Rep. Nick Rahall, D-W.Va., and the committee's chairman, called the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii in 1893 a dark chapter in U.S. history.
"I can assure you that the committee will continue to press forward with re-establishment of a government-to-government relationship with the native Hawaiians," he said.
I read this quote in the Star Bulletin and thought great they want to talk to the Kingdom. So I called his office and was bounced around until they sent me to the Bureau of Indian Affairs. I told the women who answered they made a mistake we are not Indians. "What are you calling in reference to?" I explained the congressman was interested in government to government relations and we would be happy to start a dialogue.
She told me that they organized the Akaka hearing with the congressman and did I have a question about the hearing. I asked why Hawaiians were not allowed to testify about a bill that was basically a land grab and effected them directly?
"Oh no you can submit testimony up to ten days after the hearing."
OK what's the email?
teresa.bravo@mail.house.gov
I know you Ms. Bravo and you know us!
"I do?"
Yes, Ms. Bravo is from the Native American Rights Fund [NARF], a group closely working with OHA to fight any legal efforts by Hawaiian Nationals. I described what happened in this article.
http://www.indiancountrytoday.com/yourict/41827582.html#ynext
I informed her I did not know who her constituency was because in my discussions with First Nations people no one believed that NARF represented them.
So what will happen to you submissions? I don't know, but will it effect the passage of the Akaka Bill? Yes! They can say they had full open process and found full support by Hawaiians for the bill.
This bill will have the same legal weight as the Organic act, Annexation resolution and the Plebiscite.
DUBIOUS
So what government is Nick Rahall going to talk to? I suspect its leader is named Haunani!
You need to be a member of maoliworld to add comments!
So what Nick Rahall is saying is that they support U.S. De-occupation and re-establishing U.S. relations with Hawai'i; but that's not what they are inferring. The more they state things; they more they stick a finger up their arses. They truly don't know what they are saying. Their definitions are awry which means it's not a nation to nation relationship; but a dependent nation within a nation that equates to belligerent occupation.
The U.S. can't even produce a ratified treaty of annexation nor did they have the people's consent. What their puppet government ceded to them was it's good will and nothing else because it didn't have anything to cede.
Replies
The U.S. can't even produce a ratified treaty of annexation nor did they have the people's consent. What their puppet government ceded to them was it's good will and nothing else because it didn't have anything to cede.
So much for the U.S. illusionists!
Tane