Protect Kahoolawe Ohana: All Our Aloha in One Kanoa

Post Date September 23, 2011

Comments 0 Comments

Author Laurel Mei-Singh

Category Action Alerts and Events, DMZ-Hawai'i / Aloha 'Aina In the News, Hawaiian Sovereignty, Land, Culture & Human Rights, Kaho'olawe, The Military in Hawai'i (All Islands)

Stopping the bombing – 20th Anniversary

September 25, 2011

9:30 am to 4:30 pm

Ka Papa Lo’i o Kanewai – 2645 Dole Street

Protect Kaho‘olawe ‘Ohana rededicates itself to Kaho‘olawe

(Kānewai, O‘ahu). The Protect Kaho‘olawe ‘Ohana (‘Ohana) will host All Our Aloha in One Kānoa on Sunday, September 25 from 10:30 AM to 4:30 PM at Ka Papa Lo‘i ‘o Kānewai at 2645 Dole Street. The event, which is free and open to the public, and welcomes families, wraps up a year of islandswide activities marking the 20^th anniversary since the bombing of Kaho‘olawe was stopped, The ‘Ohana invites the community to join in the rededication of promoting Aloha ‘Āina throughout the islands. Activities include talk story panels, music, food and other activities. The ‘Ohana will be serving ‘awa from the kānoa (‘awa bowl) that has been traveling across the Hawaiian Islands for the past year inviting community to rededicate themselves to Kanaloa Kaho‘olawe and continued efforts for its restoration.

Three unique kūkākūkā sessions will bring in members of the community to connect to Kaho‘olawe:

11 – 12 PM. MAKAHIKI. Makahiki practitioners from various O‘ahu communities will share their experiences around the revival of Makahiki on Kaho‘olawe and how they’ve connected those practices to their own wahi kapu (sacred places).

1 – 2 PM. I MUA NĀ PUA. Young people will share what the island has meant to them as students and family members through poems, songs, oli, or their personal stories.

3 – 4 PM. EA. Activists and proponents of Hawaiian sovereignty and restoration will describe their visions of how Kanaloa Kaho‘olawe fits into a Hawaiian entity.

Live music will be featured between sessions, including music by the Hakioawa Serenaders, Steve Ma‘i‘i, Jon Osorio, Ernie Cruz, Jr., and Kupa‘āina.

The lo‘i at Kānewai was re-established by UH Hawaiian language and culture students who were also members of the Protect Kaho‘olawe ‘Ohana. Kūpuna who guided the activities on Kaho‘olawe also helped young people to re-open the lo‘i kalo. The histories of the two communities are interconnected.

Ono food, familiar to those who have accessed Hakioawa with the ‘Ohana, will be available for donation. All proceeds from the day will support the mission of the Protect Kaho‘olawe ‘Ohana.

Formed in 1976, the vision of the Protect Kaho‘olawe ‘Ohana is Aloha ‘Āina.

Its mission is to promote Aloha ‘Āina throughout the islands through cultural, educational and spiritual activities that heal and revitalize the cultural and natural resources on Kaho‘olawe.

Native American Activist Winona LaDuke on Use of "Geronimo" as Code for Osama bin Laden and the "Militarization of Indian Country"

Post Date May 06, 2011

Comments 0 Comments

Author Laurel Mei-Singh

Category 'A'ole Stryker, DMZ-Hawai'i / Aloha 'Aina In the News, Environmental Impacts, Hawaiian Sovereignty, Land, Culture & Human Rights, Kaho'olawe

Winona LaDuke has just published a book The Militarization of Indian Country in which she discusses the situation in Hawai’i and the Native-owned military contracting industry. I spoke with someone from her organization as they were researching information for the book. I haven’t seen it yet to know how the information was incorporated. Today, she was on Democracy Now! She discusses the military assault on Hawai’i and the use of “Geronimo” as code name for Osama bin Laden. One figure she cites – 79,000 acres – of military expansion in Hawai’i doesn’t sound correct. But she describes Kaho’olawe, Pohakuloa and the Stryker Brigade expansion. Here’s the video of the program and an excerpt from the transcript:

Source: http://www.democracynow.org/2011/5/6/native_american_activist_winona_laduke_on

We’re joined now by Winona LaDuke, Native American activist, writer. She lives and works on the White Earth Reservation in northern Minnesota. She’s executive director of the group Honor the Earth. She was Ralph Nader’s running mate in 1996 and 2000 presidential elections. And her new book is called The Militarization of Indian Country. She’s joining us from Minneapolis.

Winona, thank you so much for being with us. Let’s start off by talking about who Geronimo was and the significance of his name being used.

Let me see how the New York Times described the moment: “The code name for bin Laden was ‘Geronimo.’ The president and his advisers watched Leon E. Panetta, the C.I.A. director, on a video screen, narrating from his agency’s headquarters across the Potomac River what was happening in faraway Pakistan.

“’They’ve reached the target,’ he said.

“Minutes passed.

“’We have a visual on Geronimo,’ he said.

“A few minutes later: ‘Geronimo EKIA.’

“Enemy Killed In Action. There was silence in the Situation Room.”

Winona LaDuke, your response?

WINONA LADUKE: I mean, you know, the reality is, is the military looks at it from its own perspective. This was one of the most expensive single campaigns to find somebody, bin Laden. And the reality was, is that the Geronimo campaign, the campaign against the Apache people, was one of the most expensive wars ever waged by the United States government. You know, for 13 years, they spent millions of dollars, essentially. Five thousand soldiers, and additional, went after these people, relentlessly, for that long period of time. So, from the military’s perspective, that’s a little of how they were looking at it.

You know, from our perspective, of course, and from, I think, all Americans’ perspective, Geronimo is a hero. He’s a national patriot for our peoples. And in that, it is indeed an egregious slander for indigenous peoples everywhere and to all Americans, I believe, to equate Osama bin Laden with Geronimo.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Well, Winona, in terms of the military, this seems to be a constant historical inability to grasp, the relationship of the government to Native American people. I was struck particularly by—during the wars in Kosovo, when the United States used—constantly talked about the Apache helicopters that were leading the fight against ethnic cleansing, or the new helicopter that supposedly was going to be the stealth helicopter that the military developed but then had to scrap, the Comanche helicopter. And there seems to be a constant insensitivity to the long struggle for freedom and defense of their land by the Native American peoples on the part of the U.S. military.

WINONA LADUKE: The reality is, is that the military is full of native nomenclature. That’s what we would call it. You’ve got Black Hawk helicopters, Apache Longbow helicopters. You’ve got Tomahawk missiles. The term used when you leave a military base in a foreign country is to go “off the reservation, into Indian Country.” So what is that messaging that is passed on? You know, it is basically the continuation of the wars against indigenous people.

Donald Rumsfeld, when he went to Fort Carson, named after the infamous Kit Carson, who was responsible for the deaths of thousands of Navajo people and their forced relocation, urged people, you know, in speaking to the troops, that in the global war on terror, U.S. forces from this base have lived up to the legend of Kit Carson, fighting terrorists in the mountains of Afghanistan to help secure victory. “And every one of you is like Kit Carson.”

The reality is, is that the U.S. military still has individuals dressed—the Seventh Cavalry, that went in in Shock and Awe, is the same cavalry that massacred indigenous people, the Lakota people, at Wounded Knee in 1890. You know, that is the reality of military nomenclature and how the military basically uses native people and native imagery to continue its global war and its global empire practices.

AMY GOODMAN: Winona, you begin your book on the militarization of Native America at Fort Sill, the U.S. Army post near Lawton, Oklahoma. We broadcast from there about a year ago in that area. Why Fort Sill? What is the significance of Fort Sill for Native America?

WINONA LADUKE: Well, you know, that is where the Apaches themselves were incarcerated for 27 years for the crime of being Apache. There are two cemeteries there, and those cemeteries—one of those cemeteries is full of Apaches, including Geronimo, who did die there. But it is emblematic of Indian Country’s domination by military bases and the military itself. You’ve got over 17 reservations named after—they’re still called Fort something, you know? Fort Hall is, you know, one of them. Fort Yates. You know, it is pervasive, the military domination of Indian Country.

Most of the land takings that have occurred for the military, whether in Alaska, in Hawaii, or in what is known as the continental United States, have been takings from native land. Some of—you know, they say that the Lakota Nation, in the Lakota Nation’s traditional territory, as guaranteed under the Treaty of 1868 or the 1851 Treaty, would be the third greatest nuclear power in the world. You know, those considerations indicate how pervasive historically the military has been in native history and remains today in terms of land occupation.

I must say, on the other side of that, we have the highest rate of living veterans of any community in the country. It’s estimated that about 22 percent of our population, or 190,000 of our—or 190,000—or 190,000 living veterans in Native America today. And all of those veterans, I am sure, are quite offended by the use of Geronimo’s name, you know, in the assault on bin Laden and in the death of bin Laden.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Winona, in your book, you go through a lot of these takings of land and what it’s been used for. Obviously, the nuclear accident following the tsunami in Japan has been in the news a lot lately, but you talk about the origins of the United States’s own nuclear power, the mining of uranium, the development of Los Alamos Laboratory. Could you talk about that and its connection to Indian Country?

WINONA LADUKE: You know, native people—about two-thirds of the uranium in the United States is on indigenous lands. On a worldwide scale, about 70 percent of the uranium is either in Aboriginal lands in Australia or up in the Subarctic of Canada, where native people are still fighting uranium mining. And now, with both nuclearization and the potential reboot of a nuclear industry, they’re trying to open uranium mines on the sacred Grand Canyon. You know, we have been, from the beginning, heavily impacted by radiation exposure from the U.S. military, you know, continuing on to nuclear testing, whether in the Pacific or whether the 1,100 nuclear weapons that were detonated over Western Shoshone territory. You know, our peoples have been heavily impacted by radiation, let alone nerve gas testing. You’ve got nerve gas dumps at Umatilla. You’ve got a nerve gas dump at the Skull Valley Goshute Reservation. You have, you know, weapons bases, and the military is the largest polluter in the world. And a lot of that pollution, in what is known as the United States, or some of us would refer to as occupied Indian Country, is in fact all heavily impacting Indian people or indigenous communities still.

JUAN GONZALEZ: You also talk about the radiation experimentation in Alaska in the 1960s in your book. I don’t think—very few people have heard of that. Could you tell us a little bit more about that?

WINONA LADUKE: Yeah. You know, I was an undergraduate at Harvard, and I remember I used to—I researched all this really bizarre data, but there was this project at Point Hope, where the military wanted to look at the radiation lichen-caribou-man cycle, of bio-accumulation of radiation. And so, they went into the Arctic. You know, there’s widespread testing on native people, because we’re isolated populations. We’re basically—you know, most of us in that era were genetically pretty similar. It was a good test population, and there was no accountability. You know, testing has occurred, widespread. But in that, they wanted to test, so the village of Point Hope was basically irradiated. Didn’t tell the people. Documents were declassified in the 1990s. And all that time, this community bore a burden of nuclear exposure that came from the Nevada test site, you know, and in testing those communities.

You know, Alaska itself is full of nuclear and toxic waste dumps from the military, over 700 separate, including, you know, perhaps one of the least known, but I did talk about it in this book, The Militarization of Indian Country, VX Lake, where they happened to forget about some nerve gas canisters, a whole bunch of them, and they put them out in the middle of the lake, and they sank to the bottom. And then they remembered a few years later, and then they had to drain the darn lake to go get all these—you know, all the nerve gas, VX, out of the bottom of the lake. And, you know, they renamed it Blueberry Lake, but it’s still known as VX Lake to anybody who’s up there. And, you know, the unaccountability of the military, above reproach, having such a huge impact on a worldwide scale, having such a huge take at the federal trough, the federal budget, and in indigenous communities an absolutely huge impact in terms of the environmental consequences of militarization.

AMY GOODMAN: We’re talking to Winona LaDuke, Native American activist, writer. Her latest book is called The Militarization of Indian Country. Winona, talk about the history of native participation in and opposition to war. But begin with your dad, with your father.

WINONA LADUKE: Yeah, you know, I wrote this book out of a debt, really, to my father. My father was a Korean War resister, and he spent 11 months in prison for refusing to fight a war that he did not believe was his. There is a long history of native people, whether the Zunis, whether the Hopis, whether Iroquois, whether the Ojibwes, who said, “You know, that’s really not our war. We’re staying here.”

The United States, you know, people—one of the reasons that it is said that native people received citizenship in 1924 was so that they could be drafted. And they have been extensively drafted. You know, for a whole variety of social, political, historic, cultural and economic reasons, native people have the highest rate of enlistment in this country, from historic to present. You know, in some places, in our Indian communities, you have very dire economic situations, and the military recruiters are very aggressive. And young people do not have a lot of choices. I mean, I had a young man from my community say, “Auntie, I joined the military.” I said, “Why did you join the military?” He says, “Because I was either going to jail or going to the military.” You know, and I have heard that story more than once in Indian Country.

So, having said that, you have a history of warrior societies, of people who are proud, who have defended our land. You know, 500 years is a long time to defend your territory. And, you know, we’re still here. And within that, our warrior societies continue, whether it is at Oka, whether it was at Wounded Knee, whether it is on the front lines of the tar sands in Alberta, Canada, or whether it is in the Grand Canyon, defending our territory. At the same time, you have a number—you know, a large rate of enlistment. And so, you have native veterans who are, in our community, highly regarded for who they are as courageous individuals and a very significant part of our communities. At the same time, there is no program to reintegrate these individuals into our society. A lot of—you know, the highest rate of homelessness is in the veterans in this country. And many other issues of PTSD and such exist widespread in our communities because of our isolation and our high rates of enlistment and our high rates of veterans.

AMY GOODMAN: Winona LaDuke, you also talk, when talking about Fort Sill, about the Comanche people asking for Fort Sill not to destroy Medicine Bluff. Can you talk about the sacred places in the United States, starting with Fort Sill? Where are they threatened, and how do you preserve these lands?

WINONA LADUKE: Well, you know, the military has—the U.S. government is the largest landowner. The United States—you know, native people are large landowners, but the military has a huge chunk of our territories. And in those, there are a number of places that are our sacred sites. Perhaps the best examples are really in Hawaii, where the military took the island of Kaho’olawe, an entire island, to turn it into a bombing range for 40 years. You know, that was my first politicization, I would say, as to the impact of the military in indigenous communities. Took a whole island, and then, eventually, the island is now returned. The aquifer is cracked from bombing. And, you know, it is in—it’s unconscionable, the practice. Today, Hawaii, you see the continuation of the expansion of military holdings there. Pohakuloa is an expansion for the Stryker that they are looking at on the Big Island of Hawaii to take another 79,000 acres of land—there’s only so much land on an island—full of sacred sites, full of historic sites, that Hawaiians, Native Hawaiians and all people have a right to visit but now is becoming a part of a military base. And increasing land takings, particularly in Hawaii, is one of the worst cases.

JUAN GONZALEZ: And Winona, as we mentioned earlier, you were a vice-presidential candidate twice on the ticket, an Independent ticket, with Ralph Nader. And as you see now, in these years of the last few years of the Obama administration, do you see any significant change in the way that the Native American nations across the country have been treated under the Obama administration?

WINONA LADUKE: You know, I would say that things are better. I would say we’ve got a few egregious problems still. You know, you have, for instance, the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People. As you likely know, there were four holdout countries, as of 2007, that did not sign on. U.S. and Canada are the only two countries that have yet to sign on the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The Obama administration made some lip service to it, posturing. I was thinking maybe we’re in like some kind of yoga position on it; I don’t know what posture he’s in. But we’d like to see that carried out. As well, you know, apology—you know, these are, in many ways, symbolic gestures. There was an apology to native peoples that was issued, but no one heard it. So its’ kind of like saying, you know, “I’m sorry,” to a wall. Probably should have a little formal apology.

But then there is the reality of—that things in Indian Country are not getting better. You can’t keep putting money in the federal budget for the military and robbing everything else, so that people on my reservation and other reservations don’t have housing, don’t have education money, don’t have health service, you know, don’t have basic, basic rights. And the only way in the native community, really, to get economically ahead, in many cases, is to become a military contractor.

I don’t know if you noticed in the book that it turns out that Blackwater is a Native American contractor. Now, I didn’t know that, you know, and I really hadn’t thought of them as a Native American contractor. But with the Chenega native corporation, they’ve got about $1.9 billion in federal contracts that they received, most of those as a sole-source, non-bid contractor, because they went under the shell of an Alaskan native corporation, the Chenega Corporation. And so, you know, native communities are becoming military contractors because that’s where the money is. You know, so the irony of the whole history of colonization, military colonization, valiant patriots like Geronimo fighting against the U.S. taking of our lands, the destruction of our peoples, to now a situation where the largest private army in the world is a Native American contractor. And the fact that they so egregiously abuse the name of Geronimo and, in widespread cases, you know, refer to Indian Country as the territory that is to be taken by the U.S. military, you know, it is time to revisit this history.

AMY GOODMAN: Finally, Winona LaDuke, ending on where we began, with Geronimo, you supported President Obama, Barack Obama, for president, the first African American president, who—it was under him that this Geronimo name was given. Of course, I’m sure it wasn’t he, himself, who gave this name for this operation to kill bin Laden. He was born in Hawaii. His school, native name, and you talk about Hawaii being so important in native history. Your thoughts about President Obama in light of what—this latest controversy?

WINONA LADUKE: Well, you know, I think a formal apology is due to the native community, to the family of Geronimo, as requested.

I think that a review of the impact of militarization on Indian Country—you know, we are trying to get back some of our land that is held by the military, but it’s so darn toxic. And the military is busy making more things toxic, getting more exemptions under federal law, so that they are above any environmental laws. You know, it would be nice to get something back that was taken, and to get it back clean and to get it back good, whether Badger Munitions in Wisconsin, Fort Wingate. But we don’t want—we don’t want toxic land, you know, back, returned to our people.

Reviewing the military psychology of Kit Carson, you know, and using that nomenclature, how offensive it is to native people. And talking about some kind of a justice, in terms of—I don’t have an answer—it’s a tricky one—how you make justice with the military. But what I would say is that what was done historically was wrong, what was done this week was wrong, and it would be an opportunity for the Obama administration to do the right thing in relation to Indian Country, because Indian Country is not to be assaulted by the U.S. military.

AMY GOODMAN: Winona LaDuke, I want to thank you very much for being with us, Native American activist, writer. She lives and works on the White Earth Reservation in northern Minnesota, executive director of the group Honor the Earth. Her new book, just out, The Militarization of Indian Country.

Kaho'olawe waters open for limited fishing

Post Date March 28, 2009

Comments 0 Comments

Author Laurel Mei-Singh

Category Kaho'olawe

Posted at 2:50 p.m., Friday, March 27, 2009

Kahoolawe commission schedules open waters for trolling only

Advertiser Staff

WAILUKU, Maui – The Kahoolawe Island Reserve Commission has scheduled “open waters” weekends for trolling only April 4-5 and April 18-19.

Access to reserve waters is severely restricted due to the presence of unexploded ordnance and to protect marine resources. Limited trolling is allowed two weekends each month within reserve waters, defined as the waters within 2 nautical miles of Kahoolawe island.

All vessels must register annually with the commission and pay a $25 permit fee before entering the reserve to troll during designated open waters dates.

During the open periods, registered vessels may troll in Zone B waters, which are waters deeper than 30 fathoms. Trollers must remain under way and all lures or live bait must remain on the surface. Rules violations may result in criminal and administrative penalties.

To register or for more information, contact Dean Tokishi at 808-243-5889 or e-mail dtokishi@kirc.hawaii.gov. Information also is available at http://kahoolawe.hawaii.gov.

War and Peace: The challenges of staging modern-day makahiki celebrations on military lands

Post Date November 01, 2007

Comments 0 Comments

Author Laurel Mei-Singh

Category Free Makua, Hawaiian Sovereignty, Land, Culture & Human Rights, Kaho'olawe, Ke Awalau o Pu'uloa / Pearl Harbor, Projects and Campaigns

WAR AND PEACE

The challenges of staging modern-day makahiki celebrations on military lands

By Lisa Asato

Publications Editor

Twenty-first century makahiki festivals encounter modern-day challenges, such as coordinating with the military for access and trying to stay true to tradition, but festival organizers at a recent panel discussion said they are undeterred and continue to learn as they go.

“The difficulty organizing our makahiki with the Navy is simply one of ship movements, and given the extreme difficulty of moving the submarines we have to pretty much plan ahead,” said Shad Kane, who has helped coordinate the Moku‘ume‘ume(Ford Island) and Kapuaikaula (Hickam

Air Force Base) festival for about seven years. “There’s been some years where we actually had to slow up, pull alongside and let the sub pass.”

Speaking to a group of about 75 people at the Kamakaküokalani Center for Hawaiian Studies on Oct. 9, Kane and five other panelists covered everything from the relevance of makahiki in modern times to what they envision for future festivals. Scenarios included an island-wide event with shared opening and closing ceremonies and games among the winners of each ahupua‘a.

But a recurring theme was one of challenges and deciding how true to stay to tradition. “Can you have a makahiki with the food you grow in your ahupua‘a, or do you have to go to Costco and buy sweet potatoes?” asked Kaio Camvel, whose wife’s uncle, Sam Lono, revived makahiki at Marine Corps Base Hawai‘i in the late ’70s on the basis of freedom of religion.

The Hawaiian culture is a “living culture,” Camvel said, so it’s OK to reinvent at times. What’s important for the Mökapu festival, he said, is ceremony, welcoming diverse groups and sharing food and mana‘o.

Makahiki, traditionally a four-month-long season of peace, sport and honoring the Hawaiian fertility god,

Lono, starts with the rising at sunset of Makali‘i, or the Pleiades constellation. This year the season begins Nov. 17.

William Ailä of Hui Malama o Mäkua, said the challenges of holding a makahiki in Mäkua center around destruction of the valley, which is an Army training ground, as well as more fundamental questions such as: Am I good enough? Is my ho‘okupu good enough? Is my oli in the correct form?

“The answer to those challenges are found in the wind,” he said. At times, he said, 40 mph winds in the valley have stopped for half an hour while an oli was being chanted, and at other times the breeze will surge and “all of a sudden you get that cool wind pushing from behind.

That’s the demonstration that what you’re doing may not be completely right, but your efforts are being appreciated.”

Makahiki events

Moku‘ume‘ume (Ford Island) and Kapuaikaula(Hickam Air Force Base)

Sat., Nov. 10

At 7:30 a.m. Lono enters harbor in a procession including canoe clubs, with 8:30 a.m.

landing at Moku‘ume‘ume and 11 a.m. landing at Hickam Harbor beach, followed by festivities and games. Access is limited and participants must RSVP in advance to Shad Kane at kiha@hawaii.rr.com

Kualoa Regional

Sat., Nov. 17; setup,

Nov. 16 after 12 p.m.

Sunrise procession followed by games and potluck at 9 a.m. Games are limited to men, and

competitors must provide their own game implements. Attendees must provide their own food and drink and RSVP in advance by email to Umi Kai at ulupono1@gmail.com

Makua Military Reservation

Fri.-Sat., Nov. 16-17

Community access at 9 a.m. Saturday. To participate in the entire ceremony, call William

Ailä at 330-0376 for a training schedule or email ailaw001@hawaii.rr.com. RSVP is required.

Mokapu (Marine Corps Base Hawai‘i)

Fri.-Sun., Nov. 23-25

Processions, games and cabanas to accommodate about 200. Access is limited and participants must RSVP to Kaio Camvel at iolekaa@hawaii.rr.com

Kaho‘olawe

Thurs.-Sun., Nov. 15-18

Open to Kaho‘olawe returnees and cultural practitioners, the 2007 event is now closed as it requires paperwork and orientation to be completed a month in advance. For information on next year’s event, contact Kim Ku‘ulei Birnie of Protect Kaho‘olawe ‘Ohana at kkb@kahoolawe.org,808-383-1651 or visit www.kahoolawe.org/home/?page_id=7

PKO saved Kaho'olawe, but has the group lost its way?

Post Date February 08, 2006

Comments 1 Comment

Author Laurel Mei-Singh

Category Hawaiian Sovereignty, Land, Culture & Human Rights, Kaho'olawe

Rebuilding Kaho’olawe

PKO saved the island, but has the group lost its way?

Joan Conrow
Feb 8, 2006

While activists succeeded in wresting Kaho’olawe away from the Navy and halting its use as a military bombing target, some are concerned that Protect Kaho’olawe ‘Ohana (PKO), the grassroots group that launched the struggle, has drifted away from the original vision of the island as the cultural and physical core of a sovereign Hawaiian nation.

These critics blame the growing influence of the Kaho’olawe Island Reserve Commission (KIRC), a quasi-state agency formed to manage the island in trust until it can be returned to a sovereign Hawaiian entity. The KIRC is tied to the state Department of Land and Natural Resources but operates autonomously under the guidance of a seven-member appointed panel. ‘There’s a new U.S. military provisional government in town, and it is digging in and occupying the island,’ says Attwood ‘Maka’ Makanani, an original member of the PKO who was arrested on Kaho’olawe in 1977 along with Joyce Kainoa, Sam Kealoha and others while protesting its use for military bombing practice. ‘And liability is the driving issue.’

From the perspective of state and federal officials, liability has always been an issue on the former target island, which was subjected to land, sea and air bombardments-including a simulated atomic blast-by the U.S., France, Britain, Australia, New Zealand and Japan.

Activists, too, knew they were risking their lives each time they went to the island. Still, that didn’t deter the 50 to 60 islanders who directly challenged the federal government over Kaho’olawe on Jan. 4, 1976. Intent on occupying the island to halt the bombing, they launched 10 boats from Maui and attempted to cross the ‘Alalakeiki Channel as a Coast Guard helicopter hovered overhead, issuing warnings of pending boat seizures and arrests.

Just nine men and women made it to the shores of an island that had been off-limits to civilians since Dec. 8, 1941-the day after the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor-when the Navy seized it under authority of martial law. Only two managed to escape immediate apprehension, roaming an uninhabited landscape littered with live and spent ordnance for nearly two days before giving themselves up, returning home with stories of a wondrous place being hideously defiled.

Other occupations followed, sparking a grassroots movement whose mission of reclaiming the island embodied the emerging Hawaiian struggle for religious, political and cultural self-determination. Throughout the state, the PKO came to be sympathetically viewed by Hawaiians and non-natives alike as the David that ultimately brought down the military Goliath, forcing the Navy first to stop bombing and then to give up the island completely.

Since 1980, when PKO’s legal challenges resulted in the Navy signing a consent decree that allowed the group to access the island for cultural and religious purposes, the ‘Ohana has maintained a strong presence on the island. Besides introducing hundreds of Hawaiians to their culture and its deep connection to the land, ‘Ohana members and people who participated in access trips over the years helped build a hale, or traditional structure, at the group’s Hakioawa base camp, worked on water catchment and irrigation systems, planted native vegetation, assisted in archaeological surveys and the restoration of ancient sites and observed the annual Makahiki season with opening and closing ceremonies on-island.

But the 30th anniversary of the ‘Ohana’s defiant beginning came and went without any PKO members on Kaho’olawe. The January access was cancelled not only because of rough seas but problems related to liability, funding and transportation, prompting some members to question if the group has gotten soft and too cozy with the state. They wonder if this relationship has caused the group to lose its nerve-and its way.

Kau’i Quinones, who was trained by the PKO as a kua, a guide of sorts, to accompany and oversee access trips, has been to Kaho’olawe more times than she can count since her first visit a decade ago. She was dismayed that the access was cancelled, a sentiment she made clear in a late January email fired off to other ‘Ohana members. ‘We no longer have a hale [at Hakioawa] representing our presence,’ she wrote. ‘It is about being there. Not about logistics, money, liability. It is about remembering the calling to Kanaloa [a reference to the Polynesian god of ocean navigation and the sea and one of several names conferred on the small island]. Canceling access and postponing groups [are] not the answer. We need to continue bringing the right people there as we have been doing. Why should we fear what might happen when we know we are there for a higher purpose? Have we forgotten why we go there?’

The concerns of Quinones and others were heightened by the late-December release of a proposed kahu’aina (stewardship) agreement between the PKO’s business entity-Kohemalamalama ‘O Kanaloa /Protect Kaho’olawe Fund (KOK)-and the state-affiliated KIRC. The panel apparently was prepared to vote on the agreement at its Jan. 17 meeting, but delayed action until March 21 following objections by two ‘Ohana members.

Davianna McGregor, a longtime ‘Ohana member who helped draft the proposal, says the agreement is crucial to ensuring the group’s continued right to access the island, a right that she contends was thrown into legal jeopardy when the Navy, which had approved the accesses, turned the island over to the state in the form of the KIRC.

She also maintains the stewardship agreement is the only means for securing liability insurance that will indemnify the group and its members. ‘Since we’re an ‘ohana, each one of us is individually liable,’ MacGregor says. ‘Young people with no assets don’t care. But those of us who have homes and families have a lot more to lose. It’s just irresponsible for us to continue operating without insurance, and we can’t get insurance for a military bombing target. The only way we can get liability insurance is through the state.’

But some members feel the agreement is a step backward for a group that struggled long and hard to pry Kaho’olawe from the federal grip, but now seems willing to hand it over to the state instead. They are also concerned about the agreement’s language, which specifically recognizes the KOK, but not the PKO, which was the entity named in every previous legal document involving the group. By emphasizing the business-oriented KOK over the religiously and culturally oriented PKO, they see the agreement as failing to recognize the PKO as the steward of Kaho’olawe.

Makanani and others say that pattern is already evident, with KIRC-mandated environmental restoration projects increasingly taking precedence over cultural and religious activities. The proposed agreement, which re-designates kua as ‘access guides’ and places them under the jurisdiction of the KIRC, also raises sticky issues about maintaining the separation between church and state, putting guides who wish to pursue religious activities on-island in a difficult position; after all, there is a strong spiritual component to the work of the PKO.

Quinones said that giving a state agency authority over the ‘Ohana’s kua will erode the cultural and religious emphasis that makes visiting the island a deeply meaningful experience. ‘It’s about the only place where people can re-experience their Hawaiian-ness,’ she says. ‘It’s about aloha ‘aina, uniting and nurturing others.’

Some ‘Ohana members are not necessarily opposed to the idea of a stewardship agreement, or securing liability insurance, but they object to the process that’s been followed to draft one, contending the proposal was drawn up without adequate input from the ‘Ohana at large.

McGregor maintains that she and PKO member Mike Naho’opi’i ‘have been authorized to represent the ‘Ohana’ on the stewardship agreement negotiating committee. She said she had planned to discuss the proposal at the January access, but when it was cancelled, she circulated the agreement by email instead. She said an agenda for a statewide ‘Ohana meeting will be set during the Feb. 8 access to Kaho’olawe, giving members plenty of time to express their views and suggest changes to the agreement.

Still, she said, the final decision will be made by ‘the core group of the ‘Ohana who have taken an active role in running our access to Kaho’olawe,’ a stance that some say reflects a longstanding exclusionary and centralized approach to decision-making that doesn’t serve the full interests of the group.

‘I think the PKO might need a little more structure, some sort of mechanism put in place to ensure full participation,’ says Andre Perez, a PKO member and former KIRC-employed access guide. One option might be having ‘Ohana members on each island choose a delegate who would represent their interests when group decisions are needed.

Other members said the ‘Ohana leadership should be embracing the young people who are becoming involved in the group, rather than keeping control in the hands of the old-timers. McGregor, who complained that some of the younger ones don’t understand the full extent of the ‘Ohana’s efforts over the past 30 years, conceded it is time to ‘talk about a succession plan. We do need to educate the younger ones.

‘We also need to discuss what is the purpose of the accesses,’ she says. ‘This is an entirely new period. We’ve got people coming to the island not as a political statement, but to connect to an island culturally and spiritually, to recognize the island. We have a lot of school groups. It’s a whole different purpose.’

Before the military seized control, Kaho’olawe was used for centuries by the islands’ indigenous peoples, with artifacts discovered there that date back 1,000 years. It was valued for its fishing grounds, as evidenced by numerous ko’a (altars) erected along the coastline, and its quarry, Puu Moiwi, was the second-largest in the Hawaiian Islands, producing the sharp-edged stone adzes prized for carving canoes and other wood-working tasks. Kaho’olawe also served as a critical navigational landmark for early sea voyagers; its westernmost point, Laeokealaikahiki, marked the pathway to Tahiti.

While that rich cultural legacy captured the imagination of early ‘Ohana members, the terrible destruction wrought by the bombing propelled them into action. The regular target practice could be seen, heard and felt on Maui, Moloka’i and Lana’i, and for Hawaiians engaged in the cultural renaissance of the 1970s, the deliberate destruction was a vivid example of the degradation occurring throughout the islands as the state moved to harness its economy to the galloping steeds of tourism and development.

Under the charismatic and determined leadership of George Helm, the ‘Ohana pressed the military and federal government to recognize it and its claims, filing a civil suit in federal court that charged the military was violating historic site and environmental laws, as well as the Native American Freedom of Religion Act.

Even after Helm and Kimo Mitchell disappeared on March 7, 1977-the two men were reportedly lost at sea while returning to Maui from Kaho’olawe on surfboards in very rough waters-the PKO pressed on, securing protection for the island’s many archeological sites and its designation as a National Historic Landmark District.

Another major victory was achieved in 1980 when the Navy signed a consent decree with the PKO and a memorandum of understanding with the state of Hawai’i. Under these agreements, the military was required to eradicate the goats that were contributing greatly to erosion, launch soil conservation and reforestation efforts and allow the PKO a monthly four-day access to the island for religious and cultural purposes.

Still, the PKO kept up its push to stop the bombing, attracting widespread public support and the aid of Hawai’i’s most powerful lawmaker, Sen. Daniel Inouye, to its cause. Finally, on Oct. 22, 1990, then-President George Bush issued a directive to ‘stop all weapons delivery training on Kaho’olawe.’ Seventeen days later, he signed a law that prohibited all U.S. and foreign bombing and created the Kaho’olawe Island Conveyance Commission to study how the island should be returned to the state.

In 1993, Congress passed legislation that authorized Kaho’olawe’s return to the state, to be held in trust and managed by the KIRC until it can be returned to a sovereign Hawaiian entity. The bill also appropriated $400 million for cleanup, which resulted in about 10 percent of the island being cleared of ordnance over a 10-year period. Some 11 percent of the appropriation was specifically earmarked for environmental restoration and land-use planning.

That’s the money that supports the KIRC. ‘It’s a military-created government funded with military money that has allowed the Navy to walk away and put the burden of liability on the public,’ Makanani says.

Some ‘Ohana members say the KIRC, KOK and PKO have become too entangled, raising questions as to just whose interests are being served. The KIRC’s current chairman is Dr. Emmett Aluli, a founding member of the ‘Ohana who also serves as president of the KOK. Other KIRC members wear similar multiple hats. Aluli says that ‘Ohana members hoped that by serving on the KIRC, they could ensure a more seamless transition when the island is returned to the Hawaiian nation.

Makanani believes that one sensible solution to the problems of liability and conflict of interest is for the KIRC to turn over Kaho’olawe to the PKO, which he calls ‘a Native Hawaiian religious sovereign entity that has been recognized as the steward of Kaho’olawe.’

Makanani and Perez see Kaho’olawe as key to establishing a land base for the Hawaiian nation. ‘Almost all Hawaiians recognize Kaho’olawe as a spiritual place,’ Perez says.

McGregor , however, says that while ‘none of us has given up the struggle for sovereignty,’ ‘Kaho’olawe is no longer an issue. It’s a project, and the sooner we recognize it, the better off we are. We need people to come and engage in restoration and work the land.’

But other ‘Ohana members contend the restoration of Kaho’olawe involves more than simply re-establishing the vegetative cover. ‘Healing the land is about us being there, not just planting plants, but being there and a part of it,’ Quinones says. ‘We’re bringing life to the island, and that’s what it needs. It needs the ‘Ohana there, the grassroots members who help create the kind of life experiences that make a visit to the island so meaningful to people. And that requires people who are totally committed to being kua and everything that represents. I don’t see that happening with access guides who are state employees and just look at it as a job.

‘From the very beginning, the first priority was to stop the bombing and the second was reoccupation,’ she says, paraphrasing a quote made by ‘Ohana member Skippy Ioane in a 1992 video produced by the PKO. “And when it comes to bringing people to the island, and sharing the culture, that’s always been the role of the ‘Ohana. We need to be expanding the ‘Ohana’s influence, not putting us under the jurisdiction of the state just so everybody can be safe. What’s the point of all the struggle if we’re ready to walk away from it now?’

Quinones, who is 28 years old, says she and others of her generation remain deeply inspired by the passion of the activists who launched the PKO before she was born. ‘That’s what’s kept us goingover the years,’ she says.

Makanani, who trained Quinones as akua, said he appreciates her passion. He also hopes that ‘Ohana members have learned from the struggle they began 30 years ago and efforts to establish Kaho’olawe as the core of the Hawaiian nation will not require today’s youth to risk their lives.

‘This is the challenge for the generation that is here now,’ he says. ‘Hopefully they will not have to get arrested again to achieve a legacy that is rightfully theirs.’

Source: http://honoluluweekly.com/cover/2006/02/rebuilding-kahoolawe-2/