Celebrating the Hawaiian Revolution of January 17, 1893

Grassroot Perspective: January 2013 Ka Wai Ola Review  By Jere Krischel (Celebrating the Hawaiian Revolution of January 17, 1893) The recent candidacy of Keli'i Akina for OHA has presented a novel challenge to the very premise of the institution. On the one hand, you have the existing race-based, patronage and power model that OHA has been running for years, and on the other, you have a Hawaiian based service model, where all Hawaiians, regardless of ancestry, are stakeholders in the institution and served by it - "OHA for Everyone". As a Hawaiian who doesn't have pre-1778 ancestry, born and raised in the islands, with family of all ethnicities imaginable, Akina's progressive view has been particularly appealing. In that spirit, let us take a critical look at the most recent "Ka Wai Ola" magazine from OHA. A glossy, slick mailer that comes out every month, this news outlet for OHA demonstrates over and over again the inherent racism of their patronage politics, and a chronically dishonest accounting of Hawaiian history. The most depressing part, though, is that they obviously see this kind of racism as justifiable, or even benign, and in doing so, they perpetuate a mentality of victimhood, hatred and dependency. Preferring monarchy to democracy  On page 7, Jon Osorio mentions the idea of "indigenous people's rights" in the context of the Kingdom of Hawaii - without understanding that even the first Constitution of the Kingdom of Hawaii, it was declared that all people were "of one blood". Such an omission, from a UH professor no less, is an indictment of the rigor with which we hire college faculty. The fact of the matter is that we are all indigenous to this earth, and this was clearly recognized by the noble King Kamehameha III, who granted the first constitution to the multi-racial people of Hawaii. Treating 20th century Filipino immigrants different than 14th century Tahitian immigrants (who invaded and conquered the first 10th century Marquesan immigrants) is both offensive and pernicious. Osorio also amusingly talks about the Kingdom as if it was egalitarian and blind to socioeconomic class, even though it wasn't until annexation that property requirements for voting were eliminated. Even the most ardent of royalists, including those who took up arms in defense of the monarchy, such as Robert Wilcox, eventually saw annexation and the Organic Act of 1900 as a massive step forward for the rights of native Hawaiians, especially the poorest of them. Whitewashing the Queen  On page 8, Ke 'haunani Abad presents a whitewashed and sanitized version of history that simply cannot stand up to any scrutiny. One might think for a moment that such historical revisionism could simply be an unintentional mistake, but the lies put forth by Abad are so egregious they simply cannot be excused. Starting with the description of 1891, the falsehoods begin. While Liliuokalani claimed that she had been petitioned to change the 1887 Constitution (which she swore an oath to uphold), no evidence of any such petitions has ever existed. Furthermore, the voting rights restricted by the 1887 Constitution were those of asians, who were lower on the social totem pole than both whites and native Hawaiians until well into the 1950s. The sly implication that the 1887 Constitution was somehow a slight against native Hawaiians is clever tactic, but patently false. The misdirections continue in 1892, where Abad claims that the queen had no opposition from her cabinet regarding her plans to abrogate the constitution she swore an oath to - technically true, but false in spirit. Yes, in 1892, when the queen mused about changing the constitution, her cabinet dully nodded their heads, and said nothing. But on January 14, 1893, when the queen threatened to actually implement her crazy idea of unilaterally changing the constitution, they rigorously opposed her. This late game opposition infuriated the queen so much, that she threatened the lives of her own cabinet, who then rushed in a panic to their political enemies (who would later form the Committee of Safety). Abad follows this lie up with her description of 1/14/1893, claiming that the Committee of Safety was a pre-planned ruse, rather than a reaction to the fear of her own cabinet. While certainly her political enemies took the opportunity to depose the queen when it was offered, and continued on their course even when the queen had apologized to her cabinet for the death threats and they went back to her side, it was undoubtedly a sincere response to what they saw as Liliuokalani's misrule. On the same page, Francine Murray has a large inset, where she builds upon the lies of Abad and the Queen herself. The biggest whopper is the claim that she yielded to the United States under protest. It was a clever bit of fiction that she hoped to leverage into reinstatement, but it fails to convince once you realize that she never delivered her surrender document to the United States minister. Her reign was under threat by the Committee of Safety, and her "surrender under protest" was in fact delivered to the Committee of Safety. She could've claimed she was surrendering to a cheese sandwich under protest, but the fact of the matter is that her surrender was to her local political enemies, not the US peacekeepers who remained scrupulously neutral during the entire affair. Although her fiction did manage to convince her friend Grover Cleveland to push for her return to the throne, when Cleveland tried to impose his will on the Provisional Government late in 1893, they flatly refused his demands. Had the US actually been in control of the Provisional Government, as the queen pretended in her surrender document, Cleveland's order would have been accepted and she would have been put back on the throne. Luckily for the forces of democracy and equality, that didn't happen. Another notable mention for misdirection is Francine Murray's bit about the "Crown Lands". These lands were found to be, under Kingdom law, the property of the entire multi-racial public of Hawaii, not any given monarch. The ex-Queen's attempt to make a personal claim to those lands was without merit, and frankly, the race-based claims on the public lands of Hawaii (the "Returned Lands" once known as the "Ceded Lands"), are similarly without redeeming quality. The worst offense from Francine Murray's article though, is the omission of Liliuokalani's change of heart. A beautiful tale of acceptance and redemption, it is too little known by the people of Hawaii. The Queen, along with other notable royalists, fought for the return of the Kingdom for many years, and even took up arms against the sovereign and internationally recognized Republic of Hawaii. But they all had a massive change of heart as the promise of full democracy with the Organic Act of 1900 approached. In her diary of September 2, 1900, the queen wrote: "Tho' for a moment (the overthrow) cost me a pang of pain for my people, it was only momentary, for the present has a hope for the future of my people." One can only hope that the neo-royalists of OHA can learn to embrace equality and democracy the way the ex-Queen did. She was my queen too  On page 9, Kaipoleimanu Ka'awaloa comments on Liliuokalani, stating, "She showed me the importance of putting one's people first, putting the Native Hawaiian people before anything." But hey, wasn't the Kingdom of Hawaii multi-racial? Is the implication here that Liliuokalani didn't care about asians? Were her people the entire Kingdom of Hawaii, or only those with a special bloodline? When she avoided contesting her overthrow, wasn't she also protecting the Japanese, Chinese, and European subjects of the Kingdom? Now, maybe the Queen was a racist against asians - there's little historical evidence for that, but anti-asian sentiment in Hawaii was very real in the 1800s and early 1900s. But should we be celebrating the idea of someone putting a certain race before anything? If Neil Abercrombie was putting white people before anything, would that be seen as a virtue? Stop eating carbohydrates  While not related to Hawaiian history or OHA racism, on page 12 Claire Ku'uleilani Hughes talks about a topic near and dear to my heart - health. Hughes mentions some of the first contacts between Europeans and native Hawaiians, with reference to just how robust and healthy native Hawaiians were when they first met Europeans. Well, there is a reason - they didn't eat a lot of carbohydrates. Wherever the western explorers went, they brought refined carbohydrates - sugar, flour - that are clearly the causes of obesity, diabetes, cancer, heart disease, and other chronic diseases. The sad fact of the matter is that many "indigenous" populations who moved from traditional diets to high-carb western diets have suffered horribly in terms of health. This is certainly true of native Hawaiians. For those interested in a wonderful documentary on the subject, please see  http://www.mybigfatdiet.net/ A nation for me, but not for thee  On page 14-15, Treena Shapiro covers the 2012 Investiture of the Board of Trustees for OHA, and sadly, it's filled with more victimhood mentality. Starting with the very first mention of "ceded" lands (which, fun fact, were returned to the multi-racial public of Hawaii in 1959 with statehood), the article shows OHA's complete lack of shame in pursuing a race-based nation, presumably led by the OHA Ali'i, with no civil protections against the abuse of their power. Kamana'opono Crabbe is quoted as saying, "what is good for kanaka, for Native Hawaiians, is good for Hawai'i as a whole". Yet how is draining the State of Hawaii budget of money for say, public education, and funneling it to an organization like OHA which rewards its friends with lavish grants based on race, good for Hawaii as a whole? Imagine Brian Schatz claiming, "what is good for whites, is good for Hawaii as a whole!" The idea that racism in favor of one bloodline is somehow benign, nay, beneficial to all the other races being excluded is shameful. Even Nainoa Thompson's talk on Eddie Aikau, who died because of the race-based claims made on the 1978 Hokule'a voyage (filling it with people of the proper race, rather than with people of the proper skill set for a long voyage), was a lesson left unlearned. Nainoa's father, Pinky Thompson, was observed confronting race-based attitudes at the Polynesian Voyaging Society, claiming, "I'm American first." That kind of noble virtue, that of equality, and color-blind vision, is something that is obviously invisible to the current OHA. A call for racism  On page 16, Colette Y. Machado's speech is printed, verbatim, and it is a sad sight to see. The vicious racism exhibited without shame is shocking, when she praises the Kana'iolowalu slogan, "Unrelinquished - Undeterred - and Unified to Rebuild the Hawaiian Nation". She forgets that the Kingdom of Hawaii was multi-racial from its very inception. She forgets that both the Queen and Prince Kuhio became patriotic Americans, with Kuhio even serving as our Territorial Representative to Congress. She forgets that Prince Kuhio fought for statehood, not a return to the Kingdom. Starting up an organization to determine proper bloodline, and then creating a "nation" separate from the multi-racial State of Hawaii, and then talk about being "unified" is laughable. These would-be Kings and Queens of the Neo-Kingdom of Hawaii are doing nothing less than dividing Hawaiians from other Hawaiians. Particularly offensive is Machado's reference to the Polynesian Voyaging Society, which, fun fact, had founders who included the Micronesian Mau Pialug and a the haole Ben Finney. The PVS, and Hokule'a, were multi-racial endeavors, and are the pride of all Hawaiians, not just those with the proper ancestry. Messages of discord Towards the back of the magazine, we get to the Trustee Messages section, where much of the familiar historical lies and blatant racism are continued. On page 22, Peter Apo slanders the US peacekeepers who landed during the Hawaiian Revolution of 1893, asserting that they were prepared to fight against the Queen. With strict orders to remain neutral in the conflict, one could blame the US peacekeepers for not fighting in defense of a friendly nation against the Honolulu Rifles and the Committee of Safety, but there was never any threat from any US peacekeeper against any Kingdom soldier, period. Apo makes no bones about his desire to divide Hawaiians up into "natives" and "non-natives", and create a separate race-based nation for his specially selected subjects. As he talks about a four legged stool for nation building, with citizenry, culture, economic base, and political recognition, one might reasonably believe that we've already got all of those things - a citizenry of the State of Hawaii, which has its own unique culture, economic base, and international recognition as a co-equal member of the United States. But that's not enough. Apo wants to have his new nation choose its citizenry. He wants to be able to exclude those who don't have the proper bloodline...or those who do have the proper bloodline but are otherwise "undesirable". How can someone fool themselves into thinking such racial division is a good thing? On page 24, Carmen "Hulu" Lindsey continues with similar lies about the US peacekeepers, and spends time talking about how to be democratic in deciding the future of the proposed OHA Nation. But how can you be democratic when before anyone votes, you give them a blood test for ancestry? She claims she wants an "inclusive process", but first she wants to exclude the vast majority of Hawaiians from any say. Happy Hawaiian Revolution Day!  For now, we still have a internationally recognized, sovereign State of Hawaii. It has problems, and the threat of a race-based government, and an OHA that is not for everyone, are certainly some of the biggest ones facing it. But thanks to the decisive action of the Committee of Safety, the eventual wisdom of the patriotic Americans Liliuokalani and Kuhio, and the millions who worked so hard to create a unified State of Hawaii, we have a chance to fight off the harbingers of racial division. It's hard work, but it's worth doing. Happy new year, everyone, and Happy Hawaiian Revolution Day!

Apology Resolution Apology

http://historymystery.grassrootinstitute.org/2009/04/01/apology-resolution-apology/

In 1993, radical activists managed to pass PL103-150, otherwise known as the “Apology Resolution.”  The resolution itself was based on the writings of a single activist author, Davianna McGregor, and went through no vetting process to establish whether or not any of the “whereas” clauses regarding the history of the Hawaiian Islands and the Hawaiian Revolution of 1893 were accurate.  It was passed through the Senate with limited debate and assurances that it was a “simple apology,” and was passed by the House of Representatives with no debate at all through a voice vote.  It was stealth legislation of the lowest order, and its passage has reverberated with adverse consequences for the past 16 years.

PL103-150 was the culmination of decades of work by native Hawaiian victimhood activists, and enshrined into law the occupation narrative they believed justified race-based privileges and preferences in Hawai’i.  In their occupation narrative, the Kingdom of Hawai’i was a pleasant, happy and egalitarian place, comprised only of native Hawaiians.  They believe that this utopia was usurped by evil white people from the United States in 1893, when 162 armed and violent marines landed and deposed the Queen, and that ever since native Hawaiians have been downtrodden and oppressed by their white masters.  In the Apology Resolution, they found an authoritative voice for their historical revisionism, and have used PL103-150 as a lever to support their narrative in the courts and to give a rationale to their race-based agenda.

The Apology Resolution was ostensibly pursued to prop up the existing neo-ali’i class of OHA Trustees, to protect OHA’s race-based programs and to lay the groundwork for further reparations from the general public of both the State of Hawai’i and the United States.  However, PL103-150 also had the unintended side effect of giving birth to a wild and diverse independence movement, which found legitimacy in the skewed “whereas” clauses and their twisted history.  Taken to its logical conclusion, the occupation narrative demands de-occupation, and delegitimizes the multi-racial State of Hawai’i.  Very quickly after 1993 and PL103-150, con-men of various flavors began to gather about followers, and made claims to the throne of the Kingdom of Hawai’i.  Some, like David Sai, perpetrated scams that lost people their homes.  Others wrote mock constitutions, and held mock elections to claim the mantle of the Hawaiian Monarchy.  All of them threatened to divide up the people of Hawai’i based on race, and helped foster a misguided sense of victimization and an “us versus them” mentality.

Of course, the hidden truth is that the Kingdom of Hawai’i was unified by a multi-racial coalition.  The hidden truth is that the power of the ali’i waned and the power of the kama’aina has waxed over the past 200 years.  The hidden truth is that the Hawaiian Revolution of 1893 was an internal affair, and the United States marines who landed remained completely neutral throughout the overthrow.  The hidden truth is that the Republic of Hawai’i was universally recognized as the legitimate successor to the Kingdom of Hawai’i, and survived both an unfriendly United States Administration, and a ineffective rebellion in 1895.  The hidden truth is that the annexation of Hawai’i in 1898, and Statehood in 1959 were boons to the common native Hawaiian, offering them political rights they did not have during the Kingdom of Hawai’i.  The hidden truth is that the “ceded” lands were properly returned to their original owners, the multi-racial public of Hawai’i.  The hidden truth is that race-based programs in Hawai’i have no moral basis, and serve only to harm society and the ideals of justice and equality.

In a historic decision, the Supreme Court of the United States made clear that there is nothing that clouds the perfect title of the public lands of the State of Hawai’i, which are “free and clear” from “claim[s] of any nature whatsoever” as per the 1900 Organic Act.  Rejecting the earlier decision of the Supreme Court of Hawai’i, the SCOTUS made clear that the “whereas” clauses of PL103-150 were “nonsubstantive,” and that the reliance on those “whereas” clauses as law was a grave error.

Stripping away the entire foundation for race-based claims to the public lands and resources of the State of Hawai’i, the damage control on the part of native Hawaiian victimhood activists has begun.  They take refuge in the fact that the case was remanded to the Supreme Court of Hawai’i, believing that they can influence that body once again to make a decision in their favor, without realizing the strict conditions the SCOTUS has put upon any opinion they may now render.  They take refuge in the fact that their race-based programs were not directly identified or attacked by the decision, without realizing that by removing the Apology Resolution “whereas” clauses from the picture, they are now completely subject to the 14th and 15th amendments.

In the end though, the point is crystal clear – any bit of argument based on the “whereas” clauses of PL103-150 holds no weight, and stealth legislation passed in the dark of night cannot remove the equal protections given to us by the Constitution of the United States.  Race-based programs in Hawai’i will continue to be attacked on constitutional grounds, and no refuge will be found in revisionist history that fails to acknowledge the multi-racial history and legacy of Hawai’i.

The Akaka Bill, which predicates itself upon the Apology Resolution “whereas” clauses, may indeed pass through Congress, and may indeed be signed by our misinformed and politically indebted Hawaiian President, but it cannot possibly withstand the scrutiny of the courts.  OHA may manage to hold on to Kau Inoa for a few more years, and sovereignty activists may still find sympathetic judges in the lower courts to slap them lightly on the wrist when they commit felonies in myopic pursuit of their dreams, but the truth can no longer be held at bay.  Hawai’i is a sovereign State, consisting of sovereign citizens who should share equal rights with each other no matter who their ancestors may have been.

The big question now is how we move forward as Americans, and how we move forward as Hawaiians, regardless of our race or ethnicity.  Although OHA certainly has enough money to continue its fight for a good long while, and although there are hard-core sovereignty activists who will never acknowledge any adjudication other than their own, the tide has clearly turned.  In due time, all race-based programs in Hawai’i will be declared unconstitutional, and the poisonous lies of the Apology Resolution “whereas” clauses will be exposed to the public for what they are.

The dominant political machines in Hawai’i have been entrenched for decades, and they certainly won’t adjust quickly to right the wrongs they have committed in the name of the Apology Resolution.  They must make a choice though.  They must choose to accept the honor of Statehood, and the supremacy of the Constitution of the United States, or they must choose to dishonor the people of the State of Hawai’i, and continue to drive wedges between people based on race.  They cannot be both patriots and apologists for racism – the two simply cannot coexist.

By the example of PL103-150, I’d like to suggest the following “Apology Resolution Apology:”

WHEREAS, the Kingdom of Hawai’i was multi-racial from its inception;

WHEREAS, the Kingdom of Hawai’i’s first constitution declared all people, “of one blood;”

WHEREAS, the people of the Kingdom of Hawai’i overthrew their monarchy as the United States marines stood by in complete neutrality;

WHEREAS, the administration of Grover Cleveland demanded the reinstatement of the Queen based on the biased and misinformed Blount Report;

WHEREAS, Sanford Dole rightfully refused to accede to Cleveland’s unlawful interference in the domestic affairs of the Kingdom of Hawai’i and its Provisional Government;

WHEREAS, Grover Cleveland referred the matter of the Hawaiian Revolution of 1893 to the “broader authority and discretion” of Congress;

WHEREAS, after a bi-partisan investigation with testimony under oath, the Morgan Report of February 26, 1894 factually repudiated the mistaken conclusions of the Blount Report;

WHEREAS, the Republic of Hawai’i was declared on July 4, 1894, and was recognized as the legitimate successor of the Kingdom of Hawai’i by every nation in the world ever to have diplomatic relations with the Kingdom of Hawai’i;

WHEREAS, the Republic of Hawai’i was a sovereign, independent nation that had robust international diplomatic relations, and survived an ineffective rebellion in 1895;

WHEREAS, in 1897 the Republic of Hawai’i adopted a Treaty of Annexation offering among other things, to cede to the United States its sovereignty and absolute fee and ownership of all public lands, including the former crown lands;

WHEREAS, in 1898, by the Newlands Resolution, the United States accepted the offer of annexation and Hawai’i was annexed to the United states and absolute fee and ownership of all public lands was vested in the United States;

WHEREAS, the Organic Act of 1900 established the government of the Territory of Hawai’i and reiterated that its lands consist of the lands the United States had acquired under the Newlands Resolution, free and clear from any claims of any nature whatsoever;

WHEREAS, the government of the Territory of Hawai’i was dominated by native Hawaiians for many decades after annexation, including the first two Congressional Representatives, Robert Wilcox and Prince Kuhio;

WHEREAS, the people of Hawai’i, of all races, pursued Statehood throughout the Territorial period;

WHEREAS, in 1959, in an election with the highest voter turnout in the history of Hawai’i, the people of Hawai’i, of all races and ethnicities, voted overwhelmingly for Statehood;

WHEREAS, in 1959, Hawai’i became the 50th State of the Union, and the “ceded” lands were returned to the multi-racial public of the State of Hawai’i by the Admissions Act;

WHEREAS, in 1973, native Hawaiian victimhood activists decided to pursue a settlement similar to the Alaskan Native Claims Settlement Act, in pursuit of money and power regardless of the completely different histories of the Alaskan Natives and native Hawaiians;

WHEREAS, in 1978, the Office of Hawaiian Affairs was created with the best of intentions;

WHEREAS, the Office of Hawaiian Affairs became a corrupt and indefensible bastion of race-based programs and privileges;

WHEREAS, the 1983 Native Hawaiians Study Commission Report was pursued by native Hawaiian victimhood activists, but instead repudiated their claims for race-based reparations;

WHEREAS, in 1993, on the anniversary of the Hawaiian Revolution of 1893, the Apology Resolution (PL103-150) was passed to undermine the factual findings of the Native Hawaiians Study Commission Report, and provide a basis for race-based reparations;

WHEREAS, in 2000, Rice v. Cayetano was decided, and voting for OHA trustees was opened to people of all races and ethnicities;

WHEREAS, on December 31, 2002, Arakaki v. Hawaii was decided, and running for OHA trustee office was opened to people of all races and ethnicities;

WHEREAS, since 2000, the Akaka Bill has been presented in Congress as an attempt to avoid equal protection challenges to race-based programs in Hawai’i;

WHEREAS, the Akaka Bill was predicated upon PL103-150;

WHEREAS, on March 31, 2009, the Supreme Court of the United States affirmed that the “whereas” clauses of PL103-150 are “nonsubstantive;”

BE IT RESOLVED that all race-based qualification for government programs be removed from all laws of the State of Hawai’i; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that all State of Hawai’i politicians who ever supported race-based privileges should apologize to the races and ethnicities they have discriminated against, and affirm to all the people of the State of Hawai’i that they will enjoy equal rights and equal treatment under the law, regardless of race or ethnicity; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that all Federal politicians who ever supported race-based privileges should apologize to the races and ethnicities they have discriminated against, and affirm to all the people of the State of Hawai’i that they will enjoy equal rights and equal treatment under the law, regardless of race or ethnicity; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that any pursuit of race-based privileges or programs in the State of Hawai’i be considered a poisonous stain upon the noble heritage of the native Hawaiian people and all their ancestors who embraced all other people as fellow humans, equal in worth and rights; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that certified copies of this Concurrent Resolution, the complete three volume set of Kuykendall’s “Hawaiian Kingdom,” Ernest Andrade’s “Unconquerable Rebel,” Thurston Twigg-Smith’s “Hawaiian Sovereignty: Do the facts matter?,” and Dr. Kenneth Conklin’s “Hawaiian Apartheid” be transmitted to every State of Hawai’i legislator, every United States Senator, every United States Congressional Representative, all living presidents, each member of any Hawaiian Studies or related program in the University of Hawaii, and every former or current OHA trustee.

Jere Krischel, civil rights activist

Kauai Politics Akin to Living on the Reservation

Kauai reminds me of the decades I spent living on an Indian reservation. Tribal politics remind me a lot of the politics on Kauai. The most powerful Indian families competed to control the tribal senate and thus tribal government and the monies that said government controlled. We are talking sizable amounts of other peoples money. Once in control of the government as we have seen on Kauai there are many ways to siphon money and perks.

On the reservation I lived on one family has controlled the tribal government for most of the last 50 years. They have maintained that control by patronage, payola and when that has not worked with violence. I can tell you that a frozen turkey around the holidays (and elections) for some households was all it took to secure votes. This family has parlayed their control of their tribe to become one of the wealthiest families in the State in which they reside.

There is very little accountability on reservations. The Feds mainly look the other way and the Indian Civil RIghts act actually permits things that would be illegal off the reservation. By the way I can't imagine that if it comes into creation that the Akaka tribe would behave any differently.

Here on Kauai it seems we have a similar situation. He or she who controls Kauai government, or a part thereof, gets to enrich themselves and their clan at the general taxpayer's expense. You know the way they always have. To date the citizen voters have been complicit in this by voting the same folks or their cronies back into office. That needs to change.

HIGH COURT EMASCULATES APOLOGY RESOLUTION

3/31/2009 U.S. Supreme Court in Hawaii v. OHA, 129 S.Ct. 1436,1439-1444 (2009) reversed the Hawaii Supreme Court’s injunction against sale or transfer of any ceded lands until claims of native Hawaiians against ceded lands are resolved.  Decision by Justice Alito for unanimous Court holds :

Operative clauses of 1993 Congressional Apology Resolution created no substantive rights;

State Supreme Court’s conclusion (that the Apologu Resolution’s 37 “whereas” clauses clearly recognize native Hawaiians’ “unrelinquished” claims over the ceded lands) is wrong.  The 37 “whereas” clauses would “raise grave constitutional concerns ” if they purported to cloud the State of Hawaii’s absolute title to the ceded lands.

Pursuant to Newlands Resolution (1898) Republic of Hawaii ceded and transferred to U.S. “absolute fee and ownership” of all public, Government and Crown lands “without reserve.”  In 1900 Organic Act reiterated that U.S. acquired  absolute fee, and declared that  on  effective date of Newlands Resolution, and prior thereto, the Crown lands were property of the Hawaiian government “free and clear from any trust of or concerning the same, and from all claim of any nature whatsoever. ”

The State of Hawaii in its brief  had argued that the Newlands Resollution (1898) and Organic Act (1900) “extinguished” and “foreclose” any Native Hawaiian or other claims over the ceded lands that preexist the date of annexation.  ”For decades after Hawaii was admitted to the Union, the State had undisputed authority to dispose of the ceded lands as it deemed appropriate so long as it satisfied its “public trust” obligations, which run to all the citizens of Hawaii, not just to Native Hawaiians.”

This landmark unanimous decision of the highest court has now finally adjudicated this major issue.   Native Hawaiians have no claim over the ceded lands arising out of events before Annexation in 1898.  The ceded lands are held by the State of Hawaii in trust for all the people of Hawaii, including but not limited to Native Hawaiians.

"Distinctions by race are so evil, so arbitrary and invidious that a state bound to defend the equal protection of the laws must not invoke them in any public sphere" - (the NAACP's brief, written by Thurgood Marshall, in the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education desegregation case).  

Informative Links

• CERA
• Grassroot Institute of Hawaii
• Hawaii Reporter

The only stable state is the one in which all men are equal before the law.

Aristotle

Greek critic, philosopher, physicist, & zoologist (384 BC - 322 BC)