Akaka Bill: Concerns for Hawaiians and the USA Essay

The main argument that can be used to evidence the inappropriateness of the Akaka bill concerns the ideas reported by Conklin who suggests that “current attacks on tribal sovereignty will instead be shifted to the new Akaka tribe” (par. 2). In this respect, the sovereignty of the tribe should be questioned because it destroys the concept of the sovereignty and indivisibility of the United States of America.

As every independent state has its regulation and policies concerning the native population and their rights, the authorities of the United States should rearrange the division of the country giving sovereignty to the representatives of the Hawaiian community so that they could be engaged into self-governance which is a bit different concept from the one primarily suggested in the Akaka bill. The Akaka bill should be rejected because it justifies the possibility of every group of people with common interests to be considered as a self-governed sovereign unit. However, the separatist nature of this bill cannot strengthen the united states that are a home for a great variety of representatives of different nations.

The problem exists concerning the concept of the Akaka tribe as a whole because it can be considered a historic entity that populated the territory of the currently acknowledged state within an independent country. For instance, Wu and Chen cite the idea suggested by Conklin:

One of the most troubling aspects of the Akaka bill is its attempt to create an Indian tribe where none has ever existed. It would be the first time in history when Congress creates an Indian tribe out of thin air by recognizing a currently non-existent political entity and then putting in place a procedure to populate it (101).

So, the population of the Hawaii is sure to be separated in accordance with the principles of tribe belonging and those people who have no Akaka tribe roots are sure to be discriminated and biased due to laws and regulations expected to come in force after approval of the Akaka bill. So, the Akaka bill should be rejected because it is aimed at identification of people’s historic origins rather than at moving towards a common future under the aegis and national flag of one country.

Though there are many supporters of the Akaka bill, it is necessary to state that the unfair nature of the bill is obvious for a great number of authors including Dyke who analyses the bill with regard to all possible consequences. For instance, the author claims that the Akaka bill “would empower federal courts to hear claims” (Dyke 272) mentioned in the bill as “…over any existing claim against the United States arising under Federal law…” (Dyke 272).

In other words, the integrity of the population is under threat of unidentified entity that wants to make the rights common for population of all states irrelevant for the people that live on the territory of Hawaii. The Akaka bill should be rejected because it is more likely to disintegrate people that currently live in Hawaii and deprive others of their natural right to live in a sovereign country. Sovereignty should be characterized by lack of separatist movements and integrity of the population regardless of circumstances.

The interests of the Hawaiian population can be considered the primary reason for adoption of the Akaka bill. Rowland asks “What are three ways that passage of the Akaka bill will help all Hawaii residents?” (par. 5) hence trying to say that the major role of the Akaka bill consists in defense of the rights of the residents of Hawaii. This demonstrates that the passage of the bill will exclude the nonresidents from governing activities and other positions that are seen as governing ones. In this respect, it is necessary to reject the Akaka bill due to its ambiguous nature exercised towards non-residents and federal states. If the bill can be passed claiming the Hawaii a sovereign entity, all groups can fight for sovereignty as well as Hawaiians which will ultimately ruin the United States.

The power of the United States and the future of the Hawaiian territory depend on the passing of the bill making this one of the most disputable issues for residents and non-residents of Hawaii, authorities, leaders, and members of other independents organizations. As claimed by Okamura, “opponents of the Akaka bill… view the bill as perpetuating colonial control over Native Hawaiians by making them ‘wards’ of the U.S. government like Native Americans under the bureau of Indian affairs” (107). In this respect, the opponents of the Akaka bill think about opportunity to gain liberty and become independent state rather than about integrity of the United States as a country.

At the same time, it is necessary to demonstrate the rights of Native Americans who can be really claimed a state within a state though this state does not have rights and freedoms in order to prevent development of separatist movements. If the bill is not rejected, Hawaiian people will be deprived of their rights as well as Native Americans who were limited in terms of territories and policies having no right to exercise their own policies and laws. The case of federal disputes is suggested by Sai (2) though Native Americans did not get more power by being able to claim against the Federal states.

Works Cited

Conklin, Kenneth. Dialog: Is It Possible to Oppose the Akaka Bill for Unique Reasons That Do not Attack the Sovereignty of Indian Tribes in General?Angelfire, 2009. Web.

Dyke, Jon Van. Who owns the Crown lands of Hawaii? Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 2008.

Okamura, Jonathan. Ethnicity and inequality in Hawai’i. Honolulu: Temple University Press, 2008.

Rowland, Dick. Akaka Bill: Three Questions. Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, 2010. Web.

Sai, David. A Slippery Path towards Hawaiian Indigneity. University of Hawai’i, Manoa, 2006. Web.

Wu, Jean Yu-wen Shen, and Thomas C. Chen. Asian American Studies Now: A Critical Reader. Cambridge: Rutgers University Press, 2010.