No, I’m advocating using due process to eliminate unconstitutional federal and state laws.

No… that is not what I stated. However what I did state is that other groups receive funding yet their funding is not questioned while funding for oiwi IS and continues to be targeted. Pay attention

Again, the fact that only one form of racism is being questioned currently, does not mean that someone is racist…it merely means that it takes time to get to everything. Targeting only one group’s privilege is not inherently racist, especially if they are the only group that has such privilege within the state you live in.

That is stating the obvious.

But somehow you don’t seem to see the obvious.

That’s their right. If I want to protest… I WILL protest.

What are you protesting? The elimination of race based privilege? How moral is that?

There are other government programs specifically for minorities and racial groups receive government funding such as: …

Again, these are also patently unconstitutional and should be fought, but we have to start with baby steps – we’re not going to be able to eliminate all the racial privileges doled out at once – we have to start one at a time. Are you asserting that just because we’re fighting racism in Hawai’i first, that somehow we’re racist?

Once again… these programs are not targeted. However programs and thus funding for Hawaiians have been targeted. Significant difference

A difference only in scope, not intent. If Conklin was arguing that the programs you’ve listed should be supported, but the ones supporting kanaka maoli shouldn’t, you could possibly argue he’s being a racist. But since he clearly does not support those programs, his objection to kanaka maoli special privilege is certainly not racist.

Again, you would fall victim to your own argument – you only fight for kanaka maoli privileges, and not the privileges of Japanese, Chinese, or Portuguese…doesn’t that make you a racist, since you SINGLE out and TARGET kanaka maoli for special privilege, and don’t mention supporting any other special privileges?

Okay, so then you agree with me -> kanaka maoli only sovereignty is immoral. Good, we’ve made progress!

Secondly Hawaiians these days are of mixed ethnicities many of whom are married to non-Hawaiians and to non-Hawaiian nationals. Therefore we are multiracial in every sense of the word. Your point?

My point is that kanaka maoli only sovereignty is immoral. If people want to return to a Kingdom where women and asians couldn’t vote, it should be by a decision of the entire population of Hawai’i, not just the kanaka maoli.

I would further argue that such a choice has already been made with the vote for Statehood…but I would support another vote by all the people of hawai’i, and I’m sure that they would affirm the desire to remain a part of the United States, and to retain our current government.

The U.S. did not invade and colonize Hawai’i. See the Morgan Report.

And actually, we did invade Japan.

I would agree with you IF they mentioned the other programs for minorities in this country such as the following:

They’re talking about Hawai’i. Can’t you respect them for taking baby steps in their own backyard before moving on to the racism institutionalized within the entire country? Just because they can’t fight every battle over every racist policy in the United States does not make them racist for fighting racist policies in Hawai’i.

But THEY are white and wealthy AND they target Hawaiians and ONLY Hawaiians. Again they do not mention these programs :

Again, not mentioning other programs does not make them racist. It makes them limited and human – we can only begin fighting your racism by starting where we live, and moving on from there.

You are part-white, and wealthy, AND you target Hawaiian privileges and ONLY Hawaiian privileges – you don’t advocate for Portuguese privileges, or Japanese privileges…does that make you a racist?

Most of the time they are focused on surviving. That is partly why many Hawaiians do not respond to Conklin nor to Twigg Smith. Why? Because they are too busy surviving.

Are you asserting that Trask is “just surviving”? Or that the millionaire KSBE trustees are “just surviving”?

I have communicated with both of them and they are racist against Hawaiians.

Why, because they oppose kanaka maoli privilege?

I just refuse to talk to them just as I refuse to speak to one of my cousins former Federal Judge Paul DeSilva of Hilo. Why? Because he is racist against Hawaiians. I don’t associate myself with racists and from my personal experiences with them… they are racist.

Paul DeSilva is a good man…hey can get angry sometimes, but he’s not a racist.

You refuse to speak with these people because they clearly illustrate the racism you carry in your heart.

In an ideal world… yes… but we don’t live in an ideal world.

Do we make the world more ideal by separating and judging people on race? Or do we make the world more ideal by working towards a race-blind society?

In terms of what? Because for some people referring to their race defines who they are. I would not want to dictate to people to erase any reference to their race.

In terms of government and law. Nobody should be judged differently in the eyes of the law due to race, creed or color. Period, end of story.

Because FOR SOME people such as myself I like to respect my ancestors and their contributions to creating me by mentioning my racial and/or ethnic background. However I know that some people are not like this. There are people who like to respect their ancestry and/or their contributions. Why not let people BE people and not group-think? group-identity? etc?

People can BE whatever they want. They should not be treated differently by the government though, no matter what their self-identity. Racial classifications are great for private, self-identity, but poisonous when enshrined in law. Just as the Jim Crow laws of the south were immoral, unjust and unconstitutional, so are OHA and DHHL.

First of all Conklin and Twigg Smith also attack Hawaiians and the civil rights of Hawaiians.

What civil right of kanaka maoli do they attack? The right to vote? The right to run for office?

A civil right is one that we ALL share, not just one race. Do the japanese have OJA? Do the chinese have OCA? No. So you can’t call things like that civil rights – they are entitlements.

That is not the same as what Rosa Parks did. She fought for HER civil rights. There is nothing with her nor with Hawaiians fighting for their civil rights. Also Rosa Parks did not target whites. Instead she targeted the defense of her civil rights.

Conklin et. al. fight for THEIR civil rights. The right for them to run for office without regard to race. Their right to have the benefit of their tax money without regard to race. Their right to have their children attend schools without regard to race. Conklin and the others who disagree with you are defending the civil rights of all the non-kanaka maoli -> you are the one who advocates their continued violation.

The reason why you don’t agree with it is probably because you assume that Hawaiians attending Kamehameha Schools are and/or were in the upper class. You now know that is untrue.

Should I assume that kanaka maoli attending KS are all in the lower class? I KNOW that’s untrue, since my cousin goes there, and she’s very well off.

Just like Rosa Parks. It was a privilege for her to stay seated and in the process she fought for her civil rights.

It was not a privilege for her to stay seated – it was a right. It was her right not to be judged by her race. It was the whites who had the privilege, based on their race, to kick her out of her seat. She fought against this privilege.

It is not a privilege for non-kanaka maoli to go to schools – it is a right. It is a right not to be judged by race. It is the kanaka maoli who have this privilege now, based on their race, to keep non-kanaka maoli from attending KS. Conklin and others fight against these privileges.

Actually someone else and I are working and have been working on it… addressing his points. It’s not as though we don’t know what we are doing. Again one of the key points is Conklin’s inaccurate assertion that we are not indigenous to Hawaii. We ARE indigenous to Hawaii.

Define indigenous. Then let’s talk.

We have been working on addressing the points that he has on his website for the last two years so it’s a work in progress but when it is done we WILL be posting it for public consumption. Just because we don’t post it here or because its not on any site yet does not mean that it’s not going to be.

You should post your work in progress. Otherwise, it sounds like you’re just blowing smoke.

Again… I do not hate Ken Conklin. Secondly he implies that Hawaiians are not indigenous to Hawaii here: http://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/indigenous.html

WE ARE.

What particular points do you assert he’s wrong on in that article you mentioned? Is he wrong on the historical evidence he cites? Or do you agree with his facts, but not his conclusion?

Your problem is that your reflexive disagreement with him, without providing some rationale or logic is just empty rhetoric. Instead of just saying “WE ARE”, why not say WHY you are, or mention WHAT specific point he’s mistaken about. Maybe you have proof that kanaka maoli were born from the very earth of Kalihi back 40,000 years ago -> that would be a good way to refute his arguments. But just to say that he’s wrong, without contending with any of his evidence, rationale, or proof is juvenile.

As for listening to the Hitler of Hawaii, Ken Conklin, I have been watching him for YEARS.

Again, a cheap ad hominem attack. If anyone is the Hitler of Hawai’i, who wants the master race to have special privileges over others, it’s you.

No… because it would be ILLEGAL as it was contigent upon statehood in 1959. I do not advocate violating any laws. It’s unfortunate that you do.

It used to be ILLEGAL for whites to marry blacks. It was the law. It was immoral, and was changed. It used to be ILLEGAL for homosexuals to have sex in Texas. It was the law. It was immoral and was deemed unconstitutional.

It is not ILLEGAL to have an IMMORAL law declared unconstitutional or changed. I advocate declaring IMMORAL laws unconstitutional. You seem to advocate keeping IMMORAL laws no matter what.

NO because that would be disrespectful to Bernice Pauahi Bishop. I’m not into disrespecting people’s wishes. Again… it’s unfortunate that you advocate disrespecting her wishes and perhaps other peoples choice to define who they are if and when they choose to define themselves based on their race and/or ethnicity.

What about her wish that all teachers of KS be only Protestant? Aren’t those wishes being disrespected? Or her wish that the school be one for boys, one for girls? Wasn’t going co-ed against her wishes?

You seem to pick the wishes that mesh with your racism…interesting.

My conclusion of them is NOT based on their personalities. I have commnicated with Ken Conklin AND with twigg Smith. I have also read their material and lawsuits before developing conclusions about them. First one here:

Ken Conklin says No.
The correct, accurate answer is YES.

Now tell me WHY. Your empty rhetoric adds nothing to the debate.

If OHA and DHHL are both rights, how come non-kanaka maoli don’t also have these rights? Are you asserting that there is a right to racial disbursement of tax funds? If we have an OHA, shouldn’t we have an OPA for the portuguese so they can have that right too?

You are confused about what a right is, and what a privilege is. Rights are things that we should all have regardless of race. Rights are things that everyone can share. They call it “Equal Rights”, because that’s what they’re supposed to be.

Privileges, on the other hand, are special entitlements that only benefit certain people -> for example, you had the privilege of going to Kam Schools because of your race.

However here is once: http://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/indigenous.html

He explicitly states,

And what about what he says there is racist? He tells you of the history of the islands, and makes clear that the current kanaka maoli were only here for about 400 years or so before contact…

” In that sense, modern kanaka maoli are local to these islands only from about 1300. The tenure of kanaka maoli in Hawai’i after the Tahitian invaders established their culture is shorter than the tenure of Englishmen in England after the Norman invaders defeated the Saxons.”

What is racist about pointing out those facts? Do you dispute them??

It’s all there. His hatred for Hawaiians.

Nothing in that passage was hateful at all. It challenges your deeply held and heartfelt assumptions, but what facts do you dispute there? Did the kanaka maoli come here in 1300? Didn’t they come from Tahiti? Didn’t they destroy the Marquesans who were here first?

They have money and power. Both which can be used to destroy a group of people. In this case a small group of people like Hawaiians.

The ability to destroy a group of people (which they certainly aren’t trying to do) has no bearing on whether or not someone is racist. Again, you’re faling some basic logic here -> just because someone COULD do something, does not mean the do. Rosa Parks could have killed people while she was hanging out with the Black Panthers -> that doesn’t mean she did.

I never stated that they do. Instead I have stated that I have read Twigg Smiths books, read his website, read his lawsuits, as well as Ken Conklin’s materials. They (these rich, wealthy white men) ONLY target Hawaiians. Nothing you can say and/or do will change my mind about what I see.

So you admit that your position is completely arbitrary, and no amount of proof or evidence could change your mind. Well, at least you admit to being close-minded. The fact of the matter is that you can’t get over the fact that the racism that YOUR racial group practices is being challenged. I’m sure a lot of southern whites complained about the african americans targeting only white rights…

Taken in context with my other statements… yes. They ARE racist against Hawaiians.

Again, your cheap ad hominem attack avoids the question. You give no proof for their racism except for the fact that they oppose you on a substantive issue of kanaka maoli privilege in hawaii.

No. It’s not because they have stated one thing. Instead they have targeted Hawaiians and only Hawaiians. Twigg Smith also married two white women, Bessie and Laila, but there are many reasons why they are racist against Hawaiians and I just call it like it is. They are racist against Hawaiians. This is evident as they only discuss Hawaiians, only target programs that Hawaiians benefit, and the list goes on.

You can’t assert that someone is a racist just because they aren’t fighting all the racism in the world. In Hawai’i, the racial group with unfair, unjust, immoral and unconstitutional benefits is the kanaka maoli. If you’re going to fight racism in Hawai’i government, it’s going to be there.

Again, you seem to be unable to understand some basic logic here – if I fight racism that benefits whites, and don’t fight racism that benefits japanese, it doesn’t make me a racist.

Don’t you run websites that only target kanaka maoli too? Does “justiceforhawaiians.org” talk about justiceforportuguese”? All you talk about is kanaka maoli, so does that make you a racist? The only programs you’re trying to protect are those for the kanaka maoli, so you’re SINGLING out a group, and TARGETING ONLY kanaka maoli, right?

However pro-sovereignty advocates are still outnumbered by fearful anti-sovereignty advocates who fear losing their property in Hawaii but that won’t stop me

Pro-apartheid whites were also outnumbered by anti-apartheid forces in South Africa.

So that you can belittle their opinions? I don’t think so. That is why I use my own money to host indigenous peoples websites plus they trust me

So then why have they had problems publishing their works if you’re willing to host sites for them? First you claim they can’t publish their works, then you denigrate my offer to host their works, and state that you’d do the same thing with your own money….well, why don’t you?

Perhaps because you have not been prevented from exercising some or all of your rights like how other Hawaiians have.

Which right have you been prevented from exercising? Name one. And then tell me why a 100% samoan person doesn’t deserve those same rights.

Are you referring to the Kamehameha Schools because that is a private school not a public one and that is a privilege entitled to those who Bernice Pauahi Bishop wanted to educate per her will just as if I were to leave money. I would only want it to be used to educate my nieces and nephew. That’s their privilege. However it is also their right to DUE PROCESS OF LAW. Just to name one right.

Well, what do you think about the case of Stephen Girard’s will?

http://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/kamschool2003.html

He wanted only to educate poor white boys, and the courts found that his will was illegal because it discriminated against non-whites.

And DUE PROCESS OF LAW has been given…just because you lose in court doesn’t mean your rights have been violated.

These examples are separate and distinct as the whites were in power in South Africa while blacks were in the minority.

Are you just ignorant? You think that blacks were a MINORITY in South Africa?

Look, the minority status of a given race has nothing to do with it’s ability to oppress others. What happend in South Africa was a WHITE MINORITY oppressed a BLACK MAJORITY by enshrining special racial privilege into law for whites…and you want to let a KANAKA MAOLI MINORITY oppress a NON-KANAKA MAOLI MAJORITY by enshrining special racial privilege into law for kanaka maoli.

You assert that it’s okay to give a small group of people based on their race privileges not enjoyed by others. You also assert that no amount of evidence or proof can change your views on this.

The conclusion is simple -> you’re just as racist as close-minded South African whites.

And neither are all rich white people. But you seem to think that they are.

Secondly… I married a white dude so the racist argument is invalid.

Again, your racial background, and your marriage choice has no bearing on your ability to be a racist or not. Your actions and the positions you advocate, which clearly require that we judge people on race, are hallmarks of your racism. Marrying a haole does not immunize your character from flaw.

You are wrong. First of all let us define the word “Apartheid:”

apartheid: An official policy of racial segregation formerly practiced in the Republic of South Africa, involving political, legal, and economic discrimination against nonwhites.

Okay, let’s use that phrase:

apartheid: An official policy of racial segregation currently practiced in the State of Hawai’i, involving political, legal, and economic discrimination against non-kanaka maoli.

Sounds like that shoe fits. OHA, DHHL, KS, none of these allow non-kanaka maoli in -> isn’t that what the MINORITY of whites in South Africa did?

Again… whites in Hawaii and in the U.S. compose the majority. Hawaiians DO NOT.

Again…whites in South Africa did NOT compose the majority, just as kanaka maoli in Hawai’i do NOT compose the majority -> yet they held distinct, race based advantages over their peers.

That would happen in an ideal world. Note that we do not live in an ideal world as ithe population is about 74% white, 12.5% Hispanic or Latino, 12.3% “Blacks,” 3.6% Asians, .9% Native American excluding Hawaiians and
.1% Hawaiians. THAT is the world that we live in.

Are you advocating that an ideal world has to have equal proportions of all races? Sounds pretty facist to me. If we want to live in an ideal world, we don’t need to change the racial composition of our country, we need to remove all reference to race from our government.

Of course that would happen but everyone is different. You do not seem to acknowledge that Hawaiians compose 38.7% of the homeless in Hawaii followed by 34% Caucasians, 5.1% Filipinos, etc.

The fact is that Hawaiians outnumber homeless people in Hawaii and we should be helping them as promised upon statehood.

What the hell are you talking about? The fact is, if we want to help homeless people, we should help ALL homeless people, not just kanaka maoli. Judging people on race only causes injustice, where a rich part-kanaka maoli can get benefits that a poor caucasion or filipino can’t qualify for.

Given the statistics you mentioned, any help of the homeless would disproportionately help kanaka maoli, HOWEVER that is okay since we’re targeting people regardless of race -> the moment you limit it to one racial group, all you are going to do is unjustly help those who don’t need help.

First of all the kingdom of Hawaii was NEVER solely in the hands of Hawaiians in 1893. Instead non-Hawaiians such as Henry E. Cooper, F. W. McChesney, W. C. Wilder, C. Bolte, A. Brown, W. O. Smith, Henry Waterhouse, Theo. F. Lansing, Ed. Suhr, L. A. Thurston, John Emmeluth, W. Castle, and J. A. McCandless that is… the white and the wealthy (sound familiar?).

Secondly Hawaiians these days are of mixed ethnicities many of whom are married to non-Hawaiians and to non-Hawaiian nationals. Therefore we are multiracial in every sense of the word. Your point?

No but the U.S. did not invade then colonize China nor Japan nor Portugal. However with Iraq and Hawaii… they have.

“Look, in Hawai’i, the only government, institutionalized racism that I know about is that which unfairly benefits kanaka maoli. Just because they’re pointing out the ONLY institutionalized racism in Hawai’i, does not make them racists.”

I would agree with you IF they mentioned the other programs for minorities in this country such as the following:

1. Indian Health Service Student Aid Resources

http://www.ihs.gov/JobsCareerDevelop/StudentAid/StudentAid_Index.asp

2. America’s Fund for Afghan Children which is based on race:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/backtoschool/afac.html

3. Minority Science and Engineering Improvement Program

http://www.ed.gov/programs/iduesmsi/index.html

4. Alaska Native Education which is another program based on the race of a minority group:

http://www.ed.gov/programs/alaskanative/index.html

5. Migrant Education Coordination Support Center another that receives government funding partly based on race:

http://www.ed.gov/programs/migrantcoordcenter/index.html

6. Title III Part B, Strengthening Historically Black Colleges and Universities Program; Program Office: Institutional Development and Undergraduate Education Service
CFDA Number: 84.031B
Program Type: Discretionary Grants based on race:

http://www.ed.gov/programs/iduestitle3b/index.html

7. Traditionally Underserved Populations; Program Office: Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA)
CFDA Number: 84.315
Program Type: Discretionary/Competitive Grants, Contracts, Cooperative Agreements

However… they have not. Instead they ONLY discuss OHA, DHHL, and uh… HAWAIIANS.

“Cheap ad hominem attack, and blatant racism. Being white does not make you a racist, neither does being wealthy.”

But THEY are white and wealthy AND they target Hawaiians and ONLY Hawaiians. Again they do not mention these programs :

1. Indian Health Service Student Aid Resources

http://www.ihs.gov/JobsCareerDevelop/StudentAid/StudentAid_Index.asp

2. America’s Fund for Afghan Children which is based on race:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/backtoschool/afac.html

3. Minority Science and Engineering Improvement Program

http://www.ed.gov/programs/iduesmsi/index.html

4. Alaska Native Education which is another program based on the race of a minority group:

http://www.ed.gov/programs/alaskanative/index.html

5. Migrant Education Coordination Support Center another that receives government funding partly based on race:

http://www.ed.gov/programs/migrantcoordcenter/index.html

6. Title III Part B, Strengthening Historically Black Colleges and Universities Program; Program Office: Institutional Development and Undergraduate Education Service
CFDA Number: 84.031B
Program Type: Discretionary Grants based on race:

http://www.ed.gov/programs/iduestitle3b/index.html

7. Traditionally Underserved Populations; Program Office: Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA)
CFDA Number: 84.315
Program Type: Discretionary/Competitive Grants, Contracts, Cooperative Agreements

“First of all, I think you meant “disadvantage”, but perhaps it’s a freudian slip. But in any case, you’re wrong. Many immigrant groups constantly prove this wrong by out performing whites in education and income. Being a minority does not inherently put you at a disadvantage. A culture of victimhood certainly does though.”

No… that was only a typo. Anyway NO… some people in the minority can overcome poverty. Some cannot. I know this from experience. Most of the time they are focused on surviving. That is partly why many Hawaiians do not respond to Conklin nor to Twigg Smith. Why? Because they are too busy surviving.

“Again, your ad hominem attacks on Conklin and Twigg-Smith are unbecoming. Just becase they are clearly illustrating the error of your long held and heartfelt beliefs about the victimhood of the kanaka maoli, does not make the racist. It makes them honest people willing to stand against the tide of popular opinion.”

That is because you probably assume as you assumed that I was in the upper class while attending Kamehameha Schools that I did not communicate with them. Just so you know… I have communicated with both of them and they are racist against Hawaiians. I stopped writing to Twigg Smith because I do not associate myself with racists. Same with Ken Conklin. However I do write about them. I just refuse to talk to them just as I refuse to speak to one of my cousins former Federal Judge Paul DeSilva of Hilo. Why? Because he is racist against Hawaiians. I don’t associate myself with racists and from my personal experiences with them… they are racist.

“And leveling the playing field means getting rid of any special privileges based on race, wouldn’t you agree?”

In an ideal world… yes… but we don’t live in an ideal world.

“Why not eliminate all reference to race?”

In terms of what? Because for some people referring to their race defines who they are. I would not want to dictate to people to erase any reference to their race.

” What is so special about it? Why do you think it makes any diffference at all? “

Because FOR SOME people such as myself I like to respect my ancestors and their contributions to creating me by mentioning my racial and/or ethnic background. However I know that some people are not like this. There are people who like to respect their ancestry and/or their contributions. Why not let people BE people and not group-think? group-identity? etc?

“The contribution of each and every INDIVIDUAL should be celebrated -> what race they are has nothing to do with their worth.”

For you maybe and on some level I do agree with you but everyone is different. I personally like to celebrate my ancestry but then I grew up in Keaukaha where other Hawaiians taught me this. I am not sure if you spent time on DHHL but I did and that is one value that I admire and practice. Again.. not everyone is alike. Even with the Tom Society I was taught to celebrate my Chinese ancestry but I know that for some… they are not exposed to this and/or is not their way but it is MY way… and many others.

“Well, believe it or not, I’m telling you the truth. Your assertion that attacking only kanaka maoli privilege makes Conklin and Twigg-Smith racists is like calling Rosa Parks a racist for only attacking white privilege. People who fight racism of any sort should be respected, not denigrated because they haven’t fought every other form of racism in the world. Rosa Parks has done nothing for the Koreans affected by racism in Japan, but that doesn’t make her someone who only TARGETS whites. Your logic may seem sound to you, but it clearly is a twisted rationale to justify your inherent prejudices and racism.”

First of all Conklin and Twigg Smith also attack Hawaiians and the civil rights of Hawaiians. That is not the same as what Rosa Parks did. She fought for HER civil rights. There is nothing with her nor with Hawaiians fighting for their civil rights. Also Rosa Parks did not target whites. Instead she targeted the defense of her civil rights.

“Tell you what, try and explain in some logical way why kanaka maoli privilege is moral. Now, switch the word “kanaka maoli” for some other race. Switch it with “white”. Does your logic still stand?”

Yes because Hawaiians and whites are human beings. The reason why you don’t agree with it is probably because you assume that Hawaiians attending Kamehameha Schools are and/or were in the upper class. You now know that is untrue. Now perhaps you will learn that the premise is that Hawaiians are human beings too. They have civil rights. Privileges too. Just as other HUMAN BEINGS do. Just like Rosa Parks. It was a privilege for her to stay seated and in the process she fought for her civil rights. She was human. So are Hawaiians.

“He doesn’t single out or target a group of people, he singles out and targets a particular form of racism, which you ascribe to. If anything, he is both an admirer and a practitioner of kanaka maoli culture, and your insistence that he somehow is “targeting” people based on race rings hollow.”

And that is your opinion. Though it is inaccurate… you are entitled to your opinion. Likewise… I am entitled to mine. It is also my right to express my opinion of him on various websites. All of which are being picked up by Google so he is already being exposed for the racist that he is.

“He certainly gets along well with Professor Johnson, great-great-great-great-great grand daughter of Kamehameha the Great himself. It is morally wrong and uncool for you to assert that his character is flawed because you don’t agree with his arguments. Is what he says true? Does what he says make sense? Who cares if he only writes about kanaka maoli – CAN YOU CHALLENGE ANY OF HIS POINTS?”

Actually someone else and I are working and have been working on it… addressing his points. It’s not as though we don’t know what we are doing. Again one of the key points is Conklin’s inaccurate assertion that we are not indigenous to Hawaii. We ARE indigenous to Hawaii.

“Simply disregarding him because his work focuses on one form of racism which you practice, does not invalidate his arguments or refute his evidence.”

Again… like you didn’t know that I was indigent while attending the Kamehameha Schools we have been watching Ken Conklin closely. We have been working on addressing the points that he has on his website for the last two years so it’s a work in progress but when it is done we WILL be posting it for public consumption. Just because we don’t post it here or because its not on any site yet does not mean that it’s not going to be.

“Go ahead, find any one point on his website that you disagree with, and let’s talk about the facts. Even if he was Hitler himself, if he’s telling the truth, you have an obligation to listen and a responsibilty to try to understand the error of your ways.”

Again… I do not hate Ken Conklin. Secondly he implies that Hawaiians are not indigenous to Hawaii here: http://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/indigenous.html

WE ARE.

As for listening to the Hitler of Hawaii, Ken Conklin, I have been watching him for YEARS.

“It doesn’t have to remain -> a constitutional convention can get rid of it, and I hope we do. Our framework of laws is meant to evolve with the times, and the racism of the past which asserted that kanaka maoli are so inherently flawed that they need special help no longer holds any water in the modern world.”

No… because it would be ILLEGAL as it was contigent upon statehood in 1959. I do not advocate violating any laws. It’s unfortunate that you do.

“Hrm, sounds like perhaps you’ve made some progress here…I hope that you would advocate for the support of all children of all races to an education at Kamehameha Schools, and criticize the racism held against those non-kanaka maoli who have made it in or try to make it in. No matter what your greivances against the haoles of the past, the children trying to attend KS are innocent in these matters, and we should support their pursuit of a fine education.”

NO because that would be disrespectful to Bernice Pauahi Bishop. I’m not into disrespecting people’s wishes. Again… it’s unfortunate that you advocate disrespecting her wishes and perhaps other peoples choice to define who they are if and when they choose to define themselves based on their race and/or ethnicity.

“Well, let’s talk about some points then. Pick any one thing off of Conklin’s site, and let’s argue the merits of the case, rather than the personalities.”

My conclusion of them is NOT based on their personalities. I have commnicated with Ken Conklin AND with twigg Smith. I have also read their material and lawsuits before developing conclusions about them. First one here:

http://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/indigenous.html

Are Hawaiians indigenous to Hawaii?

Ken Conklin says No.
The correct, accurate answer is YES.

No… he HATES Hawaiians. Significant difference.

“The fact that he ONLY mentions and discusses kanaka maoli is because they’re the ONLY ones who have OHA, and the ONLY ones who have DHHL.”

No… it’s because he HATES Hawaiians. That is why he only mentions them.

“By the very nature of Hawai’i, in order to fight government institutionalized racism, you have to fight OHA and DHHL. You can’t call it a hate crime unless he’s trying to limit peoples RIGHTS. He’s only trying to eliminate special PRIVILEGES.”

That is incorrect. The OHA and DHHL are both rights. NOT privileges. So far both have been upheld by the Ninth Circuit Court as well as a U.S. appeals court:

http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051108/NEWS23/511080342/1173/NEWS

“Nothing on his site spreads hatred for the Hawaiian people, or the kanaka maoli. I challenge you to find even one example.”

His ENTIRE website spreads hatred for the Hawaiian people so it would be impossible to point out a few as the entire website is spreading hatred for Hawaiians. I have a problem with that but that’s only so obvious. However here is once: http://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/indigenous.html

He explicitly states,

“It appears that the Hawaiian islands had no human population before the first Polynesian explorers arrived, probably from Marquesas, sometime around the year 400. Therefore, kanaka maoli did not come forth from the lands of these islands. Indeed, the evidence suggests that the final wave of Polynesian voyagers from Tahiti around 1300 conquered and largely destroyed the people from Marquesas who had been here before them (not to mention the Menehune). In that sense, modern kanaka maoli are local to these islands only from about 1300. The tenure of kanaka maoli in Hawai’i after the Tahitian invaders established their culture is shorter than the tenure of Englishmen in England after the Norman invaders defeated the Saxons. Some might say that the issue of Tahitians vs. Marquesans is irrelevant, because all were Polynesians. But kanaka maoli in Hawai’i today do not recognize ethnic Samoans or Tahitians or other Pacific islanders as having any rights to kanaka maoli sovereignty in Hawai’i. Even if kanaka maoli tenure in Hawai’i is considered to be the tenure of Polynesians as a whole, that would still be only since about 400, which is shorter than the tenure of the Anglo-Saxon race as a whole in England. Yet, most people recognized as indigenous would think it very odd if Englishmen showed up at indigenous people’s conferences claiming to have indigenous rights. Some sovereignty activists like to say that kanaka maoli have been in Hawai’i since time immemorial. But that is clearly false, as the memories contained in their own geneologies tracing through Tahiti can testify.

One argument often heard is that indigenous people have a special relationship to the land which entitles them to special rights. For example, some indigenous tribes in Africa and Asia are very remote from modern civilization, and continue to live on the land in a subsistence mode as they have for thousands of years. Indigenous people who have continuously maintained their cultural traditions as their primary and regular way of life clearly deserve special protection so they may continue doing so. Some African tribes continue hunting with bow and arrow; fishing with spear, net, and individual hook; planting and harvesting by hand or animal-drawn plow; speaking their traditional language from childhood as their main (and often only) way of communicating. That is quite different from what well-assimilated African-Americans sometimes do as a hobby when they learn traditional skills, or study Swahili in their spare time. It is quite different from what Makah Indians do when they reassert an almost-forgotten custom of hunting a whale, not because they need the food to survive but because it helps them revive a dormant cultural practice. Very few kanaka maoli live a traditional subsistence lifestyle, or have any desire to do so. Nor should they be expected to do so as a prerequisite for sovereignty. But kanaka maoli cannot claim that they need land to grow taro as a matter of physical survival, since poi is not their primary food item as it was 200 years ago. Kanaka maoli might want land to grow taro because it makes them feel closer to the land, helps them relearn an almost-forgotten lifestyle, and gives them a source of food free from dependence on the supermarket; but those reasons are more akin to voluntarily choosing to pursue a hobby. Almost all modern-day kanaka maoli live in houses with electricity, plumbing, computers, and food from supermarkets; unlike true indigenous tribes whose dependence upon the land is direct, immediate, and inescapable. Africans are indigenous on their tribal lands in Africa, but African-Americans are not indigenous in America, even though they may trace their geneologies, learn Swahili, and celebrate Kwanzaa. Polynesians may be indigenous in various Pacific islands where they have lived for thousands of years, but kanaka maoli are not indigenous in Hawai’i any more than Normans are indigenous in England. Most modern-day kanaka maoli have no more daily intimacy with the land of Hawai’i than the descendants of the Chinese and Japanese plantation workers who cultivated sugar or rice a century ago.

Kanaka maoli have ancestors whose bones have been in the land of Hawai’i for hundreds of years. But millions of Americans have ancestors whose bones have been in the land of England for many centuries, and that does not give those Americans political rights in England. Indeed, some kanaka maoli have more English blood than they have kanaka maoli blood, and more ancestral English bones in the land of England for more centuries than they have ancestral kanaka maoili bones in the land of Hawai’i. Where the bones are does not determine either indigenous status or political rights.”

It’s all there. His hatred for Hawaiians.

“What does white and wealthy have to do with anything?”

They have money and power. Both which can be used to destroy a group of people. In this case a small group of people like Hawaiians.

“Race and riches does not make you a racist.”

I never stated that they do. Instead I have stated that I have read Twigg Smiths books, read his website, read his lawsuits, as well as Ken Conklin’s materials. They (these rich, wealthy white men) ONLY target Hawaiians. Nothing you can say and/or do will change my mind about what I see.

” Judging people because of their racial background makes you a racist -> i.e., your judgement that the fact that someone is white and wealthy makes them a racist is in fact a racist remark.”

Taken in context with my other statements… yes. They ARE racist against Hawaiians.

“Now, maybe if you said something like, “Both of them have supported the exclusion of kanaka maoli from shopping centers”, or “Both of them have called kanaka maoli ocean niggers”, then maybe you could accuse them of racism. But to assert that just because they’re wealthy, and happen to be white, that they are automatically something is racist of you.”

No. It’s not because they have stated one thing. Instead they have targeted Hawaiians and only Hawaiians. Twigg Smith also married two white women, Bessie and Laila, but there are many reasons why they are racist against Hawaiians and I just call it like it is. They are racist against Hawaiians. This is evident as they only discuss Hawaiians, only target programs that Hawaiians benefit, and the list goes on.

“Web publishing is cheap. You’ve proven that with your websites, and certainly there are more pro-sovereignty publications than anti-sovereignty publications. Seems your assertion here is belied by simple observation.”

Well to me their millions exceed my hundreds of dollars spent on spreading their hatred for Hawaiians. They are both retired as well while I still work for a living. However I am one of very few Hawaiians who have access, time, and energy to do so but this does not mean that I am the only Hawaiian who thinks this way. As a matter of fact I receive hundreds of emails a day from Hawaiians telling me to onipaa and that they agree with alot of what I have to say and/or they appreciate me speaking up. However pro-sovereignty advocates are still outnumbered by fearful anti-sovereignty advocates who fear losing their property in Hawaii but that won’t stop me

“First of all, anyone who wants to publish material on the web can. If you know of a few people who can’t afford web space to publish their works, let me know and I’ll donate some.”

So that you can belittle their opinions? I don’t think so. That is why I use my own money to host indigenous peoples websites plus they trust me

“Second, I think we disagree on what “defending themselves” means. If anyone was trying to prevent kanaka maoli from attending public schools, or eating at the same restaurants, or going to the same beaches as everyone else, I’d be right with you ready to fight for their RIGHTS.”

Perhaps because you have not been prevented from exercising some or all of your rights like how other Hawaiians have.

“But defending kanaka maoli PRIVILEGES is not the moral high ground you assume.”

Are you referring to the Kamehameha Schools because that is a private school not a public one and that is a privilege entitled to those who Bernice Pauahi Bishop wanted to educate per her will just as if I were to leave money. I would only want it to be used to educate my nieces and nephew. That’s their privilege. However it is also their right to DUE PROCESS OF LAW. Just to name one right.

“The whites of South Africa felt much as you do, trying to defend themselves against the blacks that outnumbered them by millions. Were their actions moral? “

These examples are separate and distinct as the whites were in power in South Africa while blacks were in the minority. In this case whites are still in power in Hawaii and in the U.S. while Hawaiians are in the minority. Therefore they are not the same. And to answer your question… it IS morally wrong for the white majority to oppress the minority and continues to be morally wrong.

And that is YOUR opinion.

“Trask is part white, but she’s definitely racist against whites.”

And I am not Haunani. I am separate and distinct from her. Don’t group ALL Hawaiians together. We are not all the same.

“Your racial background does not give you any more authority than anyone else on ANY topic, and it certainly doesn’t immunize you from the disease of racism.”

Note that I never stated that it does on both points. However I am TELLING you that the racist argument as it applies to me and to many other Hawaiians is a mute point. First of all, we are mixed. That is evidence that our ancestors were not racist. After all we are mixed and like I told people before and I will tell you too… if they were racist then they would not have spread their legs to non-Hawaiians. Secondly… I married a white dude so the racist argument is invalid.

“No, racism is not about power. Power is about power. Racism is about judging people’s worth or value based on their race. Power is about keeping the rich people rich and the poor people poor. Now, there may be a loose correlation between the two, but there is no causality.”

And that is your opinion.

“The problem is that what you advocate is the kind of racism and apartheid that happened in South Africa, where a small minority oppressed more than 74% of the people.”

You are wrong. First of all let us define the word “Apartheid:”

apartheid: An official policy of racial segregation formerly practiced in the Republic of South Africa, involving political, legal, and economic discrimination against nonwhites.

Again… whites in Hawaii and in the U.S. compose the majority. Hawaiians DO NOT.

“Again, the answer to racism is not the same as the answer to the problem of class differences. To improve the lot of the impoverished, we should not use race as a judgement, period.”

That would happen in an ideal world. Note that we do not live in an ideal world as ithe population is about 74% white, 12.5% Hispanic or Latino, 12.3% “Blacks,” 3.6% Asians, .9% Native American excluding Hawaiians and
.1% Hawaiians. THAT is the world that we live in.

” If in fact there are certain racial groups over-represented in poverty, than any fight on poverty will naturally help them more – but if we assert that we should pick a over-represented group, and help them entirely as a race, we will end up giving entitlement and aid to the WRONG people.”

Of course that would happen but everyone is different. You do not seem to acknowledge that Hawaiians compose 38.7% of the homeless in Hawaii followed by 34% Caucasians, 5.1% Filipinos, etc.

http://www.hcdch.state.hi.us/03homelessstudy.pdf

The fact is that Hawaiians outnumber homeless people in Hawaii and we should be helping them as promised upon statehood.

Ken Conklin is just refusing to give up his tax money to people based on race. Rosa Parks singled out White privilege in the American South. Ken Conklin singles out Kanaka Maoli privilege in Hawai’i. The targeting of specific, institutionalized racial privilege is NOT a hate crime, it is the pursuit of justice.

Want an example? Look at his URL: http://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/

It ONLY has the ethnic word HAWAIIAN in it. Not Chinese… not Asian… not Latina… not Spanish. It ONLY targets HAWAIIAN.

Well, are the Chinese trying to take over sovereignty of the islands? Do the Latinos have special privileges enshrined by race in Hawai’i law?

Again, your logic is terribly flawed -> what it targets is racial privilege. The fact that the racial privilege is one that benefits kanaka maoli does not make him a racist.

So what specifically do you challenge on Ken Conklin’s website? His front page merely links to hundreds of articles he’s written…care to be a bit more specific?

I purchased Twigg-Smith’s book at the Honolulu Airport and after reading it along with his website… that is when I developed a conclusion. I did not develop a conclusion until I read what both he and Conklin write and/or say.

So specifics please. What particular quote of either Twigg-Smith or Conklin do you see as racist?

By the way dude… the definitions at Wikipiedia are FAR from accurate nor precise. Then again at UW they are known for research but Wikipedia is far from being an accurate, precise, and/or reliable source of information.

Are you suggesting that the definition of the term “ad hominem” in the wikipedia is inaccurate? Or is this another ad hominem attack of yours? (i.e., since wikipedia has problems, you assert that all of it’s articles are suspect, rather than arguing directly against the entry on “ad hominem” arguments I referenced….you really do a lot of ad hominem attacks, and you probably don’t even realize it…did you read the wikipedia page? What did you disagree about it? Do you have an alternate reference you’d propose?)

Jere, Jere, Jere. She never attacked white people. Instead she refused to give up her seat on the bus and did not single out nor target white people like how Ken Conklin does. Want an example? Look at his URL: http://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/

It ONLY has the ethnic word HAWAIIAN in it. Not Chinese… not Asian… not Latina… not Spanish. It ONLY targets HAWAIIAN.

“And again, the ad hominem attack -> even if he WERE a racist, his book is full of well crafted arguments, evidence, and references that challenge your basic assumptions.”

I purchased Twigg-Smith’s book at the Honolulu Airport and after reading it along with his website… that is when I developed a conclusion. I did not develop a conclusion until I read what both he and Conklin write and/or say.

“Calling him a racist, and then deciding that because of that label you’ve given him his arguments have no worth is the definition of an ad hominem attack: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem“

By the way dude… the definitions at Wikipiedia are FAR from accurate nor precise. Then again at UW they are known for research but Wikipedia is far from being an accurate, precise, and/or reliable source of information.

Okay, but do the Chinese have and Office of Chinese Affairs? Do the Japanese have a Department of Japanese Home Lands? Do the Portuguese have a school that only they can go to?

Look, in Hawai’i, the only government, institutionalized racism that I know about is that which unfairly benefits kanaka maoli. Just because they’re pointing out the ONLY institutionalized racism in Hawai’i, does not make them racists.

Cheap ad hominem attack, and blatant racism. Being white does not make you a racist, neither does being wealthy.

Again, show me any other institutionalized racism in Hawai’i…any other programs run by the government of Hawai’i which are reserved for only those in the correct racial category. The only illegal, unconstitutional and immoral racism in Hawai’i is the continuance of race-based programs for the kanaka maoli.

First of all, I think you meant “disadvantage”, but perhaps it’s a freudian slip. But in any case, you’re wrong. Many immigrant groups constantly prove this wrong by out performing whites in education and income. Being a minority does not inherently put you at a disadvantage. A culture of victimhood certainly does though.

Again, your ad hominem attacks on Conklin and Twigg-Smith are unbecoming. Just becase they are clearly illustrating the error of your long held and heartfelt beliefs about the victimhood of the kanaka maoli, does not make the racist. It makes them honest people willing to stand against the tide of popular opinion.

And leveling the playing field means getting rid of any special privileges based on race, wouldn’t you agree?

Why not eliminate all reference to race? What is so special about it? Why do you think it makes any diffference at all? The contribution of each and every INDIVIDUAL should be celebrated -> what race they are has nothing to do with their worth.

Well, believe it or not, I’m telling you the truth. Your assertion that attacking only kanaka maoli privilege makes Conklin and Twigg-Smith racists is like calling Rosa Parks a racist for only attacking white privilege. People who fight racism of any sort should be respected, not denigrated because they haven’t fought every other form of racism in the world. Rosa Parks has done nothing for the Koreans affected by racism in Japan, but that doesn’t make her someone who only TARGETS whites. Your logic may seem sound to you, but it clearly is a twisted rationale to justify your inherent prejudices and racism.

Tell you what, try and explain in some logical way why kanaka maoli privilege is moral. Now, switch the word “kanaka maoli” for some other race. Switch it with “white”. Does your logic still stand?

However when he targets Hawaiians, the Hawaiian culture, etc I disagree with him when he singles out and targets this group of people. Its morally wrong and uncool which is very logical irrelevant of what you think of my logic

He doesn’t single out or target a group of people, he singles out and targets a particular form of racism, which you ascribe to. If anything, he is both an admirer and a practitioner of kanaka maoli culture, and your insistence that he somehow is “targeting” people based on race rings hollow. He certainly gets along well with Professor Johnson, great-great-great-great-great grand daughter of Kamehameha the Great himself. It is morally wrong and uncool for you to assert that his character is flawed because you don’t agree with his arguments. Is what he says true? Does what he says make sense? Who cares if he only writes about kanaka maoli – CAN YOU CHALLENGE ANY OF HIS POINTS? Simply disregarding him because his work focuses on one form of racism which you practice, does not invalidate his arguments or refute his evidence.

Go ahead, find any one point on his website that you disagree with, and let’s talk about the facts. Even if he was Hitler himself, if he’s telling the truth, you have an obligation to listen and a responsibilty to try to understand the error of your ways.

It doesn’t have to remain -> a constitutional convention can get rid of it, and I hope we do. Our framework of laws is meant to evolve with the times, and the racism of the past which asserted that kanaka maoli are so inherently flawed that they need special help no longer holds any water in the modern world.

Hrm, sounds like perhaps you’ve made some progress here…I hope that you would advocate for the support of all children of all races to an education at Kamehameha Schools, and criticize the racism held against those non-kanaka maoli who have made it in or try to make it in. No matter what your greivances against the haoles of the past, the children trying to attend KS are innocent in these matters, and we should support their pursuit of a fine education.

Um… NO… I don’t think so *LOL* In fact I know another Hawaiian who was similar to you in thought. However within a month he realized that I have valid points and now agrees with many of my points when he was like you before so there is hope for you too

Well, let’s talk about some points then. Pick any one thing off of Conklin’s site, and let’s argue the merits of the case, rather than the personalities.

Here, I’ll pick one to start off with -> Any return to sovereignty that is solely in the hands of kanaka maoli, which is rationalized by the 1893 overthrow, is immoral since the 1893 kingdom was fully integrated and multi-racial. Care to offer a counterpoint?

Again, your logic is flawed. He’s not a racist because he fights the institutionalized racism of preferential treatment and entitlements given to kanaka maoli -> just because Rosa Parks targeted and singled out Whites and ONLY Whites does not make her a racist.

And again, the ad hominem attack -> even if he WERE a racist, his book is full of well crafted arguments, evidence, and references that challenge your basic assumptions. Calling him a racist, and then deciding that because of that label you’ve given him his arguments have no worth is the definition of an ad hominem attack: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Your racial background does not factor into the equation of your racism. Trask is part white, but she’s definitely racist against whites. Your racial background does not give you any more authority than anyone else on ANY topic, and it certainly doesn’t immunize you from the disease of racism.

No, racism is not about power. Power is about power. Racism is about judging people’s worth or value based on their race. Power is about keeping the rich people rich and the poor people poor. Now, there may be a loose correlation between the two, but there is no causality.

The problem is that what you advocate is the kind of racism and apartheid that happened in South Africa, where a small minority oppressed more than 74% of the people.

Again, the answer to racism is not the same as the answer to the problem of class differences. To improve the lot of the impoverished, we should not use race as a judgement, period. If in fact there are certain racial groups over-represented in poverty, than any fight on poverty will naturally help them more – but if we assert that we should pick a over-represented group, and help them entirely as a race, we will end up giving entitlement and aid to the WRONG people.

Look, he is very passionate about his spiritual connection to Hawai’i. The fact that he ONLY mentions and discusses kanaka maoli is because they’re the ONLY ones who have OHA, and the ONLY ones who have DHHL. By the very nature of Hawai’i, in order to fight government institutionalized racism, you have to fight OHA and DHHL. You can’t call it a hate crime unless he’s trying to limit peoples RIGHTS. He’s only trying to eliminate special PRIVILEGES.

Nothing on his site spreads hatred for the Hawaiian people, or the kanaka maoli. I challenge you to find even one example.

What does white and wealthy have to do with anything? Race and riches does not make you a racist. Judging people because of their racial background makes you a racist -> i.e., your judgement that the fact that someone is white and wealthy makes them a racist is in fact a racist remark.

Now, maybe if you said something like, “Both of them have supported the exclusion of kanaka maoli from shopping centers”, or “Both of them have called kanaka maoli ocean niggers”, then maybe you could accuse them of racism. But to assert that just because they’re wealthy, and happen to be white, that they are automatically something is racist of you.

Web publishing is cheap. You’ve proven that with your websites, and certainly there are more pro-sovereignty publications than anti-sovereignty publications. Seems your assertion here is belied by simple observation.

First of all, anyone who wants to publish material on the web can. If you know of a few people who can’t afford web space to publish their works, let me know and I’ll donate some.

Second, I think we disagree on what “defending themselves” means. If anyone was trying to prevent kanaka maoli from attending public schools, or eating at the same restaurants, or going to the same beaches as everyone else, I’d be right with you ready to fight for their RIGHTS.

But defending kanaka maoli PRIVILEGES is not the moral high ground you assume. The whites of South Africa felt much as you do, trying to defend themselves against the blacks that outnumbered them by millions. Were their actions moral?

YES THEY DO, JERE. Look at who they write about. ONLY HAWAIIANS. They do not write nor discuss the Chinese nor the Japanese nor the Portuguese in Hawaii. Period.

“Look, fighting racism is the issue. They are trying to fight racism.”

Illogical. They are both white and wealthy.

” In Hawaii, this happens to be institutionalized for the kanaka maoli. I’m sure that if it was OPA (office of portuguese affairs) instead of OHA, both Will Burgess, Ken Conklin, and Thurston Twigg-Smitth would be fighting against that too. You could only assert that they singled out kanaka maoli if they supported racism in other forms, which they don’t. For example, if they spent money and time trying to tear down OHA, but then fought for legislation that gave filipinos money just for being filipino, you could call them hypocrites, and assert that they were unfairly targeting kanaka maoli. But you can’t blame them for not targeting ALL racism at once.”

Once again, Jere… they discuss Hawaiians and ONLY Hawaiians. That is called singling out and targeting a group of a people. It’s racism. Pure and simple.

“Every journey is taken one step at a time. Getting rid of OHA and DHHL is the first step. Eliminating race-based scholarships may be the next. Eliminating all governmental reference to race may come after that. At what point will you join the journey?”

I willl NEVER join the journey that Conklin and Twigg-Smith are walking simply because I enjoy diversity. I enjoy the beauty in diversity. The sad reality is that in this country white people make up the 74% majority so obviously the 26% or so minority will be at a distinct advantage. I say level the playing field. Within reason but do not be racist in the process. Racist like Conklin and Twigg-Smith.

As for the government eliminating any reference to race… that is NOT what I want. Instead I want the contributions of each and every peoples be mentioned even if it is in English.

“Well, not everyone likes people . I’m certainly jaded, cynical, judgemental, and maybe even a bit optimistic at times. However, just because I’m critical of certain things, and communicate in an editorial style that is abrasive, does not mean that I cannot also advocate for the protection of children.”

Yeah… you do seem jaded and judgmental.

” I would point out that it isn’t very compassionate to create a “realhapas.com” and “kenconklin.com” and “hawaiianwannabes.com” for the sole purpose of denigrating those who challenge your support of racist programs and policies.”

And that is your opinion. I have a right to post my opinions on those websites which I used my own money to publish No government handout there….

“In any case, I invite you to register for an account on my blog, and post whatever you’d like (no spam of course). I believe that for any controversial topic, the only hope for understanding is open communication, and although I would judge you harshly for lacking compassion, and even the basic tenets of logic, I would be more than happy to share a forum with you.”

You really have the audacity to tell me that I am illogical LOL But it’s okay. Obviously Ken Conklin mentioned me on his website so I must have made an impression on him But seriously… like I have mentioned to him and/or about him before… he makes good points when it comes to pushing for less wasteful spending for our government. However when he targets Hawaiians, the Hawaiian culture, etc I disagree with him when he singles out and targets this group of people. Its morally wrong and uncool which is very logical irrelevant of what you think of my logic

“Well, if you want to protect children, how about we start off by eliminating OHA, putting that money into public schools, and forcing the KSBE trustees to serve ONLY the indigent -> no more rich people at the school, only the poorest of the poor, no matter what their test scores. In fact, the lower the test score, the more help they need!”

First… OHA has to remain because it was one clause contigent upon statehood. I will/would not advocate it being dissolved. Secondly, I agree with you about kids at Kamehameha but I hope that you dont take your anger and/or bitterness out on innocent children. You know… make the innocent pay for what the guilty have done.

“And again, you’re welcome to my blog. Hopefully with enough dialog you’re realize the terrible error of your ways.”

Um… NO… I don’t think so *LOL* In fact I know another Hawaiian who was similar to you in thought. However within a month he realized that I have valid points and now agrees with many of my points when he was like you before so there is hope for you too

That is what YOU think. However I have noticed that both newspapers advocate anti-Hawaiians to target Hawaiians as well as anti-sovereignty. Also Thurston Twigg-Smith onced owned it then sold it for about $250 million. It’s on the record and it is my choice not to post at his website since he is racist. I do not associate myself with racist people like him who targets and singles out Hawaiians and ONLY Hawaiians.

“Again, your silly notion that attacking entitlement programs is somehow attacking kanaka maoli is laughable. Were the blacks in the segregated south Anti-White because they targeted white entitlements? Attacking kanaka maoli would be doing something like trying to prevent them from holding government office. You seem to associate with people who target and single out all OTHER races besides your own…there’s a word for this -> racist. Think about it for a second…according to your logic, the white folk who wanted to keep their schools white in the south weren’t attacking blacks and hispanics, they were just protecting white entitlements.”

Illogical as I am white, Asian, Native American, AND Latina.

“You need to realize that the opposite of racism is not reverse racism, but NO RACISM.”

Yes my point exactly… racism is about power. Power that is held by the 74% HAOLE majority in this country.

“You have to give Conklin a break, seriously.”

I have already done that and that is why I read his website once in awhile. That is why I read his material.

” The guy is about as hippy as you can get, and he dove in head first with the kanaka maoli sovereignty folks when he first moved to hawaii…his problem started when he began to ask hard questions and investigate the specious claims made by his then-fellow activists.”

That is where you are wrong. He ONLY mentions and discusses Hawaiians, Jere. That is targeting and singling out a group of people which is a HATE CRIME.

“He is the one honest person who stood up and claimed that the emperor had no clothes -> to consider him racist because his focus is on kanaka maoli entitlments is ignorant. He focuses on kanaka maoli sovereignty because he sees it as a poison to both the non-kanaka maoli people of hawaii, and the kanaka maoli people of hawaii – believe it or not, his work on this issue is done with love, not hate. He has never asserted that kanaka maoli should have less rights than their neighbors -> he only asserts that they should know their TRUE history and have EQUAL rights. There are so many people who have been brought up with the belief that the U.S. invaded and overthrew the queen in 1893 – hell, that’s what I was taught as a kid, and I believed it! The fact of the matter is that the Blount Report, which so many sovereignty activists hang their hats on, was thoroughly repudiated by the Morgan Report (written by an entire bi-partisan committee, not just one biased investigator).”

I give him credit for learning our language and our history. However his fatal flaw was that he writes nuggets of truth to spread hatred for the Hawaiian people.

“The wonderful part about Conklin, and Twigg-Smith for that matter, is that they back up their assertions with hard references, not just empty rhetoric. They respond to the detailed claims of sovereignty activists with research and proof – all too often people like you respond to their critiques with ad hominem attacks and dismissal.”

First of all, both of them are white and wealthy. Secondly both of them single out and target Hawaiians. They also ONLY write about Hawaiians. If they wrote about the Chinese in Hawaii and/or the Japanese in Hawaii then perhaps I may agree with you. However and unfortunately they discuss Hawaiians and ONLY Hawaiians. Racists? That is them.

“I would love to see a sovereignty activists write a point-by-point counter argument to Twigg-Smith’s book, with the same detailed footnotes that Twigg-Smith provided – but the current crop of kanaka maoli superiority activists seem ill suited to the task.”

Well first of all Twigg Smith sold the Advertiser to the Gannet Corp for about $250 million. He also owns the Persis Corporation. It is obvious that Hawaiians are outnumbered in terms of dollars and thus access to publish their works. Secondly I know of a few who have published material but was not made accessible for the masses to read partly because of their budget. Don’t tell me that you are blaming Hawaiians for not defending themselves because as I and others do… we will always be outnumbered by his billions.