Native Hawaiian Decolonization and the Politics of Gender

Abstract

Unbeknownst to most Americans—and even those within American studies—there is a thriving independence movement taking place in the Hawaiian Islands today. It was borne out of an unlawful U.S.backed overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom in 1893, and is currently in opposition to a proposal for U.S. federal recognition of a Native Hawaiian Governing Entity, which would transform Hawaiians’ political status in damaging ways. U.S. senator Daniel Akaka (D-HI) first proposed the legislation in 2000 to recognize Hawaiians as “Native Americans” with a political trust relationship to the United States—similar to that of American Indians. 1 Akaka’s initiative followed the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Rice v. Cayetano that found Native Hawaiian–only voting in trustee elections for the state’s Office of Hawaiian Affairs to be unconstitutional. 2 Even though the ruling was made only on the basis of the Fifteenth Amendment, state programs and federal funding targeting Native Hawaiians are under threat by lawsuits challenging their legitimacy on the basis of the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection. But none of those suits has met with success in the courts; what they have managed to do is terrify Native Hawaiians, especially the poorest—some of whom live on Hawaiian Home Lands (congressionally allotted homesteads), while others survive on the beaches. Senator Akaka and proponents of the federal proposal argue that this status change would offer protection against these constitutional challenges and afford Native Hawaiians the rights currently accorded other indigenous peoples in the United States, albeit precariously. However, the legislative proposal paves the way for the global settlement of outstanding Hawaiian land claims and further undercuts the right to selfdetermination under international law protocols for decolonization. When one looks at the history of U.S. federal recognition for indigenous domestic dependent nations, it is clear that there are some guarantees that would come along with the passage of the bill. These include extinguishing the Hawaiian people’s title to the Hawaiian Kingdom Crown and Government Lands—a title that heretofore has not been relinquished, as acknowledged

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 75 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.