Ka Wai Ola - Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Volume 26, Number 8, 1 August 2009 — Did statehood benefit Native Hawaiians? [ARTICLE+ILLUSTRATION]

Did statehood benefit Native Hawaiians?

— As Hawai'i marks 50 years ofstatehood, \ Native Hawaiian leaders weish in

\ lnterviewed by Lisa Asatū | Public lnfūrmatiūn Specialist A On June 27, 1959, Hawai'i voters overwhelming vot- ■ ed to ratify a congressional vote to grant Hawai'i statehood. Out of 140,744 ballots cast in the territory, the H "yes" votes accounted for 94 percent and the "no" votes M almost 6 percent. The vote was 132,773 to 7,971 -aratio W of almost 17-to-l. ' Five decades later, the question of whether Native Hawaiians benelitted from statehood may not be so clear. When Ka Wai Ola asked various Native Hawaiian leaders.

"Was statehood good for Native Hawaiians?" the question almost always produced answers that more often expressed both benelits and detriments, rather than a full-fledged "yes" or "no."

'lmai Kalahele Poet, sculptor andpainter In 1959, he was a studcnt at Stcvenson Intermediate. • For me, the answer is no. It's simple because again it has to do with what was the history that led up to the point that all of a sudden we became a part of this big eolo-

nial monster that was supposed to be our savior. For me, statehood was like the period at the end of the sentence ... and we became American. And for me that's a problem. • If we look at Hawaiian Studies (at the University of Hawai'i), some could say statehood made this happen. But statehood didn't make that happen. A bunch of Hawaiians who went to school and got educated said, "We need our own system." That's how it happened. . . . We Hawaiians have been able to do this despite the fact that there was no Hawaiian language offered to us in schools from grade school to the university system. Did statehood do this? No, the hunger for Hawaiians to be Hawaiians did that, and that's why it's still growing. So if you ask me, "What have we gained?" We never gain nothing. We're still regaining what we had, but we have started. Foundation. And against all the adversities, that was the trick - nobody handed us nothing. We had to invent curriculums, we had to force people to sit down and take us seriously.

Dr. Kekuni Blaisdell Convenor of Kanaka Maoli Tribunal Kōinike, a sovereignty group Professor eineritus andfounding ehainnan, UH fohnA Burns School of Medicine In 1959, he was servmg with the Aiomie Bomb Casualty Commission in Japan • No, it was not. We have the highest, drug abuse, incarceration, homelessness, school drop-out rates, compared to non-Kanaka settlers in our homeland. • I ean see that on the surlaee, in certain respects, the benefits from statehood. My classmate (Daniel) Akaka is the first kanaka

to become a U.S. senator, that's a notable achievement, so I can't deny that. But he's an American and he's pursuing the Akaka Bill, whieh attempts to make us into American Indians, whieh we are not and he's doing that in an attempt to save us against further lawsuits against Kamehameha Schools, and OHA and Hawaiian Homes. • The United States illegally took our nation, overthrew our queen in 1893 in violation of treaties and international law, whieh the United States admitted in the Apology Resolution of 1993. And in 1898 the U.S. illegally annexed our nation in violation again of international law, by resolution of Congress in spite of the objections of our people in the Kū'ē petitions. ... In 1959, the United States further violated international law when it proceeded with the statehood process and failed to inform our people that in 1946 the United Nations placed our homeland on the United Nations list of non-self-governing territories, that is, colonies eligible for decolonization. Instead, the United States proceeded with a plebiscite in 1959 with only two options on the ballot: immediate statehood or remain a territory, whereas in international law at the time required that there be three ehoiees: one, a preferred, was independence. Second, remain incorporated. Third, something in between, so-called free-association.

Davianna McGregor University of Hawai'i ethnic studies professor, activist with Protect Kaho 'olawe 'Ohana and other groups In 1959, she was a stu dent at St. Theresa School in Pālama, O'ahu. • Everyone in Hawai'i experienced an improved material standard of lile because of statehood, including Native Hawaiians. But on balance I think what happened was a lot of the development that statehood engendered - the uncontrolled development of tourism, not only Waikīkī, but especially when it began to impact on our Neighbor Islands ... placed a burden on Native Hawaiians lamilies in rural communities. Resorts began to transform rural eommunities that had previously been bypassed by eeonomie change, by plantations and development, and I think Hawaiians bore the burden of that progress. What we see after statehood, too, is the disparity between Hawaiians and others widen in terms of eeonomie conditions. • The changes that statehood brought was a catalyst for Native Hawaiians to organize to protect our lands, culture, language and rights because of the assault on our

lands and resources from developments that happened with the investment that eame into Hawai'i after statehood. I (For example.) l increased military ) activity after state- 7 hood was a cata- ■ lyst for the Protect -= Kaho'olawe 'Ohana to orga- - nize to demand to ■ stop military use of ■ Kaho'olawe, and t that extended into

the (eflorts to) stop military abuse of native lands at Mākua and Pōhakuloa and other lands that military conducts training exercises on. • A lot of the Native Hawaiian organizations that began organizing in 1969, '70s focused on getting Hawaiians elected to the '78 Constitutional Convention. At that point, you do have a lot of really positive amendments benelitting Native Hawaiians: Hawaiian language recognized as an ol'heial state language, Native Hawaiian traditional rights as tenants, especially access over private and publie lands for subsistence and eultural reasons. The Constitution sets up OHA to manage the revenues for the benelit of the conditions of Native Hawaiians, it also sets up the Kūpuna Program, mandates Hawaiian language and studies be a part of the curriculum in the schools and universities. Those are all really positive changes.

nPeter Apo Cultural tourism consultant, kumu hula, musician, fonner OHA trustee andfonner state lawmaker In 1959, he was a stuclent at Oregon Statc University. • In the large scale, it's been better because we didn't have capacity 50 years ago. We had zero Hawaiian heahh, we didn't have money to build homes, health or education entitlements, native gathering rights, the Ol'hee

ol' Hawaiian Affairs, Hawaiians in positions ol' responsibility in both the private and the public sector. AU ol' that has been positive and good. Statehood has allowed us to climb back into the mainstream, so to speak, but we're still struggling on how to strengthen our position in the mainstream eeo-

nomically and in every other way. • I don't think statehood has made a difference one way or another in our cultural (sensibilities). The culture is already in our DNA. . . . We do h to celebrate ourselves. That I don't think has changed. What has changed, is the culture has proliferated pretty dramatically over the last 50 years: more hula, more hālau, more art and music going on today than since the queen was overthrown, and that has been very good. And look at the progress we made in the language. The kids speaking the language in immersion schools. That's all good things. ... Where we haven't made as mueh progress as we'd like to is in eonvincing the tourist industry to provide many more legitimate opportunities for us to express our eulture into the market.

Walter Heen OHA trustee In 1959, he was practicing law and scrving as a mcmber of the territorial House of Representatives. • First you need to deline "good" because that establishes the measure. II' your measurement is based on individual success, or the opportunity for individual success, then statehood was probably

good because it opened up doors for moving up the eeonomie ladder. II' the measure is broad-based in terms ol' good for Hawaiians as a group, then the answer is problematic and diffieult to answer. As a statistical group, I believe that one would have to say that Hawaiians' ineome, home ownership, etc„ while still lagging behind other groups, have improved and, therefore, state-

hood has been good. 01' course, many other considerations weight the scale in different directions. For example, the advancement ol' Hawaiians' eeonomie wellbeing still lags behind several other groups. Therefore, you would have to conclude that statehood has not been good for them. Psychologically, however, I think that many Hawaiians believe that they are now further removed from their culture and traditions and, therefore, statehood has not

been good. Even based on that "measurement," it is diffieult to answer the question, because some Hawaiians put more weight on re-establishment ol' the culture than others do.

Former Gov. John Waihe'e First state governor of Hawaiian ancestry In 1959, he was a sixth grader living in Honoka'a, Hawai'i • Given where we've found ourselves and where Native Hawaiians were in terms ol' selfdetermination and cultural revival in 1959, 1 would say yes, state-

hood was an improvement. ... But sometimes when people ask that question, they seem to imply that statehood being good means that the historieal events ol' 100 years ago is somehow justified. and that's absolutely wrong. • Every time there was a change in status there was an opportunity for Hawaiians. Yes, (change in status) is good, but at a certain point whatever good you ean get out ol' it is over, and I think that with the territorial days it was about 1930 or so. So we needed to go into statehood. II' we didn't, we would have stagnated. And now we have many, many things that happened for the benelit ol' Hawaiians under statehood, the whole self-determi-nation, cultural renaissance movement, whieh we start to see especially the '70s, '80sand '90s, where OHA is established, Kaho'olawe is returned, all ol' these things happened essentially because ol' the change in polhieal status that as a state we're more able to secure. But we're also beginning to see a backlash against Hawaiians politically. You're beginning to see ehallenges to Hawaiians rights and entitlements. ... And unless we ean move to another level, then we're going to stagnate in statehood too. ... II' you understand this historical perspective, then to me, statehood has played its way out. This hand is played. We need to take the next step, and that's why the Akaka Bill is so important.

Gov. John Burns ond Doniel Akaka in 1974. Akokū heeome the first Howoiion to be elected to the U.S. Senote, o position he's held for olmosttwo decodes. - Photo: Courtesy of īhe Honolulu Advertiser

[?]

In Jonuory 1993, marchers protested the overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom as they head toword the 'loloni Palaee grounds. - Photo: Courtesy of īhe Honolulu Ādvertiser

State Reps. Wūlter Heen, on left, and brother Ernest Nalani Heen Jr., on right, ore joined by theirfother, City Councilman Ernest Nalani Heen Sr., ūt the opening doy of the stote legislature in 1963. - Photo: Courtesy of Walter Heen

Below: Then-Gov. lohn Wūihe'e ūt the Stūte of the State speech in 1987, with former Govs. George Ariyoshi, on left, and William Quinn. - Photo: Courtesy of īhe Honolulu Advertiser. Inset: Wuihe'e toduy. - Photo: LisaAsato