Posts Tagged Hawaiian grievance industry

Conklin rebuttal to Bill Fernandez, “The Temple of Science”

Kenneth R. Conklin, Ph.D.  provides a rebuttal to the following article:
Bill Fernandez, “The Temple of Science,” The Garden Island [Kaua’i newspaper], August 9, 2019, Guest Commentary.
https://www.thegardenisland.com/2019/08/09/opinion/the-temple-of-science/

The Garden Island newspaper editor’s tagline says “Bill Fernandez is a former attorney, judge and mayor, is an author and is a resident of Kapaa.” So Mr. Fernandez is not some crazy sovereignty activist whose ignorance and zealousness cause him to twist history and say outright falsehoods in a manner which an attorney might call “excited utterance.” His essay should be taken seriously, which is exactly how he intends it to be taken. I will provide a point-by-point rebuttal to his numbing litany of grievances. This rebuttal is too detailed (and perhaps boring) to be published in a newspaper. Truth is often boring, so please bear with me.

Bill Fernandez was born and raised on Kaua’i and then went to the mainland [California] for college, where he became a successful lawyer, mayor, and judge. So he is an example of local boy makes good on the mainland, retires, and comes “home” to Kaua’i. See a biography of him published in [surprise!] the same newspaper two months before this essay: “Bill Fernandez honored by Kamehameha Schools Alumni Association” as the honoree of the year and paraded through Waikiki, article in The Garden Island newspaper on June 12, 2019 at
https://www.thegardenisland.com/2019/06/12/hawaii-news/bill-fernandez-honored-by-kamehameha-schools-alumni-association/

Therefore he’s a big fish in a small pond, gets a lot of local respect. The local newspaper will publish whatever he submits to them and has done so for years, even if it is bombastic and filled with falsehoods. And of course it would be “rude” and unacceptable for public relations to publish any aggressive rebuttal, as well as impractical to publish a lengthy and boring one.

First, Conklin’s overall, general, very quick analysis of the motive of Mr. Fernandez. After that, rebuttals are given to specific points in the order they are raised by Mr. Fernandez.

——-

Conklin’s overall, general, very quick reply concerning motive of Mr. Fernandez:

Victimhood is a wonderful asset to have. If you can persuade people that you’re a victim, that gives you the right to seek sympathy, and to demand reparations. Sympathy leads to political power, and reparations lead to wealth. See webpage
“The Hawaiian Grievance Industry — Panhandling for Race-Based Handouts and Political Power” at
http://www.angelfire.com/hi5/bigfiles3/grievanceindustry.html

One of the strange things about politics in Hawai’i is the aggressiveness of racial profiling and racial stereotyping for fun and profit. But surprisingly, in Hawaii the profiling and stereotyping are done by ethnic Hawaiians against ethnic Hawaiians as a racial group! Ethnic Hawaiian leaders love to portray their group as having the worst statistics for cancer, heart disease, drug abuse, incarceration, poverty … the list goes on and on. The idea is to make the general public feel sorry for them and give them political power to manage their own affairs; and to use the data to get government and philanthropic grants for “research studies” whose main purpose is to do more studies to get more data to bolster more grant applications while building a permanent cadre of highly paid bureaucrats and leaders (without actually doing research to find out how the “Hawaiian gene” causes these bad things [there is no real connection and probably no Hawaiian gene] or how to cure the problems biologically). See detailed analysis and examples in webpage
“Native Hawaiian victimhood — malpractice in the gathering and statistical analysis of data allegedly showing disproportionate Native Hawaiian victimhood for disease and social dysfunction. How and why the Hawaiian grievance industry uses bogus statistics to scam government and philanthropic organizations, politicians, and public opinion.” at
http://big11a.angelfire.com/NatHwnVictimhoodStatScam.html
See also webpage
“For Hawaiians Only. Webpages identifying and describing government funded racial entitlement programs providing benefits exclusively to Native Hawaiians using taxpayer dollars from the U.S. and State of Hawaii.” at
http://www.angelfire.com/big11a/ForHawaiiansOnly.html

During the past 20 years Mr. Fernandez occasionally wrote essays supporting the Akaka bill to create a federally recognized Hawaiian tribe as a way of providing legal defense for hundreds of racial entitlement programs, and other essays to support Kamehameha Schools’ racially exclusionary admissions policy. To find some of those items go to the front page of my website at
http://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/
and use the little internal search engine for these two pairs of keywords (one pair at a time)
Fernandez Akaka
Fernandez Kamehameha

Mr. Fernandez, being a former lawyer and judge, might have some experience with lawyers who sue insurance companies on behalf of clients who suffered minor injuries in a fender-bender. A client’s car might have been rear-ended at a stop light by the car behind him traveling at 2 MPH; client claims whiplash caused severe neck injuries and lawyer sues for a bazillion dollars for medical injuries and “pain and suffering.” Of course the injuries and pain will be grossly inflated, and disabilities with unrelated causes will be ascribed to the fender-bender, in hopes that the damages awarded by the jury will be huge (along with the lawyer’s 1/3 contingency fee).

———

Fernandez: “Suppression of the Hawaiian culture began in 1820 when missionaries arrived and decreed that Hawaiian culture and language, the hula, mele, oli, chants, and songs were immoral, lewd, and pagan.

Conklin: Fernandez should be reminded that the missionaries had no authority to decree anything. They were welcomed by the native chiefs in 1820, AFTER the native leaders had already abolished the old religion in 1819, the year before the missionaries came. Any new laws were “decreed” not by missionaries but by the dictatorial authority of the native kings and chiefs exercising self-determination on behalf of the natives.

The old religion was abolished publicly and decisively by the 4 top leaders of the natives themselves at a huge lu’au that was held soon after the death of Kamehameha The Great to introduce his elder son Liholiho who was now Kamehameha II. The leaders abolished the old religion by publicly breaking the ‘aikapu (men and women must eat separately). These 2 men and 2 women sat down together and ate — a sacrilege punishable by immediate death — and the assembled crowd gasped in horror until a short speech was given.

1. King Liholiho Kamehameha II; the elder son of Kamehameha The Great;

2. Keopuolani, his biological mother, the “sacred wife” of Kamehameha The Great, had the highest spiritual mana in all Hawaii and the kapumoe (anyone nearby must lie face down in the dirt to avoid polluting her mana);

3. Ka’ahumanu his stepmother and favorite wife of Kamehameha The Great, who made a political coup by stepping forward at the lu’au immediately after breaking the ‘aikapu; she stood next to Liholiho and boldly took over the government by announcing “We two shall rule together” and proceeded to be kuhina nui (regent) for both Kamehameha II and Kamehameha III for many years;

4. Hewahewa, the kahuna nui (high priest) of the old religion. By the way, although “hewa” means “sin”, his name instead referred to sacred dancing.

Today’s activists on Mauna Kea and in other political actions disrespect the clear choice of their ancestral leadership by trying to revive the dead religion they killed, and also by using that deeply revered old religion as a mere pawn in today’s political games.

————-

Fernandez: “This suppression continued [from 1820 missionary arrival] until the Hawaiian Renaissance in the 1970s.”

Conklin: Mr. Fernandez conveniently overlooks the fact that the monarchy retained absolute power over lawmaking and administration of justice, until the first Constitution was proclaimed in 1840 creating a legislature and judiciary and giving rights to individuals. Further, the monarchy retained absolute ownership of all Hawaii lands including the right to take back previous land grants on the whim of the King, until the Mahele process began in 1848 to create private fee-simple land ownership. Fernandez overlooks the fact that the monarchy continued until the revolution of 1893 overthrew it. He overlooks the fact that at least 6 native Hawaiians were on the committee that wrote the Constitution of the Republic of Hawaii, and the Speaker of the House was full-blooded native former royalist John Kaulukou. Fernandez overlooks the fact that the first and second Territorial Delegates to the U.S. Congress, elected by public vote of all citizens without racial restriction or property requirements, were Native Hawaiians Robert Wilcox and [former] Crown Prince Jonah Kuhio Kalaniana’ole. He forgets that the Territorial legislature, elected by vote of all citizens, had a majority of Native Hawaiians for three to four decades, until World War 2. John Waihe’e was Governor of Hawaii for 8 years, 1996 – 2004. Native Hawaiian members in the state Senate and House continue to be roughly in proportion to their population, including powerful committee chairmanships and leadership positions. There has been a huge renaissance of Hawaiian culture and language starting in the 1970s and strengthening through now, perhaps most visible in hula [televised Merrie Monarch and Prince Lot annual hula festivals], voyaging canoes [Hokule’a and many others], and song contests [televised annual Kamehameha School]. What suppression is Mr. Fernandez talking about? The only suppression is any shred of objectivity in Fernandez’ mind.

——–

Fernandez: “Hawaiians lost their land to the colonizers.”

Conklin: Whoa! The Government lands of the Kingdom remained under control of the monarch and legislature where natives held the great majority, and the Crown lands remained property of the monarch and then of the Kingdom government for 73 years after the missionaries arrived, until there was no more crown after 1893. That’s 2/3 of Hawaii’s land that was NOT “lost to the colonizers.” The largest private landowner (large in both body and landholdings!) was Princess Ruth Ke’elikolani, who gave her land to Princess Bernice Pauahi Bishop, who gave the combined lands of Ruth and Pauahi to Kamehameha Schools — approximately 10% of all the lands in Hawaii even to this day. Then there are the 203,000 acres set aside for native Hawaiians in the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act of 1920; and other lands such as the entire Kahana Valley on O’ahu. Regarding Kahana Valley and “lost land”: It’s amusing how one activist (Robert Stauffer) wrote a whole book claiming that Kahana Valley fell out of Hawaiian ownership simply because it became owned by Mary Foster, who had “only” 1/4 Hawaiian blood. See my detailed book review
“Kahana: How the Land Was Lost by Robert H. Stauffer. BOOK REVIEW” at
http://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/staufferkahana.html

———-

Fernandez: “Colonizers also know that suppression of native language is key to subjugating a native people. Look at Hawaii. After the overthrow of the monarchy in 1893, they banned the use of the Hawaiian language (Act 57, section 30 of the 1896 Laws of the Republic of Hawaii). This law led to the suppression of native newspapers unfavorable to the new government, and the end of teaching Hawaiian language in schools.”

Conklin: Judge Fernandez, Your “Honor”, you need to read what the law actually said and learn how it was implemented. You — a lawyer and judge — need to read what the law said! It’s easy to tell a lie and move on; it’s harder to explain the truth. Bear with me. This is a topic where I am an expert witness.

The Hawaiian kingdom had a compulsory school attendance law, which was continued under the Provisional Government, Republic, Territory, and State of Hawaii. Any school attendance law must include a definition of what constitutes a “school.” To make sure parents or factories or taro farms cannot get around the law by establishing sham “schools,” the government defines the minimum requirements that must be met before a “school” is certified as meeting the requirements of the attendance law. Such minimum requirements for facilities, curriculum, and performance review apply to all schools, both government and private. Government certification of schools does not prohibit other schools or academies. For example, Christian churches can operate “Sunday schools” or Buddhist temples can have “Dharma schools” for religious instruction; or ethnic groups can set up after-school or weekend academies to perpetuate a culture and language — the Japanese did that with hundreds of after-school academies throughout the 1900s and continuing now.

Following the revolution of 1893, the Republic of Hawai’i passed a law more than three years later, in 1896, specifying that English must be the language of instruction in any school receiving “recognition” or certification as meeting the compulsory attendance law. Here is the exact wording of that law:

1896 Laws of the Republic of Hawaii, Act 57, sec. 30: “The English Language shall be the medium and basis of instruction in all public and private schools, provided that where it is desired that another language shall be taught in addition to the English language, such instruction may be authorized by the Department, either by its rules, the curriculum of the school, or by direct order in any particular instance. Any schools that shall not conform to the provisions of this section shall not be recognized by the Department.” [signed] June 8 A.D., 1896 Sanford B. Dole, President of the Republic of Hawaii.

The law clearly concerns only schools, not society at large and certainly not newspapers. It does not single out Hawaiian language at all — it applies equally to all languages other than English, including Japanese, Mandarin, Cantonese, Portuguese, etc. The majority of Hawaii’s children at that time were children of Japanese and Chinese plantation workers, and there were also numerous immigrants from Portugal working on the plantations, mostly as lunas. The law wanted every citizen or long-term resident to have a language in common that they all could speak — especially Japanese and Chinese. The Republic was looking forward to annexation to the United States. Every child born in Hawaii would grow up to become American citizens after annexation, and English would be essential for citizen participation in government and commerce. The law does not prohibit establishing private after-school or weekend academies where the medium of instruction could be Hawaiian (or any other language) — it merely states that such schools will not be recognized by the government as satisfying the requirement that all children must attend school. The law clearly states that other languages (including Hawaiian) may be taught in a language course. Hawaiian language courses were offered at Kamehameha School, but Spanish was more popular with the students. And in fact the Territorial legislature passed laws appropriating money to publish Hawaiian language dictionaries for use in the government schools.

Some ethnic groups, most notably first-generation immigrant Japanese plantation workers, did indeed have private schools for “after school” or weekend instruction in their language and culture (see astonishing information about just how prevalent this was, near the end of a webpage). Many, perhaps most Hawaiian parents went so far as to demand that their children speak only English at home as well as at school. There was simply no desire among Hawaiian parents to set up special academies to perpetuate Hawaiian language. Ethnic Hawaiians working on the plantations or elsewhere were legally free to do what the Japanese actually did. The Hawaiians were also being paid at a higher wage rate than the Japanese, who were at the bottom of the scale (until Filipinos started coming to Hawai’i in 1906 and occupied the bottom). The Japanese felt it was important to invest their time and money to perpetuate their culture and language; while the Hawaiian parents, to the contrary, felt it was important to demand that their children speak English and assimilate to Euro-American cultural values.

There are many, many details to explain, but not here in a mere comment. So let me give the following webpage links:

Was Hawaiian Language Illegal?
https://tinyurl.com/4gspl

Holding the State of Hawaii Department of Education accountable for propagating the lie that Hawaiian language was banned.
https://tinyurl.com/z77ogbq

“Examples of Some Angry or Bitter Published Articles Claiming That Ethnic Hawaiians Were Victimized by Having Their Language Made Illegal or Suppressed” [I’ll be adding this ridiculous Fernandez article to the collection]
https://tinyurl.com/83xmb

“Hawaiian Language as a Political Weapon” with 16 detailed subpages
https://tinyurl.com/668vqyz

————-

Fernandez: “This law [English as the language of instruction in schools] led to the suppression of native newspapers unfavorable to the new government, and the end of teaching Hawaiian language in schools.”

Conklin: In recent years we have all learned that newspapers printed in Hawaiian language were published continuously from 1834 all the way through 1948. Some lasted only a short time with small circulation; others had large circulation and lasted for many years. There were both English-language and Hawaiian-language newspapers editorially favorable to the monarchy and opposed to annexation; and also newspapers in both languages happy with the overthrow of the monarchy and favorable to annexation.

Following the January 17 1893 revolution, the revolutionary Provisional Government did what all revolutionary governments in the world have always done with mass media (including radio and television nowadays) — they temporarily banned the publication of pro-monarchy newspapers. But in Hawaii such censorship to stifle possible rioting lasted only one or two weeks, and then freedom of the press resumed. There were newspapers that viciously attacked President Sanford Dole and published poetry and stories favorable to Lili’uokalani and other royalists. Perhaps even Mr. Fernandez might have heard the widely known stories about people loyal to Lili’uokalani visiting her when she was imprisoned in the Palace following the attempted Wilcox counterrevolution of 1895 — and they always brought her flowers WRAPPED IN ROYALIST NEWSPAPERS so that she could circumvent the ban on political information going to or from her and see what her friends were doing on her behalf. Clearly, there was no censorship or “suppression of native newspapers unfavorable to the new government” as claimed by Fernandez.

Fernandez is also wrong that the language law caused “the end of teaching Hawaiian language in schools.” Surely a lawyer/judge can understand the difference between teaching a language as a subject of study vs. teaching subject matter in math, science, history, etc. through the use of that language as the medium of instruction. Read the wording of the law Judge Fernandez. It clearly says “where it is desired that another language [could be Hawaiian] shall be taught in addition to the English language, such instruction may be authorized by the Department, either by its rules, the curriculum of the school, or by direct order in any particular instance.” Families not already fluent in Hawaiian had no interest in getting their kids to learn it; whereas families that spoke Hawaiian at home could continue doing so and could also send their kids to after-school academies to be taught in Hawaiian just like the Japanese established Japanese-language academies; but most Hawaiian parents were glad to have their kids learn English in school and many such parents demanded their kids speak only English in the home as well — the parents would speak Hawaiian between themselves but required their kids to speak only English.

———–

Fernandez: “When annexation and the Organic Act created the Territory, the Hawaiian people received nothing because no government existed to protect them nor categorize them as the indigenous people of the eight islands of the archipelago. Unlike some North American tribes on the continent no treaty was enacted.”

Conklin: That’s absurd! The natives received whatever everyone else received, including American citizenship for all persons who were citizens of the Republic of Hawaii and for anyone born in Hawaii; and a guarantee that revenue from the ceded lands must be used “for education and other public purposes” for the benefit of all residents of the Territory including natives. Fernandez is in reality complaining that there were no racial entitlement programs benefiting ethnic Hawaiians exclusively based on race alone [until the first such law was enacted — the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act of 1920]. Today we have over a thousand racially exclusionary programs solely for the benefit of Native Hawaiians. I hope he’ll go to the library and read my book identifying what he apparently champions: “Hawaiian Apartheid: Racial Separatism and Ethnic Nationalism in the Aloha State.” It’s also available for purchase direct from the publisher through
http://tinyurl.com/2a9fqa

Fernandez’ talk about North American tribes shows that he continues to favor creation of a federally recognized Hawaiian tribe, either through legislation like the Akaka bill [Fernandez wrote essays favoring the bill when it was alive in Congress] or through implementation of the Department of Interior regulation proclaimed by publication in the Federal Register on October 14, 2016. That regulation is a sleeper agent of Hawaiian apartheid ready to be implemented whenever the tribalists feel political conditions are right.

A webpage reviews the history of efforts to get official government recognition of ethnic Hawaiians as a political entity or Indian tribe — a narrative summary covering 19 years 2000 through 2018, broken into two-year Congressional periods. Each “Congress” has a link to an index for that two year period, broken into sub-indexes in chronological order, linking to webpages providing full text of news reports, commentaries, and lawsuits regarding the Akaka bill in Congress, stealth maneuvers by Senator Inouye, Obama Department of Interior regulatory process, Hawaii legislature bills and resolutions, etc.; and efforts to gain local and international recognition of Hawaii as an allegedly continuing independent nation, through protests and lawsuits in Hawaii regarding Mauna Kea and taxes on land, and lobbying activity in the United Nations (both New York and Geneva). Go to
http://big11a.angelfire.com/AkakaHistSummary2000to2018.html

See a webpage describing how the DOI regulation 43CFR50 was proclaimed, including links to full text of the regulation and testimony in opposition during both comment periods:
http://www.angelfire.com/big11a/Repeal43CFR50.html

————

After reciting his lengthy list of alleged victimhood grievances relying on history-twisting and falsehoods, Mr. Fernandez then spends the second half of his essay expressing his views about how Hawaiian culture before Captain Cook was superior to European and American culture, and how the Native Hawaiian blockade and takeover of Mauna Kea illustrates respect for the land and is a reassertion of Native Hawaiian self-determination. He cites the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and he says “Lieutenant Governor Josh Green got it right when on Mauna Kea he said, ‘It is time for reconciliation with Hawaii’s host culture.'”

Conklin has webpages showing that ethnic Hawaiians are not an indigenous people, that the term “host culture” is a poisonous concept implying that people with no Hawaiian blood are merely guests with no rightful standing in the ethnic Hawaiian homeland, and a direct response to Josh Green’s pandering screed.

The concept of Native Hawaiians owning the “host culture” is astoundingly divisive because it portrays everyone lacking a drop of the magic blood as being mere guests. It’s a racist political tactic which in recent years many academics and journalists have begun calling “othering” — portray ethnic Hawaiians as being entitled to govern Hawaii because, according to a creation legend, they are biologically children of the gods and brothers to the land in a way nobody else can ever be who lacks a drop of the magic blood — therefore portraying everyone else as “other” — different, alien, permanent outsider, mere (unwanted) guest or even invader and exploiter and oppressor. That’s exactly the tone of Bill Fernandez’ commentary.

An example of “othering” is the demand that nobody lacking a drop of the magic blood can use the word “Hawaiian” to describe themselves. Every “Hawaiian” by definition has the magic blood; every OTHER person can be a resident or “settler” but is always a “non-Hawaiian.” Because of pressure from ethnic Hawaiian activists, the Associated Press a few years ago included in its stylesheet that in news reports the word “Hawaiian” must be reserved for ethnic Hawaiians, while others can be called “Hawaii resident” or “Hawaii-born” or “native of Hawaii” but never “Hawaiian” or “native Hawaiian.” At this time there are Caucasians with no Hawaiian blood whose families have lived in Hawaii for 8 generations, and Asians whose families have 6 generations in Hawaii; but the language police call them non-Hawaiian will not allow them to call themselves Hawaiian.

Although I was not born or raised in Hawaii, I visited during three summers from 1982 to 1989, felt a spiritual calling, and moved permanently to Kane’ohe in 1992 — and since then I have never left Hawaii, for 27 years! I have traveled to dozens of nations and speak 6 languages. But Hawaii hanai’d (adopted) me, and I hanai’d Hawaii. I have probably lived in Hawaii longer than Bill Fernandez. For sure I have lived in Hawaii longer than most ethnic Hawaiians have been on this Earth, since Census says their median age is 26. I understand the culture and history, and speak Hawaiian with moderate fluency. Hawaii is my hanai homeland. I am Hawaiian, whether the language police like it or not. A well-known song describes my own odyssey: “He Hawai’i Au” also known as “I Keia Po”. My journey was lengthy, seeking a place in this world; but I have returned; and I clearly realize that home is in my heart; I will not wander again because I understand — I am Hawaiian.
Words (Hawaiian/English)
https://www.huapala.org/He/He_Hawaii_Au.html
Music (First video has song sung like a hymn with beautiful scenery and artifacts, then faster upbeat tempo; automatically followed by all-Japanese hula performance of it).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5ovXExp42I

“Are kanaka maoli indigenous to Hawai’i? Would the status of being indigenous give them special rights?”
http://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/indigenous.html

“Akaka Bill: Replacing Democracy and Individual Rights With Indigenous Communal (Group) Rights”
http://www.angelfire.com/hi5/bigfiles3/AkakaDemocIndivRtsVsCommunalGpRts.html

“Indigenous Intellectual Property Rights — The General Theory, and Why It Does Not Apply in Hawaii”
http://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/indigenousintellproprts.html

“Were non-kanaka maoli historically full partners in Hawai’i, or only second-class guests?”
http://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/fullpartners.html

“Asian Settler Colonialism [Hawaii] — book review”
http://www.angelfire.com/big09a/AsianSettlerColonialism.html

“Hawaiian religious fascism. A twisted version of a beautiful creation legend provides the theological basis for a claim that ethnic Hawaiians are entitled to racial supremacy in the governance and cultural life of the Hawaiian islands.” [includes a link to full text of the “Constitution of the Native Hawaiian Nation” adopted on February 26, 2016 in a monthlong meeting paid for by OHA, and an analysis of its racism and fascism — this is the tribal Constitution which would be submitted to the Department of Interior as part of the process for federal recognition of a Hawaiian tribe under 43CFR50]
http://www.angelfire.com/big11a/HawnReligFascism.html

“The Aloha Spirit. How aloha for all, manifested in the twin pillars of unity and equality, can overcome Hawaiian religious fascism which is the theological basis for a claim to racial supremacy.”
http://www.angelfire.com/big11a/AlohaUnityEquality.html

Ken Conklin’s Facebook reply to Lt. Gov. Josh Green’s pandering support for the Mauna Kea protesters:
https://www.facebook.com/kenneth.conklin.10/posts/1607282602740030

Tags: , , , ,

Hawaiian language never banned; Goebbels Award to PBS-Hawaii

The Goebbels Award For Outstanding Use of Media for Propaganda Disguised As Fact

has been awarded jointly to PBS-Hawaii and Leslie Wilcox, its President and CEO;

for refusing to correct a racially inflammatory falsehood about the alleged banning of Hawaiian language in the schools of Hawaii. The falsehood was asserted repeatedly in advertisements through email, televised teasers, and website announcements ahead of an INSIGHTS panel discussion televised live on March 28, 2019 regarding the history and revival of Hawaiian language; and was anticipated to be also asserted by panelists during the discussion.

This Goebbels Award can be seen at
http://big11a.angelfire.com/GoebbelsAwardPBSLeslie032819.html

For a long time PBS-Hawaii President/CEO Leslie Wilxcox has been sending out an email blast on Fridays announcing major TV shows that will be broadcast during the following week. The contents of those announcements are also displayed on the station’s website, Facebook page, etc. for maximum publicity. The announcement sent on Friday March 22, 2019 included a description of an upcoming 60-minute live panel discussion in the long-running “Insights” series to be broadcast on Thursday March 28 from 8-9 PM.

The announcement can be seen where it was placed on the PBS-Hawaii website on March 22 at
https://www.pbshawaii.org/insights-on-pbs-hawaii-the-hawaiian-language/

The first sentence says:
“Ka ‘Ōlelo Hawai’i, the Hawaiian Language, once forbidden in schools and nearly lost, is flourishing again in these Islands.”

The racially inflammatory falsehood is this seemingly harmless phrase of four words in the first sentence: “…once forbidden in schools…”

The truth is that HAWAIIAN LANGUAGE HAS NEVER BEEN MADE ILLEGAL OR SUPPRESSED IN WRITTEN PUBLICATIONS, NOR IN PUBLIC OR PRIVATE SPEECH OR PERFORMANCES; AND HAWAIIAN LANGUAGE HAS NEVER BEEN FORBIDDEN BY LAW IN SCHOOLS. An amendment to the compulsory attendance law was passed in 1896 to require that any public or private “school” must use English as the language for teaching all subjects in order for that school to be certified as meeting the requirement that all children must attend “school” — but the amendment did NOT forbid after-school or weekend academies from using Japanese or Hawaiian or any other language, and did not prohibit teaching language courses. Japanese parents created such Japanese language academies for their children to learn Japanese culture and history; but Hawaiian parents chose not to do that.

Why is it racially inflammatory to assert that Hawaiian language was illegal in daily life or forbidden in schools? Because today’s Hawaiian sovereignty activists have repeatedly and loudly made such claims as a way of portraying Native Hawaiians as victims entitled to reparations. The U.S. in general, and “haoles” (white people) in particular, are called colonial oppressors who suppressed native culture and even “made our native language illegal right here in our own homeland.” “My grandma told me she was beaten by her haole teacher for speaking Hawaiian in school.” For decades the activists claimed that Hawaiian language had been made illegal. When they were challenged to cite such a law, or to name even a single person who had been jailed for speaking Hawaiian, they could not do so. When it became publicly clear that dozens of Hawaiian language newspapers had been openly published continuously through 1948, and the Kamehameha song contest had been running since 1920 etc., a few professors of Hawaiian language nevertheless continued to insist the language had been made illegal. The claim of general illegality has been forced by the facts to retreat to a claim of the language being banned in school. But it is false, and still racially inflammatory, and must be completely discredited. Comes now the PBS-Hawaii “Insights” TV show with a panel of Hawaiian-language zealots accustomed to earning a living based partly on asserting the now-disproved lie, with the PBS-Hawaii corporate leadership acting as accomplices by giving them a megaphone. Hawaiian is a beautiful language that deserves to be preserved and to thrive as an important element of the culture which is the core of what makes Hawaii a special place. The beautiful language must be liberated from an ugly political demagoguery broadcasting a racially incendiary lie which serves only to foment racial resentment and hatred.

The Goebbels Award provides a copy of the warning to PHS-Hawaii and its executives demanding a correction of the falsehood, which included a summary of evidence that it is false, an explanation of why it is racially incendiary, and links to webpages where detailed proof of falsity can be found.

See the Goebbels Award to PBS-Hawaii and Leslie Wilcox at
http://tinyurl.com/yyqj247m

Was Hawaiian Language Illegal? Did the Evil Haoles Suppress Hawaiian Language As A Way of Oppressing Kanaka Maoli and Destroying Their Culture?
https://tinyurl.com/4gspl

Examples of published false claims that Hawaiian language was made illegal:
https://tinyurl.com/83xmb

Hawaii Dept of Education refused to correct the language-ban falsehood on its website and in its curriculum, and was given a Goebbels Award on April 25, 2016
https://tinyurl.com/z77ogbq

Tags: , , , , , ,

Comments on Linda Zhang, “Re-Building a Native Hawaiian Nation.”

Letter to editor by Kenneth R. Conklin, Ph.D. in response to
Linda Zhang, “Re-Building a Native Hawaiian Nation: Base Rolls, Membership, and Land in an Effective Self-Determination Movement,” Asian Pacific American Law Journal, Vol 22, No. 1, 2017, pp. 69-93.
http://escholarship.org/uc/item/39t1k0fx

I would like to set the record straight regarding a few errors of fact and interpretation in Linda Zhang’s essay “Re-Building a Native Hawaiian Nation.”

1. Alleged invasion of Iolani Palace by U.S. troops during the Hawaiian revolution of 1893

At the bottom of page 70 Ms. Zhang states the following falsehood: “Then, in 1893, American troops seized I’olani Palace, the home of Queen Lili’uokalani and the center of the Hawaiian monarchy …” Her only citation for that assertion is an internet link from 2005 which is now dead, where the underlying blogsite continues to publish only highly one-sided propaganda pushing the concept of Hawaiian independence.

The truth is that on January 16, 1893 there were 162 U.S. sailors who landed in Honolulu as a peacekeeping force because of anticipated violence between an armed militia of local men seeking to overthrow the government, and the government’s forces. Their orders were to protect American lives and property and to prevent rioting and arson. 808 pages of sworn testimony before the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs in February 1894, in open session and under severe cross-examination, shows that the peacekeepers never invaded the Palace grounds and, indeed, did not take over any buildings nor in any way provide help to the rebels. See the Morgan Report at
http://morganreport.org
Even the Blount Report, much ballyhooed by Hawaiian sovereignty activists, makes no claim of any invasion of Palace grounds by U.S. troops.

Unfortunately the 2009 movie “Princess Kaiulani” (originally titled “The Barbarian Princess”) falsely shows such a scene. The webpage for a future film “The Islands” by Tim Chey [See endnote of 12/12/17] indicates that there will be a similar scene. Both films, of course, are produced with story lines intended to sell lots of tickets by spectacularly distorting historical fact in ways that will appeal to current sentiments. Portraying U.S. troops invading the Palace is pure propaganda which only serves to incite racial strife and anti-Americanism.

2. Alleged statistical evidence of Native Hawaiian victimhood in poverty, incarceration, and health

Page 71, near the top, says “Since then, studies have shown that Kanaka Maoli, or Native Hawaiians, continue to have some of the highest rates of poverty, incarceration, school drop-out rates, and display several negative indicators of health.”

This assertion has been repeated so many times, both in the popular media and in academic “studies”, that people now believe it. This victimhood claim is cited by tycoons of the Hawaiian grievance industry who benefit from hundreds of millions of dollars in government and philanthropic grants; and also cited by politicians seeking to arouse public sympathy for efforts to create a Hawaiian tribe. The assertion arises from statistical malpractice, whose perpetrators must surely be aware that they are engaging in a scam. Two of the main points debunking the assertion are as follows:

(a) According to Census 2010 the median age of ethnic Hawaiians in Hawaii is 26 while the median age of everyone else in Hawaii is 42. That 16 year age gap explains why incomes of Native Hawaiians are significantly lower than incomes of other ethnic groups. It also explains why Native Hawaiians have higher rates of incarceration and longer sentences than other ethnicities — not because of their ethnicity but because of the huge age gap. Drug abuse, spouse abuse, and crime — especially violent crime — are the sins of young people far more than middle-age people.

(b) Virtually all so-called Native Hawaiians have mixed ancestry. Perhaps 3/4 of them each have at least 3/4 of their heritage being Asian or Caucasian rather than Hawaiian. But when someone is a victim of poverty, incarceration, disease, etc. and is asked “What are you?” they are classified as “Native Hawaiian” AND ONLY AS NATIVE HAWAIIAN even if their native blood quantum is only a small fraction of their ancestry. Someone who is mostly Caucasian or Asian should have his victimhood attributed to one of those racial groups rather than to Native Hawaiian. The most accurate way to award victimhood tally marks to ethnic groups would be to give a fraction of a tally mark to each ethnicity in a victim’s heritage equal to the fraction of that ethnicity in his genealogy. But social scientists apparently consider it politically incorrect to ask victims for ethnic percentages; and tycoons of the Hawaiian grievance industry do not want to be robbed of the victimhood claims they use in grant applications; and researchers excuse their malpractice by saying that if they award victimhood tally marks to the highest percentage in a victim’s heritage then there would be too few Native Hawaiians to be statistically significant.

For a detailed analysis and examples of both points (a) and (b) see “Native Hawaiian victimhood — malpractice in the gathering and statistical analysis of data allegedly showing disproportionate Native Hawaiian victimhood for disease and social dysfunction.” at
http://tinyurl.com/j3aolqg

3. The proposed Native Hawaiian constitution is both racist and fascist

Linda Zhang’s article tries to portray the Hawaiian sovereignty movement as benign. For example, she says on page 77 “Part A(i) of the membership criteria is based on the lineage model. The criterion is broad enough to include ‘non-Hawaiians who were citizens of the Hawaiian Kingdom and therefore have a rightful place in the citizenry,’ thereby avoiding a potential constitutional challenge under Rice v. Cayetano.” But the actual wording of Part A(i) says “An individual who is a descendant of the aboriginal peoples who, prior to 1778, occupied and exercised sovereignty in the Hawaiian Islands” — which clearly would NOT include people with no native blood who were subjects (citizens) of the Kingdom; and thus it is clearly a racial requirement and cannot avoid running afoul of Rice v. Cayetano.

A claim to racial supremacy is displayed in the proposed constitution for a future federally recognized Hawaiian tribe adopted on February 26, 2016. That constitution also demands race-based ownership and control of all the lands and waters of Hawaii, as though nobody else has rights. Up front the preamble says “we join together to affirm a government of, by, and for Native Hawaiian people” [i.e., of the race, by the race, and for the race], and “affirm our ancestral [i.e., race-based] rights and Kuleana to all lands, waters, and resources of our islands and surrounding seas.” So what will become of the 80% of Hawaii’s people who have no native ancestry? The constitution asserts the same sort of “blood and land” concept as found in other fascist governments — Native Hawaiians are descendants of the gods and brothers to the land in a way nobody else can ever be who lacks a drop of Hawaiian native blood.
See “Hawaiian religious fascism” at
http://tinyurl.com/j4o2cdj
The proposed tribal constitution passed by the Na’i Aupuni convention on February 26, 2016 is available at
http://tinyurl.com/zegptkr

Note added by Ken Conklin on December 12, 2017:

Today I received a complaint that this blog entry of October 8 unfairly blames Tim Chey, the director/producer of the film “The Islands”, for a racially inflammatory and anti-American falsehood apparently portrayed in the film. According to its publicity webpage the film depicts U.S. troops invading Iolani Palace in 1893 and Queen Lili’uokalani surrendering to the U.S. troops. So who then should be blamed when a film portrays a historical falsehood which misleads viewers to think it is true and which inflames anti-white and anti-American passions? The person who hires the writers, approves the script, and assembles the financing and distribution must take the blame, as surely as the captain of a ship which runs aground or sinks because of dereliction by a navigator or other subordinate officers.

The film’s webpage is at http://theislandsmovie.com/ On December 12, 2017 the webpage still states what it has stated for many months. Sentences near the end of the story’s narrative say: “Cut Forward to: 1893 We see the reporter and Liliuokalani discussing Kapiolani when the U.S. Marines now enter the palace of Liliuokalani. She surrenders as the reporter attempts to intervene.” The falsehood about U.S. troops invading Iolani Palace in 1893 and overthrowing the Queen is apparently only a minor detail in a film that is primarily focused earlier in the 19th Century, especially 1824 when High Chiefess Kapiolani challenged the power of the volcano goddess Pele and thereby persuaded Hawaiian natives to believe in the Christian God. But a small detail, like a few drops of poison, can make a glass of sweet fruit juice deadly.

The complainer also said that the film has not yet been completed, so no falsehood has yet been portrayed. Plenty of time to fix any problem. But that assertion about timing is also false. The movie’s webpage on December 12, 2017 clearly states “Production has wrapped on the high-profile movie, ‘The Islands’ set to hit theaters in November 2018.” Tim Chey’s tweet on November 24, 2017 says “So happy! We just wrapped filming on ‘The Islands’! God is good!”
https://twitter.com/TimChey1/status/934271514257473536

In early 2017 I first became aware of the effort to produce this film, thanks to news reports in Honolulu. I found the film’s webpage, was horrified by the historical falsehood, wrote a comment seeking to correct the historical falsehood, and sent it through the film’s webpage. I also spoke with a friend of mine who has the ear of Mr. Chey; but my concern failed to elicit a response. When does the point of no return come in writing or producing a multimillion dollar film? When is the time to prevent a film from portraying a scurrilous falsehood which then gets viewed by a mass audience and inflames hatred? And once the film has finished production and gets scheduled for the theaters, and perhaps ends up getting viewed by millions on “The History Channel” or “Showtime”, how can the damage be mitigated? That problem is now in the hands of Tim Chey. I am ignorant about how films are made, and unable to recommend how to correct the problem. But surely a Christian with strong moral values, who is an expert on film production and responsible for this one, will find a way to obey the Commandment “Thou shalt not bear false witness.”

This falsehood about U.S. troops invading Iolani Palace in 1893 (sometimes also that the troops arrested the Queen and imprisoned her there) has been going around. Senators Inouye and Dorgan told that lie on the floor of the U.S. Senate on June 23, 2008 to portray Native Hawaiians as victims of the U.S. to whom we therefore owe restitution and federal recognition as an Indian tribe; and it was also portrayed in the 2009 film “Princess Kaiulani.” It’s time to put a stop to this falsehood before it pollutes the Aloha Spirit. I have also been working for years to discredit other scurrilous falsehoods inciting hatred, such as: The last Hawaiian flag atop Iolani Palace was torn into pieces distributed as souvenirs to the haoles who overthrew the Queen; President Grover Cleveland issued a proclamation naming April 30, 1894 as a national day of prayer and repentance for the U.S. overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom; Hawaiian language was made illegal after the overthrow; The Royal Mausoleum was exempted from the ceded lands at annexation and remains a piece of Hawaiian Kingdom sovereign land; Native Hawaiians have the worst statistics for all the major diseases, drug abuse, poverty, incarceration etc. For the debunking of these and other falsehoods, put keywords into the search window, or read the history section, on my website at
http://tinyurl.com/6gkzk
To understand the political struggle in Hawaii which falsehoods like these are worsening, see the book “Hawaiian Apartheid: Racial Separatism and Ethnic Nationalism in the Aloha State” at
http://tinyurl.com/2a9fqa

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Native Hawaiians Study Commission majority report 1983

The Native Hawaiians Study Commission was created by the Congress of the United States on December 22, 1980 (Title III of Public Law 96-565). The purpose of the Commission was to “conduct a study of the culture, needs and concerns of the Native Hawaiians.” The Commission released to the public a Draft Report of Findings on September 23, 1982. Following a 120-day period of public comment, a final report was written and submitted on June 23, 1983 to the U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and to the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs.

The 747-page majority report of the NHSC begins with an executive summary and list of conclusions and recommendations, followed by 14 major chapters written by experts, focused on Hawaii’s ancient and modern history, demographics, culture, religion, and reports about responses to the unique needs of Native Hawaiians by federal and state governments, and private institutions. At the end are glossaries explaining Hawaiian-language words, a list of references, and an appendix. For each of the 747 pages of the majority report a photo of the page (click to magnify for easy readability) is next to a simple text version of its contents that is digitized and searchable. See the entire 747-page report, beautifully formatted, at
http://grihwiki.kenconklin.org/mediawiki/index.php?title=Native_Hawaiians_Study_Commission_Report

Ken Conklin’s webpage about the report describes how it was created, how political differences resulted in majority report vs. minority report, and how the majority report found a home on the internet. The webpage also summarizes the conclusions reached by the Commission, and explains the importance of the NHSC report in current controversies regarding Hawaiian sovereignty and racial entitlement programs. Conklin’s webpage about the report is at
http://www.angelfire.com/big11a/NHSC.html

Tags: , , , , , ,

For Hawaiians Only

A valuable webpage providing information about 856 government funded racial entitlement programs for the exclusive benefit of “Native Hawaiians” was disrupted but has now been partially restored. Several other webpages on the same topic are also available.

All these programs, valued into the Billions of dollars, are paid for by tax dollars from the governments of the United States and the State of Hawaii. It is likely that these programs are unconstitutional. Some have been challenged in state and federal courts. Thus far the lawsuits to dismantle them have been dismissed on technical procedural issues including “standing” and the “political question” doctrine. However, those dismissals never reached the merits of these cases. Thus all these programs remain available as targets for future civil rights lawsuits based on the 14th Amendment equal protection clause and other arguments.

Keep in mind that this compilation pertains only to government programs funded by taxpayers, and does not include enormous privately funded programs such as Kamehameha Schools (Bishop Estate) which alone is worth $10-15 Billion, Lili’uokalani Childrens Trust, and many others.

The collection of webpages listing and describing Hawaiian racial entitlement programs is at
http://www.angelfire.com/big11a/ForHawaiiansOnly.html

Tags: , , , ,

OHA report alleging racial disparities in criminal justice

On September 28, 2010 the State of Hawaii Office of Hawaiian Affairs issued a press release about a new report it created entitled “The Disparate Treatment of Native Hawaiians in the Criminal Justice System.” The Honolulu Star-Advertiser published an article about it the following day. The complete report, filled with many beautiful photos of taro, is at
http://tinyurl.com/2aweono

There are important scholarly/statistical issues raised by the report, and equally important political issues. It’s clear that the OHA report is an exercise in political propaganda rather than a serious scholarly analysis or civil rights inquiry.

A major rebuttal is now available at
http://tinyurl.com/3xxc5ja

Here’s an outline of topics covered in great detail in the rebuttal:

1. What the OHA report said, and how the underlying study was conducted. Data collected and analyzed in secret was then destroyed, making peer review impossible. OHA and the group who produced this “study” should be embarrassed if their methods are compared with legitimate work done by scientists developing new drugs or reporting experiments in physics, biology, etc.

2. Slick, artistically composed pages show that the purpose of the report is political propaganda rather than scientific scrutiny. Emotional appeals are made to a creation legend from the ancient Hawaiian religion, and the report is filled with emotionally rousing artistic photos of taro patches (because taro plays a key role in that creation legend). Unverifiable claims are made that ethnic Hawaiians suffer more trauma than other races when sent to prisons outside Hawaii, because their spiritual link to the land is broken. Emotional appeals are made by quoting the inspirational words of Kamehameha The Great on his deathbed, and by quoting the words of a song written by ex-queen Lili’uokalani when she was “unjustly imprisoned” (just like ethnic Hawaiians today!!). [By the way, her imprisonment was entirely justified, and was a very mild punishment for the crimes she committed. See section 6 below. Her activities after release showed she was never rehabilitated! But she did stop participating in violent activities.].

3. Youthfulness is an important factor in explaining why ethnic Hawaiians (allegedly) have higher rates of arrest and incarceration, and longer jail sentences and probation, than criminals of other races. In the last decennial census the median age for ethnic Hawaiians was 25, while the median age for everyone else was 39. Criminal behaviors — especially violent crimes deserving lengthy prison sentences — are the sins of youth rather than middle age. But the OHA report does not adequately examine and does not draw appropriate conclusions about age.

4. Percentage of native blood quantum must be taken into account in analyzing data alleging racial disparity. Someone who is only 1/8 Hawaiian should clearly not be counted as Hawaiian. An incarcerated criminal who is 1/2 Chinese, 1/4 Filipino, 1/8 Irish, and 1/8 Hawaiian would properly be counted as Chinese if outcomes are to be attributed to only one racial group. The best method would be to allocate fractional tally marks when attributing outcomes to racial groups. But nobody at OHA or any other racial-partisan institution bothers to collect or analyze racial data that way because the results would undoubtedly torpedo most of their racial grievance claims.

5. If the author of a so-called scientific report has a motive to tell falsehoods or skew the results, then the facts alleged in the report, and the conclusions, can be set aside as lacking credibility. In the case of OHA’s report alleging disparate treatment of ethnic Hawaiians in the criminal justice system, OHA has strong motives to portray ethnic Hawaiians as victims of unequal or unfair treatment in order to spur political support for the Akaka bill now pending in Congress. OHA has especially strong motive to undermine an agreement between Governor Lingle and Hawaii’s two Senators to amend the Akaka bill in such a way to deny the Akaka tribe immediate sovereign jurisdiction over the criminal justice system. Also, the Justice Policy Institute in Washington D.C., which helped write this report, has its own political motives which include dismantling America’s punishment-oriented prison system.

6. If a witness in court — even an expert witness — says something false about one topic, then it is reasonable to doubt his credibility on other topics. This OHA report makes false and misleading statements about Hawaii’s history, which ordinary people can verify are wrong. Also, the historical content is presented in a chaotic narrative which scrambles the chronology. Therefore even people lacking expertise in scientific knowledge and statistical methodology are justified in doubting what OHA’s report says about technical issues, and we can wonder whether the gathering and analysis of data was as chaotic as the chronology in the history section. Some wrong statements about Hawaii’s history contained in this report are described in the rebuttal, and proof is provided that they are wrong.

7. Are disparate bad outcomes for ethnic Hawaiians in health, economics, and the criminal justice system found only in Hawaii? A recent study shows that ethnic Hawaiians living in California are doing better than the average of all Californians. Why are Hawaiians thriving in California but not in Hawaii, despite the fact (or is it because of the fact?) that Hawaii provides a plethora of racial entitlement programs not available to them in California?

For extensive analysis and evidence regarding these seven topics, see the full rebuttal at
http://tinyurl.com/3xxc5ja

Tags: , , ,