Not that the deaths of Michael Jackson or Farrah Fawcett have much to do with the recent riots over the reported fraudulent Iranian election, or the United Nations Decolonization Committee’s call for a change in Puerto Rico’s status. Their deaths however (Farrah from cancer at age 62 and Michael from a heart attack at 50), reminds me simply that nostalgia has gravity. The weight of nostalgia is an emotional and maudlin sentiment that binds us simultaneously in both collective reflection and mourning. Even now, just two hours after the announcement of Michael Jackson’s passing, a crowd has formed outside of UCLA’s Ronald Reagan Memorial Hospital.

The Statehood commission is promoting a nostalgic event, resurrecting memories of a time when statehood represented the promise of freedom and the exercise of democratic principles. In their 50th anniversary of statehood PSAs, videos focus on the nostalgic and steers clear of any substantial issue. Certain phrases repeat like the chorus to “Remember the Maine” a patriotic song repeating, “remember, remember, remember… the Maine.” Instead, we hear, “we got to vote… we got to participate in the democratic process…remember the sacrifices of those from the 442nd and 100th…” Each of these sung praises are worthy and exceptional by themselves, however, in this right that we have earned, why are we not celebrating our rights by publicly engaging in a critical analysis of the issues that confront and challenge us today. The chorus of this statehood nostalgia lulls the public from engaging in any real discussion on statehood.

In the fifty, one-minute spots being aired, what issues should be confronted? Let’s take a look:

Besides the economic challenges confronting the U.S., there is homelessness, mental health, water, sustainability, commercial development, tourism, employment, education, burial sites, budget crisis, prison issues, insurance, health-care, food sovereignty, military development, governmental outsourcing of state projects, big agriculture, Hawaii as military target for N. Korean missile test, civil unions… is there even a list? As an exercise, one should name 50 issues the state might promote and discuss as to why statehood has been good for Hawaii. With these unremarkable, redundant and nostalgic PSAs, the state has lost 50 opportunities for engaging the public in a service for which public dialogue might have championed statehood, rather than lulled the citizenry.

It should be the obligation of the state to celebrate statehood by engaging the public on issues, and not simply devising and scheming solutions by outsourcing projects to “mainland” companies. One of these outsourced events– the upcoming August 21st, 50th anniversary celebration at the Convention Center– how many of the gold or platinum sponsored booths offering solutions to alternative energy, sustainability, food, housing, technology, etc, involve strategies that have publicly engaged local communities?

Why has statehood been good for Hawai’i? For those following Puerto Rico’s decolonization, it might be useful and informative to study the marketing and lobbying strategies employed by those campaigning for the three-way split between statehood, independence, or remaining a commonwealth. Except for the N. Korean missile test and the burial issues, all issues mentioned above are issues that are also at the forefront of Puerto Rico.

Let’s also not forget that Cuba is celebrating it’s 50th anniversary of independence at the same time people in Hawai’i are becoming educated and beginning to discuss its options for self-determination. Without the imposed US blockades, Cuba’s economy will likely once again be vibrant. Puerto Rico’s economy has been held back by the United States in determining what countries Puerto Rico can trade with. Now, Puerto Rico has the option of establishing new trading partners with it’s South and Central American neighbors while Hawaii remains locked to the continental United States.

When the Soviet Union began to collapse, the Baltic states who were already at that time in the midst of their own independence struggles were able to de-occupy without tragic incidence. Could Puerto Rico’s decolonization effort be compared to Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia? Is there an historical symmmetry between the collapsing value of the dollar as the international trading currency with the 1989 collapse of the Soviet financial system?

Looking at these historical metaphors, the 50th anniversaries of Cuba’s independence and Hawaii’s statehood mirror each other like the once-was twin towers of sugar based colonialism and commodities, and the example of Puerto Rico should beacon a light of inspiration

These signifiers are a paradigmatic exercise of US imperialism. How is it that Michael Jackson died during his 50th year and taken to the hospital named after the president who negotiated the staged hostage rescue in the Iran/Contra scandal. How is it that the greatest American sexport after Marilyn Monroe, born the same year that the U.S. officially submitted its territories to be placed on United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories should fatally succumb to a very public bout with cancer at the same time that Congress takes up the issue of Puerto Rican independence? We can mix and match these metaphors over cocktails, and that would be more substantial than what the State of Hawaii has been doing with their 50th anniversary of statehood observations.

In closing, yes, I will miss Michael and Farrah. I miss the posters and music which reminds me of a magical time in my youth, a specific time between childhood and teen-angst, a time of discovery, of coming into my own. When I took down the Farrah Fawcett posters and sold my Michael Jackson records, it was a gesture of evolving, maturing, and preparing myself for both intoxicating liberation and sober independence.

go to original in the Miami Herald

BY FRANCES ROBLES

frobles@MiamiHerald.com

go to original

UN: Special Committee on Decolonization Approves Text Calling on United States to Expedite Self-Determination Process for Puerto Rico

Members Hear Petitioners Speak up for Independence, Statehood, Free Association

The Special Committee on Decolonization this afternoon approved a draft resolution calling upon the Government of the United States to expedite a process that would allow the Puerto Rican people to exercise fully their inalienable right to self-determination and independence.

By the terms of that text, which the Special Committee approved by consensus, the decolonization body -– formally known as the Special Committee on the Situation with Regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples -– requested that the President of the United States release all Puerto Rican political prisoners serving sentences for cases relating to the Non-Self-Governing Territory’s struggle for independence -– including two who had been imprisoned for more than 28 years. It expressed serious concern about actions carried out against Puerto Rican independence fighters and encouraged rigorous investigations of those actions, in cooperation with relevant authorities.

The Special Committee, also known as the “Committee of 24”, urged the United States Government to complete the return of occupied land and installations on Vieques island and in Ceiba to the Puerto Rican people; respect their inhabitants’ fundamental human rights to health and economic development; and expedite and cover the costs of decontaminating the areas previously used for military exercises.

Introducing the draft resolution, Cuba’s representative said Puerto Rico was a Latin American and Caribbean country with its own national identity, and its long struggle for independence was deeply rooted in a sense of identity. Notwithstanding 27 resolutions and decisions approved by the Special Committee and the General Assembly, the people of the Commonwealth were still unable to exercise their legitimate right to genuine self-determination and independence due to continuing economic, political and social domination by the United States, the colonial Power.

The Special Committee also heard 32 petitioners present the views of various Puerto Rican groups, parties and organizations. Many reiterated the Special Committee’s request that the General Assembly call on the United States Government to begin a just and equitable process to allow Puerto Ricans to exercise their right to self-determination, in accordance with Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) and the Special Committee’s numerous resolutions and decisions on the matter.

Petitioners also called on the United States Government immediately to suspend the death penalty in Puerto Rico, which was prohibited by the Commonwealth’s Constitution. They raised concerns about racial discrimination and economic exploitation, disproportionate prison sentences handed down to Puerto Rican independence fighters in United States jails, the supremacy of United States federal law over local legislation, and the environmental damage caused by the United States industries and nuclear testing on Puerto Rican islands.

Fernando Martin, Executive President of the Puerto Rican Independence Party, said it was particularly important that the General Assembly consider the question of Puerto Rico, since 2010 would mark the end of the Second International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism, as well as more than 200 years of emancipation and independence in the rest of Latin America. The Assembly’s consideration of the issue would exert moral and legal pressure on the United States Government to stop using pretexts and excuses to avoid complying with its decolonization obligations under international law.

But while some petitioners advocated independence, others were in favour of statehood. Jose Adames of the Literacy Center Anacona, said more than 95 per cent of Puerto Rico’s population had consistently voted either for direct statehood, as the fifty-first state of the Union or in a free association arrangement with the United States. Anthony Mele, Chairman of the Sixty-fifth Infantry Regiment Honour Task Force, said Puerto Ricans enjoyed citizenship and equal protection under the United States Bill of Rights. However, the sovereign rights of those 4 million people to vote in national elections were obstructed by arcane legislation that the United States Congress could amend easily. It was a national disgrace that Puerto Rican soldiers fought and died in wars under the United States flag, but were unable to vote for representatives in Congress. Statehood for Puerto Rico was a right, and the Special Committee must call on the United States Government to grant it.

Hector Ferrer of the Popular Democratic Party, however, favoured enhanced Commonwealth status, which would be non-territorial and non-colonial. Despite President Barack Obama’s commitment to resolving the case of Puerto Rico and guaranteeing a voice for the Commonwealth in discussions on its status, Congress had recently passed a bill which contravened that commitment. Two rounds of voting proposed in the bill was intended to manipulate the results in favour of statehood and did not provide for the commonwealth option. A constitutional assembly on status would be the best mechanism for determining Puerto Rico’s future.

Other petitioners addressing the Special Committee were representatives of the following organizations: Colegio de Abogados de Puerto Rico; People’s Law Office (on behalf of the National Lawyers Guild International Committee); American Association of Jurists; El Partido Nacionalista de Puerto Rico; Movimiento Liberador; PROELA; Puertorriquenos Unidos en Accion; Movimiento Independentista Nacional Hostosiano de Puerto Rico; Comite Puerto Rico en la ONU; Frente Autonomista; Coalicion Puertorriquena contra la Pena de Muerte; El Comite de Derechos Humanos de Puerto Rico; Colectivo de Trabajo por la Independencia de Puerto Rico Area de Mayaguez; Soho Art Festival; Socialist Workers Party; National Advancement for Puerto Rican Culture; Alianza por Libre Asociacion Soberana; Frente Patriotico Arecibeno; Primavida Inc.; Accion Democratica Puertorriquena; DC-6; Colectivo Puertorriqueno Pro Independencia; Hostos Grand Jury Resistance Campaign; Ministerio Latino; Movimiento de Afirmacion Viequense; Committee for the Rescue and Development of Vieques; Frente Socialista de Puerto Rico; and Comite Familiares y Amigos Avelino Gonzalez Claudio.

Members of delegations speaking today were the representatives of Dominica (on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement), Nicaragua, Panama, Ecuador, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Venezuela, Bolivia, Syria and Iran.

The Special Committee will meet again at 10 a.m. tomorrow, Tuesday, 16 June, to consider the questions of New Caledonia and Western Sahara.

Background

The Special Committee on the Situation with Regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples met this morning to hear petitioners from Puerto Rico.

Committee members had before them a report prepared by the Rapporteur (document A/AC.109/2009/L.13), which notes that, under the current arrangements, authority over Puerto Rico’s defence, international relations, external trade and monetary matters remains with the United States, while the Commonwealth has autonomy over taxes, social policies and most local affairs. While eligible for United States citizenship, people born in Puerto Rico do not have the right to vote in that country unless they reside on the mainland. In addition, the Commonwealth’s Supreme Court has recognized the existence of Puerto Rican citizenship in a court decision subsequently certified by the island’s Department of State.

According to the report, the United States has maintained that Puerto Rico had exercised its right to self-determination, attained a full measure of self-government, decided freely and democratically to enter into a free association with the United States and was, therefore, beyond the purview of United Nations consideration, as stated explicitly in resolution 748 (III) of 1953. However, Puerto Rican forces in favour of decolonization and independence have contested this affirmation.

The document further highlights the continuing deadlock among Puerto Rico’s parties as to whether the island’s territorial status should change: the Partido Popular Democrático (PPD) favours the status quo while the Partido Nuevo Progresista (PNP) favours full United States statehood and the smaller Partido Independentista Puertorriqueño (PIP) supports independence for the island. The United States Congress reopened the debate over the island’s political status in 2007. Introduced in the House of Representatives that year, the Puerto Rico Democracy Act called for a plebiscite no later than 31 December 2009, and for the ballot to provide voters with two options: to continue the existing form of territorial status or pursue a path towards a constitutionally viable permanent non-territorial status.

According to the report, another bill, the Puerto Rico Self-Determination Act, would recognize the right of the island’s people to call a constitutional convention through which they would exercise their natural right to self-determination and establish a mechanism for congressional consideration of such a decision. By the terms of the amended Democracy Act, passed in subcommittee in October 2007, if, in the 2009 referendum, Puerto Ricans would choose to continue their existing status, a new referendum would be held every eight years. If the other option were to win, a separate referendum no later than 2011 would give Puerto Ricans the option of statehood or becoming a sovereign nation, independent from or in free association with the United States.

The report also outlines the outcome of the November 2008 general election in which Luis Fortuño won the island’s governorship and his PNP consolidated its control of the legislature. PNP’s Pedro Pierluisi won the office of Resident Commissioner in Washington, D.C. It is estimated that a significant number of those who voted for PNP did so to punish PPD, in particular former Governor Anibal Acevedo Vilá, for poor administration and a number of unpopular measures. A link has been made between the former Governor’s defeat and criminal charges brought against him and his associates by the United States for violations of electoral funding regulations. Some political commentators have expressed the view that the charges were aimed at damaging Mr. Acevedo Vila’s electoral possibilities, since he and his party have supported Puerto Rican sovereignty and expansion of the powers of the Free Associated State to several areas now under the powers of the United States Congress. PPD and the former Governor have also called for the General Assembly to examine the issue of Puerto Rico.

The report points out that the press in Puerto Rico reported widely that, on 2 January 2009, then President-elect Barack Obama sent a message to the swearing-in ceremony for Governor Luis Fortuño in which he reportedly reiterated that he would try to resolve the colonial case of Puerto Rico during his first term. He explained that self-determination was a basic right of Puerto Ricans and that he would work with all relevant sectors to guarantee that the Commonwealth had a voice to discuss the topic in Washington, D.C.

Among other questions relating to the status of Puerto Rico and its relationship with the United States, the report also addresses the latter’s military presence, particularly on the island of Vieques; the imprisonment on the mainland of pro-independence Puerto Ricans accused of seditious conspiracy and weapons possession; and the imposition of the death penalty against Puerto Ricans convicted on federal charges.

The Special Committee also had before it a draft resolution on the Special Committee decision of 9 June 2008 concerning Puerto Rico (document A/AC.109/2009/L.7), by which the Special Committee would call upon the United States Government to expedite a process that would allow the full exercise of the Puerto Rican people’s inalienable right to self-determination and independence. It would note the broad support of eminent persons, Governments and political forces in Latin America and the Caribbean for the Commonwealth’s independence.

By further terms of that draft, the Special Committee would express serious concern about actions carried out against Puerto Rican independence fighters, and encourage the investigation of those actions with “the necessary rigour” and the cooperation of relevant authorities. Also by the text, the Special Committee would urge the United States Government to complete the return of occupied land and installations on Vieques island and in Ceiba; respect fundamental human rights, such as the right to health and economic development; and expedite and cover the costs of decontaminating the areas previously used in military exercises.

The Special Committee would, by further terms of the text, request that the United States President release Oscar Lopez Rivera and Carlos Alberto Torres, who have been serving sentences in mainland prisons for more than 28 years, as has Avelino Gonzalez Claudio — all of them Puerto Rican political prisoners serving sentences for cases relating to the struggle for independence — as well as others serving sentences for cases relating to that struggle.

Introduction of Draft Resolution

ABELARDO MORENO (Cuba), introducing the draft on the Special Committee decision of 9 June 2008 concerning Puerto Rico, said the massive presence of petitioners before the Special Committee today clearly illustrated the high level of interest in and attention to the colonial question of Puerto Rico. The Commonwealth’s people remained unable to exercise their legitimate right to genuine self-determination, while the United States, the colonial Power, maintained its economic, political and social domination over that brotherly Latin American and Caribbean nation, which had its own national and cultural identity. Despite the 27 resolutions and decisions of the Special Committee and the General Assembly, little progress had been made to reach a definitive solution.

He said the text before the Special Committee stressed the urgent need for the United States Government to foster a process allowing the Puerto Rican people to exercise their inalienable right to self-determination, as established by resolution 1514 (XV) and numerous resolutions adopted by the Special Committee. It also expressed concern that, despite several initiatives by political representatives from Puerto Rico, a decolonization process that would meet the Puerto Rican people’s aspirations had not been set in motion.

As in previous years, he continued, the draft stated that, because of its culture, history, traditions and particularly its people’s unswerving will, Puerto Rico was and would continue to be a Latin American and Caribbean nation with its own national identity. As in previous years, the draft called on the President of the United States to release three political prisoners serving sentences in mainland jails and reiterated its request that the General Assembly review the question of Puerto Rico in a comprehensive manner and in all its aspects.

Petitioners

Many petitioners urged the Special Committee to adopt the draft resolution, insisting that, despite assertions of autonomy, Puerto Rico was still one of the world’s few remaining colonies. Speakers described their people’s fight for self-determination and independence, requesting that the Special Committee urge the General Assembly to take up the matter by 2010 and call on the United States Government to begin a just and equitable process to allow Puerto Ricans to exercise their right to self-determination, as called for in resolution 1514 (XV). In his 27 February statement during the Special Committee’s inaugural session, the Secretary-General had stated that the decolonization process had remained unresolved for far too long, and that concrete results were needed.

ARTURO HERNANDEZ GONZALEZ, President, Colegio de Abogados de Puerto Rico, echoed the sentiments of many speakers when he said that Puerto Rico’s decolonization process must be determined by Puerto Ricans, not the United States Congress.

FERNANDO MARTIN, Executive President, Puerto Rican Independence Party, said it was particularly important that the Assembly consider the question of Puerto Rico, since 2010 marked the end of the Second Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism as well as more than 200 years of emancipation and independence in Latin America. The Assembly’s consideration of the issue would put moral and legal pressure on the United States Government to stop using pretexts and excuses to avoid complying with its decolonization obligations under international law.

JAN SUSLER, People’s Law Office, speaking on behalf of the National Lawyers Guild International Committee, said that the April 2009 Summit of the Americas had illustrated the consequences of United States colonial control over Puerto Rico, which continued to be deprived of a seat at the table among the nations of the world.

Like many other petitioners, she called for the release of Carlos Alberto Torres and Oscar Lopez Rivera, who for almost 30 years had been serving sentences harsher than imposed on people convicted of similar and more serious crimes. The United States Government should immediately stop criminalizing, harassing and attacking all Puerto Ricans fighting for independence, immediately release Avelino Gonzalez Claudio, an independence fighter arrested by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in 2008, and dismiss all pending charges against him.

Further, she called on United States officials to identify and hold criminally liable all those responsible for the assassination of Filiberto Ojeda Rios, Santiago Mari Pesquera, Carlos Muniz Varela and other militants of the Puerto Rican independence movement; withdraw from and formally return Vieques to the Puerto Ricans living there; cease detonating unexploded ordinances there, completely clean up the pollution caused by the United States Navy’s 60-year occupation of the island and compensate the local people for related damage to their health; and end the death penalty in Puerto Rico, which contravened Puerto Rican legislation, among other things.

Several speakers stressed that Puerto Rico was a Caribbean and Latin American nation with its own distinct national identity, but its colonial status had made it difficult to preserve its cultural heritage and achieve sustainable development. Puerto Ricans were a minority in the United States suffering racial discrimination and exploitation.

CARLOS HERNANDEZ LOPEZ, member of the House of Representatives of Puerto Rico, said many people still supported the belief that Puerto Ricans should remain politically and economically dependent on the United States, and many in that country took advantage of the Commonwealth’s political divisions to avoid the issue of its political status. The Special Committee merely approved the same resolution year after year. Puerto Ricans deserved better from the United Nations, particularly Latin American Member States. There was a need for solidarity and action to force the United States to respond seriously to the issue. He said he stood ready to put the proposed Constitutional Assembly in place so that all ideological sectors could reclaim justice and dignity, and negotiate a better future for Puerto Ricans.

EDGARDO ROMAN ESPADA, Coalicion Puertorriquena contra la Penal de Muerte, proposed that the Special Committee incorporate the issue of the death penalty into the list of issues relating to Puerto Rico’s self-determination, noting that, beginning as early as 1900, the Puerto Rican people had expressed themselves against it on many occasions. With the approval of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, a clear expression of rejection of the death penalty had been incorporated into the Bill of Rights, but the Government of the United States had unilaterally imposed it by means of federal legislation.

“The United States authorities can impose the death penalty upon the citizens of Puerto Rico in spite of the fact that we have not given them the right to end the life of any one of us,” he said, requesting the Special Committee to evaluate how such an anomaly affected the Commonwealth’s right to self-determination. Puerto Rico was the only nation in the world in which the processes in cases of capital punishment were conducted in a language different from the native one. While Spanish was spoken in Puerto Rico, English was the language used by the Federal Court. Pointing out that there were currently five cases pending before the Federal District Court for the District of Puerto Rico in which the death penalty could be imposed, he said there was a serious conflict between the right to self-determination and imposition of the death penalty. The United States must immediately and totally suspend its application of the death penalty in Puerto Rico.

As several speakers demanded the immediate release of all Puerto Rican political prisoners, SAM MANUEL, Socialist Workers Party, said they were serving “draconian sentences in US jails for the ‘crime’ of fighting for the independence and dignity of their country”. Carlos Alberto Torres and Marie Haydée Beltrán Torres had been locked up for 29 years, and Oscar Lopez for 28 — “some of the longest-held political prisoners in the world”. Avelino Gonzalez Claudio had been jailed for two years without bail.

EDUARDO VILLANUEVA MUÑOZ, El Comite de Derechos Humanos de Puerto Rico, pointed out the contradiction of federal law defining as crime fighting another crime –- maintaining a colonial regime. The clause of supremacy forced the United States federal authorities to prevail wherever there was a conflict with Puerto Rican local laws. President Obama demanded respect for human rights in many countries, but maintained a colonial regime in Puerto Rico. The existence of the death penalty and political prisoners were not conducive to Puerto Rico’s self-determination. The people of Puerto Rico had limited civil rights and the United States discriminated against those whose ideas were different from those of its Government.

RICARDO PARET VELEZ, Colectivo de Trabajo por la Independencia de Puerto Rico Area de Mayaguez, said the most serious problems facing Puerto Rico were rooted in colonialism. They included environmental degradation, quick loss of arable lands, forests and coastal areas as a result of the activities of so-called developers, as well as the chemical, pharmaceutical and other industries. Among other priority issues were an alarming increase in criminality and drug use, high suicide rates and poor medical services. In addition, the privatization of public agencies had led to mass dismissals in the interests of the wealthy and of major transnational and United States corporations.

Mr. MANUEL recalled in that regard that tens of thousands of unionists and students in Puerto Rico had taken to the streets last week, demanding an end to the Government’s plans to lay off 30,000 workers. Today, Puerto Rico’s official unemployment rate stood at nearly 15 per cent, 50 per cent higher than that of the United States. Under the new “fiscal emergency” law, Luis Fortuno’s administration would freeze wages and essentially tear up the union contracts of public employees.

He said imperialist investors had demanded sharp assaults on what they called Puerto Rico’s “welfare state” -– federal payments such as food stamps and housing subsidies — upon which Washington had relied for decades to cushion the effects of super-exploitation. The people of Puerto Rico and workers and farmers in the United States shared a common enemy –- billionaire families in the United States and their Government in Washington. For that reason, a successful fight for Puerto Rico’s independence was not only in the interests of its own people, but also that of the vast majority of people in the United States.

NILDA LUZ REXACH, Executive Director, National Advancement of Puerto Rican Culture, said Puerto Ricans had United States citizenship and, during recent elections, most of them had voted for Puerto Rico, which already had an elected Governor, to become the fifty-first state of the United States. If Congress could vote to send Puerto Rican soldiers to war, than Puerto Ricans should be able to vote for representatives in Congress. The Special Committee should listen to those voices calling for statehood.

HECTOR J. FERRER, Popular Democratic Party, said PPD defended the right of Puerto Ricans to decide their future through self-determination, favouring enhanced Commonwealth status, which would be non-territorial and non-colonial. During his presidential campaign, President Obama had promised that his Administration would try to resolve the case of Puerto Rico and that he would work to guarantee that the Commonwealth had a voice in discussions on its status. He had rejected the statements that sovereignty could be transferred to Puerto Rico unilaterally by the United States. Even though the President was committed to working with the Congress, a bill had recently been presented to Congress which contravened the President’s determination. Two rounds of voting proposed in the bill was intended to manipulate the results in favour of statehood and did not provide for the commonwealth option. A constitutional assembly on status would be the best mechanism for determining Puerto Rico’s future.

JOSE ADAMES, Literary Center Anacaona (CLAHI) advocated a declaration of statehood by Puerto Rico, insisting that the Commonwealth was not a colony and that Puerto Ricans were already American citizens. “How would you feel if every year someone asked you: ‘Do you want to lose the citizenship you had since you were born?’” The Puerto Rican government was working like that of any state of the Union, and all that was missing was a declaration of state to start eliminating all the discrimination that its people were suffering at the hands of their own Government. The so-called decolonization of Puerto Rico was pushed by those looking to distract the attention of the Special Committee.

Those calling for independence, self-determination, plebiscite or any similar kind of definition represented the past and were promoting their miniscule interests over those of the majority, he said. “Please stop this relentless and insensitive […] debate. We are plying with the citizenship and American passport of millions of people.” More than 95 per cent of Puerto Rico’s population had consistently voted for statehood, 45 per cent for direct statehood and 40 per cent for free association, while independence had received below 5 per cent.

ALEIDA CENTENO-RODROGUEZ, Frente Patriotico Arecibeno, like other petitioners, addressed the consequences of several nuclear tests carried out by the United States, characterizing them as “acts of environmental terrorism”, adding that colonialism in Puerto Rico was degenerating into an ecological disaster.

ANITA VELEZ-MITCHELL, Primavida Inc., said Puerto Ricans were United States citizens, but they could not vote in mainland presidential elections and had no voice in the United Nations unless invited by Cuba to speak. Hopefully, there would be hope for a change in how the Organization perceived Puerto Rico, which should be accorded the voice and respect it deserved, moving it away from its vulnerable position as a colony and towards the security of statehood at independence.

ANTHONY MELE, Chairman, Sixty-fifth Infantry Regiment Honour Task Force, said the 1914 Jones Act granted full United States citizenship to all Puerto Ricans on the island and their progeny. It afforded them equal protection under the law and was guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. The United States could not honour its signature to the United Nations Charter while it denied sovereignty to one segment of its own citizenry, justified by an arcane piece of extraneous legislation.

He called upon the Special Committee to remind all Member States that the sovereign right of 4 million Americans to vote in national elections was obstructed by legislation that could easily be amended by Congress. It would be a national disgrace if soldiers who fought, bled, died and were buried under the United States flag continued to be denied equal medical treatment. “We are not begging for a fifty-first star on the United States flag. What we are saying is the price for placing that star on the United States flag has been paid in full with the currency of blood. Our account is satisfied.”

Several petitioners addressed the situation on the island of Vieques following 60 years of exercises by the United States military.

FRANCISCO VELGARA, Movimento de Afirmacion Viequense, said the United States Armed Forces had left great environmental damage on the island and there was a general deterioration in people’s health. Heavy metals were to be found in the soil and the pollution of local waters made it risky to eat fish. The bombs used by the United States Navy contained dangerous and toxic substances, and despite the withdrawal of the Armed Forces, explosions of remaining ordnance continued. Thus, the bombing of Vieques had not ended, all of which pointed to violations of the human rights of the island’s inhabitants. The United States Navy should be held accountable for the damage it had inflicted.

MYRNA V PAGAN, Committee for the Rescue and Development of Vieques, said the local communities had no human rights, being the victims of bombing and expropriation. Depleted uranium had been dropped on the island by mistake and continued to poison the people. “We may never recover from that mistake.” Yet the Navy refused to accept responsibility for decimating the health of thousands of people as a result of land, water and air contamination.

It was encouraging that the Director of the Agency for Toxic Substance and Disease Registry had recently agreed publicly to take a fresh look at the Vieques situation, she continued. Yet, in recent years, the people of the island had enjoyed the freedom from bombing, but still remained victims of the control and whims of the Federal Government and the lack of independent action on behalf of the Estado Libre Asociado, which danced to a colonial tune, “and the devil take the men, women and children of Vieques who continue to sicken and die”.

On 18 May 2009, the United States Department of Justice had used “sovereign immunity” in the legal case in which 7,100 Viequenses had filed suit against the United States Navy. The Navy should not be allowed to hide the truth about its actions, its violation of laws and regulations, and the harm it had caused to the health of the people of Vieques by using the “sovereign immunity” defence. The Special Committee was invited to stand with the people of Vieques in the spirit of truth and justice and in honour of its own affirmations of fundamental human rights. The United States Government should compensate the islanders for the harm they had suffered.

GIOVANNIA ANGELICA ACOSTA BUONO, Frente Socialista de Puerto Rico, said the fact that Puerto Rico remained a colony was not in doubt, and the colonial situation must be considered by the General Assembly. Yet some said Puerto Rico was a colony because it wished to be. At the same time, there had been campaigns of harassment against those protesting against colonialism as well as aggression against groups of journalists, growing repression of Latin American nationals coming to work in Puerto Rico and increased recruitment of Puerto Rican citizens into the United States Army. Given the increased United States presence and control, the United States military, legal and political mechanisms must withdraw from Puerto Rico and release political prisoners.

HARRIET NESBIT, Harriet Nesbit Halfway Houses, advocated statehood for Puerto Rico, saying it was not a colony. It had an elected Governor and appreciated the billion it received in aid from the United States. The Constitution of the United States said “all American citizens have constitutional rights” and the progressive people of Puerto Rico were making their unique contribution to the betterment of society. With its beauty, tourism and industrialization, Puerto Rico was an asset that enhanced the image of the United States.

SANTIAGO FELIX, Ministerio Latino, said Puerto Rico had never accepted the idea of being a colony and had opted for Commonwealth status. The United States had granted citizenship to Puerto Ricans, but it was not quite understandable how such people could be citizens without having a right to elect the President of the United States.

Petitioners also addressed the Commonwealth’s fiscal autonomy, voting rights and the treatment of Puerto Rican political prisoners by the United States, among other issues.

Action on Draft

CRISPIN GREGOIRE ( Dominica), speaking on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, said decolonization and the exercise of the legitimate right to self-determination of peoples continued to be a top priority for the Movement, which reiterated its strong support for the Special Committee’s work and urged the administering Powers to grant it their full support and cooperation. The Movement also renewed its call upon Member States to speed up the decolonization process towards the complete elimination of colonialism, including by supporting effective implementation of the Plan of Action of the Second International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism (2001-2010). The Movement also reaffirmed its position on the question of Puerto Rico, contained in the Final Document of the Ministerial Meeting of the its Coordinating Bureau, held in Havana in April 2009.

The colonial question of Puerto Rico had been under consideration of the Special Committee for more than 35 years and had yielded a total of 27 resolutions and decisions, he said. The Movement welcomed the fact that, over the last 10 years, the Special Committee had adopted its draft resolutions on that issue by consensus. It strongly supported those resolutions, which were in full agreement with the Movement’s traditional position on the question of Puerto Rico, and called for their expeditious implementation. The Movement reaffirmed the Puerto Rican people’s right to self-determination and independence, and called on the Government of the United States to assume its responsibility to expedite a process that would allow them fully to exercise that inalienable right. The United States should also return the occupied land and installations on Vieques island and at the Roosevelt Roads Naval Station to the Puerto Rican people, who constituted a Latin American and Caribbean nation.

JAIME HERMIDA CASTILLO ( Nicaragua) stressed the importance of decolonizing Puerto Rico and expressed hope that the Special Committee would adopt the draft resolution by consensus. The text reflected the Special Committee’s commitment to the exercise of the Puerto Rican people’s legitimate right to self-determination. Nicaragua would always defend the right of peoples to independence and would never tire of saying that Puerto Rico was a Latin American and Caribbean nation. Its people were standard bearers in the fight for freedom against colonialism and imperialism, showing an aspiration for full sovereignty, self-determination and independence.

Information provided by the petitioners was very valuable, he continued, noting that Puerto Rican patriots had spoken out against the death penalty, called for the release of their compatriots and expressed hope that the General Assembly would immediately consider the question of Puerto Rico. The Special Committee had considered that situation for many years and there was an urgent need to start implementing the relevant resolutions. At the end of the Second International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism, Puerto Rico still did not exercise its right to self-determination, and its full sovereignty must be recognized without delay. Puerto Rico should not be the exception in Latin America and the Caribbean. It had much to contribute to the community of nations.

GIANCARLO SOLER TORRIJOS ( Panama), noting that Latin America would celebrate the bicentennial of its fight for independence in 2010, pointed out that one Latin American nation had not attained self-determination and the resolution of that situation must be a priority. The Special Committee must call for a review of the existing status quo to guarantee full implementation of the Declaration contained in the historic resolution 1514 (XV). The report of the United States Government’s working group on Puerto Rico recognized that the nation was subject to a colonial regime. Panama joined those who believed that the question of Puerto Rico should be placed on the General Assembly’s agenda. It was up to the Puerto Rican people to make any final decision on their country’s status. Hopefully, once adopted by consensus, the draft resolution would repeat a request that the matter be placed on the General Assembly’s agenda.

MARIA FERNANDA ESPINOSA ( Ecuador), speaking in explanation of position before action on the draft resolution, said 11 of the General Assembly’s resolutions on Puerto Rico made reference to the call for it to take up the matter. Ecuador was a co-sponsor of the draft resolution before the Special Committee, which represented its commitment to the island’s cause and aspirations, as a Latin American and Caribbean nation with its own national identity, to be able to join the concert of independent nations in the near future.

CAMILLO GONSALVES (Saint Vincent and the Grenadines) said the Puerto Rican people’s right to self-determination was accepted by most nations and had been reaffirmed during the April 2009 Ministerial Meeting of the Non-Aligned Movement Coordinating Bureau in Cuba. Puerto Ricans may be in favour of independence, statehood, autonomy or a continuation of the status quo. The decision was theirs alone. The voices raised today were not intended to offer solutions, but to express solidarity with that cause. The Special Committee was ill-equipped to divine the breadth and depth of the constituencies that the petitioners before the Committee purported to represent.

He said that what seemed beyond debate, however, was the responsibility of the United States to follow through with the logical consequences of its decision to end its bombing and military exercises in Vieques island and carry out a safe and effective, environmentally friendly clean-up. It must also expedite the process that would allow Puerto Ricans to exercise their right to self-determination in a way that respected the rights of all Puerto Ricans, regardless of political alignment.

JULIO ESCALONA ( Venezuela) said his country was a co-sponsor of the draft resolution and defended the inalienable right of the Puerto Rican people to self-determination. During its 515 years of existence, Puerto Rican had been fighting for its independence under hostile and difficult conditions, necessitating many heroic actions. The Special Committee had expressed its solidarity with Puerto Rico, but the Commonwealth remained under the political, economic and social domination of the United States. Venezuela reiterated its appeal to the United States to provide for a process that would allow Puerto Ricans to exercise their inalienable right to self-determination and independence.

PABLO SOLÓN-ROMERO ( Bolivia) said the twenty-first century should be a time for multilateral action leading to tangible results. Political will and visions of renewal were needed in order to accept changes and structural transformations in societies. That was important for the restoration of international public trust in the United Nations system. Solutions must respond to people’s true expectations.

He said the cause of Puerto Rico was one of the challenges that the United Nations must face if it wished to contribute to a solution that would allow the Puerto Rican people to exercise their inalienable right to self-determination and independence. Bolivia fully supported giving the Puerto Rican people an opportunity to decide their own future on the basis of their Latin American and Caribbean identity. The petitioners heard today confirmed the will of the Puerto Rican people to continue fighting for independence.

MANAR TALEB ( Syria) said the 27 resolutions and decisions reaffirming the inalienable right of the Puerto Rican people to self-determination and independence also reaffirmed that they were part of the Latin American and Caribbean region. Syria urged the United States to assume its responsibility to accelerate the process that would allow them to exercise their right to self-determination. Syria had fully endorsed the outcome document of the July 2006 Fourteenth Ministerial Meeting of the Non-Aligned Movement in Havana, which reiterated the Movement’s traditional stance regarding Puerto Rico. The document requested implementation of relevant decisions on Puerto Rico, and Syria looked forward to the Special Committee’s consensus adoption of the draft.

AMIR HOSSEIN HOSSEINI (Iran), associating himself with the Non-Aligned Movement, said the issue of decolonization should remain a top priority on the agenda of the United Nations as long as millions of people in the Non-Self-Governing Territories hoped to receive help towards achieving independence. They certainly deserved a better life and should be able freely to decide their own future. Iran hoped that, by approving the draft by consensus, the Special Committee would be able to help the international community take decisive steps to help the Puerto Rican people exercise fully their right to self-determination.

The Special Committee then approved the draft resolution on Puerto Rico by consensus.

Following that action, the representative of Cuba thanked delegations for approving the text for the tenth consecutive year. For Cuba, the draft resolution was not only a fundamental duty, but proof of its historic commitment to the sister nation of Puerto Rico and patriots there, who for several centuries had been setting inspiring examples in their fight for self-determination and independence.

More than 100 years of colonial domination had not been enough to deprive the Puerto Rican people of their culture and identity, he said. That fact alone showed the unswerving vocation for independence that was deeply rooted in that Latin American and Caribbean island. All those years of endurance and struggle entitled Puerto Rico to hope, and Puerto Ricans could always count on the solidarity of Cuba, which would continue to uphold the legitimate right of the Puerto Rican people to self-determination and independence.

Seededlands.org has a new petition drafted by Mililani Trask, demanding that the Federal Government hold hearings in Hawai’i on the Akaka Bill. Included in this website is a series of articles written by J. Kehaulani Kauanui, Kekuni Blaisdell, an open letter to Obama on the Akaka Bill signed by a who’s who list of scholars and activists, and the Akaka Bill chart drawn by Eiko Kosasa (which I also posted on this website).

TESTIMONY OF CONGRESSWOMAN MAZIE K. HIRONO
BEFORE THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
ON H.R. 2314
THE NATIVE HAWAllAN GOVERNMENT REORGANIZATION ACT OF 2009
1324 LONGWORTH HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING
WASHINGTON, DC
JUNE II , 2009

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Hastings, and members of the Committee:

Thank you for this opportunity to testify today on H.R. 2314, the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act, which provides a measure of justice for the indigenous, native people of the Hawaiian islands.

I would like to begin by wishing all of you a happy Kamehameha Day. Today is a state holiday in Hawaii, where we celebrate King Kamehameha I, who united all of the Hawaiian islands and established the Kingdom of Hawaii in 1810. It is for his people, the Native Hawaiians, that H.R. 2314 seeks to end years of injustice and provide a path to self-determination.

The Kingdom of Hawaii was overthrown in 1893. Hawaii ’s last monarch, Queen Liliuokalani, was deposed by an armed group of businessmen and sugar planters, who were American by birth or heritage, with the support of U.S. troops. The Queen agreed to relinquish her throne, under protest, to avoid bloodshed. She believed the United States, with which Hawaii had diplomatic relations, would restore her to the throne. It is important to note that the sovereign nation of Hawaii had treaties with other nations, including the United States, including: Great Britain , France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and Russia. As we now know, despite the objections of U.S. President Grover Cleveland, the injustice of the overthrow of an independent nation was allowed to stand, and the Republic of Hawaii was established.

In 1898, the United States annexed Hawaii. Prior to annexation, a petition drive organized by Native Hawaiians secured signatures of almost two-thirds of the Native Hawaiian population opposing annexation. The total was 29,000 signatures out of an estimated Native Hawaiian population of 40,000. These historical documents are now a part of our National Archives.

Native Hawaiian culture was under siege. The Republic of Hawaii prohibited the use of the Hawaiian language in schools. Everyday use of the Hawaiian language diminished greatly, and it was in danger of dying out. Hula dancing, which had been suppressed by the missionaries and then restored by King Kalaukaua, who preceded Queen Liluokalani, survived but did not flourish. Hawaiians were pressured to assimilate and much of their vibrant culture was lost.

In 1903, Prince Jonah Kuhio Kalanianaole was elected to serve as Hawaii’s delegate to Congress. One of his most notable achievements was the passage of the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act of 1920, which set aside some 200,000 acres of land for Native Hawaiians. The reason for the legislation was the landless status of so many Native Hawaiians, who were displaced by newcomers to the islands and became the most disadvantaged population in their native land. Congress passed the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, which is still in force, in recognition of its trust responsibility toward Native Hawaiians.

Hawaii became a state in 1959. Beginning in the late 1960s and early 1970s, a Native Hawaiian cultural rediscovery began in music, hula, language, and other aspects of the culture. This cultural renaissance was inspired by hula masters or kumu hula, who helped bring back ancient and traditional hula; musicians and vocalists, who brought back traditional music and sang in the Hawaiian language; and political leaders, who sought to protect Hawaii’s sacred places and natural beauty.

This flourishing of Hawaiian culture was not met with fear in Hawaii, but with joy and celebration and an increased connection with each other. People of all ethnicities in Hawaii respect and honor the Native Hawaiian culture. We are not threatened by the idea of self-determination by Native Hawaiians.

In 1978, Hawaii convened a constitutional convention that was designed, in part, to right some of the wrongs done to Native Hawaiians by proposing changes to the state constitution. The constitutional convention created the Office of Hawaiian Affairs or OHA so that Native Hawaiians would have some ability to manage their own affairs on behalf of Native Hawaiians. The people of Hawaii ratified the creation of OHA in the state constitution and voted to allow the trustees of OHA to be elected solely by Native Hawaiians.

The provision relating to the election of OHA trustees was challenged in Rice v. Cayetano all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which heard the case in 1999. I attended the hearing at the Supreme Court while I was serving as Hawaii’s Lieutenant Governor. The Court ruled that the State of Hawaii could not limit the right to vote in a state election to Native Hawaiians. This decision does not stand for the proposition that Native Hawaiians are non-indigenous people.

The 1978 Constitutional Convention, or ConCon as it is known in Hawaii, also laid the ground work for the return of some federal lands to Native Hawaiians, including the island of Kahoolawe, which is currently held in trust for a future Native Hawaiian governing entity. The ConCon also designated the Hawaiian language along with English as the official state languages of Hawaii for the first time since the overthrow in 1893.

I was in the Hawaii State Legislature when we approved creation of Hawaiian language immersion schools, recognizing that language is an integral part of a culture and people. The Hawaiian language was in danger of disappearing. Public Hawaiian language preschools, called Punana Leo, were started in 1984. We now have Hawaiian language elementary, middle, and high schools in Hawaii, and a new generation of fluent Hawaiian language speakers are helping to keep this beautiful and culturally important language alive. Other native peoples are looking to the Hawaii model as a means of preserving and perpetuating their native languages.

I believe how we treat our native indigenous people reflects our values and who we are as a country. Clearly, there is much in the history of our interactions with the native people of what is now the United States that makes us less than proud. But one of the great attributes of America has always been the ability to look objectively at our history, learn from it, and when possible, to make amends.

H.R. 2314 is supported by the great majority of Hawaii’s residents, by its Republican governor, by our State Legislature, and by dozens of organizations. In 2007, the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R. 505, an earlier version of the bill, by a vote of 261 to 153. This was the second time the House had recognized the need for Native Hawaiian self-determination.

The State of Hawaii motto, which was also the motto of the Kingdom of Hawaii, is “Ua mau ke ea 0 ka aina i ka pono,” which translates to “the life of the land is perpetuated in righteousness.” Native Hawaiians, like American Indians and Alaska Natives, have an inherent sovereignty based on their status as indigenous, native people. I urge your support ofH.R. 2314.

Mahalo nui loa (thank you very much).

click here for audio only

KPFK interview starts off with the Eisenhower video. Jon, Kuhio and myself were escorted to Sonali Kolhatkar’s Uprising Radio by the LAPD after Christian Dautresme’s Volvo broke down on the 101 N. early in the morning. Following drawings and writings are from Kamehameha School 5th grade class and can be seen in more detail here.

Letter to the Lāhui:

Early this week I was a part of a panel “Hoʻopunipuni: The Myth of Statehood” organized by Arnie Saiki, in Los Angeles. Julian Aguon, Kekuni Blaisdell, Kuhio Vogeler and I all spoke about the many different and connected deceptions that have maintained the fiction that Hawaiʻi belongs to the United States.

We discovered that the audience, largely consisting of Hawaiians living in Southern California, was desperate to understand the nature and direction of the sovereignty movement in Hawaiʻi. They wanted to be connected to and contributors to the movement but did not understand why there was fighting between Kanaka Maoli in Hawaiʻi, why there was such opposition to Kau Inoa and the Akaka Bill, what the US Supreme Court decision on the Ceded Lands implied, and mostly when we in Hawaiʻi would finally give them a unified and clear path to follow.

I told the audience that we fight among ourselves in part because of the pernicious and ingrained deceptions that America has provided that have succeeded not only in disguising its imperial nature in the world but also convincing Kanaka Maoli that the US has some legitimacy in its claims to our land and our loyalty. To their complaints that we seemed to be fighting among ourselves, I replied that we have not just one American lie to contend with, but one lie after another, collectively confusing issues and making it difficult to achieve consensus, much less unanimity, yet we grapple with this constantly, striving to base our movement on fact and truth and some sense of honor.

I do believe that we will continue to disagree over many things, but I see no reason why we should not eventually get to the point where we can at least agree on how we see the US/Hawaiʻi relationship and understand the factual history of that relationship. Before we assume that some Hawaiian people will always be Americans by choice, let us at least be sure that they know the history that even America concedes.

Simply: The US assisted and participated in a conspiracy that helped fewer than a hundred armed malcontents take control of a nation that ruled over more than 38,000 subjects ardently loyal to the Queen. The US violated its own constitution in accepting the cession of the regime it sponsored and impounded nearly 2 million acres of kingdom property pretending that it was a legal annexation. The US imposed a colonial government on an independent nation state and allowed the colonial administration to lease and sell the very best lands of the Kingdom to a small number of already wealthy plantation owners during the first half of the twentieth century. In 1921 the US passed a homestead act in Congress setting aside slightly more than 1/10th of the land it took to benefit the poor and struggling Hawaiians, after first defining who would qualify according to a random assignment of blood quantum, and allowing the same territorial government to fund and parcel the lands as they saw fit.

By 1941, Hawaiʻi was considered an American colony by the international community which seemed to forget that the Kingdom had been a recognized, independent nation state until the United States formed the territorial government, and was placed on the list of “Non self-governing territories” by the newly formed United Nations in 1947.

In 1959, the US declared Hawaiʻi the 50th state after removing Hawaii’s name from the roster of Non self-governing territories and reporting to the UN that Hawaiʻi had been incorporated into the American union by a plebiscite in which more than 90 percent of the vote had chosen statehood. In truth less than thirty percent of Hawai`iʻs residents had actually voted and the only choices voters were given were statehood or continued status as an American territory. At this point, if there were Hawaiians left who remembered that we had been an independent country, they were not talking. Under UN auspices, greater scrutiny should have been applied to the process by which America claimed statehood for Hawaiʻi. Without international voices and with few published objections to our incorporation the US proceeded to transfer control of nearly one and a half million acres of Kingdom lands and Liliuʻs crown lands to the state government requiring only that the new state government assume the trust responsibility once borne by the US government for the native people.

In 1977 a federal-state task force investigating the Hawaiian Homes Act discovered that only a small fraction of qualifying Hawaiians had received homestead lands while a majority of the lands were leased out to non-qualified residents in order to raise funds to administer the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands. Moreover, other ceded lands had been leased or sold without any benefit allocated to Native Hawaiians, an apparent violation of the requirement stipulated in the transfer of those lands to the state government in 1959. The Office of Hawaiian Affairs was created in 1978 in order to create an agency that could receive state monies and act on behalf of Native beneficiaries. In 1978 the Hawaii Supreme Court and the Legislature both confirmed that Hawaiians were entitled to a 20 percent pro rate share of ceded land revenues because of the terms of the Statehood Act.

In 1989 a story in the Wall Street Journal detailing the continued failure of the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands had the Hawaiʻi State governments and the US government pointing the finger of blame at each other, although the Task Force in 1977 had already proposed a remedy: spend a billion dollars, half immediately and half over ten years and build the infrastructure necessary to put qualifying Hawaiians on the land. Neither would and both accused the other of bearing the responsibility. In 1998, the governor of Hawaiʻi acknowledged that a 20 percent share of ceded lands revenues to the Office of Hawaiian Affairs would amount to ten million dollars. He offered five million as the maximum that the revenue strapped government could afford and the Office of Hawaiian Affairs accepted.

Partly in response to a mounting frustration with the failure of the US to live up to its commitments, and partly in recognition of the dire poverty in which many Hawaiians found themselves, thousands of Hawaiians began to explore sovereignty as an alternative to continued poverty and marginalization. But a growing number of political and community activists and scholars began to analyze the nature of Americaʻs possession of Hawaiʻi and has since identified several different avenues of liberation.

One political avenue is to emphasize the Kanaka Maoli’s status as an indigenous people, which places us under the protection of the UN’s Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples; A second acknowledges Hawaiʻi as an American colony, not lawfully decolonized, under the UN’s Article 73. A third focuses on the national status of the Hawaiian Kingdom and its rights under international laws to re-secure its independent status and the end of American military occupation.

Perhaps in response to these national and indigenous affirmations, US Senator Daniel Akaka proposed an alternative in 1994 that would recognize Hawaiian natives as a native people under the jurisdiction of the Congress and is finally poised to pass this legislation known as the Akaka Bill this year. The protections and assurances of this bill became more and more detrimental to Native Hawaiians over the past fifteen years in order to placate a hostile congress and administration. The shape taken by federal recognition has occurred with almost no consultation with Hawaiian organizations.

Regardless of the provisions of the Akaka Bill, federal recognition is merely the latest deception of the US government that it has some legitimate claim to Hawaii’s sovereignty and its lands. The naked truth is that our ancestors created a national government in the 1840s, structured by democratic laws and principles; created property similarly structured by modern laws and principles; secured treaties of recognition, cooperation and friendship; never raised a hostile hand against the United States or any of its citizens; honored the principles of international laws and covenants and strongly and uniformly opposed the takeover by the US in 1897.

Hawaiians today may claim that they have been Americanized, but not without fully understanding how this has come about, not through one deception only, but through a series of deceptions that continue to this day. In my opinion, it is possible that Hawaiians could choose continued incorporation with America or a federally recognized status as preferred political futures. But it would be a betrayal of our ancestors to base that choice on lies. It is also quite clear that we are legally entitled to that choice. Perhaps when all Hawaiians can agree on the history of how we have been claimed by America, we will have fewer fights over who we are and how we should proceed.

It is important that Hawaiian organizations and agencies like the Office of Hawaiian Affairs do not perpetuate deceptions by pressing for quick and immediate solutions to difficult political issues. As an agency whose mission is to seek the betterment of the Native people, the Kanaka Maoli, it should be leading the attempt to research, uncover, chronicle and discuss the history of our relationship with the United States. It should not be hurrying a process that Hawaiian people have not fully discussed. Unfortunately, its official position with regard to federal recognition is that time will only erode the political, economic and social conditions of Native Hawaiians in Hawaiʻi and that the Akaka Bill, regardless of its provisions, offers the only foreseeable relief.

Hawaiian sovereignty activists see the restoration of a Hawaiian nation as a long-term process of education, advocacy and requiring a commitment on the part of Hawaii’s people, not just Natives, to a just resolution of the American fraud. It is not likely that OHA can exert much leadership in this kind of dynamic, and it appears that its strategy, more and more, is simply to try and isolate the sovereignty movement as either hopeless or irrelevant. The extent to which this strategy wastes the talents and energies of a growing number of Kanaka Maoli is the true measure of its failure of leadership.

Finally, America’s insistence that it has legally taken our sovereignty has consequences for the fate of the Crown and Government lands. Whenever the US or state governments can assert an unchallenged claim to these lands, we as a nation are a step closer to losing them. Thus far, both governments have been able to assume ownership merely by possessing and controlling these lands and by virtue of US declarations in the Newlands Resolution, the 1900 Organic Act and the 1959 Statehood Act. The Hawaiʻi Supreme Court’s 2008 injunction against the sale of Ceded Lands because of our “un-relinquished claims” was a significant protection of our lands and claims which would afford us the time and the political support that our movement has only rarely received.

When the US Supreme Court’s opinion remanded the case back to Hawaiʻi, I concluded that we needed to fight this case again, arguing even more strenuously than ever that the Crown and Government lands are the property of the Hawaiian Nation and that the US permanent control over it is unlawful. OHA and the other plaintiffs chose to dismiss the suit in exchange for state legislation which, in my opinion, simply emphasizes the State’s possession of these lands and maintains the fiction that our national claim is limited or unobtainable. It is my belief that we should attempt to secure this injunction once more in the Hawaiʻi courts and require the United States to call forth or create the law that dispossesses us. That, at least, would clarify our relationship with America and bring forth the patriots who will lead us home.

Written in the Republic of Ireland
May 11-15, 2009
Jonathan Kay Kamakakawiwoʻole Osorio

Assigning credit where credit is due, I am obliged to give Mr. Conklin his due for the development of a story based on correspondences between the U.N., the Department of State and the U.S. Congress that I’ve been discussing regarding Hawaii’s plebiscite and its controversial removal from the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories.

In my reading of the Hawaii’s Statehood Plebiscite, I asserted that rather than the traditional story of how 94% of the voters voted for statehood, an alternative approach towards those numbers indicates that only 35% of eligible voters “actively sought statehood.”

In the outline, I suggested that the 1959 Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjold, and the Fourth Committee in charge of Non-Self-Governing Territories ignored Hawaii’s statistical data, submitted as a condition of being listed as a NSGT mandated by Chapter XI, Article 73e of the the U.N. Charter. Similar submitted data revealing demographic statistics was applied to the removal of South Africa and was rejected by the Fourth Committee and Trygvie Lie, the U.N. Secretary-General in 1949. Ten years later, in 1959, the U.N., neglecting Hawaii’s plebiscite data allowed for the removal of Hawaii from the list and suggests collaboration with the U.S. This neglect also disregards UNGAR 742, “Factors which should be taken into account in deciding whether a territory is or is not a territory whose people haven not yet attained a full measure of self government (1953).

Through key correspondence between the UN, the State Department and the Senate, specifically, between Secretary of State John Foster Dulles, Francis O. Wilcox (International Organization), and Senator Knowland in 1954, but also through Arnold V. Kunst (Acting Director, Division of Information from Non-Self-Governing Territories, United Nations), Bolard More (Office of Dependent Area Affairs, Department of State, United States Mission to the United Nations, and others) another picture of Hawaii’s statehood process emerges.

What is revealed through State Department records and Congressional testimony is that during the meetings at Dumbarton Oaks and San Francisco, Hawaii and Alaska were placed on a list of Non-Self-Governing Territories. This was before the United Nations had been formalized and before the election of a U.N. Secretary-General. Instead, presiding over those meetings were U.S. Secretaries of State Cordell Hull and Edward Stettenius. What we are told by Sen. Vandenberg, one of the senators observing these international discussions, is that Hawaii and Alaska were listed as “incorporated” territories, rather than “unincorporated” territories, territories that were in process of becoming states and held in different status from Guam, American Samoa, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, and at the time, Panama Canal Zone. The reason Hawaii and Alaska were listed was as a sign of good faith, according to John Foster Dulles, and was to show the other member nations that the United States was serious to set the example for decolonization.

The problem as described in the previous article, is that the United Nations never recognized a difference between “incorporated” and “unincorporated” territories, hence the controversy that has arisen. Also of note, is that of the seven U.S. territories listed for decolonization, Puerto Rico was the only U.S. territory as having been properly removed from the list of Non-Self-Governing Territories. Also, out of the 72 countries listed total, more than 60 have attained independence through the United Nations decolonization process, a stark contradiction to the good example the United States had originally set out to demonstrate.

The plebiscite vote and the reading of the data simply shows two approaches toward the use of direct democracy: One being the value in which the state would ensure the greatest effect by calling for a 94% landslide victory; the other being the value in which the United Nations sought to ensure that the majority of an indigenous population participated and was properly represented.

Although there is no smoking gun proving direct collaboration between the U.S. and the U.N. in regard for its predetermined removal from the NSGT list, and no direct conversation between Henry Cabot Lodge, the U.S. ambassador to the U.N., and Dag Hammarskjold, there is at least enough correspondence to suggest that the process of Hawaii’s removal was predetermined as far back as 1944. This does not seek to offer a legal dismissal of Hawaii’s claims towards decolonization, only an attempted explanation as to why there had been no discussion by the United Nations over the misrepresenting data of Hawaii’s 1959 plebiscite.

The story by which Hawaii became a state in 1959 usually mythologizes a heroic effort by the Statehood Commission and the lobbying efforts of Territorial representative John Burns, and highlights the hurdles that Congress confronted before eventually voting for Hawaii’s statehood. These hurdles mainly involve racist bigotry and communist allegations along with various facets of organized labor, particularly the I.L.W.U. However, the retelling of the statehood process has left out those who didn’t, for whatever reason, participate in the plebiscite vote, the process adhering to the democratic ideals the United States was at that time trying to convey as its foreign policy strategy. Also, the mythology of Hawaii’s statehood story fails to adequately discuss the colonial/territorial history from the perspective of the United State’s obligation to educate and generally provide the necessary care mandated by the United Nations Charter of which the U.S. ratified in 1946.

One of the many obligations as stated in U.N. Resolution 742 in 1953 declares that one of the “factors indicative of the attainment of independence or of other separate systems of self-government,” is “freedom of choosing on the basis of the right of self-determination of peoples between several possibilities including independence.”

There is nothing to suggest that Hawaii’s plebiscite, offering only “statehood” or “to remain a territory,” fulfills that mandated choice. Also, there is little to suggest that residents of Hawaii were properly educated on the process or understood the importance of the plebiscite and what rights were available to the population. It is as much to claim that 94% of the voters voted for statehood, as it is to suggest that only 35% of the eligible voters voted for statehood.

On March 18, 1959, the day Congress passed the Admission Act, Joseph F. Smith, Professor of Speech and an advocate of statehood at the University of Hawaii, sent a letter to Governor Quinn describing a recent study he conducted. He wrote, “I venture to predict that one of the most surprising features of our forthcoming election will be the number of votes opposing statehood, plus the number of ballots which will carry neither yes or no votes.” Further he observed, “only three of the students were actively in favor of statehood, and the remainder were either apathetic, saying, ‘it will make no difference,’ or definitely opposed. I think, unquestionably, these youngsters reflect the attitude of their parents.”

If the idea of Hawaii failing to attain statehood in 1959 seems implausible, one should also consider the viewpoints of Kamokila Campbell where she felt that Statehood would turn Hawaii into a Japanese dominated “menace” controlled by the Big Five; or ILWU union leader Jack Hall, when in 1953, he challenged the race-baiting perspective while coming out in favor of Hawaii becoming a commonwealth rather than a state, or when he introduced the rank-and-file to options of Independence via the U.N. Charter– “Kamehamehaism” he called it– during the 1951 I.L.W.U., Local 142 proceedings.

The 15 years between the end of WWII and Statehood was a dynamic time, and challenges to international law, international labor, and the beginning of the United State’s dominance in the world set the backdrop to a long and vigorous debate on the issue of colonialism. That this debate should, on July 27th 1959, culminate into a ten-word question to be followed by a “yes” or “no” is not without controversy.

On June 27th, 1959, Hawaii held a plebiscite to determine whether the overall population of the Territory of Hawaii sought Statehood. The final tallied vote, as was signed by Edward E. Johnston, the Secretary of State on July 2nd, 1959 declared the cumulative votes cast on all the islands was 132,773 in favor of statehood, while 7,971 opposed it. What these numbers indicate is that a total of 140,744 people voted either “yes” or “no” for Proposition 1 which read, “Shall Hawaii immediately be granted into the Union as a State?” (Figure 1)

Figure 1. (Click to expand image)

According to the State of Hawaii Data Book, Voter Turnout for the 1959 General Election was 171, 383, which reported that 30,639 or 18% of those who voted abstained, voting neither “yes” nor “no” on the plebiscite and simply voted for their representative in the General Election to which the plebiscite had been attached. So by including all who voted in the general election, only 77% really voted for statehood. (Figure 2)

Figure 2.

The total population of Hawaii from the nearest 1960 Census data reports a population of 632,772, with the median age being 38. Surprisingly, only sixty percent of the population were of voting age and 381,859 were eligible to vote. (Figure 3)

Figure 3.

Examining the assertion that 94% of Hawaii’s citizens voted for statehood, actual numbers reveal a much smaller percentage and the numbers suggest that only 35% of eligible voters actively sought statehood. (figure 4)

Figure 4

When you take into account Tables 5 and 6 below, what further arguments can be constructed regarding residency and race that might reframe the plebiscite narrative?

Relevant factors on Residency and Race

The following chart shows that 23% of the population were born out-of-state at the time the 1960 census was taken, which at the time of the plebiscite, and taking into account age discrepancy, still suggests a substantial sampling of non-native born residents potentially participating in the plebiscite vote.

Figure 5.

In Figure 6, considering Hawaii’s ethnic population at that time, Kamokila Campbell’s assertion that the Japanese vote would swing statehood was way off the mark considering that the majority of Japanese did not vote in the plebiscite. The same can also be noted for the Caucasian vote (which includes the Portuguese).

Figure 6


Although one could assert that those who voted in the plebiscite, voted along these residential or racial lines, further examination on the plebiscite data reveals that except for the votes tallied from the island of Ni’ihau which was entirely native Hawaiian (there were 70 “no” votes and 18 “yes”), the large percentage of votes cast district by district reveals that an overwhelming majority of those who did vote in the plebiscite voted in favor of immediate Statehood. There were however, certain district particularities for example, the district that registered the most “no” votes came from the more affluent and caucasian dominated Diamond Head/Kahala district, but there is little to suggest that there was any one determinate race or class that voted “Yes” or “No” in the plebiscite.

Looking at these charts and statistics, the question that begs examination is: why did Dag Hammarskjold, the United Nations Secretary-General in 1959, accept Resolution 1469 (December 1959), the “Cessation of the transmission of information under Article 73 e of the Charter in respect of Alaska and Hawaii?”

The U.N. General Assembly, particularly the Fourth Committee (the committee responsible for Non-Self-Governing Territories under Chapter XI), as well as the specialized agencies like UNESCO, WHO, and the ILO that studied the information transmitted under Article 73e, were entrusted to study this data and challenge the blatant aberrations to the process outlined by the United Nations regarding the removal of territories from the list of Non-Self-Governing Territories.

Comparing the relatively low voter turnout and the peculiarities with race and residency in Hawaii’s demographics reveal a contradiction to the process used by the United Nations to remove territories from the list. In the fifteen years prior to statehood, the General Assembly debated the removal of many of the Non-Self-Governing Territories, especially when there are inconsistencies with the voting mechanism– specifically over voter turnout and indigenous peoples.

In South Africa for example, when the U.K. first tried to remove South Africa in 1949, the U.K. administering power submitted a vote that revealed wide support in favor of annexation. However, the voting record showed that the majority of Africaans did not vote and the application was thus rejected. But in 1961, by a whites-only referendum, South Africa left the British commonwealth to become a Republic. The harsh language of the 1961 U.N. resolution 1598 “Affirms that the racial policies being pursued by the Government of the Union of South Africa are a flagrant violation of the Charter of the United Nations and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and are inconsistent with the obligations of a Member State”

An example of a vote held within the guidelines of the United Nations was the U.S. colony, Puerto Rico. Out of a total of 873,085 eligible voters, 640,714 went to the polls in 1953, and the votes were cast and split among options for commonwealth/statehood/independence. More that 3/4 of the eligible population voted, which was in accordance with the Sacred Trust that was mandated with Chapter XI of the Charter. Almost without controversy, Puerto Rico voted for commonwealth (the Puerto Rican controversy lay with the voting on its Constitution). Again, Hawaii had only 1/3 of the eligible voting population voting and that is a sound basis for contestation.

Arnie Saiki
Project Director

__________

Sources

State Department Records. Foreign Relations, 1952-1954, Volume III pp. 1211-38.

United Nations Charter and Resolutions 66, 142, 742, 1469, 1598.

United Nations General Assembly Yearbook, 1948. p 209.

“Statement by Departmental Representaitve Before the Subcommittee on Territories and Insular Affairs of the the House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs on the Question of Admisssion of Alaska as a State of the Union” (Including Replies) March 12, 1957. Department of State Records

1960 Census Report. Hawaii State Archives.

“State of Hawaii Data Book” Legislative Reference Bureau.

Plebiscite Record: Hawaiian Collection, U.H. Library.

Information from Non-Self-Governing Territories: Summary and Analysis of Information Transmitted Under Article 73 e of the Charter. Report of the Secretary General May 6, 1958. A/3815 U.N. Records

Information from Non-Self-Governing Territories: Summary and Analysis of Information Transmitted Under Article 73 e of the Charter. Report of the Secretary General: Pacific TerritoriesL Hawaii. March 6, 1959. A/4088 U.N. Records

“Communication from the Government of the United States of America concerning Alaska and Hawaii” A/C.4/L.632. U.N. Records

“Draft Guidance Paper on Puerto Rico for Tenth Session of Organization of American States” December 1, 1953. Department of State.

“Kamokila Opposes Island Statehood,” Honolulu Star-Bulletin. January 17, 1946.

“Statehood for the Territory of Hawaii: A Statement in behalf of the I.L.W.U., CIO. ” Regional Director for Hawaii, Jack Hall. March 1947.

“Commonwealth Status for Islands Backed by I.L.W.U International” Honolulu Star-Bulletin. July 11, 1956

Correspondance between Joseph F. Smith and Governor Quinn, Hawaii State Archives. March 18, 1959

We haven’t digitized the video taping of the event yet, and I’m happy to report that the May 4th event was lively, engaging, and more than met our high expectations. Rather than summarize what Julian Aguon, Kekuni Blaisdell, Jon Osorio, Kuhio Vogeler, Randy Kaulana Chang or myself presented and discussed in the Ho’opunipuni: Myth of Statehood panel, I thought it best to let the video/transcripts speak for itself as we aim towards finishing it within the month.

Photo by Roger Park

I would say, however, that both the audience and the panelists were engaged in discussion, and one thing that came across was that many had come to the event expecting to hear a unified approach on the issues of the Akaka Bill, “ceded” lands, or what Hawai’i independence might look like. What they found was that there are many approaches and that the unity that exists, exists only in the consensus of the facts. For example, the fact that in 1893, there was an illegal overthrow; the fact that in 1894 a republic was established without the consent of the United States; the fact that in 1898, there was a resolution proclaiming Hawaii’s annexation without a legal annexation treaty. Regarding statehood, there is the fact that in 1959, there was a plebiscite taken in which 96% of the people who voted, voted for statehood, but that less than 35% of eligible voters participated in the plebiscite, and there is also the fact that Hawaii was placed on the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories, slated for independence, and that we were improperly removed from that list.

What the panel suggests is that agreeing upon these facts, there are many approaches towards sovereignty and independence and there is work being done by many to uncover the myth– the misinformation, lies, misinterpretations– that have been promoted in Hawaii and abroad over the last century. The panel also encouraged all to participate in this discussion, not only those residing in Hawaii, but those residing on the continent as well. The struggle for independence, justice and dignity, is not one that is defined by the geographical boundaries of Hawaii, rather the struggle should be defined by all who are willing to engage in further public dialogue and social discourse.

Jeff Liu and the entire staff from Visual Communications was accommodating, encouraging and supportive, and considering how many films were being screened throughout the festival, I was continually amazed by how available they were to the stresses of putting this event together: stresses big and small. Jeff’s concern throughout this process was for this panel to present a standard of rigor and authority and despite him breaking his hand in a freak biking accident, he was present and always available to make sure that the event stayed on course.

Lono Kollars, the president of KA HA (Kaleponi Advocates of Hawaiian Affairs) was leading this event’s wonderful and hospitable pre-reception. He worked with Auntie Sharon Ku’uipo Paulo preparing and organizing the food, arranging for the musicians, and setting the mood and proper protocol for greetings, introductions and mahalo for the film and forum to come, even though his co-sponsor’s program kept changing!

Earlier, during the morning of our big event, Eseel Borlasa with publicists David Magdael and Associates arranged for Jon Osorio and Kuhio Vogeler to be interviewed by Sonali Kolhatkar on KPFK’s Uprising Radio.

Christian Dautresme, was assisting me with the details of shuttling and hosting our panelists, and he offered to drive us to the radio station at 7 in the morning. Jon’s flight to LA the night before had been delayed by several hours and by the time we got back to the house, it was nearly 2 am. We were pretty tired the next morning when we were traveling north on the 101 towards Studio City where the KPFK studio was, and just under a mile from the freeway exit, we heard a loud “POP!” a horrible scraping from under his car.

Christian pulled off the side of the freeway and the spring from his rear suspension had popped. He immediately set off to work on fixing his car. A police car pulled up and called road side assistance as I left messages on voicemail after voicemail. After a few minutes, and no one answering my calls at 7:30 am, I asked the officer if he could give us a ride to the station.

The officer willingly gave us a ride. He put Jon and Kuhio in the back of the squad car and I sat shotgun next to his shotgun as he raced to the radio station in time for the interview (No, he didn’t turn his siren on).

The irony was pulling into the parking lot of the most progressive radio station in Southern California in a squad car and having the officer let them out of the back. I hope he tuned in and listened to the show!

It was a fantastic interview, and the story of how we got to the radio station got quite a buzz at the forum later that evening.

Here is page one of the program:

and page two of the progam:

and a used ticket from the event:

I think Jon Osorio publicly thanked the officer and LAPD for getting us to KPFK in time!

It anyone wants to take the lead to sponsor a transcription of the two-hour event or the video, please contact me.

***

The Thursday before the event everything was going smoothly. I was finishing up the edit reel that was being screened at the beginning of the forum. I was advised to cut the edit reel down to under 30 minutes if possible, and I shaved off a good 15 minutes.

Then Friday, the hurricane hit with Maivan calling to inform me of her cancellation. Her new puppy, Gobi, who Otto and I met in New York a week earlier had scratched her eye and was not healing well, and she had to go in for treatment. When I last spoke with her, she was recovering well.

Then Paul Kealoha Blake, the moderator called to tell me that he had woken up with a fever and there was some concern over whether he may possibly have swine flu and thought it best that he cancel.

Scrambling, I quickly called the first person to come to mind to replace Maivan, and that was Julian Aguon who was at that time cramming for law school finals. Thankfully, after much thought and a healthful dose of persuasion from Kekuni and Maivan, he postponed his studies for an overnight Los Angeles detour. His parents drove up from Long Beach to watch the event. They must’ve been so proud because he electrified the discussion.

Jon Osorio was not without mishap either. He was supposed to be arriving around 11:15 and his flight was delayed for two hours. After picking him up from the airport we didn’t get to sleep until after 2 am and I sensed some apprehension about him getting up at 6:30 for the KPFK interview, jump into the panel, and then get up at 6 am again the next morning to catch his flight to Ireland where he was meeting Kamana Beamer. I assured him he would have time to nap.

On Sunday, I received notice from Richard Falk, that he too had to cancel. He got called to go to Europe to prepare for an investigation into human rights abuses in Palestine by the Israeli occupation.

Thankfully, Kuhio Vogeler arrived on time! In fact he offered to help mow the lawn, wash the dishes and encouraged me to sit on panel to present my research on the June 27th 1959 plebiscite. He was generous enough to help me organize my presentation right up to the pule, the chant/prayer blessing the panel given by Randy Kaulana Chang, KA HA’s recommendation for moderator to replace Kealoha Blake.

Kekuni was supposed to arrive on Saturday with Kuhio, but unfortunately he had to postpone his trip until Monday, the day of the panel, and he arrived with Julian, two hours before the start of the event.

Robert Scott, another friend offered to pick them up at 3:30 when their flight was scheduled to arrive. They were on curbside half-an-hour early and so they took a bus to Union Station. Robert, stuck in 110 traffic turned around to pick me up so that we could meet them at the station and take them to the event, which was about three blocks from Union Station.

When we got there, Roger Park, another friend who offered his services was there. He arrived at 3:30 and was the first one there. He helped Auntie Sharon unload the food from the car and assisted with communicating to the other panelists where we were when. Roger was there even before the documentarians arrived. Masayo Sodeyama volunteered her time to assist with the making of the documentary, and filmmakers Joseph Kamiya and Robyn Tofukuji also volunteered their time to assist with camera.

As I think about the details and preparation of this program, I am continually astonished by how well everyone pitched in and supported each other. It was truly a community-organized event and I believe that whatever success was achieved by this panel is a result of aloha and things being pono all around, and with that I extend my mahalo to everyone who came, asked questions, listened, and offered their assistance and mana’o, to which none of this would’ve been possible.

Most importantly, we all have to give credit to the panelists who participated for taking the time out to deliver a presentation that engaged everyone there for three hours, and the audience who engaged the panelists with thoughtful and pertinent questions!

It was so engaging that my wife Ruth went home to relieve Annika, a woman from church who agreed to be Otto’s sitter and prepare the house for the several guests who came over to carry on discussions around our own round-table until 2 am over beer and tacos from the El Sereno taco trucks.

Jon Osorio and Julian woke at the crack of dawn to catch their respective early morning flights, Kekuni and Kuhio both left in the afternoon and for me, the event closed with the rise of an early moon and ended with a long and exhaustive sigh.

Missing in the credits are also five organizations without whom this presentation would’ve been impossible: the early contributions of Hawaii Council for the Humanities for the creation and maintenance of this website; Mineral Studio who’ve donated their time and resources to host and stream content; Kanaka Maoli Independence Working Group, Ka Pakaukau, and Kanaka Maoil Tribunal Komike for their collective inspiration, motivation, and will to persevere in the struggle for Hawaiian independence.