Trisha Kehaulani Watson

Wildlife and Natural Resources Law

Prof. Doug Codiga
May 17, 2002

With the Master’s Tools1:

How and Why Native Hawaiians should be Listed Under the Endangered Species Act

Where have Hawaiians all gone, well I don't know,

Malama 'aina for so long, 'a 'ole maopopo
Just let us know where we've gone wrong, does anybody know,
Many people say, where's Hawai'i nei,
Hawaiians are endangered species today.

-- Imua “Endangered Species”

Introduction

In 1973, the Congress formally found that “various species of fish, wildlife, and

plants in the United States have been rendered extinct as a consequence of economic

growth and development untempered by adequate concern and conservation.”2 Congress

passed the Endangered Species Act3 in response to this finding. The Endangered Species

Act was created specifically “to provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon which

endangered species and threatened species depend may be conserved [and] to provide a

program for the conservation of such endangered species and threatened species.”4

Additionally, the Fish and Wildlife Service enforces provisions under the Endangered

Species Act aimed at ensuring that species and populations listed under the Endangered

Species Act are adequately and actively protected. This Act and its enforcement

1
mechanisms have been successful in protecting listed species and contributing to the

repopulation of said species and populations.

While, admittedly, Congress may have intended to use the Endangered Species

Act to protect non-human animals and plant life, the “economic growth and development

untempered by adequate concern and conservation”5 that devastated many native plant

and animal populations has also destroyed populations of indigenous people throughout

the United States. The Native Hawaiian population is among these devastated groups and

should be granted the same consideration being provided to non-human wildlife and

plants. Considering the history of Native Hawaiian people and that Congress has

acknowledged an importance in preserving America’s indigenous persons and cultures,

Native Hawaiians should be listed under the Endangered Species Act, if not provide this

valuable population additional federal protection, then to expedite legislation that actively

protects and empowers native persons in the United States.

Defining the Endangered Species Act

The Endangered Species Act protects threatened and endangered species in the

United States, this protection begins through a listing process in which species or

populations become formally recognized as “threatened” or “endangered” under the

Endangered Species Act.6 After being listed in the Federal Register, the Fish and

Wildlife Service then works to protect this group while simultaneously working to

rebuild the native population. Any person or group can petition, through the United

States Fish and Wildlife Service (“FWS”), to list a threatened or endangered species,

subspecies or distinct population segment under the Endangered Species Act. Once

2
listed, as stated, this species or population is afforded additional protections by the Fish

and Wildlife Service. This protection is required by law and is mandated by the

Endangered Species Act.

Congress made Endangered Species Act protection available to endangered or

threatened fish, wildlife or plants. Congress was quite specific in which species or

populations would be considered “endangered species.” The Endangered Species Act

defines an “endangered species” as “any species which is in danger of extinction

throughout all or a significant portion of its range other than a species of the Class Insecta

determined by the Secretary to constitute a pest whose protection under the provisions of

this changer would present an overwhelming and overriding risk to man.”7 The

definition is important for two reasons: first, it defines “endangered species,” and second,

perhaps more importantly, it demonstrates Congress’ ability to limit the range of

populations eligible for Endangered Species Act protection.

While it was arguably never contemplated that the Endangered Species Act would

or could be used to protect human populations, there appears to be no evidence outright

excluding human populations from being eligible for protection under the Endangered

Species Act. In fact, by excluding “pest[s]” from the animal population eligible for

listing, the Act demonstrates that Congress thought about which populations could not be

protected through the listing process and had the legislative power to exclude populations

from being listed. Human populations are not specifically mentioned in the Act. They

were not excluded as populations ineligible for listing, as pests were.

Additional definitions in the Endangered Species Act also make the listing of a

human population possible. The Endangered Species Act’s definition of “wildlife” is

3
particularly information. The Endangered Species Act states: “The term “fish or

wildlife” means any member of the animal kingdom, including without limitation any

mammal, fish, bird (including migratory, nonmigratory, or endangered bird for which

protection is also afforded by treaty or other international agreement), amphibian, reptile,

mollusk, crustacean, arthropod or other invertebrate, and includes any part, product, egg

or offspring thereof, of the dead body of parts thereof.”8 (Emphasis added.) This

definition specifically states that “any member of the animal kingdom” “without

limitation” is considered “wildlife” under the Endangered Species Act. Arguably, even if

Congress had chosen not to specifically exclude human populations elsewhere in the Act,

it would have clearly done so here had Congress intended to find human populations

ineligible for Endangered Species Act listing.

The term “animal kingdom” is not defined in the Endangered Species Act beyond

the aforementioned definitional language. Therefore, the common use of the term as the

time the Act was written becomes an applicable definition. The Reader’s Digest Great

Encyclopedia Dictionary from 1975, two years after the passage of the Endangered

Species Act, defines the term “kingdom:” “Any one of the three primary divisions of

natural objects known as the animal, vegetable, and mineral kingdoms.”9 (Emphasis

added.) Being that human beings are not vegetables or minerals, they fall into the

“animal kingdom.” Again, the Endangered Species Act language “without limitation”

becomes particularly revealing; the plain reading of the Endangered Species Act does not

exclude human populations from range of animal populations eligible for listing under

the Act.

4
Humans in the Animal Kingdom: The Case of Mary Ellen

In 1874, the first child abuse case was brought in the United States, despite the

fact that no child abuse or child neglect laws existed. Mary Ellen Wilson was an eight-

year-old girl viciously and savagely abused by her foster mother, with who Mary Ellen

lived after her natural father died. As stated, no “child abuse” laws existed at all under

which Mary Ellen could be legally protected from her foster mother. In a landmark

family law case, the New York Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals brought

suit to remove the child from the home and protect her from her foster mother. “The

Society leaders argued to the court on behalf of Mary Ellen, …that children, as members

of the animal kingdom, were entitled to protections at least equal to those provided

animals.”10 (Emphasis added.) The court found that Mary Ellen was in fact entitled to

protection under the animal cruelty laws of New York and granted the petitioner’s

request and removed the child from the home.

Indigenous People in the United States: A History of Extinction

The case of Mary Ellen is important not only for its finding of law that human

beings are legally part of the animal kingdom, but for the important policy statements it

makes. Clearly, the animal cruelty laws that existed in New York at the end of the 19th

Century were not created to protect children. Similarly, people will argue that the

Endangered Species Act was not created to protect people. Yet, as the case of Mary

Ellen demonstrates, when existing statutory law fails to provide an important and vital

social need, existing laws that can be used to fulfill that public need should be employed

for such purposes.

5
 Congress has repeatedly demonstrated its concern to protect and preserve the

indigenous people in the United States. A number of existing statutes reflect this

Congressional concern. First, in the Indian Child Welfare Act, Congress explicitly

stated: “there is no resource that is more vital to the continued existence and integrity of

Indian tribes than their children and that the United States has a direct interest, as trustee,

in protecting Indian children who are members of or are eligible for membership in an

Indian tribe.”11 As a result of this Congressional finding, the Indian Child Welfare Act

tries to keep Native American Indian children with other Native American Indian

families, especially within their own tribes.

Congress made similar findings regarding Native Hawaiians. Under the Native

Hawaiian Health Care Act12, Congress found: “Native Hawaiians comprise a distinct and

unique indigenous people with a historical continuity to the original inhabitants of the

Hawaiian archipelago whose society was organized as a Nation prior to the arrival of the

first nonindigenous people in 1778.”13 Congress acknowledges a special value in

preserving the Native Hawaiian people and their culture: “The Native Hawaiian people

are determined to preserve, develop and transmit to future generations their ancestral

territory, and their cultural identity in accordance with their own spiritual and traditional

beliefs, customs, practices, language, and social institutions.”14 The Native Hawaiian

Health Care Act demonstrates that Congress has expressed particular interest in

protecting the continued existence of the Native Hawaiian population. The Act also

states: “In furtherance of the trust responsibility for the betterment of the conditions of

Native Hawaiians, the United States has established a program for the provision of

comprehensive health promotion and disease prevention services to maintain and

6
improve the health status of the Hawaiian people.”15 This Act was created explicitly to

protect the health of Native Hawaiians, and by protecting the health of Native Hawaiians,

the Act protects the continued existence of this indigenous population. Despite

legislative efforts to improve the health of the Native Hawaiian population, Native

Hawaiians continue to suffer. The Act also officially finds: “the unmet health needs of

the Native Hawaiian people are severe and the health status of Native Hawaiians

continues to be far below that of the general population of the United States.” The Native

Hawaiian Health Care Act arguably does not do enough to provide for the needs of

Native Hawaiians such that the future of the population and its culture are adequately

ensured to the fullest extent possible under federal law.

Native Hawaiians as Endangered Species

Additional action should be taken by the federal government considering the

United States’ documented history of invasion into and destruction of indigenous

cultures. Western colonialism has had a devastating effect on native populations. Native

Hawaiians were no exception to this rule. As Professor Haunani Kay Trask writes:

“Most destructive of all, [Western contact] brought diseases that ravaged my people until

we were but a remnant of what we had been on contact with his pestilential crew.

…Introduced, from syphilis and gonorrhea to tuberculosis, small pox, measles, leprosy,

and typhoid fever, killed Hawaiians by the hundreds of thousands, reducing our Native

population (from an estimated one million at contact) to less than 40,000 by 1890.”16

Western colonialism had a distinct role in the current state of the Native Hawaiian

population. The result has been that Native Hawaiians are in fact “endangered.”

7
 In determining whether or not a population is endangered, the FWS takes specific

considerations into account. In order for an animal population to be listed under the

Endangered Species Act in the Federal Register (50 C.F.R. 17.11), a person or group

petitions to list a species or population under section 4(b)(3) of the Endangered Species

Act. The Secretary of Commerce, who reviews the petition, ultimately determined

whether or not to list the species. The Secretary makes his decision based on the

following factors:

(A) the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat

or range;

(B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes;

(C) disease or predation;

(D) inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or

(E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.17

This determination is further informed by the following statutory regulation: “The

Secretary shall make determinations required…of this section solely on the basis of the

best scientific and commercial data available to him after conducting a review of the

status of the species and after taking into account those efforts, if any, being made by any

State or foreign nation…to protect such species, whether by predator control, protection

of habitat and food supply, or other conservation practices, within any area under its

jurisdiction, or on the high seas.”18 Under this guidance, the Secretary of Commerce

should find that Native Hawaiians are endangered species as defined under the guidance

of the Endangered Species Act.

8
 First, as Professor Trask articulates, the pre-contact population of Native

Hawaiians has been critically depleted by exposure to Western disease. In this regard,

the arrival of Westerners to the Hawaiians Islands was no different than the introduction

of any other alien, invasion species. Just as invasion plant species have ravaged native

plant populations; Western disease destroyed the once-flourishing Native Hawaiian

population. The state and federal governments have taken the introduction of invasive

species into the Hawaiian Islands’ ecosystem very seriously. Extensive measures have

often been taken to stop the widespread destruction caused by aggressive invasive

species. The devastation felt by the Native Hawaiian population should not receive any

less consideration or response.

The affect of Western contact continues to threaten the remaining Native

Hawaiian population. Rampant over-development continues to destroy the natural

resources in Hawai’i; many Native Hawaiians have been forced to leave Hawai’i, their

native and ancestral homeland, because there are few programs actively working to keep

Hawaiians in Hawai’i. Such trends contribute to the continuous decline in full-blooded

Native Hawaiians throughout the world. Full-blooded Native Hawaiians are the

population most desperately in need of protection. They should be recognized as a

unique population and subspecies under the Endangered Species Act.

Further, discussion of Native Hawaiians as a subspecies should begin from this

historical perspective: Native Hawaiians as a depleted species. The science is currently

torn on whether or not racial groups can or should be considered “subspecies.” But

scientific literature does exist which convincingly argues that races are in fact subspecies.

Considering the social faux pas arguing that races are biologically different has become,

9
it is clearly very dangerous to begin to argue that we should treat races differently. But

the truth is that different races have distinct biological characteristics. Scientist J.

Philippe Rushton states: “A race is what zoologists term a variety or subdivision of a

species.” This distinction has led to a long history of segregation and racism in the

United States. Nonetheless, these distinctions, which have traditionally led to so much

discrimination and anguish, now have the potential to benefit indigenous people.

Rushton further explains that races have distinct and consistent biological traits: “Asians

and Africans consistently aggregate at opposite ends, with Europeans intermediate, on a

continuum that includes that includes over 60 anatomical and social variables. These 60

variables include brain size, intelligence, sexual habits, fertility, personality,

temperament, speed of maturation, and longevity. If race were an arbitrary, socially-

constructed concept, devoid of all biological meaning, such consistent relationships

would not exist.”19 The impact of Western disease on indigenous American populations

further supports that “races” have biological differences and should be treated as such. If

this could be adequately proven, Native Hawaiians as a group could be listed under the

Endangered Species Act. If this controversial position could not be proven to the

satisfaction of the Secretary, petitioners could request that the unique population of

Native Hawaiians on the Island of Ni’ihau be listed as a distinct population segment.

Further, discussions of the biological characteristics of race can inform research

regarding health research. Genetic research has led to the revitalization of the debate

regarding the use of “race” in research. Despite all the horrible implications that racism

has had in the United States, racial differences are a historical reality. Those historical

differences have led to the devastation of indigenous groups through the United States

10
throughout the course of American history. Now, research regarding these differences

may help many people. Modern literature may disagree with the use of the term “race,”

but they do not deny the fact that there are biological differences among races. One

articles explains: “In evolutionary biology the idea of race, although rarely used because

of its fundamental ambiguity, is considered a synonym for subspecies. The term

subspecies refers to a geographically circumscribed, genetically differentiated

population.”20 Clearly, Native Hawaiians, who were geographically isolated from the

rest of the world for thousands of years, clearly have the geographic prerequisites to be

considered a subspecies. Whereas the rest of the world had some interaction, Hawai’i,

being surrounded by the Pacific Ocean, had an extreme and unique level of isolation

arguably unparalleled elsewhere in world history.

Further, these same genetic studies are further explaining biological differences

among racial groups. The article states: “Terminology matters. We will argue against

using race as a biological category in health research. However, we do not deny that

health status varies among U.S. racialized populations. Genetic and biological

differences should be studied directly, not through the distorting lens of a previous era’s

racial thinking. There may, however, be one exception in health disparities research.

Studies of the health effects of racism per se may be one arena where using traditional

political categories of race is justified.”21 This statement is informative in two ways.

First, it supports the position that biological differences do exist among racial groups.

Second, it makes an alternative argument for the use of the science supporting the

position that Native Hawaiians are endangered. The racism against indigenous American

groups is well-known and well-documented. Such racism has resulted in numerous

11
massacres through the historical conflict between native groups and the American

government. The reality is that the state of native population is not only the result of the

biological devastation felt from the introduction of Western disease into vulnerable native

populations, depletion of these native populations are also the result of vicious and

intentionally attacks on these groups. These intentionally assaults are no different than

the historical hunting and harvesting of native animals, like whales in the Pacific or

elephants throughout Africa. And while native populations were clearly not harvested,

they were hunted. Native American Indians have been forced off of their land and

relocated onto reservation; the result has been horrible standards of living for most Native

American Indians living on reservations.

The science may be divided on whether or not it is appropriate to say that races

are actually subspecies, but the health sciences and history clearly show that the

indigenous populations of the United States have suffered continuously since the arrival

of Western settlers. This suffering has often occurred as the result of intentional efforts

by the American government to injure these groups. Therefore, the focus of the scientific

evidence should perhaps not be only the indirectly and unintentionally results of Western

contact with native populations, but the impact that the intentional savagery of American

colonialism had on native populations and the natural resources on which these

populations relied.

The History of Ni’ihau as a Distinct Population Segment

Being an island chain, Hawai’i has unique geographical characteristics not found

elsewhere in the United States. Beyond the eight main Hawaiian Islands, there are

12
numerous small islands, commonly known as the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands

(pictured below)22. While these islands are now largely uninhabited and used primarily

as reservation for nation and endangered plants and wildlife, evidence shows that Native

Hawaiians once resided in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands.

Closest to the main Hawaiian Islands is the island of Nihoa. Explorations to Nihoa by the

Bishop Museum found substantial evidence to support the position that a Native

Hawaiian population once resided on the island. As an article by researchers states:

“Nihoa was once inhabited by the kanaka maoli…. About 35 house sites, 15 bluff

shelters, 15 heiau, and 28 agricultural terraces have been identified on the island. Various

artifacts have also been collected, including fishhooks, sinkers, cowry shell lures,

hammerstones, grindstones, adzes, and coral rubbing stone. The evidence seems to

indicate permanent or semi-permanent settlement.”23 (Citations omitted.) And

considering the turbulent waters surround the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands, it is

13
unlikely that the residents of Nihoa traveled often, making this a semi-isolated and

distinct population. Researchers also found evidence of settlement on Necker Island, the

island immediately northwest of Nihoa and next in the Northwestern Hawaiian Island

chain. While it is unclear whether or not Native Hawaiians resided on the island, the

numerous artifacts found on Necker Island clearly demonstrate that the island had

significant religious and cultural importance. Researchers deduced from the 35 heiau

found on Necker Island that the island was regularly and frequently used by Native

Hawaiian residents of the Northern and Northwestern Hawaiian Islands.24

On the Island of Ni’ihau, the north most island in the main Hawaiian island chain,

remains the last traditional population of Native Hawaiians. Ni’ihau is a treasure to the

Native Hawaiian culture. The residents of Ni’ihau live in the traditional Hawaiian

lifestyle; they speak Hawaiian; they live off the land. The island is privately owned by

the Robinson family, and as a result, access to the island is strictly limited. The island is

isolated from most commercial activity, such as tourism. As a result, the Native

Hawaiian population of Ni’ihau has remained largely unaffected by the influence of

American control and governance throughout the rest of the Hawaiian Islands.

Such a population could be listed under the Fish and Wildlife Service’s policy

regarding Distinct Population Segments. The Endangered Species Act allows for the

listing of Distinct Population Segments. Yet, under the original Act, Congress provided

little guidance as to what Distinct Population Segments actually were. The Department

of the Interior released a policy statement in 1996 further defining a Distinct Population

14
Segment. In this policy statement, the Department adopts the criteria used by the

National Marine Fisheries Service (“NMFS”) in defining “an evolutionary significant

unit.” In order to fall under this definition: “A stock must satisfy two criteria to be

considered an evolutionary significant unit: (1) It must be substantially reproductively

isolated from other conspecific population units; and (2) It must represent an important

component in the evolutionary legacy of the species.”25 The population of Ni’ihau meets

these criteria.

The only population on Ni’ihau is the village of Pu’uwai. The population consists

of 230 residents. There are no phones or no electricity. There is no airport; boats are the

only way to travel to and from the island.26 The island and its population meet the first

criteria of the distinct population segment definition, which requires that the population

be substantially isolated. Further, considering that the population of Pu’uwai is the last

remaining location where Native Hawaiian traditions are actively and regularly practiced

and the only location on the planet where the native language has been consistently used

since Native Hawaiians first arrived in Hawaii thousands of years ago, the cultural and

historical legacy of Ni’ihau is invaluable to the existence and preservation of the Native

Hawaiian culture. The existence and integrity of this group must be vigorously protected.

Practical Impacts

15
 Questions have been raised regarding the practical effect of listing Native

Hawaiians under the Endangered Species Act. The Endangered Species Act prohibits the

taking of species or populations listed under the Endangered Species Act. Therefore,

Native Hawaiians, if listed, would be protected from illegal takings under the Endangered

Species Act.

Clearly, such a law would be difficult to enforce. It would also be largely

impractical and would create endless confusion and questions regarding the application

of wildlife and conservation law to a human population. Therefore, before petitioning for

the listing of Native Hawaiians, either as a subspecies or distinct population segment, any

potential petitioner should consider the practical consequences that would result from

listing. The reality is, listing Native Hawaiians would not necessarily result in the

rejuvenation of the native population, which would be the obvious goal of listing. Nor

would listing necessarily afford Native Hawaiians protection beyond the protection that

exists for any person under criminal law. What listing could potentially offer is increased

discussion about the creation of programs aimed specifically at protecting Native

Hawaiians from further injury resulting from the invasion of Western disease and culture.

Or perhaps, ideally, it would force the United States to confront the impact their history

of colonialism and the destruction “manifest destiny” and the industrial revolution had on

the nation’s natural resources, specifically, the native populations that lived harmoniously

with these resources for thousands of years prior to the arrival European settlers.

16
Policy Considerations

What petitioning to list Native Hawaiians under the Endangered Species Act

would result in is additional awareness about the lacking statutory protection available to

indigenous groups in the United States. In fact, one of the considerations the Secretary

must weigh when decisions if a species should be listed is if the existing mechanisms are

not inadequate to protect the species or population. Congress has created legislation, like

the Native Hawaiian Health Care Act, aimed to help protect the Native Hawaiian

population. Yet, even the statute admits, that the health of the Native Hawaiian people

are far below the national average. Arguably, this demonstrates that the existing laws and

programs aimed at helping the Native Hawaiian people have failed to achieve their

purposes. The Secretary, at his discretion and under the consideration, should therefore

list Native Hawaiians as a policy statement, to demonstrate the existing gaps in current

legislation aimed to protect and assist indigenous populations.

The Mary Ellen case was decided under similar policy considerations. After the

court found that Mary Ellen deserved protection under the existing animal cruelty laws,

the New York legislature promptly passed child abuse and cruelty legislation. It first

legislation of this sort in the history of the United States, but it started a rich history of

legislative action created to protect children.

The petitioning of Native Hawaiians under the Endangered Species Act would

hopefully create a movement to force the legislature to act to protect Native Hawaiians

and other Native American populations. The Endangered Species Act would be an

17
excellent model for the creation of new legislation aimed at protecting and revitalizing

indigenous cultures so severely injured and depleted by the historical colonial actions of

the United States and other Western countries.

During a time when there seems to be an international movement to recognize the

wrongs committed against indigenous populations through the world, it seems only

appropriate that Congress would pass legislation aimed at addressing these wrongs and

affirmatively acting to remedy the remnant injury and suffering felt by indigenous groups

as a result of the United States’ aggressive invasion of North American territory during

the expansion era.

The acknowledgment of multiculturalism and the movement towards a more

culturally sensitive and historically diverse America must move from the creation of a

rhetorical platform to concrete action. Petitioning to list Native Hawaiians under the

Endangered Species Act would hopefully spurn on such action. While unlikely, ideally,

the United States government would finally begin to acknowledge the tremendous

devastation its historical treatment of native groups has had on the indigenous

populations that remain. Despite the language in statutes like the Indian Child Welfare

Act or the Native Hawaiian Health Care Act, the United States has yet to effectively

confront the horror of its past behavior. Listing or a new statute would require such

action, and considering the government reluctance to make such a step thus far, it is

highly unlikely that they would do so now, despite how badly such a gesture is needed.

18
Conclusion

While the Endangered Species Act was arguably created to protect non-human

animals, there are many compelling reasons why Native Hawaiians should be granted

listing under the Endangered Species Act. They are endangered, their populations

considerably depleted from the levels they were at when Western contact was first made.

Existing legislation fails to effective protect this group, which suffers from poor health

and living conditions. If the United States government truly value human life and native

cultures, it should protect native populations with at least the same ferocity afforded

endangered plants.

Third wave feminist Audre Lorde once wrote regarding social change: “For the

master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house. They may allow us temporarily

to beat him at his own game, but they will never enable us to bring about genuine

change.”27 (Emphasis in original.) I fundamentally disagree, as would Mary Ellen, were

she here. It is not easy for disadvantaged and marginalized groups to create change; there

is no disputing that fact. But the law is about change, about making change. And it

requires creativity and ingenuity. Change of the sort proposed in this paper is not

common, but it is not impossible either. The case of Mary Ellen perfectly demonstrates

that when the case is well made and when public policy clearly demands the court to act

in a manner that may not have been predicted during the construction of the proposed

legislation, courts have been willing to make the right and courageous decision. I firmly

believe that while the Fish and Wildlife Service would most likely not grant the listing

19
request, a court, presented with the evidence and arguments presented in this paper would

recognize that listing Native Hawaiians under the Endangered Species Act is the right

thing to do. Such action would hopefully encourage the government to act to begin to

affirmatively protect indigenous groups and remedy the existing injuries created by

American colonialism so many years ago. The master’s tool may or may be able to

“dismantle” the master’s house, but they can certainly be used to create a place for us, as

Native people, in it.

1
Audre Lourde (1984) Sister Outsider
2
16 U.S.C. § 1351
3
16 U.S.C. § 1351
4
16 U.S.C. § 1351
5
16 U.S.C § 1351
6
16 U.S.C. § 1533
7
16 U.S.C. § 1351
8
16 U.S.C. § 1533
9
Reader’s Digest Great Encyclopedia Dictionary (1975)
10
Susan Vivian Mangold, Transgressing the Border Between Protection and Empowerment for Domestic
Violence Victims and Older Children: Empowerment as Protection in the Foster Care System, 36
NENGLR 69, at 85 (2001).

11
25 U.S.C. § 1901
12
42 U.S.C. § 11701

13 42 U.S.C. § 11701

20
14
42 U.S.C. § 11701
15
42 U.S.C. § 11701
16
Haunani Kay Trask (1999) From a Native Daughter, 5-6.
17
16 U.S.C. § 1533(a)
18
16 U.S.C. § 1533 (b)(1)(A)
19
J. Philippe Rushton (1996) Statement on Race as a Biological Concept, available at
www.amren.com/rushton.htm
20
Sandra Soojin Lee et al. (2001) The Meaning of Race, Yale J of Health Policy and Ethics
21
Supra.
22
Available at www.hawaiireef.noaa.gov
23
Available at http://explorers.bishopmuseum.org/nwhi/nec_nih.htm
24
Supra.
25
61 FR 4722
26
Available at http://www.janeresture.com/hawaii_niihau/
27
Supra, note 1.

21