| [Normally
these columns are scheduled to appear every other Sunday in the Kauai
Garden Island News.The final published version may vary from this text
as TGI retains the right to correct and edit the material. The
copyright to the published version is held by TGI owner Kauai
Publishing. Some material in TGI columns may have appeared on
www.islandbreath.org already.]
Part 2: History & Justice
by Juan Wilson on 4 May 2008 Revision 4.2 080510
This
week’s column is the second of a two part article. Part I concerned
Hawaiian history and dealt with the sequence of events regarding land
rights and Hawaiian sovereignty. The period discussed was from the
first Anglo-American contact in 1778 to today. Part 2 will draw lessons
from that history.
Introduction
It should be understood that this is my personal interpretation of the
historic record. As part of their own education and dialog on the
subject, readers are encouraged to formulate their opinions and express
them.
This article assumes there will be justice for the nation of Hawaii in
time. The question examined here is: If the occupation of Hawaii were
undone, what nation state would Hawaii choose? How does historic study
lead us to a beter understanding?
Based on the interpretation of history, there are several end nation
state outcomes possible. It is important to identify the validity,
options and continuity of the island nation through history in order to
reach the best results for Hawaii in the future.
History
It is a complicated and difficult task to redress the injustices to the
nation of Hawaii by Anglo-Americans over the last two centuries. Like
most cures for what ails you, it will involve some suffering. There are
several related issues that include; sovereignty, civil rights,
property rights, and resource rights that will need to be considered.
Can it be done?
Even
today we see an exacerbation of those problems today. The State of
Hawaii is contesting the State Supreme Court ruling that it does not
own the Ceded Lands (Crown and Government lands of the Hawaiian
Kingdom), and that the state governement is only a caretaker for those
lands until Hawaiian independence is restored.
Sovereignty seems key to all. There are many conflicting claims on how
to achieve sovereignty and what the resulting independent Hawaii might
be. In this article we will look at property rights as a lens through
which we might better understand how the issue of sovereignty affects
all else.
If Hawaiians could enjoy any land rights system, what might that be?
Let’s examine periods based on property rights and sovereignty status
to get an idea. We will peel back history over four epochs of distinct
Hawaiian rule to see where we might find comfort or justice.
Period D: The False Nation 1887-1898
In 1887 the Bayonet Constitution excluded three-quarters of ethnic
Hawaiians from voting. Only wealthy men with property title could vote.
A cabal of American businessmen controlled the economy and land of
Hawaii. In 1893 they overthrew Queen Liliuokalani and set up a
corporate state, the Provisional Governing Authority. The Republic of
Hawaii was proclaimed on 4 July 1894, and Sanford B. Dole became
president.
Going back to Period D as the foundation of the independent Hawaii has
many shortcomings. The Hawaiian monarchy was broken and the affairs of
state controlled by narrow American business interests. However, with
some reform, this period does have the virtue of a constitutional
democracy without a monarchy. The advantages of modern technical,
business, military and organizational expertise had some merit to
Hawaiians. A just and modern independent Hawaiian state might be
extracted from it.
Period C. Return of Liliuokalani 1864-1886
Choosing Period C as a foundation would rewind the clock past the 1893
overthrow and restore the Hawaiian Monarchy of Queen Liliuokalani as it
was prior to the “Bayonet” Constitution of 1887. This would entail
using King Kamehameha V’s imposed Constitution of 1864 with expanded
powers for the throne and customary chiefs.
Many of the problems of land and water rights, foreign influence and
corruption were created during this period. The king had mortgaged the
Crown Lands to raise money to support the court’s lifestyle. The
leaders of Kingdom of Hawaii decided to take the Crown Lands out of his
hands, pay off the debts, and put the land under the stewardship of the
throne, not the monarch.
Period B: Accept the Great Mahele 1840-1863
Another option would be accept the efforts of Kamehameha III. His was
the longest and most independent stewardship of the independent Kingdom
of Hawaii. He introduced the first treaties with other nations, the
first constitution and first distribution of property to Hawaiian
chiefs and commoners.
Establishing a Hawaii founded in Period B would turn the clock back to
the Constitution of 1852 and accept with the results of the Great
Mahele and Kuleana Act. This scheme would employ the Royal Patent
Awards of the Land Commission as a starting point on property rights.
Unfortunately, the effects of the rule of law as applied to land title
was damaging to Hawaiians unfamiliar with the concept. Those that were
not literate, and did not agree with the foreign notions of “ownership”
were often bamboozled. Native Hawaiians were at a great disadvantage
playing the property game with Europeans who had been at it for
centuries.
A determination of authenticity of land titles due to the results of
illegal seizure or overthrow of the nation would need to be
adjudicated. Many public lands under Hawaiian State, and County
administration would need to be turned over to the Hawaiian people as
national or private property. That would be true of large tracts of
private land claimed for a century by plantation owners and now claimed
as the property of large agribusiness corporations, land speculators,
and developers.
The result of reforms based on “Period B” would likely result in some
redistribution of the Land Commission Survey awards into many smaller
properties awarded to “commoners”. Larger remaining tracts would go to
Hawaiian public lands or possibly bona fide Alii and Konahiki heirs.
Period A. Return to Customary Chiefs 1778-1839
Perhaps the most radical approach on land rights would be to abandon
property ownership altogether. Abandon land title as introduced by
Europeans who wanted a piece of Hawaii. If all property title were
renounced, it would be an undoing of the Great Mehele. Such an act
might restore the land management that evolved in Hawaii for a
millennium without interference, until 1778. This would return the
rights of customary chiefs. To return to a system of historic moku,
ahupuaa and ili land divisions.
One variant of “Period A” would be to use pre-1778 boundaries of
Hawaiian kingdoms, before the unification of the islands under
Kamehameha I in 1810. The motivation being that the unification was
achieved with weapons and strategic help from external interests. This
would mean for Kauai once again becoming the independent Kingdom of
Atooi (Kauai) with its own customary King and Chiefs restored. Dayne
Aipoalani, Alii Nui of the present Polynesia Kingdom of Atooi, believes
that it is possible.
Another variant would be to use the distribution of land and power
achieved after 1810, and during the final days under the unified rule
of Kamehameha I. This would lose full independence for Kauai to the
advantage of the heirs of Kamehameha I.
Obviously, in the last 200 years, entire lines of native Hawaiian
families have been destroyed by disease, poverty, discrimination, and
racial dilution. Certainly some rightful heirs could be found and their
traditional lands identified. But this would be a small fraction of
Hawaiian land. A complicated process to fairly assign remaining power
and land would ensue. With the current population, would the end result
be any more equitable or sustainable than the results of the Great
Mahele?
To paraphrase William Vancouver Carroll, Royal Order of Kamehameha I,
Barrister of the present Polynesian Kingdom of Atooi:
“In
the future the lands rehabilitated from the three land divisions should
go to the Maka'ainana lands (kanaka maoli or commoners land)”
Justice
For the Hawaiian people, justice regarding their nation cannot be
obtained without restructuring the distribution of property and power
as it exists today. Understanding the implications, contradictions and
paradoxes created by accepting all or part of the conditions of any
period is needed.
For example:
* If one accepts the national unification of the Hawaii islands in 1810
it has ramifications as to what restoration of sovereignty to island
kingdoms is possible.
* So too, with accepting the Great Mahele of 1846 and the creation of
property ownership. It deeply affects the techniques of sustainable
land management practiced by Hawaiians.
* And so too, in restoring the crown as it existed in 1893, as one will
be under constitutional limits on voting eligibility to those with
literacy, money, and property.
Recorded history can be a tool to help us to see how the Hawaiian
nation has persisted through all its travails to the present day. The
study of history allows us run the clock back and forth to see action
and reaction; cause and effect. However, history does not speak to us
of non-linear unrecorded culture or the long term effects of our
“fixes” to the present.
It is also possible that a new system could be created, from present
conditions, that would meet the needs of the Hawaiian people in the
future. That could be an entirely different kind of nation than has
existed here now or ever. One that respects ancient cultural values
while attaining modern international relations with the world. A place
that is once again in balance with the land, and able to reach for the
stars.
Let us hope we have the wisdom and intuition to choose a path that
leads to a just and a sustainable island nation for the near future and
beyond.
|
