Part II, Soverignty: The Hawai‘i Context.  Kūpa‘a ‘āina: Native Hawaiian Nationalism in Hawai‘i.

Dr. Trask argues that with the overthrow of the monarchy and subsequent annexation through usurpation, we witnessed, as Natives, the sociopolitical domination by haole aristocracy – formerly known then (and perhaps now) as the Republican Party.  Eventually, “politically astute and educated Hawaiians” come to support the Democratic Party of opposition and argue for statehood – so that they could go on to capture the Governor’s Office.  (As a territory, the governor was appointed by the president of the United States)  However, kūpa‘a ‘āina means “steadfast to the land,” and Trask criticizes the Democrat-controlled State for the flagrant mismanagement of both Hawaiian trust and ceded lands; giving rise to a post-plantation increase in concentrated land ownership.    

Trask argues that as a result of concentrated land ownership, large aristocratic landlords inflated the price of land and successfully capitalized on the haole/Japanese frenzy for commercial and urban development.  This, I believe, drove the monetary standard of living in Hawai‘i to such high levels that, the many Hawaiians who could no longer afford the overinflated standard were simply forced to either move to the mainland, or as she put it, into small, rural, “economically exploited and culturally suppressed” Hawaiian communities.  To be sure, I live at home in Wai‘anae while I attend school in Mānoa; in other words, I spend about three hours a day in traffic simply because I cannot afford the standard of living in town.  Therefore, Trask’s criticism of concentrated land ownership as a causal influence of Hawaiian displacement is successful because it appeals to me on an empirical level.   

Even more than large aristocratic landlords, Trask criticizes the federal government; namely, the United States military, and the State (for example, OHA) for the continued abuse of Native trust lands.  The numbers found in her essay are particularly disturbing, especially when “By 1998, all applications for pastoral and residential lots on the islands of O‘ahu, Maui, Hawai‘i, Kaua‘i, and Moloka‘i totaled over 29,000 [acres] …while illegal and other non-Native uses existed on more than 130,000 acres of trust lands” (68).  This pisses me off because my mother has been on the list since the 80s, as I watch ‘ohana and friends pass away while waiting patiently wait for their “entitlement.”  Thus, I agree with Trask in that both the federal government and the state government have failed miserably in properly managing Native lands according to trust.

It is clear to me, then, that any entity outside the collective Native conscious will probably abuse the trusts for their own prerogatives, resulting in the continued disposition of Natives.  This is why I agree with Dr. Trask in that Hawaiians need a land base from which the idea of self-governance can become a reality.  A federally recognized “nation-to-nation” status would allow for the possibility of the “restoration of traditional lands, natural resources, ocean and energy resources…including Hawaiian home lands, the ceded lands, and federally held lands” (77) back into the sphere of Native self-governance.

I am, however, not sold on the idea that ka lāhui is the best mechanism for self-government, yet.  Appeals made by Dr. Sai and others (i.e.,the Reinstated Hawaiian Government) are fairly persuasive on their own, and demand earnest examination.

(Aaron C)