NATIVE HAWAIIAN BENEFITS ARE ALREADY IN PLACE - SO WHY ARE THEY TRYING TO SHOVE THE AKAKA BILL DOWN OUR THROATS ?
Saturday, January 22, 2005 - The Honolulu Advertiser
In the Jan. 7 article "McCain could block vote on Native Hawaiian bill," you noted that the U.S. senator stated that when Hawai'i attained statehood, "there was an implicit agreement at that time that Native Hawaiians would not receive the same status as Native Americans."
I also oppose the bill, but for different reasons than McCain, who has it wrong.
As a condition of admission to the union, Hawaiian entitlements were to be protected by the state of Hawai'i. The State Admission Act details five purposes for the income from the leases of the so-called ceded lands (which were stolen from the kingdom of Hawai'i), including "the betterment of the conditions of Native Hawaiians."
Also, the Hawai'i Constitution states that these lands shall be held by the state in trust for Native Hawaiians and the general public, which means that the designation of Native Hawaiians as beneficiaries of the trust shows that they are entitled to benefits over and above any other state citizens.
These trust benefits are the least of our entitlements because our unadjudicated sovereignty claims expose the lack of federal title to any of those lands in the first place.
J. Kehaulani Kauanui
Middleton, Conn.
