Tyranny and iwi exposed

By Alika Poe Silva

Editor's note: Alika Poe Silva is Kahu Kulāiwi, Koa Mana, Kupukaaina o Wai'anae wahi pana, O'ahu, Hawaiian National. The views expressed in this community forum do not necessarily reflect the views of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs.

Re: Federal law Section 106 traditional cultural property (TCP) Model Paradigm versus the Sites Model, and why TCPs are hidden in the State of Hawai'i's Environmental Law!

Aloha and mahalo 'ohana for your support in our series of concerns. Original inhabitant kūpuna practiced aloha 'āina, they lived it and knew and taught us traditions and moral values that would benefit the entire world.

Both the U.S. military and State of Hawai'i play an immoral shell game concerning our 'ohana's burial sites and national treasures. The procedures of historic preservation in Hawai'i are an ill illusion, which is conducted according to what they call the Sites Model. It does not truly serve the interest of the Hawaiian people and/or environment. As it is practiced in the State of Hawai'i (SOH), in fact, “historic preservation” should be more accurately called “historic mitigation.” Facts show, the Sites Model primarily serves the interests of corporate developers and prolonged illegal military occupation — not Hawaiians, preservationists or preservation.

We are not suggesting that all developers or developments are bad, simply that we should once and for all dispense with the illusion that the system is designed primarily to preserve and protect cultural and natural resources! Rather, it is designed to immorally facilitate development for corporate profits and militarism by way of “mitigation.” (See TCP Model Study by OHA.)

We certainly have a global and a realistic perspective of what is possible and at stake for generations to come. Remember, 'ohana, the Ku'e Petition of 1897-1898 is solid consensus against the illegal occupation. Times change, what is considered lawful or acceptable has changed drastically throughout U.S. corporate and military history. (See photo.)

For example, at the start of the illegal military occupation of Hawai'i by the U.S. government in 1893, it was illegal for African-Americans and women to vote. One can think of similar examples of once-legal practices that are no longer acceptable to society (cf. Brown 1970; Churchill and Venne; Pakenham 1991).

State TCP language — contrary to widespread opinions, TCPs are defined in the SOH historic preservation and environmental law, although the relevant language needs to be revised, tightened up and clarified. As with federal law and guidelines, upon which the state laws and administrative rules are based, TCPs are simply another kind of “historic property” that must be assessed and documented. As with all other types of “historic property,” mitigation may be necessary if a TCP is adversely affected by a proposed undertaking (i.e., development project of some kind). Project redesign and avoidance is one kind of mitigation.

The ironies of the current situation are that the State Historic Preservation Division is so haphazard, we are unable, in a timely and efficient manner, to quantify the following statement, which we know by experience to be true: that is, virtually only one TCP has been documented in Hawai'i, and there are approximately 30,000 historic properties that were assessed and eligible for inclusion on the State Register of Historic Places to date.

Hawaii Revised Statute Chapter 6E (“Historic Preservation”) — the purpose of HRS 6E is to declare and describe the state's constitutional commitment to a Historic Preservation Program in Hawai'i. Specific language regarding the procedures and practice of historic preservation is located not in the law, but in the administrative rules (HAR), which act as guidelines to implementing the law.

There are two relevant sets of historic preservation rules in the HAR: 13-275 and 13-264. It may surprise the reader to learn that the term “TCP” does not appear in either of these two sets of rules, or anywhere else in HRS 6E or any other set of historic preservation rules in Hawai'i. As we have shown above, however, the definition of TCP occurs in both HAR 13-275 and HAR 13-264. To reiterate, according to both sets of rules, a “historic property” may be eligible for inclusion on the historic register under criterion “e,” which states that it has “an important value to the native Hawaiian people or to another ethnic group of the state due to associations with cultural practices once carried out, or still carried out, at the property or due associations with traditional beliefs, events or oral accounts — these associations being important to the group's history and cultural identity.

The only mention of TCP in State of Hawai'i law is purposely hidden in environmental law. This is not an insignificant issue. It is a lack of morality by the United States deliberately playing their shell game to force assimilation of Hawaiians.

Dear 'ohana, what would our Queen Lili'uokalani say? Set Hawai'i free, America! 'Ohana, raise your voice and call upon OHA to ensure that the term “traditional cultural property” (TCP) be written into their administrative rules (HAR 13-275, 13-264 and 13-284) and, note their specific status and importance into their law until our Hawaiian Kingdom is restored. We have more to talk about regarding TCP law and facts about morality. Mahalo nui to KWO. Remember, 'ohana, call OHA and raise your voice, for our Hawaiian Nation State, illegally occupied in 1893 and to date! Akua lako 'ohana. Stay tuned for part four.

This is the third in a series of commentaries.