+- Punaweb Forum (http://punaweb.org/forum)
+-- Forum: Punaweb Forums (http://punaweb.org/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: Puna Politics (http://punaweb.org/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=16)
+--- Thread: Hawaiian Recognition. (/showthread.php?tid=13892)
RE: Hawaiian Recognition. - missydog1 - 07-05-2014
I certainly think you should be able to celebrate Independence Day sincerely, after all, we are commemorating what happened in 1776-77, an extraordinary moment in history.
Many of us have mixed relationships to the United States government. As an example, I belong to the Hawai'i Loa (Hawai'i Island) chapter of DAR. We have various members who have both Hawaiian descent and lineage from a Revolutionary war veteran. The organization respects Hawaians, the culture, the history, and the 'aina, and does not support any wrongdoing on part of the government.
We have numerous members of Native American descent, and each meeting contains a report about Native American history -- so patriotism does not need to come with blinders as to what our nation has done that is not pride-worthy. We celebrate the personal sacrifices that were made to earn freedom.
Of course the independence of the Colonies was won with a great sacrifice of life, limbs (literally), and health. It's something to contemplate about the price of political independence when the people in power won't give. It wasn't pretty. I sure hope it wouldn't come to that in this century.
RE: Hawaiian Recognition. - opihikao - 07-05-2014
Mahalo, Kathy, for your comments and interest in this topic. Na Leo should have much for funding as a whole, they are a great resource for community. I am disappointed that neither the DOI nor OHA provided a simple internet connection for all the meetings here on our island. Lord knows they both have enough funds.
It's extremely difficult to decide what to share that is factual, as the documents being worked from are interpreted in various ways. The volumes of documents and opinions from so many are mind boggling.
I will say that the writings of Queen Liliuokalani are a great start especially her "Red Ribbon Letter". (Carol is spot on in her post, btw. Mahalo, Carol.)This site includes tons of information on the history, and also includes the Red Ribbon Letter:
http://theiolani.blogspot.com/2012/02/iolanipart3_26.html
The Queen's Letter of Protest:
http://libweb.hawaii.edu/digicoll/annexation/protest/liliu5.html
President Cleveland's order to restore the Queen to power was never carried out. This is a pretty good read here: ( *Snipped - more at link)
http://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/hawaii-petition/
Shortly into his presidency, Cleveland appointed James Blount as a special investigator to investigate the events in the Hawaiian Islands. Blount found that Minister Stevens had acted improperly and ordered that the American flag be lowered from Hawaiian government buildings. He also ordered that Queen Lili'uokalani be restored to power, but Sanford Dole, the president of the Provisional Government of Hawaii, refused to turn over power. Dole successfully argued that the United States had no right to interfere in the internal affairs of Hawaii. The Provisional Government then proclaimed Hawaii a republic in 1894, and soon the Republic of Hawaii was officially recognized by the United States.
Fast forward to present day, Clinton signed the apology, and the DOI meetings are here. Their questionnaire and comment form can be found at the DOI website here:
http://www.regulations.gov/#!submitComment;D=DOI-2014-0002-0005
This link (Facebook) is where the daily events and videos are discussed from the kanaka maoli view:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1441566652738860/?fref=nf
I have watched/listened to each meeting starting at the State Capitol, and they end in Maui this week. They are all available at Olelo TV site, and also on YouTube. LOTS of information from the meetings, too.
All (including you, and all people of Hawai'i) of us have the deadline of August 19th to submit testimony to the DOI for consideration.
Mahalo also for the comment regarding 4th of July. This is a difficult time as we kanaka maoli continue to seek reparation, and our Kingdom/Nation status. I am very torn at this point, and concerned as to where do we go from here.
Apologies to all for the length of this post, but in attempting to answer the question, this is the "short" version! I leave you with this... "All Hawai'i Stand Together"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LV5qNZox4T8
Somehow, we must move forward, and come together for the common good of Hawai'i nei. Akua be with us all.
JMO.
RE: Hawaiian Recognition. - pahoated - 07-06-2014
The US legally declared war on the Kingdom of Hawaii in 1893. It was legal under the laws of the United States, so trying to use the illegal angle is going to get nowhere.
If the Hawaii people could get together more, they could issue a declaration stating the Kingdom of Hawaii never surrendered and that Hawaii was still at war with the United States. Then, they have a case where they can go to the World Court and make the point the invasion by the United States was an act of imperialist aggression, unprovoked and that Hawaii was never a threat or exhibited any hostility to the United States. Making the case before the World Court may not have any effective outcome but it would set a foundation for taking future legal action. This could be done without resolving the monarchy or nation issue if enough Hawaiians (50% by bloodline) would sign to the declaration.
"This island Hawaii on this island Earth"
RE: Hawaiian Recognition. - csgray - 07-06-2014
Pahoated,
Do you have a citation for that declaration of war? Or at least the date of that congressional action so the exact language could be looked up?
Carol
RE: Hawaiian Recognition. - pahoated - 07-06-2014
The coup by itself was considered illegal by President Cleveland. He called it an act of war. He spoke against it but the Congress ruled against him. It would be like the Declaration of Independence in 1776. If the revolutionaries had lost, they would have been hanged as traitors by the British. The meanings of the words change on whether you win or lose. The invasion was made legitimate (under US law) by President McKinley and the Congress of 1897. There is a very detailed accounting in "Shoal of Time" which is recommended every transplant read from cover to cover before bringing mainland notions and beliefs with them. And the account in Shoal of Time clearly demonstrates the only reason for the overthrow was sugar, greed and special interests, nothing to do with government except with the perversion of legitimate government. Also, it clearly shows the scheming that was done to take away voting rights from the Hawaiians and Asians.
quote:
Soon after the U.S.' invasion of Hawai`i in 1893, the Provisional Government attempted to annex Hawai`i to the United States. President Grover Cleveland sent a special commissioner, James Blount, to investigate the Hawaiian affair. Based upon this commissioner's report, Cleveland refused to pursue annexation, believing the U.S. had no business overthrowing weaker nations and annexing them. President Cleveland served until early 1897.
Under the subsequent administration of President William McKinley, a new treaty of annexation was signed and sent on June 16, 1897, to the U.S. Senate for ratification. The issue of Hawaiian annexation greatly divided the Congress. In September of 1897, Hawai`i was visited by members of the U.S. Congress, strongly in support of the upcoming annexation push. One of those visitors was Senator John Tyler Morgan (D-Alabama), responsible for the Morgan Report (February 1894) which attempted to justify the overthrow of 1893 and support the taking of Hawai`i by the United States. Unlike James Blount who spent months in Hawai`i accomplishing his investigation, Mr. Morgan had not visited Hawai`i before issuing his Morgan Report. Morgan who chaired the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, instead held hearings in Washington, D.C. He issued a report in February 1894 that approved the actions of John L. Stevens, U.S. Minister in Hawai`i who aided the overthrow in 1893.
"This island Hawaii on this island Earth"
RE: Hawaiian Recognition. - csgray - 07-06-2014
PT,
Cleveland calling it an act of war is a far cry from what you referred to as "The US legally declared war on the Kingdom of Hawaii in 1893. It was legal under the laws of the United States, so trying to use the illegal angle is going to get nowhere."
In fact it was not legal under US law, because Congress did not declare war, instead one rogue commanding officer landed marines to support the overthrow, but he was acting outside of his mission and chain of command. The order of events was first a Provisional government, Republic of Hawaii, annexation as a territory, then statehood. The Provisional government asked to be taken into the United States and was turned down, so they formed the Republic of Hawaii, both of which were the results of an illegal coup d'etat in which a legal sovereign government was forced from power and replaced against the will of the majority of the people at that time.
Carol
RE: Hawaiian Recognition. - Seeb - 07-06-2014
You can argue history till the cows come home.
But I have not heard anyone say what they are going to do now that does not violate the rights of 90% of the current population of the State, the Constitution and the state's rights of places where the non-state of hawaii residents that are on the roll call thing live.
RE: Hawaiian Recognition. - missydog1 - 07-06-2014
opihikao,
wow, the reading list is great. I didn't visit the site yesterday and just now saw what you wrote up.
Several years ago I came across Hawaiiankingdom.net and read all it had to say about the history, the UN, international law, and the Clinton apology. I was stunned by the history. Obviously that site is heavily pro sovereignty, so I figured it was possible they could be straining some of the points, but I thought it was well written.
That's why I wanted to ask you for recommendations. I don't have the background to sort through the material like you do, and it sounds like even you find it overwhelming.
I have read some of Liliu'okalani's writing, but I need to reread.
Thank you! [
]
RE: Hawaiian Recognition. - csgray - 07-07-2014
There is a new edition of Liliu'okalani'f autobiography that either just was released, or is about to be released. The earlier editions were heavily edited (censured) by her mainland editors and this one includes all the missing parts.
Carol
RE: Hawaiian Recognition. - pahoated - 07-07-2014
quote:
Originally posted by csgray
PT,
Cleveland calling it an act of war is a far cry from what you referred to as "The US legally declared war on the Kingdom of Hawaii in 1893. It was legal under the laws of the United States, so trying to use the illegal angle is going to get nowhere."
In fact it was not legal under US law, because Congress did not declare war, instead one rogue commanding officer landed marines to support the overthrow, but he was acting outside of his mission and chain of command. The order of events was first a Provisional government, Republic of Hawaii, annexation as a territory, then statehood. The Provisional government asked to be taken into the United States and was turned down, so they formed the Republic of Hawaii, both of which were the results of an illegal coup d'etat in which a legal sovereign government was forced from power and replaced against the will of the majority of the people at that time.
Get your interpretation straight. It was made a legal war by the annexation in 1897. Even provided the reference, you still get it wrong. The war was made legal in 1897 because otherwise, the all-white conspirators should have been tried and hung for treason.
The invasion was the first sneak attack of Hawaii, which post-WWII American history will never acknowledge. This first sneak attack of Hawaii was justified on false pretenses. The Kingdom of Hawaii was not under any authority of the United States at the time.
The invasion was done by US Marines on foreign soil. The Hawaiian Kingdom allowed foreigners to buy and own land and businesses. For the Americans, this meant petitioning the US government for military protection. This was at a time that the Russians, British, and French were making motions to colonize Hawaii. The reality is that Hawaii was on the verge of being annexed and Queen Liliuokalani knew that. She was preparing to be annexed by the British, that is why the Union Jack is on the state flag, one of her last measures she could take as queen, as well as creating King Kamehameha Schools and declaring the kingdom was a republic, no longer a monarchy.
The American business men and politician investors also knew this. This group formed a conspiracy and knew how to order military action without presidential or congressional approval. There was one congressman in the conspirator group. They did this by claiming "American lives were in harm's way". The Marines are assigned to protect Americans and American businesses on foreign soil. It wasn't a rogue commander, he was doing what he thought was his duty, to protect (white) Americans, from the "hostile" Hawaiians and Asians. The invasion placed Hawaii under martial law, which the US uses on all its territories.
Again, read the book.
"This island Hawaii on this island Earth"