RE: Dr. Tom Burnett (U.S. Military in Hawai’i: Not The Bad Guys). Dr. Tom”s information right from the start is misleading and inaccurate and most likely based on assumptions. The fact is, under the International Laws of Occupation, the U.S. illegally imported it’s own civilian nationals for the purpose of changing the population, through the deception of annexation of Hawai’i to the U.S., which never did happen, since annexation can only happen by cession or treaty, or by conquest, none of which had taken place. A “joint resolution of congress to annex the Hawaiian Islands” is the only thing the U.S. has to prove any authority over Hawaii, which has the same “legal value” as a big pile of horse manure. A joint resolution of congress is an agreement between the Senate and the House, and has no effect on territories outside U.S. borders. The exact same tactics were used to illegally establish the “territory of Hawai’i”. An act of congress, which also was the tactic used to introduce Hawai’i as the 50th State of the union. The 17-1 pro statehood vote Dr. Burnett talks about did at the time have an effect on the outcome of Hawai’i’s fate as far as Statehood is concerned, but it stinks corruption a mile away. Reason number : 1) Hawaiians and Hawaii Nationals in 1959 had already been indoctrinated, brainwashed if you will into believing they were Americans, for the last 60 years. This was done (and I remember this first hand growing up here) by teaching American History, literature, language, etc., as well as having to pledge allegance to a flag not our own, but made to believe it was, followed by a patriotic song such as America the Beautiful, or Glory Halleiluah. By the time I was in school the effects of this Americanization process was into it’s 4th or 5th generation. Clearly my parents believed in their hearts, they were “American”. 2) With the influx of Americans to Hawai’i, a direct result of the U.S. military occupation naturally would change the numbers in population as far as ethnicity were concerned, which was the plan all along by the greedy U.S. They knew it was just a matter of time that HAWAIIANS would be a minority in HAWAII. But International Laws and the Laws of the Hawaiian Constitution provides anyone born here after January 17, 1893, whose parents were not sworn or born “Hawaii Nationals”, are considered foreigners, which is most of the 94% of the present population Dr. Burnett refers to. I agree the other 6% of us do deserve you others respect and consideration, but it should be without strings attached, for this “detriment” you refer to is not our kuleana. It is something you need to take up with your own government. They are the ones who deceived you and misled you into thinking Hawai’i was part of the U.S. It ISN”T. It NEVER WAS. It NEVER WILL BE. HAWAII is an independent Sovereign Nation under a prolonged illegal military occupation by the U.S. driven from greed and quest for power and control, the American way if you will. IT TIME TO DE-OCCUPY HAWAII. Get over the denial, pack your bags and leave. And don’t forget to take someone with you. I’ve said it before and I will say it again, Americans belong in America, Europeans-Europe, Asians -Asia, Hawaiians-Hawai’i. As far as being self sufficient. Hawaiians survived here in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, almost two thousand years before any white man set foot here. We are a remarkable people. We can do it again. It can be done. Take Cuba for example. Dependent upon the Soviet Union for decades for everything. All their food, clothes, energy and transportation fuels were mostly all imported through the Soviets. All of a sudden they (The Cubans) find themselves cut off, abandoned from whom they are dependent on. They had two choices. Either unite and survive or die alone. They are still here. So are we. Forever. To the end. Aloha.
Aloha Lima ‘Ula,
With respect, you have made some incorrect assumptions. That I didn’t mention those issues specifically doesn’t mean I am unaware of them – it merely means they were not pertinent to the gist of my comment – which was that the military PERSONNEL (not the military itself) on the BIG ISLAND (not Oahu) deserve our respect, just as the ethnic Hawaiians do. In point of fact, EVERYONE deserves aloha. I was and am discussing people as individuals, not as functionaries of the idiots in Washington. As individuals, everyone deserves respect.
We are not responsible for the faults of our ancestors and no one is responsible for the past actions of their governments or their race. So when I hear ethnic Hawaiians, who are hapa at most, yelling about f****** haoles, they are in error, morally, ethnically and historically.
I guarantee you that thirteen US Marines, as awesome as we are, could not have overthrown the Kingdom without the participation of most of the extant government. Believing differently is merely an exercise in fooling yourself.
As a matter of fact, one person in a high position of the ‘Hawaiian Kingdom’ movement on the Big Island is a retired US Marine Sergeant-Major. You might know him well. And while he has renounced his citizenship, he has not renounced his retirement check.
Let us get past that. In 1959, the percentage of ethnically pure Hawaiians still comprised only about 6 percent of the population. Whether they boycotted the vote or not makes no difference. It is pretty clear that the population wanted statehood. The large percentage who didn’t bother to vote could have changed the outcome if they had wished. Clearly they did not object. Your argument fails at that point.
I agree that the choice for independence should have been on the ballot. That it was not is not the fault of the US military or F******haoles. You might want to look to Dan Inoye to ask why it was not. Spark Matsunaga isn’t with us any longer, but his assistant in Washington, Professor Emeritus Patrick Takahashi is. He’s a friend of mine and he blogs. Google for him.
Yes, war is a racket – and yes, the original occupation was illegal. But the way to change that would have been to REJECT statehood and THEN work toward independence. That’s not what happened and it is now too late to change. The state is now so dependent upon US money that it simply could not successfully survive as a nation. If you had ever lived in Micronesia, that would immediately become obvious.
You may CALL the US military presence on Oahu an ‘occupation’ – but it isn’t. It is a money machine for Hawaii. If the US Navy wasn’t ‘occupying’ Pearl Harbor, the Chinese Navy would be – because the state doesn’t have the money to buy clean water or sewers, much less a navy – and my county doesn’t have the money to provide me with water or sewers or paved streets.
Insofar as your tax argument goes, there wasn’t any national tax in the US in the 1800s. That started in WWI.
If you are interested in a further history lesson, had the US not been here during the thirties and forties, Hawaii would have ended up like Saipan.
You can carry that ‘You white people stole my country’ around if you wish, but who killed more Hawaiians on Oahu – the US military, or King Kamehameha I?
I’m not an apologist. I am a realist. It’s 2011, not 1886. It is what it is. Talk about ‘de-occupation’ is irrational because almost everyone here is hapa-something and has relatives. Where do you draw the line? You draw it at common sense. If the military money left, Hawaii would turn into one of those other famous, successful island nations like Cuba or Haiti.
Want to know what people really thought at the time? It still exists. Including editorials by David Kalakawa.
a hui hou
Aloha again Tom.
Mahalo for your response. yes, we are not necessarily accountable for prior Governmental actions at a time we were not even born, however the kuleana obligation remains to makes things pono.
That may be a misprint pertaining to thirteen marines you allude to (?) at 17.00 hrs on January 16th 1893, 162 armed U.S. military personnel disembarked off the Boston under the ruse of protecting American lives and property the streets were quiet there were no riots, they had only a token presence at the U.S. embassy their true purpose was to intimidate the Queen at Royal ‘Iolani Palace with a march past show of strength.
A group of goons nowadays can hold up your local Bank of America without a shot being fired and call themselves “peacekeepers” but we can perhaps agree their mere presence is intimidating.
Looking around various newspaper reports for the 1959 era it is obvious many residents were unsure what exactly the plebiscite entailed it was not clarified as an issue to any great extent. The complication Tom with your opinion is that in 1900 there were 48,107 Hawaiian Nationals on the archipelago from 1900 to 1950 there came 293,379 Americans form the U.S. & its Territories. (Source: http://www.hawaiiankingdom.org/pdf/American_Migration.pdf)
A simple analogy with today, suppose you flooded the island of
Cyprus with thousands of Turkish Nationals or conversely thousands of Greek Nationals and held a plebiscite as to wether Cyprus was Turkish or Greek? naturally it would depend on the one Nationality you choose to flood the island with.
Professor Patrick Takahashi’s blog of whom you recommended is available here:
As regards taxation effectively what you write is correct, in 1913 over in the U.S. the 16th Constitutional Amendment was ratified eliminating Federal taxes on State populations, previously in 1894 the U.S. Government had attempted a Nation wide income tax which was in 1895 found by SCOTUS to be unconstitutional. In the Hawaiian Kingdom personal & property taxes supplied a little less than one-third of the revenue for the Kingdom Government. In 1875 Hawaiians were paying 3% tax, while over in the U.S. it was 8% please see;
Just scroll down to page 67 on “Taxation in Hawaii.” That above link is the Hawaiian Annual for 1892. Professor Kuyendall in his Kingdom history also refers to taxation on page 260 in the Kalakaua Dynastism available free online. Hey, Tom have you ever compared the casualties and fatalities between the internal U.S. civil war and the internal Hawaiian civil war under Kamehameha 1? A topic for another day!
Hawaii Statehood: Tiny 1959 opposition was anti-Japanese, not anti-American
Aloha Tom –
Your argument seems to be that, having stolen it fair and square — and with the consent of the mob — the US is now entitled to Hawaii.
Also, this is not just a question of sovereignty for people of Hawaiian descent. The Hawaiian Kingdom of 1893 was an integrated government and society. Ethnic Hawaiians had very high rates of literacy. There was a real country here. (The Hawaiian Kingdom issued dog licenses in the 1880s. Sounds like a civil society to me.)
Many of the leaders of the insurrection and the provisional government had been part of the old government. Sanford Dole (born in the Hawaiian Kingdom–not the US), was a jurist on the Supreme Court of the Kingdom of Hawaii. Next thing you know, he’s president of the “provisional government”. WTF? This guy was a straight-up traitor to his country and the constitution he swore to uphold.
Having admitted stealing the country, there is no other way but to give it back to home rule — kicking and screaming if necessary.
That wouldn’t be the intent of my argument, but that is the effect of it. The simple fact is that the 1959 vote for statehood made the fact that a group of monied people originally stole the country moot. It was shady, it was dishonest, but that’s the American way.
I don’t say ‘entitled’. I say that the state could not survive in the modern world without a lot of imports and a protector – and the US is closer than China. It’s not a moral argument; it’s a factual one. People may not like it, but it’s where we are. The US will no more ‘give back’ Hawaii than it will give California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas back to Mexico. Or, for that matter, give America back to the native Americans. It just ain’t happenin’.
I am actually amazed that we are leaving Iraq.
a hui hou
Mahalo for sharing your viewpoint. You somehow neglect to mention in your article that 64% of eligible voters never even voted in the 1959 plebiscite. The vast majority of Hawaiian Nationals boycotted the event. Assumedly you are familiar with the migratory trends from the U.S. to Hawai’i between the unlawful 1893 overthrow and the fraudulent 1959 plebiscite which violated the Laws of Occupation and accounts for the voting down you refer.
The Imi Pono Project (Imi Pono = means move toward justice) done a comprehensive regional tally of district results which is available by clicking here:
It was mandated by the U.N. that the independence option be available on the ballot, it never occurred nor did U.N. supervision of the plebiscite.
We may need to ask ourselves Tom as to how and why Hawai’i came to be under the belligerent occupation of the U.S. military? You will find many of those answers by clicking here:
When we read of the 22.4% of O’ahu under U.S. military control your assertion that the military is invisible tends to ring hollow. What of chemical contamination most especially DU? You can learn about depleted uranium which the U.S. military initially denied using in Hawai’i here:
As we are on the subject, Major General Smedley Butler was a highly decorated U.S. marine he once gave a famous speech titled: “War is a Racket,” a shocking expose of how the military-industrial complex operates, you can find details here:
It would have been helpful Tom if you learned a little more about the Hawaiian Kingdom which had Peace and Friendship Treaties with the U.S. of which the latter chose to violate, Hawaiian Nationals were paying less tax to the Kingdom at the time than Americans were paying to their Government over in the U.S. Respectfully Tom you come across as an apologist for the unlawful U.S. Occupation of Hawai’i, the focus should be on de-occupation by the U.S. Government and their militaristic lackeys, not the stopping of O’ahu barges rather those who barged into a Sovereign, Neutral, Independent Hawaiian Nation.
Comments are closed.