Posts Tagged Hawaiian sovereignty

Critical Race Theory Hawaiian-Style

A Peculiar Ideological Combination Alleges Actual Native Hawaiian Victimhood; Asserts Native Hawaiian Inherent Racial Supremacy; Expresses Anti-U.S. and Anti-White Hostility; and Demands Asians in Hawaii to Ally with Native Hawaiians in the Interest of Social Justice.

by Kenneth R. Conklin, Ph.D.



In the Hawaii version of critical race theory it’s not Blacks but ethnic Hawaiians claiming greatest victimhood and demanding greatest reparations. Aside from historical grievances and demands for reparations, Hawaiians use a twisted version of a beautiful ancient creation legend to assert a blood-and-soil theology to justify claims of a fascist right to racial supremacy in culture and personal stature; and a right to race-nationalist political power. An anthropological theory of racial memory passed down genetically through generations, provides a basis for claiming authenticity of reinvented ancient knowledge and skills. Ethnic Hawaiians are portrayed as having genetically inherited racial supremacy, which surely must cause feelings of moral indebtedness and loss of self-esteem in the minds of children lacking Hawaiian blood who are taught these beliefs in the mandatory “Hawaiian Studies” components of the tax-supported schools as well as in the private schools.

As on the mainland, Whites in Hawaii are stereotyped as evil villains and colonial oppressors. Even if individual Whites have no personal history of racial misconduct nor harboring racist attitudes, they allegedly have ingrained “privilege” because the whiteness of their skin allegedly ensures that they have always been treated with deference. Like on the mainland, every White person allegedly has “implicit bias” against all other groups and especially ethnic Hawaiians — the more a “haole” denies it, the more probing and therapy must be administered to bring it out into the open. Extensive training will be required to intimidate White people to confess racism; to recognize their own implicit bias; and how to adjust their personal and political behavior to compensate for this incurable disease.

Critical race theory regards Asians in Hawaii, like Asians on the mainland, as being quasi-White. They are stereotyped as “bananas”: yellow on the outside but white on the inside. On the mainland Asians are a minority small enough to be ignored, but in Hawaii they are the majority. Hawaiian activists say Asians, including multi-generation locally born and raised Asians, are foreign settlers whose hard work and silent submissive assimilation make them accessories to, and facilitators of, White oppression of Hawaiians. Hawaiian race-partisans demand that Asians (and Whites who feel “Hawaiian at heart”) expiate the guilt they might not know they have, and step forward as allies to throw off the yoke of White oppression by becoming submissive to Hawaiians instead of to Whites. Asians (and Whites who want to be allies to Hawaiians) should listen and learn; stay in the background; offer advice in private but never try to set policy or assert leadership; give labor and money to rebuild and maintain taro patches, fishponds, and historic sites; serve food at political rallies; etc. Some ethnic Hawaiian organizations (including proposed or alleged sovereign nations) reflect this attitude in their governing bylaws or Constitutions: people with no Hawaiian native blood are welcome to join, attend meetings, and contribute money or labor; but all [pejoratively-labeled] “non-Hawaiians” are either relegated to second-class status where they cannot vote or hold office, or else the organizations’ bylaws require that a majority of the board of directors and public spokespeople must be ethnic Hawaiians (for example the statewide politically active Hawaiian Civic Clubs and formerly huge Ka Lahui [literal Hawaiian translation of La Raza]; and even the small friendly local Kailua environmental group ‘Ahahui Malama i ka Lokahi).







How ethnic-group historical grievances can be used to poison Hawaii’s multiracial solidarity
Hawaii ethnic population statistics
Ethnic Hawaiian historical grievances
Ethnic Filipino historical grievances
Ethnic Japanese historical grievances


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

Ethnic Hawaiians as a racial group do NOT own our public lands. Extending long-term leases is OK

HB499 HD2 SD2 CD1 is a bill passed by both chambers of the Hawaii legislature after many committee hearings and amendments, and was sent to the Governor on April 28, 2021.

Report Title: Public Lands; Lease Extension; Development Agreement
Description: Authorizes the board of land and natural resources to extend certain leases of public lands for commercial, industrial, resort, mixed-use, or government use upon approval of a proposed development agreement to make substantial improvements to the existing improvements. (CD1)

The bill is controversial, as can be seen by the numerous NAY votes in both chambers. Full text of the final bill, and all versions of the bill as amended along the way, and the committee reports and list of who voted which way in each committee, and files of all the testimony from each hearing, can be found at

Hawaiian sovereignty activists staged protest rallies and launched a letter-writing campaign asking Governor Ige to veto the bill. The activists assert that Hawaii’s public lands, ceded to the U.S. at annexation in 1898 and returned to Hawaii at Statehood in 1959, are stolen crown and government lands from the Kingdom of Hawaii which, they say, rightfully belong to Native Hawaiians; and extending commercial leases to as long as 99 years unjustly delays the return of those lands to the Native Hawaiians. The Governor has until June 21 to notify the legislature if he is considering a veto of this bill; otherwise the bill will become law whether or not he signs it. If he notifies the legislature that he is considering a veto, then he has until July 6 to actually veto it or sign it or else it will become law without his signature. If he vetoes the bill, the record of NAY votes in the legislature indicates it is unlikely that the legislature could muster enough votes for the super-majority needed to override a veto.

On May 29 Kenneth Conklin, Executive Director of the Center for Hawaiian Sovereignty Studies, sent Governor Ige a message urging him not to veto HB499, and to either sign the bill or let it become law without his signature. Dr. Conklin argued that the public lands never belonged to Native Hawaiians as a group. He provided a summary of the history related to those lands, including a 20-year-long litigation record ending with a 2009 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court which ruled unanimously, 9-0, that the public lands belong to the State of Hawaii in fee simple absolute, can be sold without needing permission from Native Hawaiians, and that the 1993 apology resolution is merely a resolution of sentiment with no legal force or effect regarding the public lands. Dr. Conklin’s message can be seen here.

To: David Ige, Governor, State of Hawaii
Date: May 29, 2021

Aloha Governor Ige,

Please do NOT veto HB499. Please either sign it or allow it to become law without your signature.

In recent weeks the usual loudmouthed Hawaiian sovereignty activists have held rallies and engaged in a letter writing campaign trying to persuade you to veto HB499. They FALSLY say that Native Hawaiians are the rightful owners of Hawaii’s ceded lands, and that those lands should be “returned” to Native Hawaiians, and that lengthening the term of commercial leases delays or blocks the eventual “return” of these lands to “the rightful owners.” The Honolulu newspaper has repeatedly published lengthy propaganda articles in collaboration with the outside pressure group “Pro Publica” asserting falsehoods about the history of land ownership in Hawaii.

Native Hawaiians as a group never owned the public lands, nor any portion of them. At first Kamehameha The Great personally owned all the lands in Hawaii by right of conquest. The King owned the land, not native Hawaiians as a group. In 1848 his son Kamehameha3, having inherited the land, began the Mahele process dividing the land into 3 categories: Crown lands which he kept as his personal property; Government lands owned by the government for public purposes on behalf of all the people of Hawaii regardless of race; private lands given in fee simple to individual chiefs with carve-outs for individual commoners for small parcels where they lived or farmed.

Native Hawaiians as a group had no group-ownership of any Crown land, Government land, or private land. King Lota Kamehameha5 mortgaged his Crown Lands to pay gambling debts, and by 1865 the lender was threatening to foreclose for non-payment of principal or interest. The Kingdom legislature therefore passed a law taking ownership of the Crown lands, in return for issuing government bonds to pay off the mortgage; and the King happily signed. Revenue from the Crown lands was given to the King for his expenses in maintaining a lifestyle befitting his role as head-of-state; but otherwise the Crown lands were indistinguishable from the Government lands and the merger was known from then until now as Hawaii’s “public lands.” They belonged collectively to all Hawaii’s people of all races, with no racial set-asides for “Native Hawaiians.”

In 1893 the monarchy was overthrown, and replaced by the Republic of Hawaii in 1894 — the new government took control of the public lands from the former government, as happens after any revolution or election. 1897 the Republic of Hawaii offered a Treaty of Annexation which the U.S. Congress and President agreed to in 1898. As terms of the Treaty specified, Hawaii’s public lands were ceded to the U.S. in return for the U.S. accepting responsibility to pay off the accumulated national debt from the Kingdom and Republic (the monetary value of that debt payoff was larger than the market value of all the public land). The U.S. did not simply “take” the land; it was held in trust for all the people of Hawaii regardless of race, with revenue to be used “for education and other public purposes.” The ceded lands were returned to Hawaii under terms of the Statehood Act of 1959, except for national parks and military bases, with revenue to be used for any one of more of five purposes; and for the first 20 years of Statehood virtually all the ceded land revenue was used for Hawaii’s public schools (including UH) serving all Hawaii’s children regardless of race. Native Hawaiians as a group never owned the public lands, nor any portion of them.

OHA, and a few other groups or individuals, have repeatedly sued the State of Hawaii demanding revenue from the ceded lands, or demanding that the State be prohibited from selling any parcel of ceded lands without permission from Native Hawaiians. Probably the most significant contested case over the ceded lands ran through state agency and court proceedings beginning in 1990, and ended with a U.S. Supreme Court decision in 2009. It concerned the State’s wish to transfer land at Leialii and Laiopua from the State Department of Land and Natural Resources to the State Housing and Community Development Corporation, to develop low-income housing.

When the State of Hawaii tried to sell a parcel of ceded lands there, OHA filed a lawsuit to stop that particular sale and to prohibit the state from any further sales.
On December 5, 2002 Hawaii circuit court judge Sabrina McKenna ruled against OHA, concluding that the State of Hawaii has a right to sell ceded lands.

OHA appealed Judge McKenna’s decision. On January 31, 2008 the Hawaii Supreme Court ruled 5-0 that Judge McKenna was mistaken. The Hawaii Supreme Court ruled that the State of Hawaii is permanently prohibited from selling any ceded lands until such time as a settlement has been reached regarding the claims of Native Hawaiians. That decision was based on the 1993 U.S. apology resolution in which the U.S. “confessed” to helping overthrow the monarchy in 1893, and the U.S. acknowledged that Native Hawaiians have never relinquished their claims to Hawaii lands.

The State of Hawaii filed a petition for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court asking it to review and overturn the state Supreme Court decision. Twenty-nine other states shortly thereafter filed an amicus brief supporting Hawaii’s petition for certiorari. On October 1, 2008 the U.S. Supreme Court granted the petition for certiorari. On February 25, 2009 the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments, and on March 31, 2009 ruled unanimously, 9-0, to overturn the Hawaii Supreme Court.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the State of Hawaii owns the ceded lands in fee simple absolute, has the right to sell those lands without needing permission from Native Hawaiians, and that the 1993 U.S. apology resolution is merely a resolution of sentiment which has no legal force or effect on who owns the ceded lands or what procedures must be followed when selling them.

A very large webpage provides links to legal briefs and memos, transcripts of oral arguments and decisions, full text of numerous news reports and commentaries, tracking this case from beginning to end. See

It is quite ludicrous to hear ethnic Hawaiian activists complaining about extending some leases of public land to a term of 99 years, when DHHL leases are routinely granted for 99 years and are expected to be easily renewed for another 99 years. Indeed, there are some homestead leases whose term is 999 years! (yes, that’s nine hundred ninety-nine years!) Allowing 99-year leases (and especially 999 year leases) exclusively to people who have Hawaiian native blood while denying such leases to people lacking the magic blood would be an example of systemic racism, and would be clearly contrary to the 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause.

Governor Ige, please do NOT veto HB499. Please sign it, or allow it to become law without your signature.

Tags: , ,

Hawaii Legislature 2019 — Bills and Resolutions

Hawaii Legislature 2019 — Bills and Resolutions Related to Hawaiian Sovereignty and Racial Entitlement Programs. Text, testimony, and outcome.

A webpage provides complete information on 19 bills or resolutions for which Ken Conklin has submitted testimony as of February 10, 2019:

The webpage will be updated continuously whenever a new item is introduced (there might be many more).


SB1501 appropriates $439 Million tax dollars for DHHL for 2 years!

HB402/SB1363 gives OHA $139 Million to make up for alleged underpayment of 20% of ceded land revenues, and then $35 Million per year starting now.

SB195/SB642 requires that the Hawaiian version of a law be held binding if the law in question was originally drafted in Hawaiian and then translated into English. Requires that ‘okina and kahako be used, when appropriate, in documents prepared by or for state or county agencies or officials.

HB1119/SB1451 Reestablishes Kingdom holiday as a permanent annual official state holiday, November 28: La Ku’oko’a, which the bill calls “Hawaiian Recognition Day” although that has always been translated as, and will be perceived as, “Hawaiian Independence Day.”

More on the way!

The Hawaii legislature is in session each year from mid January to early May. Each year there are numerous bills and resolutions related to Hawaiian sovereignty and racial entitlement programs. For about 20 years Ken Conklin has been tracking such legislation, and submitting testimony. As of February 10, 2019 there are 19 different bills or resolutions on this topic for which committee hearings have been announced and for which Conklin has submitted testimony. There will probably be many more, and the webpage will be updated every time a new item gets a committee hearing (new RESOLUTIONS often get introduced later in the session, but a BILL will be treated as “new” only if it did not yet have a hearing). The count of 19 reflects completely different bills and resolutions, not counting the cloned companions in the other chamber, nor the amended versions sent by one committee to the next committee; all of which get Conklin’s revised and updated testimony reflecting amendments made along the way.

Some bills or resolutions have clones, called “companions”, which are introduced under different bill numbers in both the House and Senate. As the session goes forward, many committees make amendments before sending an item to the next committee or to the other chamber. After an item has passed all its committees in one chamber, then it gets sent to the other chamber where more committees consider it, and perhaps amend it. At the end of session a bill must be passed with exactly the same content in both chambers before it can pass out of the legislature to the Governor for his signature.

A webpage provides complete information on the 19 bills or resolutions for which Ken Conklin has submitted testimony as of February 10 2019:

The webpage will be updated continuously whenever a new item gets a hearing (there might be many more). For each item Conklin’s webpage provides full text of Conklin’s testimony; a link to the Senate or House “status” webpage where the full text of the bill or resolution can be viewed, along with a file containing all the testimony submitted to each committee along the way on the item (sometimes dozens of people submit testimony), and a record of which Senators or Representatives voted which way on it, and the official committee report that accompanies the item as it gets sent to the next committee or to the full chamber. Conklin sends a revised version of his testimony to the next committee whenever an item gets amended before it goes to the next committee or to the chamber’s floor; but normally Conklin posts on his webpage only the first version of his testimony, unless there are major changes to the primary concepts.

The webpage also provides, at the bottom, a long list of links to Conklin’s similar webpages from previous years providing testimony from Conklin and others regarding bills and resolutions. That’s a useful resource for anyone wanting to analyze the trajectory of legislation and testimony on any particular issue. Some bills or resolutions that fail get re-introduced essentially unchanged in later years, repeatedly, like zombies or mummies in science fiction movies; other items get significantly revised by the people who write them and get them reintroduced; and some items that fail are allowed to stay dead. Which is which? Do your research!

Tags: , , , , ,

Proposed regulations for Mauna Kea, September 2018

On September 27, 2018 Kenneth R. Conklin, Ph.D. submitted testimony of 18 pages regarding proposed regulations for “Public and Commercial Activities on Mauna Kea Lands.” Conklin explains 4 fundamental principles of unity and equality, and applies them to criticize and improve the proposed regulations. Conklin’s complete testimony is at

Here are four fundamental principles for all issues related to Hawaiian sovereignty, which are also helpful for analyzing the proposed rules for Mauna Kea:
1. We are all equal in the eyes of God regardless of race.
2. All people, regardless of race, should be treated equally under the law by our government.
3. Unity with America: Hawaii is in fact the 50th State of the USA, whose laws rightfully have jurisdiction here.
4. Unity of Hawaii: The people and lands of Hawaii should remain unified under the single sovereignty of the State of Hawaii, and should not be divided along racial lines.

Two obvious conclusions for Mauna Kea rule-making can be derived from those fundamental principles. Many proposed rules should be improved to reflect these two conclusions. These conclusions motivate and underlie all the comments I have made about specific proposed rules.
(A) Every rule should apply equally to people of all races; there should be no racial set-asides or special privileges.
(B) If rule-makers believe Article 12 Section 7 of the Hawaii Constitution requires certain rights to be granted to one particular racial group, then the best way to fulfill that requirement is to grant those same rights to all Hawaii’s people regardless of race. There is legal precedent that a law requiring benefits for one racial group can be satisfied by granting those benefits to all persons regardless of race. Furthermore, the Aloha Spirit and the need for pono require such inclusiveness rather than racial exclusion.

Proposed rules for Mauna Kea analyzed by applying those principles and conclusions include the following topics:
*Mandatory orientation program for visitors;
*Fees charged to visitors;
*Traditional and customary rights of Native Hawaiians;
*Burials and scattering of cremated remains;
*Interference with government function;
*Racial set-asides or preferences;
*Access for religious or cultural purposes;
*Demographic characteristics of employees, volunteers, visitors deemed irrelevant

Conklin’s complete testimony is at

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

Multimillion dollar renovation of Thomas Square in Honolulu has secessionist and racial supremacist motives.

by Kenneth R. Conklin, Ph.D.

July 31, 2018 was the 175th anniversary of a significant historical event in the Hawaiian Kingdom, when British Admiral Thomas landed at what is now called “Thomas Square” with a royal proclamation restoring sovereignty to King Kauikeaouli Kamehameha III. To memorialize this anniversary a large portion of Thomas Square has undergone a major renovation which includes a huge floodlit statue of the King, an extremely tall flagpole where the Hawaiian Kingdom flag will fly 24 hours a day with no U.S. flag in sight, a very long 4-ft. tall wall with the King’s famous one-line comment etched in stone (sovereignty is preserved in righteousness), and a large cubical pile of lava rocks serving as an altar to the old Hawaiian gods.

Erecting the huge statue, flagpole, wall, and altar at Thomas Square has the same motives as erecting statues in Southern states decades after the Civil War to honor Confederate generals. The motives include resistance against U.S. military occupation, desire to restore status as a sovereign independent nation, and demands by one race for supremacy over the other races in a multiracial society.

On July 31, 1843 British Admiral Thomas landed at what is now called “Thomas Square” in Honolulu. He delivered to King Kauikeaouli Kamehameha III a British royal proclamation returning sovereignty to the King. 5 months previously a rogue British warship had trained its guns on Honolulu to demand payment of overdue bills owed by native chiefs to British merchants. When the King was unable to pay, the British commander foreclosed on the debts by collecting the sovereignty of the Hawaiian Kingdom as payment. The Hawaiian King suffered alcoholic depression. A petition to the British crown was secretly written by the King’s closest advisor, an American missionary medical doctor Gerrit Judd, who made the King sign it and who recruited an American sailor to deliver it. The restoration of sovereignty on July 31 produced a huge celebration, and the date became a Hawaiian Kingdom holiday.

Today’s Hawaiian secessionists want to rip the 50th star off the U.S. flag. They believe the overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy on January 17, 1893 was caused by the landing of 162 U.S. peacekeepers sent ashore to protect American lives and property and prevent expected rioting and arson as royalists and revolutionaries clashed. 5 years after the “illegal overthrow” there was an “illegal annexation” of Hawaii to the U.S., and then in 1959 there was an “illegal plebiscite” whereby Hawaii agreed to become the 50th State.

Hawaiian sovereignty activists want to undo all that history. So today’s Hawaiian secessionists look to Sovereignty Restoration Day not only as the name of a historical event 175 years ago but also as the future they expect when United Nations enforcement of “international law” combines with U.S. military and economic weakness to once again restore Hawaii to its former status as an independent nation. Hawaiian racial supremacists cherish the thought of sovereignty restoration day in the same way as Southern white nationalists cherish their memories of Robert E. Lee. A statue went up in Honolulu for the same reasons the Confederate statues were erected in Charlottesville Virginia and other Southern towns.

For a deeper analysis, and compilation of news reports about Thomas Square, see this webpage:

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

Hawaiian names for Honolulu train stations — weaponizing Hawaiian language to assert racial dominance

Honolulu Authority for Rapid Transit

Kenneth R. Conklin, Ph.D.
46-255 Kahuhipa St. Apt. 1205
Kane’ohe, HI 96744-6083
tel (808) 247-7942

Re: Hawaiian names for train stations

Date: November 28, 2017

Responding to the mission statement of the Hawaiian Station Naming Program
and the media news release of November 22, 2017

Those documents try to make it appear that it has already been decided that the train stations must have Hawaiian-language names, and that the only question remaining is what particular name each station should have.

But no! There are good reasons why Hawaiian names should not be the primary names displayed or announced; and even more good reasons why Hawaiian names should not be given any official role at all.

Mayor Mufi Hannemann said we must keep in mind the difference between “need to have” and “nice to have.” And I am adding here: considering how Hawaiian language is being used as a political weapon, Hawaiian station names might not be nice to have at all.

Here are 5 points which the HART board of directors should consider before proceeding to adopt Hawaiian-language names:



Resolution 09-158, calling for Hawaiian-language station names, was adopted on April 29, 2009 — nearly 9 years ago! There was hardly any publicity back then despite its potentially controversial nature.

The membership of City Council has turned over many times between then and now. Council Member Ann Kobayashi might be the only current member who was on the Council when the resolution was adopted. Perhaps she will recall the large controversy that erupted in 2009, at the same time when this resolution was adopted — Hawaiian activists were trying to get the Council to take away all the existing street names in the former Barbers Point military base (which had recently been turned over to Honolulu as surplus federal lands) and replace them with Hawaiian names. Old-time residents of the area, including military veterans, sent written testimony and appeared at several hearings to demand that the military heritage names be kept; and the Council decided to keep the names. It seems plausible that Resolution 09-158 was adopted merely as a ploy to mollify or calm the activists in view of the rejection of their demands to abolish military/English-language heritage names. One of the Hawaiian activists in that controversy, Shad Kane, is now a member of the current Station Naming Working Group, thus showing that his primary motivation is probably related to the politics of Hawaiian sovereignty. Furthermore, one of the proposed station names now (Kualakai) is the same as one of the proposed replacement street names from 2009, despite being a considerable distance away; which raises doubts about cultural/historical authenticity of a name that should be uniquely specific to the station’s location. See topics #4 and #5 below for more information about the old street name controversy and how it illustrates the use of Hawaiian language as a political weapon — naming something is an assertion of power or ownership.

It is inappropriate to expect today’s members to feel bound by such an old stealth or “sleeper” resolution. We’ve all seen science fiction horror movies where a long-dormant mummy, zombie, or vampire is awakened and wreaks chaos upon a hapless community. We would do well to let it remain asleep — or better yet drive a stake through its hart (pun — intentional misspelling!)



People must be told the easily recognizable English name of a currently-existing building or shopping center or neighborhood — not the ancient Hawaiian name of a long-forgotten chief who lived there once upon a time — not the ancient Hawaiian name of a geological feature which is no longer visible because of large buildings now in the way.

99% of local residents, and 100% of visitors from the mainland, will have no clue whether to get off when they see or hear some of the Hawaiian-language place-names under consideration.

Some of the names actually proposed by the Committee are extremely confusing even to local residents, because the names are contrary to actual place names already in use. One anonymous commenter to a newspaper report said the following: “So the “placeholder names” that future riders can actually associate with locations they know “now will be replaced” with these new names. Hence there will be no Pearlridge Center Station but instead there will be a Pu’uloa station that is next to Pearlridge Center but miles away from Pu’uloa Road. Really? And the station smack dab in the center of the new Ho’opili subdivision will no longer be called the Ho’opili station but instead will be called the Honouliuli station, even though the Honouliuli neighborhood is actually more directly accessible from the West Loch station, which itself will be renamed the Ho’ae’ae station. Hmmm…”

Consider how The Bus currently announces each stop. Suppose you change Puakea Nogelmeier’s recorded announcement “Kane’ohe Library and Kane’ohe Police Station” to “Hale Waihona Puke o Kane’ohe a me Hale Maka’i o Kane’ohe”? Huh? Wat dat? Wah choo sane?

Recently a half-mile-long object from outside our solar system passed by at high speed — the first such interstellar visitor known to humans. News media reported that a committee of Hawaiian language experts held meetings to figure out what name to give it, because the right to name it belongs to the astronomical observatory on Mauna Kea that discovered it. The committee dredged up the word “‘Oumuamua” which, they tell us, means leader or scout. Does that word have kaona (hidden meaning) intended to imply that creatures from outer space will soon be invading and have sent an advance party to scout our defenses? How many people, even in the community of Hawaiian-language experts, ever heard that word before now? Why not choose the somewhat more commonly heard name “‘Elele” (messenger), as in the ‘olelo no’eau “He ‘elele ka moe na ke kanaka.” (A dream is a messenger to a person) Or choose even the very commonly heard name “malihini” (visitor or guest), which also does not carry any of the hopohopo-inducing ominous kaona associated with “scout” or “messenger.” What we had with “‘Oumuamua” was a gang of language experts dredging an obscure word out of the same abyss from whence came the interstellar object. That process resembles what is being done by the transit station naming committee. Neither local residents nor tourists will have a clue what the name means when the initial publicity fades away after a few weeks. Eventually those names would make good questions in the game “Trivial Pursuit” or perhaps a Hawaiian version of “Jeapordy.”

Consider how transit stations should be (re)named in other parts of America to evoke their Native American heritages, following the lead of the committee in Honolulu:

The transit station at the bottom of Manhattan, and/or the embarkation point for the ferry boat, should be (re)named “Kioshk” which was the Indian name of what is now called Ellis Island.

The bus stop nearest to Lake Superior in Duluth Minnesota should be (re)named GitcheGumee which is the Indian name for the lake, as we know from Henry Wadsworth Longfellow’s famous poem “Song of Hiawatha” (“By the shores of Gitche Gumee, By the shining Big-Sea-Water, Stood the wigwam of Nokomis, Daughter of the Moon, Nokomis. …”)

In Chicago, “Navy Pier” juts out into Lake Michigan; therefore the transit station serving it should be (re)named “Mishigami” from that lake’s Indian name (Ojibwa or Algonquin).



The primary purpose should be to give people practical information quickly and accurately in terms they can understand to get to their destination; but it is only a secondary purpose to educate them about historical or cultural factors which are not immediately necessary and might be of little interest to them.

If you have cancer and go to a doctor for treatment, you need to know where to go for surgery or radiation; or get a prescription for drugs. You do not need a lecture on the history of improvement in the design of scalpels, or how Marie Curie extracted radium from pitchblende, or how tamoxifen gets processed by the liver; although you should certainly be helped to get that information if you want it.



It is a political act — an assertion of power or dominance — to impose a name upon a person, place, creature, or object. According to the Bible, God gave man dominion over all the creatures of the Earth, including the right to name them as a sign of man’s dominion over them. Parents who adopt a baby have a right to (re)name the baby and to get a new birth certificate reflecting the chosen name. Owners have the right to impose a name on any property they own; conversely, imposing a name is an assertion of ownership, authority, and power.

Black activists Malcolm Little, Cassius Clay, and Lou Alcindor discarded their “slave names” to become Malcolm X, Muhammad Ali, and Kareem Abdul Jabbar; while Hawaiian activist Lily Dorton gave herself the heroic name Lilikala Kame’eleihiwa. The boy Collin Kwai Kong Wong who graduated from Kamehameha School in 1990 gave himself the powerful female name Hinaleimoana when transitioning to the woman Hinaleimoana Kwai Kong Wong-Kalu, chairperson of the HART Hawaiian Station Naming Working Group.

Racial activists and transgenders, like those on this committee, understand very well that choosing a new name is an intensely political action, an exercise of power, and a way of converting an aspiration into an apparent reality. Owners have the right to impose a name on any property they own; conversely, imposing a name is an assertion of ownership, authority, and power. The race-nationalist political motive of the HART Hawaiian Station Naming Working Group is clear from their backgrounds.

“He who pays the piper calls the tune.” Thus corporations pay megabucks for the naming rights to a sports stadium. Medical buildings and university buildings are named after the donors who endowed them. The many Billions of dollars for the Honolulu train system come from the taxpayers, not from an ethnic group claiming victimhood status reflected in allegedly low incomes and therefore low contributions to the taxes that finance the project. Seizing the naming rights to the buildings in the Honolulu rail project is a theft of the property rights of all the taxpayers in general.

According to a Hawaiian proverb: “I ka ‘olelo no ke ola, i ka ‘olelo no ka make” which means: In language there is life, in language there is death. Thus naming streets or train stations is a way of asserting ownership and authority over them through an act of political power. Streets, places, or buildings with haole or Hawaiian names mark the territory as being haole or Hawaiian in the same way as an animal urinates on a place to leave a scent mark asserting control of it, or a graffiti artist paints his indecipherable tag on a wall.



Black activists Malcolm Little, Cassius Clay, and Lou Alcindor discarded their “slave names” to become Malcolm X, Muhammad Ali, and Kareem Abdul Jabbar. A Hawaiian activist whose name on her Ph.D. dissertation was Lily Dorton gave herself the heroic name Lilikala Kame’eleihiwa — she speaks with pride about her Hawaiian mother but never her haole father.

The boy Collin Kwai Kong Wong who graduated from Kamehameha School in 1990 gave himself the powerful female name Hinaleimoana when transitioning to the woman Hinaleimoana Kwai Kong Wong-Kalu, who has been head of the O’ahu Island Burial Council and culture director at a Hawaiian-focus charter school noted for the aggressive involvement of its students in lobbying or disrupting city and state government agencies.

Mahealani Cypher (aka Denise DaCosta) has been President of the O’ahu Council of Hawaiian Civic Clubs writing testimony on all sorts of state and federal legislation related to Hawaiian sovereignty. For example, she repeatedly wrote bills introduced in several legislative sessions that would have turned over Ha’iku Valley (Kane’ohe) to a race-based consortium under the jurisdiction of OHA to be then automatically transferred to the Native Hawaiian tribe anticipated to achieve federal recognition. And now here she is, continuing her political activism as chairperson of the HART Hawaiian Station Naming Working Group.

It’s interesting that at least two of the five members of the Working Group — Chairperson Mahealani Cypher and Francine Gora — are residents of Ko’olaupoko and have served as Presidents of the politically aggressive Ko’olaupoko Hawaiian Civic Club, despite the fact that the train will never serve the Ko’olaupoko area and these two women probably have very little knowledge of historical names or cultural usages of the areas where the train stations will be located. Their participation on the station-naming committee is purely political as they do not have cultural or historical expertise on the station areas.

Racial activists and transgenders, like those on this committee, understand very well that choosing a new name is an intensely political action, an exercise of power, and a way of converting an aspiration into an apparent reality. The race-nationalist political motive of the HART Hawaiian Station Naming Working Group is clear from their backgrounds.

City Council, and also some neighborhood boards, have previously considered and rejected efforts to remove English-language street names and replace them with “politically correct” Hawaiian names. There might be one or two Council members who lived through some of those struggles. See details of five case studies: Thurston Ave.(Kamakaeha), Barbers Point (Kalaeloa), Dillingham Military Reservation (Kawaihapai), Fort Barrette Road (Kualakai), Dole St. (Kapaakea Street). Those case studies are on a webpage at

Note that the name proposed for one of the train stations (Kualakai) is the same name unsuccessfully demanded in 2009, in a bitter battle before City Council, to replace the name of Fort Barrette Road, and was (and still is) the name of another street in that area. Note that Working Group member Shad Kane was one of the activists back then who appears to now be seeking to re-fight that old issue. Interestingly, resolution 09-158, calling for the use of Hawaiian language in naming the train stations, was adopted by City Council on April 29, 2009, at the same time when the battle was underway before the Council to change Fort Barrette Road to Kualaka’i.

Tags: , , , ,

HB1297 about Hawaiian sovereignty; and Ken Conklin’s testimony which committee chairman Kaniela Ing disappeared.

On Friday February 10, 2017 a notice was published by the legislature of the State of Hawaii announcing that a hearing would be held on Tuesday February 14 on the bill HB1297. Text of the bill is copied below. On that same Friday February 10 Ken Conklin submitted testimony through the Legislature’s website, long ahead of the requirement that testimony must be submitted at least 24 hours before a hearing; and Conklin immediately received the robot-generated confirmation that the testimony had been received. Conklin’s testimony is copied below.

However, after the hearing was held and the public file of written testimony was posted on the Legislature’s “status” webpage for this bill, Conklin’s testimony was not included. Might the omission have been an accident? No! It was clearly not an accident, because exactly the same thing happened with Conklin’s testimony on a different bill, HB118-HD1, whose hearing was announced and held on the same dates, and in the same committee.

The committee is the House Committee on Ocean, Marine Resources, and Hawaiian Affairs. The chairman of the committee is Kaniela Ing, a youthful far-left Hawaiian sovereignty activist whose views might be described as supporting racial entitlement programs at taxpayer expense and race-based political sovereignty. Ing despises Conklin’s views, and the feeling is mutual. Conklin’s testimony was by far the strongest submitted, so it’s no surprise that Ing censored it. The vast majority of testimony was in opposition to the bill, but for reasons Mr. Ing would approve of — based on the assertion that Hawaii is not legitimately part of the United States.

Upon seeing that his testimony had been disappeared from the public files on two bills before the same committee, Conklin sent an email on Tuesday evening to Speaker of the House Joe Souki, and to all House members, providing copies of both of the disappeared testimonies; asking that they be inserted in the public files where they should have been all along; and asking that whoever was responsible for their censoring should be reprimanded. By Wednesday afternoon the public files of testimonies had been updated for both of the bills to include Conklin’s testimony, near the top, in the rightful place where it probably belonged in the order of when the testimonies were submitted.

The public file of testimony on this bill HB1297 is 749 pages long, occupying 162 Megabytes, takes many minutes to download even with high-speed internet, and is available at

Here is full text of the bill

Provides that the State shall support a model of sovereignty and self-governance chosen by the Hawaiian people that complies with federal and state law.

SECTION 1. Chapter 27, Hawaii Revised Statutes, is amended by adding a new part to be appropriately designated and to read as follows:
“PART . HAWAIIAN SOVEREIGNTY §27- Hawaiians; sovereignty; self-governance; state support. The State shall support a model of sovereignty and self-governance chosen by the Hawaiian people in a manner that comports with administrative rules and procedures established by the United States Department of the Interior and that complies with federal and state law.” SECTION 2. This Act shall take effect upon its approval.

Here is full text of Ken Conklin’s TESTIMONY IN OPPOSITION

There is no historical, legal, or moral justification for race-based political sovereignty for ethnic Hawaiians.

Proposals to “reorganize” a Native Hawaiian governing entity are absurd, because there has never been such an entity in the history of Hawaii and therefore there is nothing to be reorganized. After a thousand years, the first time all the Hawaiian islands were organized under a single governing entity was in 1810 when Kamehameha The Great finally intimidated Kaua’i’s King Kaumuali’i to surrender without a fight, and merged his domain with all the rest of the islands which Kamehameha had conquered by force of arms. But the high chiefs in Kamehameha’s ruling government included the British Caucasian John Young as Governor of Kamehameha’s own home Hawaii Island — Young’s tomb is in Mauna Ala, the Royal Mausoleum, guarded with a pair of pulo’ulo’u (sacred taboo sticks), and is the only tomb there which is built in the shape of a miniature heiau; his bones are the oldest in Mauna Ala. British Caucasian Isaac Davis was Governor of O’ahu.

Here are four persuasive reasons why this bill should be defeated.

1. The bill pledges the State government to support whatever model of sovereignty is chosen by a racial group comprising 20% of Hawaii’s people, regardless whether the other 80% oppose it. That’s clearly not pono. A proposal to create an apartheid regime by dividing the lands and people of Hawaii along racial lines should not be endorsed by the legislature unless it is placed on the ballot in a general election under the same rules for approval as used for a state Constitutional amendment. But even in the unlikely event that such a proposal gets ratified by the people, it is clearly contrary to the U.S. Constitution and would likely be overruled by the courts.

2. Numerous scientific surveys show that a majority of Hawaii’s people — including probably a majority of “Native Hawaiians” — oppose this idea. The most reliable and credible surveys were done by nationally esteemed professional public opinion survey companies, including Zogby, headquartered outside Hawaii and thus insulated from propaganda generated by OHA and not beholden to OHA or Kamehameha Schools for lucrative contracts. Even when polls were done by local newspapers or by OHA, over a period of years, the results consistently show that “Native Hawaiians” have the same ranking of priorities as the general population — top priorities are education, healthcare, housing, the environment, and traffic. The lowest priorities are Native Hawaiian rights, race-based handouts — and, lowest of all — ethnic Hawaiian “nationhood” (i.e., the Akaka bill or administrative rule-making to create a Hawaiian tribe). For a compilation of information and links to survey results, see pages 29-34 in Ken Conklin’s “Testimony regarding RIN 1090–AB05” at ConklinTestmnyDOI081514RulesChangeHawnTribe.pdf

3. There have been perhaps a thousand news reports and commentaries over the years from 2000 through 2014 opposing the Akaka bill and, more recently, opposing the Department of Interior regulation for creating a Hawaiian tribe. The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights spoke loud and clear against the Akaka bill in 2006 and 2009; and in September 2013 four Commissioners sent a letter to President Obama warning that it would be unconstitutional to use administrative rulemaking or executive order to create a Hawaiian tribe and give it federal recognition. In 2001 and 2005 the House Committee on Judiciary, and its subcommittee on the Constitution, took the unusual step of publicly opposing the Akaka bill even though a different committee had jurisdiction over “Indian” legislation. Constitutional law expert Bruce Fein published several articles opposing the Akaka bill, some of which were republished in the Congressional Record at the request of Senator Jon Kyl. Mr. Fein also wrote a monograph “Hawaii Divided Against Itself Cannot Stand.” Mr. Fein’s essay is of special interest to scholars because of his analysis of the apology resolution of 1993 as well as the provisions of the Akaka bill. Full text of these items has been compiled over the years, including U.S. Commission on Civil Rights letters on official letterhead. A master index provides lists and links for specific time periods. See AkakaPublishedOpposition.html

4. During February 2016 a monthlong meeting was held on O’ahu in which unelected “Native Hawaiians” who had been candidates in an attempted election run by a group called Na’i Aupuni wrote a proposed constitution for a “Native Hawaiian” nation. They wrote it with the specific intention that it would meet the requirements of the Department of Interior “final rule” for creating a Hawaiian tribe.

Right up front in your face, 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.” [i.e., we’re gonna take over the whole place, just like Kamehameha did, who was known as “Ka Na’i Aupuni” — the conqueror.] “We reaffirm the National Sovereignty of the Nation. We reserve all rights to Sovereignty and Self-determination, including the pursuit of independence. Our highest aspirations are set upon the promise of our unity and this Constitution.”

The plain language in the preamble is the declaration of a race-war from a gathering blatantly labeled “Na’i Aupuni” which means “Conquest.”

In case there’s any doubt about fascist racial exclusivity, Article 2 — Citizenship — says “A citizen of the Native Hawaiian Nation is any descendant of the aboriginal and indigenous people who, prior to 1778, occupied and exercised sovereignty in the Hawaiian Islands and is enrolled in the nation.” Article 7, Section 4 reaffirms the religious belief that ethnic Hawaiians have a genealogical relationship with the islands, saying “The Nation has a right, duty, and kuleana, both individually and collectively, to sustain the ‘Aina (land, kai, wai, air) as an ancestor, source of mana, and source of life and well-being for present and future generations. And Article 8 says “The Government shall not … Make any law with intent to suppress traditional Native Hawaiian religion or beliefs.”

What will happen to the 80% of Hawaii’s current population who do not have any Hawaiian native blood? Perhaps the same thing that happened to the vast majority of the indigenous Africans when small minorities of Caucasians took over the governments of Rhodesia (Zimbabwe) and South Africa.

Full text of the proposed constitution is at

Is this the sort of Hawaiian tribe which our legislature wants to go on record as supporting? God help us!

Tags: , , , ,

Testimony submitted to U.S. Department of Interior on Thanksgiving Day 2015 in opposition to proposed regulation for granting federal recognition to a phony Hawaiian tribe

Testimony opposing RIN 1090–AB05
by Kenneth R. Conklin, Ph.D.
November 26, 2015, Thanksgiving Day
Giving thanks there is no Hawaiian tribe

Website: “Hawaiian Sovereignty”
Book: “Hawaiian Apartheid”

Full text of testimony in attached file,
and at


1. Aloha from Ken Conklin, civil rights activist supporting unity and equality

2. Why quorum in NPRM for credible participation in election and ratification is too low

3. Don’t abandon question 8 from ANPRM “What should constitute adequate evidence or verification that a person has a significant cultural, social, or civic connection to the Native Hawaiian community?”

4. A unique rule for recognizing a Hawaiian tribe should acknowledge the uniquely high percentage of Native Hawaiians as 22% of the total population of Hawaii, making it uniquely traumatic to partition the State along racial lines. Therefore, a unique Hawaiian rule should require a vote by all Hawaii’s people to approve federal recognition.

5. Promises or predictions made in the NPRM that the rights of people will be protected cannot be delivered. Whatever requirements the DOI imposes upon a tribe’s initial governing document in order to grant recognition can later be changed by the tribe unilaterally — according to a Final Rule in Federal Register October 19. Any tribe can amend its governing document without DOI approval.

Because of #5:

6. There is no protection for special rights of HHCA-eligible native Hawaiians (50% blood quantum);
7. Hawaiian tribe can ignore DOI prohibition on gambling casinos in Hawaii or mainland;
8. Hawaiian tribe cannot be prohibited from participating automatically in all the benefit programs intended for the mainland tribes;
9. Hawaiian tribe would threaten sovereign immunity of federal and State lands, and also threaten private land titles, due to Indian Non-Intercourse Act;
10. Hawaiian tribe has jurisdiction over citizens with no native blood, and also over ethnic Hawaiians who choose not to join the tribe — Indian Child Welfare Act; Violence Against Women Act.

11. Remove the terms “reestablishing a government-to-government relationship with the Native Hawaiian community” or “reorganizing a Native Hawaiian government” because there was never a Native Hawaiian government. All governments of a unified Hawaii had massive Caucasian participation in executive, legislative, and judicial branches.

12. The “special political and trust relationship” that Congress has allegedly established with Native Hawaiians does not exist — asserting it has been a political football punted between Republicans and Democrats.

13. Authoritative sources since 2001 warn that creating a race-based government for ethnic Hawaiians would be both unconstitutional and bad public policy: U.S. House Judiciary subcommittee on the Constitution; U.S. Commission on Civil Rights; and others.

14. Authoritative sources confirm the Hawaiian revolution of 1893 was legitimate and the U.S. owes nothing to ethnic Hawaiians beyond what is owed to all the citizens of the United States: 808-page report of the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs (1894); Native Hawaiians Study Commission report (jointly authorized by Senate and House, 1983); more

15. Evidence that “Native Hawaiians” and also the general citizenry of Hawaii do not want federal recognition of a Hawaiian tribe. Zogby survey; two Grassroot Institute surveys; newspaper and OHA scientific surveys show ethnic Hawaiians and the general population place “nationbuilding” at bottom of priorities; more.

16. People of all races jointly own Hawaii as full partners. President Obama himself opposes tribalism and erecting walls between natives and immigrants. History of Black civil rights movement is instructive — Martin Luther King’s model of full integration won the hearts and minds of African Americans and of all Americans, defeating the racial separatism of the “Nation of Islam.”

17. Administrative rule-making should not be used to enact legislation explicitly rejected by Congress during 13 years when megabucks were spent pushing it. The executive branch can only implement laws Congress passed, not create laws Congress rejected. Two federal courts have now overruled Obama’s rule-making that tried to enact immigration laws rejected by Congress.

18. Federal recognition for a Hawaiian tribe would herd into demographic and geographic racial ghettos people and lands that have long been fully assimilated, widely scattered, and governed by a multiracial society. Map shows public lands likely to be demanded by a Hawaiian tribe; Census 2010 table shows number of Native Hawaiians in every state; Census 2010 table showing number of Native Hawaiians in every census tract in Hawaii.

19. Six cartoons by Daryl Cagle illustrating the social divisiveness of racial entitlement programs, as seen in Midweek newspaper, Honolulu, probably late 1990s to mid 2000s.

Tags: , , , ,

The Lili’uokalani Cult — A scary but true Halloween story

Hawaiian secessionists try to inspire winners for 21st Century battles by conjuring the ghosts of 19th Century losers

by Kenneth R. Conklin, Ph.D.

Queen Lili’uokalani has become a cult figure. Hawaiian sovereignty activists worship her in an uncritical, mystical way similar to how Catholics worship the Virgin Mary. Some say her spirit lives at Iolani Palace or Washington Place, some say she lives at Mauna Ala (the Royal Mausoleum) or at her statue on the Capitol grounds; but all say she lives forever in the hearts of 527,000 Native Hawaiians (Census 2010). Other cult heroes include about 350 men arrested, including 189 put on trial, for the Wilcox attempted counterrevolution of 1895. This year at least one published essay says Hawaiians should try that again.

The activists have been working hard to make the general population of Hawaii think of Lili’uokalani as a noble, virtuous leader who was unjustly and illegally overthrown, who exercised non-violence in her peaceful surrender, who wrote beautiful music while imprisoned in her own Palace, and who behaved like a saint in forgiving those wicked haoles who dethroned her with the help of an armed invasion by the United States.

Lili’uokalani’s 175th birthday on September 2, 2013 provided an excuse for an unusually aggressive propaganda campaign aimed at stirring anti-U.S. and anti-haole resentment, and determination to restore Hawaii as an independent nation under ethnic Hawaiian control.

Of course Lili’uokalani was an important historical figure. She deserves to be remembered along with Hawaii’s other monarchs of the Kingdom period and Governors of the Territorial and and Statehood periods. But during her disastrous two years as Queen she accomplished nothing worthwhile except being overthrown. Why should she be more highly celebrated than King Kauikeaouli Kamehameha III, who reigned for 30 years with many great accomplishments? He gave up absolute power to create Hawaii’s first Constitution recognizing fundamental rights of all people regardless of race or inherited status; and he gave up absolute ownership of all Hawaii’s lands to create private property with fee-simple deeds.

Why should Lili’uokalani’s two years of ineffective and corrupt governance from Iolani Palace be more highly regarded than Sanford Dole’s masterful leadership? He governed from the Palace through nearly eleven years of profound and tumultuous change as President of the Provisional Government, President of the Republic, and first Governor of the Territory. Dole also gave earlier service as Kingdom legislator elected from Koloa, and Supreme Court Justice appointed by Kalakaua. And later Dole served for 12 years as Judge of the U.S. District Court for the Territory. Yet there’s no painting of him on the Palace walls alongside the other ruling chiefs of the independent nation of Hawaii; and no statue of him anywhere in Hawaii.

There’s a simple reason why the sovereignty activists elevate Lili’uokalani to cult hero. She was the last monarch of the Kingdom. They believe that sovereignty remained with her until she died in 1917, because the overthrow of the monarchy was illegal and annexation to the U.S. was illegal. Thus the sovereignty of the native Hawaiian people remains unrelinquished, and can be reasserted through U.S. and international courts. Hawaii does not have Holocaust deniers or Obama birth certificate deniers. But we do have overthrow deniers, annexation deniers, and statehood deniers. The Lili’uokalani cult has kuleana over the first two denials because those events happened during the ex-queen’s lifetime. Celebrating Lili’uokalani is a socially acceptable way to express resentment toward the U.S. and toward residents who lack Hawaiian native blood.

By portraying Lili’uokalani as a saintly, noble, kind-hearted, peace-loving and talented Queen, the sovereignty activists hope to make Hawaii’s people feel the pain and injustice of what was done to her by the evil haoles who overthrew her with help from an armed invasion by the U.S. In the name of Lili’uokalani, let’s rip the 50th star off the flag and give political control to the natives whose land this has always been! Her role is like Joan of Arc or Richard The Lionhearted, stirring up public passion to restore the “lahui” she championed.

As with any religious/political cult, the same small group of activists devote their lives to organizing and leading race-focused Hawaiian independence political rallies and media campaigns all year long, year after year. Some names that keep cropping up are Hayden Burgess (alias Poka Laenui) and his wife Puanani Burgess (community organizer), Lynette Cruz and her acolyte Evern Williams, Rev. Dr. Kaleo Patterson and his frequent companion Ha’aheo Guanson (peacenik), Meleanna Meyer (entertainer, filmmaker, artist, community organizer) and her sisters Maile Meyer (CEO of Native Books) and Manulani Meyer (Professor of Education at UH Hilo).

The Meyer sisters are proud to boast that they are descendants of and carrying forward the work of native Hawaiian nationalist Joseph Nawahi and his second wife A’ima (Emma) Nawahi. A’ima was a close confidant and companion of Lili’uokalani. Joseph Nawahi served for 20 years in the Kingdom legislature, served in Queen Lili’uokalani’s cabinet as Minister of Foreign Affairs, wrote the Constitution which Lili’uokalani tried to proclaim in 1893, was President of the Hawaiian Patriotic League which fought against the overthrow of the monarchy, and operated the Hawaiian language royalist newspaper Ke Aloha ‘Aina.

Five major propaganda events happened during the Summer and Fall of 2013 showing the intensity of feeling in the Lili’uokalani cult, and the willingness of its leaders to not only twist history but to proclaim outright falsehoods as truth. Meleanna Meyer was a principal organizer and participant in them all.

The programs described below, and the booklets and materials handed out free of charge, are very expensive to produce. Clearly there are some wealthy individuals and institutions paying for all this, including Kamehameha Schools, the Hawaiian Civic Clubs, and other private groups; but also including some government agencies using taxpayer dollars, who are spending enormous amounts of money on these propaganda materials, performances, and facilities. For example: Iolani Palace, Ali’iolani Hale (building behind Kamehameha statue), University of Hawaii faculty time and especially the UH Center for Biographical Research, Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Hawaii Public Library facilities for performances, and many others.

Here are the five major propaganda events led by the Lili’uokalani cult in 2013.

1. The overthrow deniers have gotten the State of Hawaii to rewrite history by changing the information on the famous Lili’uokalani statue to make it appear that she remained reigning Queen of Hawaii until her death in 1917, and held a ceremony to rededicate the statue with Governor Abercrombie and former Governor Waihe’e in attendance.

2. Lili’uokalani’s 175th birthday celebration at the Palace on September 1, 2013 (a day early) featured prayer, chanting, musical performances, and walking tours with twisted-history reenactments of events and speeches from the overthrow of the monarchy on January 17, 1893.

3. Sunday August 4, 2013 was “Hawaii International Forgiveness Day” at the Hawaii state Capitol, focused on Lili’uokalani as a “Heroine of Forgiveness” and poster-girl for nonviolence because she gave up without a fight. But the propaganda event conveniently left out the fact that a few months after the overthrow Lili’uokalani several times angrily refused to consider granting amnesty to the revolutionaries as part of an attempted mediation by U.S. Minister Albert Willis to restore her to the throne, insisting that she would behead them and confiscate their property. The propaganda event also left out the fact that in 1889 she conspired with firebrand racist Robert Wilcox and facilitated a violent attack on the Palace in an attempt to overthrow her brother (7 men were killed), and in 1895 she again conspired with Wilcox and facilitated a violent attempted counterrevolution (several men killed in 3 battles) for which she was placed on trial and convicted of conspiracy to commit treason.

4. For 5 months, September 2013 through February 2014, a program “He Lei, He Aloha” — the Legacies of Queen Lili’uokalani, is presenting a program at numerous branch libraries on 6 islands. The program resembles a church service, including an opening chant/prayer in honor of Lili’uokalani, carefully selected short passages about historical events from her book handed out to be read by volunteers from the audience, songs from her songbook with audience singalong for well-known ones, a short film, and talk-story where audience members are invited to tell their impressions and what they feel this program has inspired them to do. Audience participation is a wonderful propaganda tool, encouraging people to feel like they belong to the cult and are taking a pledge to engage in future support and action.

5. Another event in the “Mai Poina” [Never Forget] series was a theatrical performance — sort of an opera or Greek tragedy — entitled “The Trial of the Queen 1895.” Multiple performances were held in the old Supreme Court chamber at Ali’iolani Hale, including chanters, re-enactments of portions of the trial, and commentaries by a group of independence activist “scholars.” The concept is that poor dear Lili’uokalani was unjustly imprisoned for her role in the attempted counterrevolution of 1895, when several men were killed in three battles, a cache of guns and ammunition and bombs were found buried in the flower bed at Lili’uokalani’s private home (Washington Place) where she was living at the time, and letters were found which she had signed appointing the cabinet ministers for her new government when the counterrevolution succeeded. Naturally Lili’uokalani denied knowing about the cache of weapons or plans for the counterrevolution, and said she had every right to write letters appointing cabinet ministers. Of course the opera gives her the benefit of the doubt. Commentaries by the “scholars” praise the patriotism of the men who tried to restore the monarchy and were imprisoned, and praise the dignity and “mana” of Lili’uokalani.

For detailed descriptions and analyses of these five propaganda events, see

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

The trouble with the Kana’iolowalu racial registry


by Kenneth R. Conklin, Ph.D.


Kana’iolowalu is a racial registration process supported by the Hawaii state legislature and using government money. The word as described by its supporters seems benign and friendly: striving together to achieve a goal, like the droplets of water in a stream. But the word has much more violent, warlike undertones. Kamehameha the Great was called “Kana’iaupuni” where that word “na’i” means “conquest” or “conqueror.” “Olowalu” means “to rush or attack in concert” and also “dodging the onslaught of spears.” So “kana’iolowalu” can best be translated as “conquest through swarming” — a method of warfare like the blitzkrieg, whereby attackers surround, rush, and overwhelm an enemy.

The main trouble with Kana’iolowalu is philosophical and moral. The state legislature is creating a list of people who have at least one drop of Hawaiian native blood. Once the list is created, the legislature intends to grant governmental powers to that racial group and then hand over state government money and land to it. Should our government be supporting a process intended to divide the lands and people of Hawaii along racial lines?

There are also many important practical and legal troubles with the actual process currently underway, including the fact that over a hundred thousand names are being dragged onto this racial registry without asking permission. These are the names of individuals previously certified as having Hawaiian native blood by race-based institutions like OHA and Kamehameha Schools, and by the Board of Health which will confirm that they have “Native Hawaiian” on their birth certificates. None of those institutions asked any of these people to affirm support for the political views expressed in the Kana’iolowalu registry. The Kana’iolowalu registry wants to give the impression that it is creating a political entity affirming the “unrelinquished sovereignty of the Native Hawaiian people”; but the overwhelming number of names in the registry will have been dragged there without permission and based solely on racial ancestry.

See the detailed essay at

Tags: , , , , , ,