Ka Wai Ola - Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Volume 21, Number 7, 1 July 2004 — Federal recognition protection, loss of identity, or the demand for all lands. Which is it? [ARTICLE+ILLUSTRATION]

Federal recognition protection, loss of identity, or the demand for all lands. Which is it?

Aloha kākou. Lest any readers remember that the reason I did not write articles in 2003 was because I was disgusted with the abuse by trustees of the opportunity given them to write these columns by attacking and negatively arguing against other trustees, and how in 2004 I concluded that the current trustees were indeed seeking to be civil and respectful of one another in puhlie, thereby allowing me to join back in with them in writing this eolumn, you might wonder why after the last eouple of issues, I continue to write. Indeed, one trustee by specifically, and I might add unjustifiably, going after others has made my previous position somewhat untenable; however, I opt to continue writing about federal recognition and how important it is to Hawaiian sovereignty and survival because I have a duty to do so as a trustee. No trustee of any trust has a duty to repeatedly criticize and argue in puhlie against

other trustees; politicians maybe, but not trustees. Our first and foremost obligation should be to our beneficiaries, not our constituencies. This problem will be resolved with the new governing entity whieh will eliminate the dual role OHA trustees have played of trustee-politicians. And when it comes to commenting on OHA assets, in May trustees were invited to attend a conference sponsored by one of our two investment managers at whieh we were rewarded with a most informative and educational three days. I remain confident in the lead set by our finance chair, Oz Stender, and eoncur with the eoneem for current needs of beneficiaries, as well future needs. By addressing unutilized ineome, whieh has resulted in reduced grants and other expenditures for current beneficiaries, OHA ean increase assistance to beneficiaries today while still continuing to build the trust fund for future beneficiaries, and more especially the

new government. Any talk of new government, however, must be tempered by the fact that a loss in the Supreme Court based upon the Arakaki equal rights argument under the Lourteenth Amendment will eliminate the possibility of any form of Hawaiian government. The United Nations will then be the only recourse, and the likelihood of success there is about as sure as the likelihood of stopping a lava flow with your foot. OHA has a commitment to pursue federal recognition, and absent success there, to continue to underwrite the creation of a governing entity and fight it out in the U.S. Supreme Court until we either win or lose. Lor those who have not taken an interest in what is going on with federal recognition, be advised that to leave as is, is to lose as is. It is exactly what the Arakaki plaintiffs would have us do — nothing, so that they ean proceed to the Supreme Court with no worry that

Congress has recognized the Hawaiian people as an indigenous people and thus win on grounds of equal protection. Then every referenee to Native Hawaiian in the lawbooks will be erased and no more will Hawaiians have any legal identity as an indigenous people with indigenous rights. So what do we do? We seek federal recognition and reject the extremists who would either remove our Hawaiian identity or demand 100 percent return of Hawaii'i to them. Eaeh extreme includes Hawaiians who have good hearts but who have abandoned eommon sense and the law of the land for a variety of reasons, few of them valid or in the best interests of Hawaiians. The reason to press forward for the rest of us is to secure for ourselves and our posterity a future that will benefit most all Hawaiians, not a few, and will preserve something no culture ean exist without, our identity. ■

Boyd P. Mossman Trustee, Maui