The endeavor to forge a path toward Hawaiian nationhood, a complex and multifaceted process deeply rooted in history and identity, continues to evolve. Recent discussions and recommendations within the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA) highlight the ongoing considerations and challenges involved in this significant undertaking. This article will delve into the proposed adjustments to the nation-building timeline, the suggestion of creating a separate roll for Native Hawaiians, and the diverse perspectives surrounding the future of Hawaiian sovereignty.
Background: OHA and the Kanaʻiolowalu Roll
The Office of Hawaiian Affairs, a semi-autonomous governmental entity, plays a crucial role in advocating for the well-being and advancement of Native Hawaiians. As part of its mission, OHA has taken a proactive approach to facilitating the development of a Hawaiian nation. A key component of this effort was the Kanaʻiolowalu Roll, a registry of individuals who identify as Native Hawaiian. The aim of this roll, which has garnered an estimated 130,000 names, is to serve as the foundation for electing delegates to a constitutional convention. The original timeline envisioned this convention taking place relatively quickly. The ultimate goal of this convention would be to discuss and define the structure and future of a self-governing Hawaiian entity.
CEO’s Recommendations: A Shift in Timeline and Approach
Kamanaʻopono Crabbe, the CEO of OHA, recently presented a series of recommendations to the OHA trustees that signaled a potential shift in the trajectory of the nation-building process. Central to his suggestions was the idea of extending the initial timeline by six to nine months. This proposed extension stems from feedback received from the Native Hawaiian community, where many expressed a desire for more extensive public outreach and educational initiatives. The rationale behind this push for further education is to ensure that Native Hawaiians are well-informed about the historical context of nation-building, as well as the various options available for the future.
The importance of broad community understanding was further emphasized by Kehaunani Abad, OHA’s community engagement director, who noted the consistency of feedback received during public engagement sessions. While support for OHA’s overall goals remained strong, many individuals raised concerns about the specific management of the nation-building process. This feedback underscores the need for a more deliberate and inclusive approach that addresses the diverse perspectives within the Native Hawaiian community.
Addressing Concerns: A Separate Roll Proposal
Perhaps the most noteworthy of Crabbe’s recommendations was the suggestion of establishing a separate roll for Native Hawaiians who, for various reasons, have chosen not to participate in the current registration process. A primary concern among some individuals is the perceived influence of OHA, a state entity, on the outcome of the nation-building endeavor. This apprehension leads some to believe that the process might be predisposed towards a particular outcome, potentially limiting the scope of sovereignty options considered.
The creation of a second roll aims to address these concerns by providing an alternative avenue for participation. This approach seeks to foster a more inclusive environment, ensuring that the voices of those who may feel marginalized or disenfranchised are also heard and considered. As Abad articulated, a separate registration process would be a significant step in ensuring that the emerging nation doesn’t begin with deep-seated divisions within the lāhui (nation). This is a crucial consideration, as the success of any nation-building initiative hinges on the unity and collective vision of its people.
Divergent Visions: Independence vs. Recognition
Underlying the debate surrounding the nation-building process are fundamental disagreements about the very nature of Hawaiian sovereignty. The spectrum of opinions ranges from those who advocate for federal or state recognition, similar to the status of many Native American tribes, to those who firmly believe in the enduring sovereignty of the Hawaiian Kingdom and seek complete independence from the United States.
During public testimony, a common sentiment expressed was that the Hawaiian Kingdom’s sovereignty remains intact despite the overthrow of 1893. These individuals argue that federal recognition would be an insufficient remedy for the historical injustices suffered by the Hawaiian people. Instead, they envision a future where Hawaii reclaims its status as an independent nation.
The internal complexities of this debate are even reflected within OHA itself. A recent instance involved CEO Crabbe seeking a legal opinion from the U.S. Secretary of State regarding the legal status of the Hawaiian Kingdom. This action, which was later rescinded by the Board of Trustees, highlights the internal tensions and differing perspectives within OHA regarding the ultimate goal of the nation-building process.
Trustee Perspectives: Support and Skepticism
The recommendations put forth by CEO Crabbe have elicited a range of responses from the OHA trustees. While some trustees have expressed support for the proposed adjustments, others have voiced skepticism and frustration.
Trustee Rowena Akana, for example, expressed her annoyance with the ongoing dissent and the proposal to delay the process. She lamented the perception of Hawaiians as being perpetually in conflict with each other, questioning the need for further delays and debate. Akana’s perspective reflects a desire to move forward with the nation-building process in a timely manner and to avoid further division within the community.
In contrast, Trustee Dan Ahuna emphasized the importance of hearing the voices of the approximately 350,000 Native Hawaiians who have not yet signed the Kanaʻiolowalu Roll. Ahuna’s perspective underscores the need for inclusivity and ensuring that all Native Hawaiians have the opportunity to participate in shaping the future of their nation. This sentiment aligns with the rationale behind the proposal to create a separate roll, which aims to address the concerns of those who may feel excluded from the current process.
The Question of Agency: Is OHA the Right Facilitator?
A crucial question that has emerged during the nation-building process is whether OHA is the most appropriate entity to lead this complex undertaking. CEO Crabbe himself has acknowledged that OHA may not be ideally positioned to facilitate the development of a Hawaiian nation, describing the process as an ongoing "work in progress."
Despite these reservations, Crabbe has emphasized the strong "political will" among Native Hawaiians to establish or restore a government that embodies the legacy of Queen Liliuokalani. While advocating for caution and careful consideration, he also stressed the urgent need to establish some form of "political protection" for Native Hawaiians. The challenge lies in determining the most effective and appropriate form of that protection in the context of the 21st century.
Future of the Hawaiian Nation-Building Effort
The future of the Hawaiian nation-building effort remains uncertain, with numerous challenges and complexities to navigate. The proposal to extend the timeline, the suggestion of creating a separate roll, and the ongoing debates about the nature of sovereignty all reflect the multifaceted nature of this endeavor. The future of the Hawaiian nation-building effort depends on the ability of Native Hawaiians to bridge their differences, engage in open and inclusive dialogue, and forge a collective vision for the future. The future of the Hawaiian nation-building effort will ultimately depend on the ability of the Hawaiian community to come together.
The future of the Hawaiian nation-building effort necessitates continued public education, outreach, and engagement. It also requires a willingness to address the legitimate concerns of those who may feel marginalized or disenfranchised. By fostering a more inclusive and participatory process, the Hawaiian community can work towards building a nation that truly reflects the diverse voices and aspirations of its people. The future of the Hawaiian nation-building effort is still yet to be written. The future of the Hawaiian nation-building effort requires careful deliberation.