That's why hard

Why are Native Hawaiian issues so hard to deal with?

-Ian Lind (www.iLind.net)

[From Honolulu Weekly, May 7-13, 2008]

It’s no coincidence that the 2008 legislative session was bookended by thorny issues involving competing views of Hawaiian rights. The session opened with the announcement of a deal between the Lingle administration and the Office of Hawaiian Affairs for a proposed ceded lands settlement which bogged down and eventually failed in what amounted to hand-to-hand political infighting. And the session ended 3-1/2 months later while next door at Iolani Palace a group representing itself as the Hawaiian Kingdom Government took over the palace grounds, posted “No Trespassing” signs and warned visitors that it was now a Hawaiians-only space.

In the absence of a complete road map of what’s going on behind the scenes, it’s useful to keep in mind some of the broader historical and political dynamics that complicate matters when dealing with things Hawaiian.

First, there’s the overthrow thing. The demise of the independent Hawaiian nation is history, but not ancient history. Bitter feelings about the overthrow are three decades fresher than the Civil War that divided northern and southern states on the mainland, and there’s no doubt that vestiges of that earlier conflict still color politics in large parts of the U.S. Are we any different?

I’m no Stars and Bars fan, but I certainly understand that emotional baggage from historical conflicts can linger for generations, sometimes centuries. The echoes of the crusades in the contemporary Middle East should put an end to any doubts on this score. In historical terms, 1893 is relatively recent history, especially in an island community where mobility is limited and collective memories long.

Then there’s the kingdom thing, in my view separate if not distinct from the overthrow. In Hawaii, for good or ill, the previous independent government was a monarchy, and dreams of reclaiming independence are all too often inextricably linked to that form of government.

Although proponents see “sovereignty” as a way to escape the more destructive aspects of America’s advanced military-industrial-educational-complex, against the backdrop of the Hawaiian Kingdom it also reverts to the idea of a sovereign, a monarch wielding supreme power as was the case in the heyday of the kingdom. [Text in bold type was edited out and did not appear in Honolulu Weekly's print version of this story.]

The royal impulse is alive and well, with a number of groups claiming to be the “real” heirs of the kingdom, while others, such as the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, claiming a more modern leadership mandate. Put them all together and a deal such as the ceded lands settlement offered up by one set of players can be seen as a threat to the prospects of the others. 

And then there’s also the partisanship thing. Let’s not forget that in the decade after the overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom in 1983, many Hawaiians followed Prince Kuhio into the Republican Party, becoming a key element in the Republican’s plantation-based political coalition that ruled the islands prior up until 1954. As a result of this marriage of convenience, Republicans stayed in power and Hawaiians benefited from the patronage that flowed their way.

During the first half of the 20th century, this was reflected in the over representation of Hawaiians in the ranks of public employees, whether as police officers, firefighters, teachers, or clerks. When you entered a government office, you were likely to see a Hawaiian face. But after Democrats became the political majority after 1954, patronage changed course and began flowing to local the Japanese who were the backbone of the party and quickly took over many of the jobs that had previously gone to Hawaiians.

The battle for Hawaiian hearts and minds has continued as Senator Dan Inouye has succesfully channeled huge amounts of federal funding into a network of nonprofit organizations serving the Hawaiian community, providing needed services while at the same time planting political obligations.

Those who have benefited from this federal largess naturally see it at a positive response to real social problems, while those who feel left out and without any stake in the system see it as a cynical way of buying off sectors of the community.

Finally, there’s the island thing. We live on a few small islands in a remote part of the Pacific, where the constraints of geography limit mobility and intensify personal, family, and community histories and entanglements. In a place where what high school you attended is considered meaningful information that follows you for life, it should be no wonder that political issues can quickly turn personal, making issue-oriented resolutions all that more difficult.

Throw all these things together and you’ve got a potent brew of historic rivalries, partisan perspectives, interpersonal conflicts, and diverse groups competing for legitimacy.

Take the proposed ceded lands settlement. There were some real problems, including a lack of effective communication and questionable due dilgence, but OHA is under pressure to reach a deal before conservative challengers hits a receptive right wing court and pull the plug on Hawaiian programs. But it’s obvious that OHA is seen as illegitimate by a vocal segment of the Hawaiian community that is likely to reject any OHA-brokered deal. A successful OHA deal increases that agency’s chances to be the governing authority of a future Hawaiian political entity, to the detriment of royal wannabes and other potential claimants. Others suspect, rightly or wrongly, that this deal was struck to make both the governor and the trustees look good in an election year rather than to get the best deal for Hawaiians. And the tensions between current and former OHA trustees staking out opposing positions can’t be ignored.

Governor Lingle blamed a handful of legislators for the collapse of the ceded lands deal. I just wish it were that simple.