Then it's writers like this and editors who allow this revisionist's interpretation of Hawaiian history to be printed that fucking annoy me. The writer is a fucking hypocrite. He is rewriting our history and some of the statements are incorrect. For example, about Hawaiians not wanting statehood. My great great grandmother was on the first page of the petition but this is the kind of bullshit that Hawaiians have to deal with. How are we supposed to respond to that? If and when we do we are not given the opportunity so when many people think that it's cool to be Hawaiian... think again. We are bombarded with people who want to destroy us, rewrite our history, slander us and our ancestors, and the list goes on... so no... it is not cool to be Hawaiian when we are singled out.
That is why some people do not understand when some Hawaiians react the way they do. For example when they find someone posing as Hawaiian. For years, Hawaiians were and continue to be looked down upon. However many think it is so cool to be Hawaiian. It was not cool to be Hawaiian... til Hawaiians started to fight for their rights. Not when we (our culture, language, and people) are attacked yet the irony is that when we try to protect and/or preserve our culture, our language, and our people... some people say that we are complaining too much yet we have a right to complain. Another irony is that if it were Jews or Asians... then they would be able to protect themselves and their culture yet since we are Hawaiian... we are criticized for what... being Hawaiian and for trying to preserve our culture, history, heritage, language, and/or people. Yes... I bitch and I have a right to bitch about the bitches so I will send a letter to the editor to bitch more that we are constantly targeted and it fucking pisses me off that people target Hawaiians. That is a hate crime. Hello! And the editor is aiding and abetting a hate crime against Hawaiians by allowing this to be published and yes... it pisses me off because if someone wrote a letter like this about Jews... then they would be all over their ass! This of course is an example of anti-Hawaiian-ism like anti-Semitism. The only thing is that we Hawaiians are not Jewish so we don't get nearly the same respect as they do.
I know there will be someone reading this who will jump to the conclusion
that I am anti-Semitic. Before that person or person jumps too far... I am about civil rights for ALL... including Hawaiians and for the last 114 years or so... we have been excluded. Period! That is why I concentrate on civil rights and on Native American law:Revisionist history rampant
In regard to the Oct. 17 commentary by Sherry Broder et al. about the Akaka bill, the following observations are in order:
• "Opposition of Hawaiians to annexation."
In 1893, the Hawaiians did not resist the overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy by the white, mostly subjects of the kingdom.
In 1895, after President Grover Cleveland had denounced the revolution and ignored illegal shipments of arms from San Francisco to the Hawaiians, for the Hawaiian counterrevolution, out of 15,000 adult male Hawaiians, only 800 (5 percent) took up arms and gave up in one day.
In 1900, the 73 percent Hawaiian Territorial House voted for the half-Hawaiian Robert Wilcox as delegate to the U.S. Congress — snubbing Princes Kuhio and Kawananakoa.
Then, Kawananakoa joined the Democrats and Kuhio the Republicans, the people who overthrew the kingdom.
In 1902, Kuhio was elected as delegate to the U.S. Congress by the Republicans and his followers, and in a few years the Hawaiian party was finished.
In 1903, the majority Hawaiian Territorial House voted unanimously for statehood and sent the petition to the U.S. Congress with Kuhio.
In the 1959 plebiscite for statehood, the Hawaiians voted overwhelmingly for statehood.
Out of 632,000 residents, 130,000, or 20.4 percent, cast votes. Seven thousand, or 5.5 percent, voted "No."
Out of 102,000 Hawaiians, 21,000, or 20.4 percent, cast votes. Even if all 7,000 "No" votes were cast by Hawaiians, 67 percent of Hawaiians voted "Yes" for statehood.
That is consistent with the Hawaiian attitudes since 1895 when they ignored the counterrevolution.
• "After annexation, the Hawaiian language was suppressed."
Before the revolution of 1893, only 3 percent of Hawaiian schools used the Hawaiian language.
In 1883, Princess Pauahi Bishop's will specified that English would be used at the Kamehameha Schools.
• "The public lands taken by the U.S. without compensation."
The 1.8 million acres taken at annexation were paid for up to twice their value when the United States assumed the $3.8 million public debt of Hawai'i (see Hawai'i Archives for public debt and Annexation Resolution for debt payment).
The apology resolution was wrong!
In 1880, Princess Ke'eliko'lani's claim on part of 1 million acres of crown lands set the valuation at probate at $1.50 per acre. The 800,000-acre government lands were marginal lands. But even if all the lands were valued at $1.50 per acre, they would amount to $2.7 million compared with the public debt of $3.8 million. Prices were stable between 1850 and 1893 (see Hawai'i Archives for valuation of crown lands).
• "Redressing wrongs."
In 1848, Kamehameha III gave 80,000 Hawaiians 30,000 acres or one-third acre per person.
The United States gave 14,000 half-Hawaiians 205,000 acres or 14 acres per person or 42 times more per person than the king did. The king gave several chiefs 300,000 acres each.
The state gives the Hawaiians 20 percent of gross income from the public lands. That is 100 percent of net income, despite the Law of Admission requirement that 80 percent be used for schools and public works.
• "The Hawaiian culture was destroyed by the U.S."
It was Kamehameha II who, after his father died in 1819, overthrew the taboos and burned the temples and idols. The taboos were the whole culture.
Seen at http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/current/op/letters