3 Dialogs: Ken Conklin (plus several others) vs. Keokani Kipona Marciel (plus a couple serious supporters plus a troll). The main topic is the Treaty of Annexation between Hawaii and the U.S. (1898), but there is also some discussion about the Hawaiian revolution (1893). And then there's an off-topic debate over a troll's assertion that the Southern Poverty Law Center called Conklin a white racist.


by Kenneth R. Conklin, Ph.D. November 18, 2017

From time to time a Hawaiian activist will suddenly pop up "out of the blue" and begin posting online comments about Hawaiian history and Hawaiian sovereignty in numerous different places. The newcomer's comments are usually superficial parroting of the "party line" -- i.e., the same falsehoods previously posted by other Hawaiian sovereignty activists. The newcomer usually does not cite reputable sources to prove his assertions. The newcomer wants to show off his loyalty to the cause and wants to harass any serious scholar who dares to post more accurate or thoughtful comments. If a substantive dialog ensues, the newcomer soon shows that his knowledge is superficial, or else he abandons the dialog, or else he launches irrelevant personal attacks against his opponent in order to divert the discussion away from the topic of discussion. Then days, weeks, or months later the newcomer continues to reassert his same nonsense in new places, having learned nothing from what happened before.

Following are three dialogs with Keokani Kipona Marciel taken from comment sections from articles in two different online newspapers, one beginning on November 10, 2017 (Newsweek) and the other two beginning November 13 and November 14, 2017 (Honolulu Civil Beat). In all three cases Marciel asserted there is no Treaty of Annexation between the United States and Hawaii, even when that topic was not raised in the article or was not a main focus of the discussion. This seems to be Marciel's favorite topic, and he seems desperate to insert it even when it is irrelevant -- perhaps it's the only topic he thinks he has knowledge about. As usual with Hawaiian activists, falsehoods stated and refuted in one venue are then re-asserted in a different venue a couple days later as though they had not previously been refuted. Also, as often happens, the Hawaiian activist or his buddies in the "movement" (or even fellow-travelers on the editorial staff!) do whatever they can to get refutations deleted or sabotaged or diverted to personal attacks.

The dialogs below are from the comment sections following articles published in the online version of Newsweek magazine and in two daily editions of an online newspaper. Therefore in each case the full article is copied to put the comments into context, and then the comments relevant to the dialog are copied in chronological order. The articles and comments were occasioned by announced weekend events in Hawaii to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the death of ex-queen Lili'uokalani on November 11, 1917.

Table of contents: Scroll down to find the items in the order listed.

1. Newsweek online, afternoon on Friday November 10, 2017 [presumably for print on November 11 or later].
How Hawaii Lost Its Last Queen, Liliuokalani, to the Fruit Tycoons at Dole
Struggle over online comments and third-party deletions continued for three days, until editor posted a notice "This thread is closed".

2. Honolulu Civil Beat "Community Voice" (guest editorial) posted very early Monday November 13, 2017.
Hawaii's BLNR, Mauna Kea And Settler Colonialism
The Board of Land and Natural Resources "cultural expert" doesn't have the authority to represent the interests of Native Hawaiians.

3. Honolulu Civil Beat "Community Voice" (guest editorial) posted very early Tuesday November 14, 2017.
Remembering The Queen's Compassion For Others
Liliuokalani, the beloved Hawaiian monarch, died 100 years ago this month.

4. Some related dialogs and webpages


=============

1. Newsweek online, afternoon on Friday November 10, 2017 [presumably for print on November 11 or later].
How Hawaii Lost Its Last Queen, Liliuokalani, to the Fruit Tycoons at Dole
Struggle over online comments and third-party deletions continued for three days, until editor posted a notice "This thread is closed".

http://www.newsweek.com/how-hawaii-lost-its-last-queen-liliuokalani-fruit-tycoons-dole-708512

How Hawaii Lost Its Last Queen, Liliuokalani, to the Fruit Tycoons at Dole

By Kristin Hugo

Today, Hawaii has a democratically elected governor. Until 1893, it had a queen, who died 100 years ago today. But plantations, the American government and a coup changed all that.

Smithsonian recently published an article on Liliuokalani, just shy of the hundredth anniversary of the former Hawaiian queen's death. As the story details, her rise to power involved the deaths of a former king, which led to her brother ruling; his death led to her queenship. The fall of Liliuokalani, and of Hawaii as a kingdom, is stranger, and involves sugar and pineapples.

In the 1880s, American sugar and pineapple companies grew tremendously on the islands which at the time were subject to the rule of a native monarchy. The businesspeople had a problem with the royalty of the island, and in 1887, people who were affiliated with pineapple and sugar plantations forced Liliuokalani's brother, who was king at the time, to sign a new constitution. The Bayonet Constitution, which was signed at literal gunpoint, reduced monarchy rule and mandated that only people of certain ethnicities and who were rich enough could vote.

When Liliuokalani inherited the throne, she had no interest in this new constitution and proposed her own. The move angered the businesspeople, and only a coup to overthrow Hawaiian royalty entirely would do.

Sanford Dole led the coup with the help of the American government. His cousin once removed, James Dole, started The Hawaiian Pineapple Company, which is now Dole Food Company, on the islands. American militia came to the island, threatening battle, and Liliuokalani surrendered. After the coup succeeded, Sanford Dole was named president of the Republic of Hawaii.

Hawaii was later annexed from a U.S. territory to a state. David Ige is the current governor. Some descendants of Hawaiian royalty are trying to reinstate a monarchy.

Liliuokalani's life before the coup was more picturesque and fitting of a tropical queen. She married an American, adopted several children and was a songwriter. One of her songs, "Aloha Oe," remains to this day the most well-known Hawaiian song. Translated as "Farewell to Thee," it ultimately became a somber allusion to the sun setting on the Kingdom of Hawaii.

---------

** On November 10 Ken Conklin posted the following comment:

In January 1893 162 U.S. sailors were sent ashore in Honolulu as peacekeepers to protect American lives and property and to prevent arson and rioting, because there were competing mass meetings of Royalists and revolutionaries and violence seemed likely. The U.S. peacekeepers acted just like they have acted in other similar situations in places like Haiti, Grenada, Liberia, etc. The peacekeepers never took over any buildings, never patrolled the streets, never gave any arms or ammunition or food to either side. When they landed in the harbor and marched past the Palace on their way to a place to spend the night, they dipped the U.S. flag in salute to the Queen, who was standing on the balcony. It was an armed militia of local men, with 1500 members, who did the revolution. One year later the U.S. Senate Committee on foreign affairs held a month of public hearings, with testimony under oath and cross-examination, and concluded that the U.S. was not to blame and did nothing wrong. The entire 808-page transcript is called The Morgan Report and is on the internet, accompanied by summaries and commentaries by the editors who digitized it and created a space for it on the internet. This weekend's commemoration of the centennial of Lili'uokalani's death is an anti-American and anti-Caucasian propaganda event whose purpose is to push for Hawaiian sovereignty either by ripping the 50th star off Old Glory (secession) or by turning 600,000 ethnic Hawaiians (one drop of the magic blood is all that's needed) into a federally recognized Indian tribe. To understand what's happening, read the book "Hawaiian Apartheid: Racial Separatism and Ethnic Nationalism in the Aloha State."

------------

Reply from Keokani Kipona Marciel, 11/10/17

The Marines were landed unlawfully in collaboration with Minister Stevens. They went directly to the Palace and took up a defensive position against it, to allow the 13 insurgents to seize the government. That was not a revolution. That was the installation of a puppet regime. In any case, there is no treaty of cession that came of it. Of course, Mr. Conklin skips over the Blount Report and only mentions the Morgan Report. The book recommended by Mr. Conklin is his own self-published book.

---------------

Rebuttal from Ken Conklin to Marciel's response 11/10/17

"The Marines ... went directly to the Palace and took up a defensive position against it" FALSE. I challenge Marciel to cite any reputable source that says the sailors ever surrounded the Palace or entered Palace grounds or "took up a defensive position against it." They marched PAST the Palace on their way to where they hoped to spend the night; and seeing the Queen standing on the balcony, they dipped the U.S. flag as a sign of respect to her.

"... allow the 13 insurgents to seize the government." NONSENSE! What kind of government could be overthrown by a mere 13 insurgents? The Honolulu Rifles were a HUGE militia. Also, In 1893, Cleveland's "fact finder" to Hawaii, James H. Blount, wrote in his report that the 5,500 members of the city's Annexation Club at that time included 1,218 Americans (22 percent of the club); 1,022 Native Hawaiians (19 percent); 251 Englishmen (5 percent); 2,261 Portuguese (41 percent); 69 Norwegians (1 percent); 351 Germans (6 percent), along with 328 persons unclassified but making up the balance. Also, the Committee of Safety, a group of 13 men who organized the revolution, included 3 native-born subjects of the Kingdom plus 4 more who were naturalized subjects; while the remaining 6 were longtime residents, taxpayers, and business-owners in Hawaii.

"That was the installation of a puppet regime." FALSE. There were two stages in the creation of the successor government. During both stages, all the foreign governments which had a presence in Hawaii gave the maximum level of diplomatic recognition appropriate to that stage, thereby showing that they did not consider the successor government to be merely a puppet. Those two stages are explained in the next two comments, along wigth proof.

Within two days after the revolution every consul of all the nations that had consulates in Honolulu delivered a letter to President Dole granting diplomatic recognition de facto to the revolutionary Provisional (i.e., temporary) government. That means those consuls agreed that the Provisional Government had taken power, and those nations would now do business with the PG rather than with the ex-queen. De facto recognition is all a consul is empowered to grant. Also, de facto is the only level of recognition given to a self-described temporary provisional government. All letters of de facto recognition from local consuls in Honolulu, January 17-19, 1893 were published in the local newspaper and later reprinted in the Morgan Report -- read those letters at
http://tinyurl.com/9f4vh4

A year and a half later, when the Provisional Government had produced a new Constitution and proclaimed a permanent Republic of Hawaii, President Dole spoke with the local consuls of foreign nations. He gave them copies of the Constitution, asked them to notify their home governments about the creation of the Republic of Hawaii, and requested full diplomatic recognition. A New York Times article of July 22, 1894 repeats a news report that arrived in San Francisco by ship from Honolulu; about the creation of the Republic of Hawaii on July 4, the huge multiracial crowd celebrating it on the streets of Honolulu, a weak protest by dejected royalists, and the immediate informal recognition given to the Republic by U.S. Minister Willis and various local consuls from other nations. See
http://www.angelfire.com/big09a/RepublicNYT1894July22.pdf

During the following six months President Dole received the letters of full diplomatic recognition he had requested. The archives of the State of Hawaii has the original letters addressed to President Dole personally signed by kings, queens, emperors, and presidents of at least 20 nations on 4 continents, written in 11 languages, formally granting full diplomatic recognition de jure to the Republic as the rightful government of the nation of Hawaii. Among the signers were Queen Victoria of England, two Princes of China on behalf of the Emperor, the Tsar of Russia, the King and Queen of Spain; the President of France, the President of Brazil, and yes, even President Grover Cleveland. A couple years later the Emperor of Japan personally signed a letter to President Dole raising the Japanese consulate to the status of Legation -- a status never enjoyed by the Kingdom.

Photographs of the letters of recognition have been placed on a webpage at
https://historymystery.kenconklin.org/recognition-of-the-republic-of-hawaii/
The historical significance of those letters and their implications for statehood, Akaka bill, and ceded lands; are explained at
http://tinyurl.com/2pxqgz
along with a detailed example of the Hawaiian sovereignty lie that such letters do not exist.

---------------

** On the following day, November 11, 2017, Ken Conklin returned to the Newsweek article online to see what further discussion might have ensued. Conklin was shocked to discover that his entire rebuttal had been deleted! How could such a thing have happened? If you look carefully, and hover your cursor over the right-hand margin of a comment on the line where a commenter's name appears, you will discover a small downward-pointing carrot. Clicking on the carrot offers a menu to collapse, delete, or embed the comment. Presumably Mr. Marciel, or another Hawaiian activist, or perhaps the Newsweek editor or the author of the article, had deleted Conklin's rebuttal! Very dishonest. So on November 11 Conklin posted it again. But only the top three paragraphs of the rebuttal eventually survived, ending with the sentence "Those two stages are explained in the next two comments, along wigth proof." The proof was gone, including the links to webpages providing photos of the letters of recognition from foreign heads of state. Conklin tried to re-post the remainder of the rebuttal, one paragraph at a time; but those portions were deleted again. On November 12 Conklin succeeded in re-posting for a third time a couple portions of what had been deleted. And a day or two after that the editor posted an information notification: "This thread is closed". In addition, there was NOTHING remaining from the comment(s) posted by the Hawaiian activist Keokani Kipona Marciel; so he is spared the embarrassment of having anyone see his nonsense and his failure to engage in serious discussion.

To view what remains online on the Newsweek website as of November 18, go to
http://www.newsweek.com/how-hawaii-lost-its-last-queen-liliuokalani-fruit-tycoons-dole-708512


===============

2. Honolulu Civil Beat "Community Voice" (guest editorial) posted very early Monday November 13, 2017.
Hawaii's BLNR, Mauna Kea And Settler Colonialism
The Board of Land and Natural Resources "cultural expert" doesn't have the authority to represent the interests of Native Hawaiians.

By Sam Ikehara
[* Editor's endnote: About the Author
Sam Ikehara completed her BA and MA at the University of Hawaii at Manoa and is currently a PhD student at the University of Southern California.]

On Oct. 27, members of the Hawaii Unity and Liberation Institute gathered at the state Board of Land and Natural Resources meeting demanding the resignation of Sam Gon III, the so-called "cultural expert" who serves on the board and has voted in favor of the Thirty Meter Telescope three times.

Despite their peaceful protest, three Hawaiian protectors -- Kaleikoa Ka'eo, Kaho'okahi Kanuha and Andre Perez -- were arrested for speaking the truth, that Gon, as a non-Hawaiian, doesn't have the kuleana to represent the interests of Hawaiian people.

It's crucial that Hawaiian voices are foregrounded in the TMT struggle, which is why this op-ed isn't about the TMT or Mauna Kea as much as it's about the responsibilities we as non-Hawaiians have to Hawaiians.

I write as an Asian settler myself, calling on all settlers in Hawaii to recognize that Gon isn't just a "Hawaiian issue" -- he is our problem too, and arguably the problem of everyone in Hawaii who desires a sustainable future.

[** Photo caption: In June 2015, demonstrators lined the access road running up Mauna Kea, chanting against the Department of Land and Natural Resources.
Cory Lum/Civil Beat]

Perhaps even more significantly, however, Gon is just the latest iteration of a systemic issue of Asian-settler colonialism. We can call for his resignation and stand in solidarity with HULI while also staying focused on the larger system that enables individuals like Gon to occupy positions of power and make decisions at the expense of Hawaiians.

As Ka'eo has revealed, the struggle over Mauna Kea isn't a rejection of science; it's about the humanity of Hawaiians and their right to be self-determining.

"We're demanding to the world that we be recognized as human," Ka'eo states, "that we be afforded the right to protect our sacred sites."

A lot of people see themselves as having nothing to do with the TMT or Hawaiian independence. They believe the most convenient truth available to them: that they can happily live in Hawaii and remain apolitical. What they don't realize is that, in an illegally occupied territory like Hawaii, there is no neutral space to claim.

Settler colonialism has us believe that development is necessary because it's in service of "progress." But developmental narratives are predicated on envisioning a future where Hawaiians remain on the periphery, or worse, don't exist at all.

As non-Hawaiians in Hawaii, or settlers, we're all implicated in the violence against Hawaiians that happens every day through settler colonialism, through our participation in and identification with the U.S. settler state, through our refusal to name the violence and interrogate our complicity in it. By violence, I mean the unjust arrests, as well as Gon's disavowal of the very people whose culture he claims expertise in.

In an illegally occupied territory like Hawaii, there is no neutral space to claim. While Act 104 once stated that a cultural expert must assist the board "with respect to native Hawaiian issues," later iterations no longer include that language, despite the law's original intention to represent "Hawaiian concerns" on the BLNR.

This begs the question: why have a "cultural expert" if they aren't representing Hawaiian interests? To push for development while claiming they have the backing of a "cultural expert"?

I don't doubt that Gon is knowledgeable of Hawaiian culture, but his "expertise" must be called into question if he doesn't believe that desecration of a sacred site is hewa. Non-Hawaiian people can and should learn about Hawaiian culture, but we must do so while acknowledging our position as settlers and the privileges that we have under U.S. occupation.

And when it comes to positions of authority, like this "cultural expert" seat on the BLNR, we need to recognize that this isn't our place to settler-splain (like man-splaining, but with our settler privilege). In a settler colonial system that actively works to diminish and even eradicate Hawaiians' relationship with their ancestors, the land, Hawaiians must be the ones leading these conversations.

A Hawaiian Epistemology

There are so many questions we need to continually ask ourselves in an effort to unsettle our positions as settlers, but one crucial one we all need to be thinking about now is, why have a non-Hawaiian person serve as "cultural expert" when there are numerous Hawaiian cultural practitioners who have the expertise to serve the board?

How can we use our privilege to stand behind Hawaiians and support their struggle for self-determination? Part of this is realizing that what's often cast as "Hawaiian issues" are everyone's issues, and that rather than retreat to an apolitical space, we can think critically about our own practices and beliefs, make the effort to learn more about Hawaiian history and epistemologies, and get involved with one of the many ongoing struggles in the island against development and militarization.

As Ka'eo said on the morning of his arrest, "to be Hawaiian is a criminal act."

[** Photo caption: Mauna Kea "protector" Kaho'okahi Kanuha makes a point during a BLNR meeting in Honolulu in July 2015.
Cory Lum/Civil Beat]

This is precisely because the Hawaiian principle and practice of aloha aina and cultural literacy of moolelo that recognizes the sacred and cultural significance of land directly contradicts the settler state's interests.

Above all else, the settler state cares about development, and Candace Fujikane, a professor at University of Hawaii Manoa, has argued in her research that the state divides land into smaller areas in order to say that while one area may be significant, another is not, so that developers can go ahead with their projects.

This is impossible in a Hawaiian epistemology. The environmental and cultural impact statement of Mauna a Wakea, for example, claims that all of the mountain is sacred, not just the summit. And if this wasn't already clear from the testimony of a number of Hawaiian cultural practitioners, no amount of money from the TMT is worth the desecration of Mauna Kea.

Land And People

Mauna Kea was born of the union of Papahanaumoku and Wakea, just as the Hawaiian people were. As Kekuewa Kikiloi, a professor of Hawaiian Studies at UH Manoa, writes, this shared ancestry "forges links between the genealogies of both land and people."

As people of non-Hawaiian descent, however, our own genealogical ties are elsewhere, my own being in Okinawa, Japan and China.

By acknowledging the political power that we now have, I don't mean to diminish the histories of oppression that Asian laborers on plantations suffered. While it is important that those histories are not lost, we must recognize what our role is in the present moment.

We can do nothing and thus stand with the settler state who perpetuates violence against Hawaiians every day in the form of dispossession, water diversion, militarization, sand-mining, the desecration of Haleakala and Mauna Kea. Or we can fulfill our moral and political imperative and stand behind the lahui Kanaka, who are tirelessly working to actualize a sustainable future for all people who live in Hawaii.

Gon made his choice to align himself with the settler state, and for that reason, he must resign. But we can still make ours.

------------

November 13 online comment by Ken Conklin [got at least 13 reactions expressing "respect" -- the most of any comment]

Please consider the difference between being a race-warrior claiming to be a champion pushing the partisan political views of a racial group, vs. being a scholar who has broad and deep knowledge of environmental science and of a culture.

The Land Board's positions are designated by law to be filled by people with specific qualifications. The position held by Sam Gon requires an expert on both environmental science and Hawaiian culture; it does NOT specify that the person must be a racial partisan fighting for a certain radical view which the radicals claim is THE view of a racial group.

Consider whether a university faculty position on "womens' history" in a Department of Women's Studies must be filled by a woman, or whether a man with expertise in that subject could be hired to fill the position. Likewise, could a Caucasian or Asian be given a job as a professor of Black Studies? Such jobs require KNOWLEDGE and the ability to express it clearly, they do not require a person to BE of a specific gender or race, and they do not require the person to be a partisan agitator for a specific political position. It is unfortunate that today's "political correctness" demands the positions must be filled based on someone's identity and political viewpoint rather than knowledge.

Sam Gon, Ph.D., is senior scientist and cultural advisor for the Nature Conservancy of Hawaii, and for BLNR. He is also a fluent speaker of Hawaiian. He has great expertise in Hawaiian culture and as a chanter, and has been welcomed as a leader by ethnic Hawaiian cultural leaders at Hawaiian cultural events for decades. He was recently named a "Living Treasure" of Hawaii. See his knowledge and personality on display in a video interview at
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lD354_qYJjk

The protesters behaved with vicious racism when they demanded his removal as cultural advisor merely because he lacks a drop of the magic blood.

Another man who might be attacked in the same way is Kepa Maly, who was hanai'd to an ethnic Hawaiian family on Lana'i, where he grew up and became founder and director of a Hawaiian historical and cultural center. Many ethnic Hawaiian families, with whom he grew up, were very glad to have Kepa Maly speak on their behalf during environmental impact hearings regarding a previous telescope project more than a decade ago.

The guys who got arrested at BLNR are well known Hawaiian race-nationalist agitators: Kaleikoa Kaeo, Kahookahi Kanuha, and Andre Perez. They were arrested not for peacefully daring to speak truth to power, not for representing on behalf of the ethnic group they claim to represent -- they got arrested for repeatedly and aggressively disrupting a public hearing and preventing other views from being heard, just as the crazies who put boulders in the road on Mauna Kea to block access should be arrested. They have brought shame upon themselves and their supporters.

----------

** Additional November 13 online comment by Ken Conklin

A book entitled "Asian Settler Colonialism" was published in 2008 by the University of Hawaii Press. The book (and the viewpoint of the authors of today's article) is deeply insulting to Hawaii's people of Asian ancestry.

The first insult comes by telling them that they are guilty of collaborating with Caucasians to oppress ethnic Hawaiians.

The next insult comes by telling them that even if they were born and raised in Hawaii -- even if their families have lived in Hawaii for several generations, they are merely "settlers" in someone else's homeland and they have a duty to abandon their hard-won equal rights in order to accept a position of subservience to ethnic Hawaiians.

Perhaps the deepest insult of all is the book's attempt to undermine the patriotism of Asian Americans by telling them they have a moral duty to help Hawaiian sovereignty activists liberate Hawaii from American colonialism and rip the 50th star off the flag. If anyone thinks this paragraph is an exaggeration, or a case of fear-mongering, then please read my entire book review, including the book's five-page celebratory explanation of the metaphors in a political cartoon showing Hawaii's first Filipino Governor, Ben Cayetano, lynching a Native Hawaiian in order to give pleasure to a Caucasian.

There's a struggle underway for the hearts and minds of Hawaii's people of Asian ancestry regarding the issue of Hawaiian sovereignty. The book tries to lay a guilt trip on Hawaii's Asian population in hopes of enlisting them to support an ethnic Hawaiian agenda of blood nationalism. The good thing about this book is that it brings brings to public awareness a truly frightening belief-system. People inclined to support Hawaiian sovereignty, but who lack native blood, will discover that they are actually supporting the destruction of their own hard-won freedoms and individual rights.

See my detailed book review from 2008 at
http://tinyurl.com/8mkdmj

See also my 2016 webpage "Hawaiian religious fascism. A twisted version of a beautiful creation legend provides the theological basis for a claim that ethnic Hawaiians are entitled to racial supremacy in the governance and cultural life of the Hawaiian islands.: at
http://tinyurl.com/j4o2cdj

----------

November 13 off-topic online reply to Conklin by Keokani Kipona Marciel discussing independence and annexation -- topics which had not been raised in the article nor in any comment before his]

There were two failed attempts to ratify a bilateral treaty of cession in the U.S. Senate, in 1893 and 1897, to annex the Hawaiian Islands. The joint resolution subsequently passed by U.S. Congress in 1898 is a domestic law incapable of reaching across borders to unilaterally acquire the sovereignty and territory of a foreign country. Therefore, the statehood admission act of 1959 created a 50th state with no actual territory or sovereignty. So, the 50th state legally exists under U.S. law, albeit with no defined territory under international law, analogous to an empty container. The preceding 49 states were all admitted from territory acquired through bilateral treaties of cession.

The Hawaiian Kingdom was formally admitted to the Family of Nations on 11/28/1843, by joint proclamation of Great Britain and France. The U.S. formally recognized the independence of the Hawaiian Kingdom on 7/6/1846. The government of the Hawaiian Kingdom was compromised by insurgents on 7/1/1887 and unlawfully seized on 1/17/1893. To this day, there exists no bilateral treaty of cession terminating the Hawaiian Kingdom as a sovereign independent State, which remains under prolonged illegal occupation since the military invasion of 1/16/1893.

A bilateral treaty of cession is analogous to a marriage contract. Cession is the prerequisite for secession, just as marriage is prerequisite for divorce. There is no treaty of cession for Hawai'i to get divorced from. Therefore, the applicable legal process is de-occupation, not secession.

----------

November 13 rebuttal to Marciel by Conklin:

First in 1893 the revolutionary Provisional Government was given de facto recognition (temporary recognition as proper for a temporary government, confirming that the revolution had been successful) within 2 days by every nation's local consulate in Honolulu by means of letters published in the Honolulu newspaper. Read those letters as republished by Congress at
http://tinyurl.com/9f4vh4

Then when the permanent successor government was created in 1894, that Republic of Hawaii was formally recognized as the rightful, lawful government by letters in 11 languages personally signed by emperors, kings, queens, and presidents of at least 19 foreign nations on 4 continents: See photos at
http://tinyurl.com/gmdtgmy

--------

November 14 counter-rebuttal to Conklin by Marciel:

The self-declared "Provisional Government" was not revolutionary because it seized the Hawaiian government with an unlawful protectorate of U.S. Marines. Third party recognition does not terminate an illegal occupation in lieu of a treaty of cession.

---------

November 14 response to Marciel by Conklin

Marciel says "The self-declared "Provisional Government" was not revolutionary because it seized the Hawaiian government with an unlawful protectorate of U.S. Marines." But testimony under oath shows the U.S. sailors did not give any arms, ammunition, or food to the revolutionaries. Furthermore, according to your logic, the U.S. revolution was not legitimate because the Americans received enormous help from thousands of French soldiers plus ships and ammunition.

Marciel says "Third party recognition does not terminate an illegal occupation in lieu of a treaty of cession." And yet Hawaiian activists warmly embrace third party recognition -- they call November 28, 1893 "Hawaiian Independence Day" because on that date Britain and France signed a mutual agreement between themselves to recognize the independent nationhood of the Kingdom of Hawaii. Double standard?

---------

November 14 response to Conklin by Marciel:

The bilateral 1783 Treaty of Paris established American sovereignty. All 49 American states were acquired through bilateral treaties of cession. There is no bilateral treaty of cession for Hawaii. There were two failed attempts to obtain one, which verifies its necessity. The self-declared Republic of Hawai'i didn't agree to the Joint Resolution of 1898, which was not a treaty, or else it would have been called the Annexation Treaty of 1898. So it is neither bilateral nor a treaty.

Third parties recognized the independence that the Hawaiian Kingdom already had, which is not the same thing as terminating an illegal occupation. The Hawaiian Kingdom was not under occupation by another State when its independence was recognized.

November 14 response to Marciel by Conklin:

I'm deliberately parroting your way of responding. The bilateral 1897-98 Treaty of Annexation was a treaty of cession (which is why we now have the "ceded lands") which established U.S. sovereignty in Hawaii. The Republic of Hawaii was self-declared in the same way as the Kingdom of Hawaii was self-declared, and was internationally recognized by foreign nations in the same way. See photos of letters from 19 heads of state at
http://tinyurl.com/gmdtgmy
Thus third parties recognized the legitimacy of the successor government of continuing independent nation of Hawaii.

November 14 further response to Conklin by Marciel:

The Hawaiian Kingdom wasn't occupying another State when its sovereignty and independence was formally recognized by the international community beginning in 1843. It wasn't an illegal armed force, militia, or regime, installed by a another State, seeking a means to end an illegality to legitimize itself.

Conklin replies: Kamehameha, king of Hawaii Island, illegally invaded and occupied Maui, Moloka'i, Lana'i, O'ahu and there was no "treaty of cession" with any of them. Kamehameha even had the gall to impose upon the entire archipelago the same name as the island from which he originated! Thus most of the "Kingdom of Hawaii" was under "illegal occupation" when Britain and France signed a non-aggression pact with each other (but Hawaii was not a signer of it) in 1843 which today's activists like to cite as a recognition of Hawaii independence.

November 14 further response to Conklin by Marciel:

The mere presence of the U.S. Marines, aiming its weapons at the Palace, was enough to allow the handful of insurgents to illegally seize the Hawaiian government. The Royal Guard could have easily wiped out the protectorate of U.S. Marines, but that would have been cause for war against the entire United States, and a basis for subsequently acquiring the Hawaiian Islands legally through a treaty of surrender. So, it was not a reasonable alternative.

Conklin replies: The fact that the queen surrendered without a fight was a political subterfuge, because she knew that her buddy Grover Cleveland had already been elected President and she wrote in her surrender note that she would make an appeal to the U.S. to undo the revolution. She ordered her surrender note to be delivered to President Dole of the Provisional Government, not to the U.S. ambassador, thus showing that she knew it was the local revolutionaries who had defeated her and not the U.S. -- she was afraid the local guys (not the U.S.) would attack and defeat her if she didn't surrender.

November 14 Marciel continues his diatribe:

The Hawaiian Kingdom didn't enter the family of nations until 11/28/1843. The unification of the islands in 1810 was a domestic process of the aboriginal inhabitants of the archipelago, not an international conflict. All States went through that process initially before customary international law evolved into the practice of treaties for territorial cession. Throughout its history, the United States has entered into a total of nine treaties of cession over a period of 168 years (1783-1951). The first six of these nine treaties annexed the territories from which all 49 states and Washington, D.C., were admitted to the American Union, known as the United States, during the first 84 years of its history (1783-1867). The consistent adherence to this procedure by the U.S. represents customary international law. Furthermore, the two failed attempts to pass a treaty of cession in the U.S. Senate, in 1893 and 1897, clearly demonstrates the intent by the U.S. to maintain compliance with this international custom. The feigned annexation of Hawaii by joint resolution in 1898 was not the end of U.S. adherence to the customary international law of territorial annexation through bilateral treaty of cession. Merely five months after unilaterally seizing Hawaii, the U.S. picked up where it left off by annexing Guam, Philippines, and Puerto Rico through the 1898 Treaty of Paris. This was the seventh treaty of cession that the U.S. entered across a total of 115 years up to this point. The pattern continued such that the U.S. acquired a total of six territories by entering into three treaties of cession over a period of 61 years (1898-1951), following its seizure of Hawaii by joint resolution.

November 13 Ken Conklin said:

As readers can see, comments were originally allowed up to 3000 characters, and my first two comments were posted. After that Keokani_Kipona_Marciel then posted his comment, which I could see included several errors of fact. I therefore posted a rebuttal of close to 3000 characters providing a point-by-point refutation of several things he had said. But later in the day I came back to discover that my entire rebuttal had been deleted, perhaps because the editor has changed the allowance for a comment to only 1000 characters. So I tried to break up my rebuttal into several pieces, but only one piece actually got posted. I will now slowly post one piece at a time, delaying the posts in case there's a time clock to automatically delete postings too close together in time. Arbitrarily changing and reducing the allowance for commenting makes it hard to use the comments for any kind of serious discussion of issues, especially when some important items get deleted along the way.

Conklin added: Marciel's comment about annexation is trolling: irrelevant to Ikehara's essay and irrelevant to any previously posted comment, although I'm sure he would say that the issue of annexation is relevant to everything anyone might say about government activity in Hawaii (such as BLNR). Marciel's comment is like the disruption created by the protesters against Dr. Gon -- it's like a stinkbomb -- it hijacks the discussion. That's typical behavior by the sovereignty activists. Like a 2-year-old who does a cannonball into the swimming pool and shouts Hey everyone, look at me! Below are portions of my original rebuttal to specific points raised by Marciel, in the original order, now shortened to under 1000 characters each and numbered consecutively. I wonder whether the editor will now cut the commenting allowance to 500 words!

Conklin Pt#1 of rebuttal: Marciel said "The joint resolution subsequently passed by U.S. Congress in 1898 is a domestic law incapable of reaching across borders to unilaterally acquire the sovereignty and territory of a foreign country." FALSE. Hawaii began the successful process by offering a Treaty of Annexation to the U.S. in 1897. Congress then debated the issue for many months, and finally adopted the Treaty in 1898 by vote of 42-21 in the Senate and 209-91 in the House. This was NOT the U.S. unilaterally passing an internal law to reach out and grab Hawaii. Marciel and other activists don't like the way the U.S. decided to agree to the Treaty; but international law says the U.S. alone has the sovereign right to decide what method it will use to ratify a Treaty after another nation has offered it.

Conklin Pt#2 of rebuttal: Marciel said "To this day, there exists no bilateral treaty of cession terminating the Hawaiian Kingdom as a sovereign independent State" FALSE. See detailed webpage "Treaty of Annexation between the Republic of Hawaii and the United States of America (1898). FULL TEXT OF THE TREATY, and of the resolutions whereby the Republic of Hawaii legislature and the U.S. Congress ratified it. The politics surrounding the treaty, then and now." at
http://www.angelfire.com/big09a/TreatyOfAnnexationHawaiiUS.html

Marciel is correct that Hawaii was an independent nation diplomatically recognized by the rest of the world. He fails to tell you that Hawaii REMAINED an independent nation for 5 years after the revolution of 1893, with an internationally recognized new government that had full authority under international law to speak on behalf of the nation, including to offer the Treaty of Annexation.

Conklin Pt#3 of rebuttal: There were two stages in the international recognition of the Republic of Hawaii.

First in 1893 the revolutionary Provisional Government was given de facto recognition within 2 days by every nation's local consulate in Honolulu by means of letters published in the Honolulu newspaper. De facto is the only level of recognition which a low-level local consul is empowered to give, and it means that the foreign government acknowledges a new government is in charge and will do business only with the new one. Read those letters as republished by Congress at
http://tinyurl.com/9f4vh4

Then in 1894, when the permanent successor government was created, that Republic of Hawaii was formally recognized de jure as the rightful, lawful government by letters in 11 languages personally signed by emperors, kings, queens, and presidents of at least 19 foreign nations on 4 continents: See photos at
http://tinyurl.com/gmdtgmy

There were other comments worth noting:

November 13 Mark White said: Absolutely correct Kenneth. We want people working for Hawaii with the highest qualifications possible. Ideological agendas tainted with political correctness have no place in positions of public service. This whole idea of a free and independent Hawaii (independence from the United States is the basis for identifying people in Hawaii as "settlers") is absolutely absurd. Not only is it impractical, it is life threateningly dangerous. If somehow it were to happen, the moment Hawaii were to be 'free' of the United States, China will take over--and by force if necessary.

November 13 Richard Biddleman said: We want to be respectful of the Hawaii culture as one of the 50th states of the united states. We are citizens of one state. The notion of a independent nation within the state is not going to work for the rest of us.

November 13 Kim Wong Lee said: I know Sam well [author of the article]. She is an intelligent individual who unfortunately bought into the guilt trip being peddled by the UH Manoa faculty which she plans to join after getting her Ph.D. Another young mind will be wasted propagating the myth of Hawaiian oppression by foreign devils.

November 13 Westslope said: Parents, this is what you get when you send your children to certain universities. First it is an attack on whites for white privilege. Then it is an attack on Asians for Asian privilege. Then it is an attack on immigrants, the so called settlers, for immigrant/settler privilege. This is all ridiculous rambling nonsense. The author then claims that there is "violence against Hawaiians that happens every day through settler colonialism". And pray tell, what might that be? Do you honestly think that the rest of the state's population wakes up every day thinking I can't wait to act racist towards a Hawaiian? This is another power play by an ethnic group for dominance among that group's leadership while attacking all other groups by playing the race card or settler card in this case. Everyone in Hawaii is an immigrant from somewhere else. None of us should have any special privileges over anyone else. We are all equal. If some of our families have more money than others, it is because our relatives saved their money and passed it to their children so that they can prosper.

November 13 Al Gonzales [a native Hawaiian] said:

It still amazes me that "educated" people still make decisions, comments, etc. on facts that are NOT based on historical truths!
1. We are ALL "settlers"! The "indigenous people", who were here first, lived in Hawai'i for HUNDREDS of years before the Tahitian immigration! They were conquered, subdued, tortured, used as slaves and human sacrifice for almost 1,000 years!
2. The Hawai'i that we seem to remember is the Hawai'i AFTER Queen Ka'ahumanu did away with the Kapu System! This was followed, almost immediately, by most Hawaiians become Christians! Christianity was welcomed because it's God was a more gentle and forgiving One!
3. Everyone seems to think that all of the Hawaiians were ONE! Not true . . . Kaua'i was definitely, different from O'ahu and Mau'i. They not only had a different dialect, but also, were different physically!
4. It is known fact that Kamehameha and a lot of the Big Island descended from Samoan Chiefs!
5. Kamehameha was the CONQUERER! Most of us are descendants of the DEFEATED Ali'i! Which means that we had NO land, NO rights, etc. We are still under his legacy! Look around at who owns or controls most of the private land in these Islands. They are either direct descendants of Kamehameha or were connected through marriage to kin of Kamehameha!
6. There are those who want the US to return the land that they "stole" . . . shouldn't this land go back to those who "owned" it? Rightfully, it should go to the "last entity" that owned it, the Monarchy! The last of the "Monarchy" are the descendants of James Campbell and the Campbell Estate!
7. Shouldn't this apply, also, to those descendants whose ancestors owned the land before Kamehameha took it away? How about the descendants of the "indigenous people"?
8. Illegal occupation by the US? Isn't the US, ALL of us! In our democracy, the majority rules! Non Hawaiians, with ties to the past, outnumber those with Hawaiian blood by 4 to 1!
9. The first Constitution of Hawai'i, welcomes ALL to these Islands because "We are all of one blood"! It seems to me that ALL of us born and raised in Hawai'i, especially those whose ancestors were here 100, or so, years are Hawaiians regardless of blood quantum!
Enough said,
Al Gonzales
ourfuturehawaii.com
facebook.com/808majority

November 14 Hamakua Extra Sour Poi said: Congrats, Sam! You've allowed yourself to become brainwashed. Sorry for your parents and kupuna who probably made sacrifices for you to be able make a career of race-baiting. Good luck at USC, where I know you do your utmost to surrender your "colonial settler" privileges to members of the 20 or so indigenous tribes of Southern California. Can you name even one? ;-)

November 14 Candace Fujikane said [she is one of the author/editors of the book "Asian Settler Colonialism" which Conklin described and which Conklin provided a link to his webpage book review]:
Sam, thank you so much for your very powerful article.
Your piece raises for us the question of what is settler kuleana. It's hard to watch these events unfolding over the question of who gets to be the "expert on Hawaiian culture" on the BLNR, which has approved the permit for the Thirty Meter Telescope three times.
Settler kuleana is about sharing in the ‘eha in the na'au, the pain of seeing Kanaka 'Ōiwi ancestral knowledges being discredited, the 'eha of seeing aloha 'āina being arrested for calling for the resignation of those who say they represent Hawaiian culture but not Hawaiian people. As Asian settler allies, we need to be able to share that 'eha by exposing the practices of our own settler communities that commit violence against Kanaka. I see the capaciousness of the term "settler ally," one that grapples with the social processes of U.S. occupation so that we never lose sight of those conditions or the privileges we derive from it, even as we seek a decolonial future.

November 14 Conklin replied to Fujikane: You're great at slinging the jargon by sprinkling Hawaiian words to make it look more authentic. So I'll sling a little back. The real 'eha in the na'au (pain in the gut) comes when people whose families have been born and raised in Hawaii for multiple generations are labeled mere "settlers" and told they are second-class citizens who must sit in the back of the bus because they are not of the right race. One of my friend's families has 8 generations here. How many is enough? You use the two deeply evocative words "aloha" and "'aina" in juxtaposition, deceiving readers who do not know that the phrase "aloha 'aina" was used in the 1890s, and still today used by ethnic Hawaiian racial partisans, to mean "patriots" and also used as a greeting at the start of a diatribe. It's a shame when "love for the land" is used as a label or salutation sort of like "Heil Hitler."

November 14 Cynthia Franklin wrote [University of Hawaii English professor and "social justice" activist]: This is such a powerful article. Thank you for this principled stance that is a reminder to all of us who are settlers of our responsibilities. The comments here are an index of how much work we need to do.

November 14 Conklin responded to Franklin: Yes, you have a lot of work to do when you try to persuade people whose families have been born and raised in Hawaii for multiple generations that they are mere "settlers" and must sit in the back of the bus merely because they are of the wrong race.

November 15 Diverdave said: Sam, your ability to learn has been corrupted by the UH. Are the only Californians Caucasians? Are the only true Texans, Hispanic? This is not what the Hawaii's Kings told the other countries that they signed immigration agreements with. The King's vision was to have them mate with the existing population and increase Hawaii's population. Now, 5 generations later, in the year 2017 these very same immigrant's offspring should not count and they're taxes should go to pay for raced based Polynesian only programs! Awful racism is all it is. On November 24,1882, Hawaii's Envoy to Japan, Kapena, read an official statement to the Japanese Minister of Foreign Affairs Inouye a prepared message from King Kalakaua he said, We believe the Japanese and the Hawaiians spring from a cognate race and that Japanese children growing up and amalgamating with our population will produce a new and vigorous race, which will repeople our Islands. Does that sound like they were thought of as occupiers then?

November 16 JustMe said: This essay is a prime example of what happens when university intellectuals run out of useful things to study. Will someone please define "Hawaiian" for us? Is it full blood? Would that be the blood of the first settlers or of the later Tahitian conqueror/settlors? 1/2 or will a quarter suffice? 1/8 or 1/16 ? Even at quarter that person is 3/4 something else. Is 1/512th enough? Everybody in Hawaii is either a direct settler or the descendant of a settler. Even the "Hawaiians." Everybody that lives anywhere on the planet outside of Africa is either a direct settler or the descendant of a settler. We are all descended from a small group of hominids that lived in Africa a long time ago. We are all human. Stop trying to divide us.

November 18 Cliff Hasegawa quoted from:
THE HAWAIIAN RENAISSANCE
By George Hu'eu Sanford Kanahele (1930 – 2000)
* [Conklin notes that Kanahele was also author of the large book "Ku Kanaka" often cited by Hawaiian activists as evidence of the Hawaiian cultural renaissance]

"Today there are probably as many non-ethnic Hawaiians as there are Hawaiians actively engaged in the Renaissance: haoles, Japanese, Chinese, Filipinos, etc. people who have no Hawaiian ancestry but who for one reason or another have come to identify themselves culturally, psychologically and spiritually with Hawaiianness. In the process, of course, some have become more Hawaiian than the Hawaiians, to the chagrin of the natives."

"Unfortunately, but true, some Hawaiians choose to ignore this fact. They are so selfconscious about their new-found Hawaiianness that they become suspicious of very haole or Oriental who may want to help. Some insist on excluding non-Hawaiians from any Hawaiian-related activity, purely on the basis or race--a case of reverse racism."


================

3. Honolulu Civil Beat "Community Voice" (guest editorial) posted very early Tuesday November 14, 2017.
Remembering The Queen's Compassion For Others
Liliuokalani, the beloved Hawaiian monarch, died 100 years ago this month.

By Carolyn Ayon Lee
[Editor's endnote: About the Author: Carolyn Ayon Lee is a third-generation Korean-American. She is proud of her fluency in Hawaii Pidgin English.]

When the last monarch of Hawaii exited this mortal coil, thousands of her people paid homage to her. Lydia Liliuokalani, 79, had been the Kingdom of Hawaii's first queen, succeeding her brother, David Kalakaua, to the throne.

At her funeral service 100 years ago, sorrow filled every corner of the church in Honolulu. Standing sentinel were the dozens of kahili, the feathered, red and yellow standards that are the symbol of Hawaiian royalty. It almost seemed as if the kahili heads were swaying in grief.

"No more treats from this aged queen," Liliuokalani told her little dog, Poni, according to Jackie Pualani Johnson, whose "Living History" re-enactment of the queen held spellbound a full house Saturday at the 100th anniversary Liliuokalani memorial service at Church of the Holy Apostles in Hilo.

In the eight months of house arrest the queen endured at Iolani Palace, Poni was her faithful companion. After her overthrow, the queen lived as a private citizen at her home in Honolulu, Washington Place, which is next door to the Cathedral of St. Andrew, the mother church for all of Hawaii's Episcopalians.

Liliuokalani, who died Nov. 11, 1917, became an Episcopalian as an adult. She was a member of St. Andrew's congregation, and her funeral service was conducted according to Episcopal tradition

[** Photo caption: Queen Liliuokalani's death was remembered at a service in Hilo on Saturday.]

For many Hawaii residents, the queen's lasting legacy is probably her beautiful hymns, such as "Aloha Oe" and "Ke Aloha A Ke Akua," or "The Queen's Prayer," also known by its opening words, "O Kou Aloha No."

"As expressed in her music and her life," the Episcopal Bishop of Hawaii, the Right Rev. Robert L. Fitzpatrick said Monday, "the queen was speaking truth with love and living with integrity in the face of hardship. She never lost her joy in creation or her trust in God."

‘We Are All Heirs To The Queen'

Fitzpatrick said what moved him greatly about Liliuokalani was her compassion for others.

"In 1913, the queen actually provided the funds to build the first chapel for the soldiers at Schofield Barracks," the bishop said. "Imagine, she responded to the spiritual needs of the young soldiers so far from home despite the fact that their government had annexed her nation. It reflects a level of benevolence that I can hardly imagine."

Fitzpatrick, who presided over Saturday's memorial service in Hilo, said in an email interview Monday that Liliuokalani is a hero for all of Hawaii.

"We are all heirs of the queen," he said. "She sought justice and, yet, despite injustice, managed to continue with integrity and generosity. She spoke truth with love. Such a spirit is needed in these islands now more than ever."

Johnson, who through her voice, demeanor and carriage conveyed Liliuokalani's majesty at the memorial service in Hilo, said: "The queen's deep wisdom in light of insurmountable challenges stands out as her definitive character trait, wherein she committed herself to ‘onipaa, to remain steadfast and true."

There are some who criticize the queen's decision to abdicate, clearing the way for the annexation of Hawaii by the United States.

"It seems clear to me, however, that her strong Christian values were at the core of her decisions as she chose a much more rational, diplomatic path," Johnson said. "The costs were great, but bloodshed was avoided."

The queen was laid to rest beside the grave of her husband, John Dominis, after a 21-gun salute and a performance by St. Andrew's Priory students of Liliuokalani's "Aloha Oe":

A fond embrace a hoi ae au

Until we meet again.

--------------------

Ken Conklin's note for this dialog webpage: Marciel seizes upon a single half-sentence which was not the main point of the article, and forces a discussion of his off-topic favorite topic: Treaty of Annexation. The main topic of the article, which is the alleged compassionate nature of Lili'uokalani, is thereby forced to a lower priority in the comments.

The first comment, early November 14, was by Keokani Kipona Marciel

"... the fact that their government had annexed her nation."

It should say "occupied" instead of "annexed" because a treaty of annexation twice failed to be ratified by the U.S. Senate.

"There are some who criticize the queen's decision to abdicate, clearing the way for the annexation of Hawaii by the United States."

It should say "occupation" instead of "annexation" because there exists to this day no treaty of annexation for the Hawaiian Islands ratified by the U.S. Senate.

A joint resolution cannot be used in lieu of a bilateral treaty of cession to unilaterally annex a foreign country. There was no annexation of Hawaii in 1898, just the pretense of annexation to conceal what is actually an illegal prolonged occupation. It is time for people to stop being in denial about it.

-------------

Ken Conklin response to Marciel:

No Treaty of Annexation? Hawaii offered it in 1897, and Congress adopted the Treaty in 1898 by vote of 42-21 in the Senate and 209-91 in the House. See
"Treaty of Annexation between the Republic of Hawaii and the United States of America (1898). FULL TEXT OF THE TREATY, and of the resolutions whereby the Republic of Hawaii legislature and the U.S. Congress ratified it. The politics surrounding the treaty, then and now." at
http://www.angelfire.com/big09a/TreatyOfAnnexationHawaiiUS.html

A joint resolution cannot be used to ratify it? Who says so! Marciel and other activists don't like the way the U.S. decided to agree to the Treaty; but international law says the U.S. alone has the sovereign right to decide what method it will use to ratify a Treaty after another nation has offered it. Every nation has an absolute right (sovereignty!) to make its own ratification decision by any method it chooses, regardless whether anybody else likes that method.

-----------

Marciel reply to Conklin:

The treaty failed to get enough votes for ratification, which is why they went to a joint resolution. If it was a treaty, and it wouldn't be called a joint resolution. It is also not bilateral because the self-declared Republic of Hawaii didn't ratify the joint resolution.

The U.S. Constitution says that the President "shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur." Entering into treaties is clearly not an enumerated power of Congress.

Annexing a foreign country is also not an enumerated power of Congress. "New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union." Statehood admission is not territorial annexation. The latter has always been done by a treaty, using the foreign affairs powers of the President and Senate provided by the Constitution.

The joint resolution of 1898 didn't acquire the Hawaiian Islands, both under the U.S. Constitution and under customary international law.

-------

Diverdave responds on November 14: It was actually never voted on in the Senate because they didn't think they had enough votes due to many racist Southern Senators being against annexing a place full of "Brown" people. But, when the vote was taken, to everyone's surprise the Senate vote was 42-21 (exactly 2/3rds majority). So it would have passed in the Senate alone, but was deemed too risky, so they introduced it by way of Congressional-Executive Agreement Method where it is introduced to Congress by a Legislator, either in the House or the Senate, instead of by the President alone.
In this case House Rep. Newlands introduced the legislation into the House, just like a bill. All legal and U.S. Constitutional. It has been adjudicated many times and each time been found to be Constitutional. These Treaty deniers are simply boring.

Marciel replies to Diverdave on November 15: There is no historical precedent or constitutional provision to retroactively convert a joint resolution to a treaty based on the percentage of senators voting in favor of it. If two-thirds of senators vote in favor of a joint resolution, it doesn't follow that they would have voted the same if it was instead introduced as a treaty. The U.S. Constitution reserves the treaty-making power to the President and the Senate, not Congress. An enactment of Congress is a domestic law limited to its territory. If they wanted the Newlands Resolution to be a treaty, they should have called it that. After it was adopted, too late to change it to a treaty.
The Spanish-American War began after the annexation treaty failed for the second time in the U.S. Senate. How did the Senate go from 51% (46/90) to exactly two-thirds (42/63)? (The number of senators in support decreased from 46 to 42.) To support the Newlands Resolution as a war measure. The ROH legislature didn't ratify the joint resolution.

Diverdave rebuttal to Marciel on November 16: Oh, as far as the Spanish-American War goes, The United States didn't "need Hawaii" for a refueling station as they had been given a long term lease to Pearl Harbor by the Very Merry Monarch, King David Kalakaua, in 1887 under his dynasty. That worn out claim that the U.S. annexed Hawaii to have a base here is non-factual.
They already did! Keokani, Hint: when is a "precedent" made?

Diverdave further rebuttal to Marciel on November 18: Isn't it funny how the sovereignty fringers always try to claim there was NO Treaty. Then you provide them with it and they claim that the Treaty was accepted by the U.S. wrongly? Congressional-Executive Agreements, where only a simple majority of Both the Senate and the House, and then signed by the President have been used many, many times to accept a Treaty with other nations. President Clinton used this method to accept the NAFTA Treaty with Canada, and Mexico. The World Trade Organization Treaty was also passed using the Congressional-Executive method of approval. However, the vote to accept the unanimously voted on offer of annexation from The Republic of Hawaii in the U.S. House was 209-91, and the vote to accept was 42-21 in the Senate(exactly two-thirds ratification by the Senate). So it could be claimed that it did receive a 2/3rds ratification, per the Treaty Method of approval, after all.

---------------------

Comment by Ken Conklin on November 14 starting a discussion of the main topic of the article. [Comment got at least 4 reactions expressing "respect" -- the most of any comment on this article]

Lili'uokalani's compassion for others? That depends on who they were.

Let's remember that every time she used the phrase "my people" she was referring to ethnic Hawaiians, not to the people she ruled over including Asians and Caucasians.

Let's remember that she came home from Victoria's Golden Jubilee in London and then promptly conspired with Robert Wilcox trying to overthrow her own brother Kalakaua so she could grab the crown for herself; men were killed during the "Wilcox rebellion" 1889.

Let's remember that during Fall 1893, the U.S. ambassador met with her twice, offering to mediate a deal where the Dole government would step down and restore her to the throne, in return for her granting them a pardon. Both times she refused the proposal, saying she would confiscate their property and behead them. She was so full of hate and vindictiveness that she turned down a chance to restore the monarchy simply because she wanted vengeance.

-------------

Diverdave responds to Conklin: Yes Dr Conklin, and Ms. Lee is somewhat misleading when she states above,
"In the eight months of house arrest the queen endured at Iolani Palace, Poni was her faithful companion". Then speaks of the overthrow.
She was NOT held in house arrest in the Palace, with two maids in waiting, her dog, and piano, quilting supplies, (Not a bad place to hang out), after the revolution of 1893.
She was allowed to go home with a standing guard at her home provided by the revolutionaries as there were those who wanted her killed at the time.
Only after she attempted a counter revolution two years later in 1895, which was a dismal failure and many men were killed and which she could only muster 175 men to take part, was she placed under arrest and put on house arrest in the Palace.
At the time of her death she was flying an American Flag outside her home at "Washington Place".

----------------

** Now here's a newcomer to Civil Beat -- a troll who throws in a personal attack against Conklin which requires a response, and this new topic (totally irrelevant to the article) takes over the rest of the commenting. This same irrelevant personal attack topic was raised in the same way at Honolulu Star-Advertiser comments a couple months previously by another untraceable fake-name commenter, probably the same person.

On November 14, Julio says:
On balance ...
Re issues of Hawaiian sovereignty the opinions of Kenneth Conklin need to viewed with the fact that the highly esteemed & reputable Southern Poverty Law Center has labelled Kenneth Conklin as a ""anti-sovereignty" white activist".
To make sure that point wasn't lost or overlooked the Southern Poverty Law Center took the unusual step of labeling Kenneth Conklin a ""anti-sovereignty" white activist" not once, but twice within the same publicly available intelligence report.
https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2009/hawaii-suffering-racial-prejudice
Kenneth Conklin dismisses the Southern Poverty Law Center's multiple labeling of him a ""anti-sovereignty" white activist" using the counter-argument that the intelligence report in question was about discrimination in Hawaii towards Caucasians.
The Southern Poverty Law Center knew what they were writing about and knew what they were writing.
The labeling was not an oversight, incidental or accidental.

Diverdave replies to Julio: Just an attempt at Character assassination by "Julio".
OFF TOPIC.
Julio, please state why what Dr. Conklin says pertaining to real history is untrue.
You cannot, so you attempt to minimize his work, and attack his character.

Julio responds to Diverdave:
It seems as your issue is with the Southern Poverty Law Center.
You should take up any matters of their labeling of Kenneth Conklin as a "anti-sovereignty" white activist" if you believe it's untrue or unfair with them, not me.
Personally, I'm indifferent to Kenneth Conklin.

Diverdave replies to Julio: Your silly, you find someone who said something and use it to attack Dr. Conklin's character. Dr.Conklin is anything but a "white racist". Shame at your feeble attempt at attacking him and then say you are "indifferent"!
Now did you have anything constructive to add to the discussion or are you just going to make negative comments and "criticize people"?

Julio replies to Diverdave: You are the only person that has labelled Kenneth Conklin a "white racist" here.
I don't know him so I wouldn't label him as such but if you insist on doing so that is your prerogative as much as I may disagree with you.

-----------

On November 15 Ken Conklin replies to Julio:

Julio twists what the SPLC article says.

See full text of the 2009 article, and my detailed review of it, at
http://tinyurl.com/kkpf74

The article pointed out that, unlike any other state, most racial hate crimes in Hawaii are directed against Caucasians. A second article in the same magazine "blames the victim" by describing historical grievances that ethnic Hawaiian hate crime perpetrators cite to justify their violence against whites.

Here's exactly what the article says about Conklin: "Trask's opposite number is Conklin, the "anti-sovereignty" white activist who has lived on Oahu for 17 years and says he loves Hawaii's culture, spirituality and history, but is labeled a racist by some of his detractors." Note that it does NOT say Conklin is anti-Hawaiian, nor that Conklin is racist. It says Conklin is white [i.e., a member of the "victim" group in the hate crimes] who is LABELED a racist by his detractors [the excuse they use for attacking him].

---------

Julio replies to Conklin: I'm extremely disappointed that you have omitted the quote that directly attributes you as "anti-sovereign" white activist" by the Southern Poverty Law Center.
Here's the quote you omitted.
"Retired professor and "anti-sovereign" white activist Kenneth Conklin and others prevailed in a lawsuit in 2000 that challenged a requirement that trustees of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs -- OHA -- be of Native Hawaiian descent."
Be proud of your label - wear it with pride - you have earned it - no shame - our differences are just a matter of nature.

On November 16 Conklin responds to Julio: And again Julio makes an off-topic personal attack by twisting the meaning of what SPLC actually said. They point out that Conklin is white because the successful lawsuit to desegregate OHA needed plaintiffs who had no Hawaiian native ancestry. Nowhere did SPLC ever accuse Conklin of being a white supremacist or white nationalist -- what Conklin is attacking (now as well as back then) is the race-nationalist and racial supremacist concept of Hawaiian sovereignty which people like Julio so enthusiastically embrace. This whole digression about Conklin is a totally off-topic stink bomb tossed into the discussion of an article about Lili'uokalani's alleged compassion. But I guess the editor of Civil Beat likes it.

Finally, Julio then says: It is not unreasonable to consider not only what is being said but also who is doing the saying.
You have chosen to publicly disclose your name with your comments.
The benefit you receive by doing so could be as simple as some people like to see their name in print.
Some people publish under their own name believing it adds credibility.
Others are being sure they receive due credit for their efforts.
The point is that you cannot expect to reap benefits from commenting under your own name without accepting risks that come with it.
Vetting is a biggie -
Checking a source is always a good idea so why is it a bad idea when you are the source? btw You should thank CB or at least be grateful they deleted your missing comment.
It was a poor reflection.


=================

4. Some related dialogs and webpages

Is there a Treaty of Annexation between Hawaii and the United States? Dialogs between University of Hawaii Law Professor Williamson Chang and Ken Conklin copied from Honolulu Civil Beat December 17-18, 2015 and
The Garden Island newspaper [Kaua'i], January 8-16, 2017
http://big11a.angelfire.com/DialogsChangConklinTreatyAnnex.html

Treaty of Annexation between the Republic of Hawaii and the United States of America (1898). Full text of the treaty, and of the resolutions whereby the Republic of Hawaii legislature and the U.S. Congress ratified it. The politics surrounding the treaty, then and now.
http://www.angelfire.com/big09a/TreatyOfAnnexationHawaiiUS.html

Was the 1898 annexation illegal?
http://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/annexation.html

Hawaii Statehood -- straightening out the history-twisters. A historical narrative defending the legitimacy of the revolution of 1893, the annexation of 1898, and the statehood vote of 1959.
http://www.angelfire.com/big09a/StatehoodHistUntwisted.html

Was the 1893 overthrow of the monarchy illegal? Was it a theft of a nation owned by kanaka maoli and stolen by non-kanaka maoli?
http://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/overthrow.html

See a collection of dialogs about the Akaka bill and other topics related to Hawaiian sovereignty (collection of several series of published articles where supporters and opponents engage each other)
http://www.angelfire.com/hi5/bigfiles3/AkakaDialogs.html


================

Send comments or questions to:
Ken_Conklin@yahoo.com

GO BACK TO OTHER TOPICS ON THIS WEBSITE