A misleading response to a misleading attack

The Star-Bulletin editorial today:

Republican Sen. John Kyl of Arizona has said the Hawaiian recognition bill would create a race-based government that could lead to Hawaii's secession from the union.

THE leading Senate adversary to Hawaiian recognition has launched a misleading assault on the bill as it nears consideration in Congress. Governor Lingle and Hawaii's congressional delegation face a difficult challenge in attaining Senate approval of the bill over Republican opposition.

In response to Kyl's point that the kingdom was multiracial, but the bill's recognition is limited to those with Hawaiian blood, the editorial says:

Authors of the bill could have avoided the charge by including all descendants of the pre-1893 inhabitants of the islands.

Indeed, that would be the historically consistent approach. It's called nationality. But it wouldn't fit under the "indigenous" definition that the Akaka bill is trying to impose to fit Hawaiians under federal law next to Native Americans.

Kyl's alarm that the bill "provides vehicles for its citizens to secede from the union" is preposterous. The few Hawaiians who seek total independence from America are opposed to the Akaka bill. His basis comes from an ill-advised assertion on the Office of Hawaiian Affairs Web site pandering to those extremists.

Heh heh. I guess that means me.

From my experience and observations, there are a large number of Hawaiians and others who do in fact support both the Akaka bill and independence.

First, within active independence supporters, who generally believe Hawaii still exists as an independent country under prolonged occupation, there are two general schools of thought. It is true that many of those tend to see the Akaka bill as a dangerous trap and reject it. But there are also some who don't oppose the Akaka bill and are at least neutral about it, because they see it as just another internal U.S. law (like annexation and statehood), not affecting the continuity of Hawaii's independent status or the rights of its nationals to restore their government.

And then there are many who actively support the Akaka bill as what they see as a practical, achievable immediate step, but who do support independence as a long term goal and desire, and do see the Akaka bill as a stepping stone towards independence, while helping provide some protection and support within the occupation system.

So the feelings about it are much more complex than either Sen. Kyl or the Star-Bulletin recognize.

And I do think the Star-Bulletin here is unfairly and inaccurately marginalizing supporters of independence. It may seem like an "extreme" position to some, but I truly believe that the number of Hawaii residents who support at least the general concept of independence, and the types of people who are included in this group, is much larger and more mainstream than what can easily be labeled and dismissed as extremist, and the paper does a disservice to the debate to make such a simplistic and I think equally misleading statement.

And once again, for the record, it isn't secession. There was never a valid cession or acquisition of Hawaii's sovereignty or territory by the United States. Hawaii is occupied. We do not seek to secede from the union. We seek to expose the legal facts that show that Hawaii has never been a part of the union in the first place.

Posted: Mon - June 27, 2005 at 08:35 AM

getBlogName(); > getCategoryName("C608676235"); >

A misleading response to a misleading attack

> >