And while we're at it, for anyone else who's interested
There has been some recent commentary about a certain bill that has been submitted for consideration in the U.S. Senate. The bill is named "the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act." This bill, apparently the "baby" of Sen. Daniel Akaka, D-Hawaii, would create a completely separate government for native Hawaiians.
One tricky aspect of this bill is how it defines a "native Hawaiian." A native Hawaiian is defined in the bill as "anyone who could prove a relationship with the aboriginal, indigenous, native people who resided in the islands that now comprise the state of Hawaii on or before January 1, 1893." This could leave things open to broad interpretation, thus a considerably large percentage of the Hawaiian state's population (not to mention a lot of people living on the U.S. mainland) could be declaring themselves "native Hawaiian." (I dated a girl once whose mother was Hawaiian. Does this fit into the category of a "relationship with the aboriginal, indigenous, native people," and therefore qualify me for consideration as a Hawaiian? Hey, the door's wide open for interpretation.)
Once this new government for native Hawaiians is up and running, Senator Akaka's bill authorizes the U.S. federal government to "enter into negotiations with the governing entity to lead to an agreement addressing specified matters, including the transfer of lands, natural resources, and other assets and the protection of existing rights related to such lands or resources." In effect, it would mean the peaceful transition of control of Hawaii away from the federal government (who should never constitutionally have had control of anything in any state to begin with; except for military outposts) to the citizens of Hawaii (which is as it should be in every state; the people of each state in control of their property and resources).
Senator Akaka's bill basically sets up a scenario that would allow Hawaii, or at least portions of it, to secede from the American union. Now I know some might start to fret over this idea, but let's think about this for a minute. What was the Declaration of Independence but a document justifying the right of secession of the separate American colonies from the British Empire? In truth, didn't the states, acting individually, secede from the Articles of Confederation, and over a period of several years accede to the union under the U.S. Constitution? (Not many think about this, but it's true.) What about this being "the land of the free?" The founders insisted on protecting the right of property, because they believed that if a person didn't have the right to own property, and to be secure in their ownership of that property, they weren't truly free. With that in mind, wouldn't the native Hawaiians have a right to take their property and "leave the party" if they weren't "having fun" any more?
The fear associated with the possible secession of part or all of Hawaii is not that a small portion of a small state in the union might break away. The real fear is that it legitimizes the act of secession and that others might follow Hawaii's lead, thus leading to the breakup of the American union. Whoever said the union was meant to last forever? Fear of the breakup of the union is something that should only be found in the hearts of those who clamor for empire, not those that cherish freedom.
Democrats will most likely support this bill because it is directed at an ethnic minority, and liberals are wrapped up in racial identity politics (but the Republicans are catching up quickly in this area). Republicans should support this bill, as it is in line with their official political position of State's Rights and limited federal government control (although we all know this position is subject to the whims of politicians and their quest for power).
Contrary to what many believe (and this is largely due to the misinformation they were taught in school), national unity has not been a traditional belief in America. Checks and Balances are a traditional belief in America. That's the checks and balances between the various branches of the federal government as well as the checks and balances between local, state and federal governments. Senator Akaka's bill could very well be a good stepping stone to bringing back into play the checks and balances between the states and their federal government that the founders wanted as a tool to defend our liberties.
Historically, while homogenous in language and general culture (Western Christian Civilization), the union of American states was never viewed as comprising "one people." A person was a Virginian or a New Yorker first, and an American second. Only ignorance and the quest for power by unscrupulous politicians has turned this concept upside down in the last 70 years (but thankfully not totally).
Support should be given to the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act, as it would be a step in the right direction: federal recognition of the "Right of the People to alter or to abolish it (government), and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." And note that "the People" can be defined however a group wishes to define that (who says the federal government is the sole arbiter of what a people group is?).
Ever since Abraham Lincoln distorted the ideals of the founders and established the concept of an "indissoluble union" through the "persuasive" arguments of fire and sword, slowly but surely the idea of "these united states" being "The United States" has won out in ideology. But ideology is not law. The Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act would simply acknowledge what the majority of Americans acknowledged up until 1865; we are a voluntary union and member states are bound by federal laws and are under federal protection only as long as a member state of the union remains within the union.
If Hawaii eventually attempts to leave the union, they should be allowed to do so. It is their right to do so, just as it was the right of the colonists in 1776 to separate from the British Empire and form their own association/union, and the South in 1861 to do like wise. To deny Hawaii, or any state, the right of self-determination and force them to remain in the union is like insisting that a battered wife should remain in her marital union, even if her husband continues to beat her, simply because "that's the way it's always been." We aren't truly free if we, meaning the states in their sovereign capacity, aren't free to come and go as we please concerning membership in what is admittedly the greatest republican union history has ever known. To deny the right of self-determination, and the freedom to leave and/or rejoin the union is to make the phrase "the land of the free" a lie.
(Published originally at EtherZone.com: republication allowed with this notice and hyperlink intact.)
Copyright ©