So the native Hawaiians are moving toward setting up a separate government along explicitly racial lines. Wherever do these ideas come from? How do they take root? Here’s a clue: Anybody remember how much President Clinton liked to apologize? And how those apologies were always explained away as symbolic, feel-good measures? Here’s a bit from the legislation moving through the House, citing the 1993 Hawaiian Apology Resolution, signed by President Clinton, in which the United States grovels for the sin of having helped depose the Hawaiian monarchy:

The Apology Resolution acknowledges that the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii occurred with the active participation of agents and citizens of the United States, and further acknowledges that the Native Hawaiian people never directly relinquished to the United States their claims to their inherent sovereignty as a people over their national lands, either through the Kingdom of Hawaii or through a plebiscite or referendum; … the Apology Resolution expresses the commitment of Congress and the President to acknowledge the ramifications of the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii; and to support reconciliation efforts between the United States and Native Hawaiians.

A bit more than feel-good symbolism, no? But sovereignty is a political question. From wherever might the racial separatists in Hawaii argue that they derive a continuous political tradition? More from the bill:

through the Sovereign Council of Hawaiian Homelands Assembly and Native Hawaiian homestead associations, Native Hawaiian civic associations, charitable trusts established by the Native Hawaiian ali‘i, nonprofit native service providers and other community associations, the Native Hawaiian people have actively maintained native traditions and customary usages throughout the Native Hawaiian community ….

From nonprofit service providers, of course! Starts with a civic association, ends with a separatist movement. Bear that in mind next time MEChA is in the news.