LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Hawai`i Tribune Herald
The Big Island
August 14, 2009
Hawaii statehood Link to source
Insistence that the U.S. be held accountable for its misappropriation of title to the Hawaiian Islands is not generally seen as an act of compassion for truth and right reason. Instead we are being fed fictitious stories that are about as real as Jack Lord's adventures in Hawaii Five-O. One of them tells us that Hawaii is to hit the big Five-O this year on Aug. 21 as a state of the U.S.
If we're going to talk "state," let's look at facts.
Rather than 50 years of membership in the American union, on November 28 this year, the Hawaiian Islands, i.e., the Hawaiian Kingdom, can rightfully celebrate its 166th anniversary of national and international statehood. And wonder of wonders, in addition to France and Great Britain, the United States of America was also one of the countries that sponsored it into the world community of nations in 1843.
With recognized national sovereignty, Hawaii earned rights of independence and perpetuity and became a player in the economy of nations. Whatever the U.S. did in 1893 or in 1959 did not and does not preempt that status.
Thus there's a huge difference between the terms "Hawaiian State" and "State of Hawaii." The TV special "50 years of the 50th State" sweeps genuine research into the political and legal history of Hawaii under the rug when it describes Hawaii as a nation state of the U.S., even though the reference was to geographical, cultural and economic values. A review of the documentation presented on the Web site hawaiiankingdom.org will disclose the Hawaiian Kingdom's credentials from Kamehameha I onwards, as well as the incisive work of today that will allow it to reemerge as a country in its own right. Rather than forced-fed fiction to swallow, this Web site provides substance and insight into the real nation-state of Hawaii.
Keahi Felix
Keaau
Hawai`i Tribune Herald
The Big Island
August 17, 2009
Some key points Link to source
Keahi Felix, in his [correction: her] interpretation of the history of Hawaii (Your Views, Aug. 14), missed a few important facts.
King Kamehameha III recognized the fragility of his power when both the French and the British, backed by battleships, took over control of Hawaii while he was king. Both takeovers ended when U.S. battleships entered the harbor at Honolulu. To protect the islands, he twice requested annexation by the U.S. -- both times refused.
After the overthrow in 1893, the U.S. again refused requested annexation. It was not until 1898 that annexation of Hawaii was accepted, and the islands and its residents came under full protection of the freedom and rights granted by the Constitution. These rights and freedom were reinforced by Hawaii becoming the 50th state after 95 percent of the residents voted in favor of statehood.
There is no restriction for Hawaiians to celebrate their culture and speak their language. They also have equal rights with all residents of Hawaii to proper use of ceded lands, historical monuments and a good education.
Bill Blanchard
Hilo
Hawai`i Tribune Herald
The Big Island
September 12, 2009
Hawaiian Kingdom Link to source
Bill Blanchard does himself and the United States a great disservice in propagating a scenario that because King Kamehameha III died before securing a desired union with the U.S. for the Kingdom of Hawaii and for his protection that therefore the Kingdom is now justifiably taken by the U.S. (Your Views, Aug. 17).
Blanchard backs this line further with history that U.S. prevented French and U.K. battleships from taking control of Hawaii. Indeed, it looks like the U.S. was protecting its option for latent control.
There is no annexation treaty. Succeeding monarchs shunned U.S. partnership. If a courting couple can't agree to sign up mutually, there is no marriage. If such arrangements are forced then "rape" comes to mind.
Blanchard then casually says: "It was not until 1898 that annexation of Hawaii was accepted, and the islands and its residents came under full protection of the freedom and rights granted by the Constitution." Guess he means the U.S. Constitution. But he neglects to say that Queen Lili'uokalani and her government were overthrown by loyal U.S. rebels five years earlier and the U.S. bastion of "freedom" and "rights," under President McKinley, conspired with the rebels -- not the monarch -- to manufacture "annexation." Failing a two-thirds congressional majority, it was not legal U.S. domestic law let alone international law!
Then Blanchard asserts that 95 percent of the statehood vote (1959) was pro-statehood, but he neglects to understand that the proposition was fraudulent based on illegal annexation, 1898: U.S. civilian patriots, immigrants and military had no right to be in Hawaii, let alone vote! What a rabble frenzy of yahoo that was!
Blanchard ends with comments about rights of Hawaiians. He means kanaka maoli, and forgets that "Hawaiians" prior to the overthrow were multi-ethnic nationals. He says "Hawaiians" can practice their culture, language and education -- meaning, only since the '70s and in uphill revival since these were suppressed and illegal over the generation since 1893.
Michael Daly
Hilo