Quantcast

Tuesday, July 22, 2014         

KAUAKUKALAHALE


 Print   Email   Comment | View 50 Comments   Most Popular   Save   Post   Retweet

'A'ole e pāweo maka ke aupuni

Na Kekaha Solis

POSTED:



Synopsis: The federal government needs to take responsibility regarding the Compact of Free Association. But in the meantime, Hawai'i should not avert its eyes elsewhere and should offer paid health care benefits to Micronesians living in Hawai'i.

Welina e nā makamaka heluhelu. Aia kahi pu'u nui i ke alo o ka po'e Maikonekia e noho ihola ma Hawai'i nei. 'O ka mea e kau a'e nei ia po'o mana'o i luna, kohu mea lā, aia nō ke pāweo akula ka maka o ke aupuni pekelala. A e pāweo like ana paha nā maka o ke aupuni moku'āina o Hawai'i.

I ka lā mua o ka mahina 'o 'Apelila o kēia makahiki nei, ua kau a'e nei ka 'ōlelo ho'oholo a ka 'Aha Ho'okolokolo Ka'apuni Ho'opi'i Helu 'Eiwa o 'Amelika Hui Pū 'Ia, 'o ia ho'i, he hiki i ke aupuni moku'āina o Hawai'i ke ho'omau i ka hā'awi 'ana aku i ka po'e Maikonekia i nā pono ola kino e emi iho i ko nā kānaka 'ē a'e ma ka polokalamu Medicaid. Ua ho'opi'i 'ia aku ia 'ōlelo ho'oholo, a wahi a ka Loio Kuhina David Louie, 'oiai e kali 'ia iho ana ka 'ōlelo ho'oholo o ia hihia, e ho'omau 'ia aku ana ka lilo 'ana aku o nā pono ola kino piha i ka po'e Maikonekia.

A i ka Pō'akolu nei, ua ka'i huaka'i akula nā kānaka Maikonekia mai Kalihi a i ka hale pekelala ma Honolulu no ka hō'eu'eu 'ana i nā luna 'aha'ōlelo lāhui o Hawai'i i ka ho'oikaika 'ana i ka hana e loa'a hou ai ke kālā e pono ai ka 'inikua ola kino piha.

'O kahi mea minamina, nui ka hauwala'au a kānaka e 'ōlelo ana, 'a'ole no Hawai'i ke kuleana. No ke aupuni pekelala ia kuleana, 'o ia ho'i na ke aupuni pekelala e ho'okō i kāna 'ōlelo 'aelike i hana ai me ke aupuni o Palau, ke aupuni o Mākala 'Ailana a me nā 'Āina Maikonekia Hui Pū 'Ia. A he 'oia'i'o nō ia, no ke aupuni pekelala nō ke kuleana. Akā, 'a'ole nō 'o ia e ho'okō nei i kona kuleana. A no laila, he aha ka hana a nā luna aupuni o Hawai'i nei? E pāweo like aku nā maka, e like me ko 'Amelika? Inā e like ka hana, e pōpilikia loa auane'i ka po'e Maikonekia.

Ua nui nā kānaka Maikonekia i lo'ohia i nā ma'i like 'ole ma muli o 'Amelika Hui Pū 'Ia. 'O kekahi kumu, 'o ia ka ho'opahū 'ana aku o 'Amelika i nā pōkā pahū nukelea ma nā mokupuni pālahalaha o Mākala 'Ailana. A ma muli o kēlā, ua nui loa a'ela nā pilikia o ka po'e kānaka Maikonekia, 'o ka ma'i 'ana i ka mea nukelea, ka ne'e 'ana aku i kekahi mokupuni pālahalaha a pēlā aku. A ua māhuahua a'e nā pilikia ma ia hope mai, a 'o ke kumu ho'okahi, 'o ia nō 'o 'Amelika Hui Pū 'Ia. No laila, he mea mōakāka, no 'Amelika Hui Pū 'Ia ke kuleana, akā, i kēia wā e ho'okō 'ole nei 'o ia i ia kuleana, na Hawai'i nō e kōkua. A na nā luna 'aha'ōlelo lāhui o Hawai'i a me nā luna aupuni a pau paha o Hawai'i e kūpa'a ma hope o nā kānaka Maikonekia i mea e hō'ike aku ai i nā luna o 'Amelika Hui Pū 'Ia i ka hewa o kā lākou mau hana.

E nānā pono kākou i ka mo'olelo o ka po'e kānaka Maikonekia, a e 'ike auane'i kākou i ka 'oia'i'o. No 'Amelika Hui Pū 'Ia ka hewa a nona ke kuleana e kōkua ai.

———

E ho'ouna 'ia mai na ā leka iā māua, '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 Mānoa.






 Print   Email   Comment | View 50 Comments   Most Popular   Save   Post   Retweet

COMMENTS
(50)
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:
Yes, the U.S. used some of the Marshall Islands as places to test nuclear bombs. Yes, we blew up a couple of those islands and generated a lot of radioactivity which caused injury to many people, lasting for many years. So the U.S. owes reparations for damage. And yes, the U.S. has a treaty whereby the Federated States of Micronesia allow the U.S. to use some of their islands for military bases, and to control their foreign policy, in return for the U.S. allowing their people to come to the U.S. to live and work without needing any visa. The problem is that most of the Micronesians who come to the U.S. under terms of the treaty have big needs for healthcare, food, and housing; and those burdens must be borne by the particular states and counties where the Micronesians choose to go. And a lot of them choose Hawaii because the weather is just like home and the people here are friendly. The problem is that the U.S. is not paying Hawaii what it costs to take care of the Micronesians. Those costs are a responsibility of the U.S. government, but instead we the taxpayers of Hawaii end up paying those costs.

This essay says that we the taxpayers of Hawaii should pay those costs because it's the right thing to do, until such time as the U.S. steps up to meet its responsibility. But here's a different way of looking at it.

"If you build it, they will come." That's not only the theme of the movie "Field of Dreams", it's also a more general truth about welfare programs. Needy people come to Hawaii from Mississippi or Alabama because Hawaii gives much better welfare benefits than those states. If Hawaii paid less generous welfare benefits, those needy people from those other states would go somewhere else where the benefits are better. and the taxpayers of Hawaii would not be burdened by them. The same is true of the Micronesians. Hawaii is what social scientists call a "welfare magnet" -- our generous benefits attract people to come here who otherwise would have gone somewhere else.

Some restaurants with outdoor seating put up signs saying "Don't feed the birds." Sone public parks have those signs too. The reason is that if people feed the birds, more birds will come; and all those birds fly in the faces of the customers and drop doo-doo onto tables, chairs, and customers. If customers stop feeding the birds, then the birds will stop coming. Problem solved.

California has very generous welfare benefits, weather and a multiethnic population similar to Hawaii. If Hawaii stops providing generous welfare benefits to Micronesians, they will go to California instead. A recent court decision says Hawaii is not obligated to provide the same welfare benefits to Micronesians as we give to U.S. citizens. We should make use of that decision.

Kekaha Solis says the folks coming here from Palau, Marshall Islands, and other places in Micronesia need our help and we taxpayers should give it to them. I guess he thinks the money just sort of drops down like mana from heaven. The government has lots of money, so the government can help. But Solis doesn't realize that every dollar the government has came from us the taxpayers. To bring that realization home to Solis, let's give him something to think about. Suppose we identify all the welfare benefits paid to ethnic Hawaiians. And then every dollar given to a Micronesian who comes here under the FSM compact must be taken away from the ethnic Hawaiians. Would Solis still favor giving generous benefits to the Micronesians? I'll bet not. I'll bet Solis thinks it's great to take money away from Caucasians and Asians to give to Micronesians; but not acceptable to take money from ethnic Hawaiians.

If we don't build it, they won't come. Don't feed the birds.


on April 19,2014 | 05:39AM
DiverDave wrote:
Nice analogy Dr. Conklin! When I first started feeding the birds in my backyard there was only a hand full. Now every morning there is a flock that sits waiting and calling out to me until I get out of bed and throw a few cups of bird seed into the yard. Before I started feeding them they did just fine by themselves. Now they have developed an entitlement mentality, and demand I come out and feed them. Well, at least they are better than homeless people. Once they are fed, they leave until tomorrow!
on April 19,2014 | 09:14AM
holokanaka wrote:
Two typical posts from two arrogant ha*le. Two persons belonging to the race that has caused more misery around this planet throughout history then any other race. (Crusades, the Americas-north and south, Africa-think apartheid, the Caribbean, etc.) I don't know about any one else but I for one cannot help but wonder what it would be like if the ha*le had not dropped tons of nuclear bombs/waste on their homelands, destroyed their environment, and their health, and therefore had no other choice but to abandon their homelands. Two sad commentaries from two sad individuals!!!
on April 19,2014 | 12:09PM
DiverDave wrote:
And yours is a "typical post" of a racist, holokanaka. With you just being a certain race makes them somehow responsible for the "(Crusades, the Americas-north and south, Africa-think apartheid, the Caribbean, etc.)". Wow! With you it's all about race isn't it? That would make you a what David Sai? You ask, " I cannot help but wonder what it would be like if the ha*le had not dropped tons of nuclear bombs/waste on their homelands". Simple answer, if it wasn't for their contribution to the WWII war effort Hawaii would have been invaded by the Japanese forces. All the men would have been killed, the woman raped, and the least of your problems would be the hula!
on April 19,2014 | 01:10PM
holokanaka wrote:
joker, you are a "racist" argument is not an argument for everyone and anyone who disagrees with you. can you fore tell the future with your "all the men would have been killed, the woman raped" statement? and by the way are you aware of the documents found in 1995 which shows that america purposely "instigated" the Japanese to attack america to have an excuse to declare war on Japan. in other words if it wasn't for america there may not even have been a war between america and Japan.
on April 19,2014 | 01:38PM
DiverDave wrote:
You must have gone to same school of racism that Faye Hanohano went to. Not only are you a name caller "Joker", but you start with stating I am an "arrogant ha*le". Yep, you are a racist David Sai. Now, it was the U.S.s fault they were attacked by the Japanese. LOL at you! Yah, and it was China's fault the Japanese attacked them, and the Philippine's, and Singapore's, and Burma's too. I'll bet you also believe that 9-11 was the U.S.s fault too. Is that what they taught you at the U of H? You're just too funny :)
on April 19,2014 | 02:11PM
holokanaka wrote:
Again joker, accusing someone of being a racist is not an argument for everyone and anyone who disagrees with you. Oh and by the way, why didn't America drop/test those bombs in their own backyard instead going all the way to the South Pacific to drop those bombs in someone else's back yard. I mean America has the east coast, the west coast, and all that land in between? Why joker? Why?
on April 19,2014 | 04:24PM
DiverDave wrote:
I am not accusing, you ARE a racist David Sai.
on April 20,2014 | 04:58AM
Terii_Kelii wrote:
and again, you have no business screaming racist when you clearly have no problem using the racist epithet rednéck crácker, hypocrite.
on April 23,2014 | 04:05PM
kuniagirl wrote:
Appreciate the posts, KC & DD. It helped clarify my position: whatever you two say, I believe the opposite. Done. Pau.
on April 19,2014 | 02:45PM
DiverDave wrote:
So, reality doesn't matter, eh kuniagirl?
on April 19,2014 | 07:07PM
kuniagirl wrote:
My reality is that your opinion of reality is suspect.
on April 20,2014 | 10:52PM
DiverDave wrote:
What I find interesting is that neither detractor above, David Sai, or Kuniagirl, had an original thought on the actual article. Their whole effort was to attack Dr. Conklin and myself. Poor form. In David Sai's case in a very racist way!
on April 21,2014 | 10:05PM
Terii_Kelii wrote:
Sigh. Here we go again. KennyKKonklín and DiaperDave have launched personal attacks against the authors of these columns - Keao NeSmith, Kekeha Solis, and Laiana Wong- on several occasions. So you are just a hypocrite. Again, let us not forget the personal attack made against SOli Niheu, deceased, under the column Ua hala i ke ao polohiwa a Kane on January 5, 2013, and the rednéck crâcker racist epithet you lobbed at me in the column from November 12, 2011. So please do not bother making crybaby at others in regards to the same behavior you yourself initiated against us, you unethica, lyingl hypocrite. Attacking a dead man and his family on the internet- you have no shame.
on April 22,2014 | 01:26PM
Ken_Conklin wrote:
Hau'oli la hanau helu 170 e Sanford B. Dole (ma Punahou 23 'Apelila 1844). 'O keia no ka mo'olelo:
http://tinyurl.com/mjzdfs9
on April 23,2014 | 09:24AM
holokanaka wrote:
Only thing that saved Sanford dole okole from prosecution for treason was America's military. Loren thursten and Sanford dole the konki's heroes. That is enough to speak to konki's character.
on April 23,2014 | 09:40AM
DiverDave wrote:
David Sai once again just makes things up. "Only thing that saved Sanford dole okole from prosecution for treason was America's military". U.S. President Grover Cleveland "ordered" him to undo the revolution and reinstate the Queen. Which he refused to do. There was no military presents in Hawaii at this time, other than the leased Pearl Harbor fueling station for the navy. The U.S. military played no role. The people had a taste of Democracy and liked it.
on April 24,2014 | 09:38AM
Ken_Conklin wrote:
Hau'oli la hanau helu 170 e Sanford B. Dole (ma Punahou 23 'Apelila 1844). 'O keia no ka mo'olelo:
http://tinyurl.com/mjzdfs9
on April 23,2014 | 05:59AM
holokanaka wrote:
Okole
on April 23,2014 | 09:41AM
DiverDave wrote:
Dr. Conklin states (Kamehameha III), "acknowledged that all persons born or naturalized in Hawaii, regardless of race, were subjects of the Kingdom fully equal to natives". This is a key point conveniently forgotten by the sovereignty fringe that bases everything on race. If the country was truly "stolen" then all races in Hawaii that were citizens suffered, not just Polynesian-Hawaiians. Dole certainly didn't exclude the Polynesians from the new democratic Republic of Hawaii after the revolution. Polynesians, by sheer numbers controlled the vote. Polynesians enjoyed dominating elections all the way until statehood. As Robert Wilcox said, " The question of the restoration of the Monarchy is gone from us forever. We are now a people, however, who can vote. You all know we have two-thirds of the votes in this country. If you want to rule it is for you to decide". If anyone was discriminated against during those years it was the Japanese and the Chinese. But, after statehood everyone could vote. Then the Polynesians became disgruntled as they no longer controlled the vote. This was what was the catalyst for the sovereignty movement. Like little kids that want to take the ball and go home, the Polynesians didn't want to play with others.
on April 24,2014 | 09:21AM
holokanaka wrote:
konki is correct when he quotes Kamehameha III, "acknowledged that that all persons born or naturalized in Hawaii, regardless of race, were subjects of the Kingdom fully equal to natives". what konki failed to state that the 1887 (bayonet) constitution, a constituion of your and konki's hero lorren thursten and his white supremacist thieves made the first laws that excluded some races from becoming subjects. (specifically Orientals) your post just glosses over that fact "If anyone was discriminated against....it was the Japanese and Chinese". you joker are always saying that the sovereignty movement is arguing only for the Hawaiians when you know that is not true. there are sovereignty groups that argue for the Hawaiian Kingdom which of course includes all races that were subjects before the illegal overthrow. in my opinion that makes you a hypocrite and a liar just like your hero the konki.
on April 24,2014 | 02:03PM
DiverDave wrote:
Yah lots of different sovereignty groups. Almost like all the different ice cream flavors at Baskin Robins. LOL
on April 24,2014 | 09:29PM
holokanaka wrote:
"Ice cream flavors"? What does that mean?
on April 25,2014 | 05:29PM
DiverDave wrote:
Something for everyone's concept.
on April 25,2014 | 09:43PM
DiverDave wrote:
David Sai once again just makes things up. "Only thing that saved Sanford dole ok*le from prosecution for treason was America's military". U.S. President Grover Cleveland "ordered" him to undo the revolution and reinstate the Queen. Which he refused to do. There was no military presents in Hawaii at this time, other than the leased Pearl Harbor fueling station for the navy. The U.S. military played no role. The people had a taste of Democracy and liked it.
on April 24,2014 | 09:39AM
DiverDave wrote:
Should anyone like to read an actual account of the LACK of a role the U.S. military played in the revolution of 1893, and after, read: "The Real Hawaii" by Lucien Young, 1899. Lucien Young was an officer aboard the U.S.S. Boston. After Blount's false and one sided report to his boss Grover Cleveland, Lieutenant Young was compelled to write this book. Very interesting book by a man that observed everything in real time.
on April 24,2014 | 10:17AM
holokanaka wrote:
"There was no military presents in Hawaii". With u.s. Navy and marines just offshore of course there was military presence in Hawaii, Duuuuuhh. "The people had a taste of democracy and liked it". Yes the people had a taste of democracy and loved it ever since the Kingdom Constitution of 1864 not, as you claim, beginning in 1893 after the "revolution". You should read that Constitution joker. Question for the joker: if as you have claimed on many occasions that the Hawaiians were overwhelmingly demanding that these Islands become part of America why wasn't the treaty of annexation submitted to a popular vote/referendum???? Why did the "republic" deny the people a vote???
on April 24,2014 | 10:25AM
DiverDave wrote:
And I thought you were a Poly Sci guy David Sai. As in any representative Republic, candidates are elected to government bodies by the voters to make informed decisions for them. We know that the majority of the members of the Republic of Hawaii government were Polynesian, and the Speaker of the House, John L. Kalulukou was a Polynesian. Kalulukou was an avid speaker in favor of annexation. So, why would the Polynesians, who had the largest voting block, (about 2/3rds of the votes) and could sway any election, continue to vote for Polynesians that were pro-annexation to represent their interests if they were against annexation? Why once annexation was completed did the Polynesian dominated Hawaii Territorial Legislature, with a Polynesian Representative to the U.S. Congress , ask for full statehood for the next 50 years? The telling question of "did the Republic of Hawaii have the constitutional right to ask for annexation was answered in the acceptance resolution of the United States. "Whereas the Government of the Republic of Hawaii having, in due form, signified its consent, in the manner provided by its constitution to cede absolutely and without reserve to whatsoever kind in and over the Hawaiian Islands and their dependencies, and also to cede and transfer to the United States the absolute fee and ownership of all public, government, or crown lands, public buildings or edifices, ports, harbors, military equipment, and all other public property of the Hawaiian Islands, together with every right and appurtenance thereunto appertaining." It was very important to members of the United States congress that the Republic of Hawaii's unanimously voted offer of annexation to the U.S. was in keeping with the Republic of Hawaii's constitution. And it was.
on April 24,2014 | 11:44AM
DiverDave wrote:
So now David Sai answer my questions. I find it most interesting that America haters like you, a member of the sovereignty fringe, are so arrogant as to tell the folks of Hawaii at the time of their treaty offer what they should have wanted, when all their words and actions say they wanted nothing more than to be a part of the United States of America. 1. If Polynesian-Hawaiians were so against annexation why would they continue to elect Polynesians that were for it? 2. Why after annexation did a Polynesian dominated Territorial Legislature continually ask for full Statehood?
on April 24,2014 | 01:09PM
holokanaka wrote:
answer to question #1: obviously the citizens/subjects was against annexation (see Ku'e petitions and read Hawaiian newspapers from that time). answer to question #2: since Hawaii was stolen and the subjects had no military power to fight the american thieves, they opted for the best they could, statehood. now again you have not answered my question-why wasn't the annexation treaty submitted for popular/referendum vote as was suggested by some american politicians??? of all the states in america why is Hawaii the only "state" without a treaty???
on April 24,2014 | 01:39PM
DiverDave wrote:
1. The Ku'e petitions have been proven to be nothing more than names on paper. Anyone can see the pages on line. First names with no last. Women and children as young as 12. No addresses. And, most damaging, is the obvious forgery as one doesn't have to be a handwriting expert to see the same handwriting on whole blocks of names. These were compiled by a woman's club, and they apparently just listed whoever they wanted to. Kind of like the current petition that is being compiled now called the kana'iolowalu petition made up of names stolen from previous lists, and lists of previous students at the illegal raced based Kamehameha Schools, without first asking them if they could. If someone discovers their name is on it they must request its removal. This is called "identity theft" against the law and highly illegal! 2. Cite a source from the time of anyone in office of The Republic of Hawaii that supports your claim. John Kaulukou was the Speaker of House of the Republic of Hawaii at the time of annexation. As Kaulukou told the San Francisco Chronicle on July 28, 1898, "I regard Annexation as the best thing that could happen for Hawaii, both native and foriegn population. I have advocated it ever since it became an issue in political politics and I rejoice heartily that it has come. For years I have looked upon it as being, if not inevitable, at least as the only way in which the best interests of Hawaii could be protected and advanced" So, here is a Polynesian-Hawaiian, Speaker of the House, (which was dominated by Polynesian-Hawaiians) saying annexation was best for all.
on April 24,2014 | 02:20PM
holokanaka wrote:
"Ku'e petition have been proven to be nothing but names on a paper". Well duuuuhhh. Of course it were names on a paper. Otherwise how else could you read those "names on a paper" today if there were not "names on a paper". Duuuuhhh But as I have pointed out to you on several occasions, they were names strongly and passionately put to paper of their strong desire to stay a Sovereign Nation and not be part of America. "First names with no last". What does that mean? I personally can trace my ancestry in these Islands to my ancestors with only one name. "I regard annexation as the best thing that could happen for Hawaii"-John Kaulukou, speaker of the house of the republic. Joker, that is ONE, as in ONE PERSON. So I ask again for I guess the THIRD TIME, why wasn't the annexation treaty put up for a popular vote of ALL the subjects of the Kingdom???
on April 24,2014 | 05:13PM
DiverDave wrote:
You did not answer number 2, David Sai. So far you have an "F" grade. Cite a source from the time of anyone in office of The Republic of Hawaii that supports your claim. "since Hawaii was stolen and the subjects had no military power to fight the american thieves, they opted for the best they could, statehood."
on April 24,2014 | 09:03PM
holokanaka wrote:
"cite a source" that supports my claim that Hawaii was stolen. the fact that america claims title to these Islands via an "annexation treaty" but cannot produce such a treaty clearly supports my claim that Hawaii was stolen!!!
on April 25,2014 | 07:44AM
Terii_Kelii wrote:
in the 1913 Territorial Legislature, only 12 out of 30 were Hawaiian. That does not sound like a "Hawaiian dominated legislature" to me. That appears to indicate roughly the 25% population of Hawaiians that existed in the state at the time. That is a minority, not a dominant political force. 12/30 = 40% and that is less than 50% 1 for a majority. Simple math, diaperboy. F- again for you.
on April 25,2014 | 07:41AM
DiverDave wrote:
Your reading comprehension is poor David Rogers. The question was "Cite a source from the time of anyone in office of The Republic of Hawaii that supports your claim" The Republic of Hawaii, not Territorial Legislature. F GRADE for David Rogers!
on April 25,2014 | 09:18AM
Terii_Kelii wrote:
Unfortunately, you have trouble seeing how posts line up as my post above is a direct response to the one above it whose final question was "2. Why after annexation did a Polynesian dominated Territorial Legislature continually ask for full Statehood? on April 24,2014 | 01:09PM" To which the correct answer is "(For example) in the 1913 Territorial Legislature, only 12 out of 30 were Hawaiian. That does not sound like a "Hawaiian dominated legislature" to me. That appears to indicate roughly the 25% population of Hawaiians that existed in the state at the time. That is a minority, not a dominant political force. 12/30 = 40% and that is less than 50% 1 for a majority. Simple math, diaperboy. F- again for you"
on April 25,2014 | 10:17AM
DiverDave wrote:
The Representative to the U.S. Congress in 1917 was Prince Kuhio Kalaniana'ole. And of course many member were half or part Hawaiian that you one droppers would call Native today. You don't cite your source but I am sure you are going by only last names, and not geneology. Robert Wilcox was half Hawaiian but you would not know this by his name. You have not pulled up your grade of F.
on April 25,2014 | 11:08AM
Terii_Kelii wrote:
and YOU get an F-. You try to make it seem like indigenous Hawaiians were the largest voting bloc and thus in control after the overthrow, but here are some of the facts that prove you wrong - 1) the population of Hawaiians and part Hawaiians was already below 50% of the overall population BEFORE the overthrow, and after the overthrow it dropped to a dismal 25% which is about where it stands to this day. (By 1900 it was 25,000 out of a total population of 150,000) 2) the Republic of Hawaii had a land ownership provision as a requirement to vote which excluded the vast majority of Hawaiians who then did not own land 3) the royalists (read the vast majority of Hawaiians) boycotted both national elections of 1894 and 1897 which meant the annexationists swept the elections AND in fact 4) in 1897 less than 1% of the ENTIRE population of Hawaii actually voted. The vast majority could not vote or refused to vote. 5) YOU said below that one Hawaiian who was already a clear member of the annexationists said that he supported statehood. Well, there were 40,000 Hawaiians who disagreed on the petitions. Simple math 1<40,000 . Oh well, basic math means you lose. Back to kindergarten for you. F- for the diaperboy. Hawaiians were a disenfranchised population, not a power elite voting bloc. Too bad you read the wrong books. Books of statistics tell a much clearer picture than a biased author or the clearly uneducated like you.
on April 25,2014 | 07:28AM
DiverDave wrote:
You still have not answered the question. The Kue petition was a fraud. F for David Rogers
on April 25,2014 | 09:21AM
Terii_Kelii wrote:
you have no educational authority to make that claim. Where is your PhD in Hawaiian anything? Oh yeah, you do not have one. The 30,000 Hawaiians alive at the time did NOT vote in the elections run by the Republic of Hawaii. In fact less than 1% of the ENTIRE population did. Hawaiian dominated. *LAUGH!* What a lie. a bad one. a very bad one. risible would be an understatement.
on April 25,2014 | 10:20AM
DiverDave wrote:
Fs for all the maker uppers! LOL at you both.
on April 25,2014 | 10:31AM
holokanaka wrote:
Where do you get this "The Ku'e potion was a fraud"? Joker. How do you come to that conclusion other then it being your biased opinion?
on April 25,2014 | 05:46PM
DiverDave wrote:
As Robert Wilcox said, " The question of the restoration of the Monarchy is gone from us forever. We are now a people, however, who can vote. You all know we have two-thirds of the votes in this country. If you want to rule it is for you to decide". I guess Robert Wilcox who went on to become Hawaii's first Representative to the U.S. Congress was wrong?
on April 25,2014 | 10:16AM
DiverDave wrote:
"Tho' for a moment it (revolution) cost me a pang of pain for my people it was only momentary, for the present has a hope for the future of my people" -Former Queen Liliuokalani in her diary on Sunday, Sept. 2, 1900. Note date: after annexation. I guess she didn't like annexation either? At the time of her death she was flying an American flag outside her home at Washington Place.
on April 25,2014 | 10:29AM
DiverDave wrote:
You lie as usual. (1) The voters had to be born in Hawaii or naturalized citizens before 1893, per the Constitution. So, the majority of "qualified" voters were pure or part Polynesian-Hawaiian. (2) Only persons that wanted to vote for a Senator required land ownership of a very small amount, so it wasn't hard to qualify. (3) It is always someone's choice to vote or not. Just like today that in the last Hawaii election only 40% of the "registered" voters voted, not to mention all the others that could have registered and didn't. (4) Most of the population in 1897 were non-Hawaiian foreign born non citizens before 1893. Robert Schmitt, "Demographic Statistics of Hawaii: 1778-1965, shows there were 65,516 out of 109,020 and could not vote. So you are a deceiver. (5) The Ku'e petitions are fraud, anyone can see this by looking at them. They are on line. Really? Kids 12 years old. LOL
on April 25,2014 | 12:28PM
DiverDave wrote:
Check out petitions here. See how many underage children's names and the handwriting. Worthless. libweb.hawaii.edu/digicoll/annexation/petition.html
on April 25,2014 | 01:09PM
holokanaka wrote:
Eh arsehole joker, I will try to explain the Ku'e to you one more time. The Ku'e Petitions was not an officially run survey duuuuhhh (the republic would hardly run a survey asking if the citizens of these Islands wanted to be part of America because the republic already knew the answer), but a heart felt/patriotic expression that they did not want to be part of America. Remember dumbo, the people of the Hawaiian Kingdom were the most literate in the world and had many Hawaiian newspapers with not only Local news but also international news and they were very informed and knowledgeable of the atrocities of America. -slaughtering Indians and stealing their lands and of course slavery.
on April 25,2014 | 06:05PM
DiverDave wrote:
Now you want to call them a survey? LOL. I thought you called them Kue "Petition". You sovereignty fringers are jaust too funny. On top of being deceivers, you are in denial about yourself. Poor You!
on April 25,2014 | 09:47PM
DiverDave wrote:
David Sai and David Rogers have been exposed this week. HaHaHA!
on April 25,2014 | 09:50PM
IN OTHER NEWS
Latest News/Updates
Blogs