02-24-2016, 04:25 AM
The Na`i Aupuni `Aha is in full swing. Hawaiians have been meeting almost daily all month and have worked diligently to address all the issues involved in coming to a consensus regarding how to form their government. This can be watched streaming live at:
http://www.youtube.com/olelocm
and:
http://www.olelo.org/olelo53/
and I believe on Oceanic Cable channel 53. Also regular bulletins, along with much more, including many photographs of the proceedings are posted daily at:
http://www.aha2016.com
I thought of posting this because of an article in today’s Civil Beat written by Lilikala Kame`eleihiwa entitled Native Hawaiian Citizens In A Native Hawaiian Government: As the Na`i Aupuni `Aha continues, the question arises: Who should be defined as a citizen of a new Hawaiian government? in which she goes to considerable length to discuss the many issues involved with the ongoing renaissance of the Hawaiian Nation.
Lilikala goes into great detail about how in the past the Hawaiian Kingdom was influenced by foreigners and the citizens response which, in her account, is much different than the perspective often cited here (on PW) and clarifies a lot of misconceptions many foreigners have. In part she says:
But what about the idea that the Kingdom of Hawaii welcomed non-natives as citizens? Well, that assertion is not completely, historically accurate. In 1845, thousands of Native Hawaiian citizens of the Kingdom of Hawaii opposed allowing foreigners to become Hawaiian citizens by swearing an oath of allegiance, as proposed by prominent foreigners like Dr. Gerrit P. Judd and Richard Armstrong, who sat with the King in the Privy Council. Native Hawaiians signed petitions stating the following opposing arguments:
• Concerning the independence of your kingdom.
• That you dismiss the foreign officers whom you have appointed to the Hawaiian officers [in the Privy Council].
• We do not wish foreigners to take the oath of allegiance and become Hawaiian subjects.
• We do not wish you to sell any more land pertaining to your kingdom to foreigners. (Kame`eleihiwa 1992: 334)
When the Privy Council replied that they could not run a foreign-style government without foreigners to help them, Native Hawaiian citizens replied:
“The following are our thoughts:
• Good foreigners will become no better by taking the oath of allegiance under our Chiefs. Good people are not opposed to us; they do not evade the laws of the Chiefs; they do not wish this kingdom to be sold to others. What good can result from them taking the oath? We do not see any good reason why they should take the oath of allegiance.
• Taking the oath of allegiance to this government will be the cause of greatly increasing wicked men in this land.
• It is not to benefit this people, but for their own personal interests that foreigners suddenly take the oath of allegiance to this government.
• What is to be the result of so many foreigners taking the oath of allegiance? This is it, in our opinion; this kingdom will pass into their hands, and that, too, very soon. Foreigners will come on shore with cash, ready to purchase lands … Our King and Sovereign Kamehameha, have compassion upon us, and deliver your people from this approaching perilous condition, if many foreigners shall be introduced into this kingdom at this time, this will be our end, we shall become the servants of foreigners.
Were Native Hawaiians anti-foreigner? Were they racists? Since they reproduced and intermarried with foreigners as soon as they were available, I don’t think so. But I do think they were reacting to 25 years of anti-Hawaiian racism by non-Natives against Native Hawaiians.
Lilikala Kame`eleihiwa’s article is at:
http://www.civilbeat.com/2016/02/native-...overnment/
I encourage all that aren’t keeping track of the `Aha and all the other opinion pieces etc., being shared as this process unfolds to do so. This is a historical time and very well may have a lot to do with how future events that could effect all our lives unfold.
edited to get rid of those silly little #8232; html artifacts
and correct links to the live streaming of the `Aha
http://www.youtube.com/olelocm
and:
http://www.olelo.org/olelo53/
and I believe on Oceanic Cable channel 53. Also regular bulletins, along with much more, including many photographs of the proceedings are posted daily at:
http://www.aha2016.com
I thought of posting this because of an article in today’s Civil Beat written by Lilikala Kame`eleihiwa entitled Native Hawaiian Citizens In A Native Hawaiian Government: As the Na`i Aupuni `Aha continues, the question arises: Who should be defined as a citizen of a new Hawaiian government? in which she goes to considerable length to discuss the many issues involved with the ongoing renaissance of the Hawaiian Nation.
Lilikala goes into great detail about how in the past the Hawaiian Kingdom was influenced by foreigners and the citizens response which, in her account, is much different than the perspective often cited here (on PW) and clarifies a lot of misconceptions many foreigners have. In part she says:
But what about the idea that the Kingdom of Hawaii welcomed non-natives as citizens? Well, that assertion is not completely, historically accurate. In 1845, thousands of Native Hawaiian citizens of the Kingdom of Hawaii opposed allowing foreigners to become Hawaiian citizens by swearing an oath of allegiance, as proposed by prominent foreigners like Dr. Gerrit P. Judd and Richard Armstrong, who sat with the King in the Privy Council. Native Hawaiians signed petitions stating the following opposing arguments:
• Concerning the independence of your kingdom.
• That you dismiss the foreign officers whom you have appointed to the Hawaiian officers [in the Privy Council].
• We do not wish foreigners to take the oath of allegiance and become Hawaiian subjects.
• We do not wish you to sell any more land pertaining to your kingdom to foreigners. (Kame`eleihiwa 1992: 334)
When the Privy Council replied that they could not run a foreign-style government without foreigners to help them, Native Hawaiian citizens replied:
“The following are our thoughts:
• Good foreigners will become no better by taking the oath of allegiance under our Chiefs. Good people are not opposed to us; they do not evade the laws of the Chiefs; they do not wish this kingdom to be sold to others. What good can result from them taking the oath? We do not see any good reason why they should take the oath of allegiance.
• Taking the oath of allegiance to this government will be the cause of greatly increasing wicked men in this land.
• It is not to benefit this people, but for their own personal interests that foreigners suddenly take the oath of allegiance to this government.
• What is to be the result of so many foreigners taking the oath of allegiance? This is it, in our opinion; this kingdom will pass into their hands, and that, too, very soon. Foreigners will come on shore with cash, ready to purchase lands … Our King and Sovereign Kamehameha, have compassion upon us, and deliver your people from this approaching perilous condition, if many foreigners shall be introduced into this kingdom at this time, this will be our end, we shall become the servants of foreigners.
Were Native Hawaiians anti-foreigner? Were they racists? Since they reproduced and intermarried with foreigners as soon as they were available, I don’t think so. But I do think they were reacting to 25 years of anti-Hawaiian racism by non-Natives against Native Hawaiians.
Lilikala Kame`eleihiwa’s article is at:
http://www.civilbeat.com/2016/02/native-...overnment/
I encourage all that aren’t keeping track of the `Aha and all the other opinion pieces etc., being shared as this process unfolds to do so. This is a historical time and very well may have a lot to do with how future events that could effect all our lives unfold.
edited to get rid of those silly little #8232; html artifacts
and correct links to the live streaming of the `Aha
