Aztlan and the Akaka Bill Revisited

In the Hawaii Reporter, Don Newman writes a follow up to his earlier commentary about the Akaka bill as a precedent for the Nation of Aztlan, based on the "huge and unforeseen response" it engendered.

One thing Newman says:

What is truly interesting about this whole scenario is the opposition to the bill upon the part of those that support complete sovereignty for the Hawaii nation. They consider the Akaka Bill a half measure that will rob them of their rightful claims to a sovereign nation completely separate from the United States.

He cites a few examples, and goes on to say:

These are just a few points that sovereignty supporters object to. They are often the same points that opponents of the Akaka Bill who believe it is utterly unconstitutional often cite. In this, the phrase “politics makes strange bedfellows” is made manifest. Both sides recognize the failure for different reasons. Both are correct.

Well, I agree with him except for the last point. Though our opposition to the Akaka bill sometimes converges, I believe many of their arguments against it are not correct simply because they come from a false premise, namely that the U.S. ever acquired sovereignty in Hawaii and that the U.S. constitution is relevant in determining who is or isn't Hawaiian.

Newman also quotes Poka Laenui regarding his definition of Hawaiian, which concludes with: "Ultimately, it defines my loyalty and citizenship in the sovereign nation of Hawaii." Newman says in response, "If one agrees with the political objectives then one is deemed, 'Hawaiian'..." I would argue that citizenship/nationality goes beyond whether one agrees with political objectives. A U.S. citizen is such regardless of agreement with "political objectives" of the United States, or even belief in its existence. While allegiance may play a role in acquiring or changing one's nationality, nationality that is acquired by birth (jus soli) does not depend on any belief or agreement. Hawaiian nationals are Hawaiian nationals because of laws, and even those who may not agree with certain political objectives are still Hawaiian nationals. To put it another way, if at one time someone doesn't support independence, and then later he learns more about the history and comes to believe in independence and believe that he is a Hawaiian national, his nationality doesn't suddenly change based on his beliefs. He always was a Hawaiian national, he just came to realize and understand it. One's nationality is based on laws, not on beliefs.

For more on this subject, I highly recommend reading An Interdisciplinary Study of the Term "Hawaiian" (PDF) by Dr. Kanalu Young, Associate Professor at UH-Manoa, in the Hawaiian Journal of Law and Politics, Vol 1 (Summer 2004). An excerpt:

Through the work of our diligent ancestors in the 19th-century and their foreign advisers, today's aboriginal Hawaiians by blood, the `Oiwi, are Hawaiian by nationality. In this context, the term Hawaiian does not define an ethnicity or a cultural group. Neither does it define the descendants of the first human settlers in these islands exclusively. Instead, Hawaiian, without an adjective that modifies the meaning of the noun to indicate race or ancestry, simply identifies the citizenry of the country Hawaii. It is here that historicism and presentism dovetail. The nationality is political. The ethnicity is not. The Hawaiian kingdom's majority population of nationals was and is of `Oiwi descent. From 1842 on the term Hawaiian meant "of the nation of Hawaii." This included people of European (English, French, German, Swiss) ethnicity and Asian (Chinese, Japanese, Korean) descent who became subjects of the Hawaiian Crown by denization or birth. After Hawaii became a member of the international community as a recognized nation state, all such individuals were Hawaiian nationals, particularly phrased given the government's structure: Hawaiian kingdom subjects, abbreviated to Hawaiian.

And Hawaiian Nationality: Who Comprises the Hawaiian citizenry? (PDF) by David Keanu Sai.

[I]t can be stated as a matter of law and based on contemporary examples, that the Hawaiian citizenry of today is comprised of descendants of Hawaiian subjects and those foreigners who were born in the Hawaiian Islands prior to 1898.

Posted: Fri - June 17, 2005 at 09:59 AM

getBlogName(); > getCategoryName("C608676235"); >

Aztlan and the Akaka Bill Revisited

> >