THE HAWAIIAN DIALOGUE Part one

To reach Ka Lae O Ka`ena by foot from the Wai`anae side of O`ahu can be very tiring. The sun bakes the travelers as they walk over this rough and at times treacherous terrain. One morning, Poka invited Ni`ele to a walk to Ka`ena, something she always wanted to do but kept putting off. Here's a piece of their conversation.

Ni`ele: Ka`ena, Wow. I always wanted to walk there but never did. I imagine there's many people like me. So, today's the day!

POKA: Yeah, there's also Ka`enas in the mind, things people want to explore but hold back because the going may be rough.

N: I know what you mean. I look at my family, my children, my neighborhood and wonder what's happening to us? What's happening to all Hawaii? We seem to have lost control over Hawaii. Yet, even thinking about it is rough; hurt plenty.

P: When we talk about Sovereignty, we're saying, "we must take a look at these things. We can't hide our head in the sand while Hawaii is spoiling." But many people don't want to talk about it because it hurts.

N: Actually, I'm confused by terms like Sovereignty, Monarchy, Hawaiian nation, Independence and Self-Determination. What are you talking about?

P: Self-Determination is really the grand daddy of the rest of these concepts. The United Nations said: "All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development." In other words, everybody run their own lives, free from foreign control.

N: What about Sovereignty? Does it mean returning to a government of kings and queens?

P: No. By exercising self-determination, Hawaii took the form of a Sovereign nation, that's a nation which had supreme powers over its affairs. Someone once described a sovereign nation as a government which had no higher legislature but God(s). Hawaii's sovereign nation was a constitutional Monarchy in which royalty had a particular role to play in the governance of thenation, one not tied to any other nation to be valid.

N: But are you saying Kings and Queens should rule Hawaii again? and if so, who would be King? Who Queen?

P: We're saying self-determination. If we as a people decide we want to be ruled by Kings & Queens, so be it. If we prefer a constitutionally limited monarchy as we had, just as well. If we don't want them in official positions of government, fine. But that decision should be ours, not a foreign nation telling us what to do and imposing their experience of a different history and part of the world on us.

N: How could we survive as an independent nation? Are we ready to play in the "league" of nations? Can we stand up to major powers such as the United States, the Soviet Union, France, Britain, China, etc.?

P: Size really has nothing to do with the existence of a nation. The United Nations' preamble clearly reaffirms the equal rights of nations large and small.

N: That may be what they said, but how could little Hawaii be compared to a real nation existing today? How could we compare Hawaii with members of the United Nations?

P: Today, many other nations, much smaller than Hawaii's approximately one million population, continue to survive. Witness the nation of Liechtenstein existing in the heart of Europe with less then 30,000 citizens; of little Andorra located between Spain and France of only 6,000; of San Marino with only 12,000; of Antigua and Barbuda, only 78,000, Bahamas of 220,000, Cyprus of 650,000. In the Pacific, we find many independent nations, for example Fiji, Kiribati, Nauru, Niue, Cook Islands, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, Vanuatu, and Samoa (Western). In a few years, we will see other independent nations of the Pacific including Kanaky (now New Caledonia), Belau, Federated States of Micronesia, etc. In the United Nations, there are at least 32 member nations which are smaller in population then Hawaii. In fact, within the Pacific, Fiji, Samoa, Vanuatu, and the SoloU.N. members smaller then Hawaii. So you see, Hawaii's size really has no drawback to Hawaii's nationhood.

It is not size that determines our future survival or existence as a nation, but dreams and an understanding of our national history.

N: That's fine for the U.N., and I agree that we should be willing to dream, but we must also be realistic.

P: "Be realistic" is really a senseless term. 200 years ago, critics told a bunch of radicals to be realistic: "How could 13 unorganized colonies break the hold from their mother country which was the mightiest sea power in the world at the time?" If that warning was heeded, the U.S. would not exist today. Nor would Gandhi's India have its freedom, or little Vanuatu have been able to kick out both the British and the French in 1980. The world map is replete with nations whose forefathers chose to create their own futures rather then accept somebody's weakness to "be realistic."

N: Well, let's get down to earth. What future would we have economically as an independent nation? Wouldn't we starve if the U.S. abandoned us? Economically, we would immediately go bankrupt, right?

P: Wrong. Economically, we would be better off. Understand this: The U.S. does not support Hawaii. When it took over Hawaii it was not to aid us, but to use us to aid them.

The U.S. has held Hawaii as their captive market. Every time you or I go to the store, we get no handout from the U.S. Instead, we pay a higher price for American products then the Americans. We support the American farmer, we pay the profits of the middlemen, we in Hawaii end up taking the second rate produce which cannot be sold from America's shelves. Hawaii is an economic prisoner to the U.S.

The U.S. won't let us get into the free world market unless they take their cut. Before a single battery from Japan gets to Hawaii, the U.S. government, then the middlemen take their profits. So the price of all these foreign goods are jacked up for us to pay. That's the American economic support we get!

N: What would happen without American trade controls in Hawaii? Who would protect Hawaii's producers?

P: Who protects them today? Certainly not the U.S. government. Under American control, Safeway imports Mexican produce to undercut our farmers! Trade controls should be developed to protect Hawaii's producers' interest, not to protect the profits of the Americans.

N: But if Hawaii became independent, the Americans would leave Hawaii. Tourism from the U.S. would drop. Military spending would decrease. What would we do to meet that problem?

P: Would there be a problem? When the U.S. leaves, there will be an American population decrease, but not because they want to leave. The vast majority would prefer to live in Hawaii.

The decrease would come about because we would control immigration. Today there is absolutely no Hawaiian controls. The Americans can flood Hawaii at will, pushing up housing and land prices, taking our jobs, etc. and they are protected by their American constitution.

The same with tourism. If American tourism drops, it would be because of our decision. We have to take firm control of the quality and quantity of tourism in Hawaii. We would determine which tourist companies should do business in Hawaii.

We would finally protect Hawaii's development against multi-national corporations which use the U.S. constitution's protection of property rights as a wedge to build whatever they want for profit.

Certainly, less American money would enter the local market, but the cost of living would decrease because of less competition for the same limited products. As the American population decreases, we would find less pressures on our lands and public services. Housing pressures would ease, traffic conditions would improve, we would have more space to live and breath.

Under an independent government, Hawaii could better adjust and tune its economic controls to the Hawaii situation. Today, we have almost no such ability.

N: Why can't we take control under the American system?

P: Because the American constitution says the U.S. Congress holds all the cards when it comes to immigration, foreign trade and interstate relations. We got nothing to say.

They use that as a battering ram forcing themselves into Hawaii.

N: But we'd lose money with less American here.

P: True. But the cost of living would decrease because of less competition for the same limited resources - less demand on our lands and public services, housing & traffic pressures would ease.

N: You mean less money flowing into Hawaii could be better?

P: Of course, Don't look at the cash flow. Look at the quality of life. That's what really counts.

Suppose your income could be doubled but only if our beaches had to accommodate twice the people, we had twice the foreigners owning Hawaiian lands, crime doubled and the cost for housing and locally produced food increased twice as much. Would you be better off?

N: Huh, - no sense living in Hawaii under those conditions! We may as well turn Hawaii over to foreigners.

P: Isn't that what's happening?

N: But we can't stop economic growth.

P: Why not?

N: Because . . . because that's what we've been told . . by those who want economic growth.

P: And we've been biting that line too long. Economic growth must support an improved quality of life. If it retards or counteracts that life quality, we shouldn't tolerate it. We must temper the promotion of economic growth above all else with a concern for the overall human development.

N: Nice philosophy, but you can't escape the economic reality that Hawaii needs industry as an economic base. How does your grand philosophy translate in terms of Hawaiian industry?

P: We make a choice of the industrial mix. Do we go for the de-personalized multi-national corporations whose only god is money? Do we turn to Hawaiian self-sufficiency through small, local, community based industries? Do we go for a mix, allowing some aspects of multi-national corporations into Hawaii when necessary? Through independence, we control these decisions. Under American occupation, we have no control.

N: But you haven't proposed a single new industry!

P: Patience, my friend. The "sky's the limit." Hawaii could easily be the seat of oceanographic or astronomical centers or even a true world educational institute.

N: Why do you say that? Take one example, the world educational institute.

P: Sure. We have the environmental climate for it, the population base that is superb for providing the required cultural, linguistic and labor services, and the international image appropriate for such an institute. We could easily provide a training center for world leaders to learn not only the art and sciences traditionally taught, but we also have a special quality of Aloha that could be so important in human relations and world relations today.

Hawaii should be the world educational center, just as Switzerland is said to be the world banking center. Other benefits include a clean, non-polluting industry that contributes not only economically but adds to the richness of intellectual, cultural and political growth. It's a natural peace plan of future leaders working together in an environment of peace.

N: But don't we already have the East-West Center in Hawaii? Why isn't that a major industry?

P: Simple, Hawaii is now U.S. controlled. The political condition is not right. The U.S.'s international image is dirty. The U.S. is not trusted internationally. Its word cannot be counted on. People see anything U.S.-controlled as U.S.-manipulated for U.S. interest. Much of the world would not want to send their future leaders to an American institute.

But as an independent nation, Hawaii would be the attraction of the world.

N: I like it, but couldn't that be done any other place in the world?

P: Where?

N: Let me ask the questions! O.K. Let's say Hawaii could survive economically, but what do you do for defense? How do we avoid getting blown up in the Third World War? The U.S. would not protect us anymore!

P: Protect us? Whoever thought the U.S. is here to protect us? Much good they did when Japan attacked! The U.S.'s only interest is to protect their piece of America, which stretches from the California coastline to New York. The rest of us in Hawaii, Guam, Alaska, and even the people in Puerto Rico are merely "out bases" to fight the war before it gets to America.

Look at the latest reports on the U.S. entry into World War II. Now the Americans are willing to disclose that they knew about Japan's "sneak attack" on Hawaii in advance, but wanted it to happen so they could arouse the passion for war in the American public and congress. They used us as their bait to get into the war.

N: But when they first came, it was for good reasons. They wanted to protect us and keep us a free and democratic country.

P: That's what we've been told by them. But the fact is, the U.S. came and remained in Hawaii not because of any humanitarian concern for the Hawaiian people or to make the world safe for democracy or to spread the right to self-determination abroad. If that was their concern, they would have stayed away in the first place because we had those benefits already. They came to further their military and economic interest through the Pacific and into Asia. They needed a Pacific fortress to carry out that selfish operation. Nothing has changed.

If security and defense is our real concern, if we want to avoid being blown up, then we don't want the U.S. military here. In the event of another World War, I would want to be as far away from them as possible. American military presence in Hawaii merely makes us a prime target for nuclear war. I couldn't care less about their predictions that they could probably intercept 75% or even 99% of the nuclear weapons shot at Hawaii. One nuclear explosion over Pearl Harbor would cause winds of fire stronger than 10 hurricanes sweeping over Oahu, turning us into charcoal. Those unfortunate enough to survive would slowly roast by radiation, flesh dropping off and organs growing cancerous. Instead of babies, mothers would birth jelly-like fetuses.

American security and defense is a joke. It doesn't exist. American presence is the greatest threat to survival we face in Hawaii today.

N: Gee, I never thought of it that way. But isn't it true that if the U.S. pulled out of Hawaii, the Russians or the Chinese would take Hawaii as its own? And isn't it true that if the U.S. had not taken Hawaii when it did, regardless of the illegality of the act, you would be speaking a foreign language today, forced upon you by those Communist invaders? Wouldn't you be living a foreign lifestyle with no freedom of choice, etc.?

P: Let's slow down and consider these points. First, is a thief ever justified in stealing on the grounds that if he didn't do it first, someone else might have come along and stolen it later? Of course not.

Every nation that has ever existed has faced the possibility of being invaded and occupied by another nation. But that fact is no justification for turning loose each world power to take another nation on the "first come", "first served" basis. Such a practice is simply unthinkable. How then can the U.S. even suggest that as their justification?

Second, I see you use the technique of "projection." This projection technique is commonly used to overlay upon one's enemies the suspicion of wanting to commit acts which one would commit if he had the opportunity. It is not for me to find the Russians or Chinese guilty of thinking about taking Hawaii if the U.S. acted honorably and left Hawaii. The historical fact is that only one nation, having invaded and occupied us, has refused ever since to release us from this occupation-- the United States of America.

An objective study of the Russians and the Chinese historically and recently will show that they are not the colonizers of the Pacific. It's been the Americans, the British and the French. The British have done a reasonable job of honorable conduct since then. Not so for the other two. So, let's not get suckered into this projection trick.

Finally, regarding a foreign invader imposing a foreign language and lifestyle upon our people, you described precisely what the Americans themselves have done. Whose language and lifestyle do we practice today? It's Americanization which has been imposed upon our people. As the Americans try pointing their finger at someone else who may try to commit these social crimes, three more fingers point back at them.

N: Is Hawaii really a colony? Where is the occupying troops? Where is the real violence to the people? Where is the massacre? The slaughter which accompanies colonization?

P: Colonizers are clothed not only in war regalia. More often, they are like chameleons, changing according to the character and degree of resistence to their imposed will. As long as there is no military resistence by a people, colonial military presence is all that's needed to keep a people quiet. The violence can thus be carried on in a more benign form.

N: What violence?

P: Language is a perfect companion to empire building. Thus, colonizers impose their language upon the colonized. They force the people to speak the colonizer's language, oftentimes imposing one or another form of penalty to continuing one's own language. That is a benign violence. It robs a people of that social fabric which has embraced and held the people together for generations.

N: But don't you think the Americans have done anything good? If it wasn't for the Americans, we would still be in the taro patches, riding buggies, living in grass shacks. Poka, you can't turn the clock back. You have to move along with progress.

P: I agree. We cannot turn the clock back. Time moves only in one direction. Events cannot be undone. But they can be corrected. Their idea of "progress," however, may not be ours. For me, progress is not the mere occurrence of activities, building of structures, increase in capital accumulation. Therefore, why should I move along with their "progress"?

N: Well, that's your business.

P: Anwe continue to permit the Americans to dictate to us what progress is and force us to move along with that dictate? As time moves on, the real point of contention is not whether or not we should try to undo time, but to determine for ourselves what direction we take to achieve "progress". That is our business, not the Americans'. You see, one's concept of progress is really a statement of one's aspiration for his or her future and the future of our children. What I or you may want for Hawaii is not the same as what the Americans want. We want to protect this place so our descendants will be able to live here. They want to maximize their profits as quickly as possible and use us militarily. Our goals and theirs are not compatible.

N: Look around you. Hawaii's modern, up-to-date with modern facilities. What's wrong with that?

P: Nothing.

N: So you are willing to admit U.S. occupation of Hawaii has brought some good to Hawaii?

P: No.

N: I should have guessed! Pa`akiki no ho'i!

P: In spite of U.S. occupation, Hawaii has made some advances. The Americans have the mistaken belief that Hawaii was a poor, backward country, uplifted by the U.S. That is certainly not the case. Before the American invasion, our nation had the widespread use of electricity and telephones ahead of the U.S. Our reputation for intelligence and creativity was highly respected in intellectual corners of the world. Our Kumulipo, our creation chant, was regarded by some as the greatest piece of literature ever written by man; a scientific feat that surpassed even Darwin's works on evolution or Homer's Iliad & the Odyssey. Before the U.S. invasion in 1893, Hawaii's educational level was among the highest in the world. American literacy level was behind us.

By all experience, Hawaii would still have been in the forefront of scientific and technological development had it not been for the Yankee invasion.

N: Aren't you really anti-American and nothing more? You hate them for invading Hawaii in 1893 and so are trying to retaliate?

P: My dear companion, let me share with you a thought:

NEVER IN THIS WORLD DOES HATRED CEASE BY HATRED:

HATRED CEASES BY LOVE, AND THIS ACCORDING TO A LAW

WHICH HAS EXISTED FOREVER.

No one in their right mind could justify the actions of the U.S. in invading Hawaii in 1893. But it happened. Nor can anyone dignify the step-by-step transactions which later entrenched the invaders into this nation. My hate will not undo those events. Those events formed the basis for our loss of language, cultural identity, national pride. It formed the basis of almost 100 years of uncontrolled transmigration of a foreign population into Hawaii. Hatred will not undo those events. If all we sought was historical justice, we would be wasting our time asserting our nationhood.

The basis for our actions today is based on love; a love for ourselves and for our future. How could we enslave ourselves to the designs of a foreign government whose designs are bent on promoting only their foreign interest yet still maintain a responsible role to our posterity? What kind of future would we be preparing for our people?

Do we have the right to control our future? Do we have a right to self-determination? Do we have the right to develop as human beings according to our own pace, consistent with our own cultural and social patterns? Of course we do. The stumbling block to achieving that control over our lives is the U.S. How did they become the stumbling block? Not through our consent but through an international theft.

Rather then thinking me anti-American, it would be more accurate to see me as pro-Hawaiian, based on concepts of the equality of mankind and the right of peoples to self-determination.

N: But is it necessary for the U.S. to completely relinquish control over Hawaii in order to allow the Hawaiians this freedom, this self-determination?

P: Absolutely. Anything less would be like letting the slaves go "half-free." Its a contradiction in terms.

N: What are you talking about?

P: People supporting the U.S.'s continued occupation are talking about having a "nation within a nation" whereby we would have some freedom but the U.S. would still be our masters. That's idiocy. Nationhood requires sovereignty. Sovereignty demands complete control over one's destiny. Anything less is a contradiction in terms, a sell-out to our rights as human beings, a regression in human development.

N: As an independent nation, would you allow haoles, Japanese, Chinese and other non-Hawaiians to live in Hawaii?

P: What's a Hawaiian? Your question suggests a Hawaiian is defined racially. Perhaps we can take a lesson from the indigenous culture. People in Hawaii were predominantly identified by their relationship to the country or to the society or to the "'aina." Thus people were called by the terms Kama (adopted to the)..'aina; Hoa(friend of the) 'aina; Kua(backbone of the) 'aina; or Maka(eyes of the) 'aina(na). The person who had no such relationship was a Malihini (stranger, newcomer).

If you study Hawaii's history, you can find where citizenship was not restricted to race. We had people of many different races as citizens of Hawaii. The real question was one of national allegiance. One is either a Hawaiian or another national citizen, not both.

N: Can a person of the indigenous blood not be a Hawaiian citizen?

P: Of course. If he chooses to be an American and his allegiance is to the U.S., he is not a Hawaiian citizen. That would be a contradiction.

N: I take it then that a person of any blood could become a Hawaiian citizen.

P: Certainly, if appropriate citizenship requirements are met. You see, the racist mentality which divides people according to race is not an indigenous Hawaiian mentality. It has been imposed by the U.S. That mentality has gone so far as to divide the people native to Hawaii into "Native Hawaiians" and other Hawaiians, giving the first category more benefits then the other, thus causing racial division. Look at the Hawaiian Homestead Commission Act. So, it takes time and patience for people to be unshackled from that type of thinking.

N: I guess you're right. But, I'm still not sure I understand.

P: Let me try again. See that kiawe tree just before the bend? Where is it indigenous to? When was the first kiawe brought to Hawaii?

N: What difference does it make? It's still a tree standing there.

P: Now you're catching on! What else can you tell me about the tree?

N: Its roots go into the ground; I guess we could say, "into the 'aina". Its branches and leaves receive Hawaii's air and sunlight. It's part of Hawaii just like the Taro.

P: I agree. Just because through our veins run the blood of the indigenous people of Hawaii, does that give you or me the right to cut that kiawe?

N: No, not for that reason. Ah, so if we can apply that common sense to trees, why not to people?

P: Exactly.

N: But what does that mean for the indigenous people? Don't we have any rights?

P: Of course we do. But first, lgot things straight. The indigenous people of Hawaii, (let's be culturally accurate and call us "po`e Hawaii") have the basic right to physical and cultural integrity, right to our religion, subsistence practices, our language, our traditional territories of the earth, et are no different from the rights of any other race in their own homeland.

N: Of course. The Japanese can always go back to Japan, the Chinese to China, and so forth for cultural, racial or religious rejuvenation. I guess the po`e Hawaii have really been treated like strangers in their own homelands.

P:. The po`e Hawaii do have a special interest in Hawaiian nationhood, but it's not an exclusive interest. Every person who loves Hawaii, who grew up here and feels for Hawaii's future, who wants their children to enjoy Hawaii as we have, has an interest in Hawaiian nationhood.

N: Good ideas, good plans, good dreams. But, how can they be done against the will of the U.S.? If we moved to take over Hawaii, they would turn all their American troops against us. And how many "us" are there? Can we become independent against the U.S. will?

P: Let's not revert to negative thinking--doom ourselves to failure before we even begin the journey. Of course, the U.S. will resist, just as Great Britain resisted America's struggle and India's struggle, just as the French resisted Vanuatu's and now are resisting Kanaky's struggle. And every disadvantage each previously occupied country faced, we are probably faced with also. But so what? We also have advantages.

N: Oh yeah, what?

P: The international arena is much more favorable today toward decolonization then they were before. The "superpowers" are feeling the heat of anger and concern in the United Nations from the Third World countries for those powers' continued colonization policies. I know nations which would support Hawaii's appeal for decolonization.

Within the United States, we could gain massive public support once the general public understood the struggle for Hawaiian independence. The public has been kept ignorant.

We could mobilize support within America easily. We speak their language, we know their systems, communication is no problem at all. And the American public is an inquisitive public. They want to know the truth. They really want to do what is right.

In America, we need to educate the public. We need a concentrated effort to educate media, education systems, people in general. Eventually pressure will develop on the political institutions such as the Congress and the Courts.

In Hawaii nei, education is priority. As we educate, we need to have people take up positions in Hawaii who will work quietly in support of us. We must encourage our people to become professionals, businessmen and scholars, to provide the leadership in the areas of national leadership.

Of course, there are many more specific things to do. But perhaps the best we can ask for is for each person to measure his own situation and add to the work as best as he can.