FROM A NATIVE DAUGHTER: Part I, Sovereignty: The International Context

Within Part I, Sovereignty: The International Context I have chosen to concentrate more closely to understand the context in which Haunani-Kay Trask addressed the issues that has affected “Hawaiians and Human Rights”, and share more elaborately what I gained from it.  

“Modern Hawai’i”, to Trask is now an era much similar to their supposed “colonial parent the United States”, wherein Hawai’i, since the introduction of modernity is described to be a “settler society”.  “Civil rights” within settler societies is a useful tool, because it helps to “protect settlers against each other and…the state”.  However, for indigenous peoples where ‘civil rights’ exist, “injustices” are also prevalent because it does not protect them from “genocide, land dispossession, language banning, family disintegration, and cultural exploitation”.  Whereas a “Native society[‘s]” culture is described to practice “familial relationships organized by tribes or chiefdoms”, which extends beyond a settler-style nuclear familial relationship, you are interconnected not just between peoples, but with the cosmos and the lands for which sustains our life.  This is a way in which traditional Hawai’i has negatively transformed to a ‘modern’ way of being.  As a result, “colonialism” haunts us still. 

An example through which ‘colonization’ and ‘civil rights’ undermine indigenous peoples instead of settlers is “an imposed colonial structure”, a “settler document that declares ownership over indigenous lands and peoples.” The unconstitutional acts and its underscoring of civil rights are positions in Hawaii’s history of how indigenous lands and peoples were coerced to their ‘colonial parent’.

Within such a framework, indigenous peoples have had to reshape the ways in which they have been living for over thousands of years prior to western contact. With forced 'American constructs', indigenous peoples were further displaced from their own ways of knowing, politically and socially.  Trask adds that in such a case between Native American and Native Hawaiian peoples, Native Americans are, on a federal level, recognized, yet Native Hawaiian people are still rejected, because the US federal government still stand as a legal doctrine in which Native Hawaiian people are not entitled to "any separate legal status". 

Examples in which Native Hawaiians are continually fighting for US federal recognition are as listed by Trask as:

"1. our unique status as Native people;

2. …loss of lands and sovereignty

3. …reparation…through acknowledgement of our land claims to sovereignty…[and] Native government”.   

"Invasion, occupation, and takeover" (ibid) are best described to understanding how Native Hawaiian people have "suffered at the hands of the American government" (ibid).  The overthrow in 1893, "the Provisional Government (1893-1894)", the "Republic of Hawai'i (1893-1898)" to the "eventual appropriation of Hawai'i" describes clearly "violations" under international law. 

   

Another important factor Trask states is "Hawaiians never surrendered their political rights through treaties nor voted on annexation to the United States”; that the sovereignty of the Hawaiian people have succumbed to ‘state’ regulations.  Three prime examples in which we are still today, controlled or "dependent" upon the US state and federal for use of "ceded lands":

1. Department of Hawaiian Home Lands

2. Department of Land and Natural Resources

3. Office of Hawaiian Affairs 

Moreso, four reasons as to why there's reluctance from the state and federal in recognition of “Hawaiian self-determination”:

1. 'Nationality'.

2. Because the US “forced” annexation, their ‘American construct’ assumed Native Hawaiian people automatically changed their citizenship status to that of US, therefore are “equal”.

3. A “notion of ‘prescription’”.  This is oblique, because Hawaiians had their own system of governance prior to and during settler arrival.  Even more, a “century of American control” does not equate nor dismiss this fact!

4. The United States’ racial identity is “superior” to that of any race, which again, is a “racist argument”. 

In 1993, US President, Bill Clinton acknowledged the injustices done to the Native Hawaiians through an apology letter.  That documentation, wherein a document monopolized heavily between settlers and indigenous peoples for control of lands is a mere scheme, for example treaties made between Native American peoples and Euro-settlers (Deloria 1969).  The expression of empathy through the apology, as Trask reminds us, did not help return stolen lands to the people.    

In regard to “’Indigenous’ Human Rights’”, Trask describe how indigenous peoples have united to develop a “Working Group on Indigenous Populations” under the United Nations.  Native American tribes were at the forefront of request.  Because of dedication put forth by indigenous peoples, a ‘Working Group’ formed a “Draft United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples…on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities”.

Regardless of that ‘Draft’, however, the United States still refuse to merge with the UN on human rights, claiming that their Constitution and Civil Rights is logical to protections of US citizens.  An example I can relate to is the “separate but equal” statement in the Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) lawsuit where it was argued that although segregation laws were enforced in the US upon abolition of slavery, so long as there were equal public accommodations between whites and blacks, the ‘separate but equal’ gesture overruled (Epstein and Walker, P. 586-87).  

The framework of the ‘Draft United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples’ (DUNDRIP ) under section ‘Indigenous Human Rights’ primarily seek “to fulfill and provide, through appropriate legal frameworks of participation [in] social services, education, and development of indigenous peoples include:

a. The “Definition” of ‘indigenous peoples’

b. “Human Rights, Self-Determination, and Nationality” in which indigenous peoples, independently or collectively has a ‘human right’ to live in peace with a “fundamental freedom” from any infringement by settlers.

c. “Security, Identity, and Liberty” that determine security of freedom to be “identified” as ‘indigenous’ without subjection from settlers.  

d. “Tradition and Customs, Labor and Media” wherein traditional and customary practices of indigenous peoples continually operate in the ways of their ancestors without settler interruption or interpretation, while establishing their own media representations in their own native languages, to the creation and management of their own labor laws that define themselves socially, politically, and economically indigenous.

e. “Land Rights” wherein settlers ought to give back to all indigenous peoples lands that’s been historically taken from them, so that it may be reoccupied and used for the advancement of indigenous peoples.  In by doing so, indigenous peoples will be able to free themselves from military occupation, and create their own framework for land use and distribution.  

In the case of the Native Hawaiian people attempting to reclaim “independent land base” from the United States, it was during the renaissance era (1970s) when political and cultural leaders in the Hawaiian community began to fight for changes in ways that would benefit indigenous people.  In the section, Trask genealogically writes the historical movements that made it possible for everyone belonging to the Hawaiian race.  From rewriting Hawaiian History in education texts to struggles for a demand of reclaiming stolen lands occupied by militarism and private ownership that restricted public access.  From numerous “offensive actions” by “various movement leaders and organizations”, Hawaiian conch shells were being blown to “awaken” the Hawaiian spirit, “asserting” themselves against the chains of silence that suppressed its culture, and “reinforcing” rights to ‘self-determination.’  

This is the genealogy of indigenous movements against settlers.  “Self-government” was developing in ‘counter-hegemonic’ ways, such as demands for restitution, began to suppress the United States and their military occupation in the Hawaiian Islands.  The formation of “Ka Lāhui Hawaiʻi” (ibid) and a reinstalled concept of “aloha ʻāina” were leading its people toward discussing ways in which sovereignty and self-government may be accomplished.  Through its leadership and commitment, the Native Hawaiian people, as Trask articulates, ought not to allow the “yoke of oppression” remain shackled to our bodies.  To allow ‘Ka Lāhui Hawaiʻi’ to continue leading its people, the indigenous peoples from the Kingdom of Hawai’i, with international law support, to adopt a drafted “Master Plan”, similar to that of a “nation-within-a-nation model” of our Native American cousins will protect the future of our people.