Sorry Lana, but exposing the ethnic cleansing done of the history of the Hawaiian Kingdom has nothing to do with targeting kanaka maoli. If anything, it’s targeting the haoles out for appropriate recognition of their patriotic acts regarding the always multi-racial and multi-cultural government of Hawaii.

Try again.

World History Blog: Wacky American Separatists

I really couldn’t have said it better. Trying to replay history for pro-royalists in Hawai’i by claiming a military occupation is ludicrous on it’s face. Hawai’i functioned as an independent Republic from 1893-1898, and despite of any qualms about it’s inception, it’s legitimacy is unquestionable – it survived both a hostile U.S. president, as well as a violent attempt at counter-revolution. It legitimately petitioned for and recieved annexation by the United States, as was desired by King Kamehameha the III in 1854.

You could just as well claim that New York was still a sovereign colony of the Britain, and that it had been under illegal belligerent occupation by a puppet government (The U.S.) of France which aided and abetted the 1776 revolutionary war.

The really sad part about all of this is that while poverty and poor education continue to be problems in Hawai’i, these people are busy trying to replay 1893 and 1898.

Again, another interesting thread on

Of particular note is a seeming reluctance to acknowledge the Morgan Report.

Ignoring the Morgan Report is like asserting that drinking alcohol is illegal today because of prohibition, and not acknowledging that the 22nd amendment repealed the 18th.

Lana of course is still freaked out that anyone would talk JUST about kanaka maoli, and hasn’t figured out that fighting just one form of racism only means you’re limited in your capacity, not your intent.

Lana also tried to assert that the reparations for those interned Japanese during WWII was a race-based program – when in fact, not all Japanese were beneficiaries, only those who were interned. This was a targeted program based on actual harms to actual people, not a blanket entitlement given to an entire race like OHA and DHHL.

Okay, just to quickly recap some points on this thread:

1) Kanaka maoli are not indigenous. I challenge someone to come up with a clear definition of “indigenous” if they want to assert that.

2) The Morgan Report was not written by Morgan alone. His racism, while reprehensible, does not invalidate the findings of fact of the committee that shared his name.

3) The ’93 Apology Resolution has a big fat disclaimer at the end, and is as reasonable as legislation declaring that humans have 3 arms and 1 leg. Simply put, it is a collection of lies and distortions.

Are kanaka maoli indigenous to Hawai’i?

Well, there’s no universal definition of “indigenous peoples”, but let’s try this one out:

Wikipedia Entry on Indigenous Peoples

Drawing on these, a contemporary working definition of “indigenous peoples” has criteria which would seek to include cultural groups (and their descendants) who have an historical continuity or association with a given region, or parts of a region, and who formerly or currently inhabit the region either:

* before its subsequent colonization or annexation; or
* alongside other cultural groups during the formation of a nation-state; or
* independently or largely isolated from the influence of the claimed governance by a nation-state,

and who furthermore

* have maintained at least in part their distinct linguistic, cultural and social / organizational characteristics, and in doing so remain differentiated in some degree from the surrounding populations and dominant culture of the nation-state.

Given the rampant interbreeding with other races, you can certainly not claim that modern day part-kanaka maoli “remain differentiated” from their peers, so on that item the answer is clearly NO.


Apparently, the spectre of racism is rearing it’s ugly head again.

Although I have made California my home for the past 15 years, I was born and raised in Hawaii. Although my ancestry is mixed, and does not include blood from before 1778, as someone born and raised in the islands, I identify myself as a “native” hawaiian. One of the most beautiful things about Hawaii is the great diversity of cultural backgrounds we have. For some reason (perhaps the sweet smelling air), people over the generations in Hawaii have felt less inclined to in-breed, and instead have found love and created families together despite differences in background and appearance. California seems to be moving in this direction as well, and I look forward to the day when nobody can check just one single “race” box on the census form throughout this country.

The upcoming S. 147 and H.R. 309 bills are an insult to the spirit of aloha, and cannot be tolerated, as it divides us as a people based on false classifications of “race”. To be a native hawaiian is not something that is passed on genetically…it is cultural. And although the influence of the ancient hawaiians is certainly felt, it is not any more important than the influence of all of the immigrants that have come to the shores of Hawaii. To be a native hawaiian is to have to explain what “Zippy’s” is to friends on the mainland (sort of a local “Denny’s”). To be a native hawaiian is to love, cherish, and respect the many cultures that found a home in the middle of the sea. To be a native hawaiian also means to be a proud american for those who were born after statehood, and an even prouder american for those born before statehood who got to be a part of that choice. To be a native hawaiian is not something that can be legislated, nor should it be. To be a native hawaiian is a decision that is made by an individual.

These terrible bills hearken back to the days where a white woman could give birth to a black child by a black father, but a black woman could not give birth to a white child by a white father. We are all human, all connected. And we are americans, first, last and always.