The Akaka Bill article written by Anne Keala Kelly is an in-depth exploration of the federal-recognition bills being pushed by Senator Daniel Akaka.
The federal recognition that Akaka bill numbers 1, 2 and 3 wanted to gain were reasoned to protect federally funded Hawaiian programs from lawsuits like Rice v. Cayetano. As if the long and arduous fight for self-determination wasn’t enough, there had to be three Akaka bills that further divided the Hawaiians among themselves.Understandably so, the native community lost confidence in the delegation representing them in Washington, as many are increasingly seeing the bill more as a threat to sovereignty because once it is approved, it would be tantamount to giving up their inherent right to self-determination. Moreover, the markup made by the Department of Interior on the first bill was a revolting and direct attack against self-governance by suggesting that the “trust relationship” with the United States be lifted.
And what we already know about OHA makes it understandable why they are pushing for the third bill, masking plenary power as beneficial to the natives.Fortunately there are the Native Alaskans who are living proof that what the United States is really interested in is the fortune they can make out of the lands. Despite the lack of definition regarding lands settlement in the Akaka bills, independence advocates believe that there are conditions in the bill that would open opportunities for such. It is an admirable trait, the vigilance of the native Hawaiians in protecting their inherent rights as they have other colonized peoples as reference.Their continuous refusal to concede their rights is indication that they never wanted America in the first place.
Understandably so, they took the 1993 Apology Resolution seriously, maintaining that the United States’ illegal overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom remains a fact. What the Senator proposes as a window of opportunity for Hawaiians is really an imprisonment of a nation under the semblance of a federal government. It is not only unjust to the Hawaiians at large, but also an explicit opposition to Hawaii’s self-determination
