Quantcast
  

Tuesday, April 15, 2014         

 Print   Email   Comment | View 59 Comments   Most Popular   Save   Post   Retweet

Ka Lā Kū'oko'a

By Kekeka Solis

POSTED:



Synopsis: Celebrating Hawaiian Independence Day, Makawalu presents Lā Kū'oko'a Aloha 'Āina Concert on Nov. 28 at 4:30 p.m.
———

Welina e nā makamaka heluhelu, nā kānaka kū ho'i i ka pono. E hiki koke mai ana ka Lā Kū'oko'a o Hawai'i, 'o ia ho'i, ka lā 28 o Nowemapa. Ma mua o ka hō'ike 'ana no kahi 'ahamele e ho'oheno ai i ia lā kulāia o kākou, e hō'ike 'ia ana kekahi māhele o ka ha'i 'ōlelo a Jas. K. Kaulia ma ka Lā Kū'oko'a Hawai'i o ka makahiki 1896. A penei ia:

“Ma ka la 19 o Dekemaba, M. H. 1842, ua kipa aku la na elele Hawaii me na poo Aupuni kiekie o ke Aupuni Amerika, a ua aeia mai ke kuokoa ana o Hawaii nei, a o ke koena aku o na hana i koe a na elele, ua hala loa aku laua no Beritania Nui. Ua kipa aku na Elele Hawaii ma Ladana, ke kulanakauhale poo Aupuni o Beritania,ua apoia mai na elele me na hookipa kiekie a ke Aupuni o Beritania Nui, ua apoia mai la ia e ka Moiwahine o Beritania Nui me na hoohiwahiwa he nui i paholaia mai.

“A ma ka la 12 o Aperila, M. H. 1843, ua noho ka aha uwao o Beritania Nui, a me Farani a me na Elele Hawaii. A ua aeia ke kuokoa ana o na Paeaina o Hawaii. A i ka holopono ana o na hana a na elele, a ma ko laua ala huli hoi i ka aina, ua make iho la ka Elele Alii Timoteo Haalilio ma ka la 3 o Dekemaba, M. H. 1843. He kauwa hoolohe me ka hoomanawanui no ka Moi Kauikeaouli, ua kuu ka uhi iloko o ka hauoli, no ka pono o ka aina, ka hana hoi e hiki ole ai ke hoopoinaia, no ka nui o kona aloha i kona Alii, ka aina, a me ka lahui,

“A ma ke kulanakauhale poo Aupuni o Ladana ma ka la 28 o Novemaba, M. H. 1843, ua kakauinoaia iho la ke Kuikahi Kuokoa o Hawaii nei, a e heluheluia penei:”

Na Olelo o ke Kuikahi.

“O ka Moi, ke Aliiwahine o ke Aupuni Hui o Beritania Nui a me Irelani, a me ka Moi o ka poe Farani, ma ka noonoo ana a me ka lawe ana mai i ke kulana o na Mokupuni Sandwich Ailana, he Aupuni kona he hiki ke hoomaopopo no ka hooko pololei ana i kona mau launa ana me ko na Aupuni e, ke manao like nei he mea pono ka hui lokahi ma ka hoike ana he Aupuni Kuokoa ka Paeaina o Hawaii, aole e lawe a lilo ia laua, aole hoi ma ke kaili pololei ana, a i ole, ma ke ano hoomalu, aole hoi ma kekahi ano e ae i ke kau wahi lihi o ua wahi la.”

He nani nō ka heluhelu 'ana i nā 'ōlelo a nā kūpuna o kākou no ka pono o ka Lāhui Hawai'i. A i kēia manawa, e nānā käkou i ka hana a nä mamo i kēia mau lā.

E mālama 'ia ana ka 'aha mele ma kēia Pō'akolu, ka lā 28 ho'i o Nowemapa. Aia ana ma ka Pā Mau'u 'o Bachman i ke Kulanui o Hawai'i ma Mānoa. Na ka hui haumäna 'o Makawalu e mälama ana. E ho'omaka ana i ka hola 4:30 o ka 'auinalā. Nui ana nā pu'ukani, 'o Hanale Bishop, 'o Koa Hewahewa, 'o Skippy Ioane a pēlā aku. Aia ana ka mea 'ai, ka makana a pëlā aku. E nānā aku ma “FACEBOOK.COM/HEHAWAIIAU.”

———
E ho'ouna 'ia mai na ā leka iā mā ua, 'o ia ho'i 'o Laiana Wong a me Kekeha Solis ma ka pahu leka uila ma lalo nei:

>> kwong@hawaii.edu >> rsolis@hawaii.edu a i ‘ole ia, ma ke kelepona: >> 956-2627 (Laiana) >> 956-2627 (Kekeha) This column is coordinated by Kawaihuelani Center for Hawaiian Language at the University of Hawai'i at Mänoa.






 Print   Email   Comment | View 59 Comments   Most Popular   Save   Post   Retweet

COMMENTS
(59)
You must be subscribed to participate in discussions
By participating in online discussions you acknowledge that you have agreed to the TERMS OF SERVICE. An insightful discussion of ideas and viewpoints is encouraged, but comments must be civil and in good taste, with no personal attacks. Because only subscribers are allowed to comment, we have your personal information and are able to contact you. If your comments are inappropriate, you may receive a warning, and if you persist with such comments you may be banned from posting. To report comments that you believe do not follow our guidelines, email commentfeedback@staradvertiser.com.
Leave a comment

Please login to leave a comment.
Ken_Conklin wrote:
It's sad to see that Kekeha Solis has left out some very important details about Ka La Ku'oko'a. There were two representatives of the Kingdom of Hawaii who made the journey together to the U.S., Britain, and France. Solis tells that story as though Timoteo Ha'alilio was acting alone as Hawaii's sole representative. But the senior partner on that trip was the American missionary Rev. William Richards, who had helped King Kauikeaouli write the 1839 Declaration of the Rights of Man and the 1840 Constitution. On the trip to Europe the King had entrusted to Richards documents signed by the King and bearing the royal seal, but which were otherwise blank, so that Richards could make whatever deal he thought was good and fill in the documents with the King's signature and seal already on them. Ha'alilio was merely a young ali'i who served as secretary to the King. When Ha'alilio died while he and Richards were returning to Hawaii, it was Richards who brought home the British/French nonaggression agreement along with the unused blank documents the King had entrusted to Richards. One small piece of evidence about who was the senior partner on the trip to America and Europe is this: the street running alongside Iolani Palace is named "Richards Street" and there is no "Ha'alilio Street" anywhere in Hawaii. It's too bad Solis continues the ethnic cleansing of Hawaiian history, leaving out Richards and other Caucasians who were heroes of the Kingdom.
on November 24,2012 | 07:05AM
Terii_Kelii wrote:
1) He can only write so much in this column. 2) This account was written by others, not Solis, as Solis gave credit to the original authors. 3) The only mention Ha‘alilio is a memorial about his death, nothing else. Since YOU and I mean YOU, Kenny K Konklin cannot actually read past a rudimentary level, then why are you bashing a column and a columnist that you cannot even understand??????? (besides the obvious racism reasons, of course) Remember- highly educated does not always equal highly intelligent.
on December 3,2012 | 07:48AM
DiverDave wrote:
Corect Ken, Kekeha Solis is a deceiver.This is typical of the sovereignty fringe when attempting to victimize other Polynesians. Sovereignty victimizers like Solis only present a little piece of the story, and by intentional omission don't tell the entire story, in order to sway less educated and unknowing victims into their webs of deceit.
on November 24,2012 | 01:08PM
holokanaka wrote:
-Eh chief joker jr, show me an annexation treaty.
on November 24,2012 | 01:12PM
Ken_Conklin wrote:
Treaty of Annexation between the Republic of Hawaii and the United States of America (1898). Full text of the treaty, and of the resolutions whereby the Republic of Hawaii legislature and the U.S. Congress ratified it. The politics surrounding the treaty, then and now. http://www.angelfire.com/big09a/TreatyOfAnnexationHawaiiUS.html
on November 24,2012 | 05:59PM
DiverDave wrote:
What should be noted is that there were at least 5 Polynesians on the committee that drafted the treaty, and the Speaker of the House of the Republic of Hawaii was a full blooded Polynesian John Kaulukou. The final vote in the U.S. Senate was 42-21 (2/3), and 209-91 in the House (more than 2/3rds). So with a 2/3rds vote in the Senate and signed by the U.S. President there was no challenge ever made.
on November 24,2012 | 06:43PM
holokanaka wrote:
Eh chief joker jr, let try another tack. Show me a legal procedure by which these islands became part of america.
on November 24,2012 | 09:05PM
DiverDave wrote:
Apparently you can't read. Ken Conklin shows you if you go to the above site.
on November 24,2012 | 10:22PM
holokanaka wrote:
us department of justice, opinion of the office of legal counsel, vol 12, pg 238-263, october 4, 1988, exerps from pp 250-252. "accordingly, it is doubtful that the acquisition of Hawaii can serve as an appropriate precedent for congressional assertion of sovereignty over extended territoril sea". Again chief joker jr, where is the annexation treaty?
on November 25,2012 | 07:16AM
DiverDave wrote:
Ya, An "opinion" of some left wing nut job "legal counsel" lawyer in the justice dept. in 1988. That's meaningful. Grasping at straws in the dark.
on November 25,2012 | 07:44AM
holokanaka wrote:
There you go again chief joker jr. you cannot refute my information so you go into the attack mode. I guess it is true-the best defence is a strong offence. "an opinion of some left wing nut job "legal counsel"!!! I guess your blogging in a local newspaper would hold more influence then the us justice dept in a court of law!! as I have said before you need some real serious proffesonal health service.
on November 25,2012 | 08:17AM
DiverDave wrote:
Lawyers say a lot of things to try and sway the court's judgement. And, what became of this lawyer's "opinion"? Nothing. Because it was just his "opinion".
on November 25,2012 | 09:20AM
DiverDave wrote:
Ok here's the way I see Sai vs Hillary. Sai, a convicted felon says he is somehow immune to the conviction, along the lines of diplomatic immunity, because of a "deal" that Liliuokalani entered into with Cleveland. Here is problem number one. The Constitution she swore to uphold said that any agreement she entered into must have the concurent approval of her cabinet. Did it? No.( 2) Now if this agreement Sai speaks of happenned after the Provisional Government of Hawaii was recognized by not only the U.S.A., but all other meaningful countries, to include France and Britain, then any agreement that Cleveland entered into was against international law. My take is that if his case is won in the lesser courts, it will be ultimately heard by the U.S. Supreme Court. But if he loses in the lesser courts and he (Sai) appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court they will simply refuse to hear it. But, even if he is heard in the Supreme Court they simply cannot allow people to go around committing felonies and claiming immunity because of something Liliuokalani signed with Cleveland. They will simply say that as the transfer of power to a Federal Government was not challenged in a timely manner, by either a citizen of the the old Kingdom of Hawaii, nor any citizen of the U.S.A., a reasonable time to object has run out. Sai is still a felon, and always will be. ( Added footnote: and if he causes anymore people to lose their homes to foreclosure he may end up in jail for fraud!)
on November 25,2012 | 09:57PM
DiverDave wrote:
And please don't say "but what about the Ku'e petitions?" We have already proven they were a fraud.
on November 25,2012 | 11:42PM
holokanaka wrote:
chief joker jr show me a legally "ratified" annexation treaty. Ku'e Petitions-who has proven they are a fraud?
on November 26,2012 | 06:41AM
DiverDave wrote:
I have shown you many times that those "petitions" were fraud. There wasn't 40,000 Polynesian men over the age of 18 in all the islands at the time.
on November 26,2012 | 09:28AM
holokanaka wrote:
the Ku'e Petitions wasn't some government run under some government rules list, it was an heart felt effort by a people who loved their Aina, their Sovereign Nation, and their Queen who saw that the ha*le were trying steal their land and their Nation. That is probably something you know nothing about. and remember the Treaties between the two Sovereign Nations-Kingdom of Hawaii and america, especially the agreement of Mutual Amity. I will grant you that some probably signed both Petitions.
on November 26,2012 | 01:38PM
DiverDave wrote:
I'm sure not every person was on board for becoming part of the U.S.A., but most were. The "petitions" were all written in just a couple different handwritings, most names were just first, and most with no addresses. Hardly a "petition" even under the standards of the day. And, this idea that everyone loved Liliuokalani is also false. Remember the Emmaites? You say that fraud is OK as long as the end justifies the means. I say that the sovereignty kook fringe knows that it(the "petition" is a fraud), and like most of their talking points they don't tell the WHOLE story in their ongoing attempt to create racial separatism, and racial hatred in order to divide and conquer.
on November 26,2012 | 10:23PM
holokanaka wrote:
first- I did not accept that the Ku'e Petitions are fraud. second-are you a handwritting expert or are you just repeating lorran thurstons arguemants. three-the sovereignty kook fringe knows the petition is a fraud. how do you know that? recommended reading Aloha Betrayed by Noe Noe Silva. four-I don't know but I don't think the grass shacks had addresses. five -not everyone loved Liliu. again recommended book-same as above.
on November 27,2012 | 07:01AM
DiverDave wrote:
Can't you hear yourself? "I will grant you that some probably signed both petitions". That would make the petitions what?
on November 27,2012 | 11:15PM
holokanaka wrote:
not fraudulent.
on November 28,2012 | 07:42AM
DiverDave wrote:
So, you won't be saying as you have in previous posts that "40,000" people signed the petition against annexation" will you?
on November 28,2012 | 01:35PM
holokanaka wrote:
I have never said that "40,000 people signed...".
on November 29,2012 | 06:53AM
Terii_Kelii wrote:
No he doesn't. The Newlands Resolution was what the US used to take Hawai‘i. THAT legislation does not equal an annexation treaty and IS NOT the annexation treaty being paraded around.
on December 3,2012 | 07:57AM
holokanaka wrote:
Eh konki I am familiar with that particular article of yours but I also remember another blog of yours where you state that the reason the annexation DID NOT pass was not because of the Ku'e Petitions but because of the influence of the southern farmers. So which is it, was the annexation treaty passed or not?
on November 25,2012 | 07:01AM
DiverDave wrote:
Holokanaka: What does the word "ratified" mean? You are like a spinning top going around, and around, and around in circles like a sailboat without a rudder.
on November 25,2012 | 07:28AM
DiverDave wrote:
Holokana and his ilk of victims have been so brainwashed with the talking points of the sovereignty kook fringe that they just can't except that the far majority of the people, including the Polynesians, in Hawaii in 1898 wanted to become a part of the United States. Even Liliuokalani admitted it was "the best thing that could happen for the future of her people", and flew an American flag outside her home on Washington Place. It's laughable that believers in the sovereignty fringe want to tell the people that lived at the time what they should have wanted, when all the facts, actions, and their words demonstrate that wanted very much to be a part of the Greatest Nation on Earth.
on November 25,2012 | 08:17AM
holokanaka wrote:
ok, ok chief joker jr I will play your game. show me a legally "ratified" annexation treaty.
on November 25,2012 | 08:18AM
DiverDave wrote:
First, you imply that there is no treaty, now you speak of "legality". Ken Conklin spells it all out for you. I really believe you are so brainwashed that you wouldn't believe that your wife was cheating on you if you found her in bed with another woman, er a man.
on November 25,2012 | 08:31AM
holokanaka wrote:
Eh chief joker jr, now all you have to do is inform the us department of justice about konki's "angelfire.com" article so that the justice dept. can correct their error and set the record straight.
on November 25,2012 | 09:23AM
DiverDave wrote:
There you go again with your racist name calling, calling me a "chief joker" because of my Indian ancestry. You are an awful person holokanaka. But, again it was one lawyer's opinion, that worked at the State Dept. in 1988. Nothing has become of it 25 years later.
on November 25,2012 | 09:39AM
holokanaka wrote:
it was not one lawyers it was the opinion of the "office of legal counsel", furthermore tell me why konki's blog/article/argument was not used in the sai vs hillary case. I am sure the justice dept is aware of the "joint resolution to annex". or maybe not. you got a chance here to be a hero and make them aware of this legal argument.
on November 25,2012 | 01:23PM
DiverDave wrote:
Refer to above response on Sai vs Hillary. My thoughts are mine. Mr. Conklin's are his. But the case really hasn't even started yet. But, don't hold your breath.
on November 25,2012 | 10:24PM
holokanaka wrote:
"my thoughts are mine"-exactly, thats all it is, your thoughts. nothing that would stand up is a legal argument. you finally said something truely honest. this conversation is over.
on November 26,2012 | 06:47AM
DiverDave wrote:
At least I have thoughts of my own based on fact. You have no thoughts except regurgitating the same old sovereignty kook fringe talking points over and over and over and over and.........
on November 26,2012 | 09:43AM
holokanaka wrote:
I have thoughts on facts, truth,source documents and people who have researched, and written about those truths and facts. again I suggest the books nation Within by Tom Coffman and Aloha betrayed by Noe Noe Silva and ofcourse your favorate guy Keanu Sai and his websight Hawaiian Kingdom Government and Hawaiian Kingdom Independance
on November 26,2012 | 01:45PM
DiverDave wrote:
I suggest as a starting point "The Hawaiian Kingdom, Volume III, 1874-1893, The Kalakaua Dynasty, Ralph S. Kuykendall, U of H Press, 1967.
on November 26,2012 | 10:27PM
holokanaka wrote:
the books I recommend are books on the laws and sourse documents not history books.
on November 27,2012 | 06:50AM
DiverDave wrote:
Ya, all of the sovereignty kooks and their propaganda.
on November 27,2012 | 10:22AM
holokanaka wrote:
you loose
on November 27,2012 | 01:23PM
DiverDave wrote:
What have I lost?
on November 27,2012 | 11:08PM
holokanaka wrote:
all credibility.
on November 28,2012 | 07:41AM
DiverDave wrote:
And, you have lost your mind to the sovereignty kook fringe.
on November 28,2012 | 01:39PM
Terii_Kelii wrote:
DiverDave and KennyKKonlin are the same person. Before we talk of any other documents, I want to know what diplomas they have for Hawaiian language/ Hawaiian history/ Hawaiian Studies that prove they have enough knowledge to talk about this subject with any amount of credibility. I have a Hawaiian diploma, how about you? (Answer: ummm, no.) As for what KONKLIN posted above, I can write a piece of paper called the Annexation Treaty between the US and China but it has no value when it is not acknowledged by either side. The US Congress' taking of Hawai‘i was by the Newlands Resolution, not the "Annexation Treaty". This is common knowledge that ALL sides of the sovereignty battle ACCEPT (EXCEPT inexplicably you two). Hey notice the correct lexical choices of mine, Dave/Konklin!!!! It adds to my credibility and diminishes yours. Oh and just to make things infintessimally explicit, the official title of the Newlands Resolution was The Newlands Resolution, not "Annexation Treaty." Now, where's my whiteboard and markers?
on December 3,2012 | 08:07AM
Terii_Kelii wrote:
PS Since you have to ask what the word ratified means, then obivously you know little about govenment as well.
on December 3,2012 | 08:23AM
Terii_Kelii wrote:
Oh and Dave, we all know that you are not part Chickasaw. Konklin is not part Chickasaw either, especially since you two are the same person. You just lie to TRY to make yourself more credible. (Pssst! It's NOT working!)
on December 3,2012 | 08:35AM
Terii_Kelii wrote:
Yes we have seen that piece of paper before. It is not ratified. Unfortunately, we must be infintessimally explicit to the PhD holder because implied meaning is just an obtuse writing style. WE ALL KNOW THERE IS A PIECE OF PAPER WITH THE WORDS ANNEXATION TREATY ON IT! When one says there is no annexation treaty, the implication is that there is NO RATIFIED AND PASSED annexation treaty. And for all the uneducated ones below who think that it was ratified and passed, there needs to be an explanation from them why the Newlands Resolution WAS RATIFIED AND PASSED and why the history books everywhere state explicitly that THAT DOCUMENT was how the US annexed its stolen islands.
on December 3,2012 | 07:54AM
holokanaka wrote:
Seems like almost everytime I read a post by konki about the history of these islands he seems to always put the ha*le on a pedestal and never gives any credit to any Hawaiians. I don't ever remember him giving any Hawaiians any credit for anything positive in these islands. he seems to say that any positive accomplishment were by the ha*le and without the ha*le the Hawaiians would have never have accomplished anything. Just makes you wonder how, without the ha*li to lead the Hawaiians the Hawaiians ever discovered these islands, thousands of miles from any land, settled these islands, created a society of happy, healthy, and strong population a thousand years before the ha*le/europeans sailed beyond sight of land without the ha*li holding their hand. Just makes one wonder.
on November 24,2012 | 01:38PM
DiverDave wrote:
Seems that holokanaka is always the one that is using racists words like the "h" word, and is wrong about his history. By the way it was 500 years that Polynesians were here before recontact not 1000. "holokanaka's" boat has left the dock.
on November 24,2012 | 06:13PM
holokanaka wrote:
Seems you again are proving me right by again using the "racist" response, and also support my response to konki's post and that is that only what a ha*le says is factual and all the oral history of the Hawaiians means nothing.
on November 24,2012 | 09:13PM
DiverDave wrote:
Right, another stupid post. I suppose you know more than Terry Hunt. Professor of Anthropology at U of H Manoa, and award winner of the 2008 Regents' Medal for Excellance in Research from the University of Hawaii. For those that read see his, and three other top anthropologists from around the Pacific now acclaimed study, Google: "East polynesia colonized faster and more recently than previously thought".
on November 24,2012 | 10:38PM
holokanaka wrote:
you need to read my post again.
on November 25,2012 | 08:21AM
DiverDave wrote:
You mean the part about "a happy society? Try reading Memoirs ofHenry Obookiah's (Opukahala) acount of this "happy society" that you speak of. He was barely able to escape Hawaii with his life after his mother and father and baby brother were killed by surounding factions . You are just full of nonsense
on November 25,2012 | 08:49AM
Terii_Kelii wrote:
Speaking of happy societies, when is the next school shooting, Dave? I would expect you to know considering what an angry old man you are.
on December 3,2012 | 08:21AM
Terii_Kelii wrote:
So??? It is ONE study and is still theory, not fact. The Polynesians were still here first and still have owners' rights as the first settlers. period.
on December 3,2012 | 08:16AM
Terii_Kelii wrote:
The word is not racist. You, by your own admission, do not even speak Hawaiian. Thus, you have no authority to decide what words are good or bad in Hawaiian any more than you would for Icelandic, Hausa, Xhosa, or Tlingit. There is currently an email campaign to make the Star-Advertiser webmasters to stop censoring that word because we have the constitutional right to use it. This newspaper is violating out constitutional rights since the word only means foreigner / white person, and according the the ones who DO speak Hawaiian and are LEGITIMATE EXPERTS in the language, that word has no pejorative or derisive meaning at all. I encourage everyone who reads this to call and email the Star-Advertiser to stop their censorship.
on December 3,2012 | 08:15AM
DiverDave wrote:
You are the loser for being taken in by the sovereinty kook fringe.
on November 27,2012 | 02:21PM
holokanaka wrote:
thats your best response? Sad.
on November 29,2012 | 06:55AM
Terii_Kelii wrote:
I learned Hawaiian language to the point of near fluency. I did not take Hawaiian Studies courses from Haunani-Kay Trask or Lilikala Kameeleihiwa or anyone else at UHM. I did my OWN reading (source material, not history books) and I made up MY OWN MIND about what truly happened. You obviously have not read much of anything except what your alter-ego Konklin writes. How one-sided and one-dimensional yourself.
on December 3,2012 | 08:20AM
IN OTHER NEWS
Latest News/Updates
Blogs
Political Radar
HB 1700 — Day 1

Hoops Talk
Aloha Shamburger

Political Radar
Stacked

Political Radar
HFFA

Warrior Beat
All’s fair

Political Radar
Apology

Political Radar
SD 23