CHAPTER 8

ROLES OF NON-HAWAIIANS

The table below indicates where there was consensus in the leaders' responses to the questions asked in this study. The data were drawn from the tables and analyses of the models provided in chapters 4-7. As mentioned previously, the nation-within-a-nation and full independence models are the most established and prominent among the four models.

Table 8.1

LEADERS' CONSENSUAL VIEW ON ROLES OF NON-HAWAIIANS

*Number Interviewed

The land bases of the free association and full independence models would comprise the entire Hawaiian archipelago, while the state-within-a-state and nation-within-a-nation models would have smaller land base sizes. Thus it appears that there is a direct relationship between land base sizes and limitations on citizenship, in that non-Hawaiians are likely to have more rights in models with larger land bases.

A direct correlation also appears between opportunities for non-Hawaiians to enter leadership and governmental positions and land base sizes. In the state-within-a-state and nation-within-a-nation models, which have smaller land bases, leadership and governmental positions are limited, while these positions are open to non-Hawaiian participation in the free association and full independence models, which have larger land bases. Non-Hawaiians who become citizens in the free association and full independence models could more actively participate in the political affairs of the nation.

Property
Regarding the effects of sovereignty on property owned by non-Hawaiians, there again exists some variation among the state-within-a-state and nation-within-a-nation models and the free association and full independence models. The key question here is number 4, which addresses the transitional period until the time of restoration of the Hawaiian nation. This question considers those, of the approximately 850,000 non-Hawaiian residents living in Hawai'i today, who may not become citizens of the Hawaiian nation. How would their property be affected during the transitional period and at the time of nationhood?

In the state-within-a-state and nation-within-a-nation models, non-Hawaiians with privately owned homes and land inside the nation's land base would not be affected. This would also apply to the property of non-Hawaiians who become citizens in question 5. Businesses on the land base of both models are on leasehold (not in fee simple title) and would most likely be retained, although they may be subject to review.

However, the property of non-Hawaiians who do not take "Hawai'i residency" or become citizens in the free association and full independence models could be considerably affected at some point in time. In the free association model a "grandfather provision" would most likely take effect at the time of achievement of this political status, with non-citizens having to eventually relinquish control of their property. This could occur over a 25 year period when non-Hawaiians could still opt to take "Hawai'i residency." In the full independence model, non-citizens would be able to retain homes, although large land owners and big businesses may have to eventually relinquish their property. In both models, the property of non-Hawaiians would be much less affected for those who obtain citizenship in question 5. Thus, the retention of property appears to be directly linked to becoming a citizen.

There was an important distinction between the fully implemented stage (question 3) and the transitional stage (questions 4 and 5) in terms of property. There was a greater certainty regarding roles and effects on property of non-Hawaiians in the transitional stage. Among all of the models, the leaders recognized the property rights of the majority non-Hawaiian population residing in Hawai'i today. The leaders were receptive to the property concerns of non-Hawaiians during the transitional stage.

Evictions
The introduction of this thesis mentions the anxiety of many non-Hawaiians regarding the subject of sovereignty, and perceptions by some that sovereignty may mean "losing" their homes or being "kicked out" of Hawai'i. Throughout the interview process there was no indication among the leaders that anyone would summarily lose their homes, much less be "kicked out" of Hawai'i. Evictions of non-Hawaiians from property would be basically for abuse of property or breaking the laws of the nation. In the full independence model, half of the leaders said treason could lead to deportation for citizens, with probably the most extreme response indicating that those found to be criminally liable for abuse of property or treason may be "tossed out" of Hawai'i. None of the leaders indicated that human rights of non-Hawaiians would be violated in any way or that Hawai'i would somehow turn into a "Bosnia," where ethnic cleansing has been perpetrated among warring groups.

Transitional Stage
Another key question in this study is number 8, which addresses the primary role of non-Hawaiians in the transitional stage of the model. The models varied in terms of types of involvement, from education in the state-within-a-state model to activism in the full independence model. Education was, in general, an important theme brought out in all of the models. The common themes expressed by the leaders throughout the interview process concerned:

1. Education - non-Hawaiians should become more educated about Hawaiian history to understand about the hardships indigenous Hawaiians have had to endure, which have led directly to the sovereignty movement today. Non-Hawaiians who are informed on the sovereignty issue should educate other non-Hawaiians regarding Hawaiian history and the movement;
2. Support/Assist - non-Hawaiians should support and assist indigenous Hawaiians in whatever way may benefit Hawaiians and the Hawaiian cause for sovereignty. Non-Hawaiians should be careful not to control the process but to lend support in an effort to help Hawaiians advance;
3. Participate/Get Involved - this response particularly concerns the full independence model, where non-Hawaiians are called upon to assist and get involved in the movement. This entails non-Hawaiians assuming advisory roles as well as taking leadership positions.

Special Privileges and Benefits
In all four models, non-Hawaiian citizens would not obtain special privileges in the new nation, but would be able to retain pensions, social security and Medicare benefits. The status of the benefits of non-Hawaiians would apparently not change at all from today, as these programs are essentially contracts an individual has with employers or the U.S. state or federal governments. Regarding the implementation of similar programs, improving and providing health care for all citizens was a top priority for most of the leaders who responded to this question.

Immigration/Tourism
The question on immigration found a strong similarity between the two most prominent models (nation-within-a-nation and full independence) indicating that immigration into a future Hawaiian nation would be strictly controlled. The dilution of the indigenous culture and people, the depletion of island resources, and the belief that Hawai'i has reached its carrying capacity were the main reasons given for controlling the unlimited entry of people into Hawai'i.

Regarding tourism, question 12 probably should have asked if tourism would be an economic industry or business activity in the Hawaiian nation. It mainly asks if tourism would "remain an economic market." However, I was able to detect the answer to the above suggestion through the questions concerning the leaders' "views on tourism" and "in what capacity" tourism would be an economic industry compared to today. There was again some variation between the state-within-a-state and nation-within-a-nation models and the free association and full independence models. Tourism in the state-within-a-state has yet to be determined and would likely not be allowed in the nation-within-a-nation, while tourism in the free association and full independence models would be limited and controlled compared to the tourist industry today. The free association and full independence advocates are receptive to the concept of tourism and do not see the industry dying, but rather taking on more culturally appropriate and environmentally responsible forms in the future.

Which Model for Non-Hawaiians?
Which model of Hawaiian self-governance would non-Hawaiians best fit into, and what might be some benefits of this model? Again, citizenship for non-Hawaiians in the state-within-a-state model has yet to be determined and is limited in the nation-within-a-nation. Both of these models focus more on improving and empowering the lives of Native Hawaiians, while the free association and full independence models could benefit both Hawaiians and non-Hawaiians.

Free association status would benefit non-Hawaiians based on the information gathered in chapter 6. The most important aspect of this model would be Hawai'i's ability to have internal control over governmental affairs, and a degree of external control. This could result in reducing the cost of living for non-Hawaiian residents, controlling population and immigration into Hawai'i, halting the depletion of island resources, and allowing other business activities, besides tourism, a chance to develop.

But it is clear from the large majority of leaders interviewed in this study that the full independence model is the most popular and widely supported among Hawaiian sovereignty leaders today. And the leaders of the full independence model encourage the highest degree of non-Hawaiian involvement among the four models, as found in question 8. The above benefits for non-Hawaiians in the free association model would also apply to the full independence model, but Hawai'i would have external control over its own affairs. Hawai'i would, thus, become less dependent on the outside world, especially the U.S., and more dependent on itself in its ability to control the future. Roles of non-Hawaiians in the full independence model will be further elaborated on in the final section of this thesis titled, Hawaiians and Locals.

Hawaiian acceptance of non-Hawaiian participation in the movement has been evident since the birth of the movement in the early 1970s. Non-Hawaiians have made many positive contributions to the movement. Numerous eviction struggles in the 1970s such as the Kalama Valley, Wai'ahole-Waikane, Sand Island and Chinatown evictions were collective efforts by both indigenous Hawaiians and non-Hawaiian local residents against developers and the state. Non-Hawaiians also protested against the American military bombing of the island of Kaho'olawe. The founding of Ka Lahui Hawai'i was strongly influenced by the work of a non-Hawaiian. The late Mitsuo Uyehara was a geologist, teacher, attorney and legal counsel to Ka Lahui. He had for years documented Hawaiian land trust abuses and did much of the constitutional research eventually leading to Ka Lahui's first constitutional convention in 1987. According to Mililani Trask, Uyehara had a brilliant legal mind and had a tremendous effect on her and other Hawaiians in the 1970s and 1980s.¹ Today, many non-Hawaiians actively participate in sovereignty organizations such as Ka Lahui Hawai'i, the Nation of Hawai'i and Ka Pakaukau. The Pro-Kanaka Maoli Independence Working Group, which is a member organization of Ka Pakaukau, and of which I am a member, meets weekly with half of the participants consistently non-Hawaiians.

In regard to leadership, as the sovereignty movement formed in response to the historical injustices committed against the Kanaka Maoli people, indigenous Hawaiians have been leading the movement, which is clearly shown in this study. I believe indigenous Hawaiians will continue to lead the movement into the next century. However as the independence movement grows, non-Hawaiians will naturally assume leadership positions, and some have done so already. Both Michael Hansen and Kioni Dudley are non-Hawaiians. Another non-Hawaiian leader, in my view, is Marion Kelly. Kelly is a long-time activist in local and Hawaiian issues. Her main role in the movement has been to provide education, information and encouragement concerning Hawaiian history and sovereignty to anyone interested.²

However non-Hawaiians must be careful not to dominate and take over the movement. The tendency for some non-Hawaiians, particularly haole, ³ to dominate has been traditionally problematic for indigenous Hawaiians and led directly to the 1893 overthrow. Indigenous Hawaiians have experienced numerous problems with non-Hawaiian involvement in the movement. Haunani-Kay Trask indicates that non-Hawaiians should support Hawaiians, although this is often not the case. She points out, however, that some non-Hawaiians, especially haole activists, have been supportive of Hawaiians. These individuals continually evaluate their roles in the movement and are actively helping Hawaiians to advance. Hawaiians trust

these people implicitly because they have endured over the years in struggle after struggle. Haole who honestly support us, do so without loud pronouncements about how they feel what we feel or how they know just what we mean. Moreover, they readily acknowledge our leadership since they are present to support us, not to tell us what to do and how to do it. These haole are trusted by Hawaiian activists precisely because their behavior over the years speaks louder than any sympathetic public statements on their part ever could.⁴

The most important development in terms of ethnic relations formed during the plantation era (approximately 1850-1950). The family bonds and working ties which developed during this period are the basis of Hawai'i's multi-ethnic society today. Haole political and economic domination in Hawai'i by the so called "Big Five" elite, with their thirst for profits and exploitation of labor, failed to break the determined spirit and resiliency of the working class. A new class consciousness and sense of community developed among indigenous Hawaiians and the various immigrant groups who settled in Hawai'i in unified struggle against management:

On the plantations, laborers developed a working class culture and consciousness--and identity of themselves in relation to the process of production. While Hawaiians, Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, Portuguese. Filipinos, and laborers of other nationalities retained their sense of ethnicity, many of them also felt a new class awareness. As they worked in the fields and mills, as they built working class communities in their camps sharing their different ethnic foods and speaking pidgin English, and as they struggled together against the bosses on the picket lines, they came to understand the contribution they had made as workers to the transformation of Hawai'i . . .⁶

Together with indigenous Hawaiians, the immigrant groups who migrated to Hawai'i developed a strong relationship of shared values:

With the majority of Hawaiians who were planters and fishermen, they shared a respect for the land and a strong reliance on extended family relations. Loyalty, respect, and caring for family elders and the overall well-being of all family members were important values that came to characterize "local" people.

In rural plantation communities, the immigrant workers shared the common experiences of oppressive working conditions, living in plantation camp housing, and being in constant debt to the plantation store. Children of immigrant and Native Hawaiians alike attended Hawai'i's common public schools. There they were socialized by the American school system. The children learned together, ate and shared meals together, and communicated across cultural barriers in pidgin dialect.¹¹

As the sovereignty movement in Hawai'i gains greater attention, an increasing number of descendants of plantation laborers have recognized the injustices committed against indigenous Hawaiians and their political right of self-determination. McGregor confirms that

many "local" people do recognize the right of Native Hawaiians to reestablish an autonomous government. It is viewed as a form of justice and reciprocity to the original inhabitants of the islands. The Hawaiians have a saying, "Aloha mai no, aloha aku." It translates into "When aloha is given, aloha should be returned." Recognition of the right of the Hawaiian people to be sovereign and to perpetuate the culture, language and heritage of their ancestors is a giving back to the Hawaiian people for all that they have given and shared over the past two centuries.¹³

The process of decolonization toward total independence is a status for indigenous Hawaiians to pursue in conjunction with the broader "Local" population. Whether Hawai'i should be an independent country is a decision to be made by all those who identify culturally, socially, economically, and politically with Hawai'i as their only homeland, those who distinguish themselves as being distinct and unique from Americans as well as from the citizens of the nations from which their ancestors originated.¹⁴

Other mainly non-Hawaiian organizations that have endorsed support for the sovereignty movement include the Hawai'i Green Party, the Rainbow Peace Fund, SANE Nuclear Freeze Hawai'i, Life of the Land, Save Our Surf and the American Friends Service Committee. The American Friends have sponsored numerous events supporting sovereignty and have published a book, titled, He Alo A He Alo: Face to Face, which presents views of what sovereignty means to a growing number of indigenous Hawaiians. The American Friends

affirm, support and promote the self-determination of the Hawaiian people and pledge to be a catalyst for change in the existing systems which oppress the Hawaiian people and their culture. We understand culture to mean a set of rules for behavior which is a source of power, strength, organization and meaning to a specific group of people. The seeds of social and economic justice for Hawaiians are rooted in the Hawaiian culture and knowledge. . . .¹⁷

Numerous church organizations in Hawai'i also have been supportive of the sovereignty issue. The Hawai'i Ecumenical Coalition (HEC) is a primarily Hawaiian led coalition of church and Hawaiian community leaders building consensus in support of Hawaiian sovereignty. In 1989, the HEC organized the Hawai'i Declaration, which brought together many church organizations in and outside of Hawai'i to study the negative impact tourism has had on the Native Hawaiian culture and people. In giving back to the Hawaiian people, the United Church of Christ has approved a redress plan of $4.5 million in cash awards and property dedicated to benefit Hawaiians. Rev. Wallace Kuroiwa, chairman of the United Church of Christ Hawaii Apology Task Force, replied, "Yes, it hurts us financially, but redress ought to hurt . . . The Hawaiian community has hurt for 103 years."¹⁹ Other churches in Hawai'i such as the United Methodist Church, the Hawai'i Council of Churches, and the Episcopal Diocese of Hawai'i have formally recognized the Native Hawaiians' right of self-governance and self-determination.

The identity of many Asians in Hawai'i as "local" rather than "Asian American," affirms the closeness of Asians from Hawai'i to the local culture of the islands. Jonathan Okamura explains:

Beyond the use of the term, the concept of Asian American is even less recognized and advanced in Hawai'i. There is essentially an unfamiliarity with the political significance of the concept rather than a conscious disavowal of it. . . .

One of the factors that contributes to the marginality of Asian American identity in Hawai'i is the significance of another panethnic identity which Asian American groups and individuals can affirm, i.e., local identity.²⁰

Since the 1970s, the negative stereotypes placed on Japanese Americans in Hawai'i by other ethnic groups, a consequence of the huge Japanese foreign investment here, and the assumption by many that "local" Japanese economically dominate Hawai'i, has forced the Japanese community to reconsider their identity and place in Hawai'i.²¹ With their acceptance as locals jeopardized, Japanese in Hawai'i

have responded to the backlash against them not by reorganizing themselves to maintain their social status or to advance their collective concerns but by deemphasizing their Japanese American identity. Instead, they can be seen as emphasizing the local dimension of their ethnic identity. In doing so, they reaffirm their social ties with other local groups and to Hawai'i as a special place for them to live, work and maintain family and friendship bonds.²²

Hawaii's role and possibilities for development were not (as most observers have argued) completely circumscribed by its relatively small geographic size and population or limited resources. These limitations, while certainly real, could have been overcome but for the ironclad grip of metropolitan elites (and their local allies) over the development process.²⁵

The Big Five complex are nearly all metropole-owned, while the state and county governments function increasingly as agents of international capital. Every major economic enterprise in Hawaii, from the department stores to the hotels to the paper company to the utilities to the bakeries, is controlled by overseas capital. And, in a related phenomenon, as Hawaii passed from one economic base to another, and increasingly as it moved from plantation agriculture to tourism, local culture and local nuances were swept away . . .²⁶

Hawai'i is encountering a plague of problems that I see as only getting worse. We are rapidly losing green space, beaches and marine life; our sewers are over flowing; our limited water supply is being rapidly depleted; our soil, water and food are found contaminated by toxic chemicals. Hawai'i's economy creates mostly low paying jobs servicing tourism, burdening many local residents with low wages, costly housing, and a cost-of-living 35 percent higher than on the Mainland. Our political process is characterized by personalities over issues, low voter participation, band-aid remedies and trivial reforms, and corrupt links between developers and politicians.³⁰

As a non-Hawaiian activist during the Kalama Valley struggle, Kent sees developments in the Hawaiian sovereignty movement as the "most potent catalyst for change" in Hawai'i.³² He believes a coalition is needed between Hawaiians and non-Hawaiians for sovereignty to be effective:

Ultimately, to be effective, sovereignty calls for a coalition; it will have to be done as a joint project by native Hawaiians and non-Hawaiians and in the name of creating a different Hawaii nei.³³

that sovereignty is a spiritual relationship between oneself and God, one's relationship to the earth and one's relationship to the family of man . . .³⁵

Lastly, as the Asian population in Hawai'i continues to discover that their "local" identity is severely threatened by external forces beyond their control, and as they realize that although they may be provided for today future generations of their children may inevitably suffer the most, Asians in Hawai'i may no longer be able to remain "sitting on the fence." As the 1990s progress a familiar pattern may be resurfacing: Hawaiians and locals, who grew-up together and worked side-by-side on the plantations, who relied, respected and cared for each others' families, and who have kept strong family bonds over the years, may be beginning to reorganize around a central issue they can all work towards. As more and more Kanaka Maoli, local Asians and local haole become aware and educated about the issue of Hawaiian sovereignty, and realize the current state system of governance runs parallel to the abusive system many of their ancestors were raised under, a union between indigenous Hawaiians and non-Hawaiian local residents is needed to reestablish local control in Hawai'i. Sovereignty may be the only hope and means for a better future, for all who identity with Hawai'i as their nation.

¹ Interview with Mililani Trask, June 19, 1996.
[return to text]

² Interview with Marion Kelly, June 29, 1995.
[return to text]

³ The term "haole" in Hawaiian originally meant any foreigner, but evolved to refer to white persons of European and American background with the exception of the Portuguese, who are generally not considered haole in Hawai'i because of their origins as plantation contract laborers.
[return to text]

⁴ Haunani-Kay Trask, From a Native Daughter: Colonialism and Sovereignty in Hawai'i, Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 1993, p. 251.
[return to text]

⁵ This title was taken from a paper by Davianna Pomaika'i McGregor titled, Sovereignty: Hawaiians and Locals, 1994.
[return to text]

⁶ Ronald Takaki, Pau Hana: Plantation Life and Labor in Hawaii (1835-1920), p. 178.
[return to text]

⁷ Ibid.
[return to text]

⁸ Davianna Pomaika'i McGregor, Sovereignty: Hawaiians and Locals, Paper presented at the Association of Asian American Studies Conference, University of Michigan, 1994, p. 12.
[return to text]

⁹ Jonathan Y. Okamura, Why There Are No Asian Americans in Hawai'i: The Continuing Significance of Local Identity, Paper presented at the Ninth National Conference of the Association for Asian American Studies, San Jose, California, May 28-31, 1992, p. 1.
[return to text]

¹⁰ Trask, From A Native Daughter, pp. 89-90.
[return to text]

¹¹ McGregor, Sovereignty: Hawaiians and Locals, pp. 12-13.
[return to text]

¹² Ibid., p. 13.
[return to text]

¹³ Ibid., p. 14.
[return to text]

¹⁴ Ibid., p. 12.
[return to text]

¹⁵ Johan Galtung, Sovereignty, Independence, and the Position of Non-Hawaiians, Matsunaga Institute for Peace: 1995 Spring Symposia Series, University of Hawai'i, February 22, 1995.
[return to text]

¹⁶ Japanese American Citizens League, Report to the JACL Board of Directors, Committee on Self-Determination/Sovereignty, September 17, 1993.
[return to text]

¹⁷ American Friends Service Committee, A Testimony of Self-Determination, Hawai'i Area Program Committee, December 18, 1992.
[return to text]

¹⁸ Greg Wiles, "Sovereignty backers outnumber detractors," Honolulu Advertiser, February 22, 1996.
[return to text]

¹⁹ Mary Adamski, "Church of Christ OKs $4.5 million Hawaiian redress," Star-Bulletin, June 15, 1996.
[return to text]

²⁰ Jonathan Y. Okamura, Why There Are No Asian Americans in Hawai'i: The Continuing Significance of Local Identity, Paper presented at the Ninth National Conference of the Association for Asian American Studies, San Jose, California, May 28-31, 1992, p. 1.
[return to text]

²¹ Ibid., pp. 15-16.
[return to text]

²² Ibid., p. 16.
[return to text]

²³ Ibid., p. 2.
[return to text]

²⁴ Noel J. Kent, Hawaii: Islands Under the Influence, Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1993, p. 186.
[return to text]

²⁵ Ibid., p. 6.
[return to text]

²⁶ Ibid., p. 186.
[return to text]

²⁷ The Honolulu Board of Realtors, Oahu Housing Trends, Second Quarter, 1995.
[return to text]

²⁸ Stuart T.K. Ho, "Moving to the Mainland: Trail of plastic hints at growing migration," Sunday Star-Bulletin and Advertiser, April 19, 1992.
[return to text]

²⁹ State of Hawai'i, State Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism, The State of Hawaii Data Book: 1993-1994 (A Statistical Abstract), p. 490.
[return to text]

³⁰ Ira Rohter, A Green Hawai'i: Sourcebook for Development Alternatives, Honolulu: Na Kane O Ka Malo Press, 1992, p. xxiii.
[return to text]

³¹ Ibid., p. xxv.
[return to text]

³² Kent, Hawaii: Islands Under the Influence, p. 198.
[return to text]

³³ Ibid., pp. 199-200.
[return to text]

³⁴ Ibid., p. 199.
[return to text]

³⁵ Pearl Leialoha Page, "Panel discusses models of Hawaiian sovereignty," Ka Wai Ola O OHA, September 1992, p. 14.
[return to text]