• Looking at OHA and the future
Looking at OHA and the future
By LELA M. HUBBARD
The Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA) has budgeted $7 million for Federal Recognition of an indigenous Hawaiian Nation. The Ha Hawaii process which was set up for the first Native Hawaiian Convention, ‘Aha Hawai’i ‘Oiwi, is being followed for this second attempt at an ‘aha which would consist of elected delegates who would draft a constitution that would ultimately be ratified (accepted) by the Hawaiians who participate in the process. The first ‘aha failed due to lack of adequate funding and limited community support.
OHA has had to modify their timeline for achieving nationhood because Hawaiians have protested that elections were projected too quickly and without adequate education. Sadly, honest education is still lacking. Pap and propaganda promote nationhood as well as scare tactics that insist we will lost everything if Federal Recognition fails. But objective materials need to be developed that show the advantages and disadvantages of indigenous nationhood. Is it true that we have to give up our lands, and then the U.S. will decide what to give back to us? Is it true under USC that domestic, indigenous, dependent nations can never become independent nations?
Does re-establishing the Kingdom of Hawaii give the Hawaiian nation a firm legal basis? Could a coalition be formed to create an interim constitution based on the constitutions of the Kingdom of Hawaii with amendments that eliminate property qualifications and that permit women to vote? Since we have been told that lawsuits can eliminate OHA and the Hawaiian Home Lands as well as federal funding for Hawaiian programs, re-establishing the Kingdom of Hawaii realistically means that a Hawaiian native nation could be quickly jump started — as long as tight provisions would be included to safeguard any assets transferred to the Kingdom of Hawaii. The draft constitution of Queen Lili’uokalani listed the successorship; the Kawananakoa Family would thus be the designated Ali’i. This re-instated nation could apply for federal recognition and would be eligible to ask for recognition from the family of nations. What would be the advantages and disadvantages of such a path? This initiative should be voted on by Hawaiians as well as any other ideas — before delegates are elected to draft the permanent constitution for the Hawaiian Nation. The United States had the Articles of Confederation before the permanent constitution was created. Those colonists had more experience in self-determination than we Hawaiians have been permitted in modern times, but their first attempt at governing produced a weak product.
It appears that OHA’s tight control on the nationhood process is creating confusion and misinformation in the Hawaiian community. OHA hired Hoakea to present the enrollment process throughout the state and to ask for community input. But is OHA really listening? OHA’s first sovereignty working group died last year as well as the Hawaiian Civic Club’s initiative to unite Hawaiians started in 2002. Why does OHA have so many working groups for nationhood? Shouldn’t the people be making suggestions and controlling the nationhood process? Every island should have an open group working towards nationhood and funded by OHA. Moreover, the existence of these groups should be well-publicized so that interested Hawaiians can participate. And the work product of these groups should be on OHA’s Web site for all to pursue.
OHA’s materials for Ho’oulu Lahui or colorful, slick and highly professional propaganda. If OHA wants to educate they must present all sides of all issues. Then we have a chance to make our own decisions instead of being herded like sheep. But we Hawaiians may be guilty of complacency, lack of interest and an inability to make nation-building a top priority for our personal agendas. Why? Boredom, no personal stakes in the process, fear of the United States (the Patriot Act and the contrived Iraq War), or total integration and Americanization?
OHA is an advocate for Hawaiians. They serve us. We must inform OHA of what we want in a nation and not accept what OHA tells us is the perfect and necessary path. Moreover, OHA has sent groups to the U.S. Continent to educate Hawaiians, sympathetic groups and organizations as well as politicians in various states and Congress. Have those people on the continent heard the message from those who oppose Federal Recognition? Shouldn’t that be part of the educational process?
On the other hand, we applaud OHA’s televised debates on the Akaka Bill and hope OHA will continue to present programs on nationhood on Olelo. We hope that OHA will expand the voices heard from the Hawaiian Community. We hope that OHA will show more respect for the basic intelligence of Hawaiians who know in their na’au what is right and just.
Fairness is sharing the stage and the wealth with the opposition.
Lela M. Hubbard is a resident of A’iea, O’ahu
