“Now we know”: resurgences of Hawaiian independence

ABSTRACT

In this essay, I provide a brief overview of the Hawaiian independence movement and discuss resurgences of independence discourse among activists, artists and other grassroots Kanaka Maoli (Native Hawaiian people). My focus is on articulations of Hawaiian national identity in official testimonies and in contemporary Hawaiian-produced music. Testimonies at a series of hearings on federal recognition, held by the U.S. Department of Interior in Hawaiʻi in 2014, are read alongside Kanaka hip hop music expressing identification with and support for the Hawaiian sovereignty. I am interested in the ways contemporary Hawaiian independentists hold a resurgence of the common people together with the assertion of ongoing Hawaiian Kingdom sovereignty, perhaps creating space for imagining more horizontal ways to practice independent Hawaiian governance. The article opens with a brief summary of Hawaiian political history from 1810 onward, to provide context for the ways that the contemporary political actors discussed are explicitly connecting to a recent history of internationally recognized Hawaiian national independence, and an even deeper legacy of ‘Ōiwi cultural practice, as means to asserting independent futures.

KEYWORDS:

• Indigenous politics
• nationalism
• pacific islands
• social movements
• Hawaiian sovereignty
• independence movements
• hiphop music

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

1 “Sovereignty” is a complex and contested term, and the space of this article is too short to provide a full and nuanced discussion of the competing ways sovereignty is understood and practiced by Indigenous nations in relation to the U.S. However, sovereignty is generally understood as a nation exercising exclusive jurisdiction over its territory and citizenry, with nonintervention by foreign powers in their domestic affairs. This is how Hawaiian independentists usually use the term. However, settler states, such as the U.S., often use terms such as “self-governance,” “tribal sovereignty,” or “inherent sovereignty of indigenous people” to constrict that broader meaning of sovereignty. In the U.S., such terms frame Indigenous nations and tribes as “domestic dependent” nations existing within and subsidiary to the “plenary power” of the setter state. While the federal government recognizes the authority of some (but not all) Indigenous nations to manage some (but not all) of their internal affairs, from the U.S. government’s viewpoint, these tribal entities do not have the same kind of sovereignty as independent nations. Obviously, many Native nations contest this view, seeing the U.S. as a parallel but separate sovereign, and/or as an external power exerting itself upon them through occupation and/or colonization.

2 H.R. 15666 (93rd): Hawaiian Native Claims Settlement Act. Introduced: Jun 27, 1974, 93rd Congress, 1973–1974. See (Parker 1989).

3 Participation in Office of Hawaiian Affairs elections had previously been restricted to anyone who could trace their ancestry to the Indigenous people who resided in Hawaiʻi prior to 1778, the first recorded date of European arrival in the islands.

4 Rice v. Cayetano (98-818) (146 F3d 1075, reversed). Kauanui points out that “Hawaiians were in a fraught position, with no direct voice in the case, even though it was central to Hawaiian concerns.” See (Kauanui 2005, 7).

5 For text of the bill, see: http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2011/bills/SB1520_CD1_.pdf. For a legislative history of the bill see: http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2011/lists/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=SB&billnumber=1520

6 See minutes from meetings of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs’ Asset Resource Management committee, 16 October 2013 and Board of Trustees, 7 November 2013.

7 See http://www.kanaiolowalu.org/list/. Accessed 18 April 2018.

8 The “He Manaʻo Pono” petition read:

As people that value justice, righteous struggle, and facilitative leadership, we stand in strong support of the courageous actions of Ka Pouhana, CEO of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Kamana‘opono Crabbe in his letter to the United States Secretary of State John F. Kerry released on May 9th, 2014. The questions posed represent the perspectives of the broader Hawaiian and Hawai‘i community and their search for justice regarding the United States supported illegal overthrow of the constitutional Hawaiian Kingdom on Jan 17th, 1893. We believe that the four fundamental questions posed in the letter requires a response and should be looked at critically before proceeding with any further “nation building” processes. The following people, ohanas and organization stand behind the Office of Hawaiian Affairs CEO's request for legal guidance to further shed light on the truths of Hawai‘i's complex political history.

9 The Advanced Notice of Proposed Rule-Making (ANPRM), titled “Procedures for Reestablishing a Government-to-Government Relationship with the Native Hawaiian Community,” 79 FR 35, 296–303, was posted 20 June 2014. DOI-hosted public meetings began in the islands on 28 June 2014. Written comments were due 19 August 2014.

10 See https://ahaalohaaina.com/. Accessed 11 April 2018.

11 For information on the album and artists, see http://www.panioloprince.com/. Accessed 11 April 2018.