Alright, so I lied. The last Jaded Views episode was not the last episode. Here is Jaded Views 7 and soon to follow Jaded Views 8. Jaded Views 7 Jade Danner Jones Incorrect John, on several fronts. But in an effort to continue to try to reach common understanding, versus what you think Im after, I will expend a little more ha. Whether you started the battered woman analogy or not matters little. It applies. So let me be clear. I am not asking to be a tribe, by federal definition, the Native Hawaiian nation is already a tribe, and the federal government has already recognized it. What the federal government has yet to recognize is our government. As you know, the constitutional reference to Indian Tribes applies to all indigenous peoples (ie nations) within the external borders of the United States, regardless of their cultural, anthropological or ethnic differences with each other. Each and every Indian Tribe recognized by the United States today is an indigenous nation, and many of them do not like the terms Indian Tribe. Too bad, because thats how the Constitution refers to indigenous peoples, and so thats the term thats in the laws. So, asking individual Native Hawaiians if they belong to an indigenous people--they will answer yes and go on to describe how we were here first, we exercised original jurisdiction in these lands, we have a language and a culture that we maintain today. They will also tell you that our community is alive, and depending on who you ask, doing not so well. Now, if you ask many Native Hawaiians if we are an Indian tribe, well, then they start thinking about teepees, Tonto and feathered head-dresses, and will say no. The fact that the white word for what we are, around the time the Constitution was written was Indian Tribe is evidenced by the fact that Captain James Cook, a white guy, called us Indians when he first visited our shores 9 years before the Constitution was written. There is no unified Native American culture, though in recent years I have seen evidence of a church apparently. The point is, all Indian Tribes are distinct indigenous nations--as you point out--some have had their governments recognized in bands, some by being lumped in with other indigenous nations by virtue of being on the same reservation, and others still go unrecognized. If we are talking about ethnically and anthropologically, there are no Indian Tribes in America at all, as the Indians are from India, and last I checked, they were not tribal. That the Navajo, Hopi, Mandan, Lakota, and hundreds of other indigenous peoples have adopted the term Indian Tribe to describe themselves to white people does not mean that they cease to exist as Navajo, Hopi, Mandan, Lakota and so on. It just means they recognize themselves in the same class as other indigenous peoples under federal law. When they go to the UN, they dont say theyre Indian, they say theyre indigenous because thats the word the UN recognizes to express who they are. When they go to Congress, they say Indian. So, in the constitution, Indian Tribe is a legal definition to acknowledge that indigenous peoples, as a collective by people, were and still are separate sovereigns from the United States, and continue to be even after the U.S. has taken over our homelands. Now, I understand having to work hard to make various Alaska Natives (who also object to the term on the basis that they think it is a cultural identifier) and Native Hawaiians understand that the term Indian Tribe simply means indigenous nation, but John, this bone youre picking is a ruse, because you clearly know that what I am saying is true, so thank you for the opportunity to further educate other Hawaiians reading this conversation. I never argued that federal recognition was a path to independence, John. I said it was a way to heal our people while the pursuit of independence continued. Remember, the Native Hawaiian people have many hats we can put on, at any given time, to advocate for our own well-being as a people. So pay attention, because this is important. The Kingdom of Hawaii and the Native Hawaiian people are two separate nations hurt by the same bad event, which the United States supported with armed troops--namely the overthrow. That you and others want to merge those two separate and distinct nations into one does not make it so, and I resist any attempts by any persons to assert that the Native Hawaiian people, na kanaka, are only descendants of the Kingdom. We are that, and we are separate from that, and even Kingdom law acknowledged that before the overthrow. You did miss something in my newsflash, John. The Native Hawaiian people are the only indigenous people with whom the United States already has recognized a trust responsibility to, but not opened the possibility of a government-to-government relationship with. And thank you for bringing up termination, John, as the fact is that the Native Hawaiian people currently face the SAME threat of termination of the trust responsibility as tribes faced in the 50s and 60s, just by another arm of the Federal Government. Thats why legal challenges against publicly funded programs for the Native Hawaiian people have become a point of urgency to press for greater recognition of our attending right of self-governance now. Since the federal policy of recognizing the inherent authority of tribes emanates from that trust responsibility, as a matter of parity in federal law, the Native Hawaiian people should have an option for exercising a government-to-government relationship IF we so choose through our own government. Saying YES to the DOI encourages them to create that option. No more, no less. Without that option, the legal status and the already acknowledged federal trust responsibility to the Native Hawaiian people is subject to interpretation by the Supreme Court, and we all know how badly that can go, despite their recent ruling upholding tribal courts jurisdiction in Alaska. So, we are facing termination era action now. Now John, read the two paragraphs immediately above again, and only read what I have written to form your understanding of what I mean or believe. Since you bring up the termination era, I will say this to you again. If the federal policy on self-determination and self-governance is so bad, then federally-recognized Native governments would agree with you and send Sally Jewell a letter. If that didnt get them off the list, then they would go to Congress and ask for a termination of the relationship. But they dont do that John, not a single one does. Instead, they suck it up and make the best of the powers they have recognized now, and continue to press for the power to exercise more of their inherent rights in the future. They take the federal resources and spend them the way they see fit, to the extent that the federal government allows, which is a hell of a lot more control in their own affairs and how the federal dollars set aside for Native Hawaiians are spent now. So, while I look at the existing policy of self-determination as the glass being half full, you insist it is half empty. All the while, the Native Hawaiian glass is only a quarter full today, no matter how you look at it. Yes, an independent state may result in a full glass for the Kingdom, John, but that does not guarantee a single drop more in the Native Hawaiian glass. In truth, thats just another America or State of Hawaii, as there is no proposal to change the ethnic or cultural composition of the Kingdom from the current citizenry that lives in Hawaii today. Regardless of Keanus position that Hawaiian means chinese, japanese and all the rest, I mean Native Hawaiian as the indigenous people of Hawaii, who lived in these islands for centuries before Cook stumbled upon our location, and who are certainly capable of continuing to manage our own collective future and our own internal affairs. In a nutshell, the Kingdom of Hawaii IS NOT the Native Hawaiian people, and the Native Hawaiian people IS NOT the Kingdom of Hawaii. One nation cannot waive the rights of the other, John. They are separate nations harmed by the same bad event. The United States has acknowledged its part in the overthrow in P.L. 103-150, and it has only apologized to one of the two affected nations--the Native Hawaiian people. It is that apology to the Native Hawaiian people, not the Kingdom of Hawaii, that we are now using to press the United States to extend recognition of all the rights they allow for all other indigenous peoples they have recognized they harmed to our indigenous people. That is a safe haven for our people to begin to heal, while the proponents of restoring the Kingdom figure out how to get the United States to the table for discussion. Many of your examples of tribes gone wrong are a function of their own people failing to assert their own voices within their own governments. That is not to say that the United States has not continued to do harm, John, and personally, I have not found that indigenous peoples operating their own governments under the federal policy of self-determination are being further assimilated--in fact I see the opposite. I see all around Indian Country, a renewal of language, of culture, of more traditional forms of government. I see reasons to hope, and sure, I see mistakes, but I dont see peoples falling deeper into assimilation, I see peoples emerging from decades of deliberate and systematic attempts to assimilate them. That you cannot see this is not my problem. I know the strength and commitment of the Native Hawaiian people to remain strong in our identity as Native Hawaiians, even if that means we have to relearn our language and renew our commitment to living by our cultural values in the process. I know that having the self-governance rights of the Native Hawaiian people under the federal policy on self-determination and self-governance will result in a more empowered future for the Native Hawaiian people, and advance our ability to expand on the gains we have made without it. We have been fighting to save ourselves, our people, our ways, with one hand tied behind our backs, and the federal policy recognizing our rights to self-governance--essentially forcing the U.S. to back up a little--will result in us being able to use both hands to address critical issues like homelessness, poor health statistics, over-incarceration, language survival and so much more. Remember, John, of the several hats I wear, as an American, as a descendant of the Kingdoms citizenry, as a citizen of Ka Lahui Hawaii, and all others, my allegiance and my primary goal for wearing any hats is because my hat, as a Native Hawaiian, is most important to me. Advancing the Native Hawaiian people, under whatever other government structure we live, is my primary goal, and I will use all my hats to advance that goal. Other Native Hawaiians have determined that their Kingdom hat is the most important. Aole pilikia. I dont oppose them making that choice, but I am not going to make that choice. I will work towards the Kingdom WHEN and only when the Kingdom has a plan for the continued vitality of the Native Hawaiian people, and a clear path for overthrowing the United States. Did you go to see Jodi at the White House, or outside the White House grounds, John? Because if you did go see her at the White House, as I understood you to say, then your citizenship was verified when they ran the background check required to be on the White House grounds. Asserting that you are not an American, when clearly, you have used the mechanisms of America to legitimize your position is a lie. Just as Lance Larsen saying he wasnt an American became a clear lie the moment he had to proffer his U.S. passport to enter the Netherlands to put on the charade of a court proceeding before the Permanent Court of Arbitration. If you use your U.S. passport to attend any UN meetings, then saying youre not an American is a lie too. I called you no names, John, though I may have pointed out lies when I spotted them, I am certain I never labeled you a liar. In my view, being a liar is a mark of character flaw that pervades in all one does. Telling lies, especially based on bad information, can be corrected, but if they are untruths, they are lies nonetheless. I dont know where you got the term American denier because until you just said it now, Ive never heard of such a thing. Much of what you have said has required not only interpretation, but straight out correction, John. Your insistence that rights mean anything without the ability to enforce them is troubling, and what will lead to people getting hurt. Thats what makes you the ditzy girlfriend in the battered woman analogy. That girlfriend doesnt recognize that encouraging her friend to do something dangerous before enough planning has happened and resources have been secured results in skulls being cracked. Whether anyone is advocating war today, the hate rhetoric and purposeful misinterpretations of what people have or havent said leads to violence John. It has in every movement known to man, so I reject any tactics in that regard. Finally, it matters not if people find me obnoxious and arrogant, I am not here to make friends. Personally, I think its obnoxious and arrogant to oppose a real tool for improving Native Hawaiian conditions and concerns now because some of us are afraid of our own people and hanging their hats on a dream that has no plan for becoming real. I think its obnoxious and arrogant to act like federal resources havent been a key factor in us having the ability to restore our language from only 500 manaleo to 10,000 strong in only 20 years. I find it obnoxious an arrogant to throw away an opportunity to control whether people are incarcerated for low-level drug crimes when our people sit in jails so we can feel like the Kingdom exists, if only in our own minds. I find it obnoxious and arrogant for people who live on the Hawaiian Home Lands to act like that federal act hasnt made a significant and positive effect in their lives, and the lives of their ohana. And finally, I find it obnoxious and arrogant to try to advance a claim to the Kingdom as the only solution, when they havent done the work necessary to make it a real option for our whole people to consider. I am here to encourage people to think critically, act in accordance with their stated goals, and to do it with integrity, not slogans. I am here to point out that any time and effort that anyone spends badmouthing me, my sister or any of the people who have been working for our people, or anyone spends lampooning for the cameras is wasted time. Those things do not advance your stated cause. I know who I am, the people in my life know who I am, and that is enough for me. A hui hou, John. Have fun using some of that radio gold Ive given you to expand your listening audience. As a final thought, the federal government does not create tribal rights or authority. Those rights are inherent, and continue to exist whether the United States or anyone else outside the people acknowledge that fact. As long as the indigenous people recognize in themselves the right of self-governance, it persists. What the federal government does is acknowledge those authorities, and it is well within its right, as a government, to determine which authorities it will acknowledge, and more importantly, enforce on behalf of the indigenous nation. Thats why the Seneca went to see the White House about the IRS, isnt it? To get the fed to enforce the policy that one sovereign may not tax another enforced? The good news is, the United States have said that it will enforce every inherent right any recognized indigenous people ever possessed, UNLESS Congress has passed a law explicitly saying they wont enforce the right. AND federally-recognized tribes have used the government-to-government relationship to encourage the U.S. to change its laws when those laws dont work for the tribes. Just as the federal government uses the relationship to try to influence tribes to change their own laws sometimes. Its not a perfect or quick system by any means, but its a real system that can be used by Native communities to advance Native communities.
Posted on: Fri, 08 Aug 2014 14:49:38 +0000
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015