Posted by Tane on February 29, 2008 at 3:57pm in Politics
The answer to the question is yes. What is not told is that the various sovereignty/ National groups are like the various political parties within the USA. Each have their own agenda and platform yet they recognize themselves as citizens of their country. This is ongoing here in Hawaii as well.
We know that the Hawaiian Kingdom still exists albeit under the unlawful belligerent occupation of the United States of America. Everyone wants to restart the Hawaiian Kingdom. This is good! The ipso facto State and the ipso facto Federal Government are afraid that we will. Thus, through the corporate medias and the seditous school systems, they have constantly belittled the Hawaii Nationals and obfuscate the issues and facts hoping we wouldn't wise up.
Let's look at the pertinent facts:
* The Kingdom of Hawaii was created by King Kamehameha and stylized to conform with the international related countries.
* Kamehameha, Ka'ahumanu, and Vancouver became fast friends whereby the king pick the brains of the Englishman who was a great help in setting the king's course toward international recognition.
* Armed with the knowledge Ka'ahumanu gained through this liason with Vancouver, after the King died and the missionaries arrived, she had done a coup d'etat to then become Kuhina Nui. She chose to use the missionaries and chiefs for her own agenda and continue to put the islands on par with the other known countries.
* Kauikeaouli was counselled by the Queens who swayed the power of the Kingdom to keep it toward its goal. He, after his brother's reign, took charge of the Kingdom. He and his chiefs commissioned William Richards to instruct them according to the Wayland's book, Elements of Political Economy.
* Hawaiians were quick learners and utlized their new-found knowledge on how to deal with foreign countries and develop theirs to conform with the powers of the world. In doing so, the King chose to reform his national government and give up his absolute rule to a constitutional monarchy.
* In 1839 the Hawaiian Magna Carta was created and a constitution was promulgated. Treaties with other countries were ratified and subject to the supreme law of the land.
* The French and the British signed a proclamation of recognizing the Independence of the Hawaiian Kingdom as a nation-state and it was the move to join the Family of Nations. The US followed suit and recognized the nation-state of Hawaii. Through the efforts of Hawaii's subsequent monarchs, over 25 treaties with countries around the world were secured and by 1893, there were over 96 consuls and legations throughout the world.
* Kalakaua, succeeded in securing relations with countries around the world and the Kingdom became the richest per capita globally as well as one of the most modern. Hawaii actively participated internationally as part of the Family of Nations, predessessor of the League of Nations which evolved to the United Nations. Hawaii's status of neutrality was also recognized as that of Switzerland.
* The USA was trying to find a way to control Hawaii or takeover the islands with the people voluntarily wanting to join it since 1826. Because of the fast actions of the King; the USA could not take it without the people's consent or it would set a precedent violating international laws. The covert actions of the USA began to spin.
* US President Harrison and Secy of State James Blaine colluded with Lorrin Thurston to destabilze the Hawaiian Kingdom and conspired to have John L. Stevens to assist by creating a fake revolution without setting an international precedent. In 1887 the US Americans under Thurston and his cohorts staged a coupe, the first overt action to wrest the kingdom from the King and forced him to sign the Bayonet Constitution. It was done between the years that legislation was not in session. Thus, it was never ratified but implied.
* Only Stevens and his troops and the Committee of Safety was aware of what was transpiring. On the steps of a government building, the proclamation was read under the protection of the US troops and immediately Stevens recognized the Committee of Safety's Provisional Government as the lawful government. They had never had control of the police station, government buildings, palace, and barracks. The troops remained to protect and secure the US puppet government.
* The Queen surrendered to the USA rather than to those scurrilous US American complicitous traitors; with hopes that upon learning the truth, the USA would restore her to her throne and reinstate her government.
*The Ku'e Petions were signed by over 96% of the multi-ethnic Hawaii Nationals in 1897; all loyal to the Queen and her government in protest of the invasion and against annexation. Annexation attempt twice failed in the US. Spanish-American war began and Mckinley opted for the Newlands Resolution to annex hawaii.
* So we have the "bible-plow-rifle" in which the US gained control of Hawaii. A resolution is a domestic law which has no juridiction within another country. There was no treaty of annexation; hence, the annexation is illegal, null and void.
* The US belligerent occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom is ongoing till today. The US has violated the laws of occupation and disregards Hawaii's neutrality. The Statehood act is another process greatly flawed and deemed null and void. The impropriety in the process is there was no international observance to validate the process; US Americans could vote; the question was to remain a territory or become a state and omitted the other choices. Only 22% of eligible voters cast their ballot and 94% of them voted for statehood.
To summarize, the descendants of the original Hawaii Nationals are still Hawaii Nationals and the Hawaiian Kingdom still exists. The only logical consequence is total independence and the USA must de-occupy our country. OHA, an agency of the ipso facto State which is a part of the USA, is trying to comply and promote the Akaka Bill using the Kau Inoa census to support it. In the meantime, this US entity, wants to create a US puppet governing tribal entity to fit into the US system to appear as a nation within a nation by usurping the authority and jurisdiction of the existing Hawaiian Kingdom. History is repeating itself in the neo-provisional government OHA intends to establish and call it a restoration of which it isn't. When one owns the entire pie; why would one give it away to accept the crumbs in return? Knowing who you really are; empowers you.
He Hawai'i au; a o 'oe?
You need to be a member of maoliworld to add comments!
Your postulate is correct in that we share lokahi as a people within a nation in the literal sense but we are far from being united in our vision for the future of that nation, which might very well prevent us from achieving Sovereignty. I think Kanaka's need to understand what returning to a constitutional monarchy would entail versus supporting the Akaka Bill versus what kau inoa really sets to achive.
Are we really ready for a Sovereign and do we understand how the Monarchy of Hawaii would be re-instated. Genealogies are very important determining factor in the establishment of a ruling family and unfortunately oral traditions have faded and records from the Hawaiian Kingdom have been lost to time, fire, and deliberate misappropriation and destruction. Would we as a nation return the throne to the last Royal descendant of Queen Lili' uokalni or would we elect a new Mo'i. If the latter is the case, irrefutable chiefly descent would have to be established according to our ancient customs and eligible candidates would be voted upon. If it is the former, the Kawananakoa line would be the inheritor, although this might be questioned by some. In either case a very small number of Kanaka's would be eligible to be Ka Mo'i and their legitimacy potentially questionable to many. Once sovereignty is achieved what then? Can we afford to have a power vacuum while we wrangle the political implications of electing a King and the forming of constitutional monarchy?
Can we really say that all Kanakas will simply shed their American Political upbringing and embrace a sovereign of potentially questionable legitimacy and a unicameral legislature based on a house of nobles and commoners. Other Kingdoms have suffered civil war, invasion, foreign domination, subjugation and collapse because of the failure of monarchies to produce legitimate heirs and to shore up the support of the people.
There are many questions each Kanaka should be asking themselves, mainly do you understand the ramifications of submitting to a new form of government and or King. The Akaka Bill's intent is to negotiate for a paltry shadow of what we are entitled to as a nation and does not argue the fallibility of the US's claim to the Kingdom of Hawaii. Kau Inoa does not make a claim to Hawaiian sovereignty it kowtows to some form of federal recognition as it's motivation. Are Kanakas truly united in a vision for Hawaii's future? I dare say we are far from it. If Kanakas support the Akaka Bill they are essentially encouraging the mind set that Hawaii is and always will be a vassal to the US. This in my opinion means that Kanakas are not united in intent, action, or thought and will suffer for it.
Why i believe most people share your concerns, the people in the independence movement have actively sought out and engaged solutions via International Law and Hawaiian Kingdom Law. The real problem here is that there has never been a real platform for this "process" to be heard or discuss because the powers that be are intent on keeping us on a less than playing field were decisions regarding the Hawaiian Nation will be made by those with political powers and special interest and the people are left pondering there options, posing there theories, and questioning ones motives.
None the less "Nationhood" or reinstating the Kingdom of Hawaii Sovereignty is something that holds a detrimental outcome for the kanaka and the non kanaka, for with out a lawful process with peoples input there will be no Unity and much worse, the loss and miss-reputation of love of country and patriotism.
I'm watching the video I just uploaded, "Truth and Justice in Hawaii Live Keiki Show 10-27-08" and one of the callers said something that just hit me because it's the truth:
this is in regards to the discussion on GMO's which also relates to massive developments in ko Hawaii Pae Aina in that they use our land, land that they do not own, to make a profit, for just a few. That is not the Kanaka Maoli way. This is what he said, an excerpt:
"they're afraid of us uniting."
Too late, we already are united, we've always been united, and that is why they will never have clear title to our land and our resources in ko Hawaii Pae Aina.
ALOHA Kakou, e Hawaii, Hawaiian Nationals are united in their opposition to the United States and it's occupation of our nation, the Hawaiian Kingdom. As for me, I've made my choice as being a Nationalist of the Hawaiian Kingdom. Whose lawful government was overthrown by the military and diplomatic forces of the United States. For now, I'm like a Kanaka without a government since my nation, the Hawaiian Kingdom is out there. It is my hope that soon there will be about 500 Kanaka Maoli Hawaii who will work together to revive the lawful government of the Hawaiian Kingdom. It is important that the issue of Hawaiian Nationhood continues, but I believe that it is time that we who have been in the movement for a long, long time take the lead and move forward to the next step of nationhood. I've always believe that Action Speaks Louder then Words.....The time to revive our Hawaiian Kingdom is Now.........ALOHA KUU AINA HAWAII.............
great topic Hawaii Nationals united and interesting about Hawaii Nationals united i found related article check it US Company gets legal hit and let me know what you guys thins
Thanks
Regards
Milan baros
Do historical facts matter in current debates about the Apology Resolution, Akaka Bill, and ceded lands?
At least 19 nations sent formal letters to President Sanford B. Dole granting full-fledged (de jure) diplomatic recognition to the Republic as the legitimate government of Hawai‘i. These were not the tentative de facto recognitions given by local consuls in Honolulu in January 1893 to the temporary Provisional Government.
These letters in late 1894 were sent from national capitals in Europe, Asia, North America, and South America, welcoming the permanent government of the Republic of Hawaii into the family of nations.
The letters were personally signed by: Queen Victoria, President Grover Cleveland, Tsar Alexander III, two princes on behalf of Emperor Kuangsu (China), President Casimir Perier (France), King Don Alfonso XIII and Queen Dona Maria Christina (Spain), President Porfirio Diaz (Mexico), and 12 others.
Photographs of the letters, including some English translations, can be seen at tinyurl.com/4wtwdz
The Kingdom of Hawaii also recognized the Republic in the same way as those other 19 nations. Ex-queen Liliuokalani personally signed a five-page letter of abdication, and a one-page oath of loyalty to the Republic of Hawai‘i on Jan. 24, 1895; in consultation with and witnessed by her personal attorney and former cabinet members she had appointed. Photographs are on the same Web page.
Among other things, Liliuokalani says: “I hereby do fully and unequivocally admit and declare that the Government of the Republic of Hawai‘i is the only lawful Government of the Hawaiian Islands ... I hereby declare to [everyone] that I consider them as bound in duty and honor henceforth to support and sustain the Government of the Republic of Hawaii.” Consensus among nations determined what was “international law” in 1893-1898. No nation ever protested the Hawaiian revolution of 1893 nor the annexation of 1898. No nation ever refused to do business with the Provisional Government, Republic of Hawaii, or United States as having sovereignty in Hawai‘i. Every local consul in Honolulu in January 1893 gave immediate de facto recognition to the Provisional Government.
At least 19 nations sent formal letters of de jure recognition from their head of state to Republic of Hawaii President Sanford B. Dole.
So what?
Thanks to recognition, the Republic had standing under international law to offer treaties, including a treaty of annexation to the United States. The Republic had the right to make a deal ceding the public lands of Hawai‘i in exchange for payment of Hawai‘i’s national debt.
Never again can Hawaiian secessionists say that the Republic of Hawaii was illegal, had only de facto recognition, or was merely a U.S. puppet regime.
By never protesting the overthrow and by recognizing the successor Republic, those nations condoned the revolution of 1893 as legal, thus discrediting the 1993 apology resolution which referred to “the illegal overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy.” The Akaka Bill is undermined because it relies on the apology resolution and repeatedly cites it. Discrediting the apology resolution also eliminates the primary reason given by the Hawaii Supreme Court for prohibiting the state of Hawaii from selling any ceded lands without first reaching a “settlement” with a racial group.
The time has come for Hawai‘i politicians to stop playing with the fires of racial separatism and ethnic nationalism. Let’s boldly make policy decisions based on facts: the revolution that overthrew the monarchy was a good thing condoned as legitimate by the international community.
Hawai‘i is rightfully a state of the United States, the ceded lands belong to all Hawai‘i’s people without ra
I don't care how many nations of the world recognized the Republic of Hawaii or how much Conklin argues.
The so-called "Apology Resolution" IS the law of the u.s. and, if it IS recognized by the Supreme Court of Hawai'i - it is the law of Hawai'i.
I have problems with some parts of the Apology Resolution - especially that part that refers to the Hawaiian people who are the heirs of the so-called "ceded lands" - they aren't.
The rightful heirs of the "ceded lands" are the heirs of the Hawaiian Kingdom - those who are or consider themselves subjects, those who are descendants of subjects of the Kingdom - who continue to pay allegiance to the Kingdom.
Conklin's evidence that 19 nations of the world recognized the Republic is tainted.
Remember, the u.s. dispatched to the world that any nation who would oppose its "takeover" of Hawaii - would (basically) be on its shit list. And so these nations refrained from opposing the "takeover" and may have even put those positions into writing - the writing that Conklin attempts to bolster his arguments with.
Tainted evidence is no evidence at all.
On the other hand, and probably the most important item in the entire argument - that is not dwelled upon by Conklin is - Where did the Republic get the title to the so-called "ceded lands" that it attempted to "cede" to the u.s.???????
It didn't have good title. It had no title.
So, the question is - What did the Republic "cede" to the u.s.????
Well, having had nothing, the Republic "ceded" nothing!!!!!
Your right. This 'okole hi settler from Massachusetts left out a lot of facts to strengthen his arguments. Interesting to note that Japan balked at the US actions and privately condemned the US but the Western countries over-rode Japans sentiments. Today, Chinese Law Journal recognizes the fact that the Hawaiian Kingdom still exists albeit under the US belligerent occupation. Under Jewish law, that most countries accept as common law, is a signature under duress is ineffectual, null and void. The Queen was under duress signing that abdication but she continued to petition the US for redress. Conklin conveniently fails to mention the Ku'e Petitions of 1897 signed by the Hawaiian nationals in protest and that the cabinet members were part of the conspiracy and committed high treason. Many Hawaii nationals were forced to sign the oath of allegiance in order to work within Hawaii. Many signed under duress just to feed their families. I would call that extortion. Nonetheless the people protested up till today. Conklinites do have a habit to take facts out of context and twist them to suit their smug ego. It's the wolf crying "sour grapes"! They are truly the ultracrepidarian critics suffering from oneirataxia. To believe this piggish of a man, is to be ailing from synesthesia and antipathy for the truth. His failing arguments and revision of history is scurrilous at best.
Wasnʻt the queen given an ultimatum to sign an abdication? I believe several of our counter-insurgents were being held prisoner at the time, including Prince Kuhio and Robert Wilcox, and the Banana Republic threatened to hang them if the queen didnʻt abdicate. Someone please advise me on the validity of these claims. Does anyone have a solid chronology from this period?
Replies
Your postulate is correct in that we share lokahi as a people within a nation in the literal sense but we are far from being united in our vision for the future of that nation, which might very well prevent us from achieving Sovereignty. I think Kanaka's need to understand what returning to a constitutional monarchy would entail versus supporting the Akaka Bill versus what kau inoa really sets to achive.
Are we really ready for a Sovereign and do we understand how the Monarchy of Hawaii would be re-instated. Genealogies are very important determining factor in the establishment of a ruling family and unfortunately oral traditions have faded and records from the Hawaiian Kingdom have been lost to time, fire, and deliberate misappropriation and destruction. Would we as a nation return the throne to the last Royal descendant of Queen Lili' uokalni or would we elect a new Mo'i. If the latter is the case, irrefutable chiefly descent would have to be established according to our ancient customs and eligible candidates would be voted upon. If it is the former, the Kawananakoa line would be the inheritor, although this might be questioned by some. In either case a very small number of Kanaka's would be eligible to be Ka Mo'i and their legitimacy potentially questionable to many. Once sovereignty is achieved what then? Can we afford to have a power vacuum while we wrangle the political implications of electing a King and the forming of constitutional monarchy?
Can we really say that all Kanakas will simply shed their American Political upbringing and embrace a sovereign of potentially questionable legitimacy and a unicameral legislature based on a house of nobles and commoners. Other Kingdoms have suffered civil war, invasion, foreign domination, subjugation and collapse because of the failure of monarchies to produce legitimate heirs and to shore up the support of the people.
There are many questions each Kanaka should be asking themselves, mainly do you understand the ramifications of submitting to a new form of government and or King. The Akaka Bill's intent is to negotiate for a paltry shadow of what we are entitled to as a nation and does not argue the fallibility of the US's claim to the Kingdom of Hawaii. Kau Inoa does not make a claim to Hawaiian sovereignty it kowtows to some form of federal recognition as it's motivation. Are Kanakas truly united in a vision for Hawaii's future? I dare say we are far from it. If Kanakas support the Akaka Bill they are essentially encouraging the mind set that Hawaii is and always will be a vassal to the US. This in my opinion means that Kanakas are not united in intent, action, or thought and will suffer for it.
He mea pau 'ole ke aloha
Kimo
Why i believe most people share your concerns, the people in the independence movement have actively sought out and engaged solutions via International Law and Hawaiian Kingdom Law. The real problem here is that there has never been a real platform for this "process" to be heard or discuss because the powers that be are intent on keeping us on a less than playing field were decisions regarding the Hawaiian Nation will be made by those with political powers and special interest and the people are left pondering there options, posing there theories, and questioning ones motives.
None the less "Nationhood" or reinstating the Kingdom of Hawaii Sovereignty is something that holds a detrimental outcome for the kanaka and the non kanaka, for with out a lawful process with peoples input there will be no Unity and much worse, the loss and miss-reputation of love of country and patriotism.
this is in regards to the discussion on GMO's which also relates to massive developments in ko Hawaii Pae Aina in that they use our land, land that they do not own, to make a profit, for just a few. That is not the Kanaka Maoli way. This is what he said, an excerpt:
"they're afraid of us uniting."
Too late, we already are united, we've always been united, and that is why they will never have clear title to our land and our resources in ko Hawaii Pae Aina.
Thanks
Regards
Milan baros
KAUAI Opinion
Guest Viewpoint
Equality of Hawai‘i’s people worth defending
by Kenneth Conklin
Do historical facts matter in current debates about the Apology Resolution, Akaka Bill, and ceded lands?
At least 19 nations sent formal letters to President Sanford B. Dole granting full-fledged (de jure) diplomatic recognition to the Republic as the legitimate government of Hawai‘i. These were not the tentative de facto recognitions given by local consuls in Honolulu in January 1893 to the temporary Provisional Government.
These letters in late 1894 were sent from national capitals in Europe, Asia, North America, and South America, welcoming the permanent government of the Republic of Hawaii into the family of nations.
The letters were personally signed by: Queen Victoria, President Grover Cleveland, Tsar Alexander III, two princes on behalf of Emperor Kuangsu (China), President Casimir Perier (France), King Don Alfonso XIII and Queen Dona Maria Christina (Spain), President Porfirio Diaz (Mexico), and 12 others.
Photographs of the letters, including some English translations, can be seen at tinyurl.com/4wtwdz
The Kingdom of Hawaii also recognized the Republic in the same way as those other 19 nations. Ex-queen Liliuokalani personally signed a five-page letter of abdication, and a one-page oath of loyalty to the Republic of Hawai‘i on Jan. 24, 1895; in consultation with and witnessed by her personal attorney and former cabinet members she had appointed. Photographs are on the same Web page.
Among other things, Liliuokalani says: “I hereby do fully and unequivocally admit and declare that the Government of the Republic of Hawai‘i is the only lawful Government of the Hawaiian Islands ... I hereby declare to [everyone] that I consider them as bound in duty and honor henceforth to support and sustain the Government of the Republic of Hawaii.” Consensus among nations determined what was “international law” in 1893-1898. No nation ever protested the Hawaiian revolution of 1893 nor the annexation of 1898. No nation ever refused to do business with the Provisional Government, Republic of Hawaii, or United States as having sovereignty in Hawai‘i. Every local consul in Honolulu in January 1893 gave immediate de facto recognition to the Provisional Government.
At least 19 nations sent formal letters of de jure recognition from their head of state to Republic of Hawaii President Sanford B. Dole.
So what?
Thanks to recognition, the Republic had standing under international law to offer treaties, including a treaty of annexation to the United States. The Republic had the right to make a deal ceding the public lands of Hawai‘i in exchange for payment of Hawai‘i’s national debt.
Never again can Hawaiian secessionists say that the Republic of Hawaii was illegal, had only de facto recognition, or was merely a U.S. puppet regime.
By never protesting the overthrow and by recognizing the successor Republic, those nations condoned the revolution of 1893 as legal, thus discrediting the 1993 apology resolution which referred to “the illegal overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy.” The Akaka Bill is undermined because it relies on the apology resolution and repeatedly cites it. Discrediting the apology resolution also eliminates the primary reason given by the Hawaii Supreme Court for prohibiting the state of Hawaii from selling any ceded lands without first reaching a “settlement” with a racial group.
The time has come for Hawai‘i politicians to stop playing with the fires of racial separatism and ethnic nationalism. Let’s boldly make policy decisions based on facts: the revolution that overthrew the monarchy was a good thing condoned as legitimate by the international community.
Hawai‘i is rightfully a state of the United States, the ceded lands belong to all Hawai‘i’s people without ra
The so-called "Apology Resolution" IS the law of the u.s. and, if it IS recognized by the Supreme Court of Hawai'i - it is the law of Hawai'i.
I have problems with some parts of the Apology Resolution - especially that part that refers to the Hawaiian people who are the heirs of the so-called "ceded lands" - they aren't.
The rightful heirs of the "ceded lands" are the heirs of the Hawaiian Kingdom - those who are or consider themselves subjects, those who are descendants of subjects of the Kingdom - who continue to pay allegiance to the Kingdom.
Conklin's evidence that 19 nations of the world recognized the Republic is tainted.
Remember, the u.s. dispatched to the world that any nation who would oppose its "takeover" of Hawaii - would (basically) be on its shit list. And so these nations refrained from opposing the "takeover" and may have even put those positions into writing - the writing that Conklin attempts to bolster his arguments with.
Tainted evidence is no evidence at all.
On the other hand, and probably the most important item in the entire argument - that is not dwelled upon by Conklin is - Where did the Republic get the title to the so-called "ceded lands" that it attempted to "cede" to the u.s.???????
It didn't have good title. It had no title.
So, the question is - What did the Republic "cede" to the u.s.????
Well, having had nothing, the Republic "ceded" nothing!!!!!
And that is that.
ku
Your right. This 'okole hi settler from Massachusetts left out a lot of facts to strengthen his arguments. Interesting to note that Japan balked at the US actions and privately condemned the US but the Western countries over-rode Japans sentiments. Today, Chinese Law Journal recognizes the fact that the Hawaiian Kingdom still exists albeit under the US belligerent occupation. Under Jewish law, that most countries accept as common law, is a signature under duress is ineffectual, null and void. The Queen was under duress signing that abdication but she continued to petition the US for redress. Conklin conveniently fails to mention the Ku'e Petitions of 1897 signed by the Hawaiian nationals in protest and that the cabinet members were part of the conspiracy and committed high treason. Many Hawaii nationals were forced to sign the oath of allegiance in order to work within Hawaii. Many signed under duress just to feed their families. I would call that extortion. Nonetheless the people protested up till today. Conklinites do have a habit to take facts out of context and twist them to suit their smug ego. It's the wolf crying "sour grapes"! They are truly the ultracrepidarian critics suffering from oneirataxia. To believe this piggish of a man, is to be ailing from synesthesia and antipathy for the truth. His failing arguments and revision of history is scurrilous at best.
Tane
Wasnʻt the queen given an ultimatum to sign an abdication? I believe several of our counter-insurgents were being held prisoner at the time, including Prince Kuhio and Robert Wilcox, and the Banana Republic threatened to hang them if the queen didnʻt abdicate. Someone please advise me on the validity of these claims. Does anyone have a solid chronology from this period?
Mahalo me ka `oia`i`o,
Hanaloa
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
-
5
of 6 Next