Hawaiian Independence Action Alliance

September 15, 2009

From Maui News 9/14/09

Filed under: Uncategorized

Removing star was demonstration of feelings

 

POSTED: September 14, 2009
http://www.mauinews.com/page/content.detail/id/523643.html?nav=18

Looking back to when the illegal provisional government of the United States tried to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the farce that Ko Hawai’i Pae Aina was part of whatever: I enjoyed advocating for the truth by joining the demonstrations at the airport and the state building.

The biggest pleasure I had was seeing the small and watered-down celebrations of those who live the illusion that Ko Hawai’i Pae Aina is part of America. There were no fireworks, no parades, no waving of banners and flags. Why? Because you cannot celebrate evil.

The second thing that I found great pleasure in was when my fellow civilized people cut the 50th star from the American flag and put a match to it. The ultimate demonstration of our true feelings and ku’e. I only wished that I had done that and sent the ashes to President Barack Obama, Sen. Daniel Inouye, Gov. Linda Lingle and Sen. Daniel Akaka. They’re no Duke Paoa Kahanamoku, Kekuni Blasdell, George Helm, James Mitchell, Eddie Aikau, or auntie Nona Beamer. They’re just illusionists.

You cannot honor genocide, lies, theft, breaking of treaties and the occupation of a peaceful nation. America is the kid with his hand in the cookie jar and chocolate chips on his lips and still insists that he never ate the cookies. The only ones to back him are the ones that shared in the immoral behavior. America preaches the Ten Commandments and breaks every one. A culture of hypocrisy, not democracy.

Gaby Gouveia

Makawao



September 9, 2009

From Maui News 9/9/09

Filed under: Uncategorized

Double standard is difficult to understand

Posted in the Maui News Sept. 9, 2009 

http://www.mauinews.com/page/content.detail/id/523421.html?nav=18

In regards to Richard Hillman’s letter (Sept. 2), I find it amazing how people justify an illegal action with the mindset that if America didn’t take Hawaii then someone else would have. I know some people who really feel that way and that is why they think it’s a good thing that the Hawaiian people’s government was overthrown by the United States of America. This is how they justify stealing.

If America hadn’t taken Hawaii, we may be under the control of Japan, France, England or Russia. But we are not. When Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, America sent in troops along with other countries to liberate Kuwait. Tell me what is the difference?

The Hawaiian government at the time of its overthrow was recognized by the world as a sovereign nation. If we still had control of our kingdom in 1942, I’m certain that America and its allies would have sent in troops as they did in the rest of the Pacific to stop Japan from getting closer to North America.

Yes, it’s a fact that America stole Hawaii and we are now a part of the United States. The part that Hawaiian people have a hard time understanding is if I steal from you, I will be prosecuted under the law, but if you stole from me it’s OK because some other country would have done it. What a great concept.

Boysie Maxwell

Waiohuli



September 6, 2009

Hawaii Pono I Coalition celebrates Queen’s Birthday at Iolani Palace

Filed under: Uncategorized

queensbdaykanaina9609-014

Pono Kealoha, Donnie Camvel, and Kuumeaaloha Gomes as minister, Mrs. Campbell, and Mrs. Nawahi

Ka Lei Maile Alii Hawaiian Civic Club, a member organization of HIAA, sponsored today’s re-enactment titled, “Ka Lei Maile Alii – the Queen’s Women’ at the Kanaina Building in honor of Queen Liliuokalani’s birthday and as part of the Hawaii Pono’i Coalition’s larger remembrance of the Queen and her message to Onipa`a!  The re-enactment was first performed on Sept. 2, 2001, in this same building, to honor the Queen on her birthday.  Over the years a number of different people have taken the lead roles and brought each of the characters to life.  Mrs. Emma Aima Nawahi and Mrs. Kuaihelani Campbell, friends of Queen and country, were members of Hui Aloha Aina o Nawahine, supporters of the Queen and instrumental in gathering signatures to protest the annexation of Hawaii to the U.S.  Those petitions, with nearly 39,000 signatures, were successful in stopping  annexation via treaty.  And to this day, there is no treaty.

6-sep-09-iolani-palace-067

Kuumeaaloha Gomes and Donnie Camvel as Mrs. Nawahi and Mrs. Campbell

At today’s presentation, as in the past, Keanu Sai prefaced the re-enactment by providing a historic context–why the signatures were being gathered in the first place, and what the implications are for today.  The successful signature petition campaign resulted in the failed passage of the treaty of annexation in Congress (there was/is NO treaty of annexation).  This forced some members of Congress to devise a scheme to take Hawaii illegally via an internal (to the U.S.) document called the Newlands Resolution, thus a major theft occurred of Hawaii’s government, Hawaiian land, and Hawaiian nationals (the people themselves being transferred “like a flock of cattle”, as noted by Joseph Nawahi), but more seriously, a theft of our history.  It was unsafe to talk about the theft, so people kept quiet and, through a concerted effort over generations, and with the help of an educational system imported from the U.S., the people of Hawaii were reprogrammed to accept a false history so as to easily assimilate them and get them ready for statehood.  In 1900, the U.S. passed an organic act to create a territory of Hawaii.  In 1920, the U.S. passed the  Hawaiian Homestead Act, in the process creating an ethnic category called “Native” or “native” Hawaiian.  In 1950, the U.S. signed into law the statehood act with a subsequent vote in 1959 that included members of the U.S. military in Hawaii.  

queensbdaykanaina9609-008

Copies of petitions against annexation to the U.S.

In 1978, within the fake state of Hawaii, a constitutional convention created the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, which became operational in 1980.  Thirteen years later, in 1993, a huge demonstration by Hawaiians (by blood) and supporters gathered at Iolani Palace grounds to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom.  That same year saw the passage of PL 103-150, the so-called apology bill, whereby the U.S. apologized to the “native Hawaiians” they created in 1920 for the overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom.  Other Hawaiian subjects were unacknowledged.  And finally, beginning in 2000, Senators Akaka and Inouye attempted to turn Hawaiians (by blood) into a native american tribe by making Hawaiians ‘indigenous’ to the U.S. via federal recognition.

The point of the Keanu Sai’s talk and the re-enactment today was to call attention to the struggle faced by the Queen and her supporters during that time of turmoil, all of whom understood the call to onipa`a and who signed the ku`e petitions. These are the ancestors of those of us Hawaiians (by nationality) living today.  That struggle is not over as long as we remember our history and defend Queen and country until such time as our country is restored to us.  E onipa`a kakou!  Eo Hawaii!



From Honolulu Star Bulletin today…

Filed under: Uncategorized

 

 

Starbulletin.com

 

 

ISLAND COMMENTARY

Akaka Bill supporter ignores inherent Kanaka Maoli rights

By Kihei Soli Niheu and J. Kehaulani Kauanui, Ph.D.

POSTED: 01:30 a.m. HST, Sep 06, 2009

As supporters of Hawaiian Independence, we wish to acknowledge Gov. Linda Lingle’s decision to somberly commemorate rather than callously celebrate what for Kanaka Maoli and other Hawaiian kingdom heirs was the third major crime committed against us by the U.S. when it fraudulently incorporated our country in 1959, its 1893 overthrow of our monarchy and 1898 annexation of our territory having already paved the way.

In contrast to the governor’s respectful stance, the piece on the Akaka Bill penned in your paper by Professor Jon Van Dyke (“Akaka Bill would be ‘win-win’,” Star-Bulletin, Aug. 24) — who needs to reveal what fees he has received for his decade-long work on and for the Akaka Bill since he regularly comments on it — exudes condescension and misinformation.

Van Dyke says the bill will “allow the Hawaiian people” to “govern themselves.” As an international lawyer and settler in our homeland, he should know that self-determination is inherent, not “allowed,” and that we call ourselves Kanaka Maoli. He then relates that the Hawaiian kingdom was racially discriminatory and seething with struggles for power but obliterates the fact that it was white plutocrats who launched discrimination, power grabs, the Bayonet Constitution and then went on to engineer, with U.S. agents, the overthrow of Queen Lili’uokalani when she sought to abrogate that infamous document.

We also find it ironic that Van Dyke tells us to emulate the Maori experience with the Waitangi Tribunal when a) Our Maori cousins tell us the opposite, and b) He promotes an Akaka Bill that will shut down all U.S. court doors to Kanaka Maoli claims: “It is the general effect of section 8 (c)(2)(B) [of the Bill] that any claims that may already have accrued and might be brought against the United States … be rendered nonjusticiable in suits brought by plaintiffs other than the Federal Government.”

Finally, Professor Van Dyke artlessly uses possessive articles to advance a false identity of interests between settlers like himself and we who are the heirs of the kingdom: “our islands” (ours not his), “our national government” (his not ours). Equally gauche is the paragraph that praises our culture when its writer does all to frustrate the political independence that alone could still save us from U.S. ethnocide.

Kihei Soli Niheu, Moku o Keawe, lives in Waimea, Hawaii; and J. Kehaulani Kauanui, Ph.D., lives in Middletown, Conn.



September 5, 2009

Difference Between Occupation and Colonization

Filed under: Uncategorized
Posted today by Keanu Sai and reposted on multiple lists re the difference between occupation and colonization and why we should make the distinctinon between the two in discussing Hawaii’s history
 
Aloha e na hoaaloha,
At the La Ho`iho`i events at Thomas Square last month, I had a good conversation with Candace Fujikane co-editor of “Asian Settler Colonialism.” She told me that she had read my law journal article “A Slippery Path Towards Hawaiian Indigeneity,” and wished she had read the article before her book came out. The article and the book both came out in Fall ’08. What she told me was that she didn’t realize how profound the difference was between occupation and colonization.
I explained to her that Hawai`i was treated as a colony by the U.S. in order to hide the occupation, and that because it was treated as a colony doesn’t mean Hawai`i was colonized. She really liked that perspective because you don’t censor colonization, but rather contextualize it within the larger framework of occupation, rather than colonization/de-colonization being the framework itself.
I’ve also heard from other people that it’s just a matter of semantics and I’m too confined to the letter of the law. I have to disagree because individuals who use the term colonization also use the accompanying law and legal principles associated to colonization and de-colonization such as self-determination, list of non-self-governing territories pursuant to Article 73(e) U.N. Charter, U.N. Resolution 1514 on De-colonization, Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and UN Special Committee on 24 on Decolonization. These are all terms used when speaking to colonization and the prospect of de-colonization, and are not part of the political and legal dialogue regarding occupations, e.g. Iraq and Afghanistan. Instead the terminology used regarding the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan include the principle of continuity of State sovereignty, 1907 Hague Convention, IV, 1949 Geneva Convention, IV, Duty of Non-intervention by other States, U.N. Security Council. In these situations you wouldn’t conflate the terminology, because to conflate or combine the determinate terminology would add confusion to the situation. 
Here’s an example of why conflating the terms leads to not only confusion but contradictions. If Iraq were to use the principle of self-determination under and by virtue of U.N. Resolution 1514 it would say to the international community that Iraq is not a sovereign State and is a U.S. colony, but has the aspiration of becoming a sovereign State. As a colony of the United States, Iraq would claim that it has a right to self-determination under UN Resolution 1515 to become its own country and demand to be listed as a non-self-governing territory pursuant to Article 73(e) of the U.N. Charter, and that to be de-colonized means that Iraq would have to negotiate with the U.S. government through the Department of Interior, which controls matters of internal relations. This is a complete contradiction for Iraq to pursue such a course, because Iraq already exercised self-determination as a Mandate Territory since the end of World War I and achieved the recognition of its State sovereignty in 1932 by the League of Nations. Iraq used to be a colony of the Ottoman Empire before the end of World War I. As a sovereign State, Iraq possessed two qualities–external sovereignty and internal sovereignty. External sovereignty is independence of other sovereign States (including the U.S.), and internal sovereignty that includes territorial supremacy and personal supremacy. Territorial supremacy is territorial authority over all persons within its territory, including U.S. citizens, and personal supremacy is over its own citizenry who travel abroad.
This is why one State cannot colonize another State, because it would violate these qualities of a sovereign State universally recognized by all States including the U.S.
A territory that is not recognized as a sovereign State could be the subject of colonization whereby the laws of the colonizer extend over the territory; and when a colony desires to exercise self-determination it is pursuing the status of a sovereign State and if it succeeds in this process, whether by negotiation or revolution, it has been decolonized and from that point on is considered a sovereign State. If it is later invaded, like Iraq in 2003, it is a matter of occupation and not colonization. This is where the terms associated with the Hague and Geneva Conventions are used to apply to the U.S. troops in the territory of Iraq, and the U.N. Security Council for enforcement of Iraq’s State’s rights. This is why colonization was not used to explain the situation of Iraq after the U.S. invasion and occupation, and should also be the same reason why we should not continue to use colonization regarding Hawai`i because it is a contradiction of Hawai`i’s history and status as a sovereign State, and only feeds the illusion created by the U.S. administration since 1898 in order to conceal and hide an illegal and prolonged occupation of a co-equal sovereign State. This is a matter for the U.N. Security Council and not the Forums on Indigenous Rights or the Special Committee of 24 on De-colonization.
Keanu


Older Posts »

© 2009 Hawaiian Independence Alliance