(c) Copyright 2019
Kenneth R. Conklin, Ph.D.
All rights reserved
On Friday August 9, 2019 a lengthy commentary authored by Judge Fernandez was published in "The Garden Island" newspaper on Kaua'i. The commentary was a litany of victimhood grievances regarding the alleged destruction of Native Hawaiian culture and political power caused by the arrival of newcomers starting with Captain Cook in 1778, missionaries in 1820, and continuing until now. Mr. Fernandez' conclusion is that the construction of the 30-meter telescope on Mauna Kea would be a desecration of a sacred place that would worsen the long history of destruction and oppression of Native Hawaiians.
Dr. Conklin wrote a point-by point rebuttal of Mr. Fernandez' assertions about Hawaiian history, showing that most of them are outright false or else badly twisted. It is important to debunk these particular claims because they are so often asserted as reasons why Native Hawaiians are entitled to sympathy, racial entitlement programs, restitution, and political sovereignty.
Mr. Fernandez' complete essay is provided first, so readers can see that nothing has been taken out of context. Then comes Dr. Conklin's point-by-point rebuttal.
The Garden Island [Kaua'i newspaper], August 9, 2019, Guest Commentary
The Temple of Science
By Bill Fernandez
Worshipers at the Temple of Science claim it is anti-constitutional for native people to believe that Mauna Kea is desecrated by building an eighteen-story telescope atop that volcano. This viewpoint shows a lack of understanding of, and respect for, the desperate need of Hawaiian people to preserve their culture and destiny after decades of destruction of Hawaiian lands. It is not an attack on science.
Suppression of the Hawaiian culture began in 1820 when missionaries arrived and decreed that Hawaiian culture and language, the hula, mele, oli, chants, and songs were immoral, lewd, and pagan. They ignored the oral tradition of communicating history and values by stories of daring voyages, brave leaders, the beauty of nature, hula, mele and oli, and communal living. They condemned the story telling and it ended. This suppression continued until the Hawaiian Renaissance in the 1970s.
Key to Hawaiian culture is the fundamental belief that the land is a living thing. It nurtures you, takes care of you, and you must take care of it. It's part of your ohana, family. Historically, colonizers throughout the world made sure that native people became landless, cutting the connection that indigenous people have with the land and nature. Hawaiians lost their land to the colonizers.
Colonizers also know that suppression of native language is key to subjugating a native people. Look at Hawaii. After the overthrow of the monarchy in 1893, they banned the use of the Hawaiian language (Act 57, section 30 of the 1896 Laws of the Republic of Hawaii). This law led to the suppression of native newspapers unfavorable to the new government, and the end of teaching Hawaiian language in schools.
Pulitzer Prize winner Jared Diamond in his classic book, "Guns, Germs, and Steel", describes how cultures with advanced weaponry and disease immunities easily overcame native peoples. The decline of the Hawaiian society fits the pattern. Guns made King Kalakaua a puppet of the sugar plantation interests. Guns ended the Hawaiian monarchy. Germs reduced a robust society of as many as 600,000 native people to 40,000 by the end of Liliuokalani's reign.
When annexation and the Organic Act created the Territory, the Hawaiian people received nothing because no government existed to protect them nor categorize them as the indigenous people of the eight islands of the archipelago. Unlike some North American tribes on the continent no treaty was enacted.
As Queen Liliuokalani said: "The people of the islands have no voice in determining their future but are... relegated to the condition of the aborigines of the American continent." The Hawaiians became a subjugated ethnic group facing extinction. Unable to trust foreigners many withdrew into what academics call 'cultural safety' where the value system is ohana, family, kupuna, elders, and the Hawaiian Way.
There are more than 370,000,000 indigenous people on this planet. (Word Health Organization, 2010). Many have suffered loss of their culture and ethnic identity by guns, germs, and steel inflicted on them by colonizers. Humanitarians, concerned about this ethnocide or cultural genocide, sought help from the United Nations to halt this steady dehumanization of native people.
In response, the United Nations issued a Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People (2007). The resolution seeks to prohibit states from taking actions that will deprive native people of their identity as distinct people and their cultural values.
In the 1970s dispossessed Hawaiian farmers in the Kalama Valley, Oahu, awakened young people to the loss of their land, culture and language. (Until then the true Hawaiian story had been submerged.) This Hawaiian Renaissance taught that ancestors were not ignorant savages.
At a time when Europeans were barely able to navigate the Mediterranean Sea, Polynesians had crisscrossed the Pacific in small wooden canoes without metal instruments because they understood the skies and ocean. Before Columbus limped across the Atlantic using compass and sextant, Hawaiian way finders had already established a growing society using knowledge of the stars, currents, and other natural guides to travel the Pacific.
These ancestors housed, fed, clothed, and kept healthy, hundreds of thousands of people using wood and stone implements and ingenuity. Following the Hawaiian Renaissance movement other indigenous people sought to protect cultural values and sacred lands. The young Sioux efforts to block the Dakota Access Pipeline from crossing sacred land, for example.
Why should we care about protecting cultural values? Lose your culture, you lose your identity. You dehumanize ethnic people and they have no value. They lose their will to survive.
Recently, a presidential candidate said a key issue for the future is the replacement of the worker by robots and artificial intelligence. The advance of science is so swift that Moore's law is a reality. Computers last for two years before they become obsolete and are replaced.
On Mauna Kea science wants to build another observatory which will take 10 years. A monster, 18-stories high. Are the other 12 obsolete? If Moore's law has meaning in the astronomy world, then in two years will another larger and better telescope need to be built on Mauna Kea? Surely science that is advancing so rapidly can find another alternative to study the heavens than building this telescope on Mauna Kea. Perhaps a better Hubbell telescope?
Indigenous people fear loss of identity through loss of culture. Because of the rapid advance of science should all humans fear the same thing? Read the literature. Today the cyborg, half mammal and half machine, is approaching reality. With robots, artificial intelligence, and cyborgs, humans are not needed. Scoff! Yes, but consider that could happen. Where do you draw the line between preservation of identity as a human and science?
I believe in the importance of science. It has done wondrous things for humankind. But there is a point where science must find an alternative to striking down the cultural beliefs of native people essential to giving them a sense of well-being and safety. Because Hawaiians have had no avid spokespeople in government nor treaty rights with America, protection of cultural rights must rely on reasonable protest.
The governor's rush to order troops to quell peaceful protesters was an open adoption of plantation-style control where, in the past, they shot strikers. The protectors of the Mauna are not "lawless, violent, (causing) riots" as the governor claims. They are peacefully protecting their cultural values in the only way available to Hawaiians.
Lieutenant Governor Josh Green got it right when on Mauna Kea he said, "It is time for reconciliation with Hawaii's host culture."
I am a believer in science but not a worshiper at its temple. When culture and science meet head on, I choose culture. None of the Hawaiian objectors are saying such a telescope should not be built anywhere. As a half-Hawaiian I might be accused of bias but I also support science.
Destruction of a culture should not be an option for scientists. I hope others will feel the same way. I believe that where science has an alternative to bulldozing a cultural belief, science should choose the alternative: the Canary Islands welcomes the telescope.
** Newspaper editor's tagline:
Bill Fernandez is a former attorney, judge and mayor, is an author and is a resident of Kapaa.
Ken Conklin's rebuttal to Bill Fernandez' "The Temple of Science"
The Garden Island newspaper editor's tagline says "Bill Fernandez is a former attorney, judge and mayor, is an author and is a resident of Kapaa." So Mr. Fernandez is not some crazy sovereignty activist whose ignorance and zealousness cause him to twist history and say outright falsehoods in a manner which an attorney might call "excited utterance." His essay should be taken seriously, which is exactly how he intends it to be taken. I will provide a point-by-point rebuttal to his numbing litany of grievances. This rebuttal is too detailed (and perhaps boring) to be published in a newspaper. Truth is often boring, so please bear with me.
Bill Fernandez was born and raised on Kaua'i and then went to the mainland [California] for college, where he became a successful lawyer, mayor, and judge. So he is an example of local boy makes good on the mainland, retires, and comes "home" to Kaua'i. See a biography of him published in [surprise!] the same newspaper two months before this essay: "Bill Fernandez honored by Kamehameha Schools Alumni Association" as the honoree of the year and paraded through Waikiki, article in The Garden Island newspaper on June 12, 2019 at
Therefore he's a big fish in a small pond, gets a lot of local respect. The local newspaper will publish whatever he submits to them and has done so for years, even if it is bombastic and filled with falsehoods. And of course it would be "rude" and unacceptable for public relations to publish any aggressive rebuttal, as well as impractical to publish a lengthy and boring one.
First, Conklin's overall, general, very quick analysis of the motive of Mr. Fernandez. After that, rebuttals are given to specific points in the order they are raised by Mr. Fernandez.
Conklin's overall, general, very quick reply concerning motive of Mr. Fernandez:
Victimhood is a wonderful asset to have. If you can persuade people that you're a victim, that gives you the right to seek sympathy, and to demand reparations. Sympathy leads to political power, and reparations lead to wealth. See webpage
"The Hawaiian Grievance Industry -- Panhandling for Race-Based Handouts and Political Power" at
One of the strange things about politics in Hawaii is the aggressiveness of racial profiling and racial stereotyping for fun and profit. But surprisingly, in Hawaii the profiling and stereotyping are done by ethnic Hawaiians against ethnic Hawaiians as a racial group! Ethnic Hawaiian leaders love to portray their group as having the worst statistics for cancer, heart disease, drug abuse, incarceration, poverty ... the list goes on and on. The idea is to make the general public feel sorry for them and give them political power to manage their own affairs; and to use the data to get government and philanthropic grants for "research studies" whose main purpose is to do more studies to get more data to bolster more grant applications while building a permanent cadre of highly paid bureaucrats and leaders (without actually doing research to find out how the "Hawaiian gene" causes these bad things [there is no real connection and probably no Hawaiian gene] or how to cure the problems biologically). See detailed analysis and examples in webpage
"Native Hawaiian victimhood -- malpractice in the gathering and statistical analysis of data allegedly showing disproportionate Native Hawaiian victimhood for disease and social dysfunction. How and why the Hawaiian grievance industry uses bogus statistics to scam government and philanthropic organizations, politicians, and public opinion." at
See also webpage
"For Hawaiians Only. Webpages identifying and describing government funded racial entitlement programs providing benefits exclusively to Native Hawaiians using taxpayer dollars from the U.S. and State of Hawaii." at
During the past 20 years Mr. Fernandez occasionally wrote essays supporting the Akaka bill to create a federally recognized Hawaiian tribe as a way of providing legal defense for hundreds of racial entitlement programs, and other essays to support Kamehameha Schools' racially exclusionary admissions policy. To find some of those items go to the front page of my website at
and use the little internal search engine for these two pairs of keywords (one pair at a time)
Mr. Fernandez, being a former lawyer and judge, might have some experience with lawyers who sue insurance companies on behalf of clients who suffered minor injuries in a fender-bender. A client's car might have been rear-ended at a stop light by the car behind him traveling at 2 MPH; client claims whiplash caused severe neck injuries and lawyer sues for a bazillion dollars for medical injuries and "pain and suffering." Of course the injuries and pain will be grossly inflated, and disabilities with unrelated causes will be ascribed to the fender-bender, in hopes that the damages awarded by the jury will be huge (along with the lawyer's 1/3 contingency fee).
Fernandez: "Suppression of the Hawaiian culture began in 1820 when missionaries arrived and decreed that Hawaiian culture and language, the hula, mele, oli, chants, and songs were immoral, lewd, and pagan.
Conklin: Fernandez should be reminded that the missionaries had no authority to decree anything. They were welcomed by the native chiefs in 1820, AFTER the native leaders had already abolished the old religion in 1819, the year before the missionaries came. Any new laws were "decreed" not by missionaries but by the dictatorial authority of the native kings and chiefs exercising self-determination on behalf of the natives.
The old religion was abolished publicly and decisively by the 4 top leaders of the natives themselves at a huge lu'au that was held soon after the death of Kamehameha The Great to introduce his elder son Liholiho who was now Kamehameha II. The leaders abolished the old religion by publicly breaking the 'aikapu (men and women must eat separately). These 2 men and 2 women sat down together and ate -- a sacrilege punishable by immediate death -- and the assembled crowd gasped in horror until a short speech was given.
1. King Liholiho Kamehameha II; the elder son of Kamehameha The Great;
2. Keopuolani, his biological mother, the "sacred wife" of Kamehameha The Great, had the highest spiritual mana in all Hawaii and the kapumoe (anyone nearby must lie face down in the dirt to avoid polluting her mana);
3. Ka'ahumanu his stepmother and favorite wife of Kamehameha The Great, who made a political coup by stepping forward at the lu'au immediately after breaking the 'aikapu; she stood next to Liholiho and boldly took over the government by announcing "We two shall rule together" and proceeded to be kuhina nui (regent) for both Kamehameha II and Kamehameha III for many years;
4. Hewahewa, the kahuna nui (high priest) of the old religion. By the way, although "hewa" means "sin", his name instead referred to sacred dancing.
Today's activists on Mauna Kea and in other political actions disrespect the clear choice of their ancestral leadership by trying to revive the dead religion they killed, and also by using that deeply revered old religion as a mere pawn in today's political games.
Fernandez: "This suppression continued [from 1820 missionary arrival] until the Hawaiian Renaissance in the 1970s."
Conklin: Mr. Fernandez conveniently overlooks the fact that the monarchy retained absolute power over lawmaking and administration of justice, until the first Constitution was proclaimed in 1840 creating a legislature and judiciary and giving rights to individuals. Further, the monarchy retained absolute ownership of all Hawaii lands including the right to take back previous land grants on the whim of the King, until the Mahele process began in 1848 to create private fee-simple land ownership. Fernandez overlooks the fact that the monarchy continued until the revolution of 1893 overthrew it. He overlooks the fact that at least 6 native Hawaiians were on the committee that wrote the Constitution of the Republic of Hawaii, and the Speaker of the House was full-blooded native former royalist John Kaulukou. Fernandez overlooks the fact that the first and second Territorial Delegates to the U.S. Congress, elected by public vote of all citizens without racial restriction or property requirements, were Native Hawaiians Robert Wilcox and [former] Crown Prince Jonah Kuhio Kalaniana'ole. He forgets that the Territorial legislature, elected by vote of all citizens, had a majority of Native Hawaiians for three to four decades, until World War 2. John Waihe'e was Governor of Hawaii for 8 years, 1996 – 2004. Native Hawaiian members in the state Senate and House continue to be roughly in proportion to their population, including powerful committee chairmanships and leadership positions. There has been a huge renaissance of Hawaiian culture and language starting in the 1970s and strengthening through now, perhaps most visible in hula [televised Merrie Monarch and Prince Lot annual hula festivals], voyaging canoes [Hokule'a and many others], and song contests [televised annual Kamehameha School]. What suppression is Mr. Fernandez talking about? The only suppression is any shred of objectivity in Fernandez' mind.
Fernandez: "Hawaiians lost their land to the colonizers."
Conklin: Whoa! The Government lands of the Kingdom remained under control of the monarch and legislature where natives held the great majority, and the Crown lands remained property of the monarch and then of the Kingdom government for 73 years after the missionaries arrived, until there was no more crown after 1893. That's 2/3 of Hawaii's land that was NOT "lost to the colonizers." The largest private landowner (large in both body and landholdings!) was Princess Ruth Ke'elikolani, who gave her land to Princess Bernice Pauahi Bishop, who gave the combined lands of Ruth and Pauahi to Kamehameha Schools -- approximately 10% of all the lands in Hawaii even to this day. Then there are the 203,000 acres set aside for native Hawaiians in the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act of 1920; and other lands such as the entire Kahana Valley on O'ahu. Regarding Kahana Valley and "lost land": It's amusing how one activist (Robert Stauffer) wrote a whole book claiming that Kahana Valley fell out of Hawaiian ownership simply because it became owned by Mary Foster, who had "only" 1/4 Hawaiian blood. See my detailed book review
"Kahana: How the Land Was Lost by Robert H. Stauffer. BOOK REVIEW" at
Fernandez: "Colonizers also know that suppression of native language is key to subjugating a native people. Look at Hawaii. After the overthrow of the monarchy in 1893, they banned the use of the Hawaiian language (Act 57, section 30 of the 1896 Laws of the Republic of Hawaii). This law led to the suppression of native newspapers unfavorable to the new government, and the end of teaching Hawaiian language in schools."
Conklin: Judge Fernandez, Your "Honor", you need to read what the law actually said and learn how it was implemented. You -- a lawyer and judge -- need to read what the law said! It's easy to tell a lie and move on; it's harder to explain the truth. Bear with me. This is a topic where I am an expert witness.
The Hawaiian kingdom had a compulsory school attendance law, which was continued under the Provisional Government, Republic, Territory, and State of Hawaii. Any school attendance law must include a definition of what constitutes a "school." To make sure parents or factories or taro farms cannot get around the law by establishing sham "schools," the government defines the minimum requirements that must be met before a "school" is certified as meeting the requirements of the attendance law. Such minimum requirements for facilities, curriculum, and performance review apply to all schools, both government and private. Government certification of schools does not prohibit other schools or academies. For example, Christian churches can operate "Sunday schools" or Buddhist temples can have "Dharma schools" for religious instruction; or ethnic groups can set up after-school or weekend academies to perpetuate a culture and language -- the Japanese did that with hundreds of after-school academies throughout the 1900s and continuing now.
Following the revolution of 1893, the Republic of Hawaii passed a law more than three years later, in 1896, specifying that English must be the language of instruction in any school receiving "recognition" or certification as meeting the compulsory attendance law. Here is the exact wording of that law:
1896 Laws of the Republic of Hawaii, Act 57, sec. 30: "The English Language shall be the medium and basis of instruction in all public and private schools, provided that where it is desired that another language shall be taught in addition to the English language, such instruction may be authorized by the Department, either by its rules, the curriculum of the school, or by direct order in any particular instance. Any schools that shall not conform to the provisions of this section shall not be recognized by the Department." [signed] June 8 A.D., 1896 Sanford B. Dole, President of the Republic of Hawaii.
The law clearly concerns only schools, not society at large and certainly not newspapers. It does not single out Hawaiian language at all -- it applies equally to all languages other than English, including Japanese, Mandarin, Cantonese, Portuguese, etc. The majority of Hawaii's children at that time were children of Japanese and Chinese plantation workers, and there were also numerous immigrants from Portugal working on the plantations, mostly as lunas. The law wanted every citizen or long-term resident to have a language in common that they all could speak -- especially Japanese and Chinese. The Republic was looking forward to annexation to the United States. Every child born in Hawaii would grow up to become American citizens after annexation, and English would be essential for citizen participation in government and commerce. The law does not prohibit establishing private after-school or weekend academies where the medium of instruction could be Hawaiian (or any other language) -- it merely states that such schools will not be recognized by the government as satisfying the requirement that all children must attend school. The law clearly states that other languages (including Hawaiian) may be taught in a language course. Hawaiian language courses were offered at Kamehameha School, but Spanish was more popular with the students. And in fact the Territorial legislature passed laws appropriating money to publish Hawaiian language dictionaries for use in the government schools.
Some ethnic groups, most notably first-generation immigrant Japanese plantation workers, did indeed have private schools for "after school" or weekend instruction in their language and culture (see astonishing information about just how prevalent this was, near the end of a webpage). Many, perhaps most Hawaiian parents went so far as to demand that their children speak only English at home as well as at school. There was simply no desire among Hawaiian parents to set up special academies to perpetuate Hawaiian language. Ethnic Hawaiians working on the plantations or elsewhere were legally free to do what the Japanese actually did. The Hawaiians were also being paid at a higher wage rate than the Japanese, who were at the bottom of the scale (until Filipinos started coming to Hawai'i in 1906 and occupied the bottom). The Japanese felt it was important to invest their time and money to perpetuate their culture and language; while the Hawaiian parents, to the contrary, felt it was important to demand that their children speak English and assimilate to Euro-American cultural values.
There are many, many details to explain, but not here in a mere comment. So let me give the following webpage links:
Was Hawaiian Language Illegal?
Holding the State of Hawaii Department of Education accountable for propagating the lie that Hawaiian language was banned.
"Examples of Some Angry or Bitter Published Articles Claiming That Ethnic Hawaiians Were Victimized by Having Their Language Made Illegal or Suppressed" [I'll be adding this ridiculous Fernandez article to the collection]
"Hawaiian Language as a Political Weapon" with 16 detailed subpages
Fernandez: "This law [English as the language of instruction in schools] led to the suppression of native newspapers unfavorable to the new government, and the end of teaching Hawaiian language in schools."
Conklin: In recent years we have all learned that newspapers printed in Hawaiian language were published continuously from 1834 all the way through 1948. Some lasted only a short time with small circulation; others had large circulation and lasted for many years. There were both English-language and Hawaiian-language newspapers editorially favorable to the monarchy and opposed to annexation; and also newspapers in both languages happy with the overthrow of the monarchy and favorable to annexation.
Following the January 17 1893 revolution, the revolutionary Provisional Government did what all revolutionary governments in the world have always done with mass media (including radio and television nowadays) -- they temporarily banned the publication of pro-monarchy newspapers. But in Hawaii such censorship to stifle possible rioting lasted only one or two weeks, and then freedom of the press resumed. There were newspapers that viciously attacked President Sanford Dole and published poetry and stories favorable to Lili'uokalani and other royalists. Perhaps even Mr. Fernandez might have heard the widely known stories about people loyal to Lili'uokalani visiting her when she was imprisoned in the Palace following the attempted Wilcox counterrevolution of 1895 -- and they always brought her flowers WRAPPED IN ROYALIST NEWSPAPERS so that she could circumvent the ban on political information going to or from her and see what her friends were doing on her behalf. Clearly, there was no censorship or "suppression of native newspapers unfavorable to the new government" as claimed by Fernandez.
Fernandez is also wrong that the language law caused "the end of teaching Hawaiian language in schools." Surely a lawyer/judge can understand the difference between teaching a language as a subject of study vs. teaching subject matter in math, science, history, etc. through the use of that language as the medium of instruction. Read the wording of the law Judge Fernandez. It clearly says "where it is desired that another language [could be Hawaiian] shall be taught in addition to the English language, such instruction may be authorized by the Department, either by its rules, the curriculum of the school, or by direct order in any particular instance." Families not already fluent in Hawaiian had no interest in getting their kids to learn it; whereas families that spoke Hawaiian at home could continue doing so and could also send their kids to after-school academies to be taught in Hawaiian just like the Japanese established Japanese-language academies; but most Hawaiian parents were glad to have their kids learn English in school and many such parents demanded their kids speak only English in the home as well -- the parents would speak Hawaiian between themselves but required their kids to speak only English.
Fernandez: "When annexation and the Organic Act created the Territory, the Hawaiian people received nothing because no government existed to protect them nor categorize them as the indigenous people of the eight islands of the archipelago. Unlike some North American tribes on the continent no treaty was enacted."
Conklin: That's absurd! The natives received whatever everyone else received, including American citizenship for all persons who were citizens of the Republic of Hawaii and for anyone born in Hawaii; and a guarantee that revenue from the ceded lands must be used "for education and other public purposes" for the benefit of all residents of the Territory including natives. Fernandez is in reality complaining that there were no racial entitlement programs benefiting ethnic Hawaiians exclusively based on race alone [until the first such law was enacted -- the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act of 1920]. Today we have over a thousand racially exclusionary programs solely for the benefit of Native Hawaiians. I hope he'll go to the library and read my book identifying what he apparently champions: "Hawaiian Apartheid: Racial Separatism and Ethnic Nationalism in the Aloha State." It's also available for purchase direct from the publisher through
Fernandez' talk about North American tribes shows that he continues to favor creation of a federally recognized Hawaiian tribe, either through legislation like the Akaka bill [Fernandez wrote essays favoring the bill when it was alive in Congress] or through implementation of the Department of Interior regulation proclaimed by publication in the Federal Register on October 14, 2016. That regulation is a sleeper agent of Hawaiian apartheid ready to be implemented whenever the tribalists feel political conditions are right.
A webpage reviews the history of efforts to get official government recognition of ethnic Hawaiians as a political entity or Indian tribe -- a narrative summary covering 19 years 2000 through 2018, broken into two-year Congressional periods. Each "Congress" has a link to an index for that two year period, broken into sub-indexes in chronological order, linking to webpages providing full text of news reports, commentaries, and lawsuits regarding the Akaka bill in Congress, stealth maneuvers by Senator Inouye, Obama Department of Interior regulatory process, Hawaii legislature bills and resolutions, etc.; and efforts to gain local and international recognition of Hawaii as an allegedly continuing independent nation, through protests and lawsuits in Hawaii regarding Mauna Kea and taxes on land, and lobbying activity in the United Nations (both New York and Geneva). Go to
See a webpage describing how the DOI regulation 43CFR50 was proclaimed, including links to full text of the regulation and testimony in opposition during both comment periods:
After reciting his lengthy list of alleged victimhood grievances relying on history-twisting and falsehoods, Mr. Fernandez then spends the second half of his essay expressing his views about how Hawaiian culture before Captain Cook was superior to European and American culture, and how the Native Hawaiian blockade and takeover of Mauna Kea illustrates respect for the land and is a reassertion of Native Hawaiian self-determination. He cites the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and he says "Lieutenant Governor Josh Green got it right when on Mauna Kea he said, 'It is time for reconciliation with Hawaii's host culture.'"
Conklin has webpages showing that ethnic Hawaiians are not an indigenous people, that the term "host culture" is a poisonous concept implying that people with no Hawaiian blood are merely guests with no rightful standing in the ethnic Hawaiian homeland, and a direct response to Josh Green's pandering screed.
The concept of Native Hawaiians owning the "host culture" is astoundingly divisive because it portrays everyone lacking a drop of the magic blood as being mere guests. It's a racist political tactic which in recent years many academics and journalists have begun calling "othering" -- portray ethnic Hawaiians as being entitled to govern Hawaii because, according to a creation legend, they are biologically children of the gods and brothers to the land in a way nobody else can ever be who lacks a drop of the magic blood -- therefore portraying everyone else as "other" -- different, alien, permanent outsider, mere (unwanted) guest or even invader and exploiter and oppressor. That's exactly the tone of Bill Fernandez' commentary.
An example of "othering" is the demand that nobody lacking a drop of the magic blood can use the word "Hawaiian" to describe themselves. Every "Hawaiian" by definition has the magic blood; every OTHER person can be a resident or "settler" but is always a "non-Hawaiian." Because of pressure from ethnic Hawaiian activists, the Associated Press a few years ago included in its stylesheet that in news reports the word "Hawaiian" must be reserved for ethnic Hawaiians, while others can be called "Hawaii resident" or "Hawaii-born" or "native of Hawaii" but never "Hawaiian" or "native Hawaiian." At this time there are Caucasians with no Hawaiian blood whose families have lived in Hawaii for 8 generations, and Asians whose families have 6 generations in Hawaii; but the language police call them non-Hawaiian will not allow them to call themselves Hawaiian.
Although I was not born or raised in Hawaii, I visited during three summers from 1982 to 1989, felt a spiritual calling, and moved permanently to Kane'ohe in 1992 -- and since then I have never left Hawaii, for 27 years! I have traveled to dozens of nations and speak 6 languages. But Hawaii hanai'd (adopted) me, and I hanai'd Hawaii. I have probably lived in Hawaii longer than Bill Fernandez. For sure I have lived in Hawaii longer than most ethnic Hawaiians have been on this Earth, since Census says their median age is 26. I understand the culture and history, and speak Hawaiian with moderate fluency. Hawaii is my hanai homeland. I am Hawaiian, whether the language police like it or not. A well-known song describes my own odyssey: "He Hawai'i Au" also known as "I Keia Po". My journey was lengthy, seeking a place in this world; but I have returned; and I clearly realize that home is in my heart; I will not wander again because I understand -- I am Hawaiian.
Music (First video has song sung like a hymn with beautiful scenery and artifacts, then faster upbeat tempo; automatically followed by all-Japanese hula performance of it).
"Are kanaka maoli indigenous to Hawai'i? Would the status of being indigenous give them special rights?"
"Akaka Bill: Replacing Democracy and Individual Rights With Indigenous Communal (Group) Rights"
"Indigenous Intellectual Property Rights -- The General Theory, and Why It Does Not Apply in Hawaii"
"Were non-kanaka maoli historically full partners in Hawai'i, or only second-class guests?"
"Asian Settler Colonialism [Hawaii] -- book review"
"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." [includes a link to full text of the "Constitution of the Native Hawaiian Nation" adopted on February 26, 2016 in a monthlong meeting paid for by OHA, and an analysis of its racism and fascism -- this is the tribal Constitution which would be submitted to the Department of Interior as part of the process for federal recognition of a Hawaiian tribe under 43CFR50]
"The Aloha Spirit. How aloha for all, manifested in the twin pillars of unity and equality, can overcome Hawaiian religious fascism which is the theological basis for a claim to racial supremacy."
Ken Conklin's Facebook reply to Lt. Gov. Josh Green's pandering support for the Mauna Kea protesters:
Send comments or questions to:
You may now
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)
GO BACK TO OTHER TOPICS ON THIS WEBSITE
(c) Copyright 2019 Kenneth R. Conklin, Ph.D. All rights reserved