Ka Wai Ola - Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Volume 7, Number 1, 1 January 1990 — Editorial lt's your vote 'who is Hawaiian' [ARTICLE]

Editorial lt's your vote 'who is Hawaiian'

TraditionaI Hawaiian culture cherished and nurtured the extended family. Unlike most cultures, Hawaiians recognized themselves as literally one people, one family: "Ho'okahi No Maua Ewe." When OHA was constituted, however, two classes of Hawaiians were named under state law: • those Hawaiians who are 50 percent or more native blood; and • those Hawaiians who are less than half native blood. Only those who are 50 percent or more ean now enjoy OHA trust benefits. Funds to serve "other" Hawaiians must eome from the state legislature. Since OHA was created in 1978 it has not received the full pro rata share of the ceded land trust to whieh it is entitled. It is this trust revenue whieh funds benefits to native Hawaiians. The original source of this division is the federal Hawaiian Homes Act of 1920 that has a 50 percent blood requirement. As the act was being considered in Congress, every Hawaiian testifying — including Territorial Sen. John Wise and Delegate Pnnee Jonah Kuhio Kalanianaole — spoke against any "blood quantum" definition. But the divide and conquer motives of island sugar planters prevailed. Having first separated Hawaiians from the land by the mahele, they then separated us from eaeh other. Will this referendum "break" the OHA trust? No. This referendum for a single beneficiary class definition to include aU Native Hawaiians anticipates a larger, better defined trust. This will be achieved through OHA's continuing negotiations on OHA's ceded land trust entitlements with Gov. John Waihee. This trust would clarify the public, native Hawaiian and less-than-half-Hawaiian interests. A clear identification of these trust interests will improve their overall integrity and accountability. Remember, to amend a state law does not break that law. Nor does it break a federal or state trust. The decision to change this law is ours to make as Hawaiians. An understanding of why blood quantum has become such a controversial issue among Hawaiians today begins with the events just before and after 1920. When the Hawaiian Homes Act was introduced in Congress, many Hawaiian leaders lobbied for all Hawaiians to be eligible for land allotments. When pushed to set a quantum, Prince Kuhio argued for only l/32nd fraction Hawaiian blood. He wanted I all Hawaiians to benefit from land allotments. Yet ; the business and sugar interests of the day op-

posed the bill, in that form, and thus the requirement of 50 percent was established. Hawaiians, at the time, never endorsed the idea of a percentage requirement because it had no basis in Hawaiian culture. Section 5(f) of the Admissions Act of 1959 created the ceded lands trust for five purposes, only one of whieh was "for the betterment of eonditions of native Hawaiians as defined in the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act." This is how two classes of Hawaiians were created. It is noteworthy that, because of the homestead act, the new state government did not acknowledge any trust responsibility to Hawaiians of less than half native blood. It was as if half a people did not exist. OHA is often accused by its detractors as being a creation of the state and not of the Hawaiian people. The fact is OHA is unlike other state agencies, being semi-autonomous. It does not report to either the governor or the state legislature. OHA is one of the few agencies allowed to hold title to land. Furthermore, OHA was created to serve as a receptacle for reparations to the Hawaiian people, when and if reparations are ever made. Most important, OHA is led by trustees of Hawaiian ancestry elected exclusively by Hawaiians. In 1988, 48,238 Hawaiians voted for OHA trustees. That's 76 percent of those registered to vote in OHA's elections. This is very close to the 79.87 percent turnout of registered voters statewide who voted in the 1988 general election. The present plebiscite being conducted by OHA must be recognized as the first time since the end of the kingdom that Hawaiians have been asked to define "Who is Hawaiian?" Some groups and individuals have been encouraging Hawaiians to remove their names from the OHA voter registration list or to tear up their plebiscite ballots. To give up the right to vote on this matter is to lose one's voice for self-determination and to turn one's back on the future of the Hawaiian people. When the federal government enacted the Hawaiian Homes Act in 1920 and adopted the Admission Act (statehood) in 1959, it only provided for Hawaiians of 50 percent or more Hawaiian blood. When the state constitution was amended in

1978 to create the Office of Hawaiian Affairs again funds were only provided for 50 percent Hawaiians. However, OHA is mandated to better the conditions of all Hawaiians. The state must be required to carry out its responsibility. Some say OHA was created to foster assimilation and further the state's goals of maintaining plenary power over Hawaiians. That is untrue. It was the goal of the legislature that OHA bring about the full participation of Hawaiians in modern society as equals. This does not mean as an assimilated people without a cultural identity. It is the mission of OHA to strengthen and maintain the Hawaiian people and their culture as powerfuI and vital components in society. One of OHA's goals is to achieve the full participation of Hawaiians in political processes. "Ho'okahi No Maua Ewe." We are one people. The Office of Hawaiian Affairs urges the elimination of artificial barriers erected by others. Vote "yes" in the referendum to establish a single definition of Native Hawaiian.