For the more than the last 2 1/2 years I have been serving as a missionary for the Family History Department for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. We have been helping our patrons register and access our partner sites such as Ancestry.com , FindMyPast.com and MyHeritage account.
I thought that I would try out My Heritage Genealogy and began to add my grandfathers' name into the Family Tree Builder, Alfred Stanley Tau Fau Mark. I clicked on the SSDI that brought up his record. At the bottom of the page was a picture of my grandfather as a young boy with a reference to the Patin Family Website, managed by DJ Kanani Mark.
My given name at birth: Hollace Mark
My mother: Marion Ah Lun Mark
I was later adopted by my grandparents, Stanley T. F. Mark and my grandmother Rebecca Kaanaana Mark (Johnson).
In trying to find the Patin Family Website and searching for JD Kanani Mark I found this website.
I would be interested in how you are connected to the picture of my grandfather and in how we are related.
OR KOLLIN ELDERTS!Jury selection in the trial of Christopher Deedy is set to begin next week (pending pre-trial motions, including Deedy's Motion to Dismiss). An article on the status of the motion to dismiss, as well as jury selection, is in today's Star-Advertiser.
We've silk-screened a "Justice for Kollin Elderts" T-shirt which is now available for $5 each (the cost of the materials). The T-shirt is white with black lettering and photo. Buy one for yourself, your family, and your friends. Shirts are available in S, M, Lg, XLg, and XXLg. Let us know if you would like T-shirts in quantity or buy them at Revolution Books (all proceeds to World Can't Wait-Hawai`i to cover the cost of producing the shirt).
Many people have forgotten that Deedy's previous trial for the murder of Kollin Elderts ended in a hung jury and is being re-tried. Wear the shirt to demand justice for Kollin Elderts.
As more information is available we'll send info about the re-trial and planned actions.
http://www.revolutionbookshonolulu.org/
It has been nearly a month since the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA) CEO Dr. Kamana‘opono Crabbe posed four questions to Secretary of State Kerry in a letter dated May 5, 2014.
These questions centered on the existence of the Hawaiian Kingdom and generated so much attention that it has awakened a sleeping giant—the Hawaiian community. Academics and professionals that stood shoulder to shoulder behind Dr. Crabbe at his press conference on May 12, 2014 showed their solidarity and support. One of these individuals who stood directly behind Dr. Crabbe was Professor Williamson Chang, senior law professor at the University of Hawai‘i Richardson School of Law. In a Star-Advertiser article, Professor Chang described the letter as “a profound and important moment in history.” “He has raised an issue that has not been approached before. It’s remarkable that a state agency is asking these questions,” he said.
What has replaced the rhetoric of politicians and sovereignty activists that often distorts Hawaiian history and law has been replaced by historical accuracy and legal sophistication. Academics armed with Ph.D.’s have begun to address Hawai‘i’s revisionist history that became institutionalized since the American occupation began in 1898, and attorneys have begun to apply this information in the courts throughout Hawai‘i.
From an international law perspective, these questions were cleverly worded and organized and are grounded in the recognized principle of international law called thepresumption of continuity of an established sovereign State, which is similar to the principle of presumption of innocence. An assumption is a conclusion “without” facts and a presumption is a conclusion “with” facts. So when a person is accused of committing a crime that person is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt because of the fact that the accused has legal rights. In international law, an established sovereign State is presumed to continue to exist because of the fact that it has legal rights, until evidence can be shown by another State that it has extinguished the sovereignty of the former State.
In 2001, the Permanent Court of Arbitration in the Netherlands verified the existence of the Hawaiian Kingdom as an independent State in Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom, 119 Int’l L. Rep. 566, 581 (2001) . The Court stated in its arbitration award, “in the nineteenth century the Hawaiian Kingdom existed as an independent State recognized as such by the United States of America, the United Kingdom and various other States, including by exchanges of diplomatic or consular representatives and the conclusion of treaties.” As an established State under international law since the nineteenth century, the Hawaiian Kingdom has these legal rights that apply to all States:
According to Professor Crawford, The Creation of States in International Law (2006), p. 34, who is not only the leading authority on States, but was also the presiding arbitrator in Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom, “There is a strong presumption that the State continues to exist, with its rights and obligations, despite revolutionary changes in government, or despite a period in which there is no, or no effective, government. Belligerent occupation does not affect the continuity of the State, even where there exists no government claiming to represent the occupied State.” So despite the illegal overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom government by the United States on January 17, 1893, and the prolonged occupation since the Spanish-American War in 1898, the Hawaiian Kingdom, as a State, would continue to exist even if there was no Hawaiian government.
The presumption of continuity places the burden on the United States to show legally relevant facts that the Hawaiian Kingdom does not continue to exist under international law. In other words, the Hawaiian Kingdom does not have to prove its own existence because it is presumed to continue to exist, just as a person does not have to prove their innocence. To effectively remove the presumption of continuity, there must be uncontroverted evidence of the extinguishment of the Hawaiian Kingdom by the United States. Since the Hawaiian Kingdom has legal rights under international law, the United States will have to provide evidence of extinguishment that only international law recognizes. According to Article 38 of theStatute of the International Court of Justice, the following sources of international law, ranked in order of precedence, are:
Under international law, a State who claims to be the successor of another State, when not at war, must take place by cession. Professor Oppenheim, International Law (1948), p. 499, explains that, “cession of State territory is the transfer of sovereignty over State territory by the owner-State to another State.” He further points out that the “only form in which a cession can be effected is an agreement embodied in a treaty between the ceding and the acquiring State.” The United States only claim to have extinguished the Hawaiian Kingdom is by a joint resolution of annexation passed by its Congress.
A joint resolution, however, is not a treaty or agreement between two states, but rather an agreement between the House of Representatives and the Senate in Washington, D.C. A joint resolution is a municipal law of the United States whose effect is limited to United States territory. The United States Supreme Court, The Apollon, 22 U.S. 362, 370 (1824), affirmatively stated, that the “laws of no nation can justly extend beyond its own territory” for it would be “at variance with the independence and sovereignty of foreign nations” In U.S. v. Belmont, 301 U.S. 324, 332 (1937), the Court also stated that, “our Constitution, laws and policies have no extraterritorial operation.”
Further complicating the problem for the United States was a legal opinion by the United States Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel in 1988. In the 1988 memorandum titled “Legal Issues Raised by Proposed Presidential Proclamation To Extend the Territorial Sea,” the Office of Legal Counsel addressed the annexation of the Hawaiian Islands by joint resolution. Douglas Kmiec, Acting Assistant Attorney General, authored the memorandum for Abraham D. Sofaer, legal advisor to the U.S. State Department. After covering the limitation of Congressional authority and the objections made by members of the Congress, Kmiec concluded, “Notwithstanding these constitutional objections, Congress approved the joint resolution and President McKinley signed the measure in 1898. Nevertheless, whether this action demonstrates the constitutional power of Congress to acquire territory is certainly questionable. … It is therefore unclear which constitutional power Congress exercised when it acquired Hawaii by joint resolution. Accordingly, it is doubtful that the acquisition of Hawaii can serve as an appropriate precedent for a congressional assertion of sovereignty over an extended territorial sea.”
Sovereignty of an established State is never in abeyance or in suspension. The sovereignty is either vested in the Hawaiian State itself or in the United States as its successor. If the Attorney General’s Office of Legal Counsel is “unclear” as to the authority of Congress, it cannot be considered to have extinguished the Hawaiian Kingdom’s continuity under international law, and, therefore, the presumption of continuity would remain with the Hawaiian Kingdom as an independent sovereign State.
So when we revisit Dr. Crabbe’s letter and his questions posed to Secretary of State Kerry there is only the first question that would need to be answered with clear and convincing evidence that the Hawaiian State no longer exists under international law. But to do so, the United States would need to provide evidence of a treaty of annexation or an international custom that has terminated the Hawaiian State, which it doesn’t have. In other words, Dr. Crabbe’s questions were really rhetorical questions that he already knew the answers to. The significance of the letter, however, is that it was a formal notification of a State of Hawai‘i government official to the Secretary of State that OHA is aware that the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist and that it will have to deal with issues of criminal liability under international law.
| |||||||||||
| |||||||||||
thanks to Jo-Ann Lewis for the forward...gotta watch that 'wealthy' Office of Hawaiian Affairs, lol...but it's fox news, so why would they get it right...
By Neil Munro
Published May 27, 2014Thousands of native hawaiians and local supporters wearing red shirts carry large Hawaii state flags overflowed Kalakaua Avenue as they marched along side Waikiki Beach in Honolulu, Hawaii, Sept. 6, 2004. Hawaiian clubs, trusts, agencies and schools, marshal over 5,000 to protest threats to native Hawaiian entitlements and land trusts as well as U.S. military expansion on the islands. For the second year in a row, trustees and representatives from alii trusts, state and civic organizations, and native and non-Hawaiian supporters joined together in a march for "Ku I Ka Pono," or "justice for Hawaiians." (REUTERS/Lucy Pemoni)
President Barack Obama’s administration has quietly suggested it is willing to create a two-tier race-based legal system in Hawaii, where one set of taxes, spending and law enforcement will govern one race, and the second set of laws will govern every other race.
The diversity proposal is portrayed as an effort to create a separate in-state government for people who are “native Hawaiians.”
If Obama succeeds, “what’s to prevent creating similar [self-governing racial] groups out of say, Cajuns, or Orthodox Jews or Amish?” said Gail Heriot, a commissioner on the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
“If you can do that with groups that are already part of the mainstream, you can balkanize the country,” said Heriot, who is a law professor at the University of San Diego.
But the proposed measure to increase legal diversity is illegal because the president doesn’t have the power to grant one group of Americans the status of a separate government, she said.
“There is no constitutional basis for conferring such status, and Congress has repeatedly refused to confer this status,” said Carissa Mulder, a spokeswoman for two members of the federal Commission on Civil Rights.
“This seems to be yet another case of the Obama administration ignoring the law to achieve its policy objectives,” she added.
The move was announced Friday before Memorial Day as White House officials and congressional Democrats stepped up predictions that the president will try to bypass congressional opposition to his progressive policy preferences.
Last week, for example, Democratic Senate leader Harry Reid suggested the president would reduce enforcement of federal immigration law because the House has not agreed to double the current inflow of almost two million immigrants and guest workers per year.
The proposed new legal regime for Hawaii is sketched in a federal document released Friday, dubbed an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
“The Secretary of the Interior is considering whether to propose an administrative rule that would facilitate the reestablishment of a government-to-government relationship with the Native Hawaiian community,” said the document.
The goal, it claimed, is “to more effectively implement the special political and trust relationship that Congress has established between that [Hawaiian] community and the United States.”
The move is likely intended to protect lucrative financial set-asides for Americans who are also part of the Hawaiian racial group, said Heriot.
These set-aside, which include cheap loans, are being threatened by the Supreme Court’s move to curb racial divisions and imposed racial diversity. In 2000, for example, the court’s Rice vs. Cayetano decision allowed non-Hawaiians to participate in the election of trustees for the state’s wealthy Office of Hawaiian Affairs.
The office holds a large tract of land in Hawaii under a legal trust, which generates revenue that is distributed to racial Hawaiians.
The 7,300 square kilometers of land were granted as a trust to the native Hawaiians in 1920 instead of creating a new tribal reservation that would have segregated Hawaiians from America’s mainstream government, economy and society. The transfer was solidified in 1959 when Hawaiians voted to become a state in the union, and in 1978 by the creation of the office to oversee use of the trust.
The land was awarded as trust, not a reservation, because Hawaiians were full citizens, said Heriot. “They’re part of the mainstream,” she said.
The Cayetano decision shows the court doesn’t want to encourage further moves toward tribal and racial separatism by granting more power to the race-based groups, such as the Office of Hawaiian affairs, she said.
“Once they made that decision, it’s pretty clear that whole [office] is in jeopardy,” over the long run, said Heriot.
In response, Hawaiian groups lobbied Congress to pass the Akaka bill, named after Sen. Daniel Akaka, a native Hawaiian senator.
The bill would have imposing variety on Hawaiians’ shared government, via the creation of a tribal government for Hawaiians.
That bill would have converted Hawaiians’ status from normal Americans into to subgroup similar to American Indians. Many Indians live on reservations governed by tribal governments since they were overrun during the European settlement of north America. The Akaka bill would also have transferred the Hawaiian land to the new tribe, allowing it to be used to generate wealth via gambling and other businesses for racial Hawaiians, she said.
But the Akaka bill has failed to gain any traction since 2010, prompting advocates to try this new regulatory end-run around Congress, said Heriot.
Heriot and three other members of the civil rights commission opposed the Akaka bill.
Aloha, everyone!
Wild & Scenic Film Festival is coming to O‘ahu this Saturday, May 24, & Sunday, May 25, at the Doris Duke Theater. Check out the list of inspiring, fun, and informative films below.
Come and enjoy film, live music, beer, wine and food on opening night Saturday May 24 from 4-9 pm. On Sunday, May 25, we will be showcasing four featured films at 1 pm, 4 pm and 7:30 pm. I hope to see you at this fun event. Let’s show our support for the keiki and kuma at Halau Ku Mana!
2014 Honoree:
Mahalo to our Community Sponsors
Pupukahi i holomua // Unite to move forward
Live Music Saturday, May 24:
Paul Izak // 4 - 5pm
Hayden Atkins & Ryan Trujillo of Hydrolites \\ Intermission //
Short Films Saturday, May 24:
May 24 (films start 5 after 5 pm)
Like a film? Be a sponsor!
COMPOST-a-lujah!
Let’s face it: composting isn’t the most glamorous of topics or activities. It can be dirty, rotten, and smelly. But it doesn’t have to be. Meet Linda Olsen – master composter. She gave her heart to composting, and in return, it gave her life. This short short presents simple steps to reduce your waste while producing natural fertilizer for your garden.
I am Red
The Colorado River runs 1450 miles across seven states and two countries supplying water for 36 million people. It flowed to the sea for six million years but has not kissed the ocean since the late 1990s. A video poem to highlight the beauty and challenges of this national icon, American River’s Most Endangered River for 2013.
A Brief History of the 5-cent Bag Tax
When your city is overflowing with plastic bags, how will you react? Jack Green, head of the Department of the Environment, is on a mission to rid the city of its plastic bag scourge in this short film by DC-based DunkYourBagel promoting reusable bags to protect the environment.
Beyond Reclaimed
A short film that enlightens the Flagstaff community to the complex issues associated with the use of reclaimed water. Utilizing captivating footage of the city and interviews with local professionals, the film ultimately communicates the need for sound water policy and conservation in the city of Flagstaff, Arizona community.
A Life Well Lived
Legendary Mountaineer Jim Whittaker talks risk, beauty, and adventure on the 50th anniversary of his historic summit of Everest.
An inconvenient Youth
This film captures the vibrant and under-reported story of the global youth climate movement. For too long, young people ? the very people whose lives will be most affected by the consequences of climate change ? have been, condescended to, or just plain ignored by governments, corporations, mainstream media and UN negotiators.
Field Spotlight: President Anote Tong
The Republic of Kiribati, a Pacific Island nation, is leading the formation of the Pacific Oceanscape — an action plan for marine conservation that impacts almost 40 million square kilometers (more than 15 million square miles), a territory larger than Canada, the United States and Mexico combined.
Honor the Treaties
This short film that examines photographer Aaron Hueys powerful advocacy work for Native American rights on the Pine Ridge Reservation. The film explores the idea that journalists often get the story wrong.
The Joy of Air
Leave the ground beneath your feet, Rise up, your inner legend greet. A body in motion – Twisting, turning, churning, yearning –Apex found, heaven bound. But remember, what goes up must come down.
The Sory of Solutions
We’re told to cheer a growing economy ? more roads, malls, and Stuff! ? even though our health indicators are worsening, income inequality is growing, and polar icecaps are melting. But what if the goal of our economy wasn’t more, but better ? better health, better jobs, and a better chance to survive on the planet?
Ola I Ka Wai
Water is a public resource that must be conserved for present and future generations. But for decades, the State Water Commission has allowed private corporations to divert water from streams and monopolize it.
Momenta
This is a story about the west, known for its forward-thinking innovation, being caught in the crosshairs of an American paradox. Old innovation vs. new. Currently, there are proposals to ship coal from the Powder River Basin in Wyoming to ports on the Pacific coast and eventually to Asia to be burned. This will cause countless negative impacts to local communities along the coal export trail, and wreak havoc on our global environment.
This film tells the stories of five people in four states, all with very different backgrounds and perspectives, but all at odds with the natural gas extraction occurring around them. Despite their differences, unnerving similarities emerge from their shared experiences with the massive unseen entity that is “the industry.” Brief, animated interludes remind us to ask the bigger picture questions as well.
Featured Films Sunday, May 25: Like a film? Be a sponsor!
Uranium Drive – 1 pm
This film follows a proposed uranium mill in southwestern Colorado – the first to be built in the U.S. in 30 years — and the emotional debate pitting a population desperate for jobs and financial stability against an environmental group based in nearby a resort town. Without judgment, both sides of the issue are brought to life in heart-wrenching detail as the film follows conflicting visions for the future. The film offers no easy answers but aims instead to capture personal stories and paint a portrait of the lives behind this nuanced and complex issue.
Unacceptable Levels – 4 pm
Today, we have over 80,000 chemicals in our system of commerce and shockingly, there are few limitations on these at this time, and our bodies are being forced to deal with them every single day. On average, all of us have over 232 industrial chemicals floating around in our bodies, and the research is showing that this is now a huge reason for concern. There is a growing consciousness in research facilities across the globe.
Damocracy – 7:30 pm
A documentary that exposes the myth of dams as ‘green’ energy through two examples from Amazonia and Mesopotamia: the Belo Monte Dam in Brazil and the Ilisu Dam in Turkey.
The documentary shows the potential disasters these dams would cause on cultural heritage, wildlife and local communities who rely on the rich natural resources provided by the Tigris and Xingu rivers.
The film is a call to action to save this priceless natural and cultural heritage being gambled for the interests of a few.
The Ku`e Petitions were set in motion during a very delicate time in our history of Hawaiian consciousness. It was the beginning of our Hawaiian Nation having a voice and being able to put a name to that voice. This was the beginning of our entire nation taking a stand against colonialism, being subjected to foreign domination and exploitation of another people or country. The petitions were an aggressive campaign organized by the Kanaka Maoli for the opposition of the annexation of our Hawaiian Nation by the United States in 1898.The main basis of the Ku’e Petitions was to unify all Kanaka Maoli as progenies of the people who audaciously signed their names in unanimity more than a century and a half ago to secure our continued existence as an independent sovereign nation forever.
This mo`olelo of the Ku`e petitions and of the lahui that organized it changes the original train of thought that the Kanaka Maoli passively accepted the forceful and unlawful occupation of our sovereign Hawaiian nation .The story of annexation starts from Lili`uokalani’s overthrow and extending to the U.S. military occupation in 1898. Aloha `aina was the cornerstone of resistance at this inauspicious time. It articulated the desire that mak`ainana and ali`i shared for self-government as opposed to government by the colonial oligarchy of the United States of America. At the time, self-government necessarily took the form of nationhood, but aloha `aina embraces more than nationalism and is not an exact fit with the English word “patriotism.” Where nationalism and patriotism tend to exalt the merits of a people or nationality, aloha `aina promotes land. It refers to the appreciation of the splendor, but aloha `aina goes beyond love of beauty.
Another important fact that leas up to the Ku`e Petitions very existence was during the time that King Kalakaua reigned when descendants of missionaries and other settler from the United States and Europe, pressured the king for a reciprocity treaty with the United States of America so that they could sell their sugar to the large U.S. market duty-free. King Kalakaua tried to win the support of the lahui while facing continual conflict with the haoles, who was convinced of their superiority and who were determined to govern over the Kanaka Maoli. Although the missionaries had originally focused on converting souls, their main objective changed to focusing on fulfilling key positions in the government and instructed and advised the alii in all matters having to do with Western forms of politics and economy. Eventually, faced with stubbornness and what they saw as regression to a savage culture on the part of the moi they seized control of the government away from King David Kalakaua by forcing the Bayonet Constitution upon him in 1887.
Unfortunately, this stripped King Kalakaua of his executive powers and disenfranchises the Kanaka Maoli voters who are not wealthy. This was accomplished by terminating the executive powers of the sovereign, and giving those powers to the cabinet; by making the cabinet voting members in the House of Nobles and allowing the legislature to discharge any cabinet with a simple majority vote; by providing that Americans or European foreigners no longer had to become naturalized citizens in order to vote; and, finally, by creating a “special electorate” comprised of men of Hawaiian or European ancestry who could read Hawaiian, English, or any European language, and who also possessed property worth at least three thousand dollars or who had an annual income of at least six hundred dollars.
This would be the first time that democratic rights were determined by race in any Hawaiian constitution. Indeed, it meant that wealthy white foreigners could vote and working-class maka’ainana and Asian immigrants could not. Kanaka Maoli would go on to refer to this as the Bayonet Constitution because it was initiated by force of guns rather than through any democratic constitutional process.
In 1893 the unlawful overthrow of Queen Lili`uokalani’s government by the Provisional Government was supported by the U.S. Marines, stemming from Queen Lili`uokalani’s attempts to promulgate a constitution that restores executive power and re-enfranchises the Kanaka Maoli voters. This was an ongoing struggle for the Queen and her Hawaiian subjects since the forceful imposition of the Bayonet Constitution of 1887. Subsequently this is the beginning of the Hui Aloha `Aina for Men and for Women which was organized to support Queen Liliuokalani and to oppose the annexation to the United States of America1. Joseph Nawahi was president of the men’s branch which consisted of 7500 supporters and Mrs. Abigail Kuaihelani Maipinepine Campbell was president of the women’s branch which consisted of 11,000 at that time.
The beginning of the Ku`e petitions starts with the fortified efforts of three historic organizations. The Hui Aloha Aina for Women, the Hui Aloha Aina for Men, and the Hui Kalai`aina formed a league to oppose the treaty. These three groups represented a majority of the Kanaka Maoli. Hui Kalai`aina had originally been formed because of the Bayonet Constitution of 1887. This helped to develop a vehicle for Kanaka Maoli political power. The two Hui Aloha Aina leagues were established just after the overthrow in 18931. Queen Liliu'okalani urged the three main hui behind the petition drive - the Hui Aloha Aina for men, the Hui Aloha Aina for women and Hui Kalai Aina - to work together in drawing up a petition and to send it to Washington D.C.
The men and women of the Hui Aloha ‘Aina, through the efforts of many loyal and dedicated Hawaiian subjects, launched a full scale petition drive that lasted approximately two months. They went from island to island, from shore to shore, leaving no stone unturned in their efforts to document opposition to the proposed treaty. The petition was printed in both Hawaiian and English.
The Ku`e petitions was organized first by island. The women's petitions within each island are first, divided into districts. The men's petitions are organized, divided into districts as well. During the duress task of securing these petition signatures there were several key players in the fortifying this crucial document. One of them was Mrs. Laura Mahelona who went to Kona and Ka‘u, by way of steamer mail boats that would go to every village once a week or so and deliver the mail. Mrs. Mahelona, along with a group of volunteer’s and because of their tireless efforts by November of 1897 had successfully gathered the signatures and support of over 21,000 patriots. In a joint effort, the Hui Kalai‘aina also gathered through their petition drive nearly 17,000 signatures. Together there were over 38,000 signatures; representing ninety-five percent of the Native Hawaiian population. The estimated population at that time of Kanaka Maoli was 40,000.
The petition clearly stated the intentions of all Native Hawaiians, Hawaiian subjects, men, women and children that sought out the petitions. “We, the undersigned, native Hawaiian subjects and residents who are members of the Hawaiian Patriotic League of the Hawaiian Islands, and other citizens who are in sympathy with the league, earnestly protest against the annexation of the Hawaiian Islands to the United States of America in any form or shape.”
Hui Aloha Aina challenged the misleading manipulations of United States colonization by presenting solid evidence of the determination of the people against annexation in these petitions. Throughout that struggle, the president of Hui Aloha 'Aina, James Keauiluna Kaulia, said, "Mai makau, e kupaa ma ke aloha i ka aina, a e lokahi ma ka manao, e kue loa aku i ka hoohui ia o Hawaii me Amerika a hiki i ke aloha aina hope loa." "Do not be afraid, be steadfast in aloha for your land and be united in thought Protest forever the annexation of Hawai'i until the very last aloha 'aina."
Kanaka Maoli, unfortunately truly believed that the United States of America’s government was loyal to their stated principles of justice and of government of the people, by the people, and for the people. They believed that once the President of the United States of America with the members of Congress saw that the majority of Native Hawaiian people opposed the annexation, the principles of fairness would triumph and their Native Hawaiian government would be reinstated.
Divergent to the impression created by colonial historians the Kanaka Maoli were neither silent nor submissive during the course of these events. They boisterously and in systematized ways protested every intrusion upon their rights, lands and their way of life. During the life and times of the Ku`e Petitions each and every Hawaiian made it known that they were steadfast in their fight to regain Hawaii for their people and the Queen. Hawaii has unquestionably been controlled by United States of America for a century and a half, our people and resources vanquished and exploited.
Kanaka Maoli’s continue to protest till today. We continue to support the viewpoint that we have never relinquished our national sovereignty. As Ke Aloha A`ina said the day after the annexation ceremony ,” E kupaa mau a hiki i ke kanaka Hawaii hope loa, no ke Ea o ko kakou aina aloha.”(1898 Aug, 13).”Always stand fast, down to the very last Hawaiian person, for the Sovereignty of our beloved land1.” Kanaka Maoli’s have been working tirelessly on state, national, and international stages to have our existence as a nation re-recognized.
The Ku`e petitions were instrumental in restoring the truth that our kupuna fought so hard to ensure for our people, culture, and our nation. Our kupunas specific actions to correct the wrongs of their time instill us with the consciousness to correct ours. Our generation has much to learn from our courageous kupunas. We need to continue the preservation of our living culture for a successful sovereign nation.
Kanaka Maoli continues to resist and protest every intrusion upon their inherent rights to keep our language, cultural traditions, identity, sovereignty and the land itself, alive. The main significance of the petitions was to unite all Kanaka Maoli as progenies of the people who boldly signed their names in agreement about a century and a half ago to protect our continued existence as an independent and sovereign nation forever. Now, we will never forget!
I have to give recognition where it is due. I was not able to write about the impact that the Ku`e Petitions have made on our consciousness of Life, Love & Complete Understanding of what it means to be " Kanaka Ma`oli" Without the expert knowledge and extensive research that was done by several key individuals like Noenoe Silva, Jonathan Osorio & Keanu Sai to name a few. This is essentially my Mana`o of this important time in our Hawaiian history. Mahalo Ke Akua!
Aloha kakou.
In case you have not already signed the Petition in support of Dr. Crabbe please consider giving your support at this time:
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/525/987/222/he-manao-pono-a-statement-of-support/
.........Mahalo nui loa!
Most Hawaiians still rebuke OHA and will continue to rebuke OHA which is a good sign and shows how steadfast MOST Hawaiians are regarding Queen Lili'uokalani's wishes.
This is a good sign. It shows that DESPITE the propaganda and LIES, MOST Hawaiians are patriots to Queen Lili'uokalani :) Mahalo for that :)
For those few who are thinking about what they should do.
Consider this.
A a good example is the latest article in the Star Advertiser:
http://www.staradvertiser.com/editorialspremium/20140319_OHA_trustees_committed_to_selfdetermination_process_for_Hawaiians.html?id=250923161&c=n
Notice how NASTY some OHA supporters to me.
Imagine how nasty they will be TO US later.
Imagine how nasty they will be to YOUR keiki and/or mo'opuna LATER.
He hōʻailona.
Disturbing statements by OHA supporters include the implication that those Hawaiians who do not live in Hawai'i like California, Washington, and Texas are somehow "not Hawaiian" and are to be EXCLUDED from the process.
I am for TOTAL independence.
No to OHA. NO to Kana'iolowalu. NO to the "Native Hawaiian Roll" which is actually like the Dawes Rolls which was created by the wolves to destroy indigenous lives.
Leave the majority of Hawaiians who REFUSE to sign ALONE. Stop being MAHA'OI.
#Profound #Think #PutYourThinkingCapOn #HeHōʻailona
PUBLIC NOTICE:
Hawaiians and their legal heirs which includes but is NOT limited to those Hawaiians living in California, Washington, Texas, New York, New Jersey, Philadelphia, Florida, and elsewhere in North America and throughout the world reserve their property rights now and FOREVER.
This shall serve as a PUBLIC NOTICE.
Aloha kakou.
A commemorative event has been organised for the late Kenneth Brown at the Royal Mausoleum, Mauna Ala, Nu'uanu Valley for Thursday next commencing at noon with a 24-hour vigil. Details here:
http://www.kitv.com/news/hawaii/Hawaii-s-own-Kenneth-Brown-set-to-be-honored-at-Royal-Mausoleum/25029290
An outstanding obituary of Kenneth's life and his 'ohana connection with the Hawaiian Kingdom was published in the "Star-Advertiser" and is accessible by clicking here:
http://obits.staradvertiser.com/2014/02/12/kenneth-francis-kamuokalani-brown/
....... Mahalo!
Aloha kakou.
The Moloka'i Community health centre have been holding a very successful series of traditional cultural value events which appear to be ongoing such is the demand. Recently the ancient game of konane was performed by participants:
Aloha kakou.
Hawaiian Nationals may be interested in the latest update on the Chagos Islanders who were displaced four decades ago in order to build a U.S. airbase in the Indian Ocean:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/13/chagos-islands-uk-experts-resettlement-study
I HAVE WATCHED....7 DEATHS.....CONCERNING THE DISREPECT...THE DISHONOR...THE DISGRACE TO ALL THINGS SACRED ON THIS VERY .....HONORABLE ROYAL SITE OF LAHAINA....LOKO O MOKUHINIA.....!!!.....FOR OVER 20 YEARS ....UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THIS FEDERAL AND STATE WITH THIS ILLEGAL COUNTY DIRECTIONS OF HELL....ON THIS VERY SACRED ROYAL PROTECTED HISTORICAL GROUNDS.....FROM EXPLOITATION....TO EMBEZZELING USA GREEDY MONEY......TO WRONGFUL USA PAGAN CEREMONIES.....TO WAR FIGHTING PRACTICE LUA GAMES BROUGHT OVER HERE.... FROM OAHU ...SO CALLED CULTURALIST/LUA WARRIORS OF OAHU...!!!!......TO THE OVER HARASSMENTS OF THESE ILLEGAL NON PROFITS OF THIS USA COUNTY...THAT SURROUNDS THIS VERY ROYAL SITE BY USA NON PROFIT....TRESPASSERS....!!!.....FOR THERE IS OVER 10 NON PROFITS.....THAT IS A NUSAINCE ALL AROUND THIS VERY SITE....!!!.....AND LOOK AT THIS ROYAL PLACE....IT LOOKS LIKE HELL....!!!.....AND NOW I GIVE IT UP TO KE AKUA.....AND MY ROYALTIES ...OF LOKO O MOKUHINIA....LAHAINA....!!!....TO REMOVE THESE ILLEGAL USA TRESPASSERS....!!!...OF THESE ILLEGAL USA NON PROFITS....PROFITTING BIG TIME ....ON SACRED ROYAL GROUNDS OF MY ANCESTERS.....ON LOKO O MOKUHINIA.....AND IT ENDS IN 2014...!!!...amene
Aloha kakou.
Congratulations to haumana Kamakalehiwa Purdy-Avelino who took the niho-palaoa award in the grade nine to twelve category at the recent Moloka'i 'olelo Hawai'i competition, the "Molokai Dispatch" has more on the story:
Ke huli nei ke kula ‘o Mid-Pacific Elementary i kekahi kumu ‘olelo Hawaii no kēia kauwela. E ‘olu‘olu e ho‘ouna mai i kou resume a me kou helu kelepona iā Ikaika Hussey.
Lā hope loa: Feb 17 2014
Mid-Pac elementary is looking for a Hawaiian language instructor for summer session.
Deadline: Feb 17 2014
Class dates and times:
Dates: June 9 to July 11 M-F
7:45-9:45 (grades 1-2)
10:15-12:15 (grades 3-4)
ikaikahussey (at) gmail.com
| |||||
| |||||
| |||||
| |||||
Aloha kakou.
The Hawaiian Kingdom website contains a blog listing of Kingdom legations overseas, interested parties may find online the "Hawaiian Gazette" of Tuesday December 31, 1889 of additional assistance. At that time 94 were catalogued as follows:
-U.S. 7.
-Mexico 2.
-Central and South America 5.
-Great Britain & Ireland 15.
-Canada 11.
-Australasia 8.
-Hong Kong 1.
-Shanghai 1.
-Gibraltar 1.
-France and her Colonies 4.
-Society Group (Papeete & Tahiti) 1.
-Germany and her Colonies 6.
-Belgium 4.
-Spain and her Colonies 6.
-Canary Islands 2.
-Portugal and her Colonies 5.
-Italy 4.
-Netherlands 2.
-Sweden & Norway 4.
-Japan 2.
-South African Republic 1.
-Austria 1.
-Denmark 1.
………….. Aloha.
Nobody likes getting rejected, which is one reason we often think twice before asking for a favor. If we believe we’re likely to get turned down, why bother? But recent research led by Daniel Newark, a doctoral candidate in organization studies, shows that we overestimate the chance that our requests for help will be denied — especially after we’ve been turned down before. And that suggests we should be asking for help more readily and from a wider set of people than we currently are.
Newark collaborated on the studies with Francis Flynn and Vanessa Bohns, Moncler Femmes Veste Alpin Rouge,researchers who in earlier experiments had shown that people tend to grossly underestimate how likely others are to grant a favor. (For example, participants in one of their studies thought that to get 3 people to agree to lend their cellphones for brief calls they would have to ask about 10 people, whereas they needed to ask only 6.) Flynn had a theory to explain such prediction errors, which his experiments bore out. “When people are asking for help, they’re really focusing on how big is this ‘ask,’” he said at a 2010 conference on the science of eliciting good behavior. But for the potential help giver, the attention is on a different question. “They’re thinking not so much about the costs of saying yes as the costs of saying no: How awkward would it be for me to say no? Moncler Hommes Veste Zin Bleu. How uncomfortable would I feel?”
But would the gap between help seekers’ expectations and the reality be smaller or greater when a second request was made of the same person?
To find out, the trio of researchers had participants stop strangers on the Stanford campus and, following a simple script, request two favors: fill out a short survey and then, regardless of how the stranger responded to that request, drop off a letter at a nearby post office. Before sending the participants out, the researchers asked them to guess what would happen, so that the predictions could be compared with the strangers’ actual behavior. The help seekers expected that people who refused the first request would be much less likely to say yes to a second request.
They couldn’t have been more wrong. “What we found,” Newark says, “was that the percentage of people saying yes to the second request was higher than the percentage saying yes to the first request.” In other words, saying no the first time actually made people more likely to say yes the second time,Moncler Hommes Veste Maya Vert, even though the two favors were equally small.
“It can be very difficult for help seekers to appreciate the discomfort of refusing someone’s request for help not only once, but twice. Having already said no once, it can be more guilt-inducing and uncomfortable to say no a second time,” Newark explains. Indeed, a follow-up study by the trio showed that such feelings of discomfort are precisely what’s behind potential helpers’ tendency to agree to the second favor at rates higher than those for the first. Help seekers, meanwhile, don’t merely fail to anticipate this discomfort: They also read too much into the first no, seeing it as a sign that they’re probably dealing with a person who’s unhelpful in general.
Out in the real world, these divergent thought processes create a kind of paradox: “Help seekers may be the least likely to ask for help from those people who in fact are the most likely to help them.” And over time, that means we tend to go back to the same small pool of people who’ve helped us in the past. This can happen in organizations, Newark points out, where those who say yes early on during their tenure get lots of requests in the future. That leads group members to an unfortunate tendency to overburden the same set of helpers while underutilizing other group members, who, this research suggests, might say yes if you try them again.
“If anyone who tells us no once gets taken out of the potential pool of people we can trust or turn to for help, that’s a pretty high bar,” Newark says. “Even helpful people refuse to help sometimes. When someone tells us no, it could be because of circumstances that have nothing to do with a person’s willingness to help, and in the long run, we’ll be better off if we’re not quick to write people off after a single rejection.”
