The Native Hawaiian Bar Association
Cordially Invites you to Luncheon and its Annual Meeting
Giving Voice to Hawaiian Resistance: Jonathan Osorio and Leilani Basham

Dr. Jonathan Osorio and Dr. Leilani Basham, scholars of the politics of Hawaiian identity and culture, will discuss Hawaiian resistance through mele and olelo.

Dr. Jon Osorio is the Director and an Associate Professor of the Kamakakakuokalani Center for Hawaiian Studies at the University of Hawaii at Manoa. He teaches introductory and upper level Hawaiian Studies courses with a focus on nineteenth century history. His research interests include the politics of identity in the Hawaiian kingdom and colonization in the Pacific. An accomplished musician, composer, and author, Jon wrote Dismembering Lahui: The History of the Hawaiian Nation to 1887, published by the University of Hawaii Press in 2002. A native of Hilo, Jon has spent most of his adult life in Honolulu; he has lived in Palolo Valley for over 20 years.

Dr. Leilani Basham is a Kanaka Maoli who traces her genealogy to the islands of Oahu and Kauai. She received her BA in Hawaiian Studies (1992), her MA in History (2002), her PhD in Political Science (2007), and she has taught Hawaiian language within the University of Hawaii system for the last 15 years. Leilani’s research interests are grounded in Hawaiian language, history, political theory, and cultural practice, whether focusing on mele lahui (national poetic texts), Hawaiian forms of law and lawmaking, or Hawaiian sexuality. Currently, Leilani is an Associate Professor at the University of Hawaii-West Oahu, teaching Hawaiian Studies and Hawaiian Language courses.

DATE: Friday, April 18, 2008
TIME: 12:00 noon to 1:30 p.m.
PLACE: Ali`i Place, 1099 Alakea Street
Conference Room, 20th Floor
COST: $10 for Hawaiian plate lunch (lunch pick-up from 11:45 am)
RSVP: By Monday, April 14, 2008

To order lunch complete the registration form and return it by April 14th, or e-mail your reservation to Karen Jones by the same date and we'll collect money at the door. If you order lunch you must pay whether or not you attend. If you are bringing your own lunch, just show up!!

To download the annual meeting notice click here.

---

ABA Native Hawaiian Final Resolution (20 page PDF file) Click for file

From the Star Bulletin:
Vol. 11, Issue 45 - Tuesday, Feb. 14, 2006
ABA throws its support behind Akaka Bill
By Sally Apgar
sapgar@starbulletin.com

The American Bar Association urged Congress yesterday to pass the controversial Native Hawaiian Recognition Act of 2005, known as the Akaka Bill, during this session.

At its midyear meeting in Chicago, the ABA voted to support passage of the legislation so that native Hawaiians could form a governing body "similar to American Indian and Alaska Native governments, enabling them to provide for the health, safety and welfare of their people."

The Akaka Bill, named for U.S. Sen. Daniel Akaka, who introduced it, does not create a native Hawaiian government.

The measure authorizes an unspecified process that would eventually lead to the formulation of a government with the authority to interact with the U.S. government. The bill does not give the governing native Hawaiian entity explicit powers, but instead legislates these powers to be granted in the course of future, three-way agreements approved by the federal government, the state of Hawaii and the new native Hawaiian governing body.

ABA President Michael Greco said in a news release: "American Indians and Alaskan Natives have political authority to deal with the United States on a government-to-government basis."
Greco said, "Native Hawaiians as an indigenous people in our country should be afforded the right to create their own governing body. Congress needs to approve legislation now that will establish the process for native Hawaiians to do that."

U.S. Sen. Daniel Inouye said the support of the ABA "is further evidence that the legislation, which has bipartisan support, should be brought to the floor for debate and an up-or-down vote."
Haunani Apoliona, chairwoman of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, who has lobbied hard in Washington and here for acceptance and passage of the bill, said the ABA's support "recognizes and affirms that there's no question Congress can extend federal recognition to native Hawaiians."

Article URL: http://starbulletin.com/2006/02/14/news/story10.html
© 1996-2006 The Honolulu Star-Bulletin | www.starbulletin.com

---

Posted on: Tuesday, February 14, 2006
Lawyer group calls for federal recognition
Advertiser Staff

Leaders of the American Bar Association are urging Congress to pass legislation establishing a process to give federal recognition to a Native Hawaiian government.

The ABA's house of delegates, which includes about 550 members, approved the resolution yesterday at its midyear meeting in Chicago.

"American Indians and Alaska Natives have political authority to deal with the United States on a government-to-government basis," ABA president Michael S. Greco said. "Native Hawaiians as an indigenous people in our country should be afforded the right to create their own governing body."

Attorney Bill Meheula, a spokesman for the Native Hawaiian Bar Association, urged his colleagues to support federal recognition. "Without it, significant governmental benefits to Native Hawaiians in the areas of health, education and housing could be lost due to pending equal protection challenges," Meheula said.

Hawai'i senators Daniel K. Inouye and Daniel Akaka issued releases applauding the ABA's vote of support. An expected Senate vote on the Akaka bill was delayed last fall so lawmakers could respond to Hurricane Katrina. The bill has been opposed by conservatives who believe it is unconstitutional because it would give privileges to people based on race.

---

2/14/06   AP National Story
ABA backs Akaka bill
Eds: Hawaii Points Note

CHICAGO (AP)  The Native Hawaiian recognition bill picked up the support of the 400,000-member American Bar Association on Monday when its House of Delegates called on Congress to adopt the so-called Akaka bill.

The measure would grant federal recognition to Native Hawaiians similar to the recognition afforded American Indians and Alaska Natives.

American Indians and Alaska Natives have political authority to deal with the United States on a government-to-government basis, ABA president Michael Greco said.

Native Hawaiians as an indigenous people in our country should be afforded the right to create their own government body, he said. Congress needs to approve legislation now that will establish the process for the Native Hawaiians to do that. The ABA said granting federal recognition would protect more than 160 laws Congress has approved to create programs and trusts for Native Hawaiians.

Creating a legal government entity would provide a structure to administer the programs, it said.

Bill Meheula, a director of the Native Hawaiian Bar Association, had urged the House of Delegates to back the legislation.

He said that without federal recognition, significant governmental benefits to Native Hawaiians in the areas of health, education and housing could be lost due to pending equal protection challenges. U.S. Sen. Daniel Akaka, D-Hawaii, said in a news release issued by his Washington office that he was pleased with the ABA's support of the bill.

ABA support gives the Akaka bill renewed vigor, said Akaka, who continues to try to get the Senate to vote on the measure.

The backing of the American Bar Association is further evidence that the legislation, which has bipartisan support, should be brought to the floor of the Senate for debate and an up or down vote, he said.

The ABA is slated to hold its 2006 annual meeting in August in Honolulu.

---

2/21/06 Honolulu Advertiser
ABA BODY OVERWHELMINGLY SUPPORTED THE AKAKA BILL

During its mid-year meetings in Chicago on Feb. 13, the policy-making body of the American Bar Association voted overwhelmingly in favor of a resolution to urge Congress to pass legislation to establish a process to provide federal recognition for a Native Hawaiian governing entity. Such legislation, S. 147, proposed by Sen. Daniel Akaka, is currently pending in Congress.

The Native Hawaiian resolution passed by a nearly unanimous vote among the 550 delegates representing 400,000 ABA members. The ABA is composed of lawyers from all practice areas and all political persuasions. This enthusiastic vote should serve to jumpstart passage of Sen. Akaka's legislation.

The ABA's mission is to be the national representative of the legal profession, serving the public and the profession by promoting justice, professional excellence and respect for the law.
By passing the resolution, the delegates said yes to the establishment by Congress of a process that would provide Native Hawaiians the same status afforded to America's other indigenous groups, American Indians and Native Alaskans.

The blessing by this country's largest and most prestigious legal organization would appear to put to rest the primary legal arguments advanced by this bill's opponents.

In 1993, Congress adopted the Apology Resolution. which acknowledged that the U.S.-sponsored overthrow of the Hawaiian kingdom was illegal, and issued an apology to the Native Hawaiian people. Now Congress has the opportunity to provide meat to its previous resolution.

The ABA's passage of this resolution could not be more timely. There are over 165 federal laws that bring millions of dollars worth of federal programs to assist Native Hawaiians. Yet those programs are under attack in the courts. The Akaka bill would protect these programs.

The American Bar Association's support for Hawai'i's indigenous people sends a strong message that a process for Native Hawaiian recognition follows the rule of law and provides great impetus for Congress to take immediate action to pass the Akaka bill.

Alan Van Etten
Hawai'i state delegate, American Bar Association

---

NHBA Current Events

Luncheon with Special Guest
Speaker Mililani Trask Feb 23, 2006.
Immediately following the Annual Meeting of the Members.

To order lunch please complete and return the registration form by February 17th, or email your reservation to Karen Jones by the same date, we will collect the money at the door. If you are bringing your own lunch just show up.

Posted on: Monday, November 1, 2004 in the Honolulu Advertiser

ISLAND VOICES
Kamehameha admissions don't offend our civil rights
By Eric Yamamoto, Susan Kiyomi Serrano and Eva Paterson

 

On Thursday, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will hear arguments in one of the most important Native Hawaiian rights cases ever.

In Doe v. Kamehameha Schools, the court, sitting in Hawai'i, will be asked to decide whether this private school dedicated to the education of indigenous Hawaiians "discriminates" against non-Hawaiians in violation of federal civil-rights law.

As non-Hawaiian people of color (Asian-American, Latina and African-American), we write to say definitively that the Kamehameha Schools admissions policy favoring Hawaiian children does not transgress our civil rights. As civil-rights lawyers and scholars, we have seen the harsh reality of racism for people of color and have fought hard for equal justice under law. African-Americans suffered slavery, segregation and present-day discrimination in jobs and housing. Asian-Americans and Latinos faced racialized immigration exclusion, alien land and anti-miscegenation laws, the internment and current treatment as perpetual foreigners. We know the pain of civil-rights violations. And we can say strongly that the Kamehameha Schools case is not about civil rights.

It certainly is not about a program, as outlandishly described by Doe's attorney, that is comparable to Jim Crow segregation in the South. Rather, the case is about a misguided effort to tear apart a successful educational program by Hawaiians for Hawaiians that aims to repair the continuing harms of American colonialism - or, in the words of U.S. District Judge Alan Kay, "the influx of Western civilization."

The Kamehameha Schools were created in 1883, 15 years before the United States annexed Hawai'i, by the private trust of Princess Bernice Pauahi Bishop, the last direct descendant of Hawai'i's first king. The princess created the trust to uplift Hawaiian children through education because the forces of Western encroachment had nearly decimated the Hawaiian people and foreshadowed the American takeover of the Hawaiian government. The princess sought not to exclude others by labeling them inferior or unworthy (a classic civil-rights violation) but rather to rebuild her own people (an act of restoration and self-determination).

As the U.S. District Court in Hawai'i recognized, the Kamehameha Schools admissions policy is about justice for Hawai'i's first people - a private effort (now also supported by government efforts) to redress the continuing economic and cultural harms to Hawaiians. It is not about violating civil rights by treating one group as superior. It is about combined private and public efforts to restore to Native Hawaiians that which American colonialism in the late 19th century nearly destroyed: Hawaiian education, culture and a measure of self-governance. The school's admission policy is about restorative justice and does not violate our, or anyone else's, civil rights.

At the ground level, the Kamehameha Schools case is about the education of Hawaiian children and Hawaiian self-governance. In the big picture, it is also about how Hawai'i's history should be told, and therefore, the legitimacy of Hawaiian justice claims.

Four years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Rice v. Cayetano, banned the state Office of Hawaiian Affairs' Hawaiians-only voting limitation. In doing so, it badly mischaracterized Hawai'i's history and thereby undermined Hawaiian justice claims. The same pattern could be replicated in the Kamehameha Schools case unless the schools' advocates convince the appeals court to tell the real story of Hawaiian justice claims.

To do this would mean correcting the historical distortions in Rice. Nowhere in its Rice opinion did the court mention U.S. colonialism in 1898 in Hawai'i, the Philippines and Puerto Rico. Nor did it acknowledge the destruction of Hawaiian culture through the banning of the Hawaiian language or the present effects of homelands dispossession, including poverty, poor levels of education and health, and high levels of homelessness and incarceration. Nor did the main opinion recognize that colonial powers often used race to legitimate conquest, denigrating in racial terms those colonized.

The court's selective historical account also ignored the crucial differences between indigenous people who were involuntarily made American through colonization and those who chose U.S. citizenship through immigration. Instead, it said that Hawaiians had a rough go of it, as did immigrant groups, but the playing field now is pretty much leveled - all racial groups are treated equally. Westernization left no permanent scars; therefore, "privileges" for Hawaiians are not only undemocratic, they are illegal. What emerged from the court's selective historical framing is a simple story of racial discrimination against non-Hawaiians, a story that wrote out of existence the heart of present-day Hawaiian claims to justice.

This, however, is not the history our Hawaiian friends and neighbors tell. Hawaiians are not seeking privileges or handouts. Nor are they seeking "racial preferences" or "racial segregation in education," as Doe's attorneys argued. Rather, Hawaiians are asserting human rights - not simply the right to be equal but to self-determination; not a right to entitlements but to reparations; not a right to special treatment but to reconnect spiritually with land and culture; not a right to equality but a form of self-education and governance.

The threshold battle in the appeals court argument Thursday, then, will be over Hawai'i's history and the legitimacy of Hawaiian justice claims. Winning that battle will make clear that Princess Pauahi's Kamehameha Schools violate no one's civil rights. Indeed, it will show that the schools are part of private and public efforts aimed at restorative justice, to repair the harm to Hawai'i's first people for the benefit of us all.

Eric K. Yamamoto is a professor at the University of Hawai'i's William S. Richardson School of Law. Susan Kiyomi Serrano is research director and attorney at the Equal Justice Society in San Francisco, and a graduate of the UH law school. Eva Paterson is the president of the Equal Justice Society. They wrote this article for The Advertiser.

Notes From The Peace Palace — December 2000

The words, “In the Permanent Court of Arbitration, Case No. 99001,” spoken by the Clerk of the Court in the opening moments of the case, Lance Paul Larsen vs The Hawaiian Kingdom, literally took my breath away. It was a moment to be cherished and remembered by every Hawaiian, whether kanaka maoli or a descendant of Hawaiian Subjects.

Personally, this moment had evolved quickly after receiving the joint invitation by the parties to attend the proceedings as an Observer. Within a couple of weeks of receiving the invitation I found myself half way around the world entering what has been appropriately described as “the grand edifice of Civilization.”

In 20 plus years as a untied states educated attorney, including service as a district court judge, I have participated in numerous legal proceedings. However, being at the Peace Palace that day reawakened my belief that there is a path which Hawaiians may follow. This path is not encumbered by a century of lies and apologetic rhetoric by united states politicians who have denied us our rights to sit as equals within the international community of Nation States.

Crossing 10 time zones on a 15 hour flight provide me with an opportunity to review the voluminous legal briefs which the parties had submitted to the Court. Like most observers I had taken an interest in the development of this case from the bits and pieces of information provided through my following of Lance Larsen’s case within the Hawaii courts as well as KCCN’s informative program “Perspective.”

The depth of the historical and legal principles applicable in international law was never fully appreciated by me until I had this opportunity to carefully review and consider the issues framed by this case. I was awestruck by the manner in which the parties had crafted this case for presentation to the Court. The memorials filed by the Hawaiian Kingdom demonstrate clearly its entitlement to participate in this process under international law.

Perhaps for too long now we have just accepted the propaganda that our american destiny is fait complie. We have been smothered by the dreams and desires of non Hawaiians to become americans that we have allowed ourselves to accept the united states governments official policy to deny that the Hawaiian Kingdom government existed or continues to this date under the well established principles of International Law.

The fact that the Hawaiian Kingdom was transformed from an “autocracy” to a constitutional monarchical form of government by Kamehameha III, which was acknowledged by Britain and France in the Anglo-Franco Proclamation of 1843 is another of the binding historical and legal principles which has been pushed on the side in favor of the american dream; to the great disadvantage of all Hawaiians.

This case represents the first clear opportunity to expose to the International Community this dirty little secret which the united states has tried to keep hidden within its dark closet of “judge me by my words not my deeds.” For more than a century we have been forced to acknowledge the criminal acts of Dole, Thurston and Stevens along with the unlawful conduct of american presidents and politicians against Hawaiians as american heroics.

The enormity of this case really struck me towards the end of the first day of the proceedings. All those privileged to attend clearly recognized that fact. For me, this moment should not be allowed to pass without some recognition in honor of our kupuna who as members of the Men and Women’s Hawaiian Patriotic League began this struggle a century ago in their written declarations objecting to the illegal acts of the united states of america.

Hae Hawai‘i is for me, and perhaps for many others the most important symbol of who we are as a Nation. Although the united states and the state of hawaii has attempted to subvert its position, it is our flag that once proudly flew over Hawaiian Kingdom Consulates through out the world. We could not leave Den Haag without sharing this moment with our kupuna through the raising of Hae Hawai‘i over this city which represents the hopes and dreams of all true Hawaiians.

What to do, perhaps the silver lining in the cloud of being a day away from Hawaii was that as the day was ending at the Peace Palace it was just beginning in Honolulu. Thus, I immediately placed a call to my secretary with the task of acquiring a large Hawaiian flag and finding the fastest and safest way to get it to Den Haag. The precious package left Honolulu via Fedex on the afternoon of December 7, and after stops in Oakland, California and clearing US Customs in Memphis, Tennessee it arrived in Paris, France at Midnight, December 10th and was delivered to me on the morning of the 11th, which ironically was to be the last day of the proceedings which had originally scheduled to conclude on December 12.

The role of the Hawaiian Patriotic League in pursuit of justice over all these years I felt needed to be recognized and honored. The Hui Kalai‘aina (a Hawaiian Political Party) is another Hawaiian Organization which played an important role in the Hawaiian Kingdom Government. In 1996 numerous other Hawaiians along with myself revived and reconstituted the Hui Kalai‘aina as a Hawaiian political party to promote greater awareness and education on historic and contemporary Hawaiian political issues. As a Director of Hui Kalai‘aina this ho‘okupu of Hae Hawai‘i to the Hawaiian Patriotic League in honor of the Hawaiian Kingdom was a small gesture of all our aloha for their dedication and sacrifice in our behalf for Justice for all Hawaiians.

With that purpose in mind I asked all those in attendance from Hawaii to please sign their names along the border of Hae Hawai‘i. With signatures secured I presented it to the Acting Council of Regency, His Excellency, Agent Keanu Sai, Acting Minister of Interior along with the best wishes of all those privileged to attend and to sign. One request was made that the Council secure the appropriate place to raise it over the host city of Den Haag as a symbol of its right to reclaim its place withing the international community of Nation States.

Thus, with great pride I was a witness to the lowering of the united states flag and the raising of Hae Hawai‘i to its rightful place next to the flags of Britain, France and the Netherlands. This took place across from the Peace Palace along the Scheveningseweg in Den Haag. My dream now is to witness this again in my country in my lifetime.

A. Kale‘iolani Hoe