Sovereignty: The Kanalua Gang
Price of Paradise · Hawaii Public Radio · aired 1995-08-20
Guests: Clinton R. Ashford (attorney); Jim Mee (attorney); Walter Judd (historian)
Duration: 1:01:02

[00:00:00] Randall Roth: Good morning. This is Randy Roth, host of The Price of Paradise radio show. We're broadcast live each Sunday morning from 8:00 to 9:00 on KHPR 88.1 FM and KKUA 90.7 FM and then rebroadcast each Sunday evening from 8:00 to 9:00 on KIFO that's 1380 AM. Last week was the first installment in a three part series on sovereignty. Our guests were Ke Kuni Blazdale the convener of Kapa Kaukau, Blossom Fatera the acting head of state for the nation of Hawaii, and Ke Ali'i Igora the Oahu Po'o of Kalahui Hawaii. They compared and contrasted their respective approaches to sovereignty and talked about the role of non-Hawaiians. Our guests this week will be raising a number of questions and concerns about sovereignty in general. We'll get to that in just a minute.
[00:00:51] Randall Roth: The series will conclude next week when an impressive list of guests will address the issues raised today, and perhaps voice a few of their own. We're still finalizing the guest list, but hope to have with us in the studio or hooked up by phone, Norma Wong, a former director of State Planning for Hawaii, Oz Stender, a trustee of the Bishop Estate, Clayton He, the director of the office of Hawaiian Affairs, and Khali Watson, the director of the department of Hawaiian Homelands. As we explained last week, the folks who bring pop radio to you feel strongly about the need for an informed and balanced public discussion of sovereignty. Unless people on all sides of this controversial issue speak up, we think the sovereignty movement will simply drift, fomenting frustration and resentment on all sides.
[00:01:38] Randall Roth: Our specific goal is to make available to the public the very best information, questions and responses to those questions. Where opinions differ, we want to hear each side's rationale. We believe in the marketplace of ideas and that with lots of informed public dialogue, the best information and proposals eventually will percolate to the top. With me in the studio today are Clinton Ashford, Walter Judd, and Jim Mee. Clint is a founding partner of the Ashford and Riston Law Firm, a former president of the State Bar Association, and next year, he'll serve as president of the Hawaii Justice Foundation. Walter Judd, retired in 1974 as a Colonel after serving 35 years with the Hawaii National Guard. His lifelong interest is Hawaiian history and has resulted in three published books.
[00:02:30] Randall Roth: He worked on the Eloni Palace restoration project for 10 years as a volunteer and recreated the Hawaii Air Guards volunteer Royal Guard. That was 32 years ago and this proud organization is still around. Jim Mee is a partner in the Ashford and Riston Law Firm concentrating in real estate and is involved in native Hawaiian rights cases. Gentlemen, good morning.
[00:02:53] Walter Judd: Good morning.
[00:02:54] Randall Roth: When I was talking to the three of you just a bit ago, one of you said that I should call you the Conalua gang. Walter Judd, you're the historian, could you tell me, what do you mean by Conalua?
[00:03:08] Walter Judd: Conalua is a very marvelous Hawaiian word, which means I haven't made up my mind on the issue. And I keep an open mind. It used to be used in the legislature an awful lot. I believe the current legislature does not. But it has a very, very great meaning that I haven't made up my mind just yet.
[00:03:29] Randall Roth: You're still listening.
[00:03:31] Walter Judd: Still listening.
[00:03:32] Randall Roth: Well, anyone out there who hasn't seen this morning's advertiser should take a look at the focus section. On page one of the focus section, the headline reads, Sovereignty and Hawaiian Rights, the Mists, the Drawbacks, and the Dangers. And I guess that was the advertiser's way of of summarizing the various concerns that each of you raised in articles that are on page one of the focus section this morning. I think what I'd like to do to start is to find out why is it just very quickly in a nutshell, why is it that each of you is Conalua at this point in time? Walter, what's the the primary reason or reasons that you're Conalua right now?
[00:04:12] Walter Judd: I've got two basic reasons. First of all, it's been represented that life was better for Hawaiians, part Hawaiians prior to the 1893 revolution which overthrew the monarchy. Like when? And how can that how can this improve on the present? The second point is little has been expressed that Hawaiians part Hawaiians are some 20% of our 1.1 million people. What is in vision for the majority? Over 800,000 people who are non-Hawaiian. How will sovereignty make their lives better?
[00:04:46] Randall Roth: So those are your questions and you're waiting for satisfying answers?
[00:04:51] Walter Judd: That's why I'm Conalua.
[00:04:52] Randall Roth: Okay. Uh Jim Mee, you're Conalua as well. Why?
[00:04:57] Jim Mee: Randy, I think my concern primarily has to do with the potential divisiveness of this issue, and that's the divisiveness not only between Hawaiians and the rest of the community, but a divisiveness among Hawaiians themselves. Um, you know, even in the recent history, there's been problems between Hawaiians of more than 50% blood and that of less than 50% blood, there've been lawsuits about that and what rights they should have. But you have to ask the question, you know, at some point if you've only got 164th Hawaiian blood, why should you get special rights as opposed to the rest of the population? And I guess what I'm Conalua about is that shall we go through this whole process, have it not work in the end and have Hawaiians become even more disillusioned at the end than some of them are right now.
[00:05:44] Randall Roth: Mhm. Clinton Ashford, you too are Conalua?
[00:05:47] Clinton R. Ashford: I am, Randy. I share both Walls and Jim's concerns, particularly Jim's on the basis that this whole movement seems to be race-based. And our local and national experience with race-based programs has not really been satisfactory. I have two additional reasons that I'm Conalua. One is that there's a lot of made-up history concerning the causes and results of the revolution of 1893, and that's urged to justify a quote restored quote Hawaiian nation. The historical facts are really ignored or being twisted. Secondly, there are a host of other issues, economic, social and political to say nothing on legal, that have not yet been addressed, including some that apparently have not yet even been recognized and there are very serious causes for concern there.
[00:06:37] Randall Roth: Okay. Well, Clint, you say that that there's some made-up history, what's an example of of a way that history's been distorted in your opinion?
[00:06:47] Clinton R. Ashford: Well, I think probably the the the primary one is that there's a claim that the Hawaiians have lost something, that something has been stolen from them as a result of the resolution of the revolution and particularly land. The fact of the matter is that private titles were not disturbed, government land remained government land and only the crown land was changed, the status of that was changed from being for the support of the monarchy to the support of the general public that is it became government land. But that land had never been enjoyed by the Kanaka Maoli, it was solely for the benefit of the Crown, so nothing was taken from them.
[00:07:23] Randall Roth: So you're suggesting that that so far as the land was concerned, the the people as opposed to the royalty somehow gained something because crown lands became government lands for the benefit of the people?
[00:07:34] Clinton R. Ashford: That's correct.
[00:07:35] Randall Roth: Okay. Uh Jim Mee, any thoughts on that one?
[00:07:38] Jim Mee: Well, I I think think is essentially correct and, uh, you know, the other thing I'd like to point out is is that the sort of historical view now makes it seem a very simple issue of Hawaiians versus non-Hawaiians at the time of the revolution. The fact is that the Hawaiian government at that time was very, very unstable. There'd been revolutions in 87, 89, potential revolution in 1892 and then the 1893 revolution. And these were by various factions of the government. In fact, uh, people forget that in 1892 there was a move by Robert Wilcox and others in his party, he was Hawaiian. They also wanted to get rid of the queen and set up a republic.
[00:08:17] Jim Mee: So it wasn't just the quote missionary party as they're described, who had problems with what was going on with government at the time.
[00:08:24] Randall Roth: There there's an interesting anecdote that I I see in this morning's advertiser on the byline describing who you are. It indicates that your Hawaiian great grandfather supported the overthrow, but your Howley great grandfather supported the Queen?
[00:08:40] Jim Mee: I yeah, I think that that illustrates how complicated it was. My Hawaiian great grandfather was in the judiciary department and actually a lot of the government people, whether they were Hawaiian or non-Hawaiian, um, came to realize that annexation was probably inevitable. There were other Hawaiians that ended up supporting the Republic, especially in the 1894, 1895 period. But then again, there were a lot of non-Hawaiians that supported the royal family, especially those who were of British origin and there were quite a few British subjects living in the islands at that point.
[00:09:12] Randall Roth: Well now, Walter Judd, you're you're the historian and I know from from Clint's article in this morning's paper that at the time of the overthrow, most of the people in Hawaii were non-Hawaiians and a significant number of the people who who had the vote were non-Hawaiians. Could you tell us a little bit about that?
[00:09:30] Walter Judd: 40% of the people in 1893 were Hawaiian or part Hawaiian. 60% were non-Hawaiians. When the kingdom was overthrown, all of those peoples lost their kingdom. Not only the Hawaiians and part Hawaiians but the non-Hawaiians. I think that is a signal is a real crystal point where you cannot say they stole our land, our kingdom, and refer only to one part of the population.
[00:10:00] Randall Roth: So since your ancestors were here at the time, you feel that that anything that's done for the benefit of of Hawaiians logically should be done for the benefit of people like you whose roots go back that far?
[00:10:12] Walter Judd: Well, if you want to play the game straight, yes, but there's push in a different direction now.
[00:10:17] Randall Roth: I see. Um, something that was mentioned just a little bit ago, Jim Mee, you said something about divisiveness in the community, and I know in your article in this morning's advertiser, um, there's the line in in your article that says that there is a thin line between ethnic pride and racial prejudice. Could you tell us a little bit more about that?
[00:10:38] Jim Mee: Well, I think this is not just a local phenomenon. You see this on the mainland quite a bit too where, especially in the 60s as part of the Civil Rights movement, there was this big push that, you know, you should uh identify with your group whether it's black or Chicano or whatever. I think the problem is though is once you start saying, well, this means that my specific ethnic group should get certain legal rights, should get certain uh preferences, I think you're setting the stage for people really to get beyond looking at people as individuals and just simply trying to to uh to categorize them based on race. And I think there's some real problems with that.
[00:11:15] Jim Mee: I think Hawaii has been getting away from that in the last 20 to 30 years and I would be very sad to me to see that sort of thinking come back. I mean, Hawaii's not perfect but I think we're ahead of a lot of places in that regard.
[00:11:28] Randall Roth: Mhm. You also mentioned uh when you were summing up your reasons for being Conalua at this point in time, the the blood quantum issue. And and Clint in in your article in this morning's advertiser, you suggested that that was a real practical problem. Uh could you elaborate a little bit more on that? We're going to be taking some calls in just a few minutes and we're just getting some of your your primary points out on the table first. Uh Clint, what do you think?
[00:11:53] Clinton R. Ashford: Well, as Walter has pointed out, uh there were only only about 40% of the population was Hawaiian or part Hawaiian at the time of the overflow. Um, but nowadays that population has grown very substantially. Um, but today of all of the all of the part Hawaiians, probably two thirds or more have less than 50% Hawaiian blood. And as time goes along and there's more and more inter intermarrying, I think the part Hawaiian population is going to increase and the blood quantum is going to necessarily decrease.
[00:12:26] Walter Judd: Mhm. Mhm.
[00:12:26] Randall Roth: Walter, any thoughts on that?
[00:12:28] Walter Judd: I think it ought to be mentioned that we're perhaps in what I call a 30 year renaissance of the Hawaiians. There are an awful lot of peoples who have an awful lot of pride. And I think you can you can see that by the the the hula and and all the hula troops. And the fact that that started about 30 years ago when the Mary Monarch Festival in Hilo started to really get going along. And when we started off with the Hawaii Air Guards Royal Guard. Peoples who are proud to be Hawaiian or in Hawaii. And it doesn't mean you have to have a separate government.
[00:13:07] Randall Roth: Okay. Well, I want to remind our listeners that this is The Price of Paradise radio show. My name is Randy Roth. Our topic today is sovereignty. It's the second installment in a three part series on this very, very important topic. Our guests in the studio are Clinton Ashford. He's an attorney who's been active with numerous organizations. His grandfather was one of King Calacau's attorneys General, uh a Royalist band in 1895, I guess, Clint because of his involvement in the counter revolution.
[00:13:36] Clinton R. Ashford: Yeah, he was to be um attorney general to Queen Liliuokalani after she was restored, but the the the counterrevolution failed.
[00:13:43] Randall Roth: Okay.
[00:13:44] Clinton R. Ashford: And he was banished.
[00:13:45] Randall Roth: Also in the studio, we have Walter Judd, who is retired from the Hawaii National Guard. He's a historian who has published three books about Hawaii's past. His great grandfather renounced his US citizenship in 1844 and pledged allegiance to Kamehameha the third. And I guess your grandfather was Chief Justice of the Supreme Court at the time of the overthrow.
[00:14:08] Walter Judd: Yes, sir.
[00:14:09] Randall Roth: All right. And Jim Mee, who's an attorney with the law firm of Ashford and Riston. And as I mentioned uh a bit ago, his Hawaiian great grandfather was the clerk of the judiciary department at the time of the overthrow and supported the revolutionists. But his British great grandfather was an interisland steamship captain who sympathized with the royalist cause, kind of an interesting situation. Good morning, Jim.
[00:14:33] Jim Mee: Good morning.
[00:14:34] Randall Roth: Um, we also have in the studio with us Manolo Morales from Channel 2 and Bob the cameraman. It's always a pleasure to have them with us. Anyone listening to the show might want to tune in to Channel 2 this evening at 6:00 or 10:00 or or maybe even both and perhaps they'll have a report on the show this morning. If you'd like to ask a question or make a call um, ask a question or make a comment, you can call us at 955-8821. As we explained last week, we understand this is a very controversial topic and all we insist upon is that you keep your comments and your questions respectful. We have a number of people on the line already, but if you'd like to uh join them in in uh waiting to get on the air, the number is 955-8821 and neighbor islanders are always invited to call us collect.
[00:15:22] Randall Roth: First, we have Mark in Kailua. Good morning, Mark.
[00:15:25] Mark: Good morning, Mr. Roth. Thank you very much for taking my call.
[00:15:28] Randall Roth: You bet.
[00:15:29] Mark: I want to say a thank you for allowing me to call and also uh participate in this discussion. I also enjoyed your books, Mr. Roth, very, very much.
[00:15:36] Randall Roth: Thank you.
[00:15:37] Mark: Um, I wanted to just make a comment and a quick question. First of all, I I thoroughly enjoyed the article, uh Mr. Mee, Mr. uh Ashford, Mr. Judd. I think it presented a very cogent argument which is not presented in the media or in today's uh community and I want to appreciate you presenting that. Uh, specifically Mr. Mee, your comment about the apology that was made in 1993 by US Congress, and that uh as a result of that, the uh sovereignty activists have have uh decided to pursue that by uh finding out by uh asking for land and money and he said we should move on with the apology and not pursue that which I agree because it may cause some racial division, which I see already now.
[00:16:19] Mark: Uh and the question I have was um the uh movement, when the the the the extremists, I guess I would say, if if you could comment on that, I'm still learning about this as well too. But Bumpy Connie Connie Haley's group, do you see that as kind of a uh the direction of the sovereignty movement of of of what's happening in Hawaii, this kind of a nation within nation and and the state providing them with some land to to live in their own right, their own way?
[00:16:46] Randall Roth: Okay, let's let's see what he has to say, Mark. That's that's a real good question.
[00:16:49] Mark: I'll hang up and I'll listen to your question.
[00:16:50] Randall Roth: Thank you, Mark. Jim, I think the first part had to do with the apology bill. Could you explain a little bit about what the apology bill is and then address Mark's question?
[00:16:59] Jim Mee: Yes. Um, the apology bill was passed by Congress in 1993, as the as the caller mentioned. And the intent of the apology bill, I think, was to reflect, you know, it it being the centennial of the overthrow. Uh, it was an attempt to try to, I guess, let me call it, heal the wounds. In other words, if you read the uh the apology, it talks about expressing uh remorse or apology for the fact that the minister, the American minister at the time was involved in the revolution. But I don't think it was intended by Congress as a basis to say, as it's being interpreted by some of the sovereignty people, that the uh government in Hawaii now is illegal.
[00:17:41] Jim Mee: And it's being interpreted by uh Bumpy Kanaheli's group and some of the others as essentially an acknowledgment by the United States that what anything that has happened since 1893 was not lawful and that essentially Hawaii is still an independent kingdom. Um, and I'm not I don't think all of the sovereignty groups agree with that position. I think that there are others that want to stay within the American system. But um, you know, that is a problem because, again, we have a lot of other people here. We have a lot of other history involved since the overthrow that really kind of changes that. We you know, it ignores the fact that there we became a state in 1959 and that was a based on essentially a plebiscite vote by all of the people in Hawaii saying we wanted to become a state.
[00:18:25] Randall Roth: What what did Congress think they were doing as their legislative history indicating what they thought the effect of the apology bill would be?
[00:18:33] Jim Mee: Well, I certainly don't think they thought it would become the basis for a claim that Hawaii is no longer part of the United States. It's it's a much milder type of resolution. I think again, it was trying to heal any bad feelings that were out there.
[00:18:47] Clinton R. Ashford: Randy, there was an article in the paper a couple of weeks ago about uh Senator who's the author of that bill. And it's my recollection of the article that that he uh his intention and what Congress thought was that it was a very limited thing.
[00:19:00] Walter Judd: he was trying to do with that was to spark a dialogue so that we could get this unfortunate phase of our history behind us. But he did not look upon it as as being any basis for reparations, for example. And and I got the sense from the article that that he was somewhat disturbed by the spin that's being put on the apology bill.
[00:19:22] Speaker 1: Okay. Well, Walter Judd.
[00:19:24] Walter Judd: Let me go to the second part of the gentleman's question, if I may. I think it should be mentioned that there are very divided opinions on what form sovereignty should take. One is a complete replacement of our state and county governments. Now, this is what Mr. Conahilly apparently is is advocating. Then there is a second form of uh a separate entity, a minority of Hawaiians part of Hawaiians within the majority community. That's the nation within a nation bit, and it probably follows the philosophy of some of the American Indian reservations. Then third of all, is some sort of an entity within our present government which provides yet another layer of effort for our peoples of Hawaiian, part Hawaiian ancestry.
[00:20:12] Speaker 1: That sounds like OHA.
[00:20:13] Walter Judd: It sounds very much like OHA. And of interest, Judge Sam King suggested that Hawaiian sovereignty already exists through the office of Hawaiian affairs. And Governor Cayetano thinks an eventual merger of OHA with Hawaiian homes makes sense.
[00:20:31] Speaker 1: Okay. Take your pick. Now, it's there's no solidified position. There are several different positions. Okay, well, let's go to another caller, Steve in Waikiki. Good morning, Steve.
[00:20:39] Steve: Good morning. I have two very short questions, both based on ignorance rather than a position. So, first of all, I have a question on the law and secondly, a question on Hawaiian custom and Hawaiian view. On the law, I just got through rereading for the nth time one of my favorite books called Ordeal by Fire by Fletcher Pratt, which is a history of the Civil War. And it seems fairly clear in American in American history that there is no provision for a states once recognized for the United States. There's does not seem to be a legal provision for them to leave. Am I wrong? We have several lawyers there and they can tell me if there's actually a mechanism for a state to leave. I have a second question.
[00:21:23] Speaker 1: Steve, hold, first for a state to leave. I have a second question. Stay on the phone. We're going to come back to your second question. But let's go to one of our two lawyers in the room, uh, Clint Ashford. What do you think?
[00:21:35] Clinton R. Ashford: Well, I'm not John Van Dyke, and I and I'm at the University of Law School and I'm not an expert on constitutional law, but I think Steve is correct, that there isn't any express provision for a state getting out of the Union. We had a civil war once about that. Uh, there are provisions for states getting in as witnessed the, well, the whole history of the country, the western United States, Alaska and then finally Hawaii.
[00:21:58] Speaker 1: Okay. Steve, your other question?
[00:21:59] Steve: My second question has to do with who who do Hawaiians think is a Hawaiian? In other words, how do Hawaiians think somebody else is Hawaiian. In a lot of cultures in Southeast Asia for instance, blood is not an issue. You can be you can be a member of the community if you have a recognized relationship with the community and over the years one becomes a member. Uh, for instance.
[00:22:26] Speaker 1: No, it's okay. We we need to keep moving. You've asked a very, very good question, Jimmy. Well, I I think that's part of the problem. I don't think there's necessarily agreement even among sovereignty peoples as to who is Hawaiian. Some groups feel that you have to be at least 50% Hawaiian, others say it's anybody with any percentage of Hawaiian blood. Uh, and then others I think are willing to recognize maybe not as racially Hawaiian but as part of the group, people who are willing to share concepts of Hawaiian custom and tradition. Uh, but that's a very cloudy issue among uh among the sovereignty people as to, you know, what categories you happen to fall into.
[00:23:04] Clinton R. Ashford: But but traditionally, that's my question. Traditionally is race a concept in Hawaiian culture. I'm thinking that may not be because in many cultures race and blood are not really a concept.
[00:23:16] Jimmy: Well, it it is in one sense, but you got to remember I think Hawaii has a very interesting custom that's known as Hana. Right. Which is a traditional type of adoption where you bring children in from other families. And there was no, I think even in the 19th century, any concept that you had to be of Hawaiian blood to to get the benefits of that. And the concept is once you've Hana that child, that is your child and that is part of the Hawaiian system and the Hawaiian family.
[00:23:36] Speaker 1: Last week one of our guests was Keikoni Blasedell and he was saying that non-Hawaiians are welcome in his vision of sovereignty as long as they're willing to subscribe to the tenets of um what his organization is all about.
[00:23:55] Walter Judd: But without vote. But without vote, and that's very important. Uh in answer to uh uh Steve's uh comment, uh the unfortunately, I I think that you can be pure Hooli and still be Hawaiian. That that's my view. Uh as a Kiki Oky, I think I'm as Hawaiian as people who have Hawaiian blood, but uh aside from that, most of the recent legislation and not some not so recent, the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, uh the OHA statute, the sovereignty elections council uh statute, all of those are based on race and they all have to do with the quantum of blood of the race that inhabited Hawaii prior to the arrival of Captain Cook.
[00:24:36] Speaker 1: Well, in fact, I I think you suggested if I'm I'm right, your article in in the Advertiser this morning suggested that because it's based solely on race and because the Hawaiians have not been recognized as a political class like native American tribes on the mainland for example, uh, you were saying that that these various programs are probably unconstitutional.
[00:24:58] Walter Judd: In my opinion, they are. Now, some people would say that that's uh that that's an extreme view but Brown against Board of Education was decided more than 40 years ago. Uh and that certainly made it very clear that race-based actions are are not constitutional. They run a foul of the equal protection clause.
[00:25:19] Speaker 1: Okay. Recently, we had a we had another decision just two months ago, uh Adrand Constructors versus Penya, uh which reemphasized that conclusion. Uh Jimmy, you and I have talked a long time ago about Hawaiian status as a native American group. Could you give us a little bit of background on that, and then we're going to move on to another caller.
[00:25:40] Jimmy: Well I think some of the sovereignty groups would essentially like to go through a process where they would be recognized by the United States as, and this is a term of art used, the United States Constitution, an Indian tribe. Uh and there are some benefits if that is done, uh essentially it kind of in a way takes Hawaiians out of the normal equal protection situation that's talked about by Tink, because the Constitution says that if you are an Indian tribe, uh you essentially are able to make separate arrangements with the United States regarding how you'd be treated. Um you know, there are some real problems in the sense, at least legally looking at that. Hawaiians, frankly, don't fit with any sort of definition of Indian tribe either that has been, you know, in the court cases or in various definitions by the department of the Interior.
[00:26:29] Speaker 1: So you would say it's not just an an oversight that they haven't yet been given that status?
[00:26:34] Jimmy: I think that's correct. I think the problem you run into is if you look at what Hawaii was again at the in 1893, it was just not comprised of Hawaiians, that is Hawaiians by blood. The kingdom had a number of non-Hawaiians. It essentially was a modern Western Western based country, at least in terms of the government.
[00:27:01] Speaker 1: Okay. In a minute ago, you made reference to Tink, and I should tell listeners that that's the nickname of the gentleman on my right, Clinton Ashford. Tink, you have a response?
[00:27:09] Clinton R. Ashford: Well, I just want to embellish something that the Jim said. Hawaiians have been recognized in a number of federal statutes as Native Americans for specific purposes, education, health and so forth, but Hawaiians have never qualified as Indians within the sense that Jim was talking about. And the Indian Rehabilitation Act of 1934, which many Hawaiians have tried to squeeze themselves under, would have to be substantially amended by Congress for Hawaiians to be included in the term Indian and therefore have a political as distinguished from a racial status.
[00:27:36] Speaker 1: Okay. Well, let's move on to another caller, Zuma in Diamond Head. Good morning, Zuma.
[00:27:40] Zuma: Good morning. I have two questions for the panel. Um, one, um on the sovereignty issue, if if there is like one objective and perhaps maybe many different ways to achieve it, why are there so many different sovereignty groups with, you know, with their with their own objective?
[00:28:05] Speaker 1: Well, who wants to uh fill that question? And and and last week we had our our sovereignty proponents who were asked the very same question, and they pointed out that if you go to Washington, DC and listen to the Democrats and then the Republicans and then the Independents, etc., uh you won't find a whole lot of agreement either. But uh Jimmy, do you have any additional thoughts to Zuma's first questions?
[00:28:20] Jimmy: I think I think there are some philosophical differences among Hawaiian sovereignty groups. I think some frankly want to go back to a subsistence type culture that pre-existed Western contact. I think there are other sovereignty groups that essentially would like to create an independent country that would be modern in its economic system but independent non nonetheless. So I think, you know, you're going to see those philosophical differences expressed in the in the makeup of the different groups.
[00:28:46] Zuma: For sure. Aren't philosophical differences expressed within a party, um still, but that that party is still recognized as one party but not many different um separate groups with the same issue or the same objective. I mean, it it seems like, you know, like the Democratic and the Republican thing, I mean, of course, I mean there's going to be some differences, but objectively, they have one goal and they
[00:29:07] Speaker 1: Zuma, you you've made your point very well. Let's move on to your next question.
[00:29:10] Zuma: Okay, I'm sorry. My next question is uh for Jim, um on the racial prejudice and the ethnic pride. I uh didn't quite understand that. I mean because it seems uh there is a lot of uh racism on the part of the Hawaiians uh to pretty much anyone who is not Hawaiian. And I was wondering if you can clarify that for me.
[00:29:26] Jimmy: Well, you know, I I think Walt Judd put his finger on, you know, the ethnic pride part of it. I think there has been a renaissance of the Hawaiian people since about the 1970s. And I think that's very good. One of the things I'm very supportive of for example is to uh have more people speaking the Hawaiian language. So I think there are very positive aspects of the sovereignty or native Hawaiian rights uh issues. I'm just concerned that it becomes a point where you start looking at yourself as well, I'm part of the Hawaiians, so therefore I'm entitled to certain benefits or rights and my neighbor down the street, uh because they're not native Hawaiian should not have those. I I just have a real problem with that. I think uh, you know, that I think what Hawaiians to my feeling should do is to emphasize the positive part. In fact, I've talked to people about, you know, Hawaiians should be out there proselitizing non-Hawaiians to adopt Hawaiian values themselves. I think that's positive.
[00:30:21] Speaker 1: Okay. Zuma, thank you for your call. Thank you.
[00:30:38] Solomon: And Honolulu is Solomon. Good morning, Solomon. Good morning.
[00:30:41] Speaker 1: You have a question or a brief comment for our guests?
[00:30:43] Solomon: Well I have a prelim- preliminary question, um, Uh, there's three gentlemen had articles in this morning's paper, and then now you're on the radio. Uh, is there some kind of uh venture, joint venture or what which came first? The chicken or the egg, right?
[00:31:02] Speaker 1: Um, well, we've we've worked with the folks at the Advertiser and the folks at, uh, KHON Channel 2, uh, in an attempt to, um, uh, to really get the word out. Uh, we all feel that sovereignty is an issue that that really needs to be discussed more publicly, and we're encouraging people on all sides to step forward and and share their thoughts. So, um, we're real real tickled to be working with those folks.
[00:31:25] Solomon: Oh, I see. So you you don't necessarily have uh experts on the show.
[00:31:30] Speaker 1: No, we're just the Kaanalu gang. These these are these are experts. Walter Judd has a comment, then we'll come back to you, Solomon.
[00:31:36] Walter Judd: I think it, I think it ought to be brought out that in last Sunday's advertiser, there were some articles there by the peoples who also participated in the show.
[00:31:46] Speaker 1: Right. The proponents of sovereignty were were in the Advertiser and on Channel 2 and here in the radio studio last week, uh the so-called Kaanalu gang, and that just means they're they're still listening, they're not yet convinced. Uh they're here this week. Next week we're going to have some folks who are are movers and shakers, leaders with respect to specific organizations and institutions, uh within the Hawaiian community. What's your question, Solomon?
[00:32:13] Solomon: Um, well I just want to answer one one person mentioned about there's no legal uh way that he saw for a state to leave the union. Right. But uh just one example I know of not a state but uh if we recall that uh Hawaii was annexed as a territory through a a just a simple resolution by Congress.
[00:32:41] Speaker 1: So you're saying easy, easy in, easy out or something like that?
[00:32:45] Solomon: Sure. What's the problem?
[00:32:46] Speaker 1: Okay. Well, we appreciate uh your comment. We're going to move on to some more callers, but, uh I want to remind listeners that this is the Price of Paradise Radio Show. Uh we're talking to the so-called Kaanalu gang, uh three individuals who have a number of questions that they think need to be raised and discussed publicly about sovereignty. If you tuned in late, you can catch the entire show this evening on KIFO. That's 1380 AM. It will begin at 8:00 p.m. and run until 9:00 p.m. So if you missed part of the show, you might want to tune it in this evening. Also you might watch the KHON Channel 2 News at 6:00 and 10 tonight. We think we'll have a report on the show, or we're hoping that they'll have a report on the show, and this morning's advertiser, Solomon just mentioned, has three articles by our three guests in the focus section. This is the second of three installments on sovereignty. Our guests in the studio are Clint Ashford, an attorney with the law firm of Ashford and Riston, Walter Judd who has retired from the Hawaiian National Guard. He's also a historian who's published three books about Hawaii's past, and Jim Me, he's an attorney also with Ashford and Riston. If you'd like to ask a question or make a brief comment as long as you do it respectfully, and that's what we've been asking last week and we'll ask again next week because again we know this is a very controversial topic. As long as it's done with respect, why we welcome your calls. The number is 955-8821, and while we do have some people waiting, there are some open lines. Our next caller is Laila from Iaea. Good morning, or Lila.
[00:34:16] Laila: Good morning. I wanted to read from the Congressional record, the Senate debate, and this is Senator Gordon who opposed the apology bill. I know that the two senators from Hawaii do not agree with the radicals who wish independence as a result, but the logical consequences of this resolution would be independence, and in his summary, This senator feels unfortunately that the consequences of the portions of this resolution after the whereas clause do in fact provide a basis, perhaps even a legal basis for some kind of demand for special treatment or for the return of land.
[00:35:04] Speaker 1: Mhm. And and in a fact and and also there is the law professor from the University of Illinois Francis Boyle, who's rendered an opinion, um, exactly to that effect, correct?
[00:35:13] Laila: Correct. Now, I have a question because in, uh, Walter Judd's, um, article, um, he said it shows as that the queen had no support. Now, there's always been a rumor that there was a petition signed by thousands of Hawaiians, um, petitioning the queen to create a new constitution, and when she was arrested, um, there were papers removed. Has Mr. Judd heard those rumors?
[00:35:49] Speaker 1: What do you think? Walter Judd, our historian in the studio.
[00:35:52] Walter Judd: Yes, I've heard those rumors. Uh, let me talk about the one thing first. You're talking about papers being taken from the queen. This was at the time of the Republic of Hawaii. This was at the time of martial law under the Republic of Hawaii. This was a time when the Chief Justice was asked as a very impersonal and impartial person to gather up papers for consideration by the military commission as far as the queen is concerned. Now, as far as the the numbers of peoples that were in favor of the queen prior to the revolution, I recommend that you look at an article written by Albertine Lums called the Longest Legislature which was published by the historical society back I think in 1962. The legislature was was broken up into three parts or there were three parties, I should say. One of those three was very much for the present form of the monarchy. Another form was, uh-uh, we don't like the present monarchy, we're going to try and change it or or something's going to happen, but we're going to have a separate entity. And the third party was the Reform Party. The queen did have a lot of followers. There's no question about it, but things were so divisive that there was no conclusion on that.
[00:37:18] Speaker 1: Okay. Laila, thank you for your call. We appreciate.
[00:37:20] Laila: Well I'd like to recommend that people read the other side, which is to steal a kingdom by Michael Daugherty.
[00:37:27] Speaker 1: Okay. Mahaloh. Thank you. Uh, Clint Ashford, you had a comment to make?
[00:37:32] Clinton R. Ashford: Uh, just following up on um on Walt's comment, my grandfather was the one who founded the Reform Party.
[00:37:40] Speaker 1: Okay. Uh, our next caller is Wayne from St. Louis Heights. Good morning, Wayne.
[00:37:45] Wayne: Good morning. I want to ask a question uh to the panel. Uh there's so much talk among these sovereignty groups about the overthrow of the monarchy and restoring the monarchy, um uh and in as a symbol or as a incarnation of
[00:38:00] Speaker 1: the Hawaiian people's nationhood. Yet, you don't hear very much about the royal family speaking out, or regard to this matter, how do they feel about this?
[00:38:11] Speaker 2: I mean, after all, it was not the Hawaiian people who were overthrown, per se, but it was really the Hawaiian royal family that was overthrown in 1893.
[00:38:18] Speaker 3: Good point. Jim, me, what do you think?
[00:38:20] Speaker 4: Well, I'm I'm really not in a position to speak for them. Um is there one royal family? I was under the impression that that was a subject of controversy.
[00:38:30] Speaker 3: To a certain extent, I think if you looked on especially from how, who would have been the heirs of Queen Liliuokalani, it's pretty clear you come down to it being the members of the present day Kaonakoa family. Uh and they're descended from Prince Kaonakoa, who was uh I believe a nephew of Queen Kapiolani.
[00:38:48] Speaker 4: Um, I, you know, they they have been involved in various Hawaiian type cultural activities. For example, uh Kealake, Abigail Kawananakoa was instrumental in the founding of the Merry Monarch Festival.
[00:39:02] Speaker 3: So, in some ways, I think they have been very involved in the Hawaiian cultural Renaissance. But I I Well, again, I I don't feel I can speak from them, but I I I would think they might have some concerns, too, about where this is going.
[00:39:16] Speaker 4: I think the other problem is, is there's no necessarily any assurance if you come back to a Hawaiian independent state, these are going to be the people who would be the monarchs. And one of my concern is you could have a big uh bruhaha among various descendants of Ali'i, who would say that no, I should be the monarch of this new state. Mhm.
[00:39:36] Speaker 1: You know, Clinton Kavana Nikoa is a member of the family, you mentioned, and he's in the legislature right now. Um, I think we'll have our our producer, Suzy, give him a call and and see if we can get him in the studio next week, or at least hooked up by phone so that we can get his thoughts on on that question, as well as others. Clint Ashford, did you have uh something on that?
[00:39:54] Speaker 5: No, nothing nothing further. Um, okay.
[00:39:56] Speaker 1: Wayne, anything else?
[00:39:57] Speaker 6: No, that's it. Fine, thank you.
[00:39:58] Speaker 1: Thank you much. Next, John from Connie O'Hay. Good morning, John.
[00:40:02] Speaker 7: Good morning. Good morning. Thanks for the series. It's been very interesting. Good. Uh, the in another part of the paper this morning, there was an article about the teachers coming from the mainland, and one teacher who was uh uh commenting that straight from the mainland, and she's got to teach a course in Hawaiian history. Considering uh That could be hard. some concern about the difficulty of uh historical distortion, I wonder is anything being done to provide an accurate depiction of history to the students in Hawaii?
[00:40:30] Speaker 1: And I'll think I've been listening to your comments. Thank you, John. You know, and and I think there's a question that has to be asked before John's question is answered, and that is, is there agreement, Walter Judd, our historian, is there agreement as to what the history is, what actually happened back at the time of the overthrow?
[00:40:49] Speaker 5: I think it all depends on the source that you use and you also have to depend on the way peoples are trying to rewrite history today. There is a lot of factual data that is available. Professor Koku and Dall, for example, has a very good compilation.
[00:41:07] Speaker 3: And so did W.D Alexander, but again, it depends on the point of view of the author.
[00:41:12] Speaker 5: Yes.
[00:41:13] Speaker 1: So, so you can read one account and then another account and think you're reading about two different things?
[00:41:19] Speaker 5: No, they're variations on the same thing.
[00:41:22] Speaker 1: But they're spun in different ways, I I'm not sure I understand just what Well, it's it's the viewpoint of a person. For example, you would look at you would look at at Jim in one way. I look at him in another way. It's just a different viewpoint.
[00:41:35] Speaker 3: Okay. Any other thoughts on on that one?
[00:41:37] Speaker 4: Well, I think it's a factor of just the subject of history that uh you're not going to get any history that's completely objective. And that I think I agree with Walt. It really depends on where the author is coming from. Okay.
[00:41:50] Speaker 1: Our next caller is Nalani from Nuuanu. Good morning, Nalani.
[00:41:54] Speaker 8: Aloha, good morning. Um, I wanted to present um a question along another line of thinking and that is that one of the things that we as Ka Mali need to do which the tribunal did in 1993, is look at the condition of land and people in Hawaii as uh, you know, the main crisis that we face. And that as we look at the condition of land and people, there is a kind of racism which emergence, which has to do with who are the people whose numbers have been decimated and who are in the prisons and who have no land. Why is it then less than 5,000 people have been placed on Hawaiian homelands in over 73 years. Why is it that there are three categories of people, mentally retarded, citizens, children and Kanaka Mali who are not allowed to sue and win in the state. There's a lot of racism that's ongoing, that's being addressed by people in the uh different so-called sovereignty movements. At the same time, President Clinton and the Congress of the United States have already recognized our inherent sovereignty as a people and the disruption of our self-determination and of that inherent sovereignty by the US government.
[00:43:12] Speaker 1: Nalani, you've you've said some very provocative things. I I noticed Jim, you winced at at the one comment about Native Hawaiians not being able to sue or something like that.
[00:43:22] Speaker 4: Well, I I I there's a whole lot of stuff going on here in terms of what rights they have. I mean, the fact is Hawaiians have the same legal rights as everyone else in the community. I think what the caller is referring to is is partly well, they're different levels. Questions about the seeded lands, which I I don't completely agree with that is that they uh the Native Hawaiian people have a right to that. There are questions about the Hawaiian homelands where there's no question about it. There have been all sorts of things that have happened in Hawaiian homelands that shouldn't have happened. And I think that is being rectified by the legislature and by the state. Um, but I think we have to be careful that we don't confuse present day problems that are suffered by Hawaiians. For example, the the reference to Hawaiians being in prison and having other problems with things that really you're talking about a 200 year history of of a people, some of the things people had control over, some of the things they didn't have control over. The the decimation of the Hawaiian people, for example, that was largely a function of diseases that came in after the Western contact. I mean, why that's very that's a very sad fact, I don't think you can blame that on anybody. It just happened.
[00:44:32] Speaker 8: It's not only diseases, it's that people were dislocated and disrupted from lands and there was a lot of disruption of the family system which is longer, a longer tradition than even the Ali'i or chief systems. The family systems themselves of taking care of each other and of the the land.
[00:44:49] Speaker 1: Nalani, let me get Clint Ashford's reaction to to some of the points because you've made a a lot of a very important points, and I want to get some reactions to them. Clint?
[00:44:58] Speaker 5: Well, Kavana, uh kicked the taboo system into the gutter, uh into the ditch or or some other place where perhaps it shouldn't have been. This created a vacuum into which the missionaries walked. Uh I think that they brought some very fine influences here. Uh life, uh in the pre-contact society and even shortly after that was not all that good. Uh under the taboo system, uh transgressions were uh punished by death or maiming. Uh the difference between the Ali'i and the Makanana, that there was a vast chasm there. I think the so-called good old days, days probably really never existed. Nonetheless, uh we we can't turn back history, uh a an isolated community was visited by Westerners, they brought with them gunpowder, uh modern methods of war which enabled Kamehameha to unify the islands of, and then by treaty with Kauai. Uh I don't think I agree with Jim. Nobody's You can't put blame here. If there is a class, and Hawaiians in general are a class that need special help, agreed that we should give it to them, but sovereignty is not necessarily the best way to do that. You have to have specific legislative and other social programs targeted to specific problem areas like health, education, and so forth.
[00:46:22] Speaker 8: I think that perhaps um the speakers this morning are missing a huge global movement of indigenous rights around the whole world, in which indigenous peoples are meeting with the great urgent spiritual responsibility to reclaim their relationships with their lands because of the exploitative colonial capitalistic systems that are destroying the earth. And that this is what the so-called sovereignty movement is part of in Hawaii, and that also that you're missing the point that President Clinton has already acknowledged our inherent sovereignty as a people and the disruption of our self-determination and of that inherent sovereignty by the US government.
[00:46:53] Speaker 1: And you're talking about the apology bill, Nalani?
[00:46:55] Speaker 8: Our inherent sovereignty, yes. It's not an apology bill, a bill is when something you call it something a bill when it hasn't been passed yet. This is a law. This is a public law, 103-150. And it is up to us who have been recognized as having our inherent sovereignty to assert what the ramifications of illegal acts have been, what the assessment of damages are and what kinds of compensation we need. Okay.
[00:47:22] Speaker 1: Nalani, you you've raised You've raised many, many very good points and I I appreciate it. Uh, Walter Judd, did you have a comment or where you waving at me a moment ago? Okay.
[00:47:33] Speaker 5: May I please make a comment? Uh, Nalani, you did cover an awful lot of ground and let me address just one part of it, and that's the behavior. You talk about behavior compared to what? The Hawaiian down at the bottom of the list compared to what? Why is a Filipino not down at the bottom of the list? Or a Puerto Rican, or a Vietnamese, or any of these other peoples? There has been a breakdown in the family system and I think a constructive thing can be done, and I think maybe Dr. Blaise is already trying to do this, and that is get the Kupuna together and to get them to go and try and urge family people to make life better for their kids and have better behavior for their kids. And if they don't, then shame them.
[00:48:24] Speaker 1: Nalani, I've got to get some responses to the points you've already made because you've put so much on the table, I need to get some responses to that. Jim, me, we talked a little bit earlier about what many people call the apology bill, but Nalani's absolutely correct, it was passed by both Houses of Congress and and signed by the President. Uh, why is there controversy over the legal significance of that? Because if is if as she's correctly pointed out, it's a law, why doesn't it change something?
[00:48:54] Speaker 4: Well, I she's right, it's a law, it's a whole question of what it means. It doesn't say anywhere in the apology that Hawaii shall no longer be a state of the Union and I think that's way it's being interpreted by some people and the way the professor at the University of Illinois has said that would be a basis. Uh, I just can't find anything in the legislative history that says that was the intent. Okay, and that's certainly not in the wording.
[00:49:18] Speaker 1: Okay. Nalani, thank you for your call. I have got four people lined up and we've just got about 10 minutes to go, so I'm going to have to move on, but I very much appreciate your call.
[00:49:27] Speaker 8: Okay, and I would just like to leave by saying that I think this panel needs to look into the 1959 uh plebiscite that was held here, that was held in violation of international law, which has already been reported at the United Nations.
[00:49:40] Speaker 1: Okay, thank you, Nalani. Um, we've been uh waiting very patiently on the line. We have Dr. Lugo from Maui. Good morning, Dr. Lugo.
[00:49:48] Speaker 9: Good morning. Thank you for Thank you for waiting so patiently. Um, I just want to uh preface by saying I'm a child psychiatrist here on Maui and uh I'll try to be very brief because I know you're short on time. Thank you. Uh, you folks have a wonderful program. Uh, I am a three year resident of Maui and I am uh born and raised uh Puerto Rican. Uh I just want to throw this out as a point uh of similarities between Puerto Rico and Hawaii. Puerto Rico was uh became a part of the United States within a matter of a few years of the annexation uh of Hawaii. Uh as far as history goes and uh the United Nations, which Nalani was uh mentioning too, the United Nations has defined Puerto Rico as a colony although the United States, uh I believe was the only vote in the United Nations that dissented with that opinion. The point I have to make is this. Uh they uh what happened 100 years ago and what happened what's going on now, uh it's important to keep in mind the differences, just as if we were to decide now what's going to happen 100 years in the future. The relevance of uh history is important, but uh I want to say this, the history in Puerto Rico is as follows, uh there is basically a division of three groups. You're going to have to make this very quickly. Yes, one group wants statehood, one group wants independence and one group wants to remain with the status quo and that's by plebiscite. Now the minority wants independence but they make more noise than anyone else. Uh here's my question to the panel, uh in terms of the current situation, um the wishes of the majority of the people as things stand now, the the the present population of this of these islands, I think uh has to be respected regardless of the history and the very strong feelings because the children uh are as you just very well said, are uh the ones that want to carry this into the future and if we give them a legacy of blame and you know, a controversy as opposed to uh some sort of a solution or at least opinion wise as to what the people really want, the majority, then I think we're passing on more problems.
[00:52:32] Speaker 1: Okay, Dr. Lugo, my my producer wife is telling me we have to move on, we've got so many people waiting. I think your comment has been very well made and I'm just going to go to the next caller because I I think um the comment speaks for itself. Thank you. Aloha. We have Ku'aana from Hawaii Kai. Good morning, Ku'aana.
[00:52:49] Speaker 10: Hi, Aloha. Aloha. Um, I have a two part question, which is going to be real brief. Part one is, um, wouldn't you folks feel that it would be best for all of us, Hawaiian and non-Hawaiian, to try a new form of government because we've been under the present American system for so long and it really hasn't cutting any of us anywhere. Um, part two is based on putting aside law, theology and looking at it on a spiritual basis. Do you think a lot of, um, America's ills are based on its mistreatment of native peoples? Okay, Ku'aana. You know, I'll cut it off, and I'll say Aloha.
[00:53:31] Speaker 1: Clint Ashford, any response to either question?
[00:53:35] Speaker 5: Well, uh for me, economic point of view, I don't see that uh independence is going to help us any. The United States uh is probably one of the most advanced nations on earth. Now, it's not perfect by a long shot and uh there are a good many things that uh that distress me uh substantially about uh violence, crime, uh breakdown in family values, and so forth. Uh nevertheless, I I haven't seen any place that's any better off than we are, and I have seen a good deal of the Pacific, uh over the course of years, and I am aware that there is not a single Pacific nation uh that is the small island nations who can make it without outside help. Uh, and I don't see Hawaii being able to make it economically without outside help.
[00:54:21] Speaker 4: I think I I tend to agree with Tink. Um I would agree with the caller that uh the history of the United States is not perfect. And in fact, the mistreatment of of native peoples, especially of the American Indians uh on the mainland is, I don't think it would be exaggerating to call it disgraceful. I mean, there was all sorts of terrible things that happened, but I have to look at the Constitution of our country, which talks about people being treated equally and to have equal opportunities. And I agree with that very strongly. And I think really we have the ability under this system to create a community that is going to be good for everyone. And I I think we have to move away from the historical problems of the past and look to the future.
[00:55:12] Speaker 1: Okay. Our next caller has been waiting patiently is Ikaika from IA. Good morning, Ikaika. Are you there, Ikaika? Let's move on to uh James from Maui. James, good morning.
[00:55:26] Speaker 11: Good morning.
[00:55:27] Speaker 1: You've got just a minute.
[00:55:28] Speaker 11: Well, I'd like to refer to the Queen's official protest that she gave the President back in 1897 and the bottom line of that was, to the Almighty Ruler of the universe, she says, to him who judgeth righteously, I commit my cause. So, this same personality the Queen appealed to was referred to by those who signed the American Declaration of Independence as their creator and as the source of their unalienable rights, as the Supreme Judge of the world. So, uh here we have the spirit of this same creator in us, in the minds of the people today as as was in the minds of the people a hundred years ago. So, today the government in Hawaii in the United States isn't good enough for everybody. There's not a government or a religion on earth good enough for everybody. So, it seems to me we ought to look to the creator of the universe and reunify spiritually and reorganize politically and make a new form of government in Hawaii that's good enough for everybody in Hawaii. And then uh Okay, James, we have to move on. You've made a very good point.
[00:56:28] Speaker 1: I I really appreciate it, James, but we're we're just flat running out of time. Thank you very much. June June from Honolulu. I want to get you in because you've been waiting the longest of of everyone very quickly. What's your question or your comment?
[00:56:41] Speaker 12: Yes, thank you. Um, Aloha. Um, I sense an avoidance on the part of the panel to speak about institutional racism. And I wonder if you could address uh that, please. Okay.
[00:56:54] Speaker 1: Very very quickly, uh Clint Ashford, any reaction to June's question?
[00:56:58] Speaker 5: I I would want an explanation.
[00:57:00] Speaker 1: from her is to what she means by institutional racism.
[00:57:03] Speaker 2: When Nalani spoke about the impact on the Hawaiian people today of things of the past, I see that as institutional racism in the form of practices over of institutions, of education, of social services, of public safety and in other ways.
[00:57:26] Speaker 1: Okay. Um okay. I I think I think I understand it now. There isn't any question about the fact that Hawaiians in part Hawaiians are at the bottom of the heap when it comes to statistics on things like education, health, prison sentences, and so forth. But I would reiterate the point that I think I or I tried to make when Nalani was on the phone, and that is that sovereignty as a political or a racist movement is not the way to address those you specific problems have to be addressed by specific means targeted to try to solve those problems. Okay. June, thank you for your call. We we just ran out of time. I want to thank our guests who are Clinton Ashford, an attorney who's been active with with numerous numerous organizations. He's a former president of the State Bar Association.
[00:58:14] Speaker 1: He'll be president of the Hawaii Justice Foundation next year. Uh he has uh an ancestry that goes very far back into the history of Hawaii. Walter Judd, who is retired from the Hawaii National Guard, a historian who's published three books about Hawaii's past. He, too, uh goes very far back. His great-grandfather uh renounced his US citizenship and pledged allegiance to Kamehameha III in 1844. And Jim Mee, an attorney with Ashford and Wriston, uh whose uh Hawaiian great-grandfather, interestingly enough, supported the overthrow, while his Halai great-grandfather was sympathetic to to the Queen. Uh our um our producer is Susie Roth. Our director of operations at Hawaii Public Radio is Jeff Alardi. Our helpers this morning were Aliyah Yapp and uh Wally Roth.
[00:59:03] Speaker 1: Next week we're going to have the third installment of our three-part series on sovereignty. We hope to have with us, and we haven't finalized all of this just yet, but we hope to have Norma Wong, who's former Director of State Planning for the State, Kali Watson, who is the director of the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands, Oz Stender, who is a Bishop Estate Trustee, Clayton He, who is the director of OHA, the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. And as I mentioned during this morning's show, we'll give Quentin Kawanakoa a call and see if he can join us as well. Now not all of those folks are going to be in the studio. We expect to have a couple of them in the studio and hopefully all of the rest of them available by phone to share their thoughts about all of the points that have been made today and the points made last week.
[00:59:46] Speaker 1: You've been listening to The Price of Paradise Radio Show. I'm Randy Roth. Aloha.