society in the islands choose to recognize, respect, honor, protect and support na oiwi, the people who happen to descend from the ancient inhabitants of these islands, and their unique culture, which is the cumulative expression of their relationship with these islands through many generations.

The second question can be discussed separately from the first. Now, they are related, because the political context of the political status determines the context and legal parameters of how we approach support for things Hawaiian. But they are separate issues.

I do believe that regardless of the political context and how one feels about independence, under the current system (that some see as occupation), there is very broad support in Hawaii across a wide spectrum for "Hawaiian programs" directing collective resources in whatever form specifically to support the people and the culture of the ancient lineal connection to this place, and for their voices to have a special weight in some governance decisions.

Of course this doesn't mean that Hawaiians are better than anyone else. This whole discussion of "racism" is really off the mark, a canard. It isn't about Hawaiians being superior. It is simply about the fact that we're in Hawaii. Hello. The fact that their ancestors have been here much much longer than the rest of us doesn't mean they are superior, but it does mean that we recognize them as having a special relationship with this place, and having a special place here. And it is more about them being a big extended ohana, who are heirs to the legacy of their ancestors on this land, than about a being "race" per se (which they aren't actually anyway). And most people intuitively understand that. It is about ohana. We are all human ohana, and the various branches of our family are increasingly interrelated as Hawaii beautifully exemplifies. But they are closer cousins than the rest of us, quite literally, and their branch of the family has been here a hell of a lot longer than we distant cousins who just found our way here relatively recently. And we respect that, just like we respect the home and land of any family, and their connection to that home/land, if we are decent and good people.

And I believe that there is widespread understanding and respect of that in Hawaii's society today, and a support for directing resources to ensure that the people and the culture of this place survive and thrive. And that we all benefit because of that. It is so obvious. That makes Hawaii Hawaii. It is how we (almost) all want it to be.

Most people say, Yes, we think a private self-funded trust set up by the will of an ali'i should be able to place a priority or preference on benefitting those who are essentially descendants of her extended family. We support the idea that some public resources, yes our taxpayer dollars, can be directed explicitly to help that extended ohana. And we support the idea that certain decisions and certain aspects of governance should be up to the members of this ohana to decide, or at least have a prominent voice, the most basic being the idea that descendants of na iwi have a unique right to protect and handle the actual bones of their ancestors that are buried in the land, and protect the land where they were placed. And it extends out from there to many different levels. There may be varying opinions about how far and in what ways this extends, but there is general recognition and support of the basic principle that na oiwi should have a special role and a right to decide some aspects of our governance here because of their unique ancient lineage on this land.

Now, there are certain people who have come here, who are part of a long legacy and a larger coordinated agenda, who want to say, basically, after we've made the rules of the game and tilted the board in our direction for 100+ years so we now have all the marbles, we now want to flatten it out and insist that everyone is "equal" - but still must play by our rules. (I hope that metaphor makes sense.) And they want to deny that the ancient heritage of the Hawaiian people on this land should count for anything legally or politically.

The thing is, I think they are really a small minority.

I will admit, when it comes to the question of Hawaii's independence, I am probably in the minority in my beliefs. Being a minority doesn't make one wrong. And the minority obviously has the right to fight for their view and try to win support.

The independence/occupation debate, however, is centrally an issue of law and facts, and on a certain level opinion is not relevant to that debate. One may have an opinion about whether the restoration of effective independence would be a good thing, but that is separate from the issue of whether factually Hawaii is illegally occupied, which may eventually be determined in an international court, regardless of our opinions about it.

Okay, I'm digressing from the original purpose of my post here, which is to try to pull apart the two distinct threads of this overall discussion.

The question of independence provides the political and legal context about how exactly we express our support for na oiwi. There is a legal argument that this should be an internal matter for the government of the Hawaiian nation-state to deal with as domestic policy free from any foreign interference. And there is a practical discussion about how the government of an independent Hawaii, while having an inclusive and diverse national population, still could well do a better job providing meaningful and pono solutions to this common desire in our society.

But independence itself is actually a separate issue, and nationality is a separate discussion from indigenousness. Indigenousness is important, but it is not the foundation of the argument about independence and nationality, and is actually largely irrelevant for that argument within the legal framework. Rather, the issues of independence and nationality provide the legal and political framework for addressing the issues of indigenousness. Not the other way around.

Because I cover both of these separate but related topics here, sometimes I may be unintentionally adding to the confusion between the two, and I'm not sure if this little exposition will help to clarify a bit the difference between the issues, and my take on them. But I hope so. At least it may stimulate some more discussion...

Posted: Thu - November 24, 2005 at 12:01 AM

getBlogName(); > getCategoryName("C1126750129"); >

Independence and Indigenousness

> >