Ka Wai Ola - Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Volume 1, Number 2, 1 March 1984 — Waihee Discusses Reparations [ARTICLE+ILLUSTRATION]

Waihee Discusses Reparations

PART II OHA: Mr. Waihee, the first resolution asks Congress to "review the implementation of the recommendations adopted by the Federal/State Task Force on the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands" and "initiate breach of trust or other appropriate legal actions for non-eompli-anee by the State of Hawaii or the U.S. Department of the Interior." What is your reaction? WAIHEE: Without commenting on the legal merits of any claims, I don't have any problems with OHA assuming the mandate to take legal action to resolve a Hawaiian issue. Actually it's their duty and that's why we have an agency like OHA. However, when and how these lawsuits should be taken, 1 believe are policy decisions and eaeh case should be considered on its own merits . . . that's also the responsibility of the trustees. The responsibility of the trustees is to more than just charge out there. lt's to do the best they ean in the most timely fashion because ultimately I think the real obligation is to resolve the issue. Legal action is one way, but there are others. What I'm saying is that eaeh ought to be decided individually. But as far as assuming the mandate to do something at least in my mind, that's clearly within OHA's scope of duties. OHA: The second resolution calls for congressional acknowledgement of the "illegal and immoral actions of the U nited States in the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii in 1893" and asks Congress for a commitment to grant restitution for the losses and damages suffered by native Hawaiians as a result of those wrongful actions. WAIHEE: Again, I agree with OHA taking action. However, I do see reparations a liule bit differently than it's worded in the resolution. I don't think that the United States could ever make restitution or pay damages for what has happened. Therefore, I don't see reparations as restitution. 1 don't see it as restitution. 1 don't see it that somehow, in exchange for sovereignty, the United States now owes us money because for me a wrong was done whieh cannot be undone. It is always going to be there and you cannot undo history. No money ean pay for what might have been. What we're really thinking about is how do you address this wrong, and 1 think the way you address this issue is to treat it as a matter of honor. It's a matter of having the United States government restore a sense of honor back to the Hawaiian eommunity by admitting its culpability. In other words, what we need is an apology. What I want is for the federal government to say yes, that in fact it was wrong. We should not have done it. I think that this is due the Hawaiian people. At the same time as Americans, it wou!d be a restoration ot our country's honor to apologize for what is a blotch of its history. What we're really talking about is: what is the honorable thing for America to do if in fact this country stands for the ideals whieh we all believe is our birthright as Americans. The honorable thing to do in this situation is to first of all admit that it was wrong for the United States to take part in the overthrow and therefore

restore to the Hawanan people a sense ot what "Ua Mau Ke Ea O Ka Aina I Ka Pono" means. It's a return of righteousness to the land whieh at the same time says that the American nation is big enough to uphold its own ideals. So, we're talking about an apology, an admission of wrong doing. The thing is, though, having said that, we have to go one step beyond and recognize that in our eontemporary American society an apology is meaningless, even laughable, if not accompanied by some kind of payment. The purpose of money, in terms of reparations, is to make the apology meaningful. It's not to pay for sovereignty. To illustrate my point, if you disagree that that's the way society operates, the next time you get a traffic ticket, go down to the judge and tell him how sorry you are. He'll tell you your apology is great but I want you to show how sincere you are by paying a fine or suspending your license. Or if someone commits an anti-trust violation, it's not enough to tell the court it's my fault and, l'm sorry, 1 will neverdo this again. That is meaningless unless a fine or jail sentence is imposed. lf not then the thing is a joke. That's really what is at stake here. The question is if you're really sincere, what you are going to do about it. That's reparations to me.

OHA: The next resolution would include native Hawaiians in the definition of "native American" and extend to native Hawaiians eligibility in all programs affected by that definition. WAIHEE: Pursuing that issue is also an OHA obligation. I think that OHA and anyone else interested in Hawaiian things ought to support that. We are native Americans. There is no doubt in my mind and I don't know how you ean get around it. OHA: A fourth resolution calls for the establishment of a joint Federal-State Ceded Lands Commission to review the present use and possible release of federally controlled ceded lands in Hawaii. The Commission would have the authority to declare those lands surplus and available to the State. WAIHEE: I think the resolution is intended to seek a greater release of federally controlled ceded lands. So that's a good idea. Whether establishing a Commission is the best idea I don't know; but that's one way to go about it. I think the more important point of that particular resolution is that more ceded lands ought to be released. And that I wholeheartedly agree with. I think those lands should be made available to the State of Hawaii and to the people of Hawaii, to OHA and to anybody else who ean make better use of them. WAIHEE: The final resolution, and one of the most controversial, would create a single definition for the words "native Hawaiian" in order to eliminate the blood quantum requirement. As you know, only Hawaiians with 50 percent or more Hawaiian blood are eligible to receive certain benefits from the Department of

Hawaiian Home Lands and OHA. This resolution also contains guarantees that the rights and privileges of native Hawaiians holding or waiting for a Hawaiian Homes award will be protected.

OHA: 1 agree with that. And again it s a matter of how to handle it. I believe the blood quantum works to divide rather than unite the Hawaiian people. Since I'm more than half Hawaiian, I guess I would fall under the category of native Hawaiian. But 1 have seen too mueh in just my short life time of the negative effects of having a 50 percent blood quantum restriction to not want to change it. The question again is implementation. This is where it gets a little more ticklish because when you look at the Hawaiian Homes program we have a substantial waiting list of native Hawaiians of 50 percent or more Hawaiian blood. What happens totheseindividuals as an incidental result of reducing the blood quantum? We've got to handle that. One way to do it is to phase in the implementation of any changes. Phase it in. One proposal would be for a certain number of years, to have the original granting of land to still be given to 50 percent Hawaiian blood and to speed it somehow, open up the lands a little bit more. But, have the succession of those lands be available to the people who have less than 50 percent Hawaiian. I agree with that strategy very mueh. The worst results of the blood quantum restriction is in that area of succession. 1 grew up on Hawaiian Homesteads. I've seen families disintegrate because they cannot keep their homestead. It seems foolish, to me, that in 1984 after a history of having Hawaiians taken off their lands, that we as a people would be participating in that practice, in a sense, evicting Hawaiians and replacing them with others. We're not doing anything positive in that process. We're just perpetuating some bad things. At the minimum, we ought to redress the succession problem with Hawaiian Homes. Next month: Waihee talks about his relationship with Gov. Ariyoshi, what it's like to be number two and about his future political ambitions in the Hnal segment of our three-part interview.

. .1 don't have any problems with OHA assuming the mandate to take legal action to resolve a Hawaiian issue. Actually it's their duty and that's why we have an agency like OHA. Legal action is one way but there are others. I do see reparations a little bit differently than it's worded in the resolution .... I don't think that the United States cou!d ever make restitution or pay damages for what has happened "

(tditors Note: Ihe Board of Irustees of the Office of Trustees of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs recently passed a package of resolutions whieh calls on Congress to implement the recommendations of Volume II of the Native Hawaiians Study Commission report. Volume II is the so-called "minority report" issued by the three Hawaiian members of the Commission because of their dissatisfaction with the recommendations and work product of the six mainland eommissioners. In Part II of Ed Michelman's interview with Lt. Gov. Waihee, Ka Wai Ola O OHA asks him to comment on the stand taken by the OHA board.)

". . .We are native Americans. There is no doubt in my mind and I don't know how you ean get around it . . . I believe the blood quantum works to divide rather than unite the Hawaiian people. I have seen too mueh in just my short life time of the negative effects of having a §0 percent blood quantum restriction to not want to change it. . . ."

Lt. Gov. John Waihee