Hawaii vs. Office of Hawaiian Affairs

Travel Blog  •  Pam Mandel  •  02.24.09 | 12:48 PM ET

Photo by k*8 via Flickr (Creative Commons).

A brief disclaimer: I’m not an expert on legal matters and while I’ve been doing lots of reading, there’s still lots I don’t understand. Because of that, I absolutely welcome your more enlightened comments on the case. I’d just like to get you interested in what’s happening and why it’s a big deal, I’m going to keep it brief and send you elsewhere to more expert commentary. Now, in summary:

The Hawaiian State Supreme Court previously ruled that the state (Hawaii) could not sell lands ceded in the overthrow of the Hawaiian Monarchy until a settlement on those lands had been reached with the Hawaiian people. The gist? The lands were ceded to the U.S. government by those who had no right to do so.

The state of Hawaii is appealing the decision—it wants the right to sell those lands. It says that its ability to manage the lands is impeded by this ruling. That’s the bare bones of the case. But Native Hawaiians see a lot more at stake in the Supreme Court’s first case tomorrow.

There’s a critical sidebar here—Native Hawaiians have received no federal recognition in the way that many Native American and Alaskan people have. They’re depending on state law for their entitlements. The 1999 Apology Resolution acknowledged the impact of the overthrow of the Kingdom, but did not resolve land claims.

Because of that, the Office of Hawaiian Affairs is concerned about three things when the case comes before the court.

There’s more, of course, that’s just the entry point. For more detailed information check out these sources:


Pam Mandel is a freelance writer and photographer from Seattle, Washington. Her work has appeared in a variety of print, radio, and web publications and she's contributed to two guidebooks, one on British Columbia and one on Hawaii. She plays the ukulele, has an internal beacon that is surprisingly capable of locating the best baked goods in town, almost any town, and speaks German with a Styrian accent. Learn more on her personal blog at Nerd's Eye View.


9 Comments for Hawaii vs. Office of Hawaiian Affairs

Eva Holland 02.25.09 | 12:01 AM ET

Interesting, Pam. If the state of Hawaii had any sense (at least, if the Canadian example is anything to go by), they wouldn’t be in any rush to sell. The long term costs of doing so outweigh the short term benefits: up here, nearly every time land claims issues have spilled into violence, it’s been in a case where disputed land has already been sold to private developers. People have died over this stuff (and not just, like, 100 years ago).

When I worked in land claims research, I did a few risk assessment reports on parcels of federal land, trying to ascertain ahead of time what the grounds for a claim were. Since in this case it sounds like all the land in question is already in dispute, selling would not be a smart move. (Sigh. Why do I doubt they’re thinking long-term?)

Eva Holland 02.25.09 | 12:04 AM ET

ps: What’s that flag in the pic?

Pam Mandel 02.25.09 | 12:08 AM ET

I believe - again, insert disclaimers about huge holes in my knowledge here - that the state SAYS they’re in no hurry to sell, but the Native Hawaiians don’t trust that. And they don’t the state to have the right to sell before they’ve settled the land claims.

It’s the Hawaiian flag, natch. :)

Eva Holland 02.25.09 | 10:49 AM ET

Well, that makes sense! Apologies for my ignorance, but what’s the Hawaiian flag doing with a Union Jack in the corner? I thought you people expunged all traces of your British colonial heritage when you banished the “u"s from your words. ;)

Chris 02.25.09 | 11:38 AM ET

Remember Hawai’i wasn’t a state until 1959. The British had a presence there for a long time. They are the ones that planted all that Norfolk Pine that ended up being useless.

Eva Holland 02.25.09 | 12:26 PM ET

I figured it had something to do with that heritage. I’m just surprised they were permitted to keep a foreign flag like that once they joined. (Though I guess there are confederate flags embedded in some state flags, too?)

Chris 02.25.09 | 1:43 PM ET

I think Mississippi is now the only state flag that includes the stars and bars, although it seems like one of them (Georgia?) has a ribbon of all past state flags which would of course include a tiny version of the stars and bars. The ironic thing about that is there were three flags of the Confederacy during its brief time, and none of them were the commonly known rebel flag. Only the second one even incorporated the rebel flag at all. The rebel flag was just one of many battle flags (Southern Army of the Potomac I think).

Chris 02.25.09 | 5:37 PM ET

Ridiculously off-topic, I know, but a little research (what else would I be doing at work?) showed me that the third flag of the confederacy also incorporated the rebel flag, the rebel flag was the battle flag of the Army of Northern Virginia, and that the first flag of the confederacy was the one known as the stars and bars (the rebel flag was known as the southern cross). Now we know, and knowing is half the battle.

William 03.29.09 | 5:24 PM ET

Way off-topic.  Let’s get a few things straightened out.  The Hawaiian flag is a version of the English flag with the number of banners comprising the major islands of the Hawaiian chain.  Next, the Hawaiians didn’t asked to join the U.S., the monarchy was overthrown by crooked businessmen with the backing of the U.S. Marines, ergo a coup d’etat, an act of war on a peaceful soverign nation by the U.S.  Also, the annexation which solidified the U.S. takeover was in itself illegal.  You need 2/3 votes of the U.S. Congress.  Never happened, even tried twice.  What was concocted instead was a domestic resolution, Newlands Resolution, neediding only a majority vote.  And of course, the lead up years to the state admission which was done illegally.  Question of whether or not the residents wanted statehood was put to the populace which for the most part comprised then of military families there or relocated there from the mainland.  I believe the question that should have been proposed then to any territory like Guam, the Phillipines or even Puerto Rico, should have included, do you want independence…......
As a Hawaiian, our sovereign goverment was usurped in 1893 and continues to be a nation occupied to this day.  We have not forgotten the pettion signed by virtually all Hawaiians condemming the annexation before it was passed in the late 1890s.

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.