Created on Thanksgiving Day, 2020 giving thanks that there has been no "Akaka bill" in Congress since December 2012 when Senator Inouye died and Senator Akaka retired; and no implementation of the Department of Interior regulation 43CFR50 to facilitate federal recognition of a Hawaiian tribe, since it was proclaimed in the Federal Register on October 14, 2016 at the end of the Obama administration.
An important addendum was added on March 20, 2021 about a hearing in the Hawaii House of Representatives Committee on Education regarding a resolution urging the Department of Education to remove the name and statue of President McKinley from the high school. Text of the resolution is provided, along with files containing all the written testimony, video of the hearing, news reports, and full text of Ken Conklin's oral and written testimony.
Aloha kakou e na po'e o McKinley High School. I am Ken Conklin, alumnus of Maine Township High School in Illinois, triple graduate of University of Illinois, former high school mathematics teacher in the Boston area, and retired professor of Philosophy and Teacher Education at Oakland University (branch of Michigan State), Emory University (Atlanta), and Boston University. If you're curious you can find details about my background at
That background helps me understand the enormous pride and loyalty felt by everyone who has an intimate connection with a first-rate school like McKinley.
I have lived in Kāne'ohe for 28 years and know that here in Hawaii one of the first things local folks do when meeting someone new is to ask and answer the question "Eh, wea you wen grad?" -- and that question refers to your high school, which is regarded as a more important identifier of who you are than any of the colleges you might attend or the companies where you might work. I'm writing to give you good reasons to keep your school's name and statue.
Here's what this issue is really about. A group of anti-Americans are asking you to help them rip the 50th star off our flag -- to help them make Hawaii an independent nation. They seem to be asking you for only two things: get rid of "McKinley" from the name of your school; and get rid of the statue of President McKinley. They tell you the name and statue deeply offend them, which they feel is reason enough why you should go along with them just to be kind and generous. But they furthermore say YOU OWE it to them to comply with their demands not only because Hawaii is their ancestral homeland but because they are the rightful god-given owners of Hawaii while most of you are merely settlers or guests here. They try to persuade you with so-called historical "facts" claiming that President McKinley was a racist and that there is "no Treaty of Annexation." Later in this essay I will show that both of those claims are false. But those are merely phony claims they offer to give you an excuse for betraying your country by removing McKinley's name and statue from your school and thereby making it look to the rest of the world like you agree with their agenda of ripping our nation apart and converting Hawaii into an independent nation where race supremacists are guaranteed political power under a theory of "indigenous rights."
You have a moral right to keep your school's name and statue that are more than a century old, and I hope you have the courage to refuse to knuckle under to demands to repudiate your proud heritage -- demands made by Hawaiian sovereignty activists with an anti-American political agenda of secession. They're trying to rip the 50th star off the flag. They want you to be pawns in their political chess game by getting you to trash the name of your school because, they say, President McKinley was an evil man who did bad things to Hawaii; and because the President's statue shows him holding the "Treaty of Annexation" which, they say, does not exist.
In this open letter I will prove that there really is a Treaty of Annexation; and that President McKinley was a good man who served our country honorably in the pursuit of our democratically adopted national policies at the time.
If the school's name and statue deserve to be abolished because of what McKinley did, just as statues and school names of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Confederate generals are being taken down on the mainland, then all the statues of Kamehameha deserve even more to be torn down. Kamehameha personally ordered the murder of tens of thousands of native Hawaiians, not only in warfare but also as human sacrifices on the temple altars of his pagan religion. The gut-ripper barbed spear his statue holds displays the savagery of his conquests. Among his war crimes was the murder of King Keoua (who was probably his biological father), and all Keoua's men in several canoes who arrived invited at Kawaihae harbor under a truce to attend the dedication of Kamehameha's huge new heiau Pu'ukohola -- as they arrived they were all slaughtered and taken to the heiau as human sacrifices to glorify Kamehameha and win the favor of his gods. Kamehameha was also a notorious abuser of women, with more than 20 official wives and numerous concubines, both female and male (aikane); some wives were taken when they were children.
But first I will help you understand that the Hawaiian secessionists have a race-supremacist agenda that would relegate anyone lacking Hawaiian blood to second-class citizenship. In particular, they have produced a book and other materials saying that Hawaii citizens of Japanese and other Asian ancestries, even after several generations born and raised in Hawaii, are mere "settlers" or "guests" in a Hawaiian homeland where they have special rights as the "hosts." They say that unless Hawaii people of Asian ancestry line up to support Hawaiian secession under the leadership of ethnic Hawaiians, you are colonialists, just as guilty as the haoles, oppressing the "indigenous" people whose blood makes them children of the gods and brothers/sisters to the land (Kumulipo creation legend) in a way you never can be if you lack a drop of the magic blood. This is the same sort of "blood and soil" race-supremacist fascism that ruined Germany and Japan causing world war in the 1930s and 40s; and more recently it was revived by white nationalists in the U.S.
I'm asking you not to support race-nationalism in Hawaii. Therefore I'm asking you to reject the demands to change the name of your school and remove the McKinley statue. Historical accuracy shows there is a Treaty of Annexation and President McKinley acted honorably. Moral uprightness requires you to stand courageously against the secessionist race-nationalism of the Hawaiian activists. Do not cave in to their demands. Stay strong even if you feel threatened with terrorist violence against you or vandalism against your school or your statue. Appeasement is viewed as a harbinger of surrender -- ask a history teacher about Neville Chamberlain.
This introduction has been harsh; some might call it divisive. So I will end on a note of optimism and unity. I'm quoting the amazingly beautiful first sentence from King Kauikeaouli Kamehameha III's 1839 Proclamation of the Rights of Man, which became the first sentence in the first Constitution of the Kingdom of Hawaii in 1840. I call it the "Kokokahi Sentence" and I hope you will be inspired by it to accept the Principle of Equality that all humans are equal in the eyes of God regardless of race, and all the people of Hawaii should be treated equally under the law by our government regardless of race.
"Ua hana mai ke Akua i nā lahuikanaka āpau i ke koko ho'okahi, e noho like lākou ma ka honua nei me ke kuikahi, a me ka pōmaika'i."
In English, it can be translated into modern usage as follows:
"God has made of one blood all races of people to dwell upon this Earth in unity and blessedness."
TABLE OF CONTENTS: Scroll down to find the section you want to read, in the following order.
1. Quotes from an online petition and from a published newspaper article and other sources, for the purpose of displaying the secessionists' demands and some of their historical claims. Fact-check and corrections of a few outright falsehoods found in those quotes. [Full text and source of the petition, newspaper article and blogs are provided in another section at the end so readers can see that the quotes are accurate and not taken out of context.]
The underlying motives of the Hawaiian secessionists, hinted at above, are more scary and more important than the specific claims they make about President McKinley and the Treaty of Annexation. Therefore the second and third sections of this essay describe Hawaiian religious fascism and the theory of Asian settler colonialism, and explain why they are so dangerous.
2. Hawaiian religious fascism: How a beautiful creation legend gets twisted into a theological justification for racial supremacy and race-nationalism.
3. The theory of Asian settler colonialism in Hawaii; how it is used by Hawaiian secessionists to make Asian-Americans feel obligated to help them; how it strips people of Asian ancestry of their hard-won right to full equality as Americans; and why this issue is especially relevant to the McKinley community.
4. Yes there is a Treaty of Annexation between the Republic of Hawaii and the U.S. The Treaty of Annexation was first offered by Hawaii and then accepted by U.S.; there was no U.S. unilaterally reaching out and grabbing Hawaii merely by passing an internal law. Why the Republic of Hawaii had the legitimate right to offer the Treaty. Why the way the U.S. chose to ratify the Treaty is acceptable.
5. President McKinley was not a racist; he behaved honorably when he implemented U.S. national policy of expansionism and Manifest Destiny. A biography of McKinley by President George W. Bush's policy advisor Karl Rove was published in 2015. Rove's Wall Street Journal article in 2018 attacks Arcata CA leftwing removal of McKinley statue and specifically defends McKinley's reputation on racial issues including his work to defend Black voting rights in Ohio and his conservative-Republican policy of abolishing communal land tenure for Indian tribes in Oklahoma to promote individual land ownership as a way to help Indians build wealth.
6. Footnote: Full text of the documents quoted in Section 1 revealing motives of secessionists: online petition, newspaper article, and blog demanding McKinley name change and statue removal.
7. ADDENDUM ON MARCH 20, 2021: On Thursday March 18, 2021 a hearing was held in the Hawaii House Committee on Education regarding a resolution whereby the Legislature would request the Department of Education to remove the name and statue of President William McKinley from that high school. At the end, after hearing testimony and after a recess for private discussion, the committee decided to "defer" the resolution -- a polite way of saying it is dead even though there was no official vote to defeat it. Links are provided to the legislature's webpage providing the hearing notice, text of resolution, files of testimony, and results; an activist blog entry and two news reports the day before the hearing, two lengthy files of written testimony, a video of the hearing, a news report after the hearing, and an activist blog entry the day afterward. Ken Conklin's oral and written testimony is also provided.
1. WHAT THE HAWAIIAN SECESSIONISTS DEMAND FROM THE MCKINLEY COMMUNITY; DISPROVING SOME FALSEHOODS ASSERTED IN A "MOVE-ON" PETITION, NEWSPAPER ARTICLE, AND ONLINE BLOG.
The original 2015 "Move-On" petition clearly identifies the primary motive for demanding the school name and removal of the statue: "to those of us who know the truth about what really happened with the overthrow of Hawaiian Monarchy and the prolonged illegal occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom by the United States, we do not celebrate William McKinley. ... By having this school still named after him today, in the most populated city in Hawaiʻi, does the Department of Education (DOE) encourage and imply that what the United States did to the Hawaiian Kingdom and its people to be lawfully and ethically correct?" I, Ken Conklin, say: Yes indeed, the revolution of 1893 and annexation of 1898 were both lawfully and ethically correct; stand up and be proud of it; do not bow down to the diehard deadenders of the Hawaiian Kingdom. Anyone who supports th anti-McKinley petition thereby agrees that Hawaii was never lawfully annexed and should therefore be cut loose from the U.S. In the blog of July 7, 2020 the author says "PLEASE help us end racist imperialism in Hawai'i" thereby accusing anyone who wants to keep the school name and statue of being a racist imperialist.
Perhaps the clearest statement of the secessionist motive for changing the name and removing the statue comes from Leon Siu, self-proclaimed Foreign Minister of the Hawaiian Kingdom, who travels every year to the United Nations in both Geneva Switzerland and New York lobbying foreign diplomats to support Hawaiian independence. Among those he asks for help are enemies of the U.S. such as China, Cuba, Iran, Russia. When the U.S. rightfully accuses them of oppressing ethnic minorities and murdering political opponents, Mr. Siu provides them ammunition to claim the U.S. has committed similar crimes against Hawaiians.
In his blog of September 12, 2020 Leon Siu wrote "At this point, either the BOE will honor the request to change the name [of McKinley High School], or take the unenviable position of trying to defend the indefensible. I think they will agree to the name change. That will be a game-changer. That will cause a quantum shift! Check-mate! Game over! It would be a public repudiation of annexation by the largest agency of the State of Hawaii, the agency whose job it is to know about history. This one perfunctory name-change action will expose the U.S. State of Hawaii as having no basis in law or historical fact! It’s a fake state. We’re almost there! Get ready to enter The Transition. The more we stand as a nation and assert the Hawaiian Kingdom is alive and kicking, the more obvious the U.S. false claim becomes, the sooner there will be a Free Hawai`i."
The author of the "Move-On" petition says in a "Free Hawaii" blog on July 7, 2020 "in Alaska, the name Mount McKinley was changed to Denali as of August 2015." He says this as though it is evidence to denigrate or defame President McKinley. But that's not true at all. It was done in keeping with a policy of President Obama's outgoing administration to revert place-names of federal property to the old names used by indigenous groups. Julie Hirschfeld Davis wrote in the New York Times of September 1, 2015 that the name "Denali" means "great one" or "high one" and plays a central role in the creation myth of the Koyukon Athabascans, a Native Alaskan group that has lived in the region for centuries.
The Honolulu Star-Advertiser commentary of Sunday October 4, 2020 states several falsehoods. They are stated very briefly, but require detailed rebuttal with citations of fact. I'll start with simple falsehoods which can be disproved with short refutations, and then move to more complex falsehoods which require lengthy disproof. It's often said that a lie can travel halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to put on its shoes. There are many ways of saying that, attributed to many famous people. Anyway, some falsehoods in the 10/04/20 commentary require lengthy, boring rebuttals with references cited. If you get bored, feel free to scroll down and skip to later sections of this essay which might be more interesting. But then don't say I didn't provide you with facts and evidence.
Commentary of 10/04/20 says
"In the next years, prior to Hawaii being illegally “annexed,” both Queen Lili‘uokalani’s letter of protest, and the Ku‘e Petitions, which objected to annexation and were signed by 95% of Native Hawaiian adults, had reached Congress."
Fact: The Ku'e petition objecting to annexation was signed by 21,269 people. In 1897 there were about 40,000 people who had full or part native ancestry, so simple arithmetic shows about 53% signed the petition. But anyone of any ethnicity was allowed (and encouraged) to sign it, and there are quite a few signatures of children (Everyone wrote their age next to their name. Some kids were too young to know how to read or write, so presumably a parent or tutu signed for them. Some "signatures" appear to be forgeries because groups of them are in the same handwriting). There were about 120,000 people in Hawaii at that time, so that means only about 18% actually signed it. There MIGHT have been another petition with about 17,000 signatures, but it was not submitted and has never been found; and it made a completely different demand (restore the monarchy), so it's not right to add up the number of signatures on the two petitions. For details see lengthy explanatory footnote #3 at
A scholarly study of the annexation by a professional historian reading original source material in the Congressional record and newspapers confirms that anti-annexation petitions by Hawaiian groups Hui Aloha 'Aina and Hui Kalai'aina had no practical effect at all. Polling of Senators by newspaper reporters and party whips before and after the petitions were presented in 1897 showed that no Senator changed his commitment on account of the petitions. See chapter 15 of William M. Morgan Ph.D., PACIFIC GIBRALTAR: U.S. - JAPANESE RIVALRY OVER THE ANNEXATION OF HAWAII, 1885-1898 (Annapolis: Naval Institute Press, 2011)
Detailed summaries and lengthy quotes from that book are provided at
Commentary of 10/04/20 says "It was also clearly understood among those in Congress that the newly established government, the Republic of Hawaii, did not include Native Hawaiians, and did not represent the will of the people."
Fact: In Spring of 1894 the revolutionary Provisional Government realized that U.S. President Cleveland, a friend of ex-queen Lili'uokalani, would never agree to annexation and that Hawaii would remain an independent nation for several more years. So they assembled a Constitutional Convention where at least five of the delegates were clearly native Hawaiians (look at their names), and after the Constitution took effect, the full-blooded native Hawaiian John Kaulukou was elected to be the powerful Speaker of the House of the Republic of Hawaii. During the reigns of Kalakaua and Liliuokalani he had been a Royalist, serving as marshal, legislator, and judge. The names of all the convention delegates, along with the Constitution they wrote, can be seen at
Commentary of 10/04/20 says "In truth, a lawful annexation never occurred because a Joint Resolution of Congress is a domestic measure, having no lawful authority beyond U.S. borders. As Sen. Augustus Bacon pointed out during the 1898 debate, “If Hawaii could be acquired by a joint resolution, then the Legislature of Hawaii could acquire the United States by a joint resolution of its own.”"
Is it lawful for the U.S. to use a joint resolution to agree to a Treaty of Annexation offered by a foreign nation? Yes; for many reasons.
First of all, the U.S. is a sovereign nation. Sovereignty includes the right to decide for itself what method it will use to agree to a treaty. It is an internal matter for the United States to decide by what method it will accept an offer of annexation. The U.S. Constitution nowhere states that annexation can be accomplished only by treaty. Texas had been annexed by joint resolution in 1845, establishing the precedent. Sovereignty activists assert that Texas had been annexed directly as a State, whereas Hawai'i was being annexed only as a Territory. But clearly, if Congress can set a precedent in the case of Texas by using joint resolution to annex something so important as a State, then Congress can also establish a precedent in the case of Hawai'i by using joint resolution to annex the less important entity of a Territory.
Regarding the sovereignty activists' claim that Texas had been annexed directly as a State: that claim, like so many others, is a distortion of history which leaves out important facts. The first thing that happened was a Joint Resolution annexing Texas (as a territory). About a year and a half later, there was a separate Admission Act that made Texas a state. In between the two Congressional actions, the Mexican American War broke out because Mexico still claimed Texas was a rebellious province of Mexico and objected to the US annexing "Mexican" territory. Texas became part of the US when it accepted the terms of the Annexation Resolution, not when Mexico gave up its claim to Texas after losing the war. The key documents re Texas Annexation are on the Web as part of the Avalon Project at Yale:
Must the inhabitants of a place be consulted, prior to being annexed? In the annexations of the Louisiana Territory and the Territory of Alaska, the inhabitants were not consulted by France or Russia (who sold those territories to the U.S.) nor by the U.S. There were only two times when annexations of land to the United States included consulting the inhabitants of the annexed areas: Texas and Hawai'i. The reason why the inhabitants were consulted in these two cases was that these were independent nations prior to annexation. In the case of Texas, there was a plebiscite in which the vote was limited to white males who had sworn loyalty to the Republic of Texas. In the case of Hawai'i, the elected legislature of the Republic of Hawai'i made the request to be annexed.
The powerful Senators, States, and even native Hawaiians or the ex-queen who had opposed the treaty of annexation had every opportunity, and legal "standing", to file a suit in the U.S. Supreme Court to oppose or undo the method of annexation by joint resolution, but they never did so (Senators could have gotten "standing" by arguing that they suffered injury because using joint resolution deprived them of their right to sole power of "advise and consent" for treaties). The joint resolution of annexation required only a simple majority in both houses of Congress, but it actually passed by 42-21 in the Senate and by 209-91 in the House, partly because sentiments had changed due to the Spanish American War, and because of Grover Cleveland's failure to win re-election. In modern times, it is now well-established in constitutional law that an international agreement can be approved and become binding on the US by a joint resolution requiring a majority vote of both houses of Congress and signing by the President [Restatement (3d) of the Foreign Relations Law of the US sec. 303]. Literally hundreds of international agreements have been done this way in the 20th century, and the Supreme Court repeatedly has held that the method is valid. Such joint resolutions remain in force permanently, unlike mere executive agreements which a later President can nullify by his own authority alone.
Sovereignty activists say the revolution that overthrew the monarchy was illegal, and that the ensuing Republic of Hawaii was not internationally recognized as a nation and therefore had no right to offer a treaty of annexation to the United States. But the independence and sovereignty of a nation are not abolished merely because its government has changed, as we know by seeing that the U.S. remains independent and sovereign even after an election has installed a new government. Letters granting full diplomatic recognition to the Republic of Hawaii were personally signed by the rulers of 19 foreign nations in 1894, including Queen Victoria, President Grover Cleveland, and Tsar Alexander III of Russia. Photographs of letters from all 19 nations are available on a new webpage at
No nation ever filed a protest with either Hawaii or the U.S. regarding either the overthrow or the annexation, although Japan used diplomatic and military maneuvers to try to block Hawaii's annexation to the U.S. because Japan had hopes of eventually annexing Hawaii to itself -- massive immigration had made Japanese the largest ethnic group in Hawaii by the time annexation to the U.S. happened. The family of nations recognized the Republic as the legitimate government of Hawaii, thereby condoning the revolution as having been done legally, and also thereby recognizing that the Republic had the right under international law to offer a treaty of annexation including the ceding of Hawaii's public lands. The historical significance of the fact that the Republic was internationally recognized, and its implications for statehood, Akaka bill, and ceded lands; are discussed at
along with a detailed example of the Hawaiian sovereignty lie (asserted by Keanu Sai) that the Republic was never recognized.
That commentary of 10/04/20 says there were "failed attempts" in the U.S. Senate to pass the Treaty of Annexation in 1893 and in June and September of 1897.
But we know that there was never any vote in the Senate regarding the annexation of Hawaii until the actual vote of 42-21 that passed the joint resolution agreeing to the Treaty on July 6, 1898. In 1893 the Treaty offered by Hawaii in January and sent to the Senate by outgoing President Harrison (a Republican) was withdrawn from the Senate in March by incoming President Cleveland (a Democrat), without being taken up. And in 1897-1898 the proposed Treaty languished in the Senate without being called to the floor because whip-counts calculated that it would probably fall short by a couple of votes. For details of what was happening in Congress regarding annexation see Chapter 15 of a 2011 book by William M. Morgan, Ph.D. entitled "Pacific Gibraltar: U.S. Japanese Rivalry Over the Annexation of Hawaii, 1885-1898." I have a detailed book review with summaries of each chapter and numerous lengthy quotes, at
Among the ways we know the Treaty of Annexation was never voted down is that the Senate has published a list of all the rejected treaties and the dates when they were rejected [including the reciprocity treaty offered by King Lota Kamehameha V which was rejected by the U.S. Senate on June 1, 1870 by vote of Yeas 20 Nays 19.]
(A reciprocity treaty offered by King Kalakaua after he won election in 1874 was passed by the U.S. Senate in 1875.)
The newspaper commentary of October 4, 2020 has an especially glaring falsehood when it says there was a failed attempt to pass the Treaty in the Senate in September of 1897. We know that the Senate was not in session at any time between July 24 1897 and December 6 1897, because the Senate has published a list of all the dates when it has ever been in session at
For anyone who wants to get down into the deep weeds, see webpage "Is there a Treaty of Annexation between Hawaii and the United States? Dialogs between Williamson Chang and Ken Conklin" at
Where do these Hawaiian sovereignty activists come up with so many falsehoods which they then repeatedly and haughtily fling into published newspaper commentaries and petitions? That's a rhetorical question, not seriously seeking an answer!
2. HAWAIIAN RELIGIOUS FASCISM: HOW A BEAUTIFUL CREATION LEGEND GETS TWISTED INTO A THEOLOGICAL JUSTIFICATION FOR RACIAL SUPREMACY AND RACE-NATIONALISM.
This section of the essay is rather long, but it is important. Remember that the main reason why the Hawaiian secessionists want you to get rid of the name McKinley, and the statue, is to put you on record as supporting their claim that McKinley was a bad man responsible for illegally annexing Hawaii to the U.S. If they succeed in ripping Hawaii away from the U.S., you will no longer have the protection of the U.S. Constitution which guarantees equal rights under the law for all people regardless of race. These secessionists want to impose racial supremacy for ethnic Hawaiians, and they want to establish the old Hawaiian religion as the justification for racial supremacy. To fully understand why you should protect your equality and reject their demand to remove McKinley's name and statue, you need to understand the depths of racism underlying their agenda -- racism which is justified under the old religion and will be imposed upon you as the law of the land. This section of the essay explains how the old religion justifies racism and would make you a second-class citizen under the authority of ethnic Hawaiians.
Kumulipo is an ancient Hawaiian creation legend passed down orally for centuries by priests who were trained to chant all 2102 lines perfectly, on pain of death if any hesitation or error occurred. The audience was also obligated to maintain absolute silence on pain of death including children, babies, and animals.
British explorer Captain Cook anchored at Kealakekua Bay on January 16, 1779. Kealakekua means "the pathway of the god" because, according to folklore, it was from there that the god Lono had departed from Hawaii to Kahiki, promising someday to return. Cook's arrival happened during the Makahiki season, when Lono reigned supreme in the pantheon of gods, and it was the logical time for Lono to return. The excited natives were further convinced because the white sails on Cook's floating island looked like the banners of Lono carried in religious processions. Captain Cook was escorted to the nearby Hikiau Heiau (a human sacrifice temple) and given a ceremonial welcome appropriate to Lono, including recitation of the Kumulipo.
The elements of Kumulipo pertaining to the creation of the Hawaiian islands and the creation of humans can be summarized as follows.
The gods mated and gave birth to the Hawaiian islands as living beings, which remain alive to this day. Earth Mother's name, Papahanaumoku, literally means Papa-who-gave-birth-to-the-islands. Sky Father Wakea mated with Papa who gave birth to the goddess Ho'ohokukalani, whose name means she who placed the stars into the heavens. Later when Papa was away on a journey, Wakea mated with his daughter Ho'ohokukalani (not child-molesting but a sacred ni'aupi'o mating), who then gave birth to a deformed stillborn baby Haloanakalaukapapili. Wakea and Ho'ohokukalani buried it, and from that burial grew the first taro plant. Wakea and Ho'ohokukalani mated again, and from that mating Ho'ohokukalani gave birth to a perfect human baby boy, to whom they gave the name Haloa to honor the stillborn elder brother.
The place where this beautiful creation legend gets twisted in an evil way concerns what was the role of the perfect baby boy Haloa as ancestor of future generations.
A benign interpretation is that Haloa is the local Hawaiian name for the universally recognized Adam in Jewish, Christian, and Muslim scriptures -- the ancestor from whom all humans are descended. Thus we are all children of the gods and brothers to the land, endowed with a divine right to receive sustenance and a stewardship responsibility to take care of the land and exercise authority over how it should be used. The Bible says God gave man dominion over the Earth and all its creatures; i.e., the authority to use them for man's convenience and enjoyment. University of Hawaii professor emerita of Hawaiian language and literature, Rubellite Kawena Johnson, designated a Living Treasure of Hawaii, who has translated Kumulipo, confirms that this is the correct interpretation of Kumulipo.
But Hawaiian sovereignty activists twist the creation legend to say that Haloa is the primordial ancestor only of ethnic Hawaiians. Anyone who has at least one drop of Hawaiian native blood is a descendant of Haloa, but nobody else is genealogically a part of this family. Only ethnic Hawaiians are children of the gods and brothers/sisters of the land, while nobody else ever can be who lacks a drop of the magic blood. Therefore ethnic Hawaiians have a divine right to rule Hawaii. This is an evil fascist theology to justify race-nationalism; ethnic Hawaiian racial supremacy; the god-given right to govern the Hawaiian islands and all the creatures (including humans) who live here.
There are two conflicting schools of Hawaiian sovereignty activists who quarrel bitterly with each other, somewhat like Muslim Shiites vs. Sunnis or like Los Angeles street gangs Bloods vs. Crips. One school are tribalists who want to create a racial exclusionary government to be given federal recognition as an Indian tribe in order to protect the large number of racial entitlement programs. The other school are secessionists who want to push the U.S. out of Hawaii to re-establish the entire archipelago of Hawaii as an independent nation like it was before the 1898 annexation. Some of the independence activists point out that the Kingdom of Hawaii was multiracial, and they use that fact to argue against the racially exclusionary tribal concept. But their apparent embrace of non-natives is merely a cynical ploy, because they also assert a modern concept not yet invented in the Kingdom period -- the concept that under "international law" the "indigenous people" (i.e., ethnic Hawaiians exclusively) are entitled to "self determination" with special rights that would guarantee racial supremacy for ethnic Hawaiians. Thus both schools of Hawaiian sovereignty activists embrace the twisted version of Kumulipo as a theological justification for Hawaiian religious fascism.
The "ancient" Hawaiian religion was well established when British explorer Captain Cook arrived in 1778. But it was overthrown by the native Hawaiians themselves in 1819 immediately following the death of Kamehameha The Great, the year before the Christian missionaries arrived in 1820.
The boy King Kamehameha II, his biological mother Queen Keopuolani who had the highest genealogy and spiritual status in all Hawaii, his stepmother and governing regent Queen Ka'ahumanu, and Kahuna Nui (High Priest) Hewahewa, together made a public display of breaking a sacred taboo that would normally have resulted in them being put to death immediately if they had been lower ranking -- they sat down, men and women eating together, at a huge public luau. Then they stood together and ordered the burning of the wooden idols and destruction of the heiaus (stone temples).
High Chief Kekuaokalani, to whom Kamehameha The Great had entrusted the war god Kukailimoku, refused to obey the order. He began a civil war to defend the old religion, which ended with the death of himself and his wife Manono, and all their warriors, on the battlefield at Kuamo'o.
Thus the native Hawaiian political and spiritual leadership exercised self-determination on behalf of the nation of Hawaii and the native people, to overturn their old religion, without any outside interference and before the Christian missionaries arrived.
But today's Hawaiian sovereignty activists are disrespecting their ancestors and reviving the ancient religion -- not because they sincerely believe in it, but cynically, as a tool to assert political power and racial control of government decision-making.
Anyone who doubts that the old Hawaiian religion is being revived can see the evidence of it in the annual Merrie Monarch festival where the largest number of hulas are in honor of Pele and her sister Hi'iakaikapoliopele -- not merely as cultural displays but as actual religious worship. The largest recent political controversy concerns whether to build a giant telescope on Mauna Kea, and the most powerful arguments against it are based in the ancient Hawaiian religion as though today's Hawaiians actually believe in it -- that Mauna Kea is SACRED, that it is wao akua (the realm of the gods where humans should go only to worship them), that it is the home of goddess Poliahu, that it is the place where sky-father descended from above and earth-mother rose up from below, as lovers do, and they mated to produce the primordial ancestor of all native Hawaiians. These religious beliefs are presented in legal arguments demanding that the government (and all Hawii's people regardless of race or religion) must abide by the Hawaiian religion.
If Hawaii were restored to its former status as an independent nation, its sovereignty would allow the ancient Hawaiian religion to be established as the official national religion. However if Hawaiians follow the tribal model as a domestic dependent "nation" under the sovereignty of the United States and the plenary power of Congress, then it would seem that the old religion could be official only inside the tribe but not in the State government. Is that really true?
The first sentence of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ..." But notice that applies only to limit the power of Congress, not to limit what a State can do. At the time the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were ratified, several of the States had their own government-established religions held over from when they were British colonies, and the ratification of the First Amendment did not disestablish those religions. Following the Civil War the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868. It took until 1940 before the Supreme Court ruled that the 14th Amendment had the effect of incorporating the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to be applicable to State governments. But incorporation of the Establishment Clause to be applicable to State governments has been more problematic.
Is it possible under current law for ethnic Hawaiians to use their power as a voting bloc to get the Hawaii state legislature to pass laws requiring or prohibiting the state government to engage in specific activities because they are required or prohibited by the old Hawaiian religion? This is unclear and controversial. Federally recognized Indian tribes have authority to compel or prohibit their members to do things, which might be contrary to generally applicable local, state, or even federal laws. And recent federal legislation, most notably the Violence Against Women Act, extends the authority of tribal laws and courts to apply to people who are not members of the tribe or even to people who are not Indians at all. It's unclear whether the First and Fourteenth Amendments would prohibit the State of Hawaii government from granting special rights to ethnic Hawaiians based on the old Hawaiian religion if there is no federal recognition of a Hawaiian tribe, or would allow the State government to require or prohibit non-ethnic-Hawaiians to do specific activities as dictated by the old religion.
Today's Hawaiian sovereignty activists -- both the independence wing and the tribalist wing -- seem to interpret the "right of self-determination" to mean that ethnic Hawaiians can revive or reinvent their old religion despite the fact that they previously made a firm decision to overturn it; and they can choose whatever path they wish in the same way that a human individual can exercise self-determination by changing his religion or "reinventing" himself, even to the extent of changing his/her gender. This concept of self-determination raises the question whether Hawaiian religion or culture is authentic or "indigenous"; or is merely an ad hoc wannabe sort of thing which a bunch of new-age hippies might invent. And of course the independence wing asserts that the U.S. Constitution and laws are irrelevant to Hawaii because Hawaii is not part of the U.S.
One of the most frightening examples of a court ruling that today's ethnic Hawaiians have race-based legal rights on account of the old religion is found in a decision by the Hawaii Supreme Court in 2009 on remand from the U.S. Supreme Court.
This lawsuit concerned the question whether the State of Hawaii has the right to sell any particular parcel of the "ceded lands" it owns; i.e., lands which were formerly among either the crown lands or the government lands of the Kingdom of Hawaii. Those lands then became merged as the public lands of the Republic of Hawaii following the revolution of 1893 and Constitution of 1894, were then ceded to the United States through the Treaty of Annexation in 1898, and were then ceded back to the State of Hawaii as part of the Statehood Act of 1959.
This lawsuit went through several levels in the state court system, and eventually the Hawaii Supreme Court ruled unanimously 5-0, for a variety of reasons, that the State does not have the right to sell a parcel of the ceded lands without permission from a future Native Hawaiian government. Governor Linda Lingle and Attorney General Mark Bennett then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled unanimously 9-0 to overturn the Hawaii Supreme Court decision and remanded the case back to the Hawaii Supreme Court for further proceedings. All the plaintiffs except Professor Jonathan Osorio then reached a settlement with the State of Hawaii legislature and Governor that ceded lands can be sold under certain conditions but only with approval by 2/3 vote of both the House and Senate. When Osorio refused to agree to that settlement, the state Supreme Court received legal briefs and arguments regarding Osorio's claims. One major issue was whether Osorio has legal "standing" to make his claims. The court ruled that he does have standing but that the case was not yet ripe for a decision, and therefore Osorio's objection was dismissed "without prejudice" [i.e., it can be raised again in the future] and the settlement became law.
The reason why the court ruled that Osorio has legal standing is because he is ethnic Hawaiian and because he asserts that according to the old religion anyone with Hawaiian native blood has a special, intimate, genealogical, spiritual relationship with the land (even though persons with no native ancestry do not have such a relationship). Such a ruling by the state Supreme Court is astonishing and dangerous, both because it gives special rights based on race, in violation of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; and because it is an establishment of religion by the government, in violation of the First Amendment. For more details about the Osorio ruling, including links to court documents, see section 3 of the webpage at
The claim to racial supremacy is displayed in the proposed constitution for a future federally recognized Hawaiian tribe adopted on February 26, 2016 by the month-long Na'i Aupuni constitutional convention paid for by OHA, an agency of our state government. The proposed constitution is a splendid example of Hawaiian religious fascism, because it clearly and explicitly states three fundamental principles: (a) The Native Hawaiian Nation is racially exclusionary, restricted to people who have at least one drop of Hawaiian native blood; and (b) All lands and waters of the archipelago of the Hawaiian Islands shall belong to the Native Hawaiian Nation. In other words: This nation is of, by, and for the race exclusively; and the race owns all the lands and waters of Hawaii; and (c) The constitution reasserts the concept from the ancient Hawaiian religion, that ethnic Hawaiians have a genealogical relationship with the gods and the land, which is the basis of their race-based rights to control the government and how the lands are used. Read the entire Constitution here:
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."
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.
Zuri Aki, who identified himself as the "chief drafter" [writer] of the Constitution wrote an article in Honolulu Civil Beat on February 29. 2016 -- three days after the Constitution was adopted -- describes his mental attitude growing up and still today: "I was preparing for a war that I had never asked to be a part of. A war that every Kanaka Maoli, or Native Hawaiian, was born into and one that every Kanaka Maoli fights in, one way or another."
On October 14, 2016 the U.S. Department of Interior published in the Federal Register the "final rule" -- a law unilaterally proclaimed by the Obama administration without Congressional approval -- providing a pathway for a future Hawaiian tribe to seek federal recognition. At approximately that time Zuri Aki was hired by the Office of Hawaiian Affairs as a policy analyst, presumably at a good salary paid by money from the state government, where he is presumably expected to write position papers supporting OHA's wish to submit to the U.S. Department of Interior the racist constitution he wrote, as part of the process for getting federal recognition of his Hawaiian tribe as a first step to get money and land on the way to making all of Hawaii an independent nation with racial supremacy for ethnic Hawaiians.
Lily Dorton, now named Lilikala Kame'eleihiwa, was chair of the UH Hawaiian Studies department. She and her son were delegates to the Na'i Aupuni constitutional convention. In her 1992 book "Native Land and Foreign Desires" she uses the term "foreigner" to refer to anyone who lacks Hawaiian native ancestry; thus, even a Caucasian or Asian person whose family has been born and raised in Hawaii for eight generations spanning perhaps 200 years would be called a "foreigner."
Here's what Lilikala says, starting at page 325: "Foreigners must learn to behave as guests in our 'aina and give respect to the Native people. If foreigners cannot find it in their hearts to do this, they should leave Hawaii. If foreigners truly love Hawaiians they must support Hawaiian sovereignty. They must be humble and learn to serve Hawaiians. If foreigners love us and want to support our political movements they must never take leadership roles. Leadership must be left to [ethnic] Hawaiians ... Foreigners who love us can donate their land and money into a trust fund for Hawaiian economic self-sufficiency ... and the Native initiative for sovereignty."
My dear members of the McKinley High School 'ohana: if you have no Hawaiian blood, are you ready to be treated as foreigners, and be humble and learn to serve Hawaiians? Are you eager to donate your land and money into a trust fund for Hawaiian economic self-sufficiency ... and the Native initiative for sovereignty"? If so then go ahead and support removing the McKinley name and statue from your beloved school. That way people like Leon Siu, Zuri Aki, and Lilikala Kame'eleihiwa can cite you as believing that Hawaii is not lawfully a part of the U.S. and they will mention you as their supporter when they speak with United Nations delegates from China, Cuba, Iran, and Russia to lobby them for Hawaii independence.
3. THE THEORY OF ASIAN SETTLER COLONIALISM IN HAWAII; HOW IT IS USED BY HAWAIIAN SECESSIONISTS TO MAKE ASIAN-AMERICANS FEEL OBLIGATED TO HELP THEM; HOW IT STRIPS PEOPLE OF ASIAN ANCESTRY OF THEIR HARD-WON RIGHT TO FULL EQUALITY AS AMERICANS; AND WHY THIS ISSUE IS ESPECIALLY RELEVANT TO THE MCKINLEY COMMUNITY.
In the 1920s and 30s the majority of all Nisei (2nd generation Japanese) kids in Hawaii attended McKinley, earning it the nickname "Tokyo High." Today about 2/3 of students at McKinley High School are Asian, and Japanese is the largest ethnicity among them. Many, perhaps most, of the teachers and administrators in the Department of Education are also Asian.
I write section 3 of this essay out of respect for the struggle for full equality as Americans endured by Hawaii's people of Asian ancestry for many generations, and continuing to this day. I write also to warn you about the race-nationalism of the group of Hawaiian secessionists. They want you to throw away the McKinley name and statue so they can say you agree with their claim that Hawaii is not legitimately a part of the United States, and that ethnic Hawaiians have a right to racial supremacy in Hawaii.
For at least a couple of decades the Hawaiian race-nationalists have had a campaign to persuade you that if you are not for them, then you are against them. They say that by working hard and fulfilling the American Dream you are harming them -- you are guilty of being an accomplice to their oppression by American imperialism -- you are, perhaps unintentionally, an ally of the haoles when you really should become an ally of the ethnic Hawaiians.
Perhaps most Americans of Asian ancestry are politically liberal or Democrat rather than conservative or Republican. That certainly seems true about faculty at University of Hawaii, especially in ethnic studies. Liberals and Democrats strongly supported the Akaka bill to create a federally recognized Hawaiian tribe -- Senators Inouye and Akaka, both Asian, worked hard for 13 years to push it through Congress. David Forman, head of the Japanese-American Citizens League, strongly supported "Hawaiian rights" (i.e., special privileges for ethnic Hawaiians based on race) including the right to identify as an Indian tribe and/or the right to take the entirety of Hawaii out of the U.S. to become an independent nation.
Candace Fujikane and Jonathan Y. Okamura are two ethnic Japanese citizens of Hawaii. They edited a book published in 2008 by UH Press (subsidized by our tax dollars), entitled "Asian Settler Colonialism: From Local Governance to the Habits of Everyday Life in Hawai'i." It's outrageous. Section 3 of this essay summarizes my detailed book review, which you can read at
The book is deeply insulting to Hawaii's people of Asian ancestry. The first insult comes by telling them that they are guilty of collaborating with Caucasians to oppress ethnic Hawaiians. The next insult comes by telling them that even if their families have lived in Hawaii for several generations, they are merely "settlers" in someone else's homeland and they have a duty to abandon their hard-won equal rights in order to accept a position of subservience to ethnic Hawaiians. Perhaps the deepest insult of all is the book's attempt to undermine the patriotism of Asian Americans by telling them they have a moral duty to help Hawaiian sovereignty activists liberate Hawaii from American colonialism and rip the 50th star off the flag. If anyone thinks this paragraph is an exaggeration, or a case of fear-mongering, then please read the entire book review, including the book's five-page celebratory explanation of the metaphors in a political cartoon showing Hawaii's first Filipino Governor, Ben Cayetano, lynching a Native Hawaiian in order to give pleasure to a Caucasian who was supervising the event.
The book tries to lay a guilt trip on Hawaii's Asian population in hopes of enlisting them to support an ethnic Hawaiian agenda of blood nationalism. The good thing about this book is that it brings brings to public awareness a truly frightening belief-system. People inclined to support Hawaiian sovereignty, but who lack native blood, will discover that they are actually supporting the destruction of their own hard-won freedoms and individual rights. Will Hawaii citizens of Asian descent see themselves primarily as victims of historical domination and exploitation by Caucasians, and join the ethnic Hawaiian grievance industry expressing resentment and demanding group reparations for "people of color"? Or will they see themselves as individuals whose forebears freely came to Hawaii to work as sugar plantation laborers, nurses, and hotel maids to make a better life and who succeeded in harvesting a piece of the American dream for themselves, their families, and descendants?
On one side are Asians, Caucasians, and a probable majority of ethnic Hawaiians who believe in individual rights, unity and equality under the law, and are proud to be Americans in the 50th state. On the other side are some ethnic Hawaiians, and their allies among other ethnic groups, who believe in establishing by law the religious belief that ethnic Hawaiians are an indigenous people genealogically related to these islands and therefore entitled to exercise racial supremacy in a government based on group rights and blood nationalism.
The book "Asian Settler Colonialism" begins with a lengthy editor's essay explicitly setting forth this religious racial fascism, and calling upon Hawaii's people of Asian ancestry to kow-tow to ethnic Hawaiians. All the essays in the book support and expand this concept. It doesn't matter whether an Asian newcomer to Hawaii has just stepped off the plane from Japan, or whether his ancestors came here six generations ago -- everyone lacking a drop of the magic blood is merely a settler. Some Caucasian, Chinese, or Japanese citizens of Hawaii had an ancestor who was a subject (citizen) of the Hawaiian Kingdom by virtue of being born in Hawaii before 1893 or immigrating and taking the loyalty oath. Some such families now have as many as eight generations born and raised in Hawaii. There were thousands of Caucasians and Asians who were full partners in the Hawaiian Kingdom as cabinet ministers, heads of departments, members of the Legislature, and voters. But if they and their descendants living in Hawaii today lack the magic blood, they are classified in this book as merely "settlers" whose true homeland is England, Boston, China, Japan, etc.
Amazingly, there are Asian-Americans living in Hawaii who agree with racial supremacy and blood nationalism for ethnic Hawaiians (including all the Asian authors of essays in this book), and who are now trying to persuade other Asians to set aside their rights as Americans and to subordinate themselves to ethnic Hawaiians. It's a credit to the generosity and desire for "social justice" of the politically liberal, humble, and culturally self-effacing folks who feel that way; but it's a greater credit to their intelligence and American patriotism when they reject blood nationalism and Hawaiian religious fascism.
Ethnic Japanese whose families have multiple generations in Hawaii have commented that Hawaii is the only place in the world where they are truly at home. They are not mere "settlers." They cannot "go back" to a Japan they have never even visited. Tourists from Japan poke fun at Hawaii's Japanese because they speak an archaic form of the language and do not know today's social customs; and Japanese born and raised in Hawaii cannot feel at home on the U.S. mainland because of racism and differences in local culture. See Dennis M. Ogawa, "The World of Hawaii's Japanese Americans" (with a forward by Daniel K. Inouye) Honolulu: Japanese American Research Center, Honolulu Japanese Chamber of Commerce, 1973. A popularized version by Mr. Ogawa is the book "Jan Ken Po."
Yet Hawaiian activists repeatedly tell those lacking Hawaiian blood that they have some other place in the world that is their true homeland. Hula teacher and political activist Vicky Holt Takamine spewed this racist concept into hundreds of thousands of living rooms in her repeatedly televised Kau Inoa commercial: "Every other people that come here to these islands have an ancestral homeland that they can go back to."
The question Hawaii's people of Asian ancestry must answer for themselves is this: Do I embrace my American citizenship and my rights as an individual to be fully equal with everyone else under the Constitution; or do I believe I have an obligation to subordinate myself as a second-class citizen under the communal authority of ethnic Hawaiians? The editors of the book "Asian Settler Colonialism," and the authors of the essays inside it, are trying to get Asians to feel guilty by labeling them as collaborators with Caucasians in oppressing the indigenous natives of Hawaii under an American colonial regime backed by a U.S. military occupation; just as race-mongers on the mainland have been making today's Caucasians feel "white guilt" for slavery in the America of two centuries ago.
For a detailed chapter-by-chapter review and analysis of the book "Asian Settler Colonialism" see
4. YES THERE IS A TREATY OF ANNEXATION BETWEEN THE REPUBLIC OF HAWAII AND THE U.S. THE TREATY OF ANNEXATION WAS FIRST OFFERED BY HAWAII AND THEN ACCEPTED BY U.S.; THERE WAS NO U.S. UNILATERALLY REACHING OUT AND GRABBING HAWAII MERELY BY PASSING AN INTERNAL LAW. WHY THE REPUBLIC OF HAWAII HAD THE LEGITIMATE RIGHT TO OFFER THE TREATY. WHY THE WAY THE U.S. CHOSE TO RATIFY THE TREATY IS ACCEPTABLE.
Hawaiian secessionists like to say there was/is "no Treaty of Annexation" between Hawaii and the U.S. But indeed the Treaty does exist; we know what it says; and I will show you.
What the secessionists really mean is that the Treaty was not ratified by a 2/3 vote of the U.S. Senate acting alone, but rather was done by a joint resolution of the U.S. House and Senate and signed by the President; and the secessionists say that is not the proper way to ratify a Treaty. But the U.S. has sovereignty, which means the U.S. is the only authority which has a right to decide what method the U.S. will use to ratify a Treaty; and also has the right to change its mind and choose a different method for making a particular decision under difficult circumstances. So after that issue was debated on the floor of the Senate and the method of joint resolution was decided upon, nobody else has any right to complain that such a method was improper. It's like an adult has a right to decide what method he/she will use for making a decision, and although his friends or enemies can support or complain, in the end it's up tp the adult to decide what method to use to make the decision: follow your usual process; take a survey of your friends; make a list of pros and cons; check your horoscope; ask the 8-ball; flip a coin? You decide! Everybody else: Kwitcherbellyachin!
The secessionists also say that the Republic of Hawaii was not a legitimate government and lacked the authority to offer a Treaty. But the legitimacy of a government is decided by the family of other legitimate nations, and all the ones who spoke on that question agreed the Republic was legitimate. Emperors, Kings, Queens, and Presidents of at least 19 other nations on four continents all personally signed letters in 11 languages to Hawaii President Dole formally recognizing the Republic as the legitimate government. Photographs of those letters have been placed on a webpage at
Historical significance and implications for statehood, Akaka bill, and ceded lands; are at
along with a detailed example of the Hawaiian sovereignty lie that such letters do not exist (Keanu Sai showed his ignorance by actually saying that).
They also say the revolution of 1893 which led to creation of the Republic was not legitimate. But within two days after the revolution every foreign government's local consulate in Honolulu published a letter acknowledging that the revolution had been successful and pledging to ask their own government back home for full-fledged recognition, and pledging that while waiting for a decision from the home government they would do business with the Provisional Government and no longer with the ex-queen.
The secessionists say many more things, all of which are false and have been disproved. In some ways they are behaving like the leftwingers say President Trump behaved after the 2020 election: they say he lost the election but refuses to admit it and keeps sending lawyers and politicians to file dozens of bogus lawsuits and write nonsensical tweets and newspaper columns. The anti-Trumpers say there comes a time when Trump should stop putting forward conspiracy theories, admit he lost, and move forward with real life. This essay cannot deal with every nook and cranny of the theories pushed by the secessionists, but other webpages have done that.
Some details responding to specific issues were already covered in section 1 of this essay: FALSE: The Ku‘e Petitions which objected to annexation were signed by 95% of Native Hawaiian adults; FALSE: The Republic of Hawaii did not include Native Hawaiians; FALSE: A Joint Resolution of Congress agreeing to a Treaty is a domestic measure, having no lawful authority beyond U.S. borders [true it's a domestic measure accepting a Treaty, therefore it DOES have the authority beyond U.S. borders agreed to by the Treaty partner; FALSE: There were "failed attempts" in the U.S. Senate to pass the Treaty of Annexation in 1893 and in June and September of 1897 [true the Treaty was not brought to the floor for a vote because supporters thought they might be short a couple of votes; but false to say the Treaty was ever actually defeated by a losing vote].
Here are further references for anyone who wants to research matters in depth.
Treaty of Annexation between the Republic of Hawaii and the United States of America (1898). Full text of the treaty, and of the resolutions whereby the Republic of Hawaii legislature and the U.S. Congress ratified it. The politics surrounding the treaty, then and now.
Hawaiian sovereignty activists point out that the apology resolution of 1993 is a joint resolution passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the President, just like the joint resolution of annexation in 1898. Therefore, they say, if the apology resolution has no legal force, then neither does the annexation resolution. So Hawaii is free! However, anyone comparing the two resolutions will immediately see the difference. The apology resolution consists almost entirely of "whereas" preambles stating opinions and feelings, but only a few "now therefore" conclusions calling for actions which merely "urge" things like reconciliation. The joint resolution accepting the Treaty of Annexation, however, has only a few "whereas" preambles but numerous "now therefore" conclusions stating specific actions and consequences. For a comparison of the effectiveness of the two joint resolutions, see "The Hawaii Annexation Resolution (1898) and the Hawaii Apology Resolution (1993) -- Do they have the force of law?" at
The apology resolution of 1993 puts the U.S. on record as apologizing for its role in the 1893 overthrow of the monarchy. Many Hawaiian sovereignty activists say the apology resolution shows the revolution was illegal, and therefore the annexation of 1898 and statehood vote of 1959 were also illegal, and therefore the ceded lands still belong to Native Hawaiians. But in 2009 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that the apology resolution is merely a resolution of sentiment with no legal force, and that the ceded lands belong to all Hawaii's people in fee simple absolute and can be sold without permission from Native Hawaiians. See the history of that lawsuit and the full text of most of the legal documents at
Was the 1898 annexation illegal? [provides links to some historical documents including Lorin Thurston's 32-page analysis of fraud in the signatures on the Ku'e petitions, plus full text of some modern newspaper commentaries and letters to editor on the topic of annexation including from Lorin Thurston's grandson Thurston Twigg-Smith]
In 1909 ex-queen Lili'uokalani filed a lawsuit against the United States demanding money for the crown lands ceded to the U.S. during the annexation of 1898. In 1910 the court ruled against her.
Liliuokalani v. United States, 45 Ct. Cl. 418 (1910)
The ruling was based on Hawaiian Kingdom law, citing the fact that after 1865 the crown lands belonged to the government and were no longer the personal property of the monarch; therefore Lili'uokalani never owned them; therefore she was not entitled to any money or damages for the ceding of those lands. (In 1865 King Lota Kamehameha V had signed a legislative bill whereby the legislature issued government bonds to pay off the King's mortgage on the crown lands in return for the King turning over the ownership of the crown lands to the government). That lawsuit contains several appendices consisting of documents verifying the 1865 law and also verifying that the U.S. Court of Claims had jurisdiction in this lawsuit because the ceded lands were legitimately ceded to the U.S. in the annexation of 1898. Among the documents on my webpage are the following three: Lili'uokalani's complaint, the court's decision, and the appendices including the Treaty of Annexation documents. Thus, in the course of deciding Lili'uokalani's lawsuit, the court also upheld the legitimacy of the overthrow and annexation, by citing the annexation documents as evidence. To see Lili'uokalani's complaint, the court's decision, and the appendices including the Treaty of Annexation documents, go to
5. PRESIDENT MCKINLEY WAS NOT A RACIST; HE BEHAVED HONORABLY WHEN HE IMPLEMENTED U.S. NATIONAL POLICY OF EXPANSIONISM AND MANIFEST DESTINY. A BIOGRAPHY OF MCKINLEY BY PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH'S POLICY ADVISOR KARL ROVE WAS PUBLISHED IN 2015. ROVE'S WALL STREET JOURNAL ARTICLE IN 2018 ATTACKS ARCATA CA LEFTWING REMOVAL OF MCKINLEY STATUE AND SPECIFICALLY DEFENDS MCKINLEY'S REPUTATION ON RACIAL ISSUES INCLUDING HIS WORK TO DEFEND BLACK VOTING RIGHTS IN OHIO AND HIS CONSERVATIVE-REPUBLICAN POLICY OF ABOLISHING COMMUNAL LAND TENURE FOR INDIAN TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA TO PROMOTE INDIVIDUAL LAND OWNERSHIP AS A WAY TO HELP INDIANS BUILD WEALTH.
Students at McKinley High School might want to ask their history teachers about the fact that during the 1700s and 1800s, if a man insulted another man, the one who got insulted might demand to have a duel to the death with swords or pistols as a way of defending his honor. A famous example was the July 11, 1804 duel between Vice President Aaron Burr vs. former Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton, when Burr shot Hamilton from ten paces away with his single-shot pistol, and Hamilton died from his wound the following day.
Today's Hawaiian secessionists are grievously insulting President McKinley, accusing him of racism toward Indians and Blacks -- an insult all too flippantly hurled nowadays. Perhaps the ghost of McKinley will visit Leon Siu or Aoloa Patao demanding satisfaction. After all, President McKinley himself was assassinated by pistol in Buffalo, New York, on September 6, 1901. That was the year after the Treaty of Annexation signed by McKinley in 1898 was finally consummated by the Organic Act of 1900, also signed by McKinley. The statue honoring him at McKinley High School was dedicated on February 23, 1911 in memory of the assassinated President and specifically to honor him for making Hawaii a part of America through the Treaty of Annexation as depicted being cradled in the statue's arm.
Today's Hawaiian secessionists do to McKinley what leftwing groups often do to their political opponents -- trash his reputation by calling him a racist. They think such an accusation somehow disproves what the person said or the righteousness of what he did.
An "Open Letter to President McKinley by Colored People Of Massachusetts" can be seen at
Howard Zinn was a radical anti-American professor at Boston University: he wrote a famous book trashing America and made his students buy it: "A People's History of the United States." (I met him when I taught at Boston University and attended a couple of his classes for fun, observing the celebrity's adulation by hundreds of adoring fans somewhat resembling Haunani-Kay Trask's fan club at UH Manoa.) Zinn included the letter in one of his books. According to the webpage cited above, "In 1903, in "The Souls of Black Folk", the author and agitator W. E. B. Du Bois wrote of Black revulsion to "the recent course of the United States toward weaker and darker peoples in the West Indies, Hawaii, and the Philippines."" under the leadership of President McKinley.
Mckinley's domestic policy included signing the Curtis Act of 1898 which amended the Dawes Act by dismantling the communally owned lands of the "Five Civilized Tribes" of Oklahoma.
Judged by today's standards McKinley certainly looks like a racist, but only if you are looking superficially. Karl Rove's book about McKinley, summarized in his Wall Street Journal article below, looks more closely into McKinley's youth, his service in the Civil War to free the slaves, his political work in Ohio to protect Black voting rights, and the fact that his Presidential policy of breaking up communally owned tribal lands was for the purpose of giving land to individual Indians in fee simple to give them pride of ownership and help them build wealth (might be a good policy for our own Department of Hawaiian Homelands!). We should consider the deeds of a nation's leader in the context of the time when he lived and the political policies democratically adopted by Congress and his nation.
During the 1800s the U.S. was expanding rapidly Westward. The national policy was "Manifest Destiny" that God had specially blessed the newly founded United States to take over the American continent from Atlantic to Pacific ocean, seizing Indian lands and either killing the natives or forcing them to move out. By the time McKinley became President the Indian wars were over; the last major atrocity, Wounded Knee Massacre, happened in 1890.
U.S. foreign policy was also expansionist, including the Louisiana Purchase from France , the Alaska purchase from Russia, and a war with Mexico to take about 1/3 of Mexico's land by force. During McKinley's administration the U.S. waged war against Spain, taking both Puerto Rico and the Philippines from Spain as prizes. The Philippines had been owned by Spain for several centuries, and its people fought alongside the U.S. for freedom from Spain. But then when the U.S. won the war, President McKinley and Congress decided to keep the Philippines and waged war killing tens of thousands of Filipinos, not out of hatred for their race but to pursue America's policy of land acquisition and Manifest Destiny.
From about 1880 to 1900 there was a huge political struggle in the U.S. between Republicans like William McKinley, who were generally expansionists following the policy of Manifest Destiny, and Democrats like Grover Cleveland who were generally isolationists wanting to stop expansion. Democrat isolationist Grover Cleveland won the election of 1884, but then lost to Republican expansionist Benjamin Harrison in 1888. Then in 1892 Cleveland defeated incumbent Harrison to become President again; and in 1896 expansionist Republican William McKinley won the election. The presidency alternated back and forth between isolationist Democrats and expansionist Republicans. After McKinley the expansionists dominated for 20 years, including the swashbuckling Teddy Roosevelt and his adventures in Cuba. Even Woodrow Wilson, elected on an isolationist platform, ended up joining World War 1 to dominate Europe.
When McKinley won the elections of 1896 and 1900 America was launched firmly on the path of expansionism, which included building the strongest Navy in the world, winning Puerto Rico and Philippines in the war against Spain, agreeing to the Treaty of Annexation offered by Hawaii despite efforts by Japan and American isolationists to block it. In the U.S. Senate, who were the main opponents against the Hawaiian Treaty of Annexation? Racist Democrat Senators representing Southern states who didn't want to see tens of thousands of dark-skinned native Hawaiians and Japanese and Chinese becoming part of the U.S. Publicly their excuses for opposing annexation were isolationism and protectionism for the Southern sugar beet industry; but their strongest real reason for opposition was flat-out racism. McKinley's support for annexation was a blow against Southern racism.
The importance of U.S. Naval power to facilitate U.S. expansionism was already in the front of McKinley's conciousness because of an article published in "The Forum" magazine in March of 1893, two months after the revolution that overthrew the Hawaiian monarchy. The article was so important in setting national policy that it was republished in the 808-page Morgan Report of the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs in February 1894 regarding its investigation into what happened in the Hawaiian revolution of January 1893. The article, on pp. 475-482 of the Morgan Report is entitled "Hawaii and our future sea-power" written by Captain A.T. Mahan, the most important Naval strategist at that time. The entire article can be seen here:
McKinley was also consolidating U.S. control over the vast lands in the Western U.S., which meant expanding the reach of the Dawes Act to break up Indian tribes and convert their communal land ownership into individual homesteads mostly to allow individual Indians to own their land in fee simple and also to provide land for immigrants.
McKinley's neglect of Black oppression in the South by the Ku Klux Klan and Jim Crow laws, and his hostility toward communal land ownership by the tribes, was not because of racism but rather because he focused all his attention on domestic land acquisition and foreign expansion through war under America's national policy of Manifest Destiny.
President George W. Bush's policy advisor Karl Rove wrote an entire book about William McKinley in 2015 to fight back against accusations that McKinley was racist against Blacks. He wrote a major commentary summarizing his book, published in the Wall Street Journal print edition on April 5, 2018. Here's that article, which is of special significance on the issue of Honolulu's McKinley statue because Rove specifically pokes fun at the leftwing zealots in Arcata California who tore down their McKinley statue citing McKinley's alleged racism as their bogus justification.
The Pitchforks Are Out for McKinley
Even though the first modern president fought against racial and religious bigotry.
by Karl Rove
Americans have wrestled in recent years with whether monuments honoring Confederate leaders such as Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis are appropriate. I’m sympathetic to those, like New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu, who have concluded some monuments should come down. But in Arcata, Calif., something more pernicious is going on.
Arcata is a Northern California hot spot of trendy leftism that in 1989 prohibited the manufacture or storage of nuclear weapons within city limits. In 2016, Donald Trump won 10% there, 11 votes more than the Green Party candidate. Now the City Council has raised the monument issue to a new level of nuttiness by voting to remove a statute of President William McKinley from the town square.
Mayor Sofia Pereira explained the council’s rationale by asking, “Is there a difference between honoring McKinley and Robert E. Lee?” There is a very big difference between the Confederacy’s commanding general and the 25th U.S. president.
Start with the issue of race. The son of abolitionists, McKinley enlisted as an 18-year-old private at the start of the Civil War not only to save the Union but also to end the moral blight of slavery. He received three battlefield promotions for bravery, ending the war as a major.
As a young lawyer in 1867, McKinley worked hard to pass an Ohio constitutional amendment protecting black voting rights. Elected to Congress in 1876, he was a staunch advocate of federal civil-rights protections, and as resolutions chairman at the 1884 and 1888 Republican national conventions he ensured that the GOP platform supported such measures. McKinley was the first presidential candidate to appear before black audiences while seeking the nomination in 1896, and he appointed a record number of blacks to federal positions.
McKinley also took on anti-Catholic bigotry, defying America’s largest pressure group, the American Protective Association, when it insisted during his Ohio governorship that he fire Catholic state workers. When the group labeled McKinley the only unacceptable Republican presidential candidate in 1896, he responded that he would not “countenance any abridgement of the constitutional guarantees of religious freedom.”
Moreover, McKinley welcomed the influx of immigrants then coming to America, scandalizing the GOP’s Anglo-Saxon Protestant leadership by inviting groups of foreign-born workers to visit his Canton, Ohio, home during his campaign.
Chris Peters, head of the Arcata group calling for the statute’s removal, blames McKinley for “settler colonialism” that “savaged, raped and killed” Native Americans. Ted Hernandez, chairman of the local Wiyot Indian Tribe, agrees, asking: “Why do we have this man standing in this square where they used to sell our children?”
Both men should consult calendars. The Indian Wars ended long before McKinley became president in 1897. The Wiyots began losing tribal lands to lumbermen and settlers in the 1850s, and dozens of tribe members were allegedly massacred in 1860 when James Buchanan was president and McKinley a teenager. Wiyot children were not sold into involuntary servitude in Arcata’s square with McKinley’s approval during his presidency.
Pressed on why McKinley’s statue should be removed, protesters point to his signing the 1898 Curtis Act, which abolished tribal governments in the Indian Territory—paving the way for Oklahoma to become a state—and distributed communal lands to tribe members. McKinley’s signature on this bill in no way justifies accusations that he is guilty of “racism and murder.” The law’s author, Rep. Charles Curtis of Kansas, himself of Native American descent, believed Native Americans could assimilate with the wider U.S. population.
McKinley’s assassination by a terrorist in 1901 caused an outpouring of national grief not seen since Lincoln’s death or experienced again until John F. Kennedy’s murder 62 years later. Half a million people lined the train tracks as the president’s body was returned to Washington, with 30,000 breaking into patriotic songs as his funeral cortege pulled out of Harrisburg, Pa. Tennessee schoolchildren sent a train carload of sweet peas to be strewn on his path into Canton’s cemetery, where a hillside was covered with floral tributes from workers honoring the man who presided over prosperity and unity.
“I don’t think people would even know who McKinley is,” Ms. Pereira says, “but we do.” Actually, they don’t. They have a notion of McKinley—the first modern president, who ushered in the American Century—that is so warped that only willful ignorance and runaway political correctness explains their destructive action.
Mr. Rove helped organize the political-action committee American Crossroads and is the author of “The Triumph of William McKinley” (Simon & Schuster, 2015).
6. FOOTNOTE: FULL TEXT OF ONLINE PETITION, NEWSPAPER ARTICLE, AND BLOG DEMANDING MCKINLEY NAME CHANGE AND STATUE REMOVAL, REVEALING MOTIVES OF SECESSIONISTS.
** Petition started 2015; updated with revived publicity for it in 2020; as of November 24, 2020 had 3,529 signatures.
Free Hawaii blog, July 7, 2020
A SPECIAL MESSAGE FROM MCKINLEY HIGH SCHOOL ALUMNI & KOANI FOUNDATION DIRECTOR KU`AHI WONG
In addition to the on-the going nationwide movement to change inappropriate place names and to remove statues of racist individuals, there is ONE in Honolulu.
Previously known as Honolulu High School, in 1911 it was renamed after the racist, imperialist U.S. President William McKinley who presided over the illegal annexation of Hawai'i to the United States. That was the high school I graduated from. As of the time of this post, I along with 2624 others signed a "Move On" Petition to restore it's previous name. The McKinley name from the school and the ki'i (statue) that stands in front, need to go.
Another statue of McKinley was removed from the center of the town of Arcata, CA on February 28, 2019. And in Alaska, the name Mount McKinley was changed to Denali as of August 2015.
I ask those who read this to PLEASE help us end racist imperialism in Hawai'i by supporting me and other like minded people in this effort. Your signature(s) on this petition AND sharing of this post is appreciated. I/we are hoping to also reach out to former alumni like myself (1964). Hea stay the URL:
Additional information on the history of this issue and a lot more is posted on Facebook at - "Aloha Oe McKinley".
William McKinley High School Alumni
Director, Koani Foundation
TO: Dr. Christina M. Kishimoto, Superintendent of Education and Phyllis Unebasami, Deputy Superintendent
Restore original name of President William McKinley High School
Contact Campaign Creator
Campaign created by
Correct a wrong by restoring the original name of Mckinley High School, Honolulu High School.
Why is this important?
***Ken Conklin's NOTE***This is the original 2015 Petition: [The petition now has been updated to be addressed to a newer Superintendent of Schools]
Residing along Pensacola Street in Honolulu, Hawaiʻi, sits President William Mckinley High School, seemingly an apt name to honor the 25th president, William McKinley. But, to those of us who know the truth about what really happened with the overthrow of Hawaiian Monarchy and the prolonged illegal occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom by the United States, we do not celebrate William McKinley. I urge the Superintendent of Education, Kathryn S. Matayoshi, the Board of Education members listed above and whomever is concerned, to take action in correcting a wrong and rename McKinley High School back to one of its original names, Honolulu High School.
After two failed attempts by the United States of America to annex Hawaiʻi (June 16, 1897, September 7, 1897), House Joint Resolution 259, 55th Congress, 2nd Session, also known as the "Newlands Resolution," was proposed and passed by Congress, then signed into United States law by the imperialist, President William McKinley on July 7th, 1898.
According to legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com, a joint resolution is “often used when Congress needs to pass legislation to solve a limited or temporary problem.” The United States’ “problem” was the Spanish-American war in 1898 and to “solve” their problem, they insisted the need for Hawaiʻi because of its strategic value to their military. The war was “temporary.” The occupation of Hawaiʻi, not so much.
This joint resolution was illegal because the only legal avenue to have acquired Hawaiʻi was through a treaty, a ratified agreement between the two countries, which the United States did not obtain. Hawaiʻi was indeed known as a country through securing recognition of Hawaiian independence by powerhouse countries, Great Britain (1843), France (1843) and its eventual occupier, the United States (1846). Equally as important, a joint resolution cannot have any force and effect beyond the borders of the U.S., which Hawaiʻi clearly was. As Keanu Sai says on Hawaiian Kingdom Blog, “United States could no more annex the Hawaiian Islands by passing a domestic law, than it could annex Canada today by passing a law.”
Ignoring what the people of Hawaiʻi wanted before the joint resolution was signed into law as evidenced by the 21,269 Kūʻe Petition signatures gathered by Hui Aloha ʻĀina and an official protest of treaty of annexation by Queen Liliuʻokalani submitted to and formally accepted by the U.S. Congress, McKinley had one goal in mind and that was to take power over Hawaiʻi at any cost—even if they could illegally slide by through a joint resolution.
According to the McKinley High School website, the school was established in 1865 as Fort Street English Day School and renamed in 1895 to Honolulu High School. In 1907 it was again renamed to President William McKinley High School because he “helped to bring about the annexation of the Hawaiian Islands to the United States.” Also, one of the school’s colors, gold, was “chosen for McKinley’s close association with Hawaiian royalty.” In front of the school, stands an eight-ton, bronze statue of President McKinley who holds a scroll in his right hand titled, "Treaty of Annexation." False advertisement much?
Although William McKinley is not the only person to blame for illegally occupying Hawaiʻi, he was, at the time, the head of the country that did. By having this school still named after him today, in the most populated city in Hawaiʻi, does the Department of Education (DOE) encourage and imply that what the United States did to the Hawaiian Kingdom and its people to be lawfully and ethically correct? I ask you to please sign this petition and let the proper authorities know that honoring William McKinley and perpetuating his name in Hawaiʻi is absolutely wrong. Mahalo nui.
Free Hawaii blog, September 12, 2020
McKinley Name Changer - Game Changer
by Leon Siu
[self-proclaimed Foreign Minister of the Hawaiian Kingdom, who makes annual trips to the United Nations both in New York and in Geneva to lobby other nations to rescind the 1959 removal of Hawaii from the U.S. list of non-self-governing territories. The removal was done by the General Assembly after Hawaii became a State of the United States following a plebiscite in which 94.3% of Hawaii voters asserted self-governance by saying said "YES" to Statehood]
The McKinley Legacy:
Dismantled Five Civilized Tribes
Spanish American War
Fake Annexation of Hawaii
Doctrine of Manifest Destiny
I wrote in the July 11 2020 issue of Ke Aupuni Update:
“…in order to gloss over the fake annexation and create a legacy of legitimacy, Sanford B. Dole the Governor of the fake “U.S. Territory of Hawaii,” had Honolulu High School renamed, President William McKinley High School, honoring the president for being a champion of the annexation. To complete the insult, a statue of McKinley was cast, holding a scroll titled “Treaty of Annexation 1898” and erected in front of the school.”
A few days ago, a group called, “Right Our History Hawaiʻi” had the US Postal Service deliver by certified mail, a letter to Dr. Christina Kishimoto, the DOE Superindendent of Schools, requesting that she recommend the State Board of Education change the name of President William McKinley High School. Under the provisions of BOE Policy 301-8, the board has the sole authority to determine the name schools in the state system.
The letter explains how Pres. William McKinley is not only undeserving of the honor, but having a school named after him, is an affront to history and the Hawaiian people. Equally offensive is the statue of McKinley holding a fake “Treaty of Annexation.” The letter points out that the BOE, overseeing one of the world’s oldest public education systems — one that was founded in the Hawaiian Kingdom — has a profound obligation to correct such misrepresentations of historical facts.
At this point, either the BOE will honor the request to change the name, or take the unenviable position of trying to defend the indefensible. I think they will agree to the name change.
That will be a game-changer. That will cause a quantum shift! Check-mate! Game over! It would be a public repudiation of annexation by the largest agency of the State of Hawaii, the agency whose job it is to know about history. This one perfunctory name-change action will expose the U.S. State of Hawaii as having no basis in law or historical fact! It’s a fake state.
We’re almost there! Get ready to enter… The Transition!…
The more we stand as a nation and assert the Hawaiian Kingdom is alive and kicking, the more obvious the U.S. false claim becomes, the sooner there will be a Free Hawai`i.
Honolulu Star-Advertiser, Sunday October 4, 2020, Commentary
Column: Change name of McKinley High School
By Kioni Dudley, Lyla Berg and Williamson Chang
Until recent years, so little was known about the time of the Hawaiian monarchy, the overthrow, annexation and life within the territory. Now being more aware, it’s stunning how many “lies my teachers taught me.” At first the lies were intentional. After a generation or so, teachers were just teaching what they were taught and believed as true. But the lies still go on today, though the truth is known.
The American missionaries did so much good when they arrived. But later, a few of them and many of their children, along with other whites, stole the islands from the Hawaiian people. Recent research into the years before and after the overthrow has exposed how really ugly the Missionary Party members and the rich plantation owners were toward our native people.
They looked down upon even our kings and queen, treating them as low-level, uncultured aboriginals, whom destiny required white men to control. In 1887, they forced King Kalakaua to sign the Bayonet Constitution, stripping him of most of his authority. In 1893, with American support and landing of troops, they overthrew our queen.
After the overthrow, many white leaders in Hawaii enjoyed finding ways to insult Hawaiians and keep them in their place. In 1907, when Honolulu High School was moved to Beretania and Victoria streets, they renamed it in honor of President William McKinley, an affront to our people.
McKinley was known well at the time for having pushed the McKinley Tariff through Congress in 1890. In two years, it intentionally cut Hawaii’s sugar profits in half and goaded the already unhappy annexationists to overthrow the queen. If Hawaii could become part of the U.S., there would be no tariff.
In the next years, prior to Hawaii being illegally “annexed,” both Queen Lili‘uokalani’s letter of protest, and the Ku‘e Petitions, which objected to annexation and were signed by 95% of Native Hawaiian adults, had reached Congress. It was also clearly understood among those in Congress that the newly established government, the Republic of Hawaii, did not include Native Hawaiians, and did not represent the will of the people.
This did not deter William McKinley, who was now president.
To ratify a treaty of annexation, the U.S. Constitution requires a “yes” vote by two-thirds of those present in the U.S. Senate. After a failed attempt to get the two-thirds vote in 1893, and two more failed attempts in June and September of 1897, McKinley pushed for Joint Resolution 259 (the Newlands Resolution) and signed it into law on July 7, 1898. There never was a Treaty of Annexation.
In truth, a lawful annexation never occurred because a Joint Resolution of Congress is a domestic measure, having no lawful authority beyond U.S. borders. As Sen. Augustus Bacon pointed out during the 1898 debate, “If Hawaii could be acquired by a joint resolution, then the Legislature of Hawaii could acquire the United States by a joint resolution of its own.”
Within two months after the passage of the Newlands Resolution, the U.S. created a fort in the current Kapiolani Park. Its name: Fort McKinley.
Until 1931, President William McKinley High School was the only public high school on Oahu. Under the Department of Education’s 1906 “Patriotic Program for School Observance,” the school became a principal tool for eradicating Hawaiian culture, language and identity, and for indoctrination and thorough Americanization of our youth.
McKinley is a false hero. The school name and statue of him ignore his wrongdoings. Both must be removed.
A few years back, a young DOE high school teacher on the Big Island, Aoloa Patao, started a petition to change the name of President William McKinley High School and to take the statue down (see sign.moveon.org/petitions/restore-original-name); this essay supports his effort.
Finally, we intend no slight to the students and graduates of McKinley High School. Their experiences and accomplishments at the school will never be erased.
Kioni Dudley is a former teacher for Hawaii’s Department of Education; Lyla Berg is a former DOE principal; Williamson Chang is a professor at the University of Hawaii-Manoa law school. Co-signatories on this piece are Piilani Kaopuiki, a McKinley High alumna; Leon Siu, a diplomat/activist; and Aoloa Patao, a DOE teacher.
7. ADDENDUM ON MARCH 20, 2021: On Thursday March 18, 2021 a hearing was held in the Hawaii House Committee on Education regarding a resolution whereby the Legislature would request the Department of Education to remove the name and statue of President William McKinley from that high school. At the end, after hearing testimony and after a recess for private discussion, the committee decided to "defer" the resolution -- a polite way of saying it is dead even though there was no official vote to defeat it. Links are provided to the legislature's webpage providing the hearing notice, text of resolution, files of testimony, and results; an activist blog entry and two news reports the day before the hearing, two lengthy files of written testimony, a video of the hearing, a news report after the hearing, and an activist blog entry the day afterward. Full text of the proposed resolution is provided along with full text of Ken Conklin's oral and written testimony in opposition.
** Ken Conklin's summary of what's available:
Legislature's webpage for the House resolution
and Legislature's webpage for the House concurrent resolution
In each case click on the bill number near the top to read the text of the resolution; and along the right-hand margin look for the file of all written testimony, and the hearing notice. The history is shown as "status text". The two versions of the resolution are identical except for technical language in case the resolution passes the House and is then sent to the Senate. The file of testimony on the ordinary House resolution is more than twice as long as for the concurrent resolution; but there are many testimonies duplicated in both files (including Conklin's ten pages).
In case you weren't aware of it, you can not only watch livestream of every committee hearing in real time, but you can also watch a YouTube video recording of each hearing after it has finished. Click a link on the hearing notice near the bottom. For this particular hearing, here is the link to the YouTube video of the 2+1/4 hour hearing
** Ken Conklin's note: The 3 minute video linked here is SO FUNNY! Remember the embarrassing news headline from 1948: Dewey Beats Truman. Well here's a sovereignty activist blog entry and video published the day BEFORE a legislature committee hearing on a resolution to change the name and remove the statue at McKinley Hish School. The activists were celebrating an expected victory, which in fact turned out to be a major defeat for them.
Free Hawaii blog, Wednesday March 17, 2021
"BREAKTHROUGH ON MCKINLEY HIGH SCHOOL NAME CHANGE"
Exciting Name Change & Statue Removal News At McKinley High School.
Two Resolutions Of Support Have Now Been Introduced In The Hawai`i Legislature.
But The State Board Of Education Has Still Not Come Aboard.
Watch This For The Full Story & To See What Happens Next.
Then Share This Video Today With Your Family & Everyone You Know.
** Ken Conklin's note: The propaganda machine in the media was all cranked up nationwide on Wednesday, but then the resolution was killed at Thursday's hearing. Here's a local TV news report on Wednesday; and, to show a sample of nationwide media, a radio report from North Carolina.
KHON 2 News MARCH 16, 2021
HSTA supports renaming McKinley High School, removing statue
HONOLULU (KHON2) — The Hawaii State Teachers Association (HSTA) is lending its support to rename President William McKinley High School and to remove his statue from the school grounds.
On March 12, HSTA listed different reasons why the school deserved a better name that honors its true spirit, community and legacy:
* The school’s name glorifies a man who illegally annexed a country against the will of her queen and people.
* The name reflects an indoctrination of Hawaiian students and a movement that obliterated Native Hawaiian identity in favor of American patriotism.
* The devastating loss of Native Hawaiian identity, culture, and language has yet to fully recover.
* It is our kuleana (responsibility) to restore pono (righteousness).
* Names have great significance to us. A school’s name should honor its greatness.
The article was written by HSTA’s Human and Civil Rights Committee and Laverne Moore, an HSTA lobbyist and a McKinley High School special education teacher.
“As a Native Hawaiian woman who grew up under colonization, I personally experienced what colonization does to a child at a very young age,” Moore said. “I was forbidden to speak my native tongue. I was forbidden to have a Hawaiian first name. I lost my language. I lost my cultural practices and beliefs. My values. Colonization made me feel like I had no rights. Growing up, I felt marginalized, and I didn’t understand why. I only learned to be proud of my Native Hawaiian identity as an adult, and I realized I had to fight for my rights.”
Moore said she started teaching special education at McKinley in 2001. Although she loved it, she always struggled with the school’s name because of what he did.
“We must change the school’s name for our indigenous people,” said Moore. “So many who endured this hardship before me have passed, and I fear once my generation is gone, the desire to regain what was stolen from us will slowly fade away.”
A resolution to change the school’s name back to Honolulu High School will be heard by the House Committee on Education on Thursday, March 18, at 2 p.m.
WRAL March 17, 2021 [NBC radio station, Raleigh North Carolina]
Hawaii lawmakers consider changing McKinley school name
HONOLULU — Hawaii lawmakers will consider measures that would rename the state's oldest public high school to remove President William McKinley.
Two House resolutions seek to acknowledge McKinley’s role in the overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom by changing McKinley High School’s name to Honolulu High School, Hawaii Public Radio reported Tuesday.
McKinley signed a resolution annexing Hawaii in 1898. Hawaii became a U.S. territory in 1900 and a state in 1959.
“Besides McKinley’s role in the overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom we also learned about the indoctrination of students during that time and how students were forced to basically pledge allegiance to America,” said Jodi Kunimitsu, a math teacher at Maui High School and the state chair for the Human and Civil Rights Committee of the Hawaii State Teachers Association.
Kunimitsu also believes a McKinley statue on the school's grounds should be removed.
The Hawaii State Teachers Association supports the effort to rename the school, KHON2 reported Tuesday.
“As a Native Hawaiian woman who grew up under colonization, I personally experienced what colonization does to a child at a very young age,” said Laverne Moore, a Hawaii State Teachers Association lobbyist and McKinley High School special education teacher. “I was forbidden to speak my native tongue. I was forbidden to have a Hawaiian first name. I lost my language. I lost my cultural practices and beliefs.”
Moore started teaching McKinley in 2001, KHON2 reported. Although she loved it, she always struggled with the school’s name because of what he did.
“We must change the school’s name for our indigenous people,” said Moore. “So many who endured this hardship before me have passed, and I fear once my generation is gone, the desire to regain what was stolen from us will slowly fade away.”
A House hearing will be held on the measures Thursday.
H.C.R. No. 179
HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
URGING THE SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION TO REQUEST THE BOARD OF EDUCATION TO CHANGE THE NAME OF PRESIDENT WILLIAM MCKINLEY HIGH SCHOOL BACK TO THE SCHOOL'S PREVIOUS NAME OF HONOLULU HIGH SCHOOL AND TO REMOVE THE STATUE OF PRESIDENT MCKINLEY FROM THE SCHOOL PREMISES.
WHEREAS, what is currently named President William McKinley High School was previously named Honolulu High School, which was established in the Hawaiian Kingdom in 1865 and is one of the oldest secondary schools in the Hawaiian islands; and
WHEREAS, the name of Honolulu High School was changed to President William McKinley High School in 1907 as a key component of the political indoctrination strategy to deliberately convince the people living in the Hawaiian Islands that they are American; and
WHEREAS, when the statue of William McKinley was erected in 1911, several years after the renaming of the school, it was not to honor the President of the United States, but rather as a symbol to perpetuate the subjugation of Native Hawaiians and reinforce the lie that the Hawaiian islands belong to the United States of America; and
WHEREAS, the name of the school and the statue of William McKinley holding the fabricated "Annexation Treaty" perpetuates the allegation that people in the Hawaiian islands wanted to become Americans, even though eighty percent of the adult population signed the Kū‘e Petitions against annexation in 1897; and
WHEREAS, on July 6, 1898, President McKinley committed fraud to continue the occupation of the Hawaiian islands by the United States by signing a Joint Resolution of Congress, entitled the "Newlands Resolution" that purported the annexation of Hawai‘i; and
WHEREAS, the Newlands Resolution illegitimately claimed United States annexation of the Hawaiian islands, even though such a document does not have any power or legitimacy to annex an internationally recognized nation with official treaties in eighteen foreign states dating as far back as 1846; and
WHEREAS, the result of the illegal annexation turned Hawai‘i into an overseas colony completely dependent on the United States of America and displaced Native Hawaiians, robbing them of their birth right, cultural identity, nationality, language, and homes, while negatively impacting their physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual well-being; and
WHEREAS, following the enactment of the Newlands Resolution, Hawaii's public education system was pressed into service to indoctrinate, denationalize, "Americanize," and convert generations of Hawaii's children into patriotic United States citizens; and
WHEREAS, U.S. Public Law 103-150, informally known as the "Apology Resolution", a Joint Resolution of the United States Congress signed by President Bill Clinton in 1993, acknowledges that "the Native Hawaiian people never directly relinquished to the United States their claims to their inherent sovereignty over their national lands, either through a plebiscite or referendum"; now, therefore,
BE IT RESOLVED by the House of Representatives of the Thirty-first Legislature of the State of Hawaii, Regular Session of 2021, the Senate concurring, that the Superintendent of Education is emphatically urged to request the Board of Education to replace the name of President William McKinley High School with the previous name of Honolulu High School and remove the statue of President William McKinley from the school premises; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that certified copies of this Concurrent Resolution be transmitted to the members of the Hawaii's Congressional delegation, Governor, Chairperson of the Board of Trustees of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Chairperson of the Board of Education, Superintendent of Education, Kaimuki‑McKinley‑Roosevelt Complex Area Superintendent, President of the McKinley High School Foundation, and each of the county mayors.
** Ken Conklin's oral testimony in opposition, restricted to 2 minutes:
Aloha kakou. 'O Ken Conklin ko'u inoa.
I submitted detailed testimony regarding the Hawaiian revolution of 1893, the Republic, and the Treaty of Annexation; and hope you have studied it carefully.
Let me now put things in very direct terms.
This resolution is NOT about McKinley's name on the school, or his statue.
This resolution is an attempt by a gang of secessionists to recruit you as allies in ripping the 50th star off our flag by declaring Annexation was both illegal and immoral, with McKinley as the evildoer who made it happen.
In 1893 the Hawaiian revolution overthrew a corrupt and ineffective monarchy. In 1894 Emperors, Kings, Queens, and Presidents of at least 19 nations personally signed letters to President Dole recognizing the Republic as the rightful successor to the Kingdom; see photos. That's why the Republic had the authority to speak on behalf of Hawaii and offer a Treaty of Annexation. The U.S. as a sovereign nation had the right to agree to it by whatever method it might choose, and did so after months of debate in Congress.
The winners in a political struggle have the right to govern the losers whether they like it or not.
Hawaii's royalists lost in the revolution of 1893. They lost in the Annexation of 1898. Their successors lost in the Statehood vote of 1959. Their diehard deadenders remain sore losers trying to "cancel" President McKinley 123 years after he helped secure Annexation.
I'm proud to be an American, and hope you are also.
Please do NOT help these secessionists. Please vote NO on this resolution.
** Ken Conklin's written testimony (on both the regular and concurrent resolutions)
There is only one reason why some activists want to abolish "McKinley" from the name of the school and remove his statue from the campus. The reason is, they want to rip the 50th star off the American flag and return Hawaii to its former status as an independent nation. And through this resolution they want to enlist you legislators as collaborators in their treasonous propaganda campaign.
The strongest evidence that this is their motive is easy to see in the "whereas" clauses of this resolution and in documents provided by the NEA and the HSTA which are filled with historical falsehoods trashing the alleged U.S. "invasion" and "occupation" of Hawaii; alleged suppression of Hawaiian language and culture; and civics curriculum in the early Territorial period. Portraying Native Hawaiians as victims of colonial oppression and/or belligerent military occupation is designed to bolster demands to "give Hawaii back to the Hawaiians", thereby producing a race-supremacist government and turning the other 80% of Hawaii's people into second-class citizens.
The leaders of America and also most of the leaders of the Republic of Hawaii were White men. So it's no surprise that today's secessionist efforts to reverse Annexation and establish ethnic Hawaiian racial supremacy are anti-White. But in recent years that racism has also become anti-Asian. The activists have produced a book and other materials saying that Hawaii citizens of Japanese and other Asian ancestries, even after several generations born and raised in Hawaii, are mere "settlers" or "guests" in a Hawaiian homeland where they have special rights as the "hosts." They say that unless Hawaii people of Asian ancestry line up to support Hawaiian secession under the leadership of ethnic Hawaiians, you are colonialists, just as guilty as the haoles, oppressing the "indigenous" people whose blood makes them children of the gods and brothers/sisters to the land (Kumulipo creation legend) in a way you never can be if you lack a drop of the magic blood. This is the same sort of "blood and soil" race-supremacist fascism that ruined Germany and Japan causing world war in the 1930s and 40s; and more recently it was revived by white nationalists in the U.S. You legislators have a responsibility to stop that fascism from getting established in Hawaii. See my detailed review of the book "Asian Settler Colonialism" published by UH Press in 2008, demanding that Asians subordinate themselves to ethnic Hawaiians:
The activists hate President McKinley because he successfully persuaded Congress to pass the joint resolution in 1898 whereby the U.S. agreed to the Treaty of Annexation offered by the Republic of Hawaii in 1897. McKinley also signed the Organic Act in 1900 establishing basic laws for the Territory of Hawaii. McKinley also appointed Republic of Hawaii's President Sanford B. Dole to be the first Territorial Governor, thus ensuring stability and continuity of governance under the same head of state throughout the turbulent decade from 1893 (Revolutionary Provisional Government) to 1894 (Republic of Hawaii) to 1898 (Annexation) to 1900 (Organic Act) to 1903 (end of Dole's term as Governor).
The activists hope to enlist you legislators as allies in their campaign of secession. They know that if you agree to this resolution, they will have a propaganda victory allowing them to say to the rest of America "Let us outa here!" They will cite your approval of this resolution as evidence to our nation's enemies in the United Nations that "America is weak and falling apart." Communist China, now building a navy more powerful than ours, and seeing the Hawaiian secessionist movement being led by so many people whose ancestry is Chinese as well as Hawaiian, might decide Hawaii is low-hanging fruit for plucking, in much the same way that a German leader in the 1930s felt he had a right to take over part of Czechoslovakia and all of Austria to liberate his fellow ethnic Germans who were so numerous there. Certainly when the U.S. complains in the United Nations about China's internal suppression of ethnic minorities and oppression of Tibet and Hong Kong, China will answer by accusing the U.S. of doing the same thing in Hawaii as evidenced by the resolution passed by Hawaii's own legislature bitterly crying out to be liberated.
In November 2020, seeing how aggressive the activists were becoming in their drive to purge "McKinley" from the school, I created a webpage documenting their intentions and opposing them. Please see my "Open letter to students, alumni, teachers, administrators, staff, community, and Board of Education explaining why the school's name and statue deserve to remain in place, and why a Hawaiian secessionist demand to remove them should be strongly rejected" at
A friend of mine, the late Thurston Twigg-Smith, wrote a book entitled "Hawaiian Sovereignty: Do the Facts Matter?" which he graciously allowed me to post on my website where you can download it for free:
Yes, the facts do matter. There are numerous falsehoods about Hawaii's history in the "whereas" clauses of this resolution, and in two articles authored by Keanu Sai in the NEA newspaper, and in the lengthy HSTA essay:
Shame on Hawaii's teachers for propagating such falsehoods, and especially for filling the minds of our children with them. Below are just a few of those falsehoods, with brief corrections and links to evidence proving falsehood. I know you don't have time to study these issues now, but hopefully when the legislative session is over you might take the time to learn about some of them.
By the way, an item in the HSTA essay says "According to the Alabama-based Southern Poverty Law Center, 168 Confederate symbols, including 94 monuments, were removed across the United States in 2020, virtually all of them following the killing of George Floyd by Minneapolis police officers."
I'm sure we all remember the outbreak of violence, arson, looting, and attacks on police that accompanied the "removal" of those statues and monuments in numerous cities.
Perhaps we should wonder whether the mention of those events in the HSTA essay is intended as a veiled threat that something similar might happen to McKinley High School and/or to the statue if we fail to comply with the activists' demands. That's all the more reason to stand up against such threats. Please do not knuckle under to them. It might be wise to ask each activist who testifies, to give a pledge that they will not engage in violence or vandalism, and that they will assist law enforcement in identifying, arresting, and prosecuting anyone who does. "Kapu aloha", right? Testimony from anyone who refuses to take such a pledge should be summarily rejected for the same reasons it is unwise to negotiate with terrorists.
Please vote "NAY" and consign this resolution to the trash.
Below are brief replies to specific falsehoods in the resolution (and to arguments often put forward to bolster them)
WAS THE MCKINLEY STATUE ERECTED TO HUMILIATE AND SUBJUGATE NATIVE HAWAIIANS?
Reso: "... when the statue of William McKinley was erected in 1911, several years after the renaming of the school, it was not to honor the President of the United States, but rather as a symbol to perpetuate the subjugation of Native Hawaiians and reinforce the lie that the Hawaiian islands belong to the United States of America"
Reply: There is not even any attempt to give evidence that was the motive; legislators should never endorse such bitter sentiments. And by the way, it is not a lie to say: the Hawaiian islands really do belong to the United States of America; don't you legislators agree? Didn't you take an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States" against all enemies, foreign and domestic? Meet some of those enemies; i.e., the suporters of this resolution.
WHAT PERCENTAGE OF PEOPLE SIGNED ANTI-ANNEXATION PETITION?
Reso: "... eighty percent of the adult population signed the Kū‘e Petitions against annexation in 1897"
Reply: There were 21,269 signatures on the petition opposing annexation. Interpolation of Census data shows there were about 39,542 full or part Hawaiians in 1897, the year of the anti-annexation petition. Thus, the 21,269 signatures on the petition represented 54% of the native population. But wait! Everyone says there were non- natives among the 21,269 people who signed the petition, although we cannot be sure how many. Well, if there were non-natives signing, then shouldn't the percentage of signers be calculated using the whole number of people in the entire population? Apparently non-natives were welcome to sign the petition, but the overwhelming majority refused. The whole population in 1896 was 109,020; in 1900 it was 154,001; so interpolation yields 120,265 as the population in 1897, which means the 21,269 signatures represent only 18% of the population. Furthermore, at that time only men could vote, and there were other important voter eligibility restrictions; so there is no relationship between petition signatures and eligible voters. But there's more to the story. In addition to the anti-annexation petition with 21,269 signatures, there was allegedly another petition containing over 17,000 signatures collected by a different organization. The trouble is, that second petition had a different purpose -- it called for Lili'uokalani to be restored to the throne! Hawaiian sovereignty activists like to add the numbers on the two petitions, for a total of around 38,000 to 39,000 signatures, which would represent virtually every native and part-native man, woman, and baby. But of course that's silly. The two petitions are on different topics. And probably everyone who signed the smaller petition (restore the queen) would have also signed the larger petition (stop annexation). Indeed, the gap of 4,000 signatures could be interpreted to mean that there were 4,000 natives who opposed annexation but also opposed restoring the monarchy and wanted the Republic of Hawai'i to continue as an independent nation under the coalition of White and Hawaiian oligarchs!
DOES U.S. JOINT RESOLUTION HAVE POWER TO REACH OUT AND GRAB A FOREIGN NATION (I.E., HAWAII)?
Reso: "... the Newlands Resolution illegitimately claimed United States annexation of the Hawaiian islands, even though such a document does not have any power or legitimacy to annex an internationally recognized nation ..."
Sai, NEA, 10/01/18: "Many government officials and constitutional scholars could not explain how a joint resolution could have the extra-territorial force and effect of a treaty in annexing Hawai‘i, a foreign and sovereign state. ... In 1824, the United Supreme Court explained that, “the legislation of every country is territorial,” and that the “laws of no nation can justly extend beyond its own territory... for it would be “at variance with the independence and sovereignty of foreign nations.”
Reply: Annexation did not begin with the U.S. passing a resolution to reach out and grab Hawaii. Annexation began with the Republic of Hawaii offering a Treaty of Annexation to the U.S. Afterward, the U.S. Congress had heated debates about the Treaty in both the House and Senate for many months, and finally passed a joint resolution to accept it: Senate 42-21; House 209-91. Sovereignty means that a nation has the sole right to decide for itself what method it will use for agreeing to a treaty offered by another nation. In 1898 the U.S. used the method of joint resolution to accept the offer of the Treaty of Annexation from the independent nation Republic of Hawaii, just as in 1845 the U.S. used the method of joint resolution to accept the offer of the Treaty of Annexation from the independent nation Republic of Texas. See
"Treaty of Annexation between the Republic of Hawaii and the United States of America (1898). Full text of the treaty, and of the resolutions whereby the Republic of Hawaii legislature and the U.S. Congress ratified it. The politics surrounding the treaty, then and now" at
Further reply: The secessionists also say that the Republic of Hawaii was not a legitimate government and therefore had no right to offer a Treaty of Annexation. But in fact the Republic was the successor government of a still-independent nation of Hawaii, following the revolution of 1893 which overthrew the monarchy. The Republic got its legitimacy under international law in the same way as the Kingdom had done: by receiving formal diplomatic recognition from the heads-of-state of numerous foreign governments. After holding a Constitutional Convention and producing a Constitution, President Dole requested formal recognition. During Fall 1894 letters were received in 11 languages that were personally signed by Emperors, Kings, Queens, and Presidents of at least 19 foreign nations on 4 continents formally recognizing the Republic as the rightful, lawful government of Hawaii. One of those letters was from Queen Victoria of Britain, who had close relationships with Queen Emma and Queen Lili'uokalani. Other letters were from the Tsar of Russia, the King and Queen of Spain, the Presidents of France and Switzerland, two Crown Princes of China under authority of the Emperor while a war with Japan was raging; etc. Even ex-queen Lili'uokalani personally signed a letter of abdication and oath of loyalty to the Republic, witnessed by her personal attorney and former cabinet ministers. Photos of all these documents, along with supporting letters from diplomatic representatives, were taken in the Archives of Hawaii and are available online at
U.S. APOLOGY RESOLUTION
Reso: "the "Apology Resolution" ...acknowledges that "the Native Hawaiian people never directly relinquished to the United States their claims to their inherent sovereignty ... either through a plebiscite or referendum""
Reply: Must the inhabitants of a territory be consulted, prior to being annexed? In the annexations of the Louisiana Territory and the Territory of Alaska, the inhabitants were not consulted by France or Russia (who sold those territories to the U.S.) nor by the U.S. There were only two times when annexations of land to the United States included consulting the inhabitants of the annexed areas: Texas and Hawaii. The reason why the inhabitants were consulted in these two cases was that these were independent nations prior to annexation. In the case of Texas, there was a plebiscite in which the vote was limited to white males who had sworn loyalty to the Republic of Texas. In the case of Hawaii, the elected legislature of the Republic of Hawai'i made the commitment. When a government makes a decision, it is binding on everyone in that nation regardless of the fact that some people -- perhaps many people -- don't like it. Native Hawaiians made up only 40% of the population at the time of the overthrow in 1893, 26% at the time of annexation in 1900, and perhaps 20% today. Source: Robert C. Schmitt. Demographic Statistics of Hawaii: 1778-1965. (Honolulu, 1968) The first U.S. Census was in 1900 and it showed a total population of154,001 of whom 29,779 were Hawaiian, 7,857 were part-Hawaiian, 28,819 Caucasian, 25,767 Chinese, 61,111
Japanese. I did not vote for President Biden, nor for either of my Senators, nor for my House Representative. But they have authority to make decisions affecting me whether I like it or not.
Reso: "the "Apology Resolution" ... acknowledges that "the Native Hawaiian people never directly relinquished to the United States their claims to their ... national lands ...""
Reply: The national lands of Hawaii belonged to the multiracial nation, not to any particular ethnic group. The government lands of the Kingdom belonged to the government on behalf of all the people, not to ethnic Hawaiians in particular. The crown lands became owned by the government in 1865 when the legislature passed a law -- eagerly signed by the King -- to issue government bonds to pay off the mortgage on the crown lands that had been made by Lota Kamehameha V and was in danger of being foreclosed, in return for the King surrendering ownership to the government.
Further reply: The apology resolution is filled with falsehoods, has produced bad consequences, and should be repealed. For details see
FOLLOWING ANNEXATION, WERE HAWAII PUBLIC SCHOOLS USED TO STRIP NATIVE CHILDREN OF THEIR NATIONAL IDENTITY AND BRAINWASH THEM INTO PATRIOTISM TOWARD AMERICA?
Reso: "... following the enactment of the Newlands Resolution, Hawaii's public education system was pressed into service to indoctrinate, denationalize, "Americanize," and convert generations of Hawaii's children into patriotic United States citizens"
HSTA document citing Sai 10/13/18: "To enforce the annexation, the government implemented a “methodical plan of Americanization” that “sought to obliterate the national consciousness of the Hawaiian Kingdom in the minds of the school children throughout the islands. It was developed by the Territory of Hawai‘i’s Department of Public Instruction and called ‘Programme for Patriotic Exercises in the Public Schools.’”
Reply: Of course the local government of the Territory of Hawaii, and its Department of Education, felt it important to implement a civics education program to help school children understand their rights and responsibilities as U.S. citizens during the first decade following Annexation; just as the DOE today feels it important to mandate 4 years of "Social Studies" courses required for high school graduation. Even Kamehameha School required male students to take ROTC courses until the U.S. military withdrew its cooperation from that program in 2002 due to racially exclusionary admissions policy.
DID THE REPUBLIC OF HAWAII, OR THE TERRITORY, MAKE HAWAIIAN LANGUAGE ILLEGAL?
RESO: "... the result of the illegal annexation ... displaced Native Hawaiians, robbing them of their ... language ..."
HSTA DOCUMENT: "The government made it illegal for anyone to have a Native Hawaiian first name, or even speak the Hawaiian language in public"
REPLY: I have thoroughly researched and disproved the often-repeated assertion that Hawaiian language was suppressed or made illegal, including a detailed rebuttal to a webpage making those assertions published by the Office of Hawaiian Education within the DOE; but DOE refuses to correct it despite overwhelming proof of falsity. For facts see "Was Hawaiian Language Illegal? Did the Evil Haoles Suppress Hawaiian Language As A Way of Oppressing Kanaka Maoli and Destroying Their Culture?" at
"Holding the State of Hawaii Department of Education accountable for propagating the lie that Hawaiian language was banned" at
Honolulu Star-Advertiser, March 19, 2021
Proposal to rename McKinley High School and remove statue stalls at Hawaii Legislature
By Susan Essoyan
A push to change the name of McKinley High School and remove its towering bronze statue of President William McKinley ran aground Thursday at the Legislature after passionate testimony on both sides.
“With a very heavy and sad heart, we have to defer this measure today,” said Rep. Jeanne Kapela, vice chairwoman of the House Education Committee and one of the sponsors of the resolution.
“While I do understand the reluctance of McKinley alumni to change the name of their alma mater, this issue is at its heart about advancing racial equity,” Kapela said. “Over the last few years, we have watched our nation engage in a reckoning with its troubled racial history, and Hawaii is no different.”
HR 148 would not have had the force of law, but would have “emphatically urged” the Board of Education and superintendent to take action, but it was deferred without a public vote.
Advocates of changing the name decried the former president for his role in the annexation of Hawaii to the United States in 1898, following the overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy by U.S.-backed forces in 1893.
The proposal had the strong support of the Hawaii State Teachers Association’s board of directors, and written testimony from numerous individuals ran predominantly in favor of the measure.
“There are a couple of problems with the naming of Honolulu High School as McKinley High School,” said Rep. Amy Perruso, a high school history teacher and lead sponsor of the resolution. “The first is that it heroifies a figure who was really instrumental in making sure the overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom was solidified.”
“Second, the statue of McKinley on that campus — he’s holding a ‘treaty of annexation,’” she said. “There is no such treaty of annexation, so essentially it’s propaganda meant to make people think there was a legitimate annexation under law when in fact there wasn’t.”
But many people weighed in against the move, including McKinley’s principal, some current and former staff members, and alumni. Former Gov. George Ariyoshi, 95, penned a handwritten letter opposing the change, while McKinley’s student government officers were split on the issue.
“History is the most powerful teacher, and to erase our past is doing a disservice to our country,” Principal Ron Okamura testified. “My question is, When does this end? If we change one, we need to change all places that are named after people to not offend anyone or hurt their feelings. It’s ridiculous. … My students will learn all sides of history.”
In its testimony, the Department of Education pledged to follow up by researching the issue and “ensure all input is received and all facts are analyzed.”
The high school, previously named Honolulu High School, was renamed in 1907 in honor of McKinley, who was president from 1897 until 1901, when he was assassinated.
Laverne Moore, a teacher at McKinley who is also an HSTA teacher lobbyist, advocated for change.
“I started teaching special education at McKinley High School in 2001, and I absolutely love it,” Moore wrote. “But I will always struggle with the name McKinley because I know what he did, how he illegally took away my government and my freedom as a Native Hawaiian. It still hurts. It will always hurt.”
But other teachers opposed the move and criticized the union’s board of directors for taking a public stand without consulting the broader membership — or even staff at the school.
An online petition to change McKinley High School’s name, started in 2015 by Aoloa Patao, was recently reactivated and had 3,675 signatures as of late Thursday. Patao, a member of the Right Our History Hawaii group, said the move is needed because “many, especially Native Hawaiians, find the name McKinley offensive.”
After failing to get Congress to ratify a treaty of annexation, which required a two-thirds majority, McKinley instead pushed a joint resolution that required just a majority vote.
“The name of the school and the statue of William McKinley holding the fabricated ‘annexation treaty’ perpetuates the allegation that people in the Hawaiian islands wanted to become Americans, even though 80% of the adult population signed the Ku‘e Petitions against annexation in 1897,” the proposed HR 149 read.
“On July 6, 1898, President McKinley committed fraud by signing a Joint Resolution of Congress, entitled the ‘Newlands Resolution’ that purported the annexation of Hawaii … even though such a document does not have any power or legitimacy to annex an internationally recognized nation with official treaties in 18 foreign states dating back as far as 1846,” it said.
Posted: 19 Mar 2021
FIVE REASONS FOR CHANGING THE NAME OF MCKINLEY HIGH SCHOOL
By Leon Siu
Right Our History Hawaii (ROHH), a group of thoughtful and concerned citizens living in Hawaii, is urging the Hawaii State Board of Education to change the name of McKinley High School. ROHH says that having a prominent Hawaii school named for the U.S. President who, as it turns out, was responsible for the illegal annexation and the resulting 123-year prolonged foreign occupation of the Hawaiian Islands, is reprehensible and offensive to the Hawaian people and to the integrity of Hawaii’s education system.
1. William McKinley was a model of White Supremacy and Racism The U.S. press at the time was full of fake news and bigotry. They said the primary reason for overthrowing and annexing the Hawaiian Kingdom government was because Hawaiians were primitive and incapable of governing themselves… Thus, superior white leaders needed to take over for the sake of civilization and progress. This masked the real motive — sheer greed — more money, for the local white business elites… and power and domination for the U.S. and its military. It is greed, coupled with white superiority complex, that motivated the taking of the Hawaiian Islands.
President William McKinley said, “We need Hawaii just as much and a good deal more, than we did California. It is Manifest Destiny.”
Manifest Destiny is the idea that the United States is destined by God, to expand its dominion beyond its continental borders. Thus, McKinley sought to extend America’s Manifest Destiny across the Pacific Ocean, even if it meant trampling the identity, language, culture, health, lands and everything else that belonged to the Hawaiian people.
2. McKinley Pushed for Annexation Even Though Hawaiians Strongly Opposed It No vote for Annexation was ever conducted in Hawaii. In fact, just the opposite happened. In 1897, when Hawaiians learned that the U.S. Senate was set to ratify a “treaty of annexation,” 39,000 Hawaiian nationals signed petitions categorically opposing annexation. This represented the will of over 80% of the adult population of the Hawaiian Islands. The petition was delivered to Congress and it stopped the treaty ratification in its tracks. But President McKinley and his cohorts in Congress simply devised a way to skirt the law.
3. McKinley Faked Hawaii’s Annexation (1898) After two failed attempts (1893 and 1897) to annex Hawaii by treaty, McKinley took a different (illegal) approach. On July 6,1898, McKinley signed a Joint Resolution of Congress (the Newlands Resolution) to annex Hawaii, knowing that a joint resolution did not have any power to annex a foreign country. Thus, white McKinley and white Congress deliberately collaborated with the white oligarchy in Hawaii to commit fraud to usurp the Hawaiian Islands, but calling it an “annexation” to make it appear legitimate.
The result of the usurpation/annexation displaced Hawaiians and robbed them of their identity, their homes and their physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual well-being. It turned the Hawaiian Islands into an overseas colony, completely dependent on the U.S. for everything.
4. Schools Turned into Centers for American Indoctrination In order for the widely despised and obviously illegal annexation to succeed, Hawaiian children (whose parents a few years before had signed the anti-annexation petitions) had to be re-programmed into thinking of themselves as Americans, not Hawaiians. School curricula were tailored to brainwash and indoctrinate children that Hawaii had become a part of the United States; and to reject being Hawaiians and embrace being Americans. The American indoctrination program has been in Hawaii’s schools for over six generations. It was so pervasive that until about 20 years ago, no student emerging from Hawaii’s schools had an inkling of the illegal overthrow, the illegal annexation and the illegal statehood. Today, 123 years after the U.S. takeover, the false, pro-America narrative is still being taught in most of Hawaii’s schools.
5. Honolulu High School renamed President William McKinley High School (1907) A key component of the political indoctrination strategy was to change the name of the flagship, Honolulu High School, to President William McKinley High School. This was done to cast the one most responsible for the annexation of the Hawaiian Islands to the United States as a hero, not the criminal that he actually was. Being named for the icon of American fraud stands today as a shameful contradiction to the noteworthy accomplishments of the school and its generations of illustrious students. To continue honoring the McKinley name overlooks and condones the travesties he committed against the people and nation of Hawaii. For these reasons and more, the name of President William McKinley High School should be changed.
NOTE: Hawaii is not an isolated case of McKinley’s White Supremacy and Manifest Destiny policies. In fact, what happened in Hawaii was mild compared to the atrocities he unleashed against the American Indians and the Filipinos… Just ask them… or Google.
Posted: 18 Mar 2021 06:38 PM PDT
HAWAIIAN KINGDOM IN ACTION - THE UNITED NATIONS HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL IN GENEVA, SWITZERLAND
A Virtual Panel Event -
DEMILITARIZING THE PACIFIC
Demilitarizing the Pacific - Ryukyu (Okinawa), Guam / Northern Mariana, Hawai`i. For generations the Indigenous peoples of the island nations have been under U.S. military occupation, which is harming our environment and putting us in danger. Now, Native Ryukyuans (Okinawans / Uchinanchu), Chamorro, and Hawaiians have come together to assist each other in our shared goals of demilitarization and self-determination.
This event is under the auspices of Incomindios, a Non-Governmental Organization in consultative status with the Economic and Security Council (ECOSOC) of the United Nations.
It is also co-sponsored by the Koani Foundation and the Peace For Okinawa Coalition.
Additional thanks to Our Common Wealth 670 and the Ryukyu Independence Action Network for their assistance.
MODERATOR – Mr. Robert Kajiwara
PANELISTS • Mme Routh Bolomet – The Hawaiian Kingdom - Professor Hoshin Nakamura – Ryukyu/Okinawa - Rep. Sheila Babauta – Northern Marianas Islands - H.E. Leon Kaulahao Siu – The Hawaiian Kingdom
Send comments or questions to:
You may now
SEE MORE WEBPAGES ABOUT HAWAIIAN SOVEREIGNTY ISSUES