See also: International Recognition of the Republic of Hawaii
On September 26, 1894 the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Chile sent a two-page letter on behalf of his government to President Sanford B. Dole, recognizing the Republic of Hawaii. The letter, in Spanish, was received in Honolulu on December 12. There is no English translation.
See also: International Recognition of the Republic of Hawaii
Queen Victoria of Britain personally signed a two-page letter to President Sanford Dole, dated September 19, 1894, recognizing the Republic of Hawaii. She signed the letter “Your good friend” Victoria. The photographs show the original of that letter.
See also: International Recognition of the Republic of Hawaii
The President of the Republic of the United States of Brazil sent a letter on September 29, 1894 to President Dole, written in Portuguese, recognizing the Republic. The Minister of Foreign Affairs of Brazil sent an accompanying cover letter to Hawaii’s Minister of Foreign Affairs Francis M. Hatch. No English translations have survived.
See also: International Recognition of the Republic of Hawaii
King Leopold II of Belgium personally signed a letter to President Dole dated October 20, 1894, recognizing the Republic of Hawaii. His Minister of Foreign Affairs also wrote an accompanying cover letter to his Hawaiian counterpart. Both letters are in French and there is no translation.
See also: International Recognition of the Republic of Hawaii
Francis Joseph the First, Emperor of Austria, King of Bohemia, and Apostolic King of Hungary, personally signed a letter dated January 1, 1895, written in Latin, to President Sanford B. Dole, recognizing the Republic of Hawaii. This is the remnant of the once-powerful Austro-Hungarian Empire, still using Latin for formal diplomatic proclamations.
See also: International Recognition of the Republic of Hawaii
On January 24, 1895 ex-queen Liliuokalani signed a five-page letter of abdication and a one-page oath of loyalty to the Republic of Hawaii. Six witnesses including her personal attorney and her cabinet ministers signed a statement certifying that she had freely and voluntarily signed in their presence. Notary W.L. Stanley also notarized the documents. Knowing that at least 19 nations had already recognized the Republic of Hawaii, and that the attempted counter-revolution by Robert Wilcox had been crushed earlier in the month, Liliuokalani decisively ended any hope for the monarchy and pledged her loyalty to the Republic. Thus Liliuokalani herself formally recognized the Republic — her abdication and loyalty oath belong among the letters whereby heads of government around the world (including Liliuokalani for those who believed her position as head of state for the Kingdom of Hawaii was still viable) gave de jure recognition to the Republic as the rightful government of Hawaii.
America is in an uproar about the anti-American and anti-Caucasian rhetoric of Barack Obama’s pastor, who has been his friend and mentor for 20 years.But here in Hawaii anti-American and anti-”haole” rhetoric are accepted as normal. People are accustomed to hearing UH Professor Haunani-Kay Trask rail against “the power of a white country called the United States of white America. … Learn your history, and then you will know which side of history you belong on. And you do not belong on the American side. You do not belong on the Hawai’i state side. You belong on the side of your people — lahui Hawai’i [racially defined Hawaiians] On December 1, 2003 Eric Poohina wrote in the Honolulu Star-Bulletin: ”Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden are not the enemy of the Hawaiian people and the Hawaiian nation. The United States is the No. 1 enemy of the Hawaiian people and the Hawaiian nation.” On November 25, 2005 he wrote “The U.S. should be concentrating on the evacuation of its military troops in Hawaii and the restoration of the government of the independent nation state of Hawaii to the kanaka maoli, or Hawaiian nationals, the aboriginal people of Hawaii.” On August 6, 2005 Governor Linda Lingle herself stood next to Lieutenant Governor Duke Aiona at Iolani Palace, both wearing the red shirt of 15,000 protesters supporting racial segregation at Kamehameha School. In her speech she could not possibly miss seeing huge anti-American signs with phrases like these: “We don’t need no American government. Don’t like to see too much foreign power here cause Western influence been killing us for years.” and “We are not American. We will die as Hawaiians.” She could no more miss seeing those signs than Barack Obama could miss the rhetoric of his pastor of 20 years. Acceptance of hate-filled rhetoric in Hawaii is fueled by the apology resolution of 1993, which is filled with twisted history and outright falsehoods, and forms the basis for the Akaka bill. Let’s hope the apology resolution will be repealed as part of a Congressional resolution congratulating Hawaii on the 50th anniversary of statehood. For a more detailed analysis, see http://tinyurl.com/2mxj8s
We asked an economist who moved to Hawaii within the last 18 months to have a look at the Akaka bill and related documents. He specifically asked that his name not be revealed because he sense (rightfully or wrongly) that he might be targeted for his thoughts. Here they are, unedited, just as we received them.
~ Dick Rowland
A good bit of the stated rationale for the bill is contained in one interpretation of history, though credible challenges to that interpretation abound. It seems to me that history, whatever its interpretation, is pretty much irrelevant to the future of so called “native” Hawaiians. The status quo is the status quo, no matter how we got there subsequent to the events of the 1890’s and before. What we need to do is take a prospective look at probable outcomes of the bill. How will the bill affect the people of
One erroneous interpretation of history that is somewhat relevant to this prospective look, because it misleads us about how we arrived at the status quo, is the bill’s assertion that “the long-range economic and social changes in Hawaii over the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries have been devastating to the population and to the health and well-being of the Hawaiian people[1].” Nothing in the background accompanying the legislation says why its drafters think so. Most likely what is meant is contained in a speech by Assistant Secretary of the Interior John Berry subsequent to the Apology Resolution: “It cannot be ignored that such a governmental act as the overthrow of 1893 is not without physical and economic consequences for the indigenous people of
This assertion constitutes lazy thinking. How would the monarchy’s continuation have allowed Hawaiians, “native” or otherwise, to flourish in the way they actually have under the rule of law, protection of property rights and freedom to trade that they enjoy as U.S. citizens? “Native” Hawaiians are doing much better than the world’s average by any statistical measure, certainly much better than the subjects of monarchies in existence today. Do the drafters believe that there is an impediment to “native” Hawaiians doing even better? If so, what is it?
Their answer is implicit in the Akaka Bill’s long list of “rights” obtained through the “provision of governmental services.” The laundry list of these “rights” includes[3]:
(i) health care services;
(ii) educational programs;
(iii) employment and training programs;
(iv) economic development assistance programs;
(v) children’s services;
(vi) conservation programs;
(vii) fish and wildlife protection;
(viii) agricultural programs;
(ix) native language immersion programs;
(x) native language immersion schools from kindergarten through high school;
(xi) college and master’s degree programs in native language immersion instruction; and
(xii) traditional justice programs
Presumably (they don’t actually say this) more government provision of these “rights” would raise the “native” Hawaiians standard of living to a level statistically more in line with other citizens of the U.S. But how can this be? Are they not already receiving a heavy dose of government provision of all of these “rights?” There are national and state entitlements galore for the poor – housing, energy, health care, food stamps, earned income tax credits, assistance to needy families, government-run schools and the like. In addition, there are special provisions for “native” Hawaiians. The Akaka Bill seems to imply that all these government provided “rights” are not enough. If that is what it means, then how much more would be enough and in what form? We should demand a concrete idea of what is in mind. By the way, judging by the dismal results of special provisions for the indigenous people of the continental
That “native” Hawaiians are not doing as well “statistically” probably is more the result of “cultural” qualities mentioned in the Akaka Bill: “economic self-sufficiency[4]” and cultural practices such as “traditional agricultural methods, fishing and subsistence practices, maintenance of cultural use areas and sacred sites, protection of burial sites, and the exercise of their traditional rights to gather medicinal plants and herbs, and food sources.” These ways of doing things are not the way to higher statistical economic prosperity as we commonly measure it. But our common measure is unlikely to be valid for these Hawaiians. They are choosing these practices because that is what they want and they have that freedom. At least we think they have that freedom; is somebody interfering with it? A simple test of how these cultural qualities affect economic statistics may be available through census data: How are “native” Hawaiians living in
Of course, some of the “not good” statistics may be the result of the very programs that the Akaka Bill would like us to expand. After all, when you punish responsible behavior (the behavior that puts you higher in terms of economic statistics) you get less of it. Similarly, when you subsidize irresponsible behavior (the behavior that puts you lower in terms of economic statistics) you get more of it. If these programs, from our dismal school system to welfare schemes that are supposedly designed to help the poor, are really working, then show us your evidence before we embark on expansions of all of it.
Speaking of the implicit goal of expanding all of these “rights,” where is the money going to come from? Nothing is mentioned about the new layer of “sovereign” government having any taxing power over its citizens. How much of a wealth transfer from non-natives to the new “sovereign” government is envisioned?
Who will gain from the Akaka Bill? The Akaka Bill is about political entrepreneurship. A small, vocal minority seems to have allied with politicians in selling their promises of “reconciliation” and improved welfare to an unaware public. While the outcome of the Akaka Bill is unlikely to help the warriors, that cannot be said for the new chiefs. The prospective chiefs have already unleashed a struggle for the wealth and power that will accompany their positions. They exist in the state’s Office of Hawaiian Affairs and the Department of Hawaiian Homelands.
The kinds of wealth transfers in “reconciliation” as suggested by the Akaka Bill are nothing more than reparations filtered through the new Ali’i for supposed wrongs that occurred over four generations ago. This kind of precedent, if it passes constitutional muster, opens the door for any other group claiming historical injustice based on race. The state of
The “ceded lands” are a problem whether or not there is an Akaka Bill. The government owns a bunch of land supposedly held for use in common as a matter of historical evolution. Allowing a good bit of this land to be owned privately would promote prosperity and better stewardship. But that is unlikely to happen. There will always be interest group struggles over disposition of that land. The result of the struggles is likely to keep it in government hands.
[1] Quoting one of the whereases from the Apology Resolution
[2] Speech at
[3] House version of the Akaka Bill passed in October 2007.
[4]
On January 10, 2008 Ken Conklin gave testimony to a Kaneohe Town Meeting hosted by state Senator Jill Tokuda and Representatives Pono Chong and Ken Ito. All of them are either chair or vice-chair of the committees that focus on “Hawaiian Affairs.”
The testimony identified racial separatism as the most important issue facing the Legislature.
Recommendations to the Legislature were as follows: (1) Do not pass any resolution supporting the Akaka bill; on the contrary, place a question on the ballot for November to see whether Hawai’i’s people want Congress to pass the Akaka bill. Stop giving away state resources even before the Akaka bill passes and before negotiations begin between the Akaka tribe and the state government regarding how to carve up Hawai’i. (2) The ceded lands belong to all Hawai’i’s people; the Legislature should rescind the law it passed in 1980 awarding OHA 20% of ceded land revenues. (3) In June 2006 a confidential OHA memo became public which outlined Plan B to set up a state-recognized Akaka tribe even if the Akaka bill fails in Congress; that plan is likely to unfold in 2008 and the Legislature should resist it. (4) The Legislature should resist paying for OHA boondoggles like a new headquarters building; OHA has over $400 Million in assets plus an annual income of tens of millions and can easily pay for whatever it wants. (5) The government funded “host culture” charter schools should be held accountable for violating the separation of church and state, for indoctrinating children with religious views asserting racial supremacy, and for teaching twisted history supporting anti-American and anti-Caucasian attitudes. (6) The Legislature should resist proposals from a special commission on bioprospecting that would strip landowners of basic property rights to invite researchers onto their land and to profit from technological discoveries.
For full text of the testimony see
http://tinyurl.com/27p59j
Imagine the media outrage if a Republican Congress reduced funding for the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. Yet that’s exactly what Democrats did in the omnibus spending bill that President Bush signed yesterday. Not that we’re complaining. The commission, which does fact-finding and issues reports but has no enforcement power, marks its 50th anniversary next month. Needless to say, the country has made enormous racial progress since the Eisenhower Administration. And the federal government already handles discrimination allegations through the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, among other agencies.