The “Akaka Bill” to give Native Hawaiians similar self-governance rights to Native American tribal authorities did not become law.

Welcome to the Brand New Hotel Indigo Rochester Downtown. Conveniently located in the heart of downtown and part of the skyway system. We are close to Mayo Clinic, Mayo Civic Center, National Volleyball Center, Graham Arena & right across the street you will find historic 3rd St. Featuring local eateries & shopping.

While aboriginal people have lived on Hawaii for more than a thousand years, the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii in 1893 and its subsequent annexation by the United States in 1898 without the consent of the Hawaiian people means there is no federally recognized native governing body. Entities and offices which now represent indigenous Hawaiians do not have government-to-government relationships comparable to those enjoyed by either federally recognized native tribes in the lower 48 states or the indigenous people of Alaska.

All native people share much in common: their land and resources are desired by developers, their rights are often not recognized, and government promises to them frequently are not honored. The unique situation of indigenous Hawaiians has already been recognized; in 1993, as the start of a reconciliation process, they received an apology from the U.S. government for the way their land was appropriated and the way they suffered and were subjugated. Yet many details remain before they can fully exercise all their rights and claims. The Kingdom of Hawaii has been recognized as a nation-state internationally, so the situation is not parallel to the American Indian tribes which are nations within a nation.

• HACM, a national leader in housing for over 70 years, currently provides high-quality, affordable housing options to Milwaukee families, seniors and disabled adults.
• The indigenes had not merely adapted to the harsh climate, but had in fact prospered in it Recent Examples on the Web Many of the indigenes believe that their perpetual sadness is the root cause of.
• India’s largest passenger airline - IndiGo offers the lowest airfare for your flight booking. Over the years, IndiGo has become synonymous with on-time travel and with every flight ticket you book on the website, we strive to deliver a hassle-free experience to you.

Much of the impetus for federal recognition of the indigenous people of Hawaii is to ward off legal challenges to native-specific federal funding as well as to maintain separate cultural identity. Native Hawaiians lost a case before the Supreme Court in 2000 because the justices did not recognize them or their government offices as comparable to tribes and tribal governments. A case is also pending before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals challenging the separate existence of the State Office of Hawaiian Affairs and the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands, because they are based on a “racial preference.” A U.S. district court found that argument to be without merit last year. The decision was appealed and a ruling is expected later this year.

Leaders in Hawaii want to establish a process that will improve Native Hawaiians’ ability to negotiate for land, resources, and independent jurisdiction. In the past the Hawaiian congressional delegation has introduced legislation to create a Native Hawaiian government on behalf of 400,000 Native Hawaiians (160,000 live outside Hawaii). In January Sen. Akaka (HI) introduced the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act (S.310) and Rep. Abercrombie (HI) introduced H.R. 505 as a companion bill in the House. The bills would establish a process leading to a Native Hawaiian governmental entity, and would also officially establish an Office for Native Hawaiian Relations within the Department of Interior. The legislation makes clear that Native Hawaiians would not be made eligible for the programs which exist to assist mainland and Alaska tribes. It also states that Native Hawaiians are prohibited from gambling enterprises unless some future Congress specifically authorizes it. The bills have the support of the National Congress of American Indians, the Alaska Federation of Natives, and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.

The bill has not been embraced, however, by some Native Hawaiian leaders who are concerned about who will ultimately be in control. They worry that achieving a status similar to that of Native American tribes is not enough. In their view, passage of this bill would weaken the claims which they are pursuing through international organizations to reverse the American seizure of the Hawaiian Kingdom in 1893 and to grant them full autonomy and sovereignty. They note the U.S. Apology Resolution acknowledged Hawaiian sovereignty to be inherent, and believe that supports their claim for total independence.

Although they are indigenous people, Native Hawaiians do not have self-governance rights. There has been a growing sovereignty movement by Native Hawaiians to spell out their needs, to acknowledge their status as native people, to resurrect their language, and to protect their resources. The state government’s Office of Hawaiian Affairs works to better the conditions of Native Hawaiians. Indigenous Hawaiians have certain entitlements based on their ancestry, distinct community, culture, history, and lands. They can establish homesteads on certain land that has been set aside in trust for them. However, there has been ongoing resistance to fully returning their land or even giving them all revenues from land held in trust.

For example, most of the Honolulu airport is built on land that was set apart for Native Hawaiians, with an understanding that 20 percent of the revenues received by the state would be transferred into trust accounts. That has not happened to the chagrin of some of the Native Hawaiian leaders.

Recently, some non-native Hawaiians have challenged limitations based on ancestry for the trustees of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs; entry to the famous Kamehameha School established for students of Native Hawaiian ancestry; access to homesteading opportunities on land set apart for Native Hawaiians; and other programs for indigenous people. What had seemed to be a clearly defined status is being undercut by reverse discrimination arguments. There is also a question of power; those of native ancestry constitute a diminishing percentage in a state with many newcomers.

A number of Native Hawaiian organizations which have been part of the sovereignty movement in Hawaii are opposed to passage of S. 310. In their view, the proposal does not go far enough to give true independence and self-determination to the indigenous people there. They believe passage of the bill would establish Native Hawaiians as a tribal entity, subject to the same control by the federal government as Native American tribes experience. Rather than being viewed as a nation within a nation, these Hawaiian natives wish to achieve what they term “decolonization” or “de-annexation.” They seek to reverse the overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom in 1893, and what they see as the totally illegal action of annexation by the United States which followed in 1898.

They point out that passage of the bill would not directly give them any additional control over the land which has been set apart for them, nor would it grant them any additional territory. Domestic status would weaken, they assert, their claims under international law for recognition as an indigenous people entitled to full self-determination. Finally, they state they are troubled that the bill has been formed in a top-down process by policy-makers without true consultation with the indigenous people themselves.

Many of the differences of opinion among Native Hawaiians stem from their view about the relationship between mainland tribes and the federal government. Some view it as an advantage to be treated the same as the 562 federally recognized tribes in Alaska and the 48 states. Others view the tribes’ problems with the federal government as a cautionary tale and do not want equivalent legal and political status. Due to the differences of opinion within the affected groups, FCNL has taken no position favoring or opposing this bill. However, since the bill may pass, FCNL is providing this update and background information. You may wish to take a stand and contact your representative one way or the other.

While proponents want to protect current Native Hawaiian programs, opponents decry privileges that they say will be created by reverse discrimination. Arguments regarding reverse discrimination usually involve phrases such as “preferential treatment,” “quotas” or other “formulaic” approaches to affirmative action, and a “compelling state interest” in diversity.

The focus is on the rights of individual citizens vis-a-vis each other versus integration of groups into the larger society. Think of the 1978 Bakke case (University of California medical school versus a white applicant) and recent University of Michigan cases. However, the arguments about recognition are about political status and whether this community constitutes a distinct entity, even though the uniqueness of the Native Hawaiian culture, language, and history has generated numerous laws and programs and an apology. The focus is on the Kingdom of Hawaii, identity, governing authority, political vehicles, ceded lands, and trusts—issues similar to mainland tribal issues.

Now as a vote is imminent, critics such as Bruce Fein, Paul Weyrich, Ed Meese, the Heritage Foundation, and the National Review are vigorously opposing passage of S. 310 arguing that it creates a race-based government.

FCNL asks: Why does recognizing the existence of aboriginal people (those who were “here first”) and honoring their desire for some form of indigenous governance constitute a divisive racial preference? After all, Canada, New Zealand, and Australia are forging new respect for indigenous cultures, creating formal representation of such groups, and settling land claims. The opposition to S. 310 seems to come from a fear of liability and domestic consequences. An honest appraisal of the merits or deficiencies of the bill is called for, not scare tactics or rhetoric from white Americans who do not live in Hawaii. Native Hawaiians who support and oppose the bill certainly should be heard. Those opposing the bill have many legitimate concerns such as their fears about the way Interior has mishandled Indian land and profits on the mainland and whether that could happen again in Hawaii.

The way it is playing out, the Hawaiian Congressional Delegation is being forced to debate the right to federal recognition with conservative leaders and a Justice Department, who question the constitutionality of what they view as a race-based decision.

Resources

Nation Within: the Story of America’s Annexation of the Nation of Hawaii, by Tom Coffman

Question: 'What are the religious / spiritual beliefs of Native Americans?'
Answer: Native Americans is a generic reference to people groups who lived in North and South America prior to the arrival of European explorers. Given the size of those two continents and their diverse landscapes, it is no surprise that Native American cultures varied drastically from group to group and from tribe to tribe. This means “Native American Religion” is an extremely broad category. The religious beliefs of modern Americans—and Asians, and Europeans, and Africans—span a wide range, and so do the spiritual traditions of Native Americans.
That being said, most Native American religions share a set of common features. Most important among these are a lack of distinction between the spiritual world and the natural world, the existence of some type of creative deity, and a general lack of objective, fixed principles. Few Native American religious ideas were considered absolutely unchangeable, and even fewer were codified in writing. As a result, historic spiritual beliefs in the Americas were diverse and extremely fluid.
One common feature of many Native American spiritual traditions is a uniform view of reality. Christianity often speaks of a physical world and a spiritual world. At least for the sake of comparison, such a distinction does not exist in most Native American religions. The “world” of spirits and deities is the same “world” as that of nature and man, and whatever differences or separations may exist are frequently bridged.
Most Native American religions include some kind of divine Creator. In many cases, this is a single deity, often referred to as the Great Spirit. In some cases, this is a group of gods or a collection of spirits. And, in others, this spirit is more of an impersonal force than an actual, personal being. Because of this broad variation, individual Native American religions can be categorized as theistic, deistic, henotheistic, polytheistic, or even pantheistic.

Indigent

Native American religions are also typically devoid of objective rules or laws. This is not to suggest there are no moral principles in these spiritual traditions. However, such concepts are typically treated as guidelines or foundations and not as hard-and-fast regulations. Traditions vary from group to group, but Native American spirituality is typically much less rigid than systems such as Christianity, Buddhism, and Islam.
Written texts comparable to works such as the Bible, the Qur'an, or the Vedas do not exist in Native American religious history. Instead, oral tradition and personal teaching are strongly emphasized in Native American religious practice. The motivation for this is extremely practical. From the Native American perspective, the only way to learn traditions is to participate in them; there is little use for written texts.
The combination of fluid tenets, a lack of written scriptures, and wide variety of belief caused European explorers to badly misunderstand the spiritual traditions of Native Americans. The assumption of most colonizers was that native religion was shallow, simple, and unimportant. While Native Americans are, by comparison, far more comfortable combining their spiritual beliefs with those of other religions, their traditions are as deeply held and are considered just as meaningful as those of any other culture.
A particularly interesting feature of Native American religion is the recurrence of myths regarding a catastrophic, worldwide flood. As is the case with spiritual traditions around the world, several versions of a flood story can be found in Native American myths:
• Hopi folk tales speak of Tawa, the Sun Spirit, destroying the existing world (called the Third World) in a flood; a few good people survived by riding in reed boats (compare Genesis 6:6–8).
• An Ottawa story claims that a man angered the sea god, triggering a flood that covered the world. This man was saved by a goddess riding in a boat with pairs of surviving animals (compare Genesis 6:20).
• According to the Chippewa, a particularly powerful man killed the evil Great Serpent, triggering a mountain-covering flood (compare Genesis 7:19). People survived by boarding rafts and floating until the waters had subsided (compare Genesis 8:1).
• Cheyenne legends say a medicine man stretched a white buffalo skin between mountains to protect the people from a wrathful divine rain. When the primary god saw this and stopped the rain, the skin shrank and became the rainbow (compare Genesis 9:12–13).
• Salish myths feature many people having nightmares of a massive flood (compare Genesis 6:13). Those who believed the dreams banded together to build a huge raft made of canoes (compare Genesis 6:14), and only they survived the flood. Those who ignored the dreams drowned (compare Genesis 7:22–23). Afterwards, these survivors began to quarrel and scattered across the earth into different tribes (compare Genesis 11:1–9).
These stories each echo aspects of the Bible’s description of the flood that destroyed the world of Noah’s time. The preservation of the basic story—seen in cultures across the world—is a point often brought up in discussions of mankind’s origins. If every human culture shares a common story, with several common details, there are good reasons to think that story has some basis in actual history.

Indigent Definition

Attempting to define Native American religion in any detail is futile. As with any other large collection of people groups, there are literally thousands of individual approaches to spirituality in Native American cultures. The concepts of fluidity, a unified spiritual and natural world, and a lack of written scriptures are shared across many of these traditions, but each is a completely independent worldview in and of itself.

Indigenous