Ka Wai Ola - Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Volume 20, Number 12, 1 December 2003 — Recognition 'fairy tales' [ARTICLE]

Recognition 'fairy tales'

A number of fairy tales about the Akaka-Stevens Bill S.344 for federal recognition are circulating in Hawai'i. First fairy tale: while we are indigenous peoples, the Draft Declaration of Indigenous Rights in the United Nations is opposed by the United States and is still a draft after 15 years. The truth is, we are more than indigenous peoples; we are citizens of a nation-state, the Kingdom of Hawai'i, recognized by the world family of nations. To eall Hawaiians indigenous peoples demotes us poMcally. Second fairy tale: we are recognized as a nation by the United States. When? Why? The truth is, the Alaskan natives were recognized many years after the Alaskan Native Claims Settlement Act. Federal recognition is a trick by the U.S. to create controlled, proper, subservient "native nations." The Supreme Court decision Lone WoIf v. Hileheoek (1903) says that Indian nations are domestic dependent nations under the plenary power of Congress, that is, Congress legislates for the "nation" on all but "internal matters." The congressional dictum of March 3, 1871 (25 USC x71) prohibits recognition of an Indian nation as an independent nation. Third fairy tale: recognition saves

our entitlements, including Hawaiian Home Lands. How? Recognition would force Hawaiians to acquiesce to all American acts in Hawai'i — the Newlands Resolution, the Organic Act, the Statehood Compact. We could no longer elaim ownership of our lands. In reality, in S.344, Hawaiians would cede our lands and sovereignty to the U.S. Congress. Fourth fairy tale: we ean negotiate with the U.S. and the state for land. Why? S.344 states the U.S. "may enter into negotiations." This means the U.S. has no legal obligation. The truth is, as a nation-state occupied by the U.S., we must be given back all of our government and crown lands, as well a restitution for the use of those lands. Furthamore, this would prevent further crosi()ii of the ali'i trust lands. Fifth fairy tale: the Alaskan natives received millions of acres of land. The truth is, native title was extinguished. The natives lost their most valuable resource: the North Slope oil. Corporations, not the traditional native villages, received land. Venetie, a traditional native village, received their lands in fee. In AIaska v. Native Village of Venetie Tribal Government, the Supreme Court declared non-native corporations on those fee simple lands could not be taxed. Venetie lost a valuable eeonomie resource. Under Federal Indian Law, natives do not have title to trust land; they may use and

manage the land. That is the set-up with Kaho'olawe. Two other eoncepts, trust and wardship, apply. As the trustee for its native wards, the U.S. ean force the sale of Indian lands. See the case of the Western Shoshone and the recent case of the loss of the submerged lands by the Federated States of Micronesia, whieh has a compact of free association with the U.S. The last fairy tale: the Alaskan native corporations are making piles of money. The truth is, for whom? A number of leaders absconded with the money. There were originally hundreds of Alaskan corporations. There are only a handful of viable ones now. The natives are unhappy with the pollution and raping of the land, but have leased their lands to exploiters like Kenebec Corporation, whieh has a 105-year lease. Should Hawaiians give up their rightful legacy, 1.8 million acres of land, on the possibility that the U.S. and the state will negotiate possible lands and possible assets for the Hawaiian nation? The U.S. and the Department of Interior's records with the Native Americans are abominable. We only hope that the Hawaiian leaders supporting federal recognition are confused or misinformed. The alternative is too painful to believe. Lela M. Hubbard 'Aiea