Conklin letter and responses

Ken Conklin is a frequent and strident voice in letters to the editor and elsewhere against Hawaiian rights. Below is a recent letter of his, followed by two responses in today's Maui News.

I agree with Conklin that we should stop the Akaka Bill, and I also encourage people to speak out against it, but for entirely different reasons, and I challenge his statements.

Conklin says:

"I believe most Hawaiians and other island born do not want either independence or the Akaka Bill. We're proud to be Americans..."

The first problem is, despite how he represents himself in this statement, he is neither Hawaiian (by race or nationality), nor is he island born. As far as I understand Conklin is from Massachusetts. That's fine. I'm from Colorado and I went to college in Massachusetts. (And both he and I are married to Native Hawaiians.) I just don't misrepresent my identity to try to make a point.

Like Ken, I'm also proud to be American, at least for the values it represents, if not always for the actions of the government. I believe that patriotism to my country, as conceived of by the founders, includes not just the right but the obligation of speaking out against the injustices of my own government, historical and present. And I respect that Hawaiian nationals are just as proud to be Hawaiian, and rightly so. As Queen Liliu'okalani said:

"O, honest Americans, as Christians hear me for my downtrodden people! Their form of government was as dear to them as yours is precious to you. Quite as warmly as you love your country, so they love theirs."

More importantly, he offers no evidence to back up the substance of his claim, that "most" do not want independence or the Akaka Bill. In fact, a poll commissioned by OHA in 1999 (168KB PDF), including all races, island-born and immigrant, showed that:

...four out of every ten Hawai‘i residents (42.3%) favored or partly-favored the idea of Hawaiian sovereignty... On the other hand, 33.3 percent were opposed to Hawaiian sovereignty and another 20.5 percent remained undecided. In either situation, there is no clear majority who either support or oppose sovereignty.

In 1999 only a third opposed sovereignty, and more than that supported it in some form. Four years ago it was simply not true to say "most Hawaiians and other island born" did not want sovereignty in some form, and I don't know of any more recent polls that support Conklin's speculation that "most" people in Hawaii do not support some form of Hawaiian nation. Just asserting it doesn't make it so.

He also says that it appears that Akaka Bill and independence are the only two options presented, but as you can see from the Washington Post and Pacific Business news articles, the two options most prominently presented are actually the Akaka Bill or the complete elimination of Hawaiian programs (Conklin's position); it is independence that is most often ignored in the media and the propaganda of OHA trustees who, despite how well meaning they may be, purport to represent Hawaiians even though OHA is a state agency and they are elected by the population at large, or rather all American citizens residing in Hawaii who choose to vote.

Conklin then raises the specter of the Akaka Bill dividing Hawaii along racial lines. While I agree this is a concern, and one of the reasons I also oppose the Akaka Bill, it is not necessarily the case that a federally recognized Hawaiian entity would be exclusively Native Hawaiian in is membership. But more importantly, Conklin fails to mention that independence is not based on race at all, and does not raise the same concern in this regard. The Hawaiian Kingdom had naturalized citizens of all races, and all prominent proponents of Hawaiian independence today, regardless of what process or government model they may favor, advocate a nationality that is based on allegiance, not race. Some even support the idea of dual citizenship, while some oppose it. It is true that people may have to make a choice, to become Hawaiian citizens or stay in Hawaii as resident aliens, or of course to leave Hawaii altogether if they prefer. But unlike what the United States did to Hawaiian nationals when they purported to annex Hawaii, citizenship will not be imposed upon or denied to anyone based on their race.

Finally, Conklin calls independence a pipe dream. Perhaps he is right. I'm sure it seems that way to many people, for obvious reasons, particularly those who do not know the history. Yet so was the Berlin Wall coming down, so was the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the restored independence of the Baltic states, so was the presidency of Nelson Mandela. Each was almost unimaginable, and then inevitable. And when the time was ready, each happened seemingly overnight.

So here's the letters:

Letters To The Editor
Sunday, August 10, 2003
The Maui News

Independence, Akaka Bill both miss the mark

The Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA ) and our political leaders are willing to destroy democracy and aloha to keep federal dollars flowing into Hawaii for unconstitutional, racially exclusionary programs.

OHA sponsors TV debates and commercials pitting Hawaiian independence activists against supporters of the Akaka Bill. The clear assumption is that those are the only two choices available. Independence seems like a pipe dream so people conclude the Akaka Bill is the way to go.

I believe most Hawaiians and other island born do not want either independence or the Akaka Bill. We're proud to be Americans and want to be treated equally under the law. But neither independence activists nor Akaka Bill supporters nor wayward politicians want to hear from us.

If the Akaka Bill passes, only Hawaiians can sign up for the tribe, leaving out 80 percent of our population. Those who sign up within a short period will be the only ones who get to decide the laws of the tribe and whether to let in more members later.

Once enacted, the Akaka Bill will rip us apart because the selfish institutions, bureaucrats and politicians who profit from race-based programs will implement it. Please stop it. The silent majority needs to speak out. Write to U.S. senators from other states asking them to save us from our two senators. Tell them we don't want to sell our multiracial aloha for 30 pieces of silver despite the squealing of our pork-barrel oinkers.

Ken Conklin
Kaneohe, Oahu

Letters to the Editor
The Maui News
August 14, 2003

Writer doesn't represent views of kanaka maoli

In short, who is Ken Conklin (Letters, Aug. 10) to assume that he at all represents the kanaka maoli? It is people like him who try to keep the kanaka down. He does not represent me nor any other kanaka maoli that I've spoken to. He should stop with his lies that our nation was not illegally overthrown. We know the truth and want the wrongs to be corrected. Every kanaka I've spoken to feels the same way! If America is what it is supposed to be it will right the wrong committed against a nation of people who trusted the haole only to be betrayed. So, Conklin, stop acting like you represent us.

Keoni Kenolio
Kihei

Hawaiians should be allowed to keep legacy alive

Ken Conklin's gripes (Letters, Aug. 10) about the OHA's upcoming debates regarding Hawaiian sovereignty are a real hoot coming from someone who professes to have been a college "professor." My recollection of university included professors encouraging debate from students they challenged to think out and defend their positions. Ken's position is that most "Hawaiians" don't want any truck with either the Akaka Bill or sovereignty, because they're all happy Americans.

On the face of it, he may be right. The problem is that it's predicated on denying the very concept of a Hawaiian people, to some extent even before European contact.

Ken claims to think that nowadays everyone grows up enculturated as generic Americans, and later choose to be "Hawaiian" by living in Hawaii, learning to speak a little Hawaiian, and maybe join a hula halau. Following the theme of Ken's writings regarding intermarriage and language, one could as easily say there is no truly "native" Irish or Jewish national identity. His dismissal of a Hawaiian identity based on the "limited" time Polynesians have inhabited the islands would in turn label the Japanese as Koreans with a thick accent. And yet flying in the face of his logic, Ireland, Israel and Japan exist.

Is it too much to leave the kanaka something of their legacy? Yes, there would be necessarily arbitrary cutoff criteria for who qualifies. Such are the ways of political settlements large and small. Let them make of the ceded lands what they will and be done with it. It's not like the rest of us didn't get a nice state out of the bargain.

Carl Holmberg
Kihei

Posted: Thu - August 14, 2003 at 03:32 PM

getBlogName(); > getCategoryName("C1295638618"); >

Conklin letter and responses

> >