Commentaries on federal recognition

In an Advertiser commentary, UH Professor Haunani-Kay Trask responds to last week's pro and con commentaries on federal recognition, pointing out a list of reasons why the current version of the Akaka Bill is not in the interest of Hawaiians, and saying "Apart from obvious bad intentions, this deal also violates U.S. law and international law. Hawaiians need to understand the current version of the Akaka bill as a termination, rather than resolution, of the question of native existence and recognition." But regarding the con view, she also says that independence isn't practical and that "Hawaiians need to be included in the federal policy on recognized native nations on our own terms. Talk of independence is just that ... talk." So she actually supports federal recognition, just not in the form currently proposed.

And OHA administrator Clyde Namuo writes a commentary in response to the Action Alert circulated last week by Mililani Trask (Haunani-Kay's sister), saying "A lot of misinformation and false accusations are circulating on the Internet and elsewhere regarding the recent revisions to the Akaka bill. We wish to set the record straight on some of that misinformation."

He goes on to say:

It is important to note that OHA does not believe that lobbying for the Akaka bill is an illegal use of OHA funds. In fact, OHA trustees feel they have a fiduciary duty to seek passage of the Akaka bill to preserve federal recognition as an option should the Hawaiian people later decide that they want federal recognition as a form of government.

To prevent any misunderstanding, let me clearly state: OHA trustees are not dictating federal recognition as the form of government for the Native Hawaiian people. They are merely seeking to keep federal recognition available as an option. The Native Hawaiian people may choose or not choose federal recognition when the time comes to select a form of government.

Interesting. First off, federal recognition is not a "form of government" but a political status, a type of integration. But overlooking that misinformation, the fact is that pretty much all Hawaiians who argue against independence, including Davianna McGregor last week and Haunani-Kay Trask today, do so on the basis of it being impractical, not that it isn't an option. Not even OHA claims it is not an option. By Namuo's reasoning, doesn't OHA have a fiduciary duty to preserve independence as an option should the Hawaiian people decide that they want independence as their political status? Why is OHA any less responsible to spend "something less than $1 million" for lobbying and educating for independence?

Posted: Sun - May 2, 2004 at 11:27 AM

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

Commentaries on federal recognition

> >