Aloha, Before Hawaiians can UNITE, before Hawaiians can choose which form of Government is best for them and Hawaii, they must have a time to educate themselves, discuss, debate, vision, analyze, ALL options available to them. (there are at least 10 that I can think of). This is not only their legal, moral, political, and cultural right. It is the rational thing to do. These factors have been clearly outlined in PL 103-150, and recently acknowledged by the Hawaii Supreme Court. Since the passage of 103-150 many new groups and leaders have come forth claiming all kinds of things. This has only caused confusion, apathy and anger. Other entities, like the state and OHA, offer only one option and have spent big bucks pushing it. This is not Fair or rational. A Con Con can provide the opportunity for a free, fair, and open process, and is a process recognized under International Law. The Con Con must begin INCLUSIVE and NEUTRAL, but once in session, all will have a chance to put forth their plan, program, system, vision,etc etc. At the very least, Hawaiians will have a chance to Unite, make informed choices, and move on. This will require hard work, sacrifice, commitment. At this point, a con con is the only fair and inclusive way to proceed. I am open to any other ideas.
You need to be a member of maoliworld to add comments!
I wanted to invite you to attend a class that Mahealani-Ventura Oliver, her husband John, Kainoa Mahoe, and Pilialoha Teves will be presenting on Oahu. Here is the information:
"Remedy and Solutions" class on 6/21/08 at Makakilo Elementary School, Oahu from 10:00am to 2:00pm
I read what you wrote about living on the beach and not seeing any assistance. I too lived in a homeless shelter for 2 years thinking to myself all the time, how absurd! me homeless in my own homeland. I couldn't afford the rent on my salary at the time. I would often sit up nights and wonder who the land belonged to before, what Kanaka family owned the land and how did they lose it? Now I know, through the diligent teaching of Mahealani and John that Kanaka never lost their land, it is here and we have the only lawful deed to the lands. I've also learned that everyone owns land in Ko Hawaii Pae Aina. I'm not sure if she is working on koe nae papers for Oahu, I thought she was but I didn't see it listed. Here we have koe nae papers for Honuaula, Hamakualoa, Keanae, on Molokai is Kaluakoi, on Hawaii is Keauhou / Kohanaiki.
You will never see this in the newspapers. They will never publicize how a development was truly stopped. It is because of the koe nae papers submitted by Kanaka Maoli. It puts red flags up all over the place and makes it hard if not impossible to move on a piece of property with lots of red flags all over it. Why are we able to do this? Because of the Constitution and the Mahele that King Kamehameha III put into place for us and which Queen Liliuokalani left intact. 4 developments were stopped because of this process. More koe nae is coming up.
I have since turned in paperwork for Honuaula, Molokai (just to help with more red flags and whatever else I can do to assist them), and soon Keanae because my 10 yr. old daughter expressed a desire to some day live there while we were driving up that way to assist with paperwork for a presentation with Mahealani and John.
They have provided me with a remedy which I did not have before. They have provided me with an opportunity to own land which I would have never had a chance to under the de facto. There was a problem and they provided a remedy. OHA never came up with a remedy. My heart wasn't in DHHL although I'm 50+% Hawaiian. I couldn't see that logic, even before I learned about the de facto. I can't comfortably live in a house because I'm 50% Hawaiian while other Kanaka who are 40% cannot and probably know more about our culture, our language, our way of life then I'll ever know.
So yea, please go to the meeting if you can and hear what she has to say.
Aloha and you have a very good night!
kipikoa > Yolanda CrisostomoMay 23, 2008 at 8:39pm
Aloha e Yolanda, Mahalo for the info and invite. For me the only "remedy" is Independence. This is the only way to have the "control" over the laws, lands, immigration, military, cultural alteration, lifestyle of Hawaii. After decades of fighting brushfires all over Hawaii I must try to focus on the one thing I believe can stop all the wrongs. If we unify I believe we will end up at Independence.
It depends on what your definition of a Constitutional Convention is, many would have issues with it. A typical Con Con would be to adopt a new Constitution or to make revisions to one thats in existance.
Some may even have issues about coming to a consensus on a "form of Government" when one is already in existance (The Hawaiian Kingdom) albeit in suspension. I say in suspension, because it was never lawfully dissolved. To try and create a new government would be dangerous to the inherent sovereignty of descendants of Hawaiian Nationals whose right to reinstate their government to full power preserved by Queen Liliuokalani who used deliberate acts through the Law of Nations. The rule of postliminium as described in The Law of Nations describes a "right in virtue of which persons and things taken by the enemy are restored to their former state, when coming again under the power of the nation to which they belong." A newly formed nation would not be qualified to claim through International Law, that which rightfully belongs to the Hawaiian Kingdom. It would once again be a De Facto government trying to claim property from another De Facto government. In other words, that which rightfully belongs to the Hawaiian Kingdom formed under its constitution who was recognized as a nation amongst nations are the only ones with a rightful claim. Any "new government" would not have a lawful right to make that claim.
The right to reinstate the nation (Kingdom of Hawaii) was preserved through the Law of Nations, and it is only through the Law of Nations that it can be restored.
And thats only one of the issues that will keep Na Kanaka apart, the inability to recognize that alone.
Aloha e Dom, International law expert Francis A. Boyle and others see it differently. When you speak of the Hawaiian Kingdom existing which one are you refferring to? Which one is offering services to its people? Which one is in control of any lands? Which one is recognized by the Hawaiian People or International commmunity? Professor Boyle explains it this way. No "form" of Hawaiian government exists or most importantly, is recognized by the Hawaiian People as a whole or has any international recognition. What DOES still exist is the "nation stateness", the right to be a nation. An example: after WWll all the nations that were occupied by Nazi Germany were returned to their previous status. When Soviet Russia left Eastern Europe, all the occupied nations returned to their previous stateness and some even changed to their original names. Today in Hawaii there are at least 5-6 groups claiming to be the rightful kingdom. There is also the Nation of Hawaii. The are also the Akaka billers. A Con Con can be a tool for the People to educate themselves, discuss, analyze, vision, ALL their options and then choose what is best . Many kingdom advocates believe that sovereignty lays with the Kingdom. I disagree wholeheartedly with that contention. I believe that sovereignty lays with the People. They have a Right to choose what ever form of government they wish. There is no doubt that if the majority of Hawaiian People choose a diffrent form of government than to restore a kingdom, the World would have no grounds for disagreement. True Self-Determination can only happen after a Free, Fair, and Open process. If the way of the Kingdom is the best choice, why fear the process?? The problem with saying that the restoration of the Kingdom is the only way is how to enforce it if your own people dont want it. One kingdom advocate said to me, "why reinvent the wheel"? I answered, "because we can". The Law of Nations is not the only way a nation can be restored. Hawaiians have at least 11 options available to them. Only one concerns the restoration of a Kingdom. Limiting Hawaiians to that one seems to be self serving when they now have a chance to create something great! Anyways, these are all issues that need to be taken before the people. I hope you will join us.
In all fairness I think this is a good start. We have to start somewhere and if we insult the creation of a Con Con then when do people think our status quo will be resolved? If we do not start we will NEVER get anywhere except more homeless. More of our keiki and mo'opuna will flee so I hope some people put aside our egos (not saying this about Dominic at all but "our" inclusive and in general) for the sake of our keiki and for our mo'opuna then perhaps we will overlook our differences and our mana'o for their sake because if we do not then they will be the ones living in Florida and in Maryland too.
Some of our status quo WILL be theirs too if we do not all get along. We may not all agree 100% but I think we should consider a Con Con such as this. I think we may want to put our egos aside just for a bit because so much can be done if we do.
I agree with you about the people too.... I just hope there is not too much analysis because with too much analysis there will be Analysis Paralysis where very little is done to rectify what needs to be rectified.
To present it to the people is a good thing. After all... we only have each other. Do I think it will be resolved? It will only be resolved if WE choose to resolve it. I don't think Americans are in our way AT ALL. WE are in our own way so I hope some of us reconsider and give it a chance because to give this a chance is to give our keiki and our mo'opuna a chance.
Aloha e Lana, If we can put down our diffrences for just a little while, come together, to talk, share, discuss, debate, I have absolutely no doubt that we will come out of it better. We have been grumbling, fighting each other for far too long and that has gotten us nowhere. Some refuse to except any other option but their own and that is fine, but at the very least, give the people a chance to hear what it is. If its the Kingdom or Island wide councils, or something else, we now have the opportunity to sit down and learn, vision, and UNIFY. 103-150 admitted the crimes. The Hawaii State Supreme Court finally acknowledged it. International Law is on our side. However, if we do not come together and recognize ourselves first, then, all the Laws in the world cannot help us. Aloha, Kipikoa
If the occupier (the U.S.) left, what would the "previous status" return to? A new "Hawaiian Nation" as you perscribe by means of a Con Con? or to the one that existed before the occupation as used in the examples you mention?
There was only one Hawaiian Kingdom in existance that qualifies as a subject under the traditional definition of international law. "A state had to be sovereign: It needed a territory, a population, a government, and the ability to engage in diplomatic or foreign relations." How many of the "5-6 groups" who are caliming to be the rightful Kingdom have met all requirements under International Law in legitimizing their claims?
This is where the division between your views and mine lies. My great grandparents were loyal to the crown, so were the majority of Hawaiian Nationals who signed the Ku'e Petitions. Their love and loyalty for the constitutional monarchy was passed on to my grand parents, who passed it on to my parents who then passed it on to me. It is a legacy I will endeavor to hold dear in respect of my ancestors whose iwi remain on this very Kuleana land that I occupy. It was because of that "nation" I have what I have now. For me and countless others, nothing less will do. I never left the rights to exist on my land and neither did my parents or grandparents. The rights given to my ancestors under their form of government, the same government that I as a descendant have a legitimate right to restore and perpetuate.
You have your right to create a new form of government as did the provisional government after the unlawful overthrow and call it self determination, others however would regard it as treason and the undermining of the wishes of our Kupuna. It would be a hard sell to get Hawaiian Patriots to join you in your endeavor.
Aloha e Dom, I think you miss my point. We are not trying to "create a new form of Government" as you say. What we want to do is give the Hawaiian People to a Free, Fair and Open chance to understand all their options and the benefits of them. Its about FREE Informed CHOICE.Thats all. We are not advocating any form of government. There are many who wish to restore the kingdom, yet there are also those who see the kingdom form of government as European and culturally foreign. This system was in place for a very short time compared to what was before it. What will you do with these Hawaiians? What can you do? I say again, if you believe so strongly that your system is best, why not put it before your People? This is about what is best for the People. Not you or me or any form of government. Your last statement is meant to be offensive but I take none. I know who you are and I have been fighting for Hawaiian rights longer than you been alive. You talk of "ancestors" but only limit that to a short period of Hawaiian history. When the Ku'e Petitions were signed there were only 40 thousand Hawaiians left. What about the 2 thousand years before that? I hope you will keep an open mind. Support a Con Con. ( or any process that will bring about UNITY, JUSTICE for the People). Participate, discuss, debate, try to convince people with logic and evidence, patience passion and compassion, that your way is the best way and in the end they will choose it. If you refuse how do you plan to force us, Amerika, and the world, to do it your way??
You insult my intelligence by claiming to have fought for Hawaiian rights since before I was born. We both know that there was no fight for Hawaiian rights during the 50’s and 40’s. The only fight prior to those years was to restore the Kingdom to its former status which resulted in the arrests of Hawaiian Patriots. Hawaiian activism was almost unheard of from that time until the PKO in the 70’s. And if I take your word that you’ve been “fighting” for Hawaiian rights for over 50 years, then you already know that the few efforts to unite the various organizations have been fruitless. I’ve been to several of them, and I’ve also seen it start off with “patience passion and compassion,” as you so aptly put it, only to end up in heated debates, animosity, fist fights and deeper divisions.
You give me too much credit to state that I feel strongly about “my system.” I have no system of my own. It is also apparent that you miss my point in saying that my last statement was meant to be offensive when I had no intentions on doing that either. Your “because we can" attitude to that one Kingdom advocate you spoke with and the first few words in opening up your discussion leaves much to be misconstrued. It is here that part of the dilemma lies. Different minds, different desires.
If you really “know” me as you claim, than you know that I was born, taught and raised to continue the fight that my grandparents and great grandparents could not finish, and I have taught my own children to do the same. It is their choice to continue it if the dreams of my Kupuna and I go unfulfilled.
What to me is offensive, is the fact that you have belittled the efforts of Queen Liliuokalani and her predecessors in your statements above. You also belittle the achievements of King Kamehameha in uniting the islands under his rule after the hundreds if not thousands of years of feuding traditional and customary chiefs which then evolved into a constitutional monarchy. The Hawaiian rights many fight for now, were protected legal rights under the pre-1893 Hawaiian government. The same government that you refer to as existing in “a short period of Hawaiian history.” You forget that the mere term “Hawaiian” was created by the Haole but was also later meant to define nationals of the Kingdom of Hawaii. With this in mind, how do you define “Hawaiian rights”? When I call myself a Hawaiian, I am referring to my being a descendant of a Hawaiian national. From what source do you call upon as your claim to being a Hawaiian? Whose rights were you fighting for? Hawaiian? Kanaka Maoli/Oiwi? You know nationality and race is not the same.
It was not of their own fault that there were only “40 thousand Hawaiians left” during the signing of the Ku’e petitions, but there are nations in existence today whose citizens number less than a hundred! Those signatures represented the majority of the Kingdom subjects at that time. I am a product of those same subjects. My quest is to restore what they held dear. If you had 40 thousand Kanaka’s supporting you, you would be a force to reckon with here in Hawaii.
I’m not here to force or convince ANYONE! I keep it basic. I tell the truth of our history. I and many others, educate a few about our desires and direction, and it is up to them to decide what road to take.
The Con Con would take forever for it to reach a general consensus, how many years do you plan on holding it? (pun intended) I commend you for your efforts, but realistically, due to human nature, you will never unite all Kanaka’s. I have made my “FREE Informed CHOICE” as you put it, but look what is happening between you and I for the “choice“ I made, and you know I do not stand alone in my views.
Replies
I wanted to invite you to attend a class that Mahealani-Ventura Oliver, her husband John, Kainoa Mahoe, and Pilialoha Teves will be presenting on Oahu. Here is the information:
"Remedy and Solutions" class on 6/21/08 at Makakilo Elementary School, Oahu from 10:00am to 2:00pm
I read what you wrote about living on the beach and not seeing any assistance. I too lived in a homeless shelter for 2 years thinking to myself all the time, how absurd! me homeless in my own homeland. I couldn't afford the rent on my salary at the time. I would often sit up nights and wonder who the land belonged to before, what Kanaka family owned the land and how did they lose it? Now I know, through the diligent teaching of Mahealani and John that Kanaka never lost their land, it is here and we have the only lawful deed to the lands. I've also learned that everyone owns land in Ko Hawaii Pae Aina. I'm not sure if she is working on koe nae papers for Oahu, I thought she was but I didn't see it listed. Here we have koe nae papers for Honuaula, Hamakualoa, Keanae, on Molokai is Kaluakoi, on Hawaii is Keauhou / Kohanaiki.
You will never see this in the newspapers. They will never publicize how a development was truly stopped. It is because of the koe nae papers submitted by Kanaka Maoli. It puts red flags up all over the place and makes it hard if not impossible to move on a piece of property with lots of red flags all over it. Why are we able to do this? Because of the Constitution and the Mahele that King Kamehameha III put into place for us and which Queen Liliuokalani left intact. 4 developments were stopped because of this process. More koe nae is coming up.
I have since turned in paperwork for Honuaula, Molokai (just to help with more red flags and whatever else I can do to assist them), and soon Keanae because my 10 yr. old daughter expressed a desire to some day live there while we were driving up that way to assist with paperwork for a presentation with Mahealani and John.
They have provided me with a remedy which I did not have before. They have provided me with an opportunity to own land which I would have never had a chance to under the de facto. There was a problem and they provided a remedy. OHA never came up with a remedy. My heart wasn't in DHHL although I'm 50+% Hawaiian. I couldn't see that logic, even before I learned about the de facto. I can't comfortably live in a house because I'm 50% Hawaiian while other Kanaka who are 40% cannot and probably know more about our culture, our language, our way of life then I'll ever know.
So yea, please go to the meeting if you can and hear what she has to say.
Aloha and you have a very good night!
No sweat! You have a great weekend! Me, I'm going to take my children surfing this Sunday...wish you all could come!
Aloha, Yolanda
Some may even have issues about coming to a consensus on a "form of Government" when one is already in existance (The Hawaiian Kingdom) albeit in suspension. I say in suspension, because it was never lawfully dissolved. To try and create a new government would be dangerous to the inherent sovereignty of descendants of Hawaiian Nationals whose right to reinstate their government to full power preserved by Queen Liliuokalani who used deliberate acts through the Law of Nations. The rule of postliminium as described in The Law of Nations describes a "right in virtue of which persons and things taken by the enemy are restored to their former state, when coming again under the power of the nation to which they belong." A newly formed nation would not be qualified to claim through International Law, that which rightfully belongs to the Hawaiian Kingdom. It would once again be a De Facto government trying to claim property from another De Facto government. In other words, that which rightfully belongs to the Hawaiian Kingdom formed under its constitution who was recognized as a nation amongst nations are the only ones with a rightful claim. Any "new government" would not have a lawful right to make that claim.
The right to reinstate the nation (Kingdom of Hawaii) was preserved through the Law of Nations, and it is only through the Law of Nations that it can be restored.
And thats only one of the issues that will keep Na Kanaka apart, the inability to recognize that alone.
Some of our status quo WILL be theirs too if we do not all get along. We may not all agree 100% but I think we should consider a Con Con such as this. I think we may want to put our egos aside just for a bit because so much can be done if we do.
I agree with you about the people too.... I just hope there is not too much analysis because with too much analysis there will be Analysis Paralysis where very little is done to rectify what needs to be rectified.
To present it to the people is a good thing. After all... we only have each other. Do I think it will be resolved? It will only be resolved if WE choose to resolve it. I don't think Americans are in our way AT ALL. WE are in our own way so I hope some of us reconsider and give it a chance because to give this a chance is to give our keiki and our mo'opuna a chance.
Aloha, Lana
There was only one Hawaiian Kingdom in existance that qualifies as a subject under the traditional definition of international law. "A state had to be sovereign: It needed a territory, a population, a government, and the ability to engage in diplomatic or foreign relations." How many of the "5-6 groups" who are caliming to be the rightful Kingdom have met all requirements under International Law in legitimizing their claims?
This is where the division between your views and mine lies. My great grandparents were loyal to the crown, so were the majority of Hawaiian Nationals who signed the Ku'e Petitions. Their love and loyalty for the constitutional monarchy was passed on to my grand parents, who passed it on to my parents who then passed it on to me. It is a legacy I will endeavor to hold dear in respect of my ancestors whose iwi remain on this very Kuleana land that I occupy. It was because of that "nation" I have what I have now. For me and countless others, nothing less will do. I never left the rights to exist on my land and neither did my parents or grandparents. The rights given to my ancestors under their form of government, the same government that I as a descendant have a legitimate right to restore and perpetuate.
You have your right to create a new form of government as did the provisional government after the unlawful overthrow and call it self determination, others however would regard it as treason and the undermining of the wishes of our Kupuna. It would be a hard sell to get Hawaiian Patriots to join you in your endeavor.
Dom
You give me too much credit to state that I feel strongly about “my system.” I have no system of my own. It is also apparent that you miss my point in saying that my last statement was meant to be offensive when I had no intentions on doing that either. Your “because we can" attitude to that one Kingdom advocate you spoke with and the first few words in opening up your discussion leaves much to be misconstrued. It is here that part of the dilemma lies. Different minds, different desires.
If you really “know” me as you claim, than you know that I was born, taught and raised to continue the fight that my grandparents and great grandparents could not finish, and I have taught my own children to do the same. It is their choice to continue it if the dreams of my Kupuna and I go unfulfilled.
What to me is offensive, is the fact that you have belittled the efforts of Queen Liliuokalani and her predecessors in your statements above. You also belittle the achievements of King Kamehameha in uniting the islands under his rule after the hundreds if not thousands of years of feuding traditional and customary chiefs which then evolved into a constitutional monarchy. The Hawaiian rights many fight for now, were protected legal rights under the pre-1893 Hawaiian government. The same government that you refer to as existing in “a short period of Hawaiian history.” You forget that the mere term “Hawaiian” was created by the Haole but was also later meant to define nationals of the Kingdom of Hawaii. With this in mind, how do you define “Hawaiian rights”? When I call myself a Hawaiian, I am referring to my being a descendant of a Hawaiian national. From what source do you call upon as your claim to being a Hawaiian? Whose rights were you fighting for? Hawaiian? Kanaka Maoli/Oiwi? You know nationality and race is not the same.
It was not of their own fault that there were only “40 thousand Hawaiians left” during the signing of the Ku’e petitions, but there are nations in existence today whose citizens number less than a hundred! Those signatures represented the majority of the Kingdom subjects at that time. I am a product of those same subjects. My quest is to restore what they held dear. If you had 40 thousand Kanaka’s supporting you, you would be a force to reckon with here in Hawaii.
I’m not here to force or convince ANYONE! I keep it basic. I tell the truth of our history. I and many others, educate a few about our desires and direction, and it is up to them to decide what road to take.
The Con Con would take forever for it to reach a general consensus, how many years do you plan on holding it? (pun intended) I commend you for your efforts, but realistically, due to human nature, you will never unite all Kanaka’s. I have made my “FREE Informed CHOICE” as you put it, but look what is happening between you and I for the “choice“ I made, and you know I do not stand alone in my views.
-
1
-
2
of 2 Next