Commentary: Democrats are playing Monopoly — and winning – CNN.com
Now with cool hyperlinks right to the source documents!
For those people wondering what I’ve been doing with my spare time for the past month, check out: The Morgan Report
Finally, the rest of the story is available online!
But that’s not saying much.
On January 17, 1893, the Queen Liliuokalani was overthrown, and replaced by a Provisional Government. This Provisional Government concluded an annexation treaty with the United States, that was submitted to the Senate on February 15, 1893 by President Benjamin Harrison. After Cleveland’s inauguration the following month, the treaty was withdrawn from consideration on March 9, 1893.
Cleveland was a friend of Liliuokalani’s, and upon taking office, worked diligently to restore her to the throne. On March 11, 1893, Cleveland called upon Blount to undertake a secret investigation into the overthrow. This investigation by Blount lasted from his arrival in Hawaii on March 29, 1893 until the submission of his final report on July 17, 1893.
This report was blistering in its disdain for the actions of Minister Stevens and the landing of U.S. troops during the revolution. The firm contention was that it was only through the direct action of the U.S. that the Queen was overthrown.
Read More →
Amazon.com: Unconquerable Rebel: Robert W. Wilcox and Hawaiian Politics 1880-1903: Books: Ernest, Jr. Andrade
University Press of Colorado (April, 1996)
Okay, absolutely must read for anyone involved in the sovereignty debate.
Interesting analysis of the oft-referenced anti-annexation Kue petition.
Apparently, it was rife with fraud.
For those who don’t want to download each page individually, here’s a 16mb PDF:
And here’s a slightly less detailed, but still readable 2.9mb PDF (Acrobat 7.0 compatible):
Here’s a 2.9mb PDF optimized for Acrobat 6.0:
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.
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 hawaiiankingdom.info.
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 hawaiiankingdom.info 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.
Ululani, you gotta watch this episode.
You are queen of the ginger kids.
So what the hell is indigenous anyway?
Read More →
Well, there’s no universal definition of “indigenous peoples”, but let’s try this one out:
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.
Interesting work explaining very clearly the history of citizenship and voting rights in Hawai’i – the idea that some sovereignty activists have about returning to a kanaka maoli only kingdom is belied by the history of citizenship within the Kingdom of Hawai’i.
Read More →