Contradictions and Celebrations: A Hawaiian Reflection on the Opening of NMAI

Decision, Decisions

I almost did not attend the celebration of the grand opening of the National Museum of the American Indian (NMAI). I had been wading through a range of political questions about my own and other Kānaka Maoli (Native Hawaiian) participation and struggling with ambivalence on a number of levels. As the museum opening approached, my anxieties increased because I anticipated the Kānaka Maoli contingency comprising almost entirely the same people I had been fighting for four years. These were Kānaka Maoli who were Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA) trustees, leaders of the Hawaiian civic clubs and Papa Ola Lōkahi (the Native Hawaiian Health Project), and others who are the key supporters of a state-driven proposal for U.S. federal legislation, which would recognize a Hawaiian governing entity within Native American policy. The proposed Native Hawaiian Reorganization Act, also known as the Akaka bill, was introduced by Senator Daniel K. Akaka (D-Hawai'i). Unbeknownst to many within Indian Country and the United States as a whole, a thriving Hawaiian independence movement is taking place in the islands today.

Luckily, I soon got wind that a few Kanaka Maoli allies who also oppose the legislation—in favor of independence—would also be participating, most of them traveling from either Boston or various towns in Hawai'i. Still, I was worried that the establishment Hawaiians in attendance would see my participation as a sign that I had changed my political position to one of support for the legislation. Because the federal OHA took charge of organizing the Hawaiian contingent for the Native Nations Procession, Kanaka Maoli participation in the opening events signaled a particular political stance—one assumed to be in line with U.S. federal policy's application to the situation of Hawaiians. Also, because no other Native Pacific Islander groups also indigenous to the United States, such as American Samoans and Chamorros from Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas Islands, seemed to be included along with Kānaka Maoli, the impression left on many was that the Hawaiian inclusion lent itself to the support of federal recognition for a Native Hawaiian governing entity within domestic policy.

The Politics of Reception

I decided I would join in the activities surrounding the opening for several reasons. First, I did not want to concede the terms and control over to the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, who served as the organization for the Kanaka Maoli contingent of the Native Nations Procession. Next, one cannot underestimate the weight of being a pro-independence Hawaiian in Washington DC, where usually only state-sponsored Hawaiians speak and misrepresent our political struggle for decolonization. Moreover, for the museum's opening ceremonies there were cultural and spiritual considerations for the protocol, and Kānaka Maoli would be representing the West—one of the four sacred directions. Finally, the mission of the NMAI represents itself as "an institution of living cultures dedicated to the life, languages, literature, history, and arts of the native peoples of the Western Hemisphere." This would include Hawaiians, regardless of the fact that we also happen to be included in the legislation that authorized the creation of the NMAI, thanks to American Indian allies like Suzan Shown Harjo (Cheyenne and Muscogee) who have gone to bat for our people on many occasion on Capitol Hill. All in all, this was to be the largest pan-Indigenous event to date, and I wanted to be with my nation, even if my vision of the Hawaiian nation differs from the other Kānaka Maoli who were in attendance.

On the other hand, I also knew I would be called to defend not only my participation in the procession but also my attendance at the opening in general by some pro-independence Kānaka Maoli. Those who challenged me are not only antagonistic to any activity...