(c) Copyright February 12, 2023
Kenneth R. Conklin, Ph.D.
On November 28, 1843 one low-level diplomat from France and one low-level diplomat from England met together in a small room in Europe and signed two copies of a document written in side-by-side French and English languages acknowledging that Hawaii was an independent nation, and agreeing with each other that they would not invade Hawaii or seek to take it over. It was a mutual non-aggression pact between England and France, was not addressed to any Hawaiian, and was not a treaty with Hawaii. But the King of Hawaii, Kauikeaouli Kamehameha III, considered it so important that in 1847 he proclaimed November 28 to be a permanent holiday "La Ku'oko'a" [Independence Day], which continued to be celebrated for many years although with diminishing fervor. After the Hawaiian revolution of 1893 which overthrew the monarchy, the revolutionary provisional government morphed into the permanent Republic of Hawaii, which was still the same independent nation under new leadership and therefore kept the same flag and the same holidays, although Hawaii's Independence Day had already faded into more of an observance rather than a huge national celebration, somewhat like Washington's Birthday now called Presidents Day in the U.S.
In 2022 and 2023 the legislature of the State of Hawaii, and all four of Hawaii's county councils, worked to pass resolutions celebrating the event of 180 years ago and urging its revival by the governor and the county mayors under the name "Hawaiian Independence Day." The resolutions seem to be merely benign affirmations of ethnic pride celebrating a now-obscure event from nearly two centuries ago. But in fact the "whereas" clauses of the resolutions make clear they are a thinly-veiled call for Hawaii to secede from the United States -- an assertion that Hawaii remains an independent nation because the 1893 overthrow of the monarchy was the illegal result of an armed invasion by USA [false]; and that the 1898 annexation of Hawaii by USA was an illegal grabbing of Hawaii in the absence of a treaty of annexation [false]. The resolutions' whereas clauses, in the obscurity of the "fine print", interpret historical events about Hawaii's independence from more than a century ago, but the headline screams "Hawaiian Independence Day" as though it's a current fact and a demand for the future. The peculiar local usage of the word "Hawaiian" is the name of a race, not a place; so calling it "Hawaiian Independence Day" is a call for a future of racial separatism and ethnic nationalism; rather than a reminder about the multiracial Kingdom of Hawaii and Republic of Hawaii -- they truly were a historically independent nation which included native-born or naturalized Asians and Whites who were fully equal with voting rights, property rights, and many holding high positions as government officials. Historic grievances mentioned in the whereas clauses set the stage for renewed demands for reparations in the form of land, money and political power, similar to the way the 1993 Congressional "apology resolution" has been used for 30 years. Indeed Esther Kia'aina, one of those Honolulu councilmembers pushing the current resolution, was a major writer of the apology resolution in 1993, while another current councilmember, Andria Tupola, was Hawaii Republican candidate for Governor in 2018 on a platform calling for Hawaii independence. The fact that the council members pushing the La Ku'oko'a resolution are ethnic Hawaiians is yet another illustration that voters should be very cautious about electing ethnic Hawaiians to government leadership positions where they seem likely to abuse their power to cajole or intimidate other leaders to go along with race-nationalism or racial entitlement programs because of a desire to foster diversity, equity, inclusiveness, and harmony.
Below are links to webpages discussing some general topics mentioned here, followed by full text of the original and slightly amended versions of the La Ku'oko'a resolution and full text of Ken Conklin's written testimonies.
---------
Some webpages related to topics raised above:
(In)Significance of Hawaiian Kingdom Independence Day vs. Republic of Hawaii International Recognition
https://www.angelfire.com/hi5/bigfiles/LaKuOKoaInsignif.html
U.S. apology resolution 20th anniversary -- A resolution was introduced in the Hawaii legislature to commemorate the 20th anniversary of the U.S. apology resolution; and testimony was offered to the Hawaii legislature in the form of a substitute resolution explaining that the apology resolution is filled with falsehoods, has produced bad consequences, and should be repealed.
https://www.angelfire.com/big09/ApologyReso20thAnniv.html
Voters should be very cautious about electing ethnic Hawaiians to government leadership positions where they seem likely to abuse their power to cajole or intimidate other leaders to go along with race-nationalism or racial entitlement programs because of a desire to foster diversity, equity, inclusiveness, and harmony.
https://www.angelfire.com/big09a/AkakaHawnConflictRecuse.html
Critical Race Theory Hawaiian-Style
https://www.angelfire.com/big11a/CritRaceHawn.html
For Hawaiians Only. Webpages identifying and describing government funded racial entitlement programs providing benefits exclusively to Native Hawaiians using taxpayer dollars from the U.S. and State of Hawaii.
https://www.angelfire.com/big11a/ForHawaiiansOnly.html
Four Principles of Equality and Unity
https://www.angelfire.com/big11a/4Principles.html
-------------
All these materials can be found in their original formatting in the archives of the City and County of Honolulu, as noted. But the documents are also copied below to ensure the full texts remain available even if the Honolulu archives become vandalized or deleted or reorganized with different URLs.
** Links to the Honolulu City Council archives:
RES22-262 [January 10, 2023 resolution text]
https://hnldoc.ehawaii.gov/hnldoc/document-download?id=15794
M-0004(23) - Testimony on RES22-262 for Jan 10, 2023 @ 01:00 PM EXECUTIVE MATTERS AND LEGAL AFFAIRS Meeting. Includes full text of Ken Conklin's 3-page written testimony.
https://hnldoc.ehawaii.gov/hnldoc/document-download?id=16099
RES22-262, CD1 - 02-07-23 EMLA [February 7, 2023 text of slightly amended version of resolution]
https://hnldoc.ehawaii.gov/hnldoc/document-download?id=16412
M-0047(23) - Testimony on RES22-262 for Feb 7, 2023 @ 01:00 PM EXECUTIVE MATTERS AND LEGAL AFFAIRS (EMLA) Meeting. Includes full text of Ken Conklin's 21-page written testimony.
https://hnldoc.ehawaii.gov/hnldoc/document-download?id=16384
----------
January 10, 2023 full text of resolution:
CITY COUNCIL
CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU
HONOLULU. HAWAII 96813-3077
COMMITTEE ON EXECUTIVE MATTERS AND LEGAL AFFAIRS
Voting Members:
Tyler Dos Santos-Tam, Chair
Radiant Cordero, Vice Chair
Esther Kiaʻāina
Val A. Okimoto
Calvin K.Y. Say
Augie Tulba
Andria Tupola
Tommy Waters
Matt Weyer
RESOLUTION No. 22—262
URGING THE CITY ADMINISTRATION TO FORMALLY RECOGNIZE AND OBSERVE
NOVEMBER 28TH AS LA KUOKO’A, HAWAIIAN INDEPENDENCE DAY.
WHEREAS. on January 16, 1893, United States troops invaded the Hawaiian Kingdom, without just cause, and forced the conditional surrender of Queen Lili’uokalani, who surrendered to avoid the loss of life; and
WHEREAS, England and France formally recognized the sovereignty of the Kingdom of Hawaii with the signing of the Anglo-Franco Proclamation on November 28, 1843; and
WHEREAS, the United States also verbally acknowledged the sovereignty of the Kingdom of Hawaii; and
WHEREAS, these acknowledgements were the result of the efforts of emissaries Timoteo Ha'alilio, William Richards, and George Simpson; and
WHEREAS, in December of 1893, President Cleveland declared that the overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom was committed without the authority of the United States Congress; and
WHEREAS, despite the illegality of the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii, the United States annexed Hawaii in 1898 at the urging of President William McKinley, and Hawaii became a territory in 1900 and a state in August of 1959; and
WHEREAS, in 1993, 100 years after the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii, President Bill Clinton signed legislation formally apologizing for the role of the United States in the overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom; and
WHEREAS, since the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii, the people of Hawaii have worked tirelessly, sometimes under threat of violence, to maintain the language, culture, and practices of Hawaii; and
WHEREAS, La Ku’oko’a represents an affirmation of the legitimacy of the sovereignty of the Kingdom of Hawaii, honors the Hawaiian identity, and celebrates the patriotism the Hawaiian people feel for Hawaii; and
WHEREAS, the City Council believes that it is more important than ever to remember and to celebrate the deep aloha 'aina (patriotism) that the kama'aina feel for Hawaii and to reaffirm the legitimacy of the sovereignty of the Kingdom of Hawaii; now, therefore,
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City and County of Honolulu that it urges the City Administration to formally recognize and observe November 28th as La Ku'oko’a, Hawaiian Independence Day; and
BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that copies of this resolution be transmitted to the Mayor, the Managing Director, and the Executive Director of the Mayor’s Office of Culture and the Arts.
INTRODUCED BY {signature Heidi Tsuneyoshi}
DATE OF INTRODUCTION: NOV 07 2022
-------------
EXECUTIVE MATTERS AND LEGAL AFFAIRS (EMLA) Meeting
Meeting Date: Jan 10, 2023 @ 01:00 PM
Support: 2
Oppose: 1
I wish to comment: 0
Name:
Kenneth Conklin
Email: Ken_Conklin@yahoo.com
Zip: 96744
Representing:
Center for Hawaiian Sovereignty Studies
Position: Oppose
Submitted:
Jan 5, 2023 @ 02:17 PM
Name: Erin Kelly
Email: craptastic5ever@gmail.com
Zip: 96816
Representing: Self
Position: Support
Submitted:
Jan 6, 2023 @ 06:59 PM
Testimony:
Hawaiian rights and recognition are important.
Name:
Anne Shiparski
Email: annies1252@gmail.com
Zip: 96813
Representing: Self
Position: Support
Submitted:
Jan 8, 2023 @ 06:59 PM
Testimony:
Embracing and recognizing Hawaiian culture and holidays is a vital step in indigenous visibility and accurate representation. This is an important holiday that has and should continue to be celebrated, officially.
Center for Hawaiian Sovereignty Studies
46-255 Kahuhipa St. Suite 1205
Kane'ohe, HI 96744
(808) 247-7942
Kenneth R. Conklin, Ph.D.
Executive Director
e-mail Ken_Conklin@yahoo.com
Unity, Equality, Aloha for all
Testimony of Kenneth R. Conklin, Ph.D., IN OPPOSITION TO Resolution 22-262 urging the city administration to formally recognize and observe November 28th as La Ku’oko’a, Hawaiian independence day.
A resolution might be appropriate to recognize the historic significance of Ka La Ku'oko'a as a holiday established in 1843 in the bygone Kingdom of Hawaii to celebrate a proclamation jointly signed by Britain and France acknowledging that the Kingdom of Hawaii was at that time an independent nation.
But the language in the "whereas" clauses makes it clear that this resolution is not merely to commemorate a historic event but rather to assert a lie that Hawaii remains an independent nation today. Those "whereas" clauses display a vicious hatred toward the United States as an invader whose troops overthrew the Kingdom in 1843 [false], whose Congress illegally annexed Hawaii in 1898 [they did it legally after the internationally recognized Republic of Hawaii offered a Treaty of Annexation and after prolonged debate] and incorporated Hawaii as a full-fledged State in 1959. This resolution expressly affirms the falsehood that Hawaii continues to maintain legitimacy as an independent nation, and that Hawaiians are patriotic to Hawaii rather than to the United States. This resolution's closing assertion would put this City Council on record "to reaffirm the legitimacy of the [continuing] sovereignty of the Kingdom of Hawaii."
Any member of this City Council who votes in favor of this resolution must immediately resign because they have violated their oath "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands" and their specific oath of candidacy and oath of office to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States." You should be ashamed of yourselves for even considering this resolution. Perhaps the easiest way for you to avoid further embarrassment, without incurring the wrath of the diehard deadenders of the Hawaiian kingdom, is to permanently table or dismiss further consideration of this resolution because it was introduced during the closing weeks of last year's Council under the single sponsorship of a Council member who already knew she would no longer be on the Council to debate or defend it nor to suffer the humiliation of public scrutiny to its absurdity and anti-Americanism.
FOOTNOTES
The Hawaiian revolution of 1893 was done entirely by armed local men from among the 1500 who in 1887 had surrounded Iolani Palace and forced King Kalakaua to sign a new Constitution stripping him of most of his powers. There were no U.S. troops present in the 1887 mini- revolution. U.S. troops came ashore in 1893, as they had done on two previous occasions, to protect American and foreign lives and property against credible threats of arson, looting, and violence; they did not patrol the streets nor take over any buildings or give any food or weapons to the revolutionaries. See the 808-page official transcript and exhibits in testimony given in public under oath and strenuous cross examination before the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs:
https://morganreport.org/mediawiki/index.php?title=Main_Page
The Hawaii revolutionary Provisional Government of 1893-94 held a Constitutional Convention which included at least 6 native Hawaiian delegates. The resulting Republic of Hawaii, a continuing independent nation, had the full-blooded native Hawaiian former royalist John Kaulukou as Speaker of the House of Representatives.
https://www.angelfire.com/planet/big60/RepubHawConst1894.html
The Republic requested formal diplomatic recognition from the same nations who had previously recognized the Kingdom. A webpage displays letters in 11 languages personally signed by Emperors, Kings, Queens, and Presidents of 19 nations on 4 continents formally recognizing the Republic as the rightful successor government to the Kingdom. Of special significance is the letter personally signed by Queen Victoria of Britain, who had close friendships with Hawaii's Queen Kapiolani, Queen Emma, and Queen Lili'uokalani but who nevertheless knew what was righteous.
https://historymystery.kenconklin.org/recognition-of-the-republic-of- hawaii/
These letters from heads of state in 1894, including Britain and France, are far more powerful that the non-aggression pact signed by low-level diplomats only from Britain and France in 1843. see
"(In)Significance of Hawaiian Kingdom Independence Day vs. Republic of Hawaii International Recognition" at
https://www.angelfire.com/hi5/bigfiles/LaKuOKoaInsignif.html
The letters from heads of state recognizing the Republic as the rightful successor government to the Kingdom empowered the Republic under international law to offer a Treaty of Annexation to the United States.
https://historymystery.kenconklin.org/recognition-of-the-republic-of-hawaii/
See"Treaty of Annexation between the Republic of Hawaii and the United States of America (1898). Full text of the treaty, and of the resolutions whereby the Republic of Hawaii legislature and the U.S. Congress ratified it. The politics surrounding the treaty, then and now."
https://www.angelfire.com/big09a/TreatyOfAnnexationHawaiiUS.html
-----------
Despite Ken Conklin's testimony above, received by the committee on January 5, the committee was still entertaining on January 10 a proposed CD1 amended resolution containing the racialized meaning of the word "Hawaiian" and the double entendre references to "patriotism" and "Aloha 'Aina", and still containing inflammatory false whereas clauses, including this one:
"WHEREAS. on January 16, 1893, United States troops invaded the Hawaiian Kingdom, without just cause, and forced the conditional surrender of Queen Lili’uokalani, who surrendered to avoid the loss of life; and"
The proposed CD1 can be viewed in a form that is apparently encrypted and cannot be copy-pasted in plain English but remains readable on the internet at
https://hnldoc.ehawaii.gov/hnldoc/document-download?id=16159
Ken Conklin's written testimony for the February 7 meeting, copied further below, was based on the original version of the resolution and on that encrypted proposed CD1 which was apparently expected to be considered at the February 7 committee meeting. Conklin's testimony was received on February 4, and would seem to be responsible for the large revision in the CD1 version actually passed unanimously by the committee on February 7 and forwarded for consideration by the full city council whenever they decide to place it on their agenda.
-----------
February 7, 2023, full text of doubly amended CD1 version of the resolution. Some of the most flagrant falsehoods and incendiary assertions have now been removed or toned down, but it still gives the impression that a revived La Ku'oko'a "Hawaiian Independence Day" is not merely about history but refers to a belief that Hawaii remains an independent nation or hopes to regain that status; that "Hawaiian" identifies a race rather than a place; that [ethnic] Hawaiians are patriotic to [the nation of] Hawaii; and that [ethnic] Hawaiians are owed reparations for the overthrow of the monarchy and annexation to USA.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU
HONOLULU. HAWAII 96813-3077
COMMITTEE ON EXECUTIVE MATTERS AND LEGAL AFFAIRS
Voting Members:
Tyler Dos Santos-Tam, Chair
Radiant Cordero, Vice Chair
Esther Kiaʻāina
Val A. Okimoto
Calvin K.Y. Say
Augie Tulba
Andria Tupola
Tommy Waters
Matt Weyer
RESOLUTION No. 22—262, CD-1
URGING THE CITY ADMINISTRATION TO FORMALLY RECOGNIZE AND OBSERVE
NOVEMBER 28TH AS LĀ KŪʻOKOʻA, HAWAIIAN INDEPENDENCE DAY.
WHEREAS, prior to the arrival of the first Europeans in 1778, the Native Hawaiian people lived in a highly organized, self-sufficient, subsistent social system based on communal land tenure with a sophisticated language, culture, and religion; and
WHEREAS, the chiefdoms of the Hawaiian Islands were unified as Ko Hawaiʻi Pae ʻĀina ("The Hawaiian Islands") in 1810 under Kamehameha I; and
WHEREAS, on April 8, 1842, King Kamehameha III pursued the preservation of sovereignty and self-governance of the Hawaiian Kingdom; consequently, he commissioned Timothy Haʻailio, William Richards, and Sir George Simpson as emissaries to travel to the United States, Great Britain, and the French Kingdom to secure the recognition for the Hawaiian Kingdom; and
WHEREAS, Great Britain and the French Government formally recognized the Kingdom of Hawaiʻi as a sovereign and independent Kingdom, acknowledged through the Anglo-Franco Joint Proclamation on November 28, 1843, followed by the United States on July 6, 1844; and
WHEREAS, King Kamehameha III directed his Minister of Foreign Affairs, Robert Crichton Wyllie, to recognize and celebrate the anniversary of Hawaiʻi's welcome into the family of nations; the year 1847 marked the first official celebration of Hawaiian Independence Day, Lā Kūʻokoʻa; and
WHEREAS, from the 1850s and 1870s, Hawaiʻi celebrated Lā Kū'oko'a with lūʻau, mele, marches, and hoʻolauleʻa; and
WHEREAS, in 1896, the Republic of Hawaiʻi enacted (Act 66) Lā Kūʻokoʻa on the codified list of national holidays; and
WHEREAS, despite the illegality of the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaiʻi, the United States annexed Hawaiʻi in 1898, and Hawaiʻi became a territory in 1900, and a state on August 21,1959; and
WHEREAS, Lā Kūʻokoʻa represents an affirmation of the validity of the historical independence of the Kingdom of Hawaiʻi, acknowledges and honors the Kingdom and its subjects, and commemorates the patriotism the Hawaiian people feel for Hawaiʻi Nei past and presently; now, therefore,
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City and County of Honolulu that the City Council believes that it is more important than ever to remember and to celebrate the deep aloha ʻāina (patriotism) that the kamaʻaina feel for Hawaiʻi and to reaffirm the legitimacy of the historical independence of the Kingdom of Hawaiʻi; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council urges the City Administration and the Hawaiʻi State Legislature to formally recognize and observe November 28th as Lā Kūʻokoʻa, Hawaiian Independence Day; and
BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that copies of this resolution be transmitted to the Honorable Governor Joshua B. Green, the Honorable Senate President Ronald D. Kouchi, the Honorable Speaker of the House of Representatives Scott K. Saiki, the Honorable Mayor Rick Blangiardi, the Managing Director Michael D. Formby, and the Executive Director of the Mayor’s Office of Culture and the Arts Makanani Salā.
INTRODUCED BY Heidi Tsuneyoshi
DATE OF INTRODUCTION: November 7, 2022
----------------
EXECUTIVE MATTERS AND LEGAL AFFAIRS (EMLA) Meeting
Meeting Date: Feb 7, 2023 @ 01:00 PM
Support: 2
Oppose: 1
I wish to comment: 0
Name:
Kenneth Conklin
Email: Ken_Conklin@yahoo.com
Zip: 96744
Representing:
Center for Hawaiian Sovereignty Studies
Position: Oppose
Submitted:
Feb 4, 2023 @ 05:48 PM
Name:
Mabel Ann Keliihoomalu
Email: mabelannspencer@gmail.com
Zip: 96795
Representing: Self
Position: Support
Submitted:
Feb 7, 2023 @ 09:10 AM
Testimony:
Native Hawaiians have never surrendered our rights to our Hawaiian kingdom. We want and desire to gather and celebrate our culture and practices.
Name: Zhizi xiong
Email: Alohadivinedesign@gmail.com
Zip: 96817
Representing: CARES
Position: Support
Submitted:
Feb 7, 2023 @ 12:55 PM
Testimony:
CARES testifies in strong support.
It is our inherent right to be recognized as Indigenous people as our birth right to our Hawaiian Kingdom.
I request your support of Resolution
23-262. Mahalo
Center for Hawaiian Sovereignty Studies
46-255 Kahuhipa St. Suite 1205
Kane'ohe, HI 96744
(808) 247-7942
Kenneth R. Conklin, Ph.D.
Executive Director
e-mail Ken_Conklin@yahoo.com
Unity, Equality, Aloha for all
Testimony of Kenneth R. Conklin, Ph.D., regarding Resolution 22-262 proposed CD1 "urging the city administration to formally recognize and observe November 28th as La Ku’oko’a, Hawaiian independence day."
Introduction
This proposed resolution 22-262, and its amended CD1 version, have numerous false, slanted, and divisive concepts and assertions. The whole project should be abandoned, because the inherent concepts are reprehensible even if amendments could cure specific assertions.
This testimony will begin by examining the clear purposes of the resolution and reviewing aspects of Hawaii's history related to it; and then following up with comments on many of the fifteen "whereas" clauses.
Perhaps someday the New Orleans city council members of Cajun heritage might pass a resolution to celebrate the day a couple centuries ago when France and Britain signed an agreement establishing the Mississippi River as the boundary between the Louisiana Territory and the Northwest Territory allowing self-determination for Cajuns [supposing there ever was such an agreement]. But such a resolution would surely provoke well-deserved derision at its irrelevance to the troubles of today. This resolution about reviving the Hawaiian Kingdom holiday "La Ku'oko'a" (Independence Day) celebrating an event 180 years ago would be just that ludicrous, irrelevant, and harmless if it were merely about the history of a bygone era. But pushers of this resolution seek to stoke a spirit of grievance and racial divisiveness, leading to demands for political independence and monetary reparations in the form of racial entitlement programs and race-based political power. Trigger warning: this testimony is likely to offend some readers. Too bad! Resolution 22-262 is highly offensive to most of Hawaii's people and deserves all the opprobrium that can be mustered against it.
This resolution has three propaganda purposes deriving from the fact that the county council members voting on this resolution were elected to represent all the people of the county; therefore observers might imagine that when a resolution passes the council, it is the voice of O'ahu's people -- even though whenever possible some of the council members function behind the scenes primarily as representative of their racial group who bully their colleagues to go along with their fantasies for fear that resistance would seem politically incorrect. It's time to stand up.
Here are the three main purposes of resolution 22-262:
(Purpose #1) Create the (false) impression that most people of Honolulu County (about one million of us) believe Hawaii is the victim of an American invasion and continued illegal occupation, and we want to escape -- to be liberated, to return to Hawaii's previous status as an independent nation.
Councilmember Andria Tupola, who submitted this CD1 amended version of resolution 22-262, was the Republican candidate for Governor in 2018. She explicitly stated her support for Hawaiian independence during a televised candidate debate, and probably on other occasions too. Just ask her! Often! Hold her accountable for her secessionist views. Perhaps Ms. Tupola, of Samoan ancestry, also favors the liberation of American Samoa to unify with the independent nation of Samoa, despite the overwhelming pride of ethnic Samoans in Hawaii who show great enthusiasm in celebrating the annual Samoan Flag Day holiday commemorating the raising of the U.S. flag there on April 17, 1900 (less than 2 years after the annexation of Hawaii).
(Purpose #2) Create the (false) impression the people of Honolulu County, and especially those among us who have Hawaiian native ancestry, are patriotic not to USA but to an idealized fantasy image of a nation that has not existed since 1898, and patriotic to an underlying deep culture persisting from the folkways and pagan religion of pre- contact Hawaii (before 1778), despite the fact that that religion was overthrown by the Kingdom's leaders themselves following a civil war in 1819, the year before Christian missionaries arrived.
Here's an interesting coincidence, cited here because it is typical of the race-supremacist patriotism ripping apart our multiracial society, which is seen constantly in Hawaii's media and goes unchallenged because people of good will, not wanting to appear niele or even maha'oi, are intimidated into fearful silence. On February 3, just 4 days before this city council committee meets for the second time to consider resolution 22-262, Honolulu Civil Beat online newspaper published a commentary by Lee Cataluna entitled "Native Hawaiian Soccer Team Has International Aspirations". Interesting quotes are provided below.
Cataluna is one of those ethnic Hawaiians whose patriotism is not to USA but rather toward her ethnic culture and race-nationalism founded in bitter assertions of racial victimhood and entitlement. As daughter of Don Cataluna, who held the Kaua'i island resident seat on OHA, Ms. Cataluna used her megaphone as a long-time columnist for Honolulu Advertiser to spew her prejudice. For example on February 12, 2009 she bitterly complained that Tia Carrere had won the Grammy for the "Hawaiian Music" category. Cataluna's complaint was that Carrere is an imposter because she lacks Hawaiian blood and also lacks "heart" defined as "not how much you like Hawaiian music, but how much you've lived it." Cataluna bitterly says "[T]o win a Grammy for Hawaiian music? That's more than shape-shifting or play-acting. That's identity theft."
In her newest Civil Beat column Cataluna praises the newly created "Hui Kanaka Pōwāwae, the Hawaiian Football Federation" focused on "Native Hawaiian Identity and well-being." Cataluna proudly quotes Federation founder Trisha Kapuaʻala: "Hui Kanaka Pōwāwae developed a program that will help to reubild my country’s collective sense of national identity, playing the sport that I love while representing the values, character, and history that is uniquely Hawaiian." Trisha's husband Vernon "heard a lecture about the 1893 illegal overthrow and occupation of the Hawaiian kingdom and started thinking about Hawaii as a nation that extended from the monarchy through to modern times. He started asking himself how he could contribute to that concept of rebuilding the nation." and "While watching professional soccer games on the international level, he was moved by the pre- game ritual of players singing their national anthem and saluting their nation’s flag. He started thinking about Hawaii teams singing Hawaii Ponoʻi as their national anthem instead of the state song and flying the Hawaiian flag as their nation’s flag rather than a state flag." This is the race-nationalist "patriotism", also known by the term "Aloha 'Aina", praised in resolution 22-262 -- the sort of "patriotism" which the race-nationalist councilmembers want the entire council to endorse in a resolution to be used as propaganda purporting to show the rest of the world that most people on O'ahu want to rip the 50th star off Old Glory and return Hawaii to its former status as an independent nation.
There's something very weird when someone says they are "patriotic to Hawaii." I have never seen or heard anyone saying they are patriotic to New York or patriotic to Mississippi. Even regarding Texas, which once was an independent Republic of Texas, people today do not say they are patriotic to Texas. We only say we are patriotic to our nation -- and our nation is USA, not Hawaii. Unless, of course, someone is a Hawaiian nationalist wanting to secede from USA. Of course that's exactly what the race-nationalists on city council want the whole council to say, or at least to imply as a sort of code language for anyone "in the know" (wink, wink).
The word "Hawaiian" as used in this resolution is also code-language. It has become racialized, and the racial meaning is fiercely defended by our race-nationalists. Anyone who has lived in Hawaii for a while knows the difference between "Hawaiians" vs. "people of Hawaii" or "Hawaii residents." I am not allowed to say I am Hawaiian, even though I have lived here for 30 years and speak Hawaiian language with moderate fluency, for the simple reason that I do not have a drop of the magic blood. But when I lived in Boston for 20 years nobody ever complained when I called myself a Bostonian. Even living in Michigan for only 3 years I was a Michigander. When this resolution translates "La Ku'oko'a" as "Hawaiian Independence Day" it is a bad translation because there is nothing in the 'olelo Hawai'i name "La Ku'oko'a" that refers to Hawaii -- it's simply "Independence Day." If you insist on using the word for our archipelago in the holiday's name, then avoid the racialization and honor the multiracial character of the nation by calling it "Hawaii Independence Day" or better yet "Historic Independence Day of the nation of Hawaii" so that people will know it's about the past and not the future.
And by the way, considering the often-tolerated racialized usage of the word "Hawaiian", you should never utter the false label "Hawaiian independence Day" -- because the nation of Hawaii included people with no native blood not only as residents but as full-fledged native-born or naturalized subjects (Kingdom) or citizens (Republic) with voting rights and property rights on an equal basis with the bloods.
I note that some whereas clauses in CD1 discuss the resolution as being about "the historical independence of the Kingdom of Hawaii", the whereas clauses will never be seen by 99% of Hawaii's people -- what they will see and what gets reported in the media is what it says in the "Now therefore be it resolved" punchline, the official name of the holiday: "Hawaiian Independence Day" in all its fully racialized glory with no indication that it is merely about a historical event but carrying the intentional implication that it is urging future independence for Hawaii.
Alongside the English term "patriotism" in this resolution's whereas clauses is the 'olelo Hawai'i translation of it: "aloha 'aina". It's a sort of secret code-word recognized immediately by Hawaiian secessionists but seemingly innocent and even sweet to the ears of outsiders: "Love [for the] land." Using that term is a clear reference to both the historic and modern activism for independence. The Hui Aloha Aina was a Hawaiian patriotic group that circulated anti-annexation petitions in 1897. "Ke Aloha Aina" was the name of a race-nationalist newspaper at that time. A slogan widely repeated was: “Do not be afraid, be steadfast in aloha for your land and be united in thought. Protest forever the annexation of Hawai’i until the very last aloha ‘āina.” That phrase "aloha 'aina" in a political context is not about loving the land; it's a noun identifying a person who is patriotic to the memory of the independent nation of Hawaii before 1898 and also patriotic toward a dream of restoring the independence (i.e., secession) of Hawaii from the USA. The powerful spiritual/metaphorical background behind "aloha 'aina" is the Kumulipo creation legend wherein the gods gave birth to these islands as living beings, then gave birth to a dead baby from whose burial grew the first taro plant, then gave birth to the primordial ancestor from whom are descended all blood-Hawaiians; thus blood-Hawaiians are children of the gods and brothers/sisters to the land and the kalo plant in a way nobody ever can be who lacks a drop of Hawaiian blood. This blood-and-soil concept of origin and spirituality has been the cause of racially motivated devastating wars and atrocities.
Many people in Hawaii today, of all races, greet each other in person or in emails with the simple but powerful and sincere salutation "Aloha." Hawaiian race-nationalists today might say "Aloha 'Aina" instead. That phrase is a political affirmation and call to patriotism toward an independent nation of Hawaii. The tone is one of racial pride and solidarity, spoken with defiant enthusiasm, reminiscent of the German Aryan patriotic greeting 80-90 years ago as a substitute for "Guten Tag" [good day]: "Heil Hitler!"
(Purpose #3) Create the (false) impression that most of the people of Honolulu County believe that ethnic Hawaiians are owed reparations for historical grievances in the form of land, money, political power, and other racial entitlements. Councilmember Esther Kia'aina, who stated she was responsible for much of the historical (mis)information in the resolution and its proposed amended version, has been politically active as a Congressional advisor and staffer for Senator Inouye, Senator Akaka, Representative Case, Delegate Underwood (Guam) and as an Assistant Secretary of Interior under President Obama -- she played a major role in writing the (in)famous apology resolution (1993) which has been cited by independence activists as a confession of a crime by USA providing justification for both independence and racial entitlements. Ms. Kia'aina was also a major author of the Akaka bill (numerous versions 2000-2012) whereby Congress would create an ethnic Hawaiian tribe and give it federal recognition; and in her post under Obama at Dept. of Interior she she was a major author behind the scenes of DOI regulation 43CFR50 which establishes a procedure for ethnic Hawaiians to create a tribe and get federal recognition without any involvement or way to stop it by either Congress or the State of Hawaii -- she then made public appearances as one of 5 panelists from Dept. of Interior who staged public hearings in dozens of communities in Hawaii and on mainland Indian reservations to create the impression that DOI was listening to public opinion before finalizing the regulation. She has also been active in advising government officials in her birthplace Guam, and the Virgin Islands, regarding self- determination (a euphemism for heading toward independence).
History lesson
Why should today's living people of Honolulu care about an obscure event that happened between a Frenchman and an Englishman in a small room in Europe 180 years ago (1843)? Those two men pledged between themselves, on behalf of their nations, that Hawaii was a nation whose independence they would not try to destroy.
But 50 years later, in 1893, a bloodless revolution led by an armed militia entirely composed of local men overthrew Hawaii's monarchy.
Hawaii continued being an independent nation for 5 more years. Its revolutionary Provisional Government held an election of delegates to write a Constitution whose proclamation in July 1894 produced the Republic of Hawaii. Emperors, Kings, Queens, and Presidents of the same nations who had previously recognized the Kingdom now personally signed letters and sent emissaries halfway around the globe to deliver them to President Dole in Fall 1894, recognizing the Republic as the rightful successor government of the still-independent nation of Hawaii. This is how a nation and also its government gets recognized as independent and legitimate under international law.
The Hawaiian kingdom was recognized in 1843 by 2 low-level diplomats from 2 nations who addressed their proclamation only to each other but not to the King of Hawaii. The Republic of Hawaii was recognized in 1894 by heads of state on 4 continents who personally signed letters addressed to His Excellency Sanford B. Dole, President of the Republic of Hawaii -- Such letters from the heads of 19 nations are in Hawaii's archives (there might have been more no longer available). Photos of them and accompanying diplomatic notes and contemporaneous translations from 11 languages can be seen on a website at
https://historymystery.kenconklin.org/recognition-of-the-republic-of- hawaii/
Which scenario do you believe is more significant: recognition of the Kingdom or recognition of the Republic? The revolution of 1893 and international recognition of the resulting Republic put an end to the Kingdom forever. This silly resolution 22-262 focuses on an event which was significant in 1843 but is no longer relevant. Imagine today's city council of Moscow passing a resolution to honor Tsar Nicholas II. Or perhaps today's Beijing city council might pass a resolution commemorating the arrival of Genghis Khan from Mongolia.
Throughout the world there are revolutions (all "illegal" by definition) where new governments kick out old ones; and usually those events are bloody like the ones in France, USA, China, Russia, and numerous nations in Central and South America. Sometimes one nation's revolution is given massive help by an outside nation -- the U.S. revolution could never have succeeded without dozens of French warships, thousands of French troops, and enormous amounts of guns and ammunition. It's ludicrous to say what happened in Hawaii 1893 was an "armed invasion" and "occupation" by the U.S. (162 peacekeepers who did not fire a shot or take over any buildings, did not give money, food, or ammunition to the local revolutionaries, did not patrol the streets, and got back on their boat after a few weeks). If you want to see a real armed invasion and prolonged occupation, look at what Japan did in China and Philippines and what Russia is doing right now in Ukraine.
The nation of Hawaii got rid of its monarchy in the revolution of 1893 but remained an independent nation, and then voluntarily gave up its nationhood through offering a Treaty of Annexation in 1897 reluctantly accepted by the United States in 1898 after months of debate in Congress. The independence of a nation of Hawaii is as dead as a dodo. And although there are current news reports that geneticists are hoping to bring back the dodo after centuries of extinction, Hawaii's independence cannot be revived. The diehard deadenders of the Hawaiian Kingdom in Honolulu and on our City Council nevertheless keep pushing their agenda of race-nationalism and race-supremacy, portraying themselves in the media as downtrodden victims of colonial oppression and therefore entitled to massive reparations in the form of racial entitlement programs. The "whereas" clauses in resolution 22-262 and in CD1 make clear in many ways the authors' trumped-up historical grievances and their race-nationalism, including the way they use the kaona (double meanings) of some words, such as "Hawaiian" and "Aloha 'Aina".
Comments on the 15 "whereas" clauses in Resolution 22-262 proposed amended version CD1
Comment on Whereas #7:
It is FALSE to say that "United States troops invaded the Hawaiian Kingdom without just cause and forced the conditional surrender of Queen Lili'uokalani"
162 sailors from the U.S.S. Boston came ashore as peacekeepers during a time of civil strife and anticipated violence, as had been done on at least two prior occasions including deadly rioting by Emma supporters after Kalakaua won the election of 1874. They came ashore in January 1893 at the urgent request of foreign residents and business owners due to credible threats of politically-motivated rioting and arson, when a raucous mob had assembled on Palace grounds expecting the Queen to proclaim a new Constitution while at the same time a larger crowd demanding the Queen be overthrown had been holding a meeting inside the Armory building just a block away. The U.S.S. Boston was the only ship in the harbor with enough sailors sufficiently armed to stop violence, which is why foreigners of all nationalities appealed to U.S. minister Stevens to order the peacekeepers to come ashore. U.S. peacekeepers did not patrol the streets nor take over any buildings or give any food or weapons to the revolutionaries; they stayed in a building and grounds on a side street away from the Palace except for a small group sent to Nu'uanu to guard Minister Stevens' home.
Whereas #8 explicitly states this falsehood which is often repeated in media propaganda: "United States troops ... forced the conditional surrender of Queen Lili'uokalani."
U.S. troops did not force the surrender of the Queen; that was done by an armed militia entirely composed of local men from the same group of 1500 who had previously forced Kalakaua to sign the "bayonet" Constitution in the mini-revolution of 1887. There were no U.S. troops present in the 1887 mini-revolution; thus we know the local militia had all the will-power, training, arms and ammunition needed to get the job done without outside help. See the 808-page official transcript and exhibits in testimony given in public under oath and strenuous cross examination before the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs a year later:
https://morganreport.org/mediawiki/index.php?title=Main_Page
Comment on Whereas #9:
When any revolution happens, there are unhappy groups loyal to the previous government that refuse to go along with the revolution. Their opposition to the revolution does not give them any moral or legal right to reverse it. It is false to say that a revolution is a "violation of treaties ... and of international law." Treaties between nations remain in force regardless of a turnover of a government, unless formal notice of repudiation is given. A revolution is not a violation of international law. In the case of the Hawaiian revolution of 1893, there was complete agreement among all the local consuls of foreign governments in Honolulu that a revolution had occurred, that the Provisional Government was in control of the government buildings, and that they would recognize the Provisional government de facto.
The first tentative recognition by the family of nations that a revolution had occurred took place during the first two days after the revolution. Letters of recognition were sent to President Sanford B. Dole on January 18 and January 19, 1893 by the Honolulu consuls representing Chile, Austro-Hungarian Empire, Mexico, Russia, Netherlands, Germany, Sweden, Spain, Japan, Italy, Portugal, Britain, United States, Denmark, Belgium, China, Peru, France. (that's the order in which their contents were copied into the Morgan Report in the Congressional Record).
A local consul normally has very little authority to speak on behalf of his government, but is the highest-ranking diplomat in town authorized to handle routine matters for the nation he represents. Some of the local consuls were businessmen who represented several different nations on a part-time basis, whenever their services were needed to help Hawaii residents or foreign travelers get visas, export-import licenses, or legal representation in case of arrest. It must be remembered that there was no internet, no telegraph or telephone communication between Hawaii and the rest of the world, and no airplanes; thus it would take a long time before news of the revolution could travel abroad and before letters seeking and granting full diplomatic recognition could be sent by ship around the world. During the first two days after the revolution of January 17, 1893, the local consuls in Honolulu of every foreign nation having diplomatic relations with the Kingdom of Hawaii sent letters of de facto recognition to President Dole, acknowledging that the Provisional Government now held power and that the foreign nation would do business with the new Provisional Government and no longer with the ex-queen until such time as further instructions regarding full-fledged (de jure) recognition could be gotten from the foreign capitols. The text of those initial letters of de facto recognition were published in the Honolulu newspapers during the first few days after the revolution, and were also published in the Morgan Report (an official document of the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs) in February 1894 on pp. 1103-1111. Full text of those letters can be seen at:
https://morganreport.org/mediawiki/index.php? title=DIPLOMATIC_RECOGNITION_OF_THE_PROVISIONAL_GOVERNMENT
On pp. 1103-1111 Senator Frye introduced into the Morgan Report record the full text of the letters of recognition sent to the Provisional Government and published in the newspapers as collected by Mr. Hoes: letters of recognition from the Honolulu consulates representing Chile, Austro-Hungarian Empire, Mexico, Russia, Netherlands, Germany, Sweden, Spain, Japan, Italy, Portugal, Britain, United States, Denmark, Belgium, China, Peru, France. (most were dated January 18, 1894). Mr. Hoes testifies that he believes British consul Wodehouse was probably the first to give oral informal recognition to the Provisional Government, although the official letter was delayed until January 19 -- Hoes was present when Wodehouse whispered into President Dole's ear on January 17 at about 4 PM, and an hour later Hoes had a conversation with Wodehouse during which Wodehouse said he had recognized the Dole government.
Here is the letter sent to President Dole from U.S. Minister Stevens. Unlike most consuls, Stevens holds the title of Minister Plenipotentiary meaning he has the same complete authority as the U.S. President and could have issued full-fledged final recognition, but modestly chose to make it only the same de facto recognition as other consuls were giving, because that is the normal way diplomats deal with revolutions.
"Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands, January 17, 1893.
A provisional government having been duly constituted in place of the recent Government of Queen Lilioukalani, and said Provisional Government being in full possession of the Government buildings, the archives, and the treasury, and in control of the capital of the Hawaiian Islands, I hereby recognize said Provisional Government as the de facto Government of the Hawaiian Islands.
JOHN L. STEVENS,
Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of the United States.
Comment on Whereas #10
Grover Cleveland won election for his second term as President in November 1892, but did not become President until early March 1893 (that long delay was normal practice under the law back then). He won on a platform of isolationism -- keeping America out of foreign entanglements -- in opposition to the expansionist movement to get overseas territories and make America an important participant in world affairs. Within his first few days in office he appointed a "hatchet man" James Blount to go to Honolulu under orders to "investigate" and write a report about what the U.S. did during the revolution, but also with secret orders to destabilize the Provisional Government and restore Lili'uokalani to the throne. Blount's appointment was never submitted to the Senate for confirmation. Cleveland gave Blount the title "Minister Plenipotentiary With Paramount Powers", adding the "Paramount Powers" to give Blount supremacy over the still-serving Minister Stevens who was merely "Minister Plenipotentiary." Blount arrived in Honolulu on April 1 and immediately ordered the already- reduced number of U.S. sailors to get off the island, thereby raising safety concerns among foreigners and other non-native local citizens. The U.S. flag had been flying side-by-side with the Hawaiian flag as a visible symbol of calm stability; Blount removed it causing further distress. He then took residence in a hotel next to the Palace where the people he interviewed for his "investigation" were nearly all royalists; and later he visited the ex-queen in private to offer ideas about how to put her back on the throne.
In mid-December Cleveland sent Blount's report to Congress, hoping to get approval for a military invasion of Honolulu to restore his friend Lili'uokalani. But shortly before that he had ordered a show of gunboat diplomacy in Hawaii, now known as "Black Week", to unfold also in mid-to-late December so that Congress would hear about it while reading his Blount Report. Two U.S. warships spent a week conducting "training exercises" very near shore, staging mock invasions, firing their guns and shooting rockets to intimidate the Provisional Government into restoring Lili'uokalani -- similar to how China is now sending warships and planes to intimidate Taiwan (and also "weather balloons" over the U.S. causing Secretary of State Blinken to cancel his planned trip to China). President Dole was strong and held firm (dare we say 'Onipa'a ?). the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs held hearings for a month taking testimony in open session under oath and cross- examination; and issued the 808-page Morgan Report which repudiated the Blount Report and even included testimony proving that Blount had lied. Soon thereafter the Senate, controlled by Cleveland's own Democrat Party, passed a resolution ordering Cleveland to keep his hands off Hawaii and stop interfering in Hawaii's internal affairs.
During his first few days as President, Cleveland had withdrawn from the Senate a Treaty of Annexation submitted by the Republic of Hawaii. Throughout his term he refused to allow annexation. But what today's sovereignty activists fail to disclose is that Cleveland personally signed and sent to President Dole one of the first of the string of letters in Summer and Fall of 1894 formally recognizing the Republic, de jure, as the rightful government of Hawaii. The friendly tone of Cleveland's letter to Dole shows that Cleveland backed down under pressure from the Senate following the Morgan Report and the resolution ordering him to stop interfering in Hawaii. The next President, William McKinley, worked hard and successfully to push Hawaii's Treaty of Annexation through Congress. Here is text of President Cleveland's letter to President Dole giving full-fledged permanent recognition to the Republic of Hawaii:
"Grover Cleveland
President of the United States of America
To his Excellency
Sanford B. Dole,
President of the Republic of Hawaii.
Great and Good Friend:–
I have received your letter of the 7th ultimo, by which you announce the establishment and proclamation of the Republic of Hawaii on the Fourth day of July, 1894, and your assumption of the office of President with all the formalities prescribed by the Constitution thereof.
I cordially reciprocate the sentiments you express for the continuance of the friendly relations which have existed between the United States and the Hawaiian Islands, and assure you of my best wishes for your personal prosperity.
Written at Washington the 7th day of August, 1894.
Your Good Friend:
GROVER CLEVELAND.
By the President:
W.Q. Gresham,
Secretary of State."
Comment on Whereas #11
The wording of this item makes it seem like the U.S. simply reached out and grabbed Hawaii without Hawaii's consent. That is not true. The internationally recognized legitimate government of the Republic of Hawaii submitted a Treaty of Annexation in 1897, which the United States accepted in 1898 after prolonged discussion in the media and prolonged debate in Congress. See
"Treaty of Annexation between the Republic of Hawaii and the United States of America (1898). Full text of the treaty, and of the resolutions whereby the Republic of Hawaii legislature and the U.S. Congress ratified it. The politics surrounding the treaty, then and now." at
https://www.angelfire.com/big09a/TreatyOfAnnexationHawaiiUS.html
Comment on Whereas #12 regarding the apology resolution of 1993
The U.S. apology resolution (USAR) is filled with twisted half-truths and outright falsehoods. It never went through a committee hearing in either House or Senate where opponents could have refuted it. USAR was passed by the House in a few minutes on a voice vote allowing no debate or amendment. USAR was passed by the Senate after only one hour of floor debate where opponents focused on the bad consequences of passing the resolution but chose not to show disrespect to Senators Inouye and Akaka by questioning their historical falsehoods.
There have been two excellent refutations of numerous assertions contained in USAR.
(a) "Hawaii Divided Against Itself Cannot Stand (Essay by Constitutional lawyer Bruce Fein, as printed In the Congressional Record of June 14, 15, and 16 of 2005 by unanimous consent, by request of Senator Kyl)
https://www.angelfire.com/hi5/bigfiles3/ AkakaFeinCongRec061405.html
The section printed in the Congressioal Record on June 14, 2005 is entirely devoted to a point by point refutation of the apology resolution.
http://www.gpo.gov:80/fdsys/pkg/CREC-2005-06-14/pdf/ CREC-2005-06- 14-pt1-PgS6471.pdf#page=1
(b) Thurston Twigg-Smith, "Hawaiian Sovereignty: Do the Facts Matter?" (Honolulu, HI: Goodale Publishing, 1998) Chapter 10 "The Congressional Apology: A Travesty"
http://bigfiles90.angelfire.com/HawnSovDoFactsMatterTTS.pdf
As discussed above regarding purpose #3 for this resolution 22-262, USAR accomplished its two main goals of providing a rationale to demand Hawaii's secession from the United States and to demand reparations in the form of racial entitlement programs. Those goals were not stated in the title or text of USAR, but were identified by Senator Slade Gorton during the floor debate and denied by a smooth- talking Senator Inouye who said no, never, of course not. Those are the same goals of this city council resolution 22-262, pushed by the same person who authored much of USAR. She's probably thinking: let's get the City and County of Honolulu to start enacting its own massive racial entitlement programs just like the federal and state governments have been doing; and let's give the independence activists a new shiny object to attract attention to their demands.
Full text of the 60 minute Senate floor debate on USAR can be found at
http://www.hawaii-nation.org/congrec-senate.html
During the debate Senator Gorton (R, WA) discussed the ethnic cleansing then underway in Bosnia and how the Serbs were fueled by a grievance over events from 900 years ago. Senator Gorton said "I know that the two Senators from Hawaii do not agree with the radicals who wish independence as a result, but the logical consequences of this resolution would be independence." Senator Inouye replied "To suggest that this resolution is the first step toward declaring independence for the State of Hawaii is a painful distortion of the intent of the authors. ... this is a very simple resolution. It was authored by my friend from Hawaii because he loves America. ..." Later Senator Inouye added "the suggestion that this resolution was the first step toward declaring independence or seceding from the United States is at best a very painful distortion of our intent. ... No, no, this is not seceding or independence. We fought for statehood long enough and we cherish it and we want to stay there. I can assure you, I do not wish to leave this place. ... As I tried to convince my colleagues, this is a simple resolution of apology, to recognize the facts as they were 100 years ago. ... It is a simple apology."
But numerous Hawaiian sovereignty groups have indeed been using the USAR for 20 years as a justification for demanding secession. They describe the USAR as an admission against interest -- a confession of a crime under international law for which the proper restitution would be U.S. withdrawal from Hawaii with payment of billions of dollars in restitution. To find such assertions, put into the Google search engine the words Hawaiian apology along with the name of any one of the following sovereignty activists or groups: Kekuni Blaisdell, Ka Pakaukau, Poka Laenui [an alias of Hayden Burgess], [David] Keanu Sai, Aloha Quest, Scott Crawford, Charles Kauluwehi Maxwell, Bumpy Kanahele, Nation of Hawaii, Henry Noa, Reinstated Hawaiian government.
The apology resolution of 1993 continued to be a major source of fuel for the fires of secession even 12 years later in 2005, as shown by the following photos. August 6, 2005, a rally by about 15,000 ethnic Hawaiians protested a decision by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that Kamehameha Schools' racially exclusionary admissions policy is illegal. Here are Hawaiian independence activists' signs at the Palace rally proclaiming that USAR places the U.S. on record as acknowledging that ethnic Hawaiians never gave up their inherent sovereignty or their national lands.
https://www.angelfire.com/hi5/bigfiles3/KamCiteApolKanakNeverGaveUp.jpg
and
https://www.angelfire.com/hi5/bigfiles3/ KamCiteApologyInhrntSovrnty.jpg
See also "The Akaka Bill And Secession" at
https://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/AkakaSecession.html
During the floor debate on the USAR, Senator Inouye assured his colleagues that the apology resolution would not be used to support demands for reparations or for special race-based benefit programs.
Senator Gorton asked exactly the right question about how USAR would certainly be used as a basis for demanding reparations and entitlement programs which we all know are now running in the Billions of dollars: "What are the appropriate consequences of passing this resolution? Are they any form of special status under which persons of Native Hawaiian descent will be given rights or privileges or reparations or land or money communally that are unavailable to other citizens of Hawaii?"
Senator Inouye replied, "As I tried to convince my colleagues, this is a simple resolution of apology, to recognize the facts as they were 100 years ago. [Just like Honolulu reso 22-262 is a simple resolution to recognize a fact as it was 180 years ago - hardy-har] As to the matter of the status of Native Hawaiians, as my colleague from Washington knows, from the time of statehood we have been in this debate. Are Native Hawaiians Native Americans? This resolution has nothing to do with that." [But then USAR was cited repeatedly in the Akaka bill as justification for creating a Hawaiian tribe and giving it federal recognition!] Senator Gorton responded, "this Senator wants to sincerely thank the senior Senator from Hawaii for that answer and accepts it as such. This Senator believes the Senator from Hawaii has said this resolution is unrelated to -- it neither advances nor detracts from -- any kind of special treatment for Native Hawaiians. ... This Senator feels, unfortunately, that the consequences of the portions of this resolution after the whereas clauses do in fact provide a basis -- perhaps even a legal basis -- for some kind of demand for special treatment or for the return of lands. It is for that reason, for that reason which this Senator believes to be very divisive within our society, that the Senator regretfully opposes the resolution ... " [Yes indeed, USAR has become the source of massive racial divisiveness in Hawaii; as we see right here in this reso 22-262]
Senator Inouye gave assurance to his colleagues that the USAR was merely a simple apology and would not be used to demand special race-based government handouts. But USAR has been cited in the "findings" preambles of major bills introduced by Senators Inouye and Akaka to provide federal recognition to Native Hawaiians as an Indian tribe, and to provide special race-based programs in housing, healthcare, education, etc. On August 16, 2005 former Senators Slade Gorton (R, WA) and Hank Brown (R, CO) jointly authored a commentary in the Wall Street Journal expressing opposition to the Akaka bill and complaining bitterly that Senator Inouye had lied to them during the Senate debate on USAR in 1993. They wrote: "The Akaka Bill's justification rests substantially on a 1993 Apology Resolution passed by Congress and signed by President Clinton when we were members of the Senate representing the states of Washington and Colorado. (We voted against it.) The Resolution is cited by the Akaka Bill in three places to establish the proposition that the U.S. perpetrated legal or moral wrongs against Native Hawaiians that justify the race-based government the legislation would erect. These citations are a betrayal of the word given to us -- and to the Senate -- in the debate over the Apology Resolution. We specifically inquired of its proponents whether the Apology would be employed to seek "special status under which persons of Native Hawaiian descent will be given rights or privileges or reparations or land or money communally that are unavailable to other citizens of Hawaii." We were promised on the floor of the Senate by Daniel Inouye, the senior senator from Hawaii and a personage of impeccable integrity, that, "As to the matter of the status of Native Hawaiians . . . [t]his resolution has nothing to do with that. . . . I can assure my colleague of that." The Akaka Bill repudiates that promise of Sen. Inouye. It invokes the Apology Resolution to justify granting persons of Native Hawaiian descent -- even in minuscule proportion -- political and economic rights and land denied to other citizens of Hawaii. We were unambiguously told that would not be done." The article is available at
http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB112415838738514082,00.htmlmod=opinion%5Fmain%5Fcommentaries
Comments on Whereas #14 and Whereas #15
#14 says La Ku'oko'a "honors the HAWAIIAN identity and celebrates the PATRIOTISM the HAWAIIAN people feel for Hawai'i". And #15 says "it is more important than ever to remember and to celebrate the deep ALOHA 'AINA (PATRIOTISM) that the kama'aina feel for Hawai'i"
See my lengthy discussion about those capitalized words in my comments regarding Purpose #2: how the word "Hawaiian" has a tenaciously defended racial meaning in Hawaii (you must have a drop of the magic blood to be called "Hawaiian"; it's not enough to merely live here for many years or even to be born and raised here; and anyone with the magic blood gets to be called "Hawaiian" even if they were born and raised somewhere else and have never stepped foot here). Also in my discussion about Purpose #2, see my explanation about the weirdness of being patriotic to a state (like New York), how their patriotism is toward a deep culture, and a nation now dead; how "Aloha 'Aina" was the name of the racial group circulating the anti-annexation petition in 1887, the name of a newspaper, and the greeting used by today's secessionists with an upbeat enthusiasm comparable to "Heil Hitler." It was also the name of a race-nationalist political party which ran candidates on the ballot in recent Hawaii elections.
==================
Send comments or questions to:
Ken_Conklin@yahoo.com
You may now
GO BACK TO OTHER TOPICS ON THIS WEBSITE
(c) Copyright February 12, 2023 Kenneth R. Conklin, Ph.D.
