All Posts (6512)
Sort by
The many Meanings of TaroBy Don Blakeley, Gathering Place, Honolulu Star-BulletinSTORY SUMMARY »Is taro a plant with big heart-shaped leaves, a basic foodstuff, a spirit to be venerated, a member of a distinct historical community, a commodity, an object to be genetically engineered?The controversy about taro arises because these identities and values become competitive. As the five-year moratorium on the genetic modification of Hawaiian taro begins, retired philosophy professor Don Blakeley explores the many meanings of taro and suggests ways we can all use this time to open ourselves to views different from our own.FULL STORY »A five-year ban on genetic modification of Hawaiian taro began on July 1. After several years of debate, the legislators mediated between two "cultures," the scientific technicians and the Hawaiian traditionalists -- both of which are very much a part of contemporary Hawaiian life.Both parties would be offended if they were accused of being anti-environmental. Both want the best interests of the biosphere to be respected. Disagreements occur because different meanings of taro are in conflict. To determine the identity of taro is also to determine its value. Is it a plant with big heart-shaped leaves, a basic foodstuff, a spirit to be venerated, a member of a distinct historical community, a commodity, an object to be genetically engineered?Notice first a distinction between utility, interdependent and intrinsic values.» Utility values are important because they serve our interests. Such values focus on function and not the things themselves. These values are transferable and relative. Employees, for example, might be valued for their usefulness, but they are not reducible to this value.» Interdependent values occur in the complex network of relationships and processes of a being's existence. Everything depends upon and contributes to a setting involving others. A reusable grocery bag, for example, affects plastic bag production, landfills, animal life, environmental quality, future generations and so on.» Intrinsic value resides in the individualized nature of things. This piece of reef, that turtle, flower or human, when closely observed, reveals intricacy and marvels that make it uniquely what it is. These values are built in and not simply replaceable by other values. The significance of such value may be communicated best by poetic or spiritual language.Utility and natureCultures have defined nature in various ways over time. The West has emphasized a pragmatic (utility) approach. Pre-modern cultures typically find inherent values in the powers of nature. Given the transformation in environmental assessment today, it is now possible to connect these two. A modern ecological perspective can include new values of a "culture" of science and technology which complements deep values that have been part of past Hawaiian practices.Like lots of things, taro has all three values. It is a foodstuff, it is part of a food production process, integral to the natural and social ecology of Hawaii, and it is uniquely itself because of its own individual nature. From the nano level of its composition to the placement of taro farming in island ecology and its historical role in society, "taro" covers a wide range of meanings.The controversy about taro arises because these identities and values become competitive. For biotechnology, primary values include a strong, healthy plant, benefiting farmers, making a better commodity, favorable to consumers, a more durable product for society. The emphasis is on utilitarian and limited interdependent values.For the traditionalist, value radiates from intrinsic to interdependent to utility value. Taro has a deep identity in the history and culture of Hawaii. It is central to creation stories, a sustaining force, an integral part of communal ritual and protocol, supportive of family life and importantly related to the land and water, a reminder of ancestors, contributor to special gatherings and everyday life. If you don't know this, you do not know taro as kalo.Kalo is not taro as an ag product to generate revenue, not the species colocasia esculenta or a potentially genetically altered product with increased disease resistance. These values are different and can be accommodated only if they presuppose proper respect and usage of taro. To harm taro would disrespect kalo, the spirit of Haloa, and damage the cultural identity and way of life of its community.Hawaiians have been subjected to alien values imposed across the spectrum of their life's options. Today, the resurgence of the unique values of native Hawaiian culture is observable in many facets of the community, but the costs have been enormous. Genetic engineering involves another perilous encounter.Sharing knowledgeCan taro retain its value, its spirit, and be subjected to treatment alien to its natural, historical and cultural identity? How can one re-engineer nature without also re-engineering culture? The natural response from its indigenous setting is, "Stop! Please. A moratorium at least." If entitlement secures a rights-claim, does not taro have a right to a flourishing natural life, one with an integrity and beauty of being, free of artificial manipulation?But the intrinsic and cultural value of taro as kalo is not the whole story. Taro's identity is many and changing. We ourselves, as people, are valued differently in a marketplace, a religious service, a sport, a medical lab and many other places. We are manipulated, objectified, rated and so on while nevertheless maintaining value as unique beings.Even so, we are being re-engineered by education and technology in both threatening and enhancing ways. There are tradeoffs that persuade us to tolerate actions that, in ordinary circumstances, we would protest. Taro is caught up in this ongoing process like everything else.Science does reveal the wonders and powers of nature -- including taro -- in a way impossible to realize otherwise. Both scientists and traditional taro farmers have limited knowledge even about the nature of their own expertise. Each can learn from the other. Each provides methods to do what humans and other beings constantly do -- that is, appreciate and utilize. A hard line against or for GMOs is not as persuasive or responsible as it might appear.Evaluative tradeoffs and mutual respect are due. Biotechnology might be a threat to the value of Hawaiian taro and it might also be the means to preserve it in future circumstances. Adequate evidence of safety and effectiveness should be established. Until that occurs, possible adverse threats cannot outweigh the current practices of Hawaiian taro production.Enhancing taroA holistic ecology approach that sees an interdependence of culture and nature can help in thinking about taro. It calls us to recognize deep values that cannot be reduced or converted to other values. It challenges us to prioritize and strive to accommodate and complement nature and the place of culture within it.True, utility values dominate scientific-industrial-economic practices. But this need not be the case for a community. To protect beings and things of value, genetic engineering can be "humanized" by finding its place in the ranking of values. With precautionary measures and when properly employed, it can be an appropriate homage, a way to honor and enhance the meaning of taro.Taro's identity is part of the islands' identity. Its story is part of Hawaii's story. Island children can be educated by thinking through such issues. With care, deep values can be preserved, expanded, diversified, and be complementary to nature and contemporary island life.We all are faced with the challenge of preserving and enhancing our world by integrating and sustaining values that naturalize culture and culturalize nature in the best ways we can manage. Wise use of past practices and values should be supported because a culture is distinguished by its interrelational and intrinsic values. It shows that it cares about itself by cultivating and enriching its values and skills.The moratorium is a time to continue to reflect, to articulate perspectives, investigate options, in an effort to preserve deep traditional connections and enhance, with appropriate use of technology, future life practices. Call it eco-aloha, a time to exercise the spirit of aloha as an environmental philosophy.Don Blakeley is a resident of Honolulu and a retired professor of philosophy. dblakehawaii@gmail.com
..Cell phone towers seen as revenue source<!--endheadline-->One-time eyesores can fetch a pretty price in rent for property owners
Cell phone antennas were once the eyesore that nobody wanted.
But they're looking good today to condo associations, some private property owners and even the city and county of Honolulu, all of which have found that hosting them can be worth money.
Four or five cell phone towers sit on the roof at the Pat's at Punalu'u condominiums in Windward O'ahu, and each brings in $800 to $1,000 a month in rent, said property manager Tom Heiden.
"It's very lucrative," Heiden said, adding that the towers have been there since cell phones became popular. "It's a source of revenue for the association.
"
The city has 103 antennas of varying applications — not just cell phones — on its property and reaps an average of about $1,200 a month for each, said Gordon Bruce, director of the city Department of Information Technology. That amounts to nearly $1.5 million a year.
And there are hundreds more towers out there with thousands of antennas.
need is great
As the use of cell phones has proliferated, the need for more transmission towers has, too.
In Hawai'i, the number of cell phone subscribers more than doubled from 2000 to 2006, or from 454,000 users to more than 1 million.
Because the phones operate via radio waves, antennas are needed to relay signals from one phone to another. Today, there are at least 3,200 of these antennas on O'ahu alone on everything from private property to state- and city-owned land, according to the city Department of Planning and Permitting. Not all of them are on individual towers; co-locating is encouraged to reduce the visual blight.
And while most people see the value of the cell phone for emergencies, staying in touch with children and simple convenience, some still see the antennas as an eyesore to be denied.
"It's a perfect not-in-my-back-yard issue," Bruce said. "Traditionally, the neighborhood boards don't want them in their back yard. They want the capability of good mobile phone service, but they don't want the antenna.
"
disguised towers
Some cell phone providers have worked to disguise their equipment. Some "stealth towers" are painted to match their surroundings, and still others are made to look like palm trees or pine trees.
In 2002, Kalihi Elementary School became home to the first "stealth pine-tree tower" in the Islands and at that time was receiving $1,200 a month as a result.
Several years ago, a cell phone company wanted to hide an antenna in a rock and place it at Lanikai Park, said Andrea Jepson, a Lanikai resident. The company was willing to pay a monthly fee and the Lanikai Association board liked the idea, but the community balked and eventually killed the project, Jepson said.
Not long afterward, a Lanikai resident allowed two cell phone companies to place towers on his Ko'oho'o Place property, to the dismay of neighbors, she said.
Now, a new company wants to co-locate another antenna at the site, which is on conservation land, and the community has mobilized against it, Jepson said.
Any antenna that goes up must get a city building permit and if it is slated for conservation land, a conservation district use permit is required, said Sam Lemmo, with the state Department of Land and Natural Resources.
Lemmo, who handles the permits and heads the Office of Conservation and Coastal Lands, said he couldn't say how many antennas are on state land but it is a lot, and the state is getting a fee for the use of the land.
Telecommunication sites are located throughout the island on conservation land and typically have more than one antenna located there, he said.
expanded coverage
When cell phone usage took off, the state tried to create a plan for tower locations but soon realized it couldn't dictate to private industry where to place its equipment, Lemmo said.
But with a mandate to protect scenic resources, the DLNR has set up guidelines and a permitting process, he said.
"We were very concerned about the proliferation of telecommunication sites, especially with the explosion of cell phone use," Lemmo said. "So we adopted a policy where we would promote co-habitation.
"
Even when a service provider receives a permit for a new tower, it will most likely be in an area where a tower already exists and must be strong enough for other companies to attach to it, he said.
Lemmo said he's seen fewer applications lately, but a new study expected next month could result in an expanded coverage area for the state's enhanced 911 system and that may mean more antenna towers.
The Wireless e911 Board has initiated a study to locate areas that lack wireless phone coverage in the state, said Philip Kahue, executive director of the board. A report by Intrado Inc. is expected in August and should include a list that prioritizes the areas, Kahue wrote in an e-mail.
"The board will take Intrado's recommendations into consideration to decide whether or not to implement a plan to expand coverage for both geographically remote and in-building areas," he said. In-building areas are locations in a building where cell phones don't work, such as in a parking garage, Kahue explained.
A monthly cell phone fee collected by the state would pay for the upgrades.
A cell phone tower disguised to look like a palm tree overlooks Waipahu in Waikele, where palm trees are a feature of the landscape.
Antennas ring the roof of this apartment building at the end of South King Street. When a service provider receives a permit for a new tower, it will most likely be in an area where a tower already exists and must be strong enough for other companies to attach to it.
This antenna rises from a corner of Mililani Mauka District Park.
| [hawaii-nation] Stand Up & Be Counted On "Voices Of Truth" | |
| From: | hawaii-nation@yahoogroups.com on behalf of `Ehu Kekahu Cardwell (ehukekahu@koanifoundation.org) |
| Sent: | Sun 7/20/08 8:35 AM |
| To: | List Servs (ehukekahu@koanifoundation.org); Hawai`i Nation (hawaii-nation@yahoogroups.com) |
Want to know the real reason they want to keep Hawaiians from `Iolani Palace?
Find the answer at our Free Hawai`i blog.
Here’s this week’s schedule for Voices Of Truth – One-On-One With Hawai`i’s Future.
MONDAY, July 21st At 6:30 PM – Maui – Akaku, Channel 53
MONDAY, July 21st At 7:00 PM & FRIDAY, July 25th At 5:30 PM - Hawai`i Island – Na Leo, Channel 53
THURSDAY, July 24th At 8:30 PM & FRIDAY, July 25th At 8:30 AM – Kaua` – Ho`ike, Channel 52
SATURDAY, July 26th At 8:00 PM – O`ahu, `Olelo, Channel 53
“Enough For Tomorrow – A Visit With Foster Ampong”
What do future economic realities say about Hawai`i? Will there be enough for everyone or will you be one of many left out? Hear what Foster says about creating a sustainable future in Hawai`i that includes everyone. Watch It Here.
Voices Of Truth interview those creating a better future for Hawai`i to discover what made them go from armchair observers to active participants. We hope you’ll be inspired to do the same.
If you support our issues on the Free Hawai`i Broadcasting Network, please email this to a friend to help us continue. A donation today helps further our work. Every single penny counts.
Donating is easy on our Voices Of Truth website via PayPal.
You can view Voices Of Truth on the web anytime.
For news and issues that affect you, watch Free Hawai`i TV, both a part of the Free Hawai`i Broadcasting Network.
`Ehu Kekahu Cardwell
The Koani Foundation
Visit FreeHawaii.Info
Watch Free Hawai`i TV
Voices Of Truth online
The Free Hawai`i Broadcasting Network
FreeHawai'i Banner for Maoliworld
FreeHawai'i Banner for Myspace
Hele mai kakou!!
Ka La Ho'iho'i Ea - july 27th @ Thomas Square on O'ahu ,is an annual celebration to recognize July 31, 1843.!
!
We got wicked music, check our line up-!
!
Ka La Ho'i All Star Band!
!
Ernie Cruz Jr!
!
Kupaaina!
!
Jon Osorio and Ikaika Hussey!
!
Oiwi!
!
Kupaukolu!
!
also we got keiki fun, an art exhibit, community booths, and tons of Kanaka culture to enjoy!!
!
hope to see you there, don't forget your chair(or lauhala mat)!
!
!!
!!
!!
WHAT BETTER WAY TO SHOVE DA FINGER of COLONIALISM " USA'S " UP DA KANAKA MAOLI'Z OKOLE !!KU'E ~ EA!
NEW RULES PROPOSED FOR 'IOLANI PALACE Show Your Outrage! - Attend Hearings & Tell Them "'A'OLE!" ("NO!")Department Of Land & Natural Resources (DLNR) will hold public hearings on proposed new rules for 'Iolani Palace.
The rules are an attempt to banish the Hawaiian Kingdom from the grounds and prevent anyone from claiming the Palace as an active seat of government in the future.
If successful, DLNR would be able to assert force of law to ensure "museum" status for 'Iolani Palace.
It is vital for all concerned citizens of Hawai'i to attend one of the hearings.
Let them know DLNR does not speak for you nor need to "protect" 'Iolani Palace from Hawaiians.
Hearings Schedule - Tuesday, August 12, 2008, 6:30 PM, Kaunakakai Elementary School Cafeteria, 30 Ailoa Street, Kaunakakai Tuesday, August 12, 2008, 5 PM, Lana'i High and Elementary School, Room Ll6, 555 Fraser Ave.
, Lana'i City Wednesday, August 13, 2008, 6:30 PM, DLNR Boardroom 132, 1151 Punchbowl Street, HonoluluWednesday, August 13, 2008, 6:30 PM, Events Pavilion, Old Kona Airport Park, 75-5480 Kuakini Highway, Kailua-Kona Wednesday, August 13, 2008, 6:30 PM, Maui County Planning Department Conference Room, 1st floor, 250 South High Street, Wailuku Thursday, August 14, 2008, 6:30 PM, Conference Rooms A, B, & C, State Office Building, 75 Aupuni Street.
Hilo Monday, August 18, 2008, 6:30 PM, State Office Building 2nd Floor Conference Room, 3060 Eiwa Street, Room 209, Lihu'e
...................................................................................................................
http://www.unkauinoa.org/Free Hawaii Banner for Maoliworld
Myspace Free Hawaii Banner
Lies told on the U.S. Senate Floor by Senators Inouye and Dorgan Regarding the Akaka Bill
Once Again the Ultracrepidarian Critic Raises His Perverted Head. Here we have a foreign settler that professes to know more about Hawai'i's history than the people who actually come from Hawai'i. He rewrites our history and does a ballerina-spin in his tutu woven with his Boston-made yarn. This presents a battle of wills from perceptions and interpretation of concepts one has been raised with. His education is limited to what he reads in books and documents that can support his arguments. His affilliation with direct descendants of the traitors and conspirators bolster his arguments with their selective version of events and his yellow journalistic tactics to deride any opposition to his thwarted facts are most evident.
With Conklin, we, too, are faced with the concern of his ignorance or blatant lies. Distorting facts and total fabrication is obvious as well as withholding facts to enforce his arguments. His endeavor to kill the Akaka Bill is in accord with many of us but his reasoning and arguments are on the opposite side of the scale. He's emboldened to spout his myths brazonly while knowing most U.S. Americans will unknowingly side with his rhetoric. This self-aggrandizement of being the champion of the patriotic U.S. American fits his profile as a blind patriot with little substance.
Conklin will do well in stating things in a more correct light without the snide remarks that incite people to angrily react to his words. Robert Wuhl stated a very real observation regarding U.S. American history: "The stories that made up America (are) the stories that America made up." and "...when the legend becomes fact; print the legend." We can see this manifested in Conklin's account of what occurred in Hawai'i from the U.S. conspiracy, invasion, and occupation, annexation, and statehood.
Professional skeptic, Michael Shermer, says, "Humans tend to convince ourselves to believe: We over-value the 'hits' that support our beliefs, and discounts the more numerous 'misses'." I am certain that this is what Ken Conklin is greviously guilty of through exaggeration and distortion. His mislaid emphasis colors his bias within his arguments he employs to strengthen his third-hand information. He has made many incorrect statements and spins a fancy tale in relating the facts.
Conklin believes facts should fit into his imperfect accounts of what occurred to whitewash his country's guilt and erase the shame and dishonor it has self-imposed on itself. Paraphrasing other people's words doesn't help him make his points; thus, we shouldn't rely on Ken Conklin's account either, as much of what he says are a hodge-podge of nonsense. It will do better if one does their own research and get to know how the people of that time felt about what was going on. What is important is what the people in Hawaii thought of it at that time; since it involved them directly.
I won't debunk the contrived historical account given by Conklin since it is riddled by numerous errors and would be too lengthy in this writing to address. I will say that Slade Gorton and his fellow objectors felt betrayed by Inouye (whom I don't care for either) and were concerned that the "...logical consequences would be total independence." Inouye pronounced to Congress that the Hawaiians were loyal U.S. Americans and would not seek independence. There was no talk of it used to demand a race-based government handouts and to support a secessionist movement during the passage of the Apology Bill. The concern was that the Hawaiians would seek total independence and the de-occupation of the U.S. Under the circumstances, it would not be secession; we would be seeking de-occupation by the U.S. A.
The Akaka Bill is a contrived version of the sovereign nation of Hawai'i as perceived by U.S. Americans to fit the character akin to the Native Americans. Mr. Conklin should get his facts straight before posturing his own errant interpretations. He is printing the myth as fact; the stories that America made up!
Tane
Thte Akaka bill may soon be debated in the U.S. Senate. That's why this is a good time to remind everyone about some flat-out lies told by Senators Dan Inouye (D, HI) and Byron Dorgan (D, ND) on the floor of the Senate on June 7, 2006 during debate on the cloture motion for the Akaka bill. The complete transcript of the entire Akaka-bill debate (about 300 pages covering about 5 hours of floor time) can be found at http://tinyurl.com/k299m
Senator Dorgan said: (Congressional Record page S5557): 'I will give a little bit of the history as vice chairman of the Committee on Indian Affairs. [He is now Chairman because the Democrats have the majority] ... January 16, 1893 - that is a long, long time ago“- the United States Minister John Stevens, who served, then, as Ambassador to the court of Queen Liliuokalani, directed a marine company onboard the USS Boston to arrest and detain the queen.
This is the queen that served the indigenous people in Hawaii. She was arrested. She was placed under arrest for 9 months at the palace.'
Senator Inouye said: (Congressional Record, page S5570): 'I think it is about time that we reach out and correct the wrong that was committed in 1893. Yes, at that time the representative of the people of the United States directed a marine company on an American ship to land and take over the government. They imprisoned our queen. No crime had been committed.
When the new government took over and turned itself over to the government of the United States and said, Please take us in, the President of the United States was President Cleveland at that time. He sent his envoy to Hawaii to look over the case. When he learned that the takeover had been illegal, he said this was an un-American act and we will not take over. The queen is free.'
These Senators are probably honorable gentlemen. They wouldn't knowingly tell lies on the Senate floor. Would they? The same falsehoods are being taught to thousands of children in Hawaii's schools, and to college students. They are 'urban legends' repeated so often that the general public comes to believe them.
These falsehoods are so widely accepted as fact that two Senators felt comfortable asserting them on the floor of the U.S. Senate as justification for a controversial bill. Only God can see into the hearts of Inouye and Dorgan to know whether they were merely ignorant or were knowingly telling lies. But either way, their colleagues in the Senate should not rely on anything they say about Hawaiian history.
Mark Twain said, 'A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.' The falsehoods of Inouye and Dorgan were quick to tell; the truth will require more careful explanation.
What really happened in 1893?
The USS Boston had just returned to Honolulu from a training cruise to a different island. When the ship left on the cruise things had seemed politically stable; but when the ship arrived back in port the situation was frightening. The Queen had used bribery and intimidation to ram through some very controversial bills (distillery, lottery, and opium licensing bills) in the closing days of the legislature and then dismissed it.
Immediately thereafter she announced that she would unilaterally proclaim a new Constitution giving herself near-dictatorial powers. According to some sources her new Constitution would also take away voting rights from everyone except ethnic Hawaiians (After the revolution she destroyed all copies of her proposed Constitution so nobody could find out).
The Queen's personally appointed cabinet refused to endorse her new Constitution. Some of them ran out of the Palace in fear for their lives when she threatened them. Ethnic Hawaiians assembled on the Palace grounds expecting to hear a new Constitution being proclaimed; and instead the Queen told them to go home because some obstacles had arisen.
There were rumors that there would soon be riots and arson – several times in recent years there had been riots due to political instability, which had necessitated the landing of British and American sailors to restore order on those occasions.
A group of 1500 local men, including several hundred who belonged to an armed militia, was known to be planning a revolution. Mass meetings had already been going on for several days after the Queen tried to proclaim her new Constitution, so there was no secret that a revolution was underway.
The American diplomat, Minister Stevens, had gone on the USS Boston's training cruise, taking his family along. When the ship headed back to Honolulu Stevens' daughter stayed behind on another island to do some sightseeing. She was killed in an accident there, which Minister Stevens learned about just before the revolution, possibly affecting his judgment and concentration.
Now American residents pleaded with him to send sailors ashore as peacekeepers to protect American lives and property and to prevent rioting and arson. There were also citizens of other nations who were residents and business owners in Honolulu.
Some of them, including European diplomats, begged Minister Stevens for help, pointing out that the USS Boston was the only foreign ship in port with men who had rifles and military training. The revolutionaries were mostly Caucasian, so Europeans and Americans living in Honolulu were fearful that violence might be directed against Caucasians in general.
At Minister Stevens' request the ship's captain sent ashore 162 armed sailors on January 16, 1893, two days after the mass meetings and one day before the local militia took over buildings and issued their proclamation. The sailors were under orders to remain strictly neutral in the political conflict.
Some royalists imagined the sailors were landed to support the Crown -- that had happened 19 years previously when Kalakaua defeated Emma and Emma's supporters rioted. Some revolutionists imagined the sailors had come ashore to assist them.
The sailors marched past the Palace and the Government Building (Aliiolani Hale) on the way toward a suburban area (Waialae) where they hoped to spend the night. As they passed the Palace they respectfully dipped their flags in salute to the Queen.
When it turned out they had no place to spend the night, their officers made arrangements for them to sleep in a building (Arion Hall) located down a side street a block away from the Palace, with no direct view of the Palace or the Government Building. They went there that evening and remained in the building, or inside its fence.
The following day, January 17, the local militia finally completed its revolution by taking over the Government Building, where many armaments had been stored by the Queen's forces. The militia issued a proclamation abrogating the monarchy and announcing a Provisional Government.
Shortly thereafter the militia took over other buildings and disarmed the Royal Guard. The militia had zero assistance or supplies from the U.S. peacekeepers. The local militia arrested the Queen and escorted her to her private residence a block from the Palace. The Provisional Government then assigned members of the ex-queen's own (former) Royal Guard to protect her from harm, and paid the Guards' salaries.
Nobody touched the Queen or her property at her private home. There was some vandalism at Iolani Palace, and eventually the new government sold its furnishings. But vandalism is normal when revolutions overthrow a monarchy.
Also, the Palace and its contents were the property of the nation, not the personal property of the head of state; so whatever government was in power had the right to dispose of Palace contents.
One reason for the revolution was to put an end to the lavish lifestyle of a corrupt monarchy. The Queen was treated with extreme politeness and gentleness, especially when compared against what happened to the French and Russian royals when those countries had revolutions.
Throughout the revolution the U.S. peacekeepers remained strictly neutral. They never took over any buildings. They never surrounded the Palace or the Government Building. They never arrested the Queen. They never patrolled the streets. The armed revolutionary local militia easily maintained order, partly because they were strong and well trained, and partly because the Queen's forces were weak and had surrendered without a fight.
She wrote a letter saying she was surrendering temporarily to the superior forces of the U.S. until such time as the U.S. government would hear her case and restore her power. But she had that letter delivered to the revolutionary Provisional Government, not to the U.S. diplomat; indicating she knew the local Provisional Government was in charge and not the U.S.
She probably intended her letter of surrender, being addressed only to the U.S. and claiming it was only a temporary surrender, as a ruse. Being a clever politician she probably hoped a powerful distant nation whose incoming President was her personal friend would undo her loss to the local militia who had actually defeated her.
The U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs, whose chairman was Senator John T. Morgan (D, AL), spent January and February of 1894 investigating the U.S. role in the Hawaiian revolution. They took testimony under oath, in open session, with cross examination. The committee's official 808-page report, known as the Morgan Report, provides documentation for the facts above. See http://morganreport.org
Senator Dorgan was entirely wrong when he said 'United States Minister John Stevens ... directed a marine company onboard the USS Boston to arrest and detain the queen.' If that claim were true it would be a basis for blaming the U.S. for overthrowing the Hawaiian monarchy and demanding reparations. But it was false. The local militia of Hawaiian residents did all the heavy lifting of the revolution.
Senator Dorgan then continued with another sentence that contains a bit of truth but placed in the wrong time frame and falsely blaming the U.S. and Minister Stevens for what happened. Senator Dorgan says: 'She was arrested. She was placed under arrest for 9 months at the palace.'
The ex-queen was indeed arrested and held at the Palace - but not in 1893, not in connection with the overthrow of the monarchy, and certainly not by the U.S. peacekeepers. In January 1895 - two years after the revolution!
Robert Wilcox, a half-Hawaiian racial demagogue, attempted an armed counter-revolution which failed. Guns and bombs were found buried in the flower bed of the ex-queen's private home at Washington Place, where she also had signed commissions appointing cabinet ministers and department heads for her anticipated new government.
She was convicted of conspiracy in that treason. She did not spend 9 months under arrest in the Palace, as Senator Dorgan said; she spent only January 16 to September 6, 1895 -- seven and one half months. She had been sentenced to 5 years at hard labor and a $10,000 fine; but served only a few months in a huge Palace room with full-time maidservant.
Her 'hard labor' consisted of composing songs and sewing a quilt with monarchist political slogans and symbols. Later her friend, Republic of Hawaii President Sanford B. Dole, gave her a full pardon and allowed her to travel to Washington D.C. where she showed her gratitude by lobbying the Senate against Dole's most cherished dream of annexation.
Senator Dorgan also made a very misleading statement which ironically contained the truth about why Liliuokalani was overthrown. Dorgan said 'This is the queen that served the indigenous people in Hawaii.' Yes indeed!
But her job as Queen was to serve all the people in her multiracial nation. Saying that she was Queen only of 'the indigenous people' (i.e., ethnic Hawaiians) is what must be said to justify passing a racially exclusionary 'Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization' bill. But the fact that she saw herself as serving 'the indigenous people' exclusively or primarily is what caused her to be overthrown by those whom she was dis-serving.
Senator Inouye told similar falsehoods and also wrongly consolidated the events of 1893 with the events of 1895. Inouye was totally wrong when he said '... the representative of the people of the United States directed a marine company on an American ship to land and take over the government.' Inouye was totally wrong when he said 'They imprisoned our queen.' If Inouye is referring to 1895 when Liliuokalani was imprisoned at the Palace, he was totally wrong when he said 'No crime had been committed.' - 'Liliuokalani had indeed committed the crime of conspiracy in a violent counter-revolution in which men were killed. She allowed guns and bombs to be hidden in the flower bed of her private home, for which she was placed on trial, convicted, and sentenced to prison.
Inouye was also totally wrong to say the ex-queen's imprisonment was at the hands of the United States. The U.S. did not imprison her in the Palace in the 1893 revolution - it was the local militia which arrested her and escorted her to her private home where her former Royal Guard was paid by the Provisional Government to protect her against possible assassination. By 1895, when the ex-queen was indeed imprisoned, the U.S. peacekeepers were long gone from Hawaii“- Grover Cleveland's hatchet man (Blount) had removed the few remaining peacekeepers on April 1, 1893. Those who arrested and jailed her in 1895 were officers of the Republic of Hawaii.
Following his incorrect statements about the imprisonment of 1895, Inouye then returns to 1893 to the period of several months after the revolution, showing that Inouye thinks 1895 and 1893 were all intermingled and all to be blamed on the U.S. Talking about the Provisional Government's offer of a treaty of annexation immediately after the revolution, Inouye says 'When the new government took over and turned itself over to the government of the United States and said, Please take us in, the President of the United States was President Cleveland at that time. He sent his envoy to Hawaii to look over the case. When he learned that the takeover had been illegal, he said this was an un-American act and we will not take over. The queen is free.' But of course by the time President Cleveland issued his message to Congress it was December 18, 1893, 11 months after the revolution. Grover Cleveland never proclaimed 'The queen is free' because the Queen had never been under his authority for him to set her free! She had not even been imprisoned yet!
It is inexcusable for U.S. Senators to assert such falsehoods in a high-stakes debate, especially when they have many researchers and staff members who had been preparing these speeches for a long time. It's equally inexcusable for schools and colleges to be teaching such falsehoods in their textbooks and lesson plans when reputable scholars could easily be contacted for fact-checking.
In 1993 the U.S. Congress passed, and President Clinton signed, the apology resolution. This was a resolution of sentiment to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy. The resolution is filled with historical falsehoods and distortions similar to the ones uttered by Senators Dorgan and Inouye. It would require a book to describe and document the errors. The beginnings of such a discrediting of the apology resolution can be found in Chapter 10 of Thurston Twigg- Smith's book 'Hawaiian Sovereignty: Do the Facts Matter?' which can be downloaded in its entirety, free of charge, at http://www.hawaiimatters.com/
Another useful analysis is found in a monograph by constitutional law expert Bruce Fein, 'Hawaii Divided Against Itself Cannot Stand' which was reprinted in three installments in the Congressional Record of June 14, 15, and 16, 2005. http://tinyurl.com/ajz9s
A very interesting repudiation of the apology resolution is found in an article in the Wall Street Journal of August 16, 2005, at http://tinyurl.com/exdg3 Slade Gorton and Hank Brown, two former Senators who had fought against the apology resolution in 1993, published 'E Pluribus Unum? Not in Hawaii.' They reminded a nationwide audience about some of the historical falsehoods and alerted readers to the fact that the apology resolution is being abused to support the Akaka bill. In 1993 Gorton and Brown had warned their Senate colleagues that the apology resolution would be used to demand race-based government handouts and to support a secessionist movement. Senator Inouye had promised his colleagues, on the floor of the Senate, that the resolution would never be used in any such way. Now 12 years later Senators Gorton and Brown were saying 'See, we told you so.'
In his short story 'The Man Upstairs' P.G. Wodehouse wrote: 'It is a good rule in life never to apologize. The right sort of people do not want apologies, and the wrong sort take a mean advantage of them.' The way the apology resolution is being used today makes it abundantly clear that Wodehouse was right. The resolution should be repealed.
Dr. Conklin has lived in Kaneohe for 16 years. Most of this essay comes from pp. 118-124 of his recent book 'Hawaiian Apartheid: Racial Separatism and Ethnic Nationalism in the Aloha State' available at Amazon.com or http://tinyurl.com/2a9fqa
HawaiiReporter.com reports the real news, and prints all editorials submitted, even if they do not represent the viewpoint of the editors, as long as they are written clearly. Send editorials to mailto:Malia@HawaiiReporter.com
.....................................................................................................................
StopAkakaBill.com
Find Out Why The Akaka Bill Is So Dangerous
Discover What Will Happen Should Federal Recognition Ever Become Law Learn What You Can Do To Help Stop The Akaka Bill!StopAkakaBill.comCheck It Out!
Aloha my ohana and friends,
I pray all is maita`i with you and your ohana.
Letting you know that OHA wrote a letter to Laura Thielen, head of DLNR. It was delivered to them yesterday, and we have yet to get a response. It is a cease and desist letter.
Please read it and start making some phone calls or go to their offices... call DLNR, Ms. Thielen and SHPD, Pua Aiu and Nancy McMahon; call the Attorney General's office and the Governor and tell them to cease and desist all further destruction of our na iwi kupuna's resting place. Leave our bones alone!!!!!..let them rest in peace.
Pray for rain...lots and lots of it...and lets fill those deep trenches they are digging with water. Stop them now!!!! We kahea for help from our spiritual realm, we will stand on our faith that spiritual intervention is real. We are invoking their presence and kokua. The spirits are there, we can feel them all around us. We can see them, they show up in our videos and photos as many orbs of light all around our campsite. True story!
PuaNani, networking wale no
Puanani Rogers
Ho`okipa Network - Kauai
Kapaa, Hi 96746
Kingdom of Hawaii
Honolulu Star Bulletin July 12, 2008
Protesters, Workers Clash Over Graves
By Tom Finnegan, tfinnegan@starbulletin.com
HAENA, Kauai » Native Hawaiian protesters on the beach clashed with construction workers yesterday after a tense day at a home site at Naue Point where at least 30 bodies are buried.
No one was arrested or injured, but both the protesters and the construction workers filed complaints with the police, who arrived at about 1 p.m.
The site, where a home is being constructed by California businessman Joseph Brescia, has been the subject of numerous legal battles over where to put the building, how far it should be set back from the ocean, and where the property line exists.
Construction started Monday after Kauai Police Chief Darryl Perry issued a clarification that the work done over the graves was not desecration. He halted the work last month when he said that work over the graveyard was a criminal offense.
However, Brescia received all permits, including approval from the Kauai Burial Council, to leave the graves in place.
A number of native Hawaiians have camped out on the beach since April to honor and protect the bodies unearthed and then covered over when Brescia started clearing the area in 2007.
Yesterday, officials from the state Department of Land and Natural Resources told them to remove their tents. And the construction staff put up a fence along the certified shoreline and began using a backhoe to clear the land over the graves.
The native Hawaiians, joined by members of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs Nature Rights and Culture Hale, said they were saying a pule, or chant, when construction workers came through the dust fence and started yelling at them.
But construction workers told police that it was they who were harassed and yelled at through the dust fence.
They filed a complaint. Protesters also filed a complaint, alleging the construction was keeping them from practicing their cultural rites.
Think Kanaka maoli......Think Ahupua`a
