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.
