The Mystery of Hawaiian History

By Ken Conklin

On Friday June 8, 2007 a group of ethnic Hawaiian organizations and individuals staged a protest against the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii in front of the building where its office is located. The event had the outward appearance of a 1960s-era street demonstration by “little people” using guerilla street-theatre tactics (prayer and folk songs) to protest at the headquarters of a powerful corporation or government agency.

But in fact it was a form of intimidation by a group of extremely wealthy and powerful race-based institutions complaining that a small local think-tank dares to challenge their “right” to exercise racial exclusion and their demand to expand their already-existing racial supremacy by establishing a race-based government.

Read the rest of this entry »

On June 8th, 2007, a motley group of native Hawaiian supremacists, radical sovereignty activists, Kamehameha Schools representatives and unfortunately indoctrinated students made a protest at the Interstate Building at 1314 South King Street. They were protesting the civil rights activism and educational activities of the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, making the bold and unfounded claim that, “The Grassroot Institute, both corporately and via its members and affiliates, is part of a reactionary movement to expropriate the collective inheritance of the indigneous peoples of Hawaii.”

They further went on to claim that the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii engaged in “the deplorable tradition of the jingoists”, while themselves stating with no hint of recognizing their own hyperbole that the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii “aims to dismantle women’s rights, minority rights, LGBT rights, ecological sustainability, international cooperation, and supports for working families.” It is surprising that they did not also blame the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii for global warming, hurricane Katrina, the war in Iraq, AIDS, cancer and the sexual abuse of parishioners by Catholic priests.

Read the rest of this entry »

Abusing Hawaiian History: Hawaiians Knew Their History in 1959

by Erica Little and Todd Gaziano

Read at heritage.org

(Also covered in The Hawaii Reporter, 2/27/2007)

In the Valentine’s day edition of The Honolulu Advertiser this year, OHA took it upon itself to inform us with a slick advertisement on page A4 that we must define ourselves by race. Not content to use traditional ethnic terms like “oiwi” or “kanaka maoli”, they’ve decided that the only proper use of the word “Hawaiian” is to refer to a pre-1778 immigrants to the Hawaiian island chain.

Such a bald statement of abject racism cannot go unchallenged - Hawaii is a place, not a race, and all the immigrants to Hawaii, whether before 1778, during the Kingdom period, or as a part of the United States of America, have just claim to the distinction of being Hawaiian.

Their question was stated as “Who is Hawaiian?” Here are their answers, with corrections:

Read the rest of this entry »

In recognition of the historic occasion of January 17th, 1893 and the Hawaiian Revolution which ended the monarchy of the Hawaiian Kingdom, I’d like to offer thanks to the heroes of that day. Although tensions during that time were high enough to entice the landing of peacekeepers from the U.S.S. Boston, no violence occurred the entire time, save the shooting of one police officer trying to stop a wagon of weapons for the Honolulu Rifles.

Read the rest of this entry »

In a January 12th response to a January 9th article I wrote for the Honolulu Advertiser, the leaders of OHA claimed, “Native Hawaiians are the indigenous people of Hawai’i, and have the right to thrive in their ancient homeland.” I find this sentiment frightening in its consequences, contrary to the ideas of freedom, and based on false premises.

What we today call “Native Hawaiians” did not spring from the mountains of Oahu, or the beaches of Maui. As exemplified by the quintessential example of Native Hawaiian culture, the Hokule’a (now voyaging to Micronesia), Hawaiians were voyagers, explorers, and colonists from other islands in the Pacific and beyond. Their “ancient homeland” can be arbitrarily placed anywhere between Hawaii and the path they took from Africa, depending on which date one chooses. As with every people who have ever travelled to Hawaii, “Native Hawaiians” came from somewhere else - we are all immigrants here, separated only by the amount of time since our ancestor’s original arrival. To assert some special, distinct status, based on a single drop of blood before an arbitrary point in time, over all of ones’ peers who have lived together side by side for over 200 years is simply abject racism.

Read the rest of this entry »

Since the renaming of this blog we have decided to take a different tack.

The purpose of this blog is to answer questions like these:
What rights do Native Hawaiians not now have?
If any, are they Rights or Entitlements?
Why do the deserve such?
In step with E Pluribus Unum?

There is mystery in history.
Which history is authentic?
Blount Report?
Morgan Report?
Native Hawaiian Study Commission?
The Apology Resolution? (This is a political act, not a historical evaluation.)
How would we know?

If the U.S. was cuplable for the 1893 overthrow which eliminated the monarcy why is there no demand for restitution from the U.S. Government? (??? This opens the door to — just give us sovereignty and go away?)

Why should current citizens and residents of Hawaii make restitution for something the U.S. Government supposedly did?

Why is there never any closure proposed to the Native Hawaiian demands? Are they demanding political appeasement? Has appeasement ever worked?

Are Native Hawaiian demands based on race or ancestry? (What’s the difference???) If so is there a U.S. Constitutional issue??

If you are 75 percent Irish ancestry and 25 percent Puerto Rican are you Irish or Puerto Rican? If you are 75 percent Irish ancestry and 25 percent Native Hawaiian ancestry what do you say your ancestry is?

Is it important and why is it important?

What if you say you are American regardless of your ancestry? What does that mean?

If you were told that your great-grandfather had been mistreated by the city of Potect, Texas would you devote the rest of your life to demanding that Potect pay you, apologize, and give you special priviliges? Or would you get on with your life and try to produce and prosper?

Is there a message here?

We encourage you to answer these questions and suggest additional ones, and let everyone respond. It is our belief that we will all gain.

If you try to drive your car with your eyes glued to the rear-view mirror and seldom look ahead, what happens?

(ror)