CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

The primary purpose of this thesis is to examine roles that non-Native¹ Hawaiians might play in the Hawaiian sovereignty movement (or in a future Hawaiian nation). This is done through an investigation of roles that may be played today and in the near future. The sovereignty movement in Hawai'i is being led by indigenous Hawaiians² seeking the return of lands, some form of political autonomy, and full independence based on the international right of self-determination. In the context of this thesis the terms "non-Hawaiian" and "non-Native Hawaiian" refer to any individual not descended from ancestors who were indigenous to the Hawaiian Islands prior to 1778. Indigenous peoples

are defined in terms of collective aboriginal occupation prior to colonial settlement. They are not to be confused with minorities or ethnic groups within states. Thus "indigenous rights" are strictly distinguished from "minority rights." The numbers of indigenous peoples, therefore, does not constitute a criterion in their definition.³

The possible roles of non-Hawaiians in the sovereignty movement has become a significant issue as many have expressed concern as to where they may fit into the sovereignty picture, and how Hawaiian sovereignty will affect them. However like many Hawaiians, many non-Hawaiians are uninformed and confused about the subject of sovereignty. In my view, many non-Hawaiians do not realize that the cultural and political injustices committed against indigenous Hawaiians in the past have led directly to the movement for sovereignty today. Furthermore, many non-Hawaiians are anxious about the issue of sovereignty, and perceptions have surfaced among some that sovereignty may mean "losing" their homes or being "kicked out" of Hawai'i. These fears could provoke non-Hawaiians to take direct action against the sovereignty movement that could severely limit the progress of the movement. Therefore I feel it is essential to help allay these fears among non-Hawaiians. In my opinion, it will be to the advantage of Hawaiians and the sovereignty movement to clarify the possible roles of non-Hawaiians within certain proposed models of sovereignty or models of self-government.⁴ It will also be to the advantage of the sovereignty movement to address and resolve ambiguities and misperceptions among non-Hawaiians regarding the implementation and function of a restored Hawaiian nation. More importantly, I believe that if Hawaiians and non-Hawaiian supporters can create a sense of comfort, compatibility with and support from the non-Hawaiian community, the advancement of Hawaiian sovereignty will more likely proceed smoothly and successfully in the future.

This study does not elicit views of non-Hawaiians regarding roles they may want or expect to play in the movement. Thus, non-Hawaiians' opinions of their roles may differ from the views of Hawaiian sovereignty leaders, and some non-Hawaiians will likely resist the sovereignty process. Roles of non-Hawaiians in the political and negotiation process in reestablishing a Hawaiian nation are also not discussed. Surely non-Hawaiians will have a voice in the political process.

This thesis focuses on individuals and organizations active in the sovereignty movement, rather than a random survey of the general public, as Hawaiian leaders are the most informed on the subject of sovereignty. In this thesis, advocate-leaders are selected primarily for their political activism and work in the sovereignty movement. By "political activism," I mean individuals who are actively promoting Hawaiian sovereignty. Activism may consist of an individual's political and organizational work within sovereignty organizations, work promoting the sovereignty issue in the general community, or work promoting sovereignty through writing and scholarship. I interview fifteen leaders in this study who are actively promoting sovereignty today. I was fairly certain the advocates would support one or more of the four models of self-government listed above. As it turned out, one leader did not support any particular model, two leaders supported the state-within-a-state model, three supported the nation-within-a-nation model, one supported the free association model, and ten supported the full independence model. Two of the leaders supported two of the models, viewing one model as a transitional process to the other.

The four models discussed in this thesis have been proposed by the Hawaiian community as possible forms of Hawaiian self-government. The nation-within-a-nation and full independence models are the most established and prominent. All four models have been introduced to the general public through sovereignty organizations, sovereignty forums and the local media. In February 1995, Ka Lahui Hawai'i presented its Ho'okupu a Ka Lahui Hawai'i (Master Plan for Hawaiian sovereignty) at a "Symposium for Sovereignty," which focused on the four models. Also, Hui Na'auao and the Office of Hawaiian Affairs have presented these models through media and curriculum materials. I provide descriptions of the four models at the beginnings of chapters 4-7.

The questions asked in my interviews (see "General Questions") focus on seven main areas: the model, citizenship, property, leadership and governmental positions, the transitional stage and privileges, benefits, and immigration and tourism. Regarding property, question 3 concerns the period of time after implementation of the model within the area defined as the Hawaiian nation, whereas questions 4 and 5 deal mainly with the transitional stage towards, and at the time of, achievement of the model. While questions 3 and 4 pertain to non-Hawaiians who do not become citizens of the Hawaiian nation, question 5 concerns non-Hawaiians who do become citizens of the nation. The main body of information gathered from advocate-leaders was obtained through face to face interviews, with two interviews conducted by phone. Follow-up questions were done face to face and by phone.

Following the historical background provided in Part I, the organization of each of chapters 4-7 is the same. After describing the model, I provide background information on the leaders interviewed. I then proceed with my questions and answers discussed in sequential order. Finally, a summary-analysis of my findings is presented. This includes tables summarizing the information collected from the seven major areas listed above. I provide brief analyses of the tables focusing on the areas of consensus and agreement among the leaders.

In my conclusion, I present a table showing the leaders' consensual view on roles of and impacts on non-Hawaiians found in each of the models. I then analyze similarities and differences among the four models themselves. Finally, I take a look at which model non-Hawaiians might best fit into, present an assessment on roles of non-Hawaiians, and examine certain commonalties among Hawai'i's multi-ethnic society in relation to sovereignty.

¹ I capitalize the term "Native" with regard to indigenous peoples, or the original inhabitants of a certain land or territory prior to colonial settlement. As the term is Western colonial in origin, its capitalization has evolved as a sign of self-identification for many Native peoples.
[return to text]

² Definitions of the terms "Hawaiian" and "Native Hawaiian" are numerous and varied. For example, the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act of 1920 defines "native Hawaiian" as "any descendant of not less than one-half part of the races inhabiting the Hawaiian Islands previous to 1778," whereas the "Apology Bill" (Public Law 103-150) of 1993 defines "Native Hawaiian" as "any individual who is a descendant of the aboriginal people who, prior to 1778, occupied and exercised sovereignty in the area that now constitutes the State of Hawaii." The Constitution of Ka Lahui Hawai'i defines "Hawaiian" as "any individual whose ancestors were native to the area which comprised the Hawaiian Islands prior to 1778," whereas the Native Hawaiians Study Commission of 1983 defines "Hawaiian" as "pure-blooded Hawaiian." Also, the terms "Kanaka Maoli" (indigenous Hawaiian), the term used by Kanaka Maoli ancestors to identify themselves prior to the 1820 arrival of the American missionaries (Blaisdell 1996), and "Ka Po'e Hawai'i" (indigenous Hawaiians or the people of Hawai'i) have gained frequency in use among Hawaiians. In the context of this thesis the terms "Hawaiian," "Native Hawaiian," "indigenous Hawaiian" and "Kanaka Maoli" will be used inclusively to refer to any individual descended from ancestors who were indigenous to the Hawaiian Islands prior to 1778.
[return to text]

³ Haunani-Kay Trask, From a Native Daughter: Colonialism and Sovereignty in Hawai'i, Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 1993, pp. 42-43.
[return to text]

⁴ See "Sovereignty" in Chapter 2. for an explanation of "models of self-government."
[return to text]