IMPLICATIONS

If the Hawaii were to indeed to succeed in becoming a sovereign nation what would the lasting implications be for its people politically, economically, and socially? The direction that Hawaii goes in would be determined by which sovereignty organization assumes power. There are many organizations, each with their own idea of how a sovereign Hawaiia should function. The two most prominent and supported approaches to Hawaii’s future as a nation are the Akaka bill or complete independence for the state.

The Akaka Bill is supported by OHA (Office of Hawaiian Affairs), an organization tied to the state. The Akaka Bill essentially would place Hawaiians in the same category as Native American tribes within the U.S. government. They would exist as their own nation within the U.S., with the protection given to their rights as an indigenous people. Davianna Pomaika'i McGregor ethnic studies professor at UH states, “…the bill will formally, explicitly and unambiguously recognize this right and protect the Native Hawaiian national government and its assets from legal challenges.” (http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2004/Apr/25/op/op10a.html) The bill would ensure that the U.S. government would protect rights granted to Hawaiians.(http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2005/Apr/10/op/op05p.html) For example, these rights include lands ceded to Hawaii as homestead land. The bill would recognize that Hawaiians have a right to govern their own affairs and establish economic self-sufficiency for their nation. Essentially this wouldn’t alter the economy and society Hawaii were this bill to be passed. The economy would remain the same but it would allow Hawaiians to maintain autonomous of it and dictate how their land is used. Socially the island would change little allowing current citizens the same lifestyle they are used to. Essentially this bill recognizes the Hawaiians as marginal groups within a greater society. Cohen looks at the idea of marginal groups extensively. Cohen states that marginal groups are, “… identifiable groups who have been continuously denied access to dominant resources, barred from full participation in dominant institutions, and defined as others.” (p. 37) These marginal groups lack access to funds or resources in which they could improve their situation. Hawaiians would fall under Cohen’s definition of a marginalized group, under the heavy effects of advanced marginalization. Hawaiians are one of the poorest social groups in the state often occupying land far away from the economic centers of the island. As a whole they lack the financial means to cause any real change. The Akaka Bill would help them as a marginal group in this regard, giving them a greater voice in the community.

The approach for independence sees a Hawaiian nation, which is completely autonomous from the U.S. Only through complete autonomy can the Hawaiians regain control of their future. Politically an independent Hawaiian nation would either create it’s own form of government or restart where the monarchy left off. Poka Lainui supporter of an independent Hawaiian nation envisions an inclusive Hawaii where the Hawaiians have the final say in all matters. Politically he see’s this new Hawaii with a two tiered Hawaiian government. One tier focuses on Hawaiians and the perpetuation of their culture while the other deals with citizens of non-Hawaiian ancestry. Under this government Hawaiians would have control over immigration, property ownership, and laws that impact their lifestyle. (http://www.opihi.com/sovereignty/independ_mdl.txt) Economically an independent state would be aim to regulate the tourism industry and trade. Essentially an independent Hawaii aims to be economically self-sufficient. Socially this Hawaii would recognize differing religious and cultural practices to exist in the Hawaiian nation. Those not of Hawaiian decent would also be admitted into the nation. Essentially this would allow Hawaiians their own nation and greater self-governance. The ideas of independence relates to the concepts stated by Fanon. In The Wretched of The Earth, Fanon writes about power dynamics between the colonizers and the colonized. The Fanon the problem of the colonized is simple; the foreigners must be made to leave. Fanon see’s the colonized having the same doctrine, “The nation must be made to exist.” (p.83) The nation needs to be separate and autonomous from the colonizers. Only until the foreigners are gone have the colonized achieved complete freedom. This concept agrees with the ideas of independent sovereignty groups. However the idea of an independent nation differs from Fanon’s model since he places so much emphasis on class division within the movement. This Hawaiian sovereignty movement ignores class division and see’s all Hawaiians as playing equal roles in the movement. Only until the last remnants of the colonizers are gone can Hawaii achieve complete sovereignty.

These two approaches see differing trajectories for Hawaii. One would place Hawaiians under even more governmental control while the other would take them completely out the U.S. Both mean huge changes for the Hawaiian people. As a non Hawaiian I really have no right to take part in the matter, and I can only voice my opinions. The Akaka Bill seems to be the easiest way Hawaiians can achieve a degree of sovereignty. In fact the Akaka bill was passed in the senate in 2007. It would protect and ensure Hawaiian rights and a Hawaiian nation that would be under U.S. military protection. The Hawaiian Islands are a strategic navel location within the Pacific Ocean and would be under threat of invasion were they to be sovereign. However the Akaka Bill also goes against the main reason for why Hawaiians wanted sovereignty in the first place. How would becoming more a part of the U.S. solve anything? The Hawaiians objected to the U.S. annexation in the first place so becoming even more of a part of the U.S. wouldn’t solve any ideological issues. Independence would be much harder to achieve and far less stable but would solve this. An autonomous Hawaiian state would actually ensure that the Hawaiians regained their land and had a nation of their own. From what Lainui states, the basic social and economic structure would not be compromised were autonomy to occur. Yet autonomy would still be really tricky to achieve. Either way changes from both forms of sovereignty would have to occur slowly over time. Personally I feel that the Akaka Bill would be the easiest and best solution but I would hate to see the Hawaiians trapped on a reservation. The same problems, which happened to the Native Americans, should be avoided. One question that I have though is whether all this would lead to more interracial conflict within Hawaii? There is already a lot of tension between Hawaiians and other races that have made the islands their home. Though much of it is joking, verbal and physical violence has occurred. Back in the 70’s there was an unofficial “Kill Haole Day” at my mom’s highschool, which was located near Hawaiian homestead land. Haole literally means foreigner in Hawaiian, but it’s come to mean someone of Caucasian descent. It helped that she was a little Japanese girl because the Hawaiians didn’t pick on her but I feel bad for the people who were Caucasian at her school. I think sovereignty would lead to less racial tension. If the Hawaiians were to gain control of their land then there would be less resentment towards foreigners. It’s important for the Hawaiians to realize that a sovereign nation wouldn’t mean that all non-Hawaiians had to leave. Having their sovereignty recognized though, would mean a lot less racial tension and would smooth out some resentment. The implications of Hawaiian sovereignty are important to consider when imagining a sovereign Hawaiian nation.