Feature Story from TomPaine.com
Alan Parker
June 29, 2007
Alan Parker is a citizen of the Chippewa Cree Tribal Nation and a professor at The Evergreen State College in Olympia, Washington.
Fresh from state ballot victories that roll back the clock on affirmative action and restrict marriage rights, conservatives are opening a new front in its battle against human rights—an offensive against the rights of the country's indigenous peoples. Representatives of major neoconservative think tanks and their media outlets have joined with prominent neoconservative congressional leaders to target the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act.
The NHGRA is a modest proposal to provide federal authority for the native Hawaiian community to choose a method of self-government within the parameters and limitations of the federal law that applies to U.S. Indian tribal nations. It was introduced with unanimous support of all members of the Hawaiian congressional delegation, the (Republican) state governor and attorney general, and is supported by nearly three-fourths of the state.
I became familiar with native Hawaiian issues when I served as staff director to the U.S. Senate Committee on Indian Affairs from 1987 through 1990. In fact, whenever the committee conducted congressional oversight hearings on Native Hawaiian issues, the indigenous leadership was always careful to articulate that they were not Indian tribes but the heirs to a kingdom that was recognized as a nation under international law and treaties even after the U.S. illegally overthrew the Hawaiian kingdom in 1893. The U.S. Congress apologized for this gross injustice in The Apology Bill, Public Law 103-150, signed by President Clinton in 1993, exactly one hundred years later. The Territory of Hawaii became our 50th state in 1959 and although many native Hawaiians believed that their status under the Statehood Act did not address the historical injustices of the overthrow of their queen and seizure of lands owned by the kingdom of Hawaii, there was little appetite to follow the legal route of U.S. Indian tribes.
Then came Rice v. Cayetano, a U.S. Supreme Court decision that struck down the state law granting Native Hawaiians the right to vote for trustees of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA). The OHA IS a social service agency created under the state constitution with funds generated from lands taken from the Hawaiian monarchy. Soon after the Rice case was decided, a number of right-wing legal foundations sought to render unconstitutional services provided by the Department of Hawaiian Homelands, as well as Kamehameha School's native admission policies. Native Hawaiian leaders concluded that they had no choice but to seek federal protection for indigenous self-government comparable to U.S. tribal status. Thus, the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act was born. Soon after the Rice case was decided, a number of right-wing legal foundations sought to render unconstitutional services provided by the Department of Hawaiian Homelands, as well as Kamehameha School's native admission policies. Native Hawaiian leaders concluded that they had no choice but to seek federal protection for indigenous self-government comparable to U.S. tribal status. Thus, the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act was born.
When the NHGRA was first introduced into the Congress, it immediately attracted the opposition of right wing and neo-conservative organizations and congressional members. The Bush administration has opposed the bill using a cruel Catch-22 argument: "You are not an Indian Tribe and therefore you cannot be recognized as such, but your proposal to create an indigenous self-government cannot work because it would be an illegal race-based entity". Of course, in the Rice case, the court actually said that, while the state of Hawaii could not restrict voting rights for the OHA trustees to native Hawaiians only, the U.S. Congress could establish such a right.
The bill has faced tough opposition on the Hill including a filibuster threat in June 2006, and two rounds of hearings featuring impassioned arguments against creating a "race-based indigenous government" couched in language that will sound very familiar to those dealing with right-wing-financed voter initiatives to ban affirmative action. Now, the Bush administration is using these same arguments to oppose provisions of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act.
It is unprecedented for members of Congress, in the absence of a clear and significant national interest such as preservation of the Artic National Wildlife Refuge, to intervene in the legislation of a colleague that will only impact the interests of one state. This is a violation of strong and longstanding Senate protocol. However, it appears that in this case such intervention is part of a larger strategy. But what is really going on here? By attacking native Hawaiian efforts at self-determination and, more recently, by opening up a new front against federal health services for Indians what do the neoconservatives hope to accomplish? By branding indigenous rights as "race-based" they are trying to put them in the same "reverse racism frame" that worked so well in decimating affirmative action.
The attack on indigenous rights and affirmative action reflect a convenient public amnesia made possible by the relentless stereotyping of Indian tribes as wealthy casino owners and the casting of most communities of color as culturally deficient. For the right, history is there to reshape for their agenda and treaties matter little in their march to advance white privilege. Clearly, it is time for a broad coalition to address these attacks. Who knows whom they will target next?
That is why hundreds of indigenous activists are gathering in Atlanta for the U.S. Social Forum. Those attending will compare notes, strengthen alliances and continue to do our part to beat back these attacks.
© 2007 TomPaine.com. All rights reserved. Used by permission.
