DAVID INGHAM, RENOWN AUTHORITY ON FEDERAL RECOGNITION, RESPONDS TO MISINFORMATION IN A MAUI NEWS EDITORIAL -
I'm always amazed that so many people who support the Akaka bill know so little of what it does and what it is . Your editorial "Hawaiians need status" is a case in point. First you correctly tell your readers the political and legal standing of Hawaiians that will come from the bill is permanent:
"The so-called Akaka Bill is the best hope for giving Native Hawaiians permanent, legal and political standing as an indigenous people within the framework of U.S. law."
But then , in the very next paragraph, imply to your readers that it isn't permanent:
" Native Hawaiians who oppose the Akaka Bill mistakenly believe it would prevent any future attempts at regaining sovereignty. It will not."
The United States has done anyone considering federal recognition under the terms of the bill a great service by spelling out exactly what the facts are regarding permanence :
Title 25 United States Code Chapter 3 subchapter 1 Section 71:
"No Indian nation or tribe within the territory of the United States shall be acknowledged or recognized as an independent nation, tribe, or power ...."
Then, you close your article with another inaccuracy. You imply to your readers that federal recognition will be the salvation of Hawaiian people and culture:
"The passage of the Akaka Bill in Congress would be a giant step toward assuring the preservation of the Hawaiian people and their culture..."
The historical record is clear that federal recognition is the single most debilitating factor for both people and their cultures existing under federal recognition. I recommend that next time you get your information from the horses mouth. The Indian Affairs committee puts out an annual budget request called the Views and estimates letter that spells out just how these peoples and cultures are doing. Please take the time to read the fiscal '05 request: http://indian.senate.gov/fy05views.pdf
Also, There is an exhaustive study that the United States Civil Rights Commission put out last year in July titled "A Quiet Crisis, Federal Funding and Unmet Needs in Indian Country". Please take the time to read it: http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/na0703/na0731.pdf
Rhetoric on the subject of federal recognition, like your editorial, is cheap and abundant. However, in years of research I have been unable to find one objective report extolling the virtues of federal recognition. I would dearly love to see the information relied on in writing the editorial.
I suspect there is none.
There is no question Hawaiians are entitled to preference and other considerations because of acts against the Hawaiian race. But let's not add permanent domestic dependency of the heretofore multi ethnic Hawaiian nation and permanent federal wardship of Kanaka Maoli in order to secure the justice they are entitled to.
Malama Pono,
David Ingham
San Francisco Ca.
