The editorial written by Office of Hawaiian Affairs' Trustee Haunani Apoliona in The Honolulu Advertiser on July 27, 2006, taking Cliff Slater and Leon Siu to task for daring to question OHA’s newfound effort to establish a sovereign Native Hawaiian entity in the face of the defeat of the Akaka bill is a study in disingenuous tactics. These are classic examples of debating techniques that are common on the left and by those who cannot answer their opponents on facts alone.

Apoliona starts with a series of personal attacks questioning the character of those she is criticizing. A portion of Apoliona’s opening sentence “... both are ill-informed, and their shared mean-spirited and paternalistic tone is continuing evidence of the mindset. ...“ So already both have been tarred with a brush that includes being “ill-informed, mean-spirited” and as having a “paternalistic tone,” which is supposed to be evidence of something. Notice though that these are not facts but opinions portrayed as facts. In logic this is called Poisoning the Well.

The next interesting aspect in Apoliona’s diatribe is the use -- twice -- of the word “collective” to describe the intentions of the purpose of the Native Hawaiian governing entity. On the one hand is the idea is a political body is formed to represent “collective interests” and on the other is producing a “collective Native Hawaiian voice.” Only problem is there is no such thing as “collective interests” and even more emphatically, no “collective voice.”

What is meant by a “collective voice?” The Native Hawaiian community does not speak today with a collective voice. There were those among that community who wanted the passage of the Akaka bill, some who opposed it because they advocate complete secession from the USA and some who simply consider themselves Americans and don’t see themselves separate at all. They see themselves as individual citizens.

Lacking such a consensus within the Native Hawaiian community itself how can anyone claim to speak for its collective voice? The fact is he or she cannot. If the failures of socialism and communism have taught us anything it is to beware of those who claim to speak for the “collective.”

This last point is expanded upon by another statement in Apoliona’s remarks “This entity will work to protect the programs, lands and assets that serve Native Hawaiians, will include 'ohana living away from the homeland. ...” Not only are Native Hawaiian residents of the islands going to be the concern of this new government but those who aren’t even on the “reservation” so to speak.

This leads to the question of how OHA is going to administer programs for Native Hawaiian residents in Nevada or Oregon. Would this violate the laws of those states? Will there be lawsuits? Who can say? But it does reveal that these are grandiose plans indeed.

The final assertion in this section is that “[This] will establish and grow partnerships benefiting Native Hawaiians and all who live in Hawai'i.”

How will this benefit those who aren’t part of the Native Hawaiian governing entity, Native Hawaiian and otherwise? If there is anything that people who advocate such programs assert is that life is a “zero sum” game (isn’t that the whole premise here?). If someone gains, someone else must lose. So who loses in the new Native Hawaiian governing entity?

One of the major points in Slater’s column was that land and property that would become subject to the Native Hawaiian governing entity would be removed from the state tax base, leaving state taxpayers to make up the difference. Apoliona later calls this “speculation” and an “attempt to scare people” but since the Native Hawaiian governing entity template imitates Native American Tribal law, this is completely accurate. This is how that law works. That is what casinos are all about.

Apoliona then accuses Slater and Siu of getting their facts wrong while doing so herself.

“The Supreme Court has confirmed that Congress has broad plenary constitutional authority to recognize indigenous governments and to help restore and restructure indigenous governments terminated or effectively decimated in earlier years. (See Lara, U.S. Supreme Court.”)

The Hawaiian Monarchy was not, from its inception, an “indigenous government.” It included residents from nations from all over the world that participated in the government. It permitted foreigners to become residents, something not allowed on Native American tribal lands. When the Monarchy fell it was a multi-racial government embracing those from many nationalities. This is not the definition of a tribe or an indigenous government.

The Monarchy wasn’t “terminated by Congress” (the full phrase referred to by Apoliona) nor “effectively decimated in earlier years.” It was weakened by acts of several Hawaiian Kings and finally overthrown by a consortium of local residents (not all Americans despite common wisdom) predicated upon actions to impose a new, illegal, constitution on the part of the Queen.

The next assertion by Apoliona, a “review of the Apology Resolution” only perpetuates a revisionist view of what didn’t really happen at the time of the overthrow in favor of what really did. The Apology Resolution doesn’t represent fact but is a politically prepared document to codify into law what commission after commission determined was not the truth. (The Morgan Report and the Native Hawaiians Study Commission.)

In this regard, there is a phrase used by Apoliona that has been somewhat validated by the Apology Resolution that is at the heart of this discussion “Native Hawaiians are ready to lead and guide the shared participation and shared responsibility of all Hawai'i in reconciling the wrongs of the past.”

First is the concept of “reconciling the wrongs of the past.” All “past” history is filled with wrongs. Where do we draw the line? When do we say “That is so far in the past that we can no longer reconcile that wrong?” Who do we give Manhattan back to? How do we assess a value? Why one group as opposed to another? This whole concept is rife with unanswerable questions. Fact is, no one who was done that wrong (the overthrow) is alive today. If they are, give them reparations, not a nation. Finally, it wasn’t done by the U.S. government (or agents thereof) no matter what the Apology Resolution says.

Second is the idea of the “shared participation and shared responsibility of all Hawaii in reconciling the wrongs of the past.” Notice the segue here, the “collectivism” of responsibility as opposed to the collectivism of “interests” and “voice.” So what began as a collective implementation of government programs now becomes a collective responsibility of all the residents of Hawaii, even those who don’t agree with it. Socialism is a slippery animal, isn’t it?

As Cliff Slater wrote “Native Hawaiians who believe that the United States harmed them through its actions at the time of the overthrow should look to the United States for compensation, not to Hawai'i's other citizens.”

Apoliona just glossed over this statement because it doesn’t fit in with her program. Not “all Hawaii” wants to pay for her collectivist solution but all Hawaii must be a part if it is to fit her vision. One has to ask what that vision is.

OHA has been in existence for 26 some odd years, sits upon a huge pile of money and has been extraordinarily ineffective in helping the Native Hawaiian people it has been chartered to succor. One has to ask why Native Hawaiians are homeless on the Waianae coast while OHA Trustees are flying first-class to Washington to lobby for the Akaka bill. What would be the better administration of those dollars, housing or plane flights?

The failure of the federal government, the state of Hawaii and OHA to address the needs of Native Hawaiians cannot be overlooked. But the solution is not to empower another group of people to take millions upon millions of dollars of federal and state money to create yet another agency, a new “sovereign” government that by all past experience will do nothing but waste the people’s money and create another self-serving bureaucracy.

If Native Hawaiians really want solutions to their problems, they need to look for another answer. Experience points the way if Native Hawaiians have but the courage to look.

Reference: http://tinyurl.com/f58c5

Don Newman, senior policy analyst for the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii can be reached at: mailto:don@grassrootinstitute.org