HILO, Hawaii – The Hawaii County Council Committee on Governmental Relations and Economic Development took up a rare discussion on Hawaiian sovereignty in Hilo on Tuesday. Puna Councilman Danny Paleka introduced a resolution requesting the Hawaii state legislature designate July 31st as Lā Ho‘iho‘i Ea, recognizing the day independence was restored to the Kingdom of Hawai‘i in 1843 following a taking by the British Royal Navy.
From the “whereas” section of Resolution 185-15:
WHEREAS, La Ho‘iho‘i Ea translates to Restoration Day, which marks the day that independence was restored to the Hawaiian Kingdom on July 31, 1843, after being seized and forcefully taken by Lord George Paulet, a captain of the British Royal Navy’s HMS Carysfort; and
WHEREAS, July 31 commemorates the day that Admiral Richard Darton Thomas of the British Royal Navy ordered the Union Jack (Union Flag) to be removed and replaced with the Hawaiian flag, ending over five months of unauthorized military occupation; and
WHEREAS, the County of Hawai‘i recognizes that there is a need to honor, support, and cherish this significant day in Hawai‘i’s history; and
WHEREAS, Chapter 8, Holidays, of the Hawai‘i Revised Statutes designates certain days for the purpose of celebration, honor, remembrance, public education, and awareness; and
WHEREAS, July 31 should be known and designated as “La Ho‘iho‘i Ea” in recognition of the day independence was restored to the Kingdom of Hawai‘i, provided this day is not and shall not be construed to be a State holiday; now, therefore,
The measure drew lots of testimony from subjects of the Hawaiian Kingdom. The discussion also hit home for some councilmembers who have deep roots on the island.
The entire council voted to pass the resolution, which will go to the full council for a vote in the next few weeks.
Good on Hawaii County Council. A bit ironic, no? Now who will sponsor a bill calling for the Hawaiian flag to be lowered to half-mast every January 17 to mourn the subsequent takeover by the US?
Why would we do that? Becoming a part of the greatest nation on Earth, The United States of America, is what the people (mostly Polynesians) wanted at the time. Just because you are a hater doesn’t mean that it was a bad thing.
A lot of “where as”, and no “there fores”. A bit ironic no? Just like Clinton’s lame attempt to victimize the Polynesians with his “apology resolution”. Oh, but they fall for it every time don’t they?
“The measure drew lots of testimony from subjects of the Hawaiian Kingdom” The “Hawaiian Kingdom” has not existed since 1893. What’s wrong with this site? It certainly is pro sovereignty fringe.
Apparently they don’t know their history alright. http://historymystery.grassrootinstitute.org/2008/04/04/liliuokalanis-abdication-and-loyalty-oath/
Taking control of our kuleana. Mahalo nui loa
D.K.
The abdication of a monarch does not translate to the dissolution of a nation. For example, when Edward VIII abdicated the throne in favor of his younger brother George VI, did the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland dissolve? The answer is no. When Richard Nixon resigned as President of the United States of America following the Watergate Scandal, did the United States dissolve? The answer is no. In the same way, the abdication of Liliʻuokalani due to pressure from pro-annexation conspirators does not dissolve the sovereignty of the Hawaiian Kingdom.
Educated people don’t use the Grassroots Institute as a credible source for anything because the foundation of its argument against the continued existence of the Hawaiian Kingdom is not law; rather, it is the opinion of individuals like Kenneth Conklin who have no expertise in Hawaiian or U.S. constitutional law, international law, or political science – or even basic law. It’s like a botanist claiming to be a pediatrician.
When people know they’re losing an argument, they tend to say very arrogant and ignorant things. To say that Polynesians wanted to become part of the United States is a falsehood taught by a revisionist history whose primary author is the United States.
No one losing here but you and your ilk.
The majority of the members of the internationally recognized government, The Republic of Hawaii, were Polynesians, as well as their Speaker of the House was a Polynesian, and voted unanimously to request annexation of the United States.
Polynesians had the largest voting block of any ethnicity in the islands all the way to the 1940’s.
Our first two Representatives to the U.S. Congress were Polynesians. Robert Wilcox, and then Prince Kuhio who was our Representative for over 20 years until his tragic death from a heart attack in 1922.
Read: “Unconquerable Rebel, Robert Wilcox and Hawaiian Politics, 1880-1903”, Ernest Andrade Jr.
The huge difference in your examples and what actually occurred here is that there had been a revolution and a form of government change to a Democratic Republic. The new Democracy had been formally recognized by all major countries of the world.
Liliuokalani’s abdication and sworn allegiance to the Republic of Hawaii, after her dismal attempt at a counter revolution in 1895 that less than 200 men could be found to take part, was simply an exclamation point that Democracy was here to stay.
The revolution was NOT a revolution against the Polynesian people here, as the constitution drawn up for the Republic shows. Those able to vote had to have been born in the “Kingdom” or had been naturalized citizens of the “Kingdom” before the revolution. Therefore most all of the Japanese, Chinese, and Portuguese immigrants were excluded.
For almost 50 years Polynesians enjoyed control over the government.
As Robert Wilcox declared during a campaign speech, “You all know we control 2/3rds of the votes. If you want to control the government, it is yours to decide.”
J.L. Kaulukou, who was the Speaker of the House of the Republic of Hawaii told the San Francisco Chronicle on July 28, 1898,
“I regard Annexation as the best thing that could happen for Hawaii, both native and foreign population. I have advocated it ever since it became an issue in political politics and I rejoice heartily that it has come. For years I have looked upon it as being, if not inevitable, at least as the only way in which the best interests of Hawaii could be protected and advanced”
So, here is a Polynesian-Hawaiian, Speaker of the House, (which was dominated by Polynesian-Hawaiians) saying annexation was best for all.
The Polynesian-Hawaiians loved being a part of the U.S. so much that the first business of the 1903 Territorial Legislature was to request full Statehood.
“Be it Resolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Territory of Hawaii, that the Congress of the United States is hereby respectfully requested to pass an Act enabling the people of this Territory to meet in convention and frame and adopt a State Constitution where under this Territory may be admitted as a State into the Union.”
This above resolution was the first action of the 1903 Hawaii Legislature, unanimously adopted by the Senate and Polynesian-Hawaiian dominated House, and delivered to Congress by
Hawaii’s Polynesian-Hawaiian delegate to the U.S. Congress, Prince KuhioKalanaina’ole.
Prince Kuhio repeatedly spoke in favor of Statehood for over 20 years until he died.
With all due respect diverdave, but Queen Liliʻuokalani NEVER swore allegiance to the “Republic of Hawaiʻi”. And out of the perhaps 80,000 people living in Hawaiʻi at the time, not all were citizens of the Republic. The VAST majority did NOT swear allegiance. And for your information, she did not lead a counter revolution. She urged us NOT to do such a thing. The leader was Robert Wilcox. And why are you placing quotes around kingdom? There is no questioning the fact that Hawaiʻi gained recognized independence in 1843 as the Kingdom of Hawaiʻi. And last I checked, criminals cannot run a government…I think before you speak about Hawaiian history, you need to get educated instead of spewing very ethnocentric comment you probably got from wikipedia. ʻO au nō naʻe me ka haʻahaʻa…
You did not read the above citing of her abdication that I provided.
Guns were discovered buried in her back yard at Washington Place and appointment papers were found in her home outlining who would be her new cabinet should the revolution be successful. Many men were killed in her thwarted attempt.
Additionally, this attempt was supported by the United States President Cleveland, which allowed a shipment of guns from California to the Queen’s conspirators, and made sure that on the day of the attempted counter revolution there were NO American forces anywhere on land in the Islands, and NO U.S. Ships in the harbor, a clear violation of U.S. and international law.
The smuggling of arms and the counter revolution plot was discovered by the Republic’s Marshal, E. Hitchcock. He notified the Republic before the Queen’s forces were ready to attack, and they were stopped. If not for this attempt she would never have been put on house, er a Palace arrest. Although the Palace was not such a bad place to hang out considering she was provided two maids in waiting. She was allowed to return home just a matter of months later.
She chose to abdicate her throne in writing and retired to her house at Washington Pl.
By 1916 she proudly flew an American flag outside her home.
Simply put, there is no evidence to support that. If you REALLY wanted to learn Hawaiian history, you need to check Hawaiian language sources (i.e.: newspapers, letters, etc.). Everybody knows that the “Provisional Government” had falsified charges against the Queen with the idea that if you break the head of state, you break the country. Also for your information, you ACTUALLY think that the words of a wahaheʻe such as Hitchcock are trustworthy? I encurage you to do some real research at PRIMARY DOCUMENTS in Hawaiian. Afterall, the information that you are using come from only 6% of the population of that time (mainly haole). The rest of the 94% wrote prolifically about what really went down. She was imprisoned in the palace for close to a year, not “a few months”. And she did not fly the American flag outside her home. E aho kou noiʻi ʻana ma loko o nā palapala ʻōlelo Hawaiʻi. ʻAʻole pono ʻoe e ʻōlelo ulu wale ma muli o kou kuhi hewa i loaʻa ʻia mai Wikipedia mai…tsa ʻoe! E hoʻi hou ʻoe i ka lua o lalo lilo loa ke ʻoluʻolu.
Also, I am seeing quite a lot of really bad research. On top of that, what is the reason for trying to separate Hawaiians? Calling us Polynesian-Hawaiians…Hawaiians are Polynesian! You can just see the blatant racism you are trying to spread (to no avail I will add). Also, learn how to spell their names correctly. Kūhiō Kalanianaʻole, not Kalanainaʻole. Pono ʻoe e hoʻi hou i ke kula a aʻo hou mai e pili ana i ka mōʻaukala Hawaiʻi. He ʻōkole kāmano paha ʻoe, a no kai pāpaʻu paha kekahi…
No one here is arguing about race; you repeatedly bring up the “Polynesians” whenever you respond. Which fifty-year period are you referring to where “Polynesians” (I’m assuming you mean “kānaka maoli” or “hapa Hawaiʻi”) had control of their government? Are you referring to the Kingdom of Hawaiʻi? If anything, those native Hawaiians who may have supported annexation following the overthrow of Queen Liliʻuokalani most likely had their motives. Perhaps some enjoyed the privileges of power; or, perhaps others had come to believe that there was no way Hawaiians could fight the United States to restore power to the monarchy.
Prince Kūhiō did not seek office in the House of Representatives to support annexation; but, to serve as a voice for his people – the Hawaiian people – and to prevent their interests from being trampled by the ever-so greedy United States government – whose track record with native peoples, by the way, is deplorable.
The point I was trying to make in my original argument in reference to abdication is that the abdication of a Head of State (or Chief of State) does not translate into the dissolution of a State or the legitimization of another. Queen Liliʻuokalani, through her statement of abdication, whether valid or invalid, only removes herself from the office of Monarch and Head of State. And, whether or not she swore allegiance to the Republic of Hawaiʻi, does not validate its existence nor does it provide evidence of loyalty to the United States.
As law would show today, the overthrow of Liliʻuokalani was illegal. It was not a revolution. It was a planned invasion by agents of the United States of America together with those conspirators of Hawaiian nationality. This was followed by the so-called “Annexation” of Hawaiʻi, which itself violated the very Constitution and laws of the United States; as well as the treaties it held with the Hawaiian Kingdom, which, when ratified by the United States Congress, is treated and respected as law. It is this lack of a Treaty of Annexation which validates the continued existence of Hawaiʻi as a sovereign State and the prolonged occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom by the United States of America.
Citing the letter of abdication does not validate your argument that the Kingdom does not exist, or that it replaced the Republic of Hawaiʻi, or that the “majority of Polynesians” were in favor of annexation. Only a formal Treaty of Annexation (not a Joint Resolution of Congress) could validate your argument. Can you provide one? The answer is no.
Now YOU are being a racist. Hawaii is made up of many ethnicties. There are Japanese-Hawaiians, Chinese-Hawaiians, Anglo-Hawaiians etc. No one is from here, and very few are not of mixed race. In addition, there are Polynesians all over the South Pacific, so if you are talking about Polynesians, you must first speak of which Polynesians you are talking about. Tahitian are Polynesians, are they also Polynesian-Hawaiians?
BJ, Now YOU are being a racist. Hawaii is made up of many ethnicties.
There are Japanese-Hawaiians, Chinese-Hawaiians, Anglo-Hawaiians etc.
No one is from here, and very few are not of mixed race. In addition,
there are Polynesians all over the South Pacific, so if you are talking
about Polynesians, you must first speak of which Polynesians you are
talking about. Tahitian are Polynesians, are they also Hawaiians?
Your repeated use of the term “Polynesian-Hawaiian” makes absolutely no sense. When you say Hawaiian, that already denotes a Polynesian race. You would not say Asian-Korean or Asian-Chinese or Polynesian-Māori, so why say Polynesian-Hawaiian? Also, I never said anything about Hawaiʻi having only Hawaiians, of course there are mixed races. But never have I heard these mixed races saying “Polynesian-Hawaiian”. I challenge you to show me a credible source where this kind of term was used…
All of your above sources are not credible whatsoever. If you did any research on who runs the site, you would know just how corrupt the individuals are. Also, I challenge you to direct me to a CREDIBLE source that says the Queen swore allegiance, be it willful or not, to the PG. Also, point me towards a credible source that says the Queen “proudly” flew the U.S. flag. The kūkae you are spewing is the same sort that the PG tried to spread to no avail. I mea hoʻonaʻauao nou…
Apparently, you have not read the trial records of her(Liliuokalani’s) trial. Try reading and less talking.
Read the documents. I didn’t write them, Liliuokalani did.
It makes “no sense” to a racial supremacist.
Oh, she never wrote those documents. If you REALLY want to learn, read Hawaiʻi’s Story by Hawaiʻi’s Queen. Not records created by the PG to make it look as if everybody liked the U.S. Clearly they did not if 99% of Hawaiians signed the Kūʻē Petitions. Like I said, look at the facts from the source. You do not learn Japanese history from Americans who hate them, would you? Hawaiian history is no different.
No, a racial supremacist is one who tries to categorize in such a way that you are. Are full Hawaiians Asian? No! Also, does it make sense to call a Hawaiian who knows Hawaiian language and history a racial supremacist? All I am doing is stating the facts. Polynesian in itself is not a race, rather it is a “family” of peoples from a certain part of the Pacific. Marshallese people would also be offended if you said Micronesian-Marshallese. No one ever says “I am an Asian-Chinese” or “I am a Polynesian-Hawaiian”. If you want to establish ANY credibility, you would stop trying to separate the term “Hawaiian” from what it truly is. A people who stand out, an ethnicity, a citizenship, etc.
You are also in denial. Those documents are in the State Archives. LOL at you.
Just because it is archived does not mean it is true. Artifacts of history are archived, whether the info in them are right or wrong. That is just like saying “it is on Wikipedia”. Like I said, read the book the Queen wrote before you comment. E aho kou heluhelu ʻana i ua puke nei ma kahi o ka hilinaʻi ʻana i ka ʻōlelo a ka poʻe wahaheʻe. Na lākou i puni mai iā mākou no ka mea ua makemake lākou e ulupā i nei pae ʻāina. A ʻaʻole au hoihoi i kou maopopo ʻole ʻana i kaʻu mau mea e kākau nei. Maopopo anei iāʻoe? ʻAʻole paha? Inā makemake ʻoe e ʻaʻa i ka hoʻopololei ʻana iaʻu, a laila e noiʻi nowelo aku! Tsa ʻoe, no kai pāpaʻu paha?
Dd – We are so tired of your ignorance in these posts! It insults even basic intelligence! Either too much diving – or need to take a dive! Try know what you talking about or Kulikuli!
BJ this guy (Dd) obviously has some decompression damage. I admire your attempts to reply, but I suspect you are wasting your time… I’M OUT!
ANOTHER DENIER THAT REFUSES TO ACCEPT THE TRUTH, PUNA SUNSHINE.
YOU’RE OUT ALRIGHT “SUNSHINE”! LOL ROLLING ON THE FLOOR LAUGHING AT YOU!