Some forty years ago when the civil rights movement eliminated legally enforced segregation (Jim Crow), we were told repeatedly that this would end ethnic and racial divisions in America. We were all Americans, and we would all share in the benefits of our unique society.

There are some who did not get that message. For years, they have perpetrated and relished the politics of "ethnic identity."

The 50th state

When Hawaii became the 50th state in 1959, there were those who warned that Hawaii's multiple ethnic makeup would make it difficult, if not impossible, for that territory to assimilate into American society.

They were wrong - at least for the first 41 years of Hawaii's statehood. Every year, Hawaiians would mark the anniversary of statehood with parades, fireworks, speeches, and American flags flying high. In 2000, then-Governor Ben Cayetano put an abrupt halt to all that.

In more recent times, John Fund of the Wall Street Journal visited the Hawaiian Islands and found a totally different attitude. Instead of a celebration of the islands' Americanism, the streets there have been taken over by demonstrators crusading for "Native Hawaiian rights," and for the Akaka bill (more on that below).

Ethnic identity: We're not all Americans now

Anyone visiting the beautiful island of Hawaii until recently would have marveled at the harmony and color-blind mentality that has existed there.

Obviously, the multiculturalist busybodies were not about to allow that to stand. No way. They can't have a multiracial society living in harmony. That's not the kind of thing that generates angry voting blocs. Just as politicians desire to have as many poor people out there amongst the populace as possible - the better to keep them angry and vulnerable to the siren songs of the class-hatred mongers - so too are they desirous of having an angry agitating racial minority well-organized so as to enable politicians to play on their fears of injustices, real and imagined. Never mind that polls show Hawaii's opposition to the Native Hawaiian Bill, including among the Native Hawaiians, themselves.
          
Thus, the Akaka Bill 

As this column noted on September 5, 2005, and June 5, 2006, there is legislation pending on Capitol Hill that would lead to the creation of a race-based government - the Native Hawaiian Governing Entity (NHGE) for the estimated 400,000 Native Hawaiians - not just in Hawaii itself - but living throughout all 50 states of the USA.

The Akaka Bill - so named after Hawaii's junior Senator Daniel Akaka - would empower that separate nation's government to negotiate with the U.S. government on a broad range of issues - including criminal and civil justice jurisdiction, civil rights matters, and delegation of powers from the U.S. to the NHGE - as well as transfer of land, natural resources, and other properties.
          
If it ain't broke, fix it anyway

And what defines a "Native Hawaiian"? Anyone who is a direct descendent of the "indigenous people who resided on the islands on or before January 1, 1893," or one of the "native peoples of Hawaii who was eligible in 1921 for programs authorized by the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act or is a direct lineal descendent" of such a person.

When you consider all the intermarriages over the years and the fact - again - that these people are scattered hither and yon all over America, one can imagine that this would - if enacted - lead to more racial conflict and of course, the enrichment of the trial lawyers (might have known they were involved somehow) as a result of legal confusion that would surely follow.

I'm an Indian, too?

Advocates of the Akaka Bill argue that all they're doing is providing the same rights to Native Hawaiians as those accorded the American Indians (or "Native Americans") and Alaska Natives.

A memo written last year by Heritage Foundation scholars Edwin Meese (a former U.S. Attorney General) and Todd Gaziano argues that the analogy does not work.

"Hawaiians [regardless of blood purity] are not and cannot be an American Indian tribe," they write. "The term 'Indian tribes' mentioned in the Constitution has a fixed constitutional meaning that cannot be changed by a simple act of Congress. They are limited to the pre-existing tribes of North America, or their offshoots, that were thought to be 'dependent nations' at the time of the framing of the Constitution. Such American Indian tribes must have an independent existence and predominately separate 'community' apart from the rest of American society, and their government structure must have a continuous history for at least the past century."

"By these standards," Meese and Gaziano conclude, "Hawaiians could never qualify as an Indian tribe."

The status of the bill

On May 2, a House Committee approved the 2007 version of the Native Hawaiian Bill. On May 10, the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs did likewise.

The Bush administration, which had held back from taking any position in public up until then, surprised the senators at the last minute with a position strongly and openly opposing it.

This fall, it is likely the full Congress will take it up for a vote. The question is whether it will pass both houses with a veto-proof majority. If it does not, then a presidential veto would probably kill it, unless enough arms could be twisted to provide the two-thirds majority required to override.
          
What's next?

If this is allowed to sail through - to the total disregard of our Constitution and Bill of Rights - then what will follow? An African-American nation, an Hispanic-American nation? (The latter would feed into the movement in some quarters to take back the southwest U.S. for Mexico.) Chinese American? German American?

Our congressmen and senators need to hear from you. Is the United States of America to be torn asunder?