Writer got it wrong on Hawaii annexation
Writer got it wrong on Hawaii annexation
Regarding the letter by Ken Conklin (TGI, Dec. 3). According to United States Public Law 103-150 adapted by the US Congress in 1993: “Acknowledges that the Native Hawaiian people never directly relinquished to the United States their claims to their inherent sovereignty as a people over their national lands, either through the Kingdom of Hawaii or through plebiscite or referendum.”
Mr. Conklin’s analogy of the United States Civil War and the annexation of the Kingdom of Hawaii is a false equivalency. The illegal annexation was analogous to what the United States did to the Native American Nations; taking their land and placing them on reservations.
Chester Mazurowski, Kapaa
Valid points, succinctly said, Chester. Kenneth R. Conklin’s Ph.D train went off the tracks when he attempted to equate what happened to the South in the Civil War with the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii. Huh? It proves the point that having an advanced degree doesn’t necessarily translate to being any smarter.
Agree. Native Hawaiians were taken by force. The USA military ordered marshall law, any violations required imprisonment or death. 1893. Queen Liliuokalani had no men or enough of them. It was a country taking over a land and a new government formed. The war was lost then. Hawai’i stood no chance for retaliation. Full out war was not possible. ie. Hawaii had no artillery. (Drop out)
Hawai’i has its ups. If you visit a buffet luau show, you’ll be mezmerized and have an illusive experience only mother nature could have provided. Then there is back to work again. Touchy subject. But the allure of Hawai’i is mind boggling to visitors, simply because of its location and scenery. It developed into a 21st century destination where Aloha spirit can be felt by visitors who have never been to Hawai’i before.
The search for paradise. The 1960s was the decade that have introduced Hawai’i as a place of relaxation and a place where noise and quietness is its true virtue. Everyone wanted this, so they came to visit Hawai’i.
Ideal job: waiters at nights at Wailua and the hotel there. 3:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m M-Sat. Shift.
This being age 21 & over. Because only you read blogs like this. Hotels.
One outlook anyway.
Island air employees lost all of it in this chapter 7, bankruptcy. Include 401k plan.
Unlike Indians captive on reservations, Hawaiians are free to come and go as they please but they now have new laws to obey. Many Indians have sovereign nations that have little interference within their borders from the State and Federal governments. Indians cannot roam beyond their borders for the purposes of freely hunting and fishing. If Hawaiians had similar sovereignty they could build casinos as they have on the mainland. Our federal government has not been good to the culture of indigenous people but that’s common when one group conquers another. Aboriginal Australians were similarly mistreated when the British came knocking. Other places in the world, the defeated are completely obliterated such as Rwanda’s ethnic cleansing and genocide. At least the US government allows a sliver of prior cultures to exist but you can’t deny the overall destructive effects on indigenous people.
Response to Chester Mazurowski from Kapaa – The Garden Island Letters
12.8.2017
Mr. Mazurowski, please review and explain the decision of the: “SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES in HAWAII ET AL. v. OFFICE OF HAWAIIAN AFFAIRS ET AL. No. 07–1372. Argued February 25, 2009 — Decided March 31, 2009.
“2. The Apology Resolution did not strip Hawaii of its sovereign authority to alienate the lands the United States held in absolute fee and granted to the State upon its admission to the Union.”
“(b) The State Supreme Court’s conclusion that the 37 “whereas” clauses prefacing the Apology Resolution clearly recognize native Hawaiians’ “unrelinquished” claims over the ceded lands is wrong for at least three reasons.” And, the three reasons are explained in the decision.
Also, “117 Haw. 174, 177 P. 3d 884, reversed and remanded.
“ALITO, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.
“When a state supreme court incorrectly bases a decision on federal law, the court’s decision improperly prevents the citizens of the State from addressing the issue in question through the processes provided by the State’s constitution. Here, the State Supreme Court incorrectly held that Congress, by adopting the Apology Resolution, took away from the citizens of Hawaii the authority to resolve an issue that is of great importance to the people of the State. Respondents defend that decision by arguing that they have both state-law property rights in the land in question and “broader moral and political claims for compensation for the wrongs of the past.” Brief for Respondents 18. But we have no authority to decide questions of Hawaiian law or to provide redress for past wrongs except as provided for by federal law. The judgment of the Supreme Court of Hawaii is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.”
James Kuroiwa
47-327 Mawaena St.
Kaneohe, HI 96744
Cell: (808) 690-0031
Email: kuroiwaj@earthlink.net