Response to Tom McAuliff (Makaulike) ten points of argument he learned from reading Conklin and Twigg-Smith's versions:1) The 1890 census show that 50.1% (roughly 84% of them were aboriginal) of the residents within the Kingdom were citizens and 49.9% were foreigners (largely contract workers and less than 10% being U.S. Americans). No one said the Kingdom was not multi-ethnic. If you research through the Library of Congress, you will find documents about the conspirators, even those within the U.S. government. Most of the players were U.S. Americans; e.g. U.S. Secretary James Blaine, a few power elite in Washington, U.S. Minister Stevens and a few of the U.S. Presidents and Lorrin Thurston. It was Conklin that made the remark that none of the troops pointed guns at the Queen; and argument that no one made but him. The presence of the troops were to show formidable force and there to protect the U.S. conspirators. James Blaine communicated with his dear friend Stevens and to Thurston, to destablized the Kingdom's government without setting international precedent and that the U.S. would be acceptable toward annexation. Later, President Harrison was agreeable and wanted the annexation ratified before his term expired and was pissed when it didn't happen. U.S. Congress deemed that the landing of the troops were not there to protect U.S. Citizens but the conspirators because of where they situated themselves. The question was raised that why only the U.S. landed troops to protect its citizens when the other countries didn't feel there was not a situation to merit it. The Kingdom did have freedoms and equality; unlike the U.S. that was still struggling with its slavery problem after their Civil War. It was the citizens that asked the Queen to restore the constitution or promulgate a similar one. The Bayonet Constitution of 1887 wasn't ratified and disenfranchised the citizens from involvement in the government. Your remark that you parroted is silly. The chopping off heads was a sarcastic remark the Queen may have made through her anger which she denies stating; the form of execution in Hawai'i was hanging. The other remark was also smug and stupid. You give too much credence to John Young when it was Vancouver that the King picked his brains and how the West interrelated with each other's country. Don't forget who the BOSS was; it was the King and his decision and design alone. As far as the King uniting the islands to form the Kingdom; he did it and would have done it with or without the Western weapons. It was more expedient as far as Kamehameha the Great thought. It's the same as you European stock who learned to use gun power from the Chinese; without the Chinese and Middle Easterners, you wouldn't have Kingdoms and nations. So, don't go there if you don't want to be embarassed. BTW, the royalty did NOT invite the missionaries to Hawai'i. Opukaiah, a commoner and convert is credited for that. Get your facts straight. Under international law, de-occupation is not far-fetched and it will happen whether you like it or not; at least you've been given notice of the facts. 2) Your facts are incorrect and you need to research it for yourself thoroughly in the proper places. The Queen was threatened and sign it under duress which makes it null and void; that's an ancient law from the time of Esau that many countries recognize. The conspirators wrote it out and made her sign it as Liliuokalani Dominis which was not her legal signature as head of state and they did that to humiliate her (rubbing salt into the wound) Their arrogance overruled legalese. About 96% of the citizens signed the Ku'e Petitions; not only the aborginial Hawaiian citizens. The Queen's initial protest to the U.S. was also signed by 248 caucasian citizens. You're forgetting that Thurston Twigg-Smith is the grandson of Lorrin Thurston; one of the traitors of the Hawaiian Kingdom that was complicit with the Washington power elite and Conkline is a recent settler who is reinterpreting our history to fit his idealogy of manifest destiny, a doctrine sponsored by the U.S.A. I think you better rethink that last statement because if you look, the U.S. still functions with that attitude and the oligarchy is still running your country. Semantics! You can call the country leader whatever you want; the situation is still the same. As for the other monarchiesbeing on their way out; don't hold your breath. We were the only country that elected two of our monarchs. This time around, we may not decide for a monarchy; but that's not your decision, it's for the Hawai'i nationals to make. 3) The republic of Hawai'i did not have the citizens' support as deemed by the Ku'e Petitions. and the U.S. President Cleveland called them neither de jure nor defacto. They were ipso facto due to circumstances. The Turpie Resolution of May 31, 1894 threatened other countries that any intervention in the Hawaiian affair was an unfriendly act which meant that if they interceded, it would be an act of war. The republic of Hawai'i did not have the people's consent; thus they were illegitimate, a created and supported militarily U.S. puppet government. The debt that the U.S. assumed was that of the republic of Hawai'i and not the Hawaiian Kingdom because it was as the republic of Hawai'i that the U.S. annexed. The U.S. had been trying to annex Hawai'i for over 65 years prior to its invasion and belligerent occupation. 4) Your statement is highly distorted. According to the State of Hawai'i Data Book, voter turnout for the 1959 General Election was 171,383, which reported that 30,639 or 18% of those voted abstained, voting neither yes or no on the plebiscite and only voted for their representative of their district which means only 77% really voted for statehood. Out of 632,772 population, 381,859 were eligible to vote. About 35% of the eligible voters actively sought statehood which equates to about 1/3 of the eligible voters voting and of that about 94% voted for statehood. The only question proposed read, "Shall Hawai'i immediately be granted into the Union as a state?"; there were no other options. The other thing is 23% of the population were born out-of-state; mostly U.S. military and their dependents. There are accounts where some businesses refused to allow Hawaiians employed by them to vote. (Thanks Arnie for the info on statistics). The U.S. being aware of the 1960 Mandate rushed to declared Hawai'i and Alaska a state. There was no UN monitor or observation; the U.S. reported the results of statehood to the UN and both Alaska and Hawai'i was removed from the NGO list. Hawai'i never begged to be part of the U.S. It was the U.S. American settlers that did all the begging. The only recognized Royalty at that time was Kamokila Campbell and she was against statehood like the overwhelming majority of us. Now, do your math! We remember the Massie Case and the racial strife going on in the U.S. Do you really think we'd want to belong to a racist country? I, for one, was vehemently against it. 5) At least we agree on one thing; we are against the Akaka Bill. As far as the Kingdom of Hawai'i which is under belligerent occupation by the U.S.A., you really don't have a choice about that. Based on international law and U.S. Constitutional law, it won't be your decision as you are part of the hostile occupier and still a U.S. citizen but not a Hawaiian Kingdom citizen. You are here as a violation of the laws of occupation; you would have to choose whether to remain a U.S. citizen or expatriate to our country and nationalize to be a citizen of the Hawaiian Kingdom. Don't get us wrong; but it's the law. The other thing is that Hawaiians never hated the U.S. American people or those of any other country; but we do love our country more. The fact is Hawai'i was never a part of the U.S. and if you have a problem with that; take it up with your country who perpetuated the fraud.6) You are correct. We are not "indigenous"; we are aboriginal. Indigenous is a colonial term usage and part of the U.S. Manifest Destiny doctrines which is based on four of the Roman Catholic Church Papal Bulls which the Protestants adopted. I could say that you are not indigenous to the North American continent and descend from the Neanderthals in Europe; which is an anthropological fact as well. Naturally, this is irrelevant to our topic since the U.S. crime was committed in 1893 while we were still a recognized sovereign and independent nation and a peer to the U.S.A. The Host culture is Polynesian Hawaiian and you flunked geography; anthropology, and history; so stop spinning facts; your're speaking out of the both sides of your mouth. 7) This is a non-issue as it has been explained previously. This is buyer beware; take it up with your government that committed the fraud and deceit. If I bought your car that someone stole; would I be compelled to return it to you? Would you expect it to be returned to you or sold back to you? What if I invested in repairing and upgrading it? Who would I go to for restitution and reparations for my time and expense? Should I return it to you or keep it because I paid for it and assumed it is mine with a clear title to it? I bought it in good faith; so who is the victim here?8) The government that commited the crime is continuous and is the same government. It's gratuitous to think that because some other person that represented the country should not right the wrong committed by the predecessor. Bush unlawfully invaded Iraq and belligerently occupies it in the name of the U.S. Does the U.S. keep Iraq or should Obama work to de-occupy Iraq and to mend relations with that country? Should your children say, "Tough Shit!" I wasn't born when it happened!" and continue the belligerent occupation? If someone murders one of your family and is found forty years later; do you let him go free because he now has a family of his own? If I take a priceless heirloom of yours and give it to my child and he gives it to his and it gets passed down a few generations; then it's discovered that my descendant has an heirloom that belongs to your family, should it be returned to your family or should my descendant keep it? By now you should get the picture.9) This is a classic case of the Stockholme Syndrome and forced assimilation, conditioning, and propaganda to the U.S. Just because we live under the U.S. belligerent occupation doesn't mean we stop living and preservation of our families may lead us to various careers and for different reasons. What you present is all sales and marketing which even U.S. Americans fall prey to. Many have good intentions whether they are Hawaiians or U.S. Americans, or any other people from other countries. The other comment is inconsequential since it's been discussed. 10) What time period are you classifying as modern history. You flippantly use the word hate whenever people don't agree with the U.S. American point of view. Yet you praise U.S. Americans that take a stand for justice, freedom, human rights, and patriotism regardless if the U.S. adheres to those values or not. You proceed to tells us how, what, and why we should think about the issues. You tend to speak for us all and give reasons on why we think as we do rather than understand and comprehend what we are saying. I contend that you relish in putting words in our mouths and assume what we are thinking. What we both are dealing with is our concept, perspective, and interpretation in relation to our issues. Equality and not exclusion is not solely the American way; but I think you should look clearer at your country and see its shortcomings, I'm sure you will see the contradictions. What looks good on paper and what is actually practiced is not necessarily identical. Obama is of the status quo and his election is vacuous due to the oligarchy that put him there for a reason. In the U.S., there are 22 political parties that are recognized and registered by the government. A two-party system is a misnomer when you consider that the corporate powers control and regulate the country. The U.S. is a war economy supported by the military industrial complex. The U.S. is still struggling with its racial issues and equality is mercurial in its WASP elite mainstream society and it's people are forced to comply to it to be considered equal. The system can work if the people are outraged enough to act on it; after all, that's what spurred the American-British colonist to rebel and create their own government.. This topic about the U.S. is a subject worthing of a separate discussion due to the illusion it creates and this short note doesn't do it justice. No country is perfect; even the Hawaiian Kingdom, but it's ours as the U.S. is yours. Your closing remark is sound advice. The last sentence of course is controversial and contentious but we'll leave it for another time. Tane
Interesting how they invent arguments and their POV and insist that i't's ours; then debate on those premises. We all know racism is a white man's thing developed through the U.S. Manifest Destiny created from those three Papal Bulls.
They just can't get it because of their mentality. They are just playing their version of mind-games and are inconsequential to the facts.
"Never mind Mr. Tane Incong... found your interview on Utube and elsewhere.
Also I find it interesting that you would actually wear our saviors cross when all you seem to do is spread hate. From the posts I've just read it certainly is not Aloha nor pono in my opinion and you do nothing to win people over to your point of view with slights, inuendo and insults.
Anyway... I look forward to reading your information and to finding out more about you and your POV."
In other words he claims that he wants to know your POV and will read what you post... but he will continue to argue with you LOL He speaks with forked tongue.
Oh, i realized that you addressed opukahaia of which in my version, I said the same thing of how he was wrong but w/o mentioning opukahaia. I know these dumb fucks, they'll use that to their advantage & Ken has done that before to me.
Mahalo for this e Tane. I was actually doing something similar shortly after he made his blog, but never finished it & saw that you posted this elsewhere. I still will finish mine. But I am glad that you did this.
Comments
They just can't get it because of their mentality. They are just playing their version of mind-games and are inconsequential to the facts.
I post as "Lana" there... and I call him "Uncle Tom" LOL Take it easy and hope you keep keeping on....
E malama pono.
yes it's me kaohiai from kehaus blog, I look forward to shutting h1ken1 and his lingle look alike ( aunty tom)down here to Aloha
Also I find it interesting that you would actually wear our saviors cross when all you seem to do is spread hate. From the posts I've just read it certainly is not Aloha nor pono in my opinion and you do nothing to win people over to your point of view with slights, inuendo and insults.
Anyway... I look forward to reading your information and to finding out more about you and your POV."
In other words he claims that he wants to know your POV and will read what you post... but he will continue to argue with you LOL He speaks with forked tongue.