Apology Resolution

Apology Resolution
U.S. Government · Public domain · source
Name	Apology Resolution
Date	1993
Jurisdiction	United States Congress
Citation	Senate Concurrent Resolution 26
Subject	Official apology concerning Overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii, Hawaiian sovereignty movement
Status	Symbolic resolution

Apology Resolution The Apology Resolution is a congressional statement adopted in 1993 that acknowledged and expressed regret for the role of United States agents and citizens in the events surrounding the Overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii in 1893. It situates an official acknowledgement within debates involving Hawaiian sovereignty movement, Native Hawaiian rights, and federal-state relations involving State of Hawaii and United States Congress. The resolution has been invoked in litigation, political advocacy, and cultural discourse across institutions such as the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Department of the Interior, and various tribal organizations.

Definition and Scope

The resolution is formally titled Senate Concurrent Resolution 26 of the 103rd United States Congress and is frequently cited in discussions of reparative measures by actors including U.S. Senate members, U.S. House of Representatives delegates, and advocates associated with Office of Hawaiian Affairs. It expresses congressional regret rather than creating an enforceable remedy, yet it addresses events tied to the Overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii, the subsequent Republic of Hawaii, and the Annexation of Hawaii by the United States in 1898. The scope encompasses historical actors like John L. Stevens, Committee of Safety (Hawaii), and the Provisional Government of Hawaii, and references consequences for descendants associated with the Native Hawaiian community and institutions including Kamehameha Schools.

Historical Development

Congressional and public attention to Hawaiian sovereignty traces through 19th- and 20th-century episodes such as the establishment of the Kingdom of Hawaii under monarchs like Kamehameha I and Queen Liliʻuokalani, the imposition of the Bayonet Constitution (1887), and diplomatic interactions with foreign powers including United Kingdom and Empire of Japan. The push for an apology gained momentum amid late 20th-century indigenous rights movements connected to events like the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples discussions and advocacy from groups such as the Hawaiian Sovereignty Movement and the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. Legislative efforts culminated after hearings involving testimony from descendants of royal families, scholars affiliated with institutions like the University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa, and advocacy organizations including Association of Hawaiian Civic Clubs.

Legal and Political Context

Although adopted by the United States Congress, the resolution is a concurrent, non-binding expression and does not itself alter property rights or create statutory remedies under laws such as the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act or judicial doctrines tied to cases like Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock. It intersects with federal administrative actions taken by the Department of the Interior, including debates over recognition processes analogous to federal acknowledgment of Native American tribes and policy instruments used in relations with tribal entities like Hawaiian Home Lands, Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the National Historic Preservation Act processes. Judicial actors in venues including the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii and the Supreme Court of the United States have considered the resolution’s evidentiary import in litigation concerning sovereignty claims, property disputes, and restitution.

Content and Rhetorical Elements

The text of the resolution employs formal legislative language to "acknowledge" and "apologize to Native Hawaiians" for the involvement of United States agents, referencing particular historical episodes such as the Overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii and naming actors like John L. Stevens and the Committee of Safety (Hawaii). Rhetorical strategies include moral framing, historical delineation, and symbolic conciliation analogous to other legislative apologies issued by legislatures in contexts including Australian debates over Stolen Generations and Canadian parliamentary acknowledgements concerning Residential school legacies. The resolution juxtaposes sovereign narratives tied to monarchs such as Queen Liliʻuokalani with legalistic qualifiers to avoid creating self-executing remedies, reflecting legislative caution seen in precedents like Civil Liberties Act of 1988.

Reception and Impact

Reactions ranged across political, academic, and community spheres. Advocates within the Hawaiian sovereignty movement, leaders from Office of Hawaiian Affairs, and cultural practitioners at venues like Bishop Museum and Iolani Palace characterized the resolution as a moral victory and a foundation for further restitution. Elected figures such as senators and representatives from Hawaii (U.S. state) framed it within constituent advocacy, while some academics at University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa and Harvard University critiqued its legal efficacy. The resolution influenced policy dialogues at institutions including the Department of the Interior and state-level measures passed by the Hawaii State Legislature, and it has been cited in advocacy before bodies like the United Nations forums on indigenous issues.

Controversies and Criticisms

Critics argued the resolution’s symbolic nature provided insufficient redress for land claims, cultural losses, and political disenfranchisement, drawing comparisons to other contested apologies such as debates over South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission outcomes and restitution controversies in Canada. Legal scholars cited the resolution’s non-binding form and potential preclusion in litigation, noting tensions with property doctrines adjudicated in courts like the U.S. Supreme Court. Politicians opposing the measure voiced concerns about implications for state sovereignty and legal liability involving entities such as the State of Hawaii and private landholders including descendants of plantation owners. Within the Native Hawaiian community, perspectives ranged from endorsement by organizations like the Hawaiian Civic Club to skepticism from grassroots groups advocating for sovereignty models distinct from federal recognition processes.

Category:1993 in the United States Category:History of Hawaii