Wednesday, January 17, 2007
Was Hawaii Queen Liliuokalani Really Like Martin Luther King and Mahatma Gandhi?
Guest Article by Ken Conklin:
On January 16, 2007 the East-West Center in Honolulu hosted a gala bash. The $12 ticket included a panel discussion and pupus (hors d'oeuvres). The purpose was to crown Hawaii's Queen Liliuokalani as a hero in the pantheon of non-violent resistance. The cover of a fancy brochure featured three photos: QueenLiliuokalani, Dr. Martin Luther King, and Mahatma Gandhi.[1]
The event was orchestrated by Hawaiian sovereignty zealots. Also participating were leftwing leaders of the Hawaii chapter of the NAACP, and "peace studies" activists.
For several years the Hawaiian sovereignty folks have collaborated with the NAACP to jointly celebrate the Martin Luther King holiday (this year January 15) and the anniversary of the January 17, 1893 overthrow of Queen Liliuokalani.
Of course the word "celebrate" applies only to MLK. It would be politically incorrect to celebrate the overthrow of a corrupt and ineffective monarch who nowadays is an icon of racial pride and resistance to U.S. imperialism. Her statue stands overlooking the Hawaii state capitol building. 365 days a year Hawaiian activists stop by to place fresh flowers in her hand, around her neck, or at her feet; often accompanied by prayers. On important political occasions red-shirted Hawaiian sovereignty zealots stage mass marches (10,000-20,000 strong) from her tomb about two miles away to Iolani Palace (right behind her statue).[2]
First let's briefly review what happened 114 years ago that gives today's activists an excuse for saying she practiced non-violence. Then we'll review two other events showing that she did indeed participate in violence, and was nothing like Martin Luther King or Mahatma Gandhi.
All factual information below about the events of 1893 (including comments about the Blount appointment and Blount Report) is documented in the Morgan Report. This was the 808-page report of the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Affairsin 1894, which is now easily available on the internet.[3] The committee held hearings for two months, in open session, taking testimony under oath with cross-examination.
On January 17, 1893 a local militia of several hundred armed men took over the Government Building of the Kingdom of Hawaii, and other important buildings in Honolulu. They proclaimed the end of the monarchy, and set up a Provisional Government which later became the Republic of Hawaii. They acted on behalf of a mass meeting of 1500 local men a few days before. Most of them had also been involved in a previous quasi-revolution in 1887 which forced then-King Kalakaua to proclaim a new Constitution reducing him to figurehead status. This time they finally abolished the monarchy once and for all. Within two days the Provisional Government was recognized by the local consuls of all the foreign nations which had diplomatic relations with the Kingdom of Hawaii. Later, after the Republic of Hawaii was created with a Constitution and elected legislature, formal dipomatic recognitions came from the capitols. No nation ever protested the overthrow to either the government of Hawaii or the government of theUnited States.
The excuse for comparing Liliuokalani with Martin Luther King or Mahatma Gandhi is this. As the revolution unfolded in 1893, the Queen made a decision not to fight. She had few men with military training, and much of her arms and ammunition had already been captured where they were previously stored in the Government Building. She surrendered. There was only one minor injury when a royalist policeman was shot while trying to stop a wagonload of rifles headed for the Government Building (the following day leaders of the revolution visited him in the hospital to apologize and wish him well).
The Queen's document of surrender was a carefully written piece of political shrewdness. Rather than surrender to the local militia who had actually defeated her, she wrote: "I yield to the superior force of the United States of America whose Minister Plenipotentiary, His Excellency John L. Stevens, has caused United States troops to be landed at Honolulu and declared that he would support the said Provisional Government. Now to avoid any collision of armed forces, and perhaps the loss of life, I do under this protest and impelled by said force yield my authority until such time as the Government of the United States shall upon the facts being presented to it undo the action of its representative and reinstate me in the authority which I claim as the Constitutional Sovereign of the Hawaiian Islands." But interestingly, she ordered her "temporary"surrender letter to be delivered to the Provisional Government rather than to U.S. Minister Stevens. She clearly knew who had defeated her. She hoped to buy time to appeal to a friendly nation far away which might undo the revolution, rather than surrender permanently to her close-up opponents.
Why did she surrender to the U.S.? Who were the United States troops she was referring to?
For several days before January 17 there had been great political upheaval. The Queen had used bribery and threats to push several highly controversial bills through the legislature (lottery, distillery, and opium licensing). She then permanently adjourned the legislature. Immediately thereafter she announced she would unilaterally proclaim a new Constitution. A mass meeting of 1500 revolutionaries at the armory competed against a mass meeting of about half that many royalists at the Palace. There were rumors of impending riots and arson to be directed by ethnic Hawaiians against the homes,businesses and families of the revolutionaries. The anticipated violence had a racial character because most of the revolutionaries were Caucasians of European and American ancestry (many of whom were locally born or naturalized subjects of the Hawaiian Kingdom with full voting rights).
On several occasions of political upheaval inprevious years, U.S. and British navy personnel had come ashore as peacekeepers (as was recently done in Liberia, for example). This time the only ship in Honolulu harbor was the USS Boston. Residents of American and European ancestry pleaded with Minister Stevens to land peacekeepers. He sent ashore 162 armed sailors. On their way to a suburban location to spend the night they passed by the Palace and dipped their flag in respect to the Queen. Some royalists assumed the peacekeepers would help them suppress the revolution. Some revolutionists assumed the peacekeepers would help them overthrow the monarchy. Minister Stevens gave orders they were to be strictly neutral; and indeed they were. Unable to stay in the suburb where they were headed, they ended up spending the night in a building in Honolulu on a side street out of sight of both the Palace and the Government Building. They stayed there throughout the revolution.
It turned out the U.S. peacekeepers were not needed because the local militia was strong and the Queen chose not to fight. The peacekeepers did not fire a shot. They did not take over any building or arrest the Queen. They did not surround the Palace or Government Building. They did not patrol the streets. But their presence gave the Queen the excuse she needed to blame the revolution on the U.S., to surrender allegedly to the U.S., and to appeal to President Grover Cleveland to restore her to the throne.
President Cleveland was a personal friend of the Queen. He came into office shortly after the revolution. He immediately sent a political hatchet-man, James Blount, to Honolulu as "Minister Plenipotentiary with paramount powers, "but Cleveland never submitted Blount's appointment to the Senate for confirmation. Blount had secret instructions to destabilize the Provisional Government and to write a one-sided report which Cleveland could use in a political effort to stop annexation. After Blount left town Cleveland sent another diplomat, who"ordered" the Provisional Government to step down and restore the Queen. They refused. Cleveland submitted the matter to Congress, probably hoping Congress might authorize troops to put the Queen back on the throne. The U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs held hearings in open session with sworn testimony under cross examination. The resulting 808-page "Morgan Report" thoroughly discredited the Blount Report, and confirmed that the Hawaiian revolution had been done by the local militia. The Senate then passed two resolutions saying that neither the U.S. (i.e.,Grover Cleveland) nor any other nation should interfere with Hawaii's internal affairs.
Liliuokalani did not meet the fate of other monarchs who were overthrown. The French aristocracy got their heads chopped off by guillotine, while the Russian Tsar and his entire family were shot. Instead, Liliuokalani was escorted to her private home a block from the Palace. The Provisional Government paid her (former) Royal Guard to protect her from possible assassination. Later she showed her gratitude by conspiring in the Wilcox attempted counter-revolution, and then by going to Washington to lobby against the treaty of annexation offered by the Republic of Hawaii in 1897. She lived in that same private home a block from her former Palace until 1917. Meanwhile the Palace became the Capitol of the Territory of Hawaii and then the State of Hawaii until 1968, with the legislature meeting in the former throne room while the U.S. flag flew proudly over the building.
Today Liliuokalani is the poster-girl for Hawaiian sovereignty activists. There are also those who claim the U.S. is an evil empire whose history of armed invasion and occupation of other nations for the purpose of "regime change" got started in Hawaii in 1893.[4]
In 1993 the U.S. Congress passed a joint resolution of sentiment apologizing to ethnic Hawaiians for the U.S. role in the overthrow of "their" monarchy (but the Kingdom government and its people were multiracial!). The apology resolution is filled with factual errors, tremendous distortions, and overblown rhetoric.[5] It is being used today as the core rationale behind the Akaka bill -- a bill tha thas been in Congress since 2000, seeking to authorize creation of a racially exclusionary government for ethnic Hawaiians.[6] Many regard the Akaka bill as a pathway to total independence-- the secession of the entire State of Hawaii from the United States[7] and establishment of a Nation of Hawaii that would be racial supremacist under a theory of indigenous rights. Poster-girl Liliuokalani is the figurehead on the sovereignty ship.
Now let's briefly compare Liliuokalani, King, and Gandhi on the issue of non-violent resistance, to show that King and Gandhi do not deserve to have their reputations smeared by association with her.
The only thing Liliuokalani, King, and Gandhi share is being imprisoned by governments headed by Caucasians.
In 1889 Liliuokalani had conspired with Robert Wilcox in a coup attempt against her brother, King Kalakaua. Seven men were killed and the Palace bungalow was blown up.[8] Was that non-violence?
In the 1893 revolution Liliuokalani surrendered without a fight as a cynical strategic move. She wanted to buy time in hopes her friend Grover Cleveland, who would become President a few weeks later, would use U.S. power to put her back on the throne. A Queen sitting in her Palace giving up without a fight in the face of an armed revolution does not make her a practitioner of non-violent resistance or satyagraha.
During the Summer and Fall of 1893 President Cleveland's emissary to Hawaii tried hard to persuade Liliuokalani to agree to pardon the revolutionaries if they would step down and restore her to the throne. But she reportedly said she would behead them. Her repeated insistence on bloodthirsty revenge caused Cleveland's emissary to back away from making further suggestions to her. In a last-ditch effort in December he "ordered" Provisional Government President Dole to step down and restore the Queen, but Dole (understadably!) refused. Liliuokalani's insistence on bloodthirsty revenge, even to the extent of destroying efforts at mediation, is certainly not the way a practitioner of nonviolence should behave.
Martin Luther King and Mahatma Gandhi both put their lives on the line numerous times in the face of violence directed against them close-up-and-personal. King and Gandhi understood a profound spiritual principle that allowed them to harness the inner core of goodness found buried deep inside even the worst racist. They walked in front of their enemies, knowing they would be beaten and abused; but also knowing that their enemies' inner core would rise to the surface and eventually convert them (or at least convert onlookers) to friends.
In 1895 Liliuokalani again conspired with Wilcox in the 1895 attempted counter-revolution. Guns and bombs were hidden in the flower-bed at her home (Washington Place). She had already written letters of appointment for cabinet ministers and department heads in her anticipated new government. Historian Gavan Daws describes it this way: "The grounds of her home at Washington Place were searched, and in the garden the searchers found what they were looking for -- ar egular ammunition dump; twenty-one bombs, some of them made with coconut shells; more than thirty rifles; thirty-eight cartridge belts and about a thousand rounds of ammunition; and some pistols and swords."[9] For that violent crime, and to provide deterrence for royalists who might try it again, she was justifiably sentenced to prison. Martin Luther King's "crime" was parading without a permit. Gandhi's "crime" was going to the ocean to gather salt. Neither of them had guns and bombs at home or anywhere else.
Martin Luther King's prison was a small dirty dungeon with bars and snarling guard dogs. Liliuokalani's "prison" was a huge room at Iolani Palace, larger than most peoples' two bedroom apartments today. In her Palace room she had a full-time maidservant. She also had lots of arts and crafts supplies to pursue her hobbies-- she made a quilt containing royalist political symbols, and composed songs with political double-meanings. The quilt today is displayed with reverence right where she sewed it, and the songs are played at sovereignty rallies.
Liliuokalani was head of a multiracial government, but she used her great political power primarily to pursue racial supremacy. She tried to proclaim a new Constitution to grab near-dictatorial powers for herself. There were reports that her new Constitution would allow voting rights only for ethnic Hawaiians.[10] She used the phrase "my people" to refer to her race rather than her multiracial subjects. King and Gandhi never held government power, and did not seek it. Most importantly, King and Gandhi created lofty universal principles of multiracial unity and equality; and they harnessed a profound spiritual power which Liliuokalani never imagined.
Shame on Hawaiian sovereignty zealots for debasing the memories of Martin Luther King and Mahatma Gandhi by comparing them to Liliuokalani. Shame on Hawaiian sovereigntists for trying togather public support for Liliuokalani as a way of pushing racial supremacy either through the Akaka bill or through secession. And shame on the Hawaiian independence activists who speak with forked tongue, on one side glorifying non-violence while on the other side threatening violence to intimidate school children and adults at the Hawaii Statehood Day celebration on August18, 2006.[11]
For a collection of commentaries and letters to editor in 2006 and previous years regarding the comparison of Liliuokalani with Martin Luther King, see: http://tinyurl.com/4b2qe
NOTES
1. http://tinyurl.com/ye8lea
2. http://tinyurl.com/3mfsw
3. http://morganreport.org/See also "Was the 1893 overthrow of the monarchy illegal?" at http://tinyurl.com/72xeb
4. Stephen Kinzer, "Overthrow : America's century of regime change from Hawaii to Iraq" (New York: Times Books, 2006).
5. It would require a book to describe and document the errors in the apology resolution. The beginnings of such a discrediting can befound in Chapter 10 of Thurston Twigg-Smith's book Hawaiian Sovereignty: Do the FactsMatter?. That book can be downloaded free of charge in pdf format at http://www.hawaiimatters.com/book/HawnSov.pdf
In June 2005 Bruce Fein published a booklet under the auspices of the Grassroot Hawai'i think-tank: "Hawaii Divided Against Itself Cannot Stand." Mr. Fein's essay is of special interest to scholars because of his analysis of the apology resolution of 1993 as well as the provisions ofthe Akaka bill. It can be downloaded in pdf format here: http://tinyurl.com/7d6xq
Senator Kyl (R, AZ) obtained unanimous consent to print Mr. Fein's essay in the Congressional Record in three installments on three consecutive days: June 14, 15, and 16 of 2005. Each installment was introduced by brief remarks by Senator Kyl. The relevant portions of the Congressional Record are copied here: http://tinyurl.com/yewlvh
A very interesting repudiation of the apology resolution is found in an article in the Wall Street Journal of August 16, 2005. Slade Gorton and Hank Brown, two former Senators who had fought against the apology resolution in 1993, published "E Pluribus Unum? Not in Hawaii." They reminded a nationwide audience about some of the historical falsehoods and alerted readers to the fact that the apology resolution is being abused to support the Akaka bill. In 1993 Gorton and Brown had warned their Senate colleagues that the apology resolution would be used to demand race-based government handouts and to support a secessionist movement. Senator Inouye had promised his colleagues, on the floor of the Senate, that the resolution would never be used in any such way. Now 12 years later Senators Gorton and Brown were saying "See, we told you so." http://tinyurl.com/exdg3
6. "WHY ALL AMERICA SHOULD OPPOSE THE HAWAIIAN GOVERNMENT REORGANIZATION BILL, ALSO KNOWN AS THE AKAKA BILL" http://tinyurl.com/yhhz7o
7. The Akaka Bill And Secession: The Hawaiian Government Reorganization bill (Akaka bill) is seen by its supporters as a step toward total independence for all of Hawai'i http://tinyurl.com/4cho6
8. Some court testimony regarding the Wilcox rebellion of 1889 is found in the Morgan Report. See especially the "Morgan's gem" #5 "Wilcox Rebellion 1889 and Dueling Palace Coup Plots" at http://tinyurl.com/ye5a8e
See also Ernest Andrade, Jr., "Unconquerable Rebel: Robert W. Wilcox and Hawaiian Politics,1880-1903 (University Press of Colorado, 1996).
299 pages including extensive footnotes. ISBN:
0-87081-417-6. Ken Conklin's extensive notes on
that book are at http://tinyurl.com/hd44p
9. Gavan Daws, Shoal of Time (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1974), pp. 282-283
See also the Andrade book, above.
10. For example, portions of the alleged new Constitution proposed by Liliuokalani were published in a royalist newspaper Ka Makaainana: Vol. 1, No. 21 (21 May 1894): page 4. Article 62 seems to set forth a racial restriction of voting for ethnic Hawaiians exclusively: "Pauku 62. O nakupa wale no ke hiki ke koho balota, a hoemiia mai hoi ke ana waiwai e kupono ai o na poe koho."
11. For a compilation of news reports and commentaries about the disruption of the Hawaii Statehood Day celebration on August 18, 2006,see: http://tinyurl.com/pdt88
On January 16, 2007 the East-West Center in Honolulu hosted a gala bash. The $12 ticket included a panel discussion and pupus (hors d'oeuvres). The purpose was to crown Hawaii's Queen Liliuokalani as a hero in the pantheon of non-violent resistance. The cover of a fancy brochure featured three photos: QueenLiliuokalani, Dr. Martin Luther King, and Mahatma Gandhi.[1]
The event was orchestrated by Hawaiian sovereignty zealots. Also participating were leftwing leaders of the Hawaii chapter of the NAACP, and "peace studies" activists.
For several years the Hawaiian sovereignty folks have collaborated with the NAACP to jointly celebrate the Martin Luther King holiday (this year January 15) and the anniversary of the January 17, 1893 overthrow of Queen Liliuokalani.
Of course the word "celebrate" applies only to MLK. It would be politically incorrect to celebrate the overthrow of a corrupt and ineffective monarch who nowadays is an icon of racial pride and resistance to U.S. imperialism. Her statue stands overlooking the Hawaii state capitol building. 365 days a year Hawaiian activists stop by to place fresh flowers in her hand, around her neck, or at her feet; often accompanied by prayers. On important political occasions red-shirted Hawaiian sovereignty zealots stage mass marches (10,000-20,000 strong) from her tomb about two miles away to Iolani Palace (right behind her statue).[2]
First let's briefly review what happened 114 years ago that gives today's activists an excuse for saying she practiced non-violence. Then we'll review two other events showing that she did indeed participate in violence, and was nothing like Martin Luther King or Mahatma Gandhi.
All factual information below about the events of 1893 (including comments about the Blount appointment and Blount Report) is documented in the Morgan Report. This was the 808-page report of the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Affairsin 1894, which is now easily available on the internet.[3] The committee held hearings for two months, in open session, taking testimony under oath with cross-examination.
On January 17, 1893 a local militia of several hundred armed men took over the Government Building of the Kingdom of Hawaii, and other important buildings in Honolulu. They proclaimed the end of the monarchy, and set up a Provisional Government which later became the Republic of Hawaii. They acted on behalf of a mass meeting of 1500 local men a few days before. Most of them had also been involved in a previous quasi-revolution in 1887 which forced then-King Kalakaua to proclaim a new Constitution reducing him to figurehead status. This time they finally abolished the monarchy once and for all. Within two days the Provisional Government was recognized by the local consuls of all the foreign nations which had diplomatic relations with the Kingdom of Hawaii. Later, after the Republic of Hawaii was created with a Constitution and elected legislature, formal dipomatic recognitions came from the capitols. No nation ever protested the overthrow to either the government of Hawaii or the government of theUnited States.
The excuse for comparing Liliuokalani with Martin Luther King or Mahatma Gandhi is this. As the revolution unfolded in 1893, the Queen made a decision not to fight. She had few men with military training, and much of her arms and ammunition had already been captured where they were previously stored in the Government Building. She surrendered. There was only one minor injury when a royalist policeman was shot while trying to stop a wagonload of rifles headed for the Government Building (the following day leaders of the revolution visited him in the hospital to apologize and wish him well).
The Queen's document of surrender was a carefully written piece of political shrewdness. Rather than surrender to the local militia who had actually defeated her, she wrote: "I yield to the superior force of the United States of America whose Minister Plenipotentiary, His Excellency John L. Stevens, has caused United States troops to be landed at Honolulu and declared that he would support the said Provisional Government. Now to avoid any collision of armed forces, and perhaps the loss of life, I do under this protest and impelled by said force yield my authority until such time as the Government of the United States shall upon the facts being presented to it undo the action of its representative and reinstate me in the authority which I claim as the Constitutional Sovereign of the Hawaiian Islands." But interestingly, she ordered her "temporary"surrender letter to be delivered to the Provisional Government rather than to U.S. Minister Stevens. She clearly knew who had defeated her. She hoped to buy time to appeal to a friendly nation far away which might undo the revolution, rather than surrender permanently to her close-up opponents.
Why did she surrender to the U.S.? Who were the United States troops she was referring to?
For several days before January 17 there had been great political upheaval. The Queen had used bribery and threats to push several highly controversial bills through the legislature (lottery, distillery, and opium licensing). She then permanently adjourned the legislature. Immediately thereafter she announced she would unilaterally proclaim a new Constitution. A mass meeting of 1500 revolutionaries at the armory competed against a mass meeting of about half that many royalists at the Palace. There were rumors of impending riots and arson to be directed by ethnic Hawaiians against the homes,businesses and families of the revolutionaries. The anticipated violence had a racial character because most of the revolutionaries were Caucasians of European and American ancestry (many of whom were locally born or naturalized subjects of the Hawaiian Kingdom with full voting rights).
On several occasions of political upheaval inprevious years, U.S. and British navy personnel had come ashore as peacekeepers (as was recently done in Liberia, for example). This time the only ship in Honolulu harbor was the USS Boston. Residents of American and European ancestry pleaded with Minister Stevens to land peacekeepers. He sent ashore 162 armed sailors. On their way to a suburban location to spend the night they passed by the Palace and dipped their flag in respect to the Queen. Some royalists assumed the peacekeepers would help them suppress the revolution. Some revolutionists assumed the peacekeepers would help them overthrow the monarchy. Minister Stevens gave orders they were to be strictly neutral; and indeed they were. Unable to stay in the suburb where they were headed, they ended up spending the night in a building in Honolulu on a side street out of sight of both the Palace and the Government Building. They stayed there throughout the revolution.
It turned out the U.S. peacekeepers were not needed because the local militia was strong and the Queen chose not to fight. The peacekeepers did not fire a shot. They did not take over any building or arrest the Queen. They did not surround the Palace or Government Building. They did not patrol the streets. But their presence gave the Queen the excuse she needed to blame the revolution on the U.S., to surrender allegedly to the U.S., and to appeal to President Grover Cleveland to restore her to the throne.
President Cleveland was a personal friend of the Queen. He came into office shortly after the revolution. He immediately sent a political hatchet-man, James Blount, to Honolulu as "Minister Plenipotentiary with paramount powers, "but Cleveland never submitted Blount's appointment to the Senate for confirmation. Blount had secret instructions to destabilize the Provisional Government and to write a one-sided report which Cleveland could use in a political effort to stop annexation. After Blount left town Cleveland sent another diplomat, who"ordered" the Provisional Government to step down and restore the Queen. They refused. Cleveland submitted the matter to Congress, probably hoping Congress might authorize troops to put the Queen back on the throne. The U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs held hearings in open session with sworn testimony under cross examination. The resulting 808-page "Morgan Report" thoroughly discredited the Blount Report, and confirmed that the Hawaiian revolution had been done by the local militia. The Senate then passed two resolutions saying that neither the U.S. (i.e.,Grover Cleveland) nor any other nation should interfere with Hawaii's internal affairs.
Liliuokalani did not meet the fate of other monarchs who were overthrown. The French aristocracy got their heads chopped off by guillotine, while the Russian Tsar and his entire family were shot. Instead, Liliuokalani was escorted to her private home a block from the Palace. The Provisional Government paid her (former) Royal Guard to protect her from possible assassination. Later she showed her gratitude by conspiring in the Wilcox attempted counter-revolution, and then by going to Washington to lobby against the treaty of annexation offered by the Republic of Hawaii in 1897. She lived in that same private home a block from her former Palace until 1917. Meanwhile the Palace became the Capitol of the Territory of Hawaii and then the State of Hawaii until 1968, with the legislature meeting in the former throne room while the U.S. flag flew proudly over the building.
Today Liliuokalani is the poster-girl for Hawaiian sovereignty activists. There are also those who claim the U.S. is an evil empire whose history of armed invasion and occupation of other nations for the purpose of "regime change" got started in Hawaii in 1893.[4]
In 1993 the U.S. Congress passed a joint resolution of sentiment apologizing to ethnic Hawaiians for the U.S. role in the overthrow of "their" monarchy (but the Kingdom government and its people were multiracial!). The apology resolution is filled with factual errors, tremendous distortions, and overblown rhetoric.[5] It is being used today as the core rationale behind the Akaka bill -- a bill tha thas been in Congress since 2000, seeking to authorize creation of a racially exclusionary government for ethnic Hawaiians.[6] Many regard the Akaka bill as a pathway to total independence-- the secession of the entire State of Hawaii from the United States[7] and establishment of a Nation of Hawaii that would be racial supremacist under a theory of indigenous rights. Poster-girl Liliuokalani is the figurehead on the sovereignty ship.
Now let's briefly compare Liliuokalani, King, and Gandhi on the issue of non-violent resistance, to show that King and Gandhi do not deserve to have their reputations smeared by association with her.
The only thing Liliuokalani, King, and Gandhi share is being imprisoned by governments headed by Caucasians.
In 1889 Liliuokalani had conspired with Robert Wilcox in a coup attempt against her brother, King Kalakaua. Seven men were killed and the Palace bungalow was blown up.[8] Was that non-violence?
In the 1893 revolution Liliuokalani surrendered without a fight as a cynical strategic move. She wanted to buy time in hopes her friend Grover Cleveland, who would become President a few weeks later, would use U.S. power to put her back on the throne. A Queen sitting in her Palace giving up without a fight in the face of an armed revolution does not make her a practitioner of non-violent resistance or satyagraha.
During the Summer and Fall of 1893 President Cleveland's emissary to Hawaii tried hard to persuade Liliuokalani to agree to pardon the revolutionaries if they would step down and restore her to the throne. But she reportedly said she would behead them. Her repeated insistence on bloodthirsty revenge caused Cleveland's emissary to back away from making further suggestions to her. In a last-ditch effort in December he "ordered" Provisional Government President Dole to step down and restore the Queen, but Dole (understadably!) refused. Liliuokalani's insistence on bloodthirsty revenge, even to the extent of destroying efforts at mediation, is certainly not the way a practitioner of nonviolence should behave.
Martin Luther King and Mahatma Gandhi both put their lives on the line numerous times in the face of violence directed against them close-up-and-personal. King and Gandhi understood a profound spiritual principle that allowed them to harness the inner core of goodness found buried deep inside even the worst racist. They walked in front of their enemies, knowing they would be beaten and abused; but also knowing that their enemies' inner core would rise to the surface and eventually convert them (or at least convert onlookers) to friends.
In 1895 Liliuokalani again conspired with Wilcox in the 1895 attempted counter-revolution. Guns and bombs were hidden in the flower-bed at her home (Washington Place). She had already written letters of appointment for cabinet ministers and department heads in her anticipated new government. Historian Gavan Daws describes it this way: "The grounds of her home at Washington Place were searched, and in the garden the searchers found what they were looking for -- ar egular ammunition dump; twenty-one bombs, some of them made with coconut shells; more than thirty rifles; thirty-eight cartridge belts and about a thousand rounds of ammunition; and some pistols and swords."[9] For that violent crime, and to provide deterrence for royalists who might try it again, she was justifiably sentenced to prison. Martin Luther King's "crime" was parading without a permit. Gandhi's "crime" was going to the ocean to gather salt. Neither of them had guns and bombs at home or anywhere else.
Martin Luther King's prison was a small dirty dungeon with bars and snarling guard dogs. Liliuokalani's "prison" was a huge room at Iolani Palace, larger than most peoples' two bedroom apartments today. In her Palace room she had a full-time maidservant. She also had lots of arts and crafts supplies to pursue her hobbies-- she made a quilt containing royalist political symbols, and composed songs with political double-meanings. The quilt today is displayed with reverence right where she sewed it, and the songs are played at sovereignty rallies.
Liliuokalani was head of a multiracial government, but she used her great political power primarily to pursue racial supremacy. She tried to proclaim a new Constitution to grab near-dictatorial powers for herself. There were reports that her new Constitution would allow voting rights only for ethnic Hawaiians.[10] She used the phrase "my people" to refer to her race rather than her multiracial subjects. King and Gandhi never held government power, and did not seek it. Most importantly, King and Gandhi created lofty universal principles of multiracial unity and equality; and they harnessed a profound spiritual power which Liliuokalani never imagined.
Shame on Hawaiian sovereignty zealots for debasing the memories of Martin Luther King and Mahatma Gandhi by comparing them to Liliuokalani. Shame on Hawaiian sovereigntists for trying togather public support for Liliuokalani as a way of pushing racial supremacy either through the Akaka bill or through secession. And shame on the Hawaiian independence activists who speak with forked tongue, on one side glorifying non-violence while on the other side threatening violence to intimidate school children and adults at the Hawaii Statehood Day celebration on August18, 2006.[11]
For a collection of commentaries and letters to editor in 2006 and previous years regarding the comparison of Liliuokalani with Martin Luther King, see: http://tinyurl.com/4b2qe
NOTES
1. http://tinyurl.com/ye8lea
2. http://tinyurl.com/3mfsw
3. http://morganreport.org/See also "Was the 1893 overthrow of the monarchy illegal?" at http://tinyurl.com/72xeb
4. Stephen Kinzer, "Overthrow : America's century of regime change from Hawaii to Iraq" (New York: Times Books, 2006).
5. It would require a book to describe and document the errors in the apology resolution. The beginnings of such a discrediting can befound in Chapter 10 of Thurston Twigg-Smith's book Hawaiian Sovereignty: Do the FactsMatter?. That book can be downloaded free of charge in pdf format at http://www.hawaiimatters.com/book/HawnSov.pdf
In June 2005 Bruce Fein published a booklet under the auspices of the Grassroot Hawai'i think-tank: "Hawaii Divided Against Itself Cannot Stand." Mr. Fein's essay is of special interest to scholars because of his analysis of the apology resolution of 1993 as well as the provisions ofthe Akaka bill. It can be downloaded in pdf format here: http://tinyurl.com/7d6xq
Senator Kyl (R, AZ) obtained unanimous consent to print Mr. Fein's essay in the Congressional Record in three installments on three consecutive days: June 14, 15, and 16 of 2005. Each installment was introduced by brief remarks by Senator Kyl. The relevant portions of the Congressional Record are copied here: http://tinyurl.com/yewlvh
A very interesting repudiation of the apology resolution is found in an article in the Wall Street Journal of August 16, 2005. Slade Gorton and Hank Brown, two former Senators who had fought against the apology resolution in 1993, published "E Pluribus Unum? Not in Hawaii." They reminded a nationwide audience about some of the historical falsehoods and alerted readers to the fact that the apology resolution is being abused to support the Akaka bill. In 1993 Gorton and Brown had warned their Senate colleagues that the apology resolution would be used to demand race-based government handouts and to support a secessionist movement. Senator Inouye had promised his colleagues, on the floor of the Senate, that the resolution would never be used in any such way. Now 12 years later Senators Gorton and Brown were saying "See, we told you so." http://tinyurl.com/exdg3
6. "WHY ALL AMERICA SHOULD OPPOSE THE HAWAIIAN GOVERNMENT REORGANIZATION BILL, ALSO KNOWN AS THE AKAKA BILL" http://tinyurl.com/yhhz7o
7. The Akaka Bill And Secession: The Hawaiian Government Reorganization bill (Akaka bill) is seen by its supporters as a step toward total independence for all of Hawai'i http://tinyurl.com/4cho6
8. Some court testimony regarding the Wilcox rebellion of 1889 is found in the Morgan Report. See especially the "Morgan's gem" #5 "Wilcox Rebellion 1889 and Dueling Palace Coup Plots" at http://tinyurl.com/ye5a8e
See also Ernest Andrade, Jr., "Unconquerable Rebel: Robert W. Wilcox and Hawaiian Politics,1880-1903 (University Press of Colorado, 1996).
299 pages including extensive footnotes. ISBN:
0-87081-417-6. Ken Conklin's extensive notes on
that book are at http://tinyurl.com/hd44p
9. Gavan Daws, Shoal of Time (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1974), pp. 282-283
See also the Andrade book, above.
10. For example, portions of the alleged new Constitution proposed by Liliuokalani were published in a royalist newspaper Ka Makaainana: Vol. 1, No. 21 (21 May 1894): page 4. Article 62 seems to set forth a racial restriction of voting for ethnic Hawaiians exclusively: "Pauku 62. O nakupa wale no ke hiki ke koho balota, a hoemiia mai hoi ke ana waiwai e kupono ai o na poe koho."
11. For a compilation of news reports and commentaries about the disruption of the Hawaii Statehood Day celebration on August 18, 2006,see: http://tinyurl.com/pdt88
# posted by Grant Jones @ 6:54 PM 
Comments:
<< Home
Everyone needs folk heroes...let them have one. Bad things were done in the past; we can't change that, but there's no need for ridicule either...
I think everyone needs to be more careful in who they choose as their heroes.
If they use those heroes to further a political agenda, then what they were really about is important to know.
If they use those heroes to further a political agenda, then what they were really about is important to know.
I'm cosmopolitian and glad to be free. However, some of my ancesters was not. I thank those who care enough to proclaim my freedom so I am able to write this..
There is nothing so wrong with Hawaii wanting to be recognize as its own state.
Iam proud to be an american. However, you know as well as I do Our President's decision isn't in our best interest. We the people need to be more aware of what's more important to benifit us.
the question I ask you is Hawaii being its own State more important than we the U.S. is going to gain from the war in the Arab countries?
Let hawaii be and lets learn the real facts about this here. I'm not feeling this war is worth the lives of our children, do you?
There is nothing so wrong with Hawaii wanting to be recognize as its own state.
Iam proud to be an american. However, you know as well as I do Our President's decision isn't in our best interest. We the people need to be more aware of what's more important to benifit us.
the question I ask you is Hawaii being its own State more important than we the U.S. is going to gain from the war in the Arab countries?
Let hawaii be and lets learn the real facts about this here. I'm not feeling this war is worth the lives of our children, do you?
# posted by 
: Thursday, February 01, 2007 4:11:00 AM
: Thursday, February 01, 2007 4:11:00 AM
Very well done and thought provoking. I hope this is read everytime the Queen's name or Hawaii illegal overthrow is typed in a search engine. However, I fear the facts do not matter to the activists attempting to rewrite history. These facts get in the way of a great story...
# posted by : Thursday, February 01, 2007 7:50:00 AM
: Thursday, February 01, 2007 7:50:00 AM
The information on this site is as biased as it claims that the Hawai'i sovereignists are. The pertinent facts are available in books which are easily available:
"The Betrayal of Queen Lilioukalani"
"To Steal a Kingdom"
"The Case for Hawai'i Sovereignty"
According to official documents and custom, only those with some aboriginal descent qualified as "Hawai'ian" and those were EXACTLY the persons disenfranchised by the illegal actions of Dole et al both before and after the events of 1893.
According to documents in the founding of the United Nations, the indigenous people of Hawaii were to be allowed to choose what form of government they wanted. The only choice given was statehood or to remain an American territory- and EVERYBODY on the islands at the time was allowed to vote, effectively diempowering (by diluting the effect of their votes)the ONE group who was specifically supposed to make the decision, the ethnic Hawai'ians!! This does not in ANY way meet the requirement made at the founding of the UN.
This site ignores or dismisses without discussion all of these factors.
"The Betrayal of Queen Lilioukalani"
"To Steal a Kingdom"
"The Case for Hawai'i Sovereignty"
According to official documents and custom, only those with some aboriginal descent qualified as "Hawai'ian" and those were EXACTLY the persons disenfranchised by the illegal actions of Dole et al both before and after the events of 1893.
According to documents in the founding of the United Nations, the indigenous people of Hawaii were to be allowed to choose what form of government they wanted. The only choice given was statehood or to remain an American territory- and EVERYBODY on the islands at the time was allowed to vote, effectively diempowering (by diluting the effect of their votes)the ONE group who was specifically supposed to make the decision, the ethnic Hawai'ians!! This does not in ANY way meet the requirement made at the founding of the UN.
This site ignores or dismisses without discussion all of these factors.
# posted by : Saturday, April 19, 2008 11:23:00 PM
: Saturday, April 19, 2008 11:23:00 PM
Thanks for admitting anonymous that the "Hawaii Sovereignty" agenda is based on racial nationalism, a thoroughly evil doctrine.
Hawaiians like everybody else have the natural right just as Germans in Germany, British in Britian and so one to be supreme in their lands.
And Liliuokalani unlike the writer was not dumb enought to foresee that the annexation was in hte jurisdiction of the US. Why else did Clinton apologize to the Hawaiian Kingdom and why is it that Hawaii is not currently an independent country ran by the institutions that Dole setted up? As for the military power that supported the annexation by Dole, who funded them? Where they not under the payroll and funding of the US Government? Follow the money stupid, that is where the liability is!!
And so dont try to legitamize the annexation. All you haoles should get out of the Pacific and go back to Europe. Your greed and attempt to control the world disgusts me, and has left scars on these islands that I loathe. Apologize and go back to where you all came from, the Pacific would do quite better, for we all know from the everyday life that haoles are the worst of racists for they think they are better, at least brown people have a reason and not just a mindset that they are better. And if you dont understand why brown people hate haoles, pickup a book and go through history!!
And Liliuokalani unlike the writer was not dumb enought to foresee that the annexation was in hte jurisdiction of the US. Why else did Clinton apologize to the Hawaiian Kingdom and why is it that Hawaii is not currently an independent country ran by the institutions that Dole setted up? As for the military power that supported the annexation by Dole, who funded them? Where they not under the payroll and funding of the US Government? Follow the money stupid, that is where the liability is!!
And so dont try to legitamize the annexation. All you haoles should get out of the Pacific and go back to Europe. Your greed and attempt to control the world disgusts me, and has left scars on these islands that I loathe. Apologize and go back to where you all came from, the Pacific would do quite better, for we all know from the everyday life that haoles are the worst of racists for they think they are better, at least brown people have a reason and not just a mindset that they are better. And if you dont understand why brown people hate haoles, pickup a book and go through history!!
# posted by : Monday, July 14, 2008 5:53:00 PM
: Monday, July 14, 2008 5:53:00 PM
The above racist diatribe was brought to you by the University of Hawaii. Teaching the illiterate products of the Hawaii State public schools well:
Domain Name hawaii.edu ? (Educational)
IP Address 128.171.57.# (University of Hawaii)
ISP University of Hawaii
Location Continent : North America
Country : United States (Facts)
State : Hawaii
City : Honolulu
Lat/Long : 21.3139, -157.8245 (Map)
Language English (U.S.)[Heh]
One of the reasons I wouldn't go there for free for my Ph.D., in American History, Brown Dude. Pity you are incapable of thinking as an individual, instead of just another tribal cipher parroting the drivel you've "learned" from the likes of Haunani Trask. No doubt the Brown Cipher feals a failure and is filled with animosity. His "teachers" have provided him with a racial enemy. It spares him the trouble of living an examined life.
"Germany for the Volk," that worked out well. It just goes to show that the "sovereignty" bunch are just ethnic cleaners at heart.
Domain Name hawaii.edu ? (Educational)
IP Address 128.171.57.# (University of Hawaii)
ISP University of Hawaii
Location Continent : North America
Country : United States (Facts)
State : Hawaii
City : Honolulu
Lat/Long : 21.3139, -157.8245 (Map)
Language English (U.S.)[Heh]
One of the reasons I wouldn't go there for free for my Ph.D., in American History, Brown Dude. Pity you are incapable of thinking as an individual, instead of just another tribal cipher parroting the drivel you've "learned" from the likes of Haunani Trask. No doubt the Brown Cipher feals a failure and is filled with animosity. His "teachers" have provided him with a racial enemy. It spares him the trouble of living an examined life.
"Germany for the Volk," that worked out well. It just goes to show that the "sovereignty" bunch are just ethnic cleaners at heart.
Its a pity jones that you refuse to hear the other side of the story.Most Americans think that Hawaii is just another state and dont know its history for schools and institutions have been made to make America look great an innocent. UH tells the other side of the story, it may be as biased as how US institutions tell the story, but at least you will be better informed and capable of finding the truth. But its sad that because your ignorant and incapable of making responsible and informed decisions, that you are forced to pass a great opportunity, and earn a free education here at UH.
Bottom line is this blog is ridiculous; you seem to try and legitimize Hawaii's annexation, while undermining Liliuokalani's reputation. Just because some people chose to make a differentiation between Liliuokalani and Gandhi or King at East West, that does not give you grounds to attack the Hawaii Sovereignty Movement or anyone who adores Liliuokalani for that matter. Your ideas are as biased as those presenters from the East West, and I will attack you for that. But again, its a great thing that I am an informed individual and am not mislead by your attempt to belittle Liliuokalani. And why do you try to take the blame off of the US for Hawaii's annexation? What ship did the military force for the annexation come off of? What is not the "USS" Boston? Dont fool yourself and think that you can make ridiculous comments and get away with them, its ignorant people like you that spark anger. Be realistic in what you say, and you should really come to UH and hear the other side, at least you will be more credible and accurate. Unless, of course, you are shallow minded and incapable of making decisions for yourself and only believe what you are told, rather than making the difference and learning the other side before opening your mouth.
Bottom line is this blog is ridiculous; you seem to try and legitimize Hawaii's annexation, while undermining Liliuokalani's reputation. Just because some people chose to make a differentiation between Liliuokalani and Gandhi or King at East West, that does not give you grounds to attack the Hawaii Sovereignty Movement or anyone who adores Liliuokalani for that matter. Your ideas are as biased as those presenters from the East West, and I will attack you for that. But again, its a great thing that I am an informed individual and am not mislead by your attempt to belittle Liliuokalani. And why do you try to take the blame off of the US for Hawaii's annexation? What ship did the military force for the annexation come off of? What is not the "USS" Boston? Dont fool yourself and think that you can make ridiculous comments and get away with them, its ignorant people like you that spark anger. Be realistic in what you say, and you should really come to UH and hear the other side, at least you will be more credible and accurate. Unless, of course, you are shallow minded and incapable of making decisions for yourself and only believe what you are told, rather than making the difference and learning the other side before opening your mouth.
No jones, what you should do, is be realistic and expect racism towards you, when your words express racism. Do you really expect that you can verbally attack Hawaii's last queen and pass through without a fight? For all her faults, she was a leader and must be revered as one. You say she sought her people (the Hawaiians) interest, but that is her job, to preserve and promote the Hawaiian race for she is the Hawaiian Queen.
The only reason why Hawaii was annexed and this conversation exists, is due to the greed of white businessmen like Dole, who wanted to continue and grow richer of Hawaiian lands and off the labor of many ethnic groups from all over the world in the sugar plantation. And so when we look at it, whether or not Liliuokalani was non-violent or not, she was a great leader, who sought the best for her people. And did you know that upon her death, she used her wealth to assist with hospital patients, which led to the creation of the Liliuokalani Medical Health Center? Just FYI, and jones, you should come to UH, it will be good for you.
And dont think that I am hasty and not a critical thinker, I am an economics and political science major and am more than capable to thinking and analyzing facts, and am very aware of biases and its reflection on every kind of work, for it is what we as social scientists are taught to do. I dont know about historians, but I heard that they are more documenter and not critical thinkers or analyzers. I apologize for not liking you, but your blog is too biased and negative that I will forever judge you on it. And I hope you do come to UH, and really see who was the victim in this particular part in history, most of the World and even the US Government as expressed by Clinton believes it was Hawaii, you on the other hand seem to think of the victims as the whites whose vast wealth we can see today, but again, your a historian and only document what you are told. I guess I cant really blame you, since its your nature.
The only reason why Hawaii was annexed and this conversation exists, is due to the greed of white businessmen like Dole, who wanted to continue and grow richer of Hawaiian lands and off the labor of many ethnic groups from all over the world in the sugar plantation. And so when we look at it, whether or not Liliuokalani was non-violent or not, she was a great leader, who sought the best for her people. And did you know that upon her death, she used her wealth to assist with hospital patients, which led to the creation of the Liliuokalani Medical Health Center? Just FYI, and jones, you should come to UH, it will be good for you.
And dont think that I am hasty and not a critical thinker, I am an economics and political science major and am more than capable to thinking and analyzing facts, and am very aware of biases and its reflection on every kind of work, for it is what we as social scientists are taught to do. I dont know about historians, but I heard that they are more documenter and not critical thinkers or analyzers. I apologize for not liking you, but your blog is too biased and negative that I will forever judge you on it. And I hope you do come to UH, and really see who was the victim in this particular part in history, most of the World and even the US Government as expressed by Clinton believes it was Hawaii, you on the other hand seem to think of the victims as the whites whose vast wealth we can see today, but again, your a historian and only document what you are told. I guess I cant really blame you, since its your nature.
Anonymous Guy, I'll leave aside your gross ignorance of what historians actually do as it has nothing to do with the post.
I'll just note, Mr. Anonymous Critical Thinker, there is no such thing as a racial interest. That you're a militant collectivist shouldn't be surprising. It is the programming you have received throughout your education.
Liliuokalani was no more a "great leader" than her brother. She was filled with hubris and paid the price. The Revolutionaries of 1893 no more needed help from the U.S. than they did in 1887.
As for the white man's "greed," it is the capitalist system of Western Civilization that created the wealth you enjoy at UH. People who think they have a "right" to the products of modern science, technology, and industry, but also attack their causes are fundamentally dishonest. Anyone who wants effects without causes is not a "critical thinker." When the first missionaries arrived in Hawaii they brought Western trained doctors. The alii did their best to keep one of these doctors close at hand. Knowledge is the source of wealth. It is the knowledge of Western science that makes the Queen's Medical Centernamed after Emma) possible.
As for Clinton's apology, he is an ignorant buffoon. And Akaka and Inouye lied about their intentions.
I'll just note, Mr. Anonymous Critical Thinker, there is no such thing as a racial interest. That you're a militant collectivist shouldn't be surprising. It is the programming you have received throughout your education.
Liliuokalani was no more a "great leader" than her brother. She was filled with hubris and paid the price. The Revolutionaries of 1893 no more needed help from the U.S. than they did in 1887.
As for the white man's "greed," it is the capitalist system of Western Civilization that created the wealth you enjoy at UH. People who think they have a "right" to the products of modern science, technology, and industry, but also attack their causes are fundamentally dishonest. Anyone who wants effects without causes is not a "critical thinker." When the first missionaries arrived in Hawaii they brought Western trained doctors. The alii did their best to keep one of these doctors close at hand. Knowledge is the source of wealth. It is the knowledge of Western science that makes the Queen's Medical Centernamed after Emma) possible.
As for Clinton's apology, he is an ignorant buffoon. And Akaka and Inouye lied about their intentions.
Dole and his men are terrorists at best and do not deserve the honor of being called revolutionaries.
And greed did not produce technology and all the modern breakthroughs that makes present life possible. Identify a product of Dole's greed that I should be thankful for? If not for Dole, we would not be having this conversation for Liliuokalani would had been just another queen and not the last monarchial figure that represents the old days when Hawaii was independent.
And do not mix-up terrorists like Dole with great scientists who loved science and worked for the greater good of humanity. Science is not driven by greed, but rather by and interest for knowledge. They get high compensation for they are skilled workers whose breakthroughs are of high value, since they benefit humanity. Yes, some may be driven by the greed for money, but unlike Dole, these men will claim what is theirs and not carryout terrorist acts against another nation.
And yes, I have FULL RIGHT to what I enjoy here at UH for I pay for it. Do you think that these services are free? What any European, Asian, American, Hawaiian or any other country's byproduct is offered at a price and once I buy it, I have FULL RIGHT to it, for I have compensated the services of the producer.
And STOP trying to take the blame off the US for taking this land. I do not know if you are aware of the Bayonet Constiution, but if you really know history, you should know of US interests of Pearl Harbor. The US is as guilty as Dole for illegally annexing Hawaii and not returning it, even when they had the chance after World War 2, when the Trust Territories of the Pacific were supposed to be given a chance to choose their political direction, teh US failed to fulfill their obligation to the UN.
And I will tell you, one more time, that I created my own way of thinking. Cause to tell you the truth, I have not even taken a course here at UH that discusses Hawaii's history. I researched all these infromation that I am discussing with you. You however, should come to UH and hear the other side of the story.
And stop voicing you opinion about Inouye or Clinton and stick to facts. Interpret facts for that is how debates and discussions are to be carried out and not just based on your opinion.
And greed did not produce technology and all the modern breakthroughs that makes present life possible. Identify a product of Dole's greed that I should be thankful for? If not for Dole, we would not be having this conversation for Liliuokalani would had been just another queen and not the last monarchial figure that represents the old days when Hawaii was independent.
And do not mix-up terrorists like Dole with great scientists who loved science and worked for the greater good of humanity. Science is not driven by greed, but rather by and interest for knowledge. They get high compensation for they are skilled workers whose breakthroughs are of high value, since they benefit humanity. Yes, some may be driven by the greed for money, but unlike Dole, these men will claim what is theirs and not carryout terrorist acts against another nation.
And yes, I have FULL RIGHT to what I enjoy here at UH for I pay for it. Do you think that these services are free? What any European, Asian, American, Hawaiian or any other country's byproduct is offered at a price and once I buy it, I have FULL RIGHT to it, for I have compensated the services of the producer.
And STOP trying to take the blame off the US for taking this land. I do not know if you are aware of the Bayonet Constiution, but if you really know history, you should know of US interests of Pearl Harbor. The US is as guilty as Dole for illegally annexing Hawaii and not returning it, even when they had the chance after World War 2, when the Trust Territories of the Pacific were supposed to be given a chance to choose their political direction, teh US failed to fulfill their obligation to the UN.
And I will tell you, one more time, that I created my own way of thinking. Cause to tell you the truth, I have not even taken a course here at UH that discusses Hawaii's history. I researched all these infromation that I am discussing with you. You however, should come to UH and hear the other side of the story.
And stop voicing you opinion about Inouye or Clinton and stick to facts. Interpret facts for that is how debates and discussions are to be carried out and not just based on your opinion.
Thanks for posting. Even now, two years after the post date, it's good to find a rebuttal of the typical revisionist slant. I've made a copy so that I can review it before the family reunions with my sovereignty inclined 'ohana.
# posted by : Thursday, February 19, 2009 10:32:00 PM
: Thursday, February 19, 2009 10:32:00 PM
Anonymous, you're welcome. Be sure to check out Ken Conklin's website. It is full of such useful articles and information.
Hey now, Ken Conklin is not the person to cite when talking about "fair and unbiased" works; his "facts" can't even stand up to an actual academic piece. He and his cronies have taken over the wiki pages on these important topics, which require critical thought, not biased views of crazy people. Don't believe the hype.
It is also hyper offensive to see a typical white man, who has received a typical white-colorblind education to (badly) attempt to make blatant statements about radical people of color, and who's actions merit more respect. It funny when members of the offending group tries to white-wash a history and can't even get the facts straight about the offenses that HIS government engaged in.
Your analysis sucks. sorry.
Post a Comment
It is also hyper offensive to see a typical white man, who has received a typical white-colorblind education to (badly) attempt to make blatant statements about radical people of color, and who's actions merit more respect. It funny when members of the offending group tries to white-wash a history and can't even get the facts straight about the offenses that HIS government engaged in.
Your analysis sucks. sorry.
<< Home
