(c) Copyright December 26, 2024
Kenneth R. Conklin, Ph.D.
All rights reserved
=========
SUMMARY
Scammers commit history malpractice using Hawaiian language as a political weapon by falsely inserting a word into an alleged English translation of a historically important phrase. Additional scammers, or innocent commentators, then propagate the falsehood by repeating it so often for many years that it gets accepted as true. Respected scholars, politicians, and community leaders adopt and further propagate the falsehood; but when shown proof that it is false, they refuse to correct what they wrote and they justify their refusal by citing the widespread repetition of the falsehood as evidence that it must be true! An example is the false insertion of the word "native" into historical and legal analysis of the phrase "tenant rights" in the Kuleana Act of 1850, converting it to falsely state that such rights were a racial prerogative: "native tenant rights" belonging only to ethnic Hawaiians (anyone having Hawaiian native ancestry). The historically important phrase, which has become a focus of modern-day land-title disputes, lawsuits, criminal activity, and Hawaiian sovereignty political battles, is this:
"... ua koe nae ke kuleana a na kanaka" which translates correctly to the race-neutral "reserving however the rights of the people". There are many dozens, perhaps hundreds or even thousands, of examples where the phrase is translated as though the rights of the tenants belong only to racially defined "native Hawaiians." The example displayed by Peter Young is singled out here simply because it was published in December 2024 by a distinguished scholar and community leader who is not a scammer or race-hustler, who recently served as head of the State of Hawaii Board of Land and Natural Resources and recently was named as a "Living Treasure of Hawaii", who has been publishing valuable Facebook pages every day documenting interesting events in Hawaii's history, and who publicly refused to correct the false insertion of the word "native" into the phrase "native tenant rights", explicitly giving the justification that he has seen the racial designator "native" in that phrase numerous times. Thus Mr. Young is a perfect example showing how an intelligent, highly respected, well-meaning scholar has innocently succumbed to the use of Hawaiian language as a political weapon by scammers who falsely inserted a single word into the English translation of a historically important Hawaiian-language phrase and perpetuated the falsehood through unchallenged repetition. Interestingly, Mr. Young is Owner/President at Hookuleana LLC, which is a consulting firm assisting property owners with land use planning and permitting.
The Mahele was the process to create private property in Hawaii, begun through a proclamation in 1848 by King Kauikeaouli Kamehameha III, who inherited sole ownership of all the land in Hawaii by right of conquest (completed in 1810) by his father Kamehameha The Great. The process began by publishing the Mahele Book identifying which lands were Crown Lands kept by the King, which lands were designated as Government Lands, and which lands were given as private property distributed among 245 ali'i (chiefs). The Kuleana Act of 1850 was a law providing a process whereby maka'ainana (peasants or commoners) could obtain fee-simple private ownership of a small parcel of land (less than 1/4 acre) where they were tenants; i.e., they already were using the land in the way an owner would use it (house, farm, ranch, etc.). But each parcel of land to be awarded to a commoner had to be professionally surveyed and legally carved out of a much larger area of land that had been awarded in the Mahele Book to a chief. Therefore the tenant would need to trespass through the ali'i's land in order to go anywhere, such as to a stream or ocean for water or to catch fish; to the forest or mountain to gather fruits or materials for thatching his roof; to the village or the homes of other commoners to socialize or exchange goods or services in the barter economy; etc. To make sure the chiefs would respect the travel, access, and gathering rights of their tenants, and to make sure the tenants would be protected against lawsuits or prosecutions for exercising those rights, it was necessary to enact by way of the Kuleana Act what today would be called an easement "reserving however the rights of the people" in the ownership deeds of the ali'i landowners granted in the Mahele.
List of section headers in order of appearance. Scroll down to find them.
1. December 22, 2024 Facebook post by Kenneth Conklin, summarizing the dialog between Conklin and Peter Young
2. Saturday December 21, 2024 Original Facebook post by Peter Young
3. Ken Conklin's online comment December 21 to Peter Young's post
4. Peter T Young replied (refusing to correct the false insertion of "native" regarding tenant rights)
5. Ken Conklin's rebuttal to Young's refusal to make correction
6. Ian Lind blog post June 7, 2022 relevant here because it describes criminal acts and violence resulting from disputes arising from the false assertion that native Hawaiians have race-based superior rights to land ownership. Mr. Lind is an investigative reporter retired from his job on a Honolulu newspaper and continuing his work pro bono through his blog. He also has great respect and credibility with his fellow ethnic Hawaiians because of his participation with a group of nine who bravely and illegally occupied the island of Kaho'olawe in 1976 to protest its use by the U.S. military since 1941 for naval artillery and bomber training.
7. Online comment to Ian Lind's post by Ken Conklin, June 7, 2022. This lengthy comment is relevant because it refutes the commonly-believed falsehood that "native" Hawaiians have special race-based land rights. The refutation is based on the current State of Hawaii Constitution and the Mahele and Kuleana Act.
8. Online comment reluctantly admiring Conklin's credibility posted by "Leialoha" on June 8, 2022
===========
1. December 22, 2024 Facebook post by Kenneth Conklin, summarizing the dialog between Conklin and Peter Young:
https://www.facebook.com/kenneth.conklin.10/posts/pfbid02DM8kyPEEBUqbagQfdKeR5iNH5bChmAeRbymShWoJxbFpQTsieBcdbQSFb8N6gG3Ul
Correcting a falsehood which unfortunately has been propagated through repetition for many years, regarding the phrase
“Ua Koe Ke Kuleana O Na Kanaka”
Summary: The words "kanaka" and "hoa'aina" used in the Mahele and Kuleana Act (1898-1849) were race-neutral terms for "person" and "tenant"; those words had none of the modern-day racialization of "native person" or "native tenant" created by land title scammers and perpetuated through repetition for political purposes by Hawaiian sovereignty activists. Even well-meaning respected scholars and community leaders have fallen victim to the repetition of these falsehoods; and they decline to issue corrections, perhaps in fear of political repercussions.
On Saturday December 21 Peter Young @Hookuleana posted on his Facebook account
https://www.facebook.com/peter.t.young.hawaii
an article about a phrase which was included in the Mahele and Kuleana Act (Kauikeaouli Kamehameha III, 1848-1849) which created private property ownership in Hawaii. However, Peter Young's description of it included the term "NATIVE tenant" which racialized the non-racial term "tenant" that was actually in the historical proclamations. This incorrect racialization through insertion of the word "native" was intentionally invented by Hawaiian sovereignty scammers during the past couple of decades, who have used it to collect huge sums for writing bogus property title reports that have earned them hundreds of thousands of dollars in fees, great publicity and political power, and caused big trouble for numerous homeowners and felony convictions for the scammers. The falsehood has been repeated so many times that even the distinguished scholar Peter Young innocently posted the falsehood, and refused to issue a correction because he has seen the falsehood repeated on so many occasions that he came to believe it. Here are Peter Young's Facebook post, Ken Conklin's online comment in rebuttal, Mr. Young's brief explanation that he continues to believe the falsehood because he has seen it repeated many times, and Ken Conklin's observation that the frequent repetition of a falsehood does not make it true and further propagation is likely to cause trouble. Peter Young is former Director and Chairperson of the Board of Land and Natural Resources at Hawaii DLNR, has been designated a Living Treasure of Hawai‘i at Honpa Hongwanji Hawaii, and is owner/president at Hookuleana LLC which earns substantial consulting fees for assisting property owners with land use planning efforts. It seems likely that if he has Native Hawaiian clients they might dislike it if he were to correct the widely propagated falsehood that natives were racially designated as sole beneficiaries of the Mahele and Kuleana Act -- a falsehood that might be (ab)used currently regarding easements or title claims to land ownership. Thus we see how the economics and politics of today's Hawaiian sovereignty fantasies have a detrimental effect on the accuracy of historical analysis.
===========
2. Saturday December 21, 2024 Original Facebook post by Peter Young
https://www.facebook.com/peter.t.young.hawaii/posts/pfbid01AYcG7MTDohmdQXH8ptgjT7Dqw4m3jBEfmNPTAQGvUArKrW1NJx8CdHxDFnYcdBJl
Peter Young Facebook Saturday December 21, 2024
“Ua Koe Ke Kuleana O Na Kanaka”
The Hawaiian Islands cover a land area of over 4.1-million acres (Niʻihau – 44,500-acres; Kauaʻi – 360,000-acres; Oʻahu – 382,000-acres; Molokai – 166,000-acres; Lānaʻi – 89,600-acres; Maui – 465,000-acres; Kahoʻolawe - 28,000-acres and Hawaiʻi Island – 2.6-million acres.)
In pre-western contact Hawai‘i, all ‘āina (land), kai lawaiʻa (fisheries) and natural resources extending from the mountain tops to the depths of the ocean were held in “trust” by the high chiefs (mō‘ī, aliʻi ʻai moku, or aliʻi ʻai ahupua‘a).
The right to use of the lands, fisheries and the resources was given to the hoaʻāina (native tenants) at the prerogative of the aliʻi and their representatives or land agents (often referred to as konohiki or haku ‘āina). (Maly)
“Land was given to the people by the chiefs. Should members of the family go elsewhere, the one who dwelled on the land was considered the owner. A returning family member was always welcome, but the one who tilled the soil was recognized as holding the ownership”. (Pukui; Maly)
“The right, by which a man may claim fish caught by others in the sea, may, indeed, be questioned by those enlightened in the principles of jurisprudence; but the chiefs of the Sandwich Island, make no questions on the subject. They lay equal claim to the sea and land, as their property.”
“The sea is divided into different portions; and those who own a tract of land on the sea shore, own also the sea that fronts it. The common rule observed by the chiefs is, to give about one half of the fish to the fishermen, and take the other half to themselves.” (Richards, Missionary Herald, June 1826)
On December 10, 1845, Kamehameha III signed into law, a joint resolution establishing and outlining the responsibilities of the Board of Commissioners to Quiet Land Titles, setting in motion the Māhele (division of lands between the king and his subjects.)
The Māhele defined the land interests of King Kamehameha III, 252-high-ranking Chiefs and Konohiki (including several foreigners who had been befriended by members of the Kamehameha line), and the Government.
As a result of the Māhele, all lands in the Islands (and associated fisheries) fell into one of three categories: (1) Crown Lands (for the occupant of the throne); (2) Government Lands; and (3) Konohiki Lands. Each was subject to “ua koe ke kuleana o na kanaka” (“reserving the rights of native tenants”.) (Waihona)
The “Kuleana Act” of the Māhele defined the frame-work by which hoaʻāina (native tenants – also makaʻāinana, commoner) could apply for, and be granted fee-simple interest in “Kuleana” lands.
The Kuleana Act, passed by the King and Privy Council on the December 21, 1849, is the foundation of law pertaining to native tenant rights. It reconfirmed the rights of hoaʻāina to: access, subsistence and collection of resources from mountains to the sea, which were necessary to sustain life within their given ahupua‘a.
The law directed the King to appoint (through the minister of the interior and upon consultation with the privy council) “five commissioners, one of whom shall be the attorney general of (the) kingdom, to be a board for the investigation and final ascertainment or rejection of all claims of private individuals, whether natives or foreigners, to any landed property acquired (through) the passage of this act; the awards of which board, unless appealed from as hereinafter allowed, (are) binding upon the minister of the interior and upon the applicant.”
In addition, “the Board appointed a number of Sub-Commissioners in various parts of the kingdom, chiefly gentlemen connected with the American Mission, who from their intelligence, knowledge of the Hawaiian language, and well-known desire to forward any work which they believed to be for the good of the people, were better calculated than any other class of men on the islands to be useful auxiliaries to the Board at Honolulu.” (Robertson, Commissioners to Quiet Land Titles)
“The titles of all lands claimed of the Hawaiian government … upon being confirmed as aforesaid, in whole or in part by the board of commissioners, shall be deemed to be forever settled, as awarded by said board, unless appeal be taken to the supreme court, as already prescribed.”
The Māhele gave the hoaʻāina an opportunity to acquire a fee-simple property interest (lands awarded to the hoaʻāina became known as “Kuleana Lands”) in land on which they lived and actively cultivated, but the process required them to provide personal testimonies regarding their residency and land use practices.
Unlike the Māhele awards (which required payment of commutation, either in land or in cash equal to one-third of the unimproved value of the land at the time of the Māhele) kuleana lands granted “fee simple titles, free of commutation … to all native tenants, who occupy and improve any portion of any Government land, for the land they so occupy and improve, and whose claims to said lands shall be recognized as genuine by the Land Commission”.
“In granting to the people, their house lots in fee simple, such as are separate and distinct from their cultivated lands, the amount of land in each of said House lots shall not exceed one quarter of an acre.”
“In granting to the people their cultivated grounds, or Kalo lands, they shall only be entitled to what they have really cultivated, and which lie in the form of cultivated lands; and not such as the people may have cultivated in different spots, with the seeming intention of enlarging their lots; nor shall they be entitled to the waste lands.” (Privy Council Minutes, December 21, 1849; Punawaiola)
Often, the kuleana included several apana (pieces.) These typically included the site where the house was located, various loʻi kalo and other areas of cultivation.
The hoaʻāina/makaʻāinana had to follow certain steps before they could own their land. First, they had to have their kuleana surveyed, or measured for size and boundaries. Then they had to present their claims to the Land Commission, showing that they had a right to those kuleana.
Of the 29,221 adult males in Hawaii in 1850 eligible to make land claims, the total number of claims amounted to 13,514, of which 209 belonged to foreigners and their descendants. The original papers, as they were received at the office, were numbered and copied into the Registers of the Commission. (Maly)
The whole number of Awards finalized by the Board up to its dissolution is 9,337, leaving an apparent balance of claims not awarded of about 4,200 (some were duplicates, some had been rejected as bad, some were not pursued by the parties.)
© 2024 Hoʻokuleana LLC
==========
3. Ken Conklin's online comment December 21 to Peter Young's post:
Aloha Peter. I regret the need to correct an important error in your translation of the phrase that is the title of today's blog post. The error coincides with the same error made by sovereignty activist Keanu Sai, whose error, I believe, was intentional and has caused all sorts of mischief in his "Perfect Title" scam for which he was convicted of a felony, along with other similar scams by other people more recently including one which has led to a prison sentence. See "The Perfect Title Scam -- Self-Proclaimed Regent of Hawaiian Kingdom Collects Huge Fees, Causes Grief to Property Owners, Messes Up Land Titles, Escapes With Probation and $200 Fine"
https://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/fraudperfecttitle.html
Fortunately, your translation error is easily seen to be an error when reading other information in your blog post.
The erroneously translated phrase causing all the trouble is "Ua Koe Ke Kuleana O Na Kanaka.” You translated that as “reserving the rights of native tenants” and you also magnified the error in the sentence after that referring to the Kuleana Act of the Mahele, by translating the word "hoa'aina" as "native tenants". In both cases the word "native", indicating a racial classification, must be deleted from the English translation. The word "kanaka" back then simply meant "person" and had zero racial meaning or implication. Even the phrase "kanaka maoli" meant simply "real person" (as opposed to spirit or ghost); and generations later, after "kanaka" came to imply race and there were several generations of mixed-race babies, "kanaka maoli" came to mean at least 50% native blood. It is only in recent years that political activists have started (ab)using "kanaka maoli" to mean anyone with at least one drop of native blood. The word "hoa'aina" means simply "tenant" (literally friend or worker/caretaker/cultivator of the land) and does not carry any racial implication. Modern usages of words should not be applied to laws written 175 years ago which used those words with their original meanings.
Fortunately your own blog provides the evidence that "kanaka" and "hoa'aina" carried no racial implication because they were in fact used when referring to foreigners with zero native blood. As you wrote: "The Kuleana Act, passed by the King and Privy Council on the December 21, 1849, is the foundation of law ... directed the King to appoint ... a board for the investigation and final ascertainment or rejection of all claims of private individuals, WHETHER NATIVES OR FOREIGNERS [emphasis mine], to any landed property acquired (through) the passage of this act ...” ... "Of the 29,221 adult males in Hawaii in 1850 eligible to make land claims, the total number of claims amounted to 13,514, of which 209 BELONGED TO FOREIGNERS AND THEIR DESCENDANTS. [emphasis mine]"
==========
4. Peter T Young replied (refusing to correct the false insertion of "native" regarding tenant rights)
Kenneth Conklin Thanks. I used a translation that has been repeatedly used by others. I appreciate your input, but I will leave the post as is.
===========
5. Ken Conklin's rebuttal to Young's refusal to make correction
Peter T Young Yes, I too have seen that false translation repeated many times. It's not actually a translation -- it's a politically inspired insertion of the word "native" that simply does not belong there, as can be seen by looking up "kanaka" and "kanaka maoli" and "hoa'aina" in the large Pukui/Elbert dictionary, or other earlier dictionaries that were published before the erroneous politically-motivated insertion of "native" got started. In politics we see repeatedly that falsehoods get stated and repeated so many times that people come to believe them to be true. It's similar to another politically-inspired historical falsehood that I've worked for years to debunk: that "Hawaiian language was made illegal after the overthrow of the monarchy." Because of my efforts that one has been gradually toned down to "Hawaiian language was banned in the schools after the overthrow of the monarchy" which is also false but less incendiary (the truth is that English was mandated to be the language of instruction in all the schools but Hawaiian could be taught as an elective subject. The law was directed at the private plantation schools where Japanese or Chinese were the language of instruction, not directed against Hawaiian language at all. By 1892, when the monarchs still were in power, English was already the language of instruction in 95% of all the government schools attended by the native kids, so the new law had very little effect on the slow but steady demise of Hawaiian language. See how hard it is to explain what's true when falsehoods get routinely propagated?
===========
6. Ian Lind blog post June 7, 2022 relevant here because it describes criminal acts and violence resulting from disputes arising from the false assertion that native Hawaiians have race-based superior rights to land ownership. Mr. Lind is an investigative reporter retired from his job on a Honolulu newspaper and continuing his work pro bono through his blog. He also has great respect and credibility with his fellow ethnic Hawaiians because of his participation with a group of nine who bravely and illegally occupied the island of Kaho'olawe in 1976 to protest its use by the U.S. military since 1941 for naval artillery and bomber training.
-----
False beliefs about land titles fuel property takeovers
I started tracking down information concerning Occupied Forces Hawaii Army after an incident involving Commander Sam Lilikoi was mentioned in the federal criminal charges filed in April against Lindsey Kinney for making death threats against several people (“FBI Arrests Miske Witness After Waianae Harbor Confrontation“). Hawaii News Now then broadcast a story about Lilikoi’s history as a multiple felon in the early 1990s under his real name, Eric C.A. Nelson (“Feds link man accused of threatening Hawaii leaders to paramilitary sovereignty group“).
While searching court records, I found Occupied Forces Hawaii Army had been named as a defendant in a lawsuit stemming from the occupation of a 5-acre parcel of land above Waipahu, which led me to the case that was at the center of my story today.
Yes, it sounds a bit crazy, but there’s a false belief out there in the wild that land title can only be transferred by genealogy, transferring to one’s lineal descendants and, therefore, if you are able to track back to distant ancestor who received a land award back in the time of the Mahele in the mid-19th century, then you, as a modern descendant, can now move in and claim “superior” title that trumps modern land title.
And that false narrative is just one of the various nutty ideas being peddled.
It turns out this case, unfortunately, far from unique. Similar extra-legal takeovers of private property have taken place in different parts to the state. There’s more of this going on that most people realize.
There are, of course, legitimate challenges that have and will continue to be raised in cases of disputed land titles, including instances of falsified documents, improper adverse possession, or negligence that resulted in valid past claims being lost, overlooked, or ignored. The point is that these are challenges based on whether there is an unbroken chain of title behind any current claim of ownership, not a matter of genealogy.
And there have been other types of occupations of land as part of protests against development plans, against desecration of burial grounds, loss of public beach access, or displacement of residents. Those are different in kind from the claims of “heirdom” being heard now.
Here’s where I ran into problems reporting on the story.
Truth be told, I can’t help appreciating some of those involved on this craziness.
Key participants are passionate about the need to improve the lot of modern Hawaiians. They’re confronting the reality that Hawaiians are disproportionately impacted by poverty, unemployment, houselessness, imprisonment, health issues, and poor educations. They’re willing to sacrifice to improve their communities. They’re articulate, unafraid to stand up to authority. These are traits I’ve been impressed by and have to admire. If they weren’t enthralled with a bunch of nutty beliefs, including things that can easily be traced back to antigovernment groups on the US mainland and other conspiracy theorists, they could be very effective advocates.
But acting on the basis of these false beliefs about land title, some are now facing criminal charges that are no laughing matter. Felony charges are pending on Maui involving a similar land takeover, and one person in that case has pleaded guilty to 2nd degree burglary, a Class C felony, as part of a plea agreement with prosecutors.
Another incident in the same Maui case resulted in one man being shot during an altercation between a lessee and a group of “squatters” claiming ancestral kuleana rights.
I’m very concerned that these things don’t end well.
============
7. Online comment to Ian Lind's post by Ken Conklin, June 7, 2022. This lengthy comment is relevant because it refutes the commonly-believed falsehood that "native" Hawaiians have special race-based land rights. The refutation is based on the current State of Hawaii Constitution and the Mahele and Kuleana Act.
Thank you Ian for challenging the falsehood that land title from Royal Patent Deeds granted during the Mahele can be passed only through genealogy. One version of the falsehood that “allodial title” can be transferred only through genealogy is asserted by Keanu Sai who falsely states that the rights pertaining to gathering and beach access were what he calls “native tenant rights.” But there was absolutely nothing in the Mahele that limited those rights to “natives.”
A careful reading of the Hawaii Constitution as amended in 1978, Article XII, Section 7, will confirm that it refers to rights which were customarily and traditionally exercised by native Hawaiians, but does NOT say that those rights did not also customarily and traditionally pertain to non-natives; and does not prohibit other ethnicities from also exercising those same rights today. Indeed, all subjects of the Hawaiian Kingdom regardless of race had the same rights regardless whether they were native-born or immigrants who were naturalized. Why should the State of Hawaii today engage in racial discrimination which was not practiced in the Kingdom?
The racial exclusivity attributed to Article XII, Section 7, and especially in the PASH decision, is illegal under the U.S. 14th Amendment equal protection clause, and morally repugnant as “systemic racism” or “institutional racism” comparable to Jim Crow laws in the old South. For each program, either open it so all races have access or shut it down. If “Native Hawaiians” are truly the most needy, then they will receive most of the help if help is given based on need alone.
Article 12 Section 7 of the Hawaii Constitution grants special rights for “traditional and customary practices” interpreted under the PASH decision to include trespassing for shoreline access, religious practices, or gathering certain materials. The pono way to honor that provision while also honoring equality under the law is to extend the traditional and customary rights of Native Hawaiians to all citizens. In the Kingdom those rights were for everyone regardless of race (In 1848 “hoa’aina” meant “tenant” not “native tenant”; “kanaka” meant race-neutral “person”).
The phrase in the Mahele laws beginning in 1848 and culminating in the Kuleana Act of 1850 is: “koe nae ke kuleana o na kanaka.” The individual word whose meaning has morphed is “kanaka.” When private land ownership was created by granting royal patent deeds during the unfolding stages of the Mahele, chiefs were given huge swaths of land, while peasants living on and farming individual parcels were given the right to have fee-simple ownership of their parcels. The problem was that the chief’s land completely surrounded the peasant’s small parcel, thus making it necessary for a peasant to trespass through the chief’s land in order to gather materials necessary for daily life, or to go to the ocean for fishing. So in the interest of what we today might call “social justice” or “equity” between ali’i and maka’ainana, the chief’s royal patent deed gave him ownership “but reserving the rights of the people” [for gathering or shoreline access]. That Hawaiian phrase “koe nae ke kuleana o na kanaka” today is always translated to mean “reserving the rights of the native tenants.” However, there was nothing racial about the word “kanaka” back in 1850, although today it has come to refer to so-called “Native Hawaiians.” The word “kanaka” simply meant person, or human being, with an implication that it might be referring to a servant or peasant. If you look up “kanaka” in the big Pukui/Elbert dictionary you will find no racial terms. Furthermore, the word “kanaka” does not mean “tenant” — that word is “hoaaina.” Although non-natives made up only a small percentage of Hawaii’s population in 1850, the rights reserved to the “kanaka” in the Kuleana Act were reserved for ALL the “people” regardless of race and regardless whether they were tenants under a particular chief.
The Hawaii Constitution Article 12 Section 7, and also the PASH decision by the Hawaii Supreme Court, include racial restrictions which are modern distortions and simply do not grow out of the Mahele or the Kuleana Act. “The State reaffirms and shall protect all rights, customarily and traditionally exercised for subsistence, cultural and religious purposes and possessed by ahupua‘a tenants who are descendants of native Hawaiians who inhabited the Hawaiian Islands prior to 1778, subject to the right of the State to regulate such rights.” The traditional and customary rights of native Hawaiians from before 1778, and still possessed under the Kuleana Act of 1850 — those terms describe what rights are being referred to, but those terms should NOT be construed as limiting those rights to members of any particular racial or ethnic group. By interpreting those rights to be possessed by ALL Hawaii’s people, we would ensure equality under the law for everyone including ethnic Hawaiians.
---------
8. Online comment reluctantly admiring Conklin's credibility posted by "Leialoha" on June 8, 2022
Many are entitled to HATE KEN CONKLIN for His statements, they are blunt, specific, truthful, even painful. The summation of these factors, also leave a crisp, consistent conclusion. After which, no debate is required, nor relevant.
I disagreed once with Ken Conklin concerning, Ian’s new found brother, He was without emotion, cold and in hindsight painfully correct.
==============
Send comments or questions to:
Ken_Conklin@yahoo.com
You may now
SEE OTHER WEBPAGES ABOUT HOW HAWAIIAN LANGUAGE IS USED AS A POLITICAL WEAPON
OR
GO BACK TO OTHER TOPICS ON THIS WEBSITE
(c) Copyright December 26, 2024 Kenneth R. Conklin, Ph.D. All rights reserved
