What Political Organization?
The Akaka bill in Section 2. Findings (15) says:
. . . despite the overthrow of the government of the Kingdom of Hawaii, Native Hawaiians have continued to maintain their separate identity as a distinct native community through cultural, social, and political institutions, and to give expression to their rights as native people to self-determination, self governance, and economic self-sufficiency;
And the question is, what political insititutions? None exist. OHA was created by modifying the Hawaii State Constitution. What are we talking about here?
Anonymous said,
November 26, 2005 @ 10:38 am
Could it be that after their land and Government were deposed they were allowed to run for political offices in the american system. mayor, Governor, even congressional rep.
don said,
November 27, 2005 @ 8:33 pm
a “distinct native community through cultural, social, and ‘political institutions’” are not political offices in the American system, mayor, Governor, etc.
In order to be considered analogous to the Tribal systems of the Native Americans (which is what the Akaka bill seeks to do) then a continuous “political institution” of Native Hawaiian self governance must have existed. The Akaka bill says there was. There was not.
Anonymous said,
November 28, 2005 @ 4:05 pm
I have a simple question.
I know people who descend from men of the 442nd infantry who in WW II fought, sacrificed, suffered, were maimed and died fighting to defend Hawaii and their neighbors.
I also know people who claim to descend from a king who warred upon his neighbors, killed some of them, amused himself, and his warriors, torturing others, and took the rest as then as his subjects and their land as his own.
So what exactly is the principle that supports a claim by descendents of someone who murdered his neighbors that their right to live on these islands is superior to those who descend from men who fought to protect these islands and their neighbors?
God’s gift of this earth to humans has 5 billion years left before the Sun burns out, so Hawaii, like the rest of the earth, must be shared by the millions of generations yet to come. Not reserved by a blood soaked claim for a single bloodline who seek not equality with, but advatage over, their neighbors.
Anonymous said,
November 28, 2005 @ 4:58 pm
“Aboriginal Hawaiians do not have political status as a group in the international realm based on being indigenous. Hawaiian nationals do have political status as a group internationally based on the fact that their country was recognized.
Aboriginal Hawaiians do not have the right to political independence as an Indigenous people. They do have the right to political independence as a part of the larger group that is Hawaiian nationals.
Aboriginal Hawaiians have substantially greater rights as Hawaiian nationals than they do as indigenous Hawaiians, and it is a much more solid foundation to stand on, and in fact it is what distinguishes them from most other indigenous peoples. It is the recognition gained by Kamehameha III that is the legacy you can stand on, and it has nothing to do with being indigenous.”
–S.C.
La Ku’oko’a Hawai’i / Hawaiian Independence Day! (11/28)
TR said,
November 30, 2005 @ 6:40 am
Words of wisdom from the past……”There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism…..The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, of preventing the possibility of its continuing to be a nation at all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities.”
-Theodore Roosevelt
M. Kesa said,
November 30, 2005 @ 12:12 pm
Dear mislead TR,
“hyphenated Americanism…..squabbling nationalities.”
My ancestors never wanted to become part of the U.S in the first place! In fact, in 1897 they held a petition drive to let the U.S. know that they did not want to be annexed to the U.S. 38,000 Hawaiians and some non-Hawaiian kingdom subjects signed the petitions at a time when there were less than 40,000 Hawaiians left since disease was brought by Captain Cook and others in 1778 when there lived an estimated one million Hawaiians at the time.
Were the petitions honored? No! What happened to these petitions? They were hidden away in Washington D.C.! But I thought that a petition is like “the voice of God?” My kupuna (ancestors) thought the same thing too! How do you know about these petitions? They were found by a Hawaiian scholar back in 1997. You’re kidding me! No, see them for yourself here:
http://libweb.hawaii.edu/digicoll/annexation/petition.html
“The most potent weapon in the hands of the oppressor (colonizer) is the mind of the oppressed (colonized).”
–Stephen Bantu Biko (1946-1977) A noted nonviolent anti-apartheid activist in South Africa in the 1960s.
Say NO to the Akaka Bill, and say YES for Independence for Hawaiians.
M. Kesa for R.N. said,
November 30, 2005 @ 12:16 pm
AKAKA BILL
HAWAIIANS WILL TAKE TIME ON SOVEREIGNTY
“Hawaiians on both sides of the Akaka bill discussion ultimately want the same thing — they want their kingdom back. From what I have observed of politically active descendants of Hawaiian citizens, they look forward to the day when they can elect a king or queen again.
Some see the Akaka bill as a step in that direction; others fear that it will impede progress toward their goal, but, make no mistake, that goal is independence. This is a political issue, not a racial issue.
“The cause of Hawai’i and independence is larger and dearer than the life of any man connected with it. Love of country is deep-seated in the breast of every Hawaiian, whatever his station.” — Lili’uokalani, Hawai’i’s last queen.
“This is a historical issue, based on a relationship between an independent government and the United States of America, and what has happened since and the steps that we need to take to make things right.” — Republican Gov. Linda Lingle, January 2003.
“The recovery of Hawaiian self-determination is not only an issue for Hawai’i, but for America. … Let all of us, Hawaiian and non-Hawaiian, work toward a common goal. Let us resolve … to advance a plan for Hawaiian sovereignty.” — Democratic Lt. Gov. Ben Cayetano, 1988.
The United Church of Christ has apologized, the United States of America has apologized. The international community, including nations with whom the kingdom of Hawai’i has treaties have acknowledged that Hawai’i’s right to self-determination has never been extinguished.
Descendants of Hawaiian citizens are still considering their options. They have a right to do that and to do so in their own time.”
Rolf Nordahl
Waikiki
M. Kesa said,
November 30, 2005 @ 12:19 pm
HAWAIIANS WILL TAKE TIME ON SOVEREIGNTY
http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2005/Nov/29/op/FP511290311.html/?print=on
M. Kesa said,
November 30, 2005 @ 6:14 pm
If anyone has the audacity to refute these quotes, then I might as well give up all hope, stop fighting for independence, shut up and be a good American.
—
“On the advice of the cabinet, I gave way and surrendered under the terms of the Queen’s protest. About 7:15 p.m., I disarmed all the volunteers at the station house. ‘Gentlemen, it is not because I thought that you would not stand and fight, but it was in the cause of humanity that I gave way especially when it was pointed out to me that we would have to fight a great nation like the United States with her millions of men, and to do this would only cause the sacrifice of hundreds of valuable human lives which this country cannot afford to lose. It is better, therefore, to give way and await patiently the time until our Queen’s protest shall have been heard by that great and good nation, the American Republic, from which I have no doubt we will receive justice.’”
–Charles Wilson
Hawaiian Kingdom Marshal
Shortly after the overthrow, 1893
“The provisional government owes its existence to an armed invasion by the United States. By an act of war the government of a friendly and confiding people has been overthrown. A substantial wrong has thus be done, which we should endeavor to repair.”
–President Grover Cleveland
Message to Congress
Executive mansion
December 18, 1893
Anonymous said,
November 30, 2005 @ 7:13 pm
“If anyone has the audacity to refute these quotes, then I might as well give up all hope, stop fighting for independence, shut up and be a good American.”
First off you prejudice any response by the emotive word “audacity.”
Second, it doesn’t matter what happened 120 years ago. As the old saying goes: All history is a history of crime. Like the Hawaiians stealing James Cook’s boat and then murdering him when he tried to get it back.
According to your logic the Canadians should all go back to France and England, Americans abandon the U.S. to Native Americans, the English give the Falkans to Argentinia, the Netherlands give Aruba back to the natives there, Japan give back Okinawa, on and on. It never ends.
Oh, and above all, give Israel back the Palestinians, who were never a historical people at all. They were Jordanians.
All the original players of the overthrow are dead. It is too late to fix things. The percentage of Native Hawaiians is a fraction of the state, why should they be given special privilege over everone else who was, by luck of the draw, born here? But by bad luck of the draw don’t have the “right blood.”
The number of full and half blood Hawaiians is miniscule. It is already too late to re-establish the Hawaiian nation with any sense of justice.
The real issue today is who qualifies as “Hawaiian.” Someone with 1/128 Hawaiian blood? And if the rest of this person’s heritage is “racist haole” blood from those that particpated in the overthrow? That tiny fraction overrules all that evil haole blood? This is how we judge people?
As the Supreme Court said:
“One of the principal reasons race is treated as a forbidden classification is that it demeans the dignity and worth of a person to be judged by ancestry instead of by his or her own merit and essential qualities. An inquiry into ancestral lines is not consistent with respect based on the unique personality each of us possesses, a respect the Constitution itself secures in its concern for persons and citizens.”
It is time to get over it. As you said:
“I might as well give up all hope, stop fighting for independence, shut up and be a good American.”
It would be a start.
Anonymous said,
December 1, 2005 @ 8:35 am
not a bad suggestion. the us, as canada, is founded on the genocide of native peoples, and in the us case, on slavery. anonymous has no sense of history, or understanding of na mea hawai’i. this is not amerikkka . . .
Malcolm said,
December 1, 2005 @ 11:46 am
HISTORICAL FACT
DENYING U.S. ROLE IN OVERTHROW DELUSIONAL
I would like to thank Mr. Thomas E. Stuart for his letter of Nov. 22, “U.S. a scapegoat in overthrow.” His narrow-minded, delusional remarks only strengthen our resolve to persevere toward sovereignty.
Disgusting and deplorable comments about our queen and kupuna will never alter the historical facts that the U.S. military and its colonizing cohorts instituted events that affected the future of our nation. Continuing to deny or refusing to accept these facts will make him and others with such mindsets prime thumb-sucking complaining crybaby candidates running for cover and consoling under the skirts of his U.S. Constitution.
Historical fact refuters only fool themselves. Go on, keep living in a fantasy dream world, for someday the sovereignty movement will emerge as a strong new nation making things pono! By then it’ll be too late for Johnny-come-lately wannabes like Stuart to admit that Hawaiians were wronged. Feeling sorry for himself, or worse, unwilling to grasp the politics of it all, will overwhelmingly cause lousy judgment and a lack of preparedness on his part to cope with it all.
We are here! We are the facts! We are the evidence! We will prevail!
Gary K. Nihipali
Hau’ula
http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2005/Dec/01/op/FP512010328.html/?print=on
Malcolm K. said,
December 1, 2005 @ 12:18 pm
anonymous,
To suggest that we should forget the past and move on tells me that you are either in denial of history or very ignorant. The wounds from a 120 years ago can still be felt by anyone who is part Hawaiian regardless of blood quantum, which was a U.S. federal concoction to divide and conquer the Hawaiian people.
In fact, Prince Jonah Kuhio Kalaniana’ole’s original legisaltion for the Hawaiian Homes commission act was that anyone who had at least 1/32 blood quantum would qualify for homestead land, a.k.a. reservation land–to put Hawaiians back on the land instead of in the slums of Honolulu.
Unlike our indigenous cousins of North America, we had kingdom. Were were not and are not a tribe. It’s like saying that the U.S. can go into a modern-day foreign country, take over that country by means of force, annex that country against its will and then a 120 laters year, tell the native people of that country to “get over it” and that “all history is a history of crime”. The U.S. must be held accountable. It wasn’t that long ago…
Case-in-point: while those who participated in the overthrow are dead, for some of them, their descedants are alive and well and are doing very well, so much so, that they are out of touch with the reality that everday Hawaiians face. One in particular, who is probably a bedfellow with those who author this blog, continues the work of his ancestor to once and for all finish what his ancestor began…
Cut and paste this link to receive a lesson in historical trauma:
http://nativecalling.org/archives/2004/may/05252004.ram
My kupuna (ancestors) believed that the U.S. was a great, good and just nation, just as you probabaly do. Well, they have an opportunity to show Hawaiians and the world that they are. You may have forgotten or deny your past, but we haven’t forgotten ours, and as long as it takes, I/we will keep fighting. We will never give up!
Aloha no.
P.S. Stop worrying about who qualifies? if you are not Hawaiian, I would venture to say that you would have choice to become a citizen of the Kingdom of Hawai’i or not. That choice would be up to you. Keep this in mind, we want our Kingdom back! Nothing more, nothing less, like what the Akaka Bill proposes. Are you with me?
Anonymous said,
December 2, 2005 @ 1:43 pm
It is always fascinating that when people lose an argument on content they always resort to personal attacks.
“anonymous has no sense of history”
“To suggest that we should forget the past and move on tells me that you are either in denial of history or very ignorant.”
This is always the case when anyone doesn’t agree with you guys, as the disgusting letter to the editor you posted so loudly demonstrates. Just a litany of personal attacks and name calling.
“The wounds from a 120 years ago can still be felt by anyone who is part Hawaiian regardless of blood quantum, which was a U.S. federal concoction to divide and conquer the Hawaiian people.”
A person who thinks they can feel the wounds from 120 years ago should probably seek therapy. They feel precisely as much pain over those events as they choose to. This is why 80 percent of Native Americans don’t live on reservations but in the general U.S. They have given up being victims and have gone on to embrace the opportunity this nation has to offer. When they give up being victims the historical trauma and learned helplessness disappears. The two go hand in hand.
“In fact, Prince Jonah Kuhio Kalaniana’ole’s original legisaltion for the Hawaiian Homes commission act was that anyone who had at least 1/32 blood quantum would qualify for homestead land, a.k.a. reservation land–to put Hawaiians back on the land instead of in the slums of Honolulu.”
This is true but the fact is in wasn’t haoles who objected to the 1/32 blood quantum but pure blood Hawaiians and half castes who considered 1/32 blood quantum Hawaiians as haoles and foreigners and demanded the half caste minimum. They wanted the land reserved for Hawaiians not for people they considered haoles and were Hawaiian in name only. I know this doesn’t fit the revisionist view you have been taught but it is the truth.
“The U.S. must be held accountable. It wasn’t that long ago…”
But who are you to determine what that accountability is? Not all Hawaiians want the Kingdom restored so why should a handful force it down the throats of all the rest?
And while we are talking about “Kingdoms” that too is a haole concept. When Kamehameha unified the islands he didn’t consider himself a “King” but merely the chief of the chiefs. Monarchy came later in imitation of European systems. On the one hand there is a rejection of all things haole and on the other an embracing of them. I have seen sovereignty sites that advocate a full return to the primitive agricultural communism as practiced before western contact. You want to live under that?
“You may have forgotten or deny your past, but we haven’t forgotten ours, and as long as it takes, I/we will keep fighting. We will never give up!”
I neither have forgotten nor deny my past but thanks for the implied insult anyway. You may keep fighting but you don’t represent everyone, or even everyone with Hawaiian heritage. Who appointed you to determine the outcome of the future of the islands?
“Stop worrying about who qualifies?”
But this is the whole issue, the whole thing in a nutshell. This is how caste systems are created. Some people have rights and privileges instituted into law that others don’t. What the missionaries did by outlawing Hawaiian language and culture was wrong, but you don’t right that wrong by committing another.
“Keep this in mind, we want our Kingdom back! Nothing more, nothing less, like what the Akaka Bill proposes.”
Maybe you should read the Akaka bill, this is not what it says. And with the latest pending amendments what you want might become impossible.
M. Kesa said,
December 5, 2005 @ 2:40 pm
Yes, the Akaka Bill will not allow us to negotiate for total independence. This is why I do not support it. Our plight must be addressed in the world court, but the U.S. will not agree to participate. I wonder why?
You think that 80% of Native Americans move away from the reservation to embrace what the U.S. has to offer? Could it be that there are no jobs on the rez!? Could it be that they are forced to leave!? It sounds like you listened to the “Historical Trauma show, which I thank you for. Unfortunately, you did not get the point. You’d better attend the next Powwow in your area and do a survey. I’m sure you’ll have a rude awakening… The next you know, you’ll tell that a large percentage of U.S. armed forces are made up of Native Americans because they love the U.S.!?
Excuse me, but The Big Five (A&B, C&C, C.B. T.D. and Amfac) were the ones who did not agree with the 1/32nd blood quantum…they did not want anyone and everyone with Hawaiian blood to own land. That would have been counter-productive to their lust for land and profit. I don’t know where you got your “revisionist” version of history from, but I have a hunch that you got it from Twiggy’s so-called book.
Primitive (yet succesful) agricultural communism = Yes, but for only those who want to. Personally, I want to live in modern times yet be grounded in the wisdom of my kupuna and finally have a seat at the table when it comes to having pairity with the dominant non-native cultures that run my occupied homeland.
Is that too much to ask?
Anonymous said,
December 6, 2005 @ 8:30 pm
Was Kamehameha a Republican or a Democrat? The stealth Akaka Bill is not about social equality and political justice for Hawaiians. It’s all about retaining POLITICAL, ECONOMIC, AND SOCIAL CONTROL BY THE ONE PARTY HAWAII DELEGATES TO CONGRESS AND THEIR HAWAIIAN HUI INVESTORS CONNECTED TO STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS IN COLLUSION WITH THE PUBLIC SUBSIDIZED, NONPROFIT HAWAIIAN ORGANIZATIONS IN SPECIAL ENTITLEMENT HAWAII.
Anonymous said,
December 7, 2005 @ 8:16 am
“The Hawaiian Homes Commission Act began as a Territory of Hawaii Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 2 to establish a homesteading program for “ . . . associations, settlements or individuals of Hawaiian blood in whole or in part.” . . . This draft bill was further redrafted and introduced as H.R. 12683 by Delegate J. Kuhio Kalanianaole on February 21, 1920 during the 66th Congress Second Session. Its companion bill in the Senate was 3972. No minimal blood content was specified in these bills in conformance to Concurrent Resolution No. 2.“
The next resolutions introduced by Delegate J. Kuhio Kalaianaole raised the blood quantum level to 1/32. This still wasn’t good enough for the Hawaiian population who was trying to preserve their bloodline.
The situation was described by then Hawaii Attorney General Harry Irwin:
“In the bill as it passed the House last year that read: ‘Not less than on-thirty-second part.’ That particular provision was the cause of a good deal of opposition on the part of the opponents of the bill, and in order to meet that opposition, and perhaps do away with some of the opposition, the legislature decided to amend that to read ‘not less than one-half part of the blood of the races inhabiting the Hawaiian Islands previous to 1778,’ so as to make the proposition more distinctly a Hawaiian rehabilitation scheme. It was said by opponents of the bill that a person of one-thirty-second Hawaiian blood was to all intents and purposes a white person; that as a matter of fact you could not tell the difference between a person having one-thirty-second part of Hawaiian blood from a white person. So in order to meet that objection this change is suggested and the provisions of the bill are confined to those with not less than one-half Hawaiian blood.”
(The above quotes are from Senate Testimony on the Native Hawaiian Study Commission committee hearings.)
The intention was to preserve the Hawaiian bloodline, not water it down. The blood quantum was gradually increased to satisfy native Hawaiian interests. Not the other way around. The intent was to create Hawaiian communities on Hawaiian Homelands that were predominately majority blood Hawaiians and restore the bloodline and culture, the “rehabilitation scheme” which would get them out of poverty in the cities. That the program has never been properly implemented is another issue.
The attempt to redefine Hawaiian as “one drop” of Hawaiian blood raged from about 1976 forward. There are still many groups that oppose that redefinition and want the one-half definition kept for HHL leases. The main group that has pushed for the redefinition is, can you guess? OHA. It would expand their base and increase their power.
As for the 80% of Native Americans that move off the reservation, I have some experience with that. If one isn’t a member of the families of the ruling tribal councils then one gets bupkis. All that casino money and money from natural resources and the like go to four or five families controlling the tribal councils and everyone else starves. Same thing would happen here. If you aren’t a member of OHA or one of the other ruling councils you still wouldn’t have a seat at the table.
M. Kesa said,
December 8, 2005 @ 1:36 pm
Thank you for your references. Yet, I wonder where the idea of preserving the bloodline came from and the push for setting a blood quantum? I know King Kalakaua’s motto was “to increase the nation”. Yet, did my kupuna not forsee the future when a majority of the Hawaiian population would be of less-than half blood? Just because I am not 50% Hawaiian as my mother is, does that make me less of a Hawaiian?
I think 1976 was the year when native peoples were finally realizing that the concept of blood quantum was flawed and some other countries with native peoples began to abolish the blood quantum regulations. If I’m not mistaken, the Maori in Aotearoa (a.k.a. New Zealand) was one of the native peoples to do so along with a few Native American nations. We are one of the few, if not the only one, that still adheres to this policy.
I, for one, am against gambling no matter how much revenue it could bring in–the whole concept is gaming is destructive.
So how do you propose that we gain a seat at the table?
AND, YES, THE AKAKA BILL IS IN DEED STEALTH LEGISLATION FOR ALL THOSE WHO DESIRE INDEPENDENCE!
Anonymous said,
December 14, 2005 @ 6:30 pm
“Yet, I wonder where the idea of preserving the bloodline came from and the push for setting a blood quantum?”
It goes back to the Great Mahele where “half-castes” were not allowed to participate and acquire land. There were many Hawaiians who opposed selling any land to non-Hawaiians from the beginning (or permitting them to participate in the government, blame the King.)
“Yet, did my kupuna not forsee the future when a majority of the Hawaiian population would be of less-than half blood?”
Yes, in fact the memoires of King K’s wife Keopulani predicted it.
“Just because I am not 50% Hawaiian as my mother is, does that make me less of a Hawaiian?
”
Does it make you any less American?
“I think 1976 was the year when native peoples were finally realizing that the concept of blood quantum was flawed and some other countries with native peoples began to abolish the blood quantum regulations.”
Ahh, so racial preferences are based upon whatever part of one’s heritage that one chooses to identify with, not fact. Suppose a person is 63/64ths Japanese and 1/64 Hawaiian and was born in Oregon. By the Akaka definition this person is Hawaiian and qualifies for special treatment under the law. Is this right?
“So how do you propose that we gain a seat at the table?”
Well, first I was under the impression you wanted to own the table.
Second, the only way to a seat at the table is education, and if you have to do that yourself, then that is what you have to do.
The rest is just demogoguery and pandering and you will be sorry in the end if you buy into it.
M. Kesa said,
December 16, 2005 @ 12:16 pm
Again, I do not support the Akaka Bill. Rather, I support a total independence status from the U.S. After all, Hawaiians are not Americans by choice. If you can trace your ancestry back to a Hawaiian kingdom subject, which includes Caucasians and Asians–not only ethnic Hawaiians, whether they be full bloods (Kanaka) or half-castes (hapa), or less than) we should all have a seat at the table. Now wouldn’t that be right (pono) and fair? BTW, I do have a university education, yet I still do NOT own a home in my own homeland, etc. I am a Hawaiian National of ‘Oiwi, Scotch, Irish, Chinese and Korean descent. Yes, Anonymous, I want a seat at my table. What are you willing to sacrifice for that?
Anonymous said,
December 22, 2005 @ 12:26 pm
My ancestors never wanted to become part of the U.S in the first place! In fact, in 1897 they held a petition drive to let the U.S. know that they did not want to be annexed to the U.S. 38,000 Hawaiians and some non-Hawaiian kingdom subjects signed the petitions at a time when there were less than 40,000 Hawaiians left since disease was brought by Captain Cook and others in 1778 when there lived an estimated one million Hawaiians at the time.
This is a lie.
http://libweb.hawaii.edu/digicoll/annexation/petition/pet820.html
The anti-annexation petitions were rife with fraud, and had a total # of signatures of 21,269, of which 23 percent were from minors.
Anonymous said,
December 22, 2005 @ 12:30 pm
Our plight must be addressed in the world court, but the U.S. will not agree to participate. I wonder why?
Because you have no plight. You have the right to participate in the government of your homeland, just like everyone else there does.
The UN spoke volumes when it took hawaii off the non-self-governing territories list after the vote for statehood in 1959…
Anonymous said,
December 22, 2005 @ 12:32 pm
Excerpts from the morgan report, 1894, undisputed by Cleveland, Blount, or any other authority after it’s publication:
When the Kamehameha dynasty ended, the monarchy in Hawaii was doomed to a necessary dissolution. The five kings of that family, assisted by their premiers, who were Kanaka women, and by such missionaries as Judd, Bingham, Chamberlain, Coan, Goodrich, and Damonmaintained the progress of civilization and prosperity, but when Kalakaua was elected king, the most surprising and disgraceful corruptions infected the Government. Without detailing in this report the constant decline from bad to worse, which the evidence discloses, without contradiction or explanation, when Liliuokalani was enthroned the monarchy was a mere shell and was in condition to crumble on the slightest touch of firm opposition. Under her brief rule, it was kept alive by the care and forbearing tolerance of the conservative white people, who owned $50,000,000 of the property in Hawaii, until they saw that the Queen and her party had determined to grasp absolute power and destroy the constitution and the rights of the white people. When they were compelled to act in self-defense the monarchy disappeared. It required nothing but the determined action of what was called the missionary party to prostrate the monarchy, and that action had been taken before the troops from the Boston landed.
There was then no executive head of the Government of Hawaii; it had perished.
In landing the troops from the Boston there was no demonstration of actual hostilities, and their conduct was as quiet and as respectful as it had been on many previous occasions when they were landed for the purpose of drill and practice. In passing the palace on their way to the point at which they were halted, the Queen appeared upon the balcony and the troops respectfully saluted her by presenting arms and dipping the flag, and made no demonstration of any hostile intent. Her attitude at that time was that of helplessness, because she found no active or courageous support in her isolated position, which was self-imposed and was regretted by few of her former subjects. In this condition of Hawaii the laws for the protection of life and property were, in fact, suspended so far as the executive power was concerned, and the citizens of the United States in Honolulu and all the islands, and their property rights, were virtually outlawed. The citizens of Honolulu were not held amenable to the civil authorities, but were treated by the Queen, as well as by the people, as if the country was in a state of war. A policeman was shot down on the streets by a person who was conducting a wagon loaded with arms to the place of rendezvous where the people had assembled, and no action was taken for the purpose of arresting or putting on trial the man who did the shooting.
In a country where there is no power of the law to protect the citizens of the United States there can be no law of nations nor any rule of comity that can rightfully prevent our flag from giving shelter to them under the protection of our arms, and this without reference to any distress it may give to the Queen who generated the confusion, or any advantage it might give to the people who are disputing her right to resume or to hold her regal powers. In every country where there is no effective chief executive authority, whether it is a newly-discovered island where only savage government prevails, or one where the government is paralyzed by internal feuds, it is the right, claimed and exercised by all civilized nations, to enter such a country with sovereign authority to assert and protect the rights of its citizens and their property, and to remain there without the invitation of anybody until civil government shall have been established that is adequate, in a satisfactory sense, for their protection.
The committee agree that such was the condition of the Hawaiian Government at the time that the troops were landed in Honolulu from the steam warship Boston; that there was then an interregnum in Hawaii as respects the executive office; that there was no executive power to enforce the laws of Hawaii, and that it was the right of the United States to land troops upon those islands at any place where it was necessary in the opinion of our minister to protect our citizens.
Anonymous said,
December 22, 2005 @ 2:35 pm
The “native” hawai’ians, just as all “natives” of any piece of land, feel ill treated because of the natural actions of history, and romantically (and adolescently) struggle to regain what they feel “torn from”.
The question for ALL “natives” is this: Is your “culture” really shared by all those who you claim as your “brothers/sisters”, and what is stopping you from creating a politico/economic bloc from the REAL population that actually does share your “culture”?
In a sane nation, politico/economic blocs are “culture” based, and not genetically based.
I would beg all “natives” to demonstrate, concretely, the beauty and power of their “culture” within the piece of land that they call “theirs” to such an extent, and with such humanity and graciousness that ALL human-beings within that land YURN to belong to your culture.
And if a particular genetic makeup is a requirment for inclusion in your culture, then your quest refutes and defeats itself as the vain wish of a minority population to vent it’s juvenile anger by evil-doing, and not become a cultural force for good.
In other words, give up the racial hatred or your cause will forever be lost, as it is in reality an expression of the desire for the superiority of one race (yours) over others (all others).
Does a “race” have a way to guarantee that they will remain a “race”? YES. They may choose to marry whom they like.
Does a “race” have a way to guarantee that they will be a politico/economic power? YES. They may choose whom they would like to trade with.
Is a “race” guaranteed any power not “guaranteed” by the two above behaviors? NO.
Time, history, and evolution do not agree with racist “time stopping”.
Don’t fall into that trap. Become a people whos culture everyone on the planet would YURN to be included in.
Leave the eugenics to the psychopaths.