Violence and threats of violence to push demands for Hawaiian sovereignty -- past, present, and future

* The photo of the T-shirt with Kamehameha holding a gun was taken on September 17, 2010 from a sovereignty activist blog which features many items with the gun theme, at
But note that the September 30, 2006 edition of the Honolulu Advertiser reported a major protest by sovereignty activists and Hawaii tourism officials regarding a different use of Kamehameha's image. "Miami-based Celebrity Cruises will no longer use a controversial advertisement depicting King Kamehameha's statue holding a glass of champagne to promote its cruises to Hawai'i, the company said yesterday." The news report was accompanied by a photo of the offending ad, as shown above. At that time the Hawaiian sovereignty activists protested that the picture made their great chief look subservient, like a waiter offering a drink to a tourist. But the more recent T-shirt featuring a gun-toting Kamehameha has elicited no protest whatsoever. Presumably the sovereignty activists like the concept.
** UPDATE DECEMBER 16, 2012: On December 14 a massacre took place at an elementary school in Connecticut, where an assault rifle was used to kill 20 first-grade children, 5 teachers, and the principal. Meanwhile, in Hawaii, "Defend Hawaii" T-shirts continued to be sold which show the same assault rifle on the front of the shirt; and the "Defend Hawaii" company was staging a special Christmas sale at a shopping mall at the same hour when President Obama was giving a nationally televised speech at an interfaith memorial service in the town where the massacre had occurred. See

ORDER OF TOPICS (scroll down to read each one)
























The Hawaiian islands were formed millions of years ago in the fiery violence of volcanic eruptions, still ongoing in limited form on Hawai'i Island. The sovereignty of the Kingdom of Hawai'i was also established through extraordinary violence which included centuries of warfare and religious/political human sacrifice. The violence reached its peak with Kamehameha The Great's use of modern weapons of mass destruction (guns and cannon) against enemies armed with clubs and spears. Even after the Kingdom was firmly established there were occasional periods of sovereignty-related deadly violence, most notably in 1819 (Battle of Kuamo'o), 1874 (rioting after Kalakaua's election as King), 1889 (Wilcox attempted coup), and 1895 (Wilcox attempted counterrevolution against the Republic of Hawaii). Queen Lili'uokalani, today's poster girl for non-violence in the Hawaiian sovereignty movement, is put forward on a pedestal alongside Martin Luther King and Mahatma Gandhi because she gave up without a fight in 1893. But she actually was a conspirator in two bloody political revolts using guns and bombs. Her bloodthirsty demands for revenge following the revolution of 1893 caused a U.S. diplomat acting as would-be mediator to back away from efforts to restore her to the throne. The Wilcox attempted counter-revolution of 1895 included a cache of guns and bombs which Lili'uokalani had allowed to be hidden in the flower bed of her private home (Washington Place), even as she signed commissions appointing the cabinet ministers for the new government she planned to form. She was tried and convicted of that crime, and spent several months "imprisoned" in a huge room in 'Iolani Palace (with full-time maidservant and plenty of hobby supplies for composing music and sewing a political quilt).



From 1895 through 1975 there were no noteworthy incidents of Hawaiian sovereignty violence. The anti-annexation petitions of 1887 were gathered peacefully and presented to the U.S. Senate. The transfer of power in 1898 at 'Iolani Palace was apparently not marred by protests, as most royalists stayed home. From 1900 to about 1930 ethnic Hawaiians were busy doing what many ethnic groups do: organizing politically to get land, money, and power. Hawai'i's first two Territorial Delegates to Congress, elected by large Hawaiian voting majorities, were ethnic Hawaiians --firebrand racist Robert Wilcox, and heir-apparent to the throne Prince Jonah Kuhio Kalaniana'ole. Kuhio succeeded in passing the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act in 1921 setting aside 203,500 acres of land for racially exclusionary Hawaiian Homelands. The Territorial Legislature was dominated by ethnic Hawaiians, whose numbers slowly eroded as the decades went by. The erosion happened partly because whites moved to Hawai'i from the mainland, but mostly because Asians who had already immigrated finally acquired the right to become U.S. citizens and vote. These changes happened slowly, and without sovereignty-related violence. Most residents of Hawai'i including most ethnic Hawaiians did not have the word "sovereignty" in their vocabulary; and those who did spoke the word only privately and in hushed tones.

On the continent "colored people" or "Negroes" began to search for their historical roots and began their civil rights movement, changing their label to "Blacks" and then "African Americans." Today desegregation and full civil rights is the law, ethnic Africans actually have "affirmative action" preferences, and "Martin Luther King Day" is a national holiday.

Hawai'i often lags the mainland by 10-20 years, and that's what happened as ethnic Hawaiians followed the lead of ethnic Africans. Ethnic Hawaiians led protests against the use of Kaho'olawe as a practice-bombing target. The Polynesian Voyaging Society was created by a white man who then designed and supervised the construction of Hokule'a and led its first long-distance voyage to Tahiti. But radical ethnic Hawaiian nationalists forced his resignation because they thought Hokule'a's voyages should be led and crewed exclusively by ethnic Hawaiians as a political assertion of sovereignty. A state Constitutional Convention in 1978 created the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, recognized Hawaiian as an official state language, and enshrined ethnic Hawaiian gathering rights eventually leading to the PASH decision.

The centennial commemorations of the overthrow of the monarchy (1993) and annexation (1998) were occasions for large Hawaiian sovereignty rallies, stirring up anger and militancy in a new generation of activists. The apology resolution (1993) did not make ethnic Hawaiians more mellow; on the contrary, it greatly raised the shrillness of demands that the admittedly guilty United States must do something to give reparations and race-based political sovereignty. The Rice v. Cayetano decision caused fear that Hawai'i's plethora of race-based programs were soon going to be dismantled. The Akaka bill was rushed to Congress to circumvent the Rice decision by creating a phony Indian tribe; but the bill languished in Congress from then until now. Lawsuits attacked Kamehameha Schools' racially exclusionary admissions policy, and attacked the very existence of OHA and DHHL.

Demands for sovereignty grew ever-more strident. Ethnic Hawaiian leaders began threatening there will be violence if lawsuits continue and if the Akaka bill does not pass. Will such bullying produce the racial separatism and ethnic nationalism demanded by the sovereignty zealots? Or will Hawai'i's people come together to defend unity, equality, and aloha for all?



Lovely flowers grow atop the Kilauea volcano's crusted-over caldera. Likewise, a carefully crafted image of peace and aloha conceals the actual violence of Hawai'i's past, occasional eruptions in the present, and the potential for explosive violence in the future. Lava has been produced steadily for many years, erupting through a vent downslope, and also flowing through underground tubes all the way to the ocean. Likewise, beneath the placid surface of Hawai'i's culture of aloha there seethes a cauldron of skillfully nurtured bitterness against the U.S. for alleged historical grievances; racism against Caucasians portrayed as oppressors of Hawaiian people, language,and culture; and an entitlement mentality fostered by long-standing race-based government handouts justified by junk-science victimhood "studies."

Is violence being used in pursuit of Hawaiian sovereignty at the present time? Has violence been used in pursuit of Hawaiian sovereignty in the past? How strong is the likelihood of Hawaiian sovereignty violence in the future?

This topic has been more or less taboo in the media. Until the past couple of years it simply has not been discussed in "polite circles." Most people want to believe violence is not an issue. Sovereignty activists like to portray an image of peace and love; the general public seems to believe it; and the tourist industry thrives on it.

The poster girl for Hawaiian non-violence is Queen Lili'uokalani. In the revolution of 1893 she gave up without a fight. She issued a written protest saying she trusted the United States to mediate her restoration to the throne; and she claimed she was ordering her men to stand down in order to avoid bloodshed. Because of her claim, today's sovereignty activists place her on a pedestal next to world-renowned advocates of non-violence Martin Luther King and Mahatma Gandhi. But as will be seen later in this essay, Lili'uokalani did indeed use political violence resulting in deaths on at least two important occasions. Furthermore, her insistence on bloodthirsty revenge for the revolution of 1893 caused President Cleveland's representative to back away from talking with the ex-queen to develop a proposal whereby he planned to mediate with the Provisional Government to secure her restoration to the throne.

Haunani Apoliona, chair of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs for many years, previously composed a number of Hawaiian language songs pushing race-based political sovereignty. She is also a skilled slack-key guitar player and sometimes gives public performances accompanying herself while singing the songs she has composed. One of her songs was sung by the Sophomore Girls at the Kamehameha song contest in 1993, helping them win the competition. The song's title is "E Mau Ana Ka Ha'aheo" [Let Pride Endure Forever]. The closing stanza is:

E ho'a kakou i ka lama kupono
No na hulu Hawai'i.
E kukulu a'e kakou no ke ea o ka 'aina
Me ke aloha a me ke ahonui.

Let's light the torch of justice
For the esteemed [ethnic] Hawaiian people.
Let's build sovereignty
With love and patience.

The melody is sweet, especially when sung by a group of 200 lovely 14-15 year old girls; but the words are filled with powerful determination. Apoliona wants to project an image of "love and patience" while using the $400 Million at her disposal to create a racist "nation." The sovereignty slogan of her dynasty at OHA is "Ho'oulu Lahui Aloha" which she officially translates as "To Build a Beloved Nation." She freely tosses around the magic word "aloha" to conceal the evil in her racist agenda. As long as everybody eventually knuckles under to her demands, she will treat them with love and patience.

Another example of abusing the magic word is the phrase "aloha 'aina." Superficially it means "love for the land," which is a beautiful sentiment. But it also means "patriotism" and is being used with that meaning today by Hawaiian independence activists as a salutation or greeting at the beginning of letters or speeches. The meaning is clear: we love our land -- and we demand you outsiders give it back to us.

The sovereignty of the Kingdom of Hawai'i was established through unimaginable violence. There were occasional outbursts of political violence during the Kingdom resulting in death; for example, following the 1874 election of King Kalakaua, and during the Wilcox rebellion of 1889. There was a bloody attempted counter-revolution a year after the virtually bloodless revolution of 1893 overthrew the monarchy.

Occasional acts of sovereignty-related violence have continued all the way until today, but on a small scale. Sovereignty-related violence is more than mere garden-variety racial violence, because it is distinguished by a coldly calculated political motive to work toward establishment of race-based control of government. For example, ethnic Hawaiian zealots demanded that only ethnic Hawaiians should be able to lead the Polynesian Voyaging Society and to participate as crew members in the revival of an important part of Hawaiian culture used as an icon of both racial pride and political sovereignty. There was extreme hostility directed toward Ben Finney, the white man who founded the Polynesian Voyaging Society in 1973, directed the construction of Hokule'a, and led the crew on Hokule'a's first long voyage to Tahiti in 1976. Finney doesn't say so, but the implication is that there was actual physical violence directed toward himself and other whites both on shore and during the voyage.

When the volcano erupts, fiery lava destroys all life in its path. After the lava cools and crusts over, the first flowers to grow are the red lehua blossoms sacred to Fire Goddess Pele. There may also be trees left standing because they were instantly turned into petrified wood by the lava's heat. There may be small "kipuka" -- areas of greenery that were surrounded by lava but escaped untouched. The survival of kipuka and the return of flowers herald a beginning of a healing of the land. But the fire keeps raging below the surface; and its future eruptions are not always predictable.

Will Hawaiian sovereignty zealots use violence to achieve their goals? There have already been threats of violence made so aggressively as to cause actual disruption and cancellation of events. Threats of violence are a form of actual violence when people are caused to change their behavior because of the threats. That already happened when a course was canceled under threat of violence at the University of Hawai'i in Fall 2002, and when a celebration of Statehood Day was unable to proceed in August 2006. Nobody actually got beaten up, but many people had well-founded fear that they were about to be assaulted.

There have also been threats of violence in the form of predictions by community leaders, elected politicians, and academics warning that unless the zealots get what they want there will be violence. On one hand it should be possible to have open and honest academic and friendly discussion of the possibility of violence, perhaps as a way of avoiding it. On the other hand, there's the mafia man in a business suit with a nasty-looking enforcer standing next to him. The man in the suit tells a restaurant owner in a very polite way that the owner would be well advised to hire the nasty enforcer to protect him because it's a bad neighborhood and nobody can predict what might happen otherwise.

Sometimes predictions of violence can be perceived as threats; and sometimes that is exactly how the people making the predictions intend their predictions to interpreted. "Reverend" Charles Kauluwehi Maxwell has used prediction of violence as a threat many times. Senator Akaka did that in his speech on the floor of the Senate introducing the Akaka bill on January 17, 2007. People who make predictions of violence for the purpose of making a threat say "It's not a threat, it's a warning that if things don't go the way I want them to there will be violence." They say it's not a threat, only a warning. But no. It's a threat.

On one hand it's a good thing to study this issue in an academic setting and to have open and candid discussions about it. On the other hand, putting that information out for public attention in the newspaper can be interpreted as threatening the general public that they'd better give ethnic Hawaiians what is demanded "or else." How would one spouse feel if the other spouse, during a period of marital discord, says "Honey, I think we should find out all about the laws regarding divorce, and what happens to the money and the kids afterward." Would that be simply an interesting intellectual exercise, or a topic for lighthearted banter? Or would it be perceived as a threat?



The Hawaiian islands came into existence through volcanic eruption. Today's geological theory says there is a volcanic "hot spot" under the floor of the Pacific Ocean that has moved slowly from west to east over a period of millions of years. Or perhaps the earth's tectonic plates have been moving from east to west over a fixed volcanic hot spot, creating the illusion that the hot spot has been moving from west to east. In any event, the oldest islands in the Hawaiian chain are in the west. Hawai'i Island (the "Big Island") at the eastern end of the archipelago is the youngest island to emerge above the surface. A new island is in the process of forming underwater to the east of Hawai'i Island, and has been named "Lo'ihi." Mauna Loa on Hawai'i island has been quiet for a long time; but Kilauea has been pumping out lava continuously for many years at various rates, sometimes violently.

The first Polynesian settlers probably arrived in Hawai'i sometime around 400 AD. Years ago anthropologists guessed the first settlers arrived by accident on rafts. But during the past three decades it has become fashionable to say they arrived on voyaging canoes designed for exploration and colonization, packed with plants and animals intended for propagation in their new lands. The first settlers apparently came from the Marquesas islands, and had a peaceful and egalitarian social system.

But around 1300-1400 a new wave of invaders arrived from Tahiti bringing a highly stratified ali'i social caste system, a feudal land ownership system, a new religion featuring strict taboos and human sacrifice, and the war god. The invaders either exterminated the previous settlers or else subjugated them as slaves.

As the years went by there came to be constant warfare. Perhaps warfare happened because of competitiveness and prideful seeking of power, or perhaps warfare was the natural result of a growing population competing for limited usable land and resources. No warrior chief was able to gain control of all eight major Hawaiian islands during ancient times; perhaps because the weapons were primitive, because each island was divided by rough mountain-and-valley terrain, and because it was hard to build enough canoes to successfully invade a different island.

Captain Cook arrived at Kaua'i and Ni'ihau in January 1778, engaged in a little trading, and sailed north for a year. In January and February, 1779 he returned, this time to Maui and Hawai'i Island, where he landed at Kealakekua Bay. In January of 1779 it was Makahiki, a season of peace; Cook was treated as the Makahiki god Lono. During January a young warrior chief Kamehameha accompanied his local King, Kalaniopu'u, on a visit to Captain Cook's ship. Kamehameha took a look around and saw huge amounts of a very rare commodity -- metal. He saw metal knives, and thought of warfare. Later he saw guns and the ship's cannons being fired and killing substantial numbers of natives during disputes over items the natives had stolen. Guns and cannons had never been seen before in Hawai'i. Kamehameha envisioned how he could use them as weapons of mass destruction against his enemies who possessed only clubs and wooden spears.

As the years went by, two trends intersected: traders and military vessels made port calls, arriving from England, Russia, and France; and Kamehameha became a more powerful chief and began to fulfill his destiny. He made friends with visiting ship captains, merchants, naval officers, and diplomats. He was successful in acquiring knives, guns, a cannon, and an oceangoing ship. Kamehameha kidnapped two British sailors Isaac Davis and John Young during a dispute. But as time went by they "went native," staying on voluntarily, becoming important military advisers, and teaching Kamehameha how to use his new weapons most effectively.

Kamehameha did what nobody had ever done in 1500 years of Hawaiian history -- he killed all his enemies and took over all the Hawaiian islands, unifying them under his own rule. He was able to do that only because he was the first chief to acquire modern weapons of mass destruction, and the services of two British sailors who knew how to use them. Kamehameha rampaged through battlegrounds and villages killing thousands of enemy soldiers, villagers, and families. The famous Battle of "Kepaniwai" in 'Iao Valley, Maui got that name because the guns and cannon killed so many men that their dead bodies "dammed up the flow of the river." The last great battle was at Nu'uanu Pali on O'ahu, where Kamehameha slowly encircled a large enemy army forcing them uphill, using guns and a cannon to kill many. At the top he forced the remaining enemy soldiers over the edge of a high cliff. Here is the famous oil painting by artist Herb Kane depicting that event:

During his wars against other chiefs, Kamehameha also used the religious implications of human sacrifice for political purposes. In a prophecy he was told that if he would build Hawai'i's largest heiau at Pu'ukohola (a hill on Hawai'i Island near Kawaihae) he would be assured of conquering all Hawai'i. Having built the heiau, he then invited his most important enemy at the time, Chief Keoua of the Hawai'i Island district of Ka'u, to attend the dedication ceremony. As the canoes carrying Keoua and his men approached the shore in sight of Pu'ukohola, Kamehameha gave orders to slaughter them all. Keoua and his chiefs were used as human sacrifices to consecrate the great heiau to the war god and ensure Kamehameha's victory in the bloody conquests ahead.

Before 1810 Kamehameha had conquered all the islands except Kaua'i and Ni'ihau. He had tried twice to launch an invasion of Kaua'i from O'ahu, but both attempts had failed: one because of a storm and one because a devastating illness incapacitated his men. As Kamehameha was making preparations for a third attempt, the very credible threat of invasion earned Kamehameha a bloodless victory. Kaumuali'i, King of Kaua'i and Ni'ihau, having heard about the slaughter on other islands, agreed to "peacefully" acknowledge Kamehameha as King. Thus warfare ended and Kamehameha now held absolute power over a unified Kingdom encompassing all the Hawaiian islands.

For the remaining 9 years of his life, until his death in 1819, there was relative peace and prosperity. There were a few low-key skirmishes between Kaumuali'i and Kamehameha's men as Kaumuali'i occasionally tried to reassert control over Kaua'i, sometimes with the help of military agents from Russia who envisioned Kaua'i as a Russian colony in the Pacific. But Kamehameha's threats of violence against both Kaumuali'i and the Russians caused the Russians to leave Hawai'i, and Kaumuali'i to stand down.

Hawaiians observed that Kamehameha's threat to invade Kaua'i had caused Kaumuali'i to surrender before any blood was actually shed. Later they observed that Kamehameha's warning to Kaumuali'i and the Russians had caused the Russians to leave and Kaumuali'i to knuckle under once again. Thus Hawaiians learned that the threat of violence can accomplish the same result as actual violence and at much lower cost -- a lesson still remembered today by "Reverend" Charles Kauluwehi Maxwell, Rod Ferreira, and Senator Akaka; as noted below.



Shortly after the death of Kamehameha the Great his son Liholiho Kamehameha II, together with Kamehameha's favorite wife Ka'ahumanu, abolished the old religion by publicly violating the important taboo against men and women eating together. They ordered the destruction of all the heiau and burning of the wooden idols. But some diehard deadenders refused to let go of the old religion. Kekuaokalani, leader of the resistance, was headquartered at Pu'uhonua O Honaunau, the famous city of refuge which was a profoundly spiritual place and is now a national park. The new King had his capitol at Kailua Kona, where portions of the royal compound still survive on the grounds of the King Kamehameha Hotel. The King marched against Kekuaokalani, meeting in battle at Kuamo'o. Kekuaokalani, with his wife fighting alongside him, and their supporters, were all killed. The destruction of the temples and idols of the old religion continued under orders from the King and his regent stepmother Ka'ahumanu.

A few months later the Christian missionaries from New England miraculously arrived at just the right historical moment, bringing a written language and a new religion. The new religion fostered the development of a Western-style Constitutional monarchy with an independent judiciary and elected House of Representatives. There was peace and prosperity for many years, until the end of the Kamehameha dynasty.

Lot Kamehameha V died without naming a successor. The Legislature elected William Charles Lunalilo to be the next King, defeating the candidacy of David Kalakaua. But Lunalilo died a year later, also without naming a successor. Kalakaua ran a lengthy campaign against Dowager Queen Emma, wife of Alexander Liholiho Kamehameha IV (and granddaughter of John Young). In the end, Kalakaua won the election by bribing many Legislators and giving alcohol to some. As soon as the results were announced from the balcony of the Legislature, supporters of Emma began rioting in the streets outside. A carriage was smashed and its pieces were used as clubs. Rioters entered the building and severely beat some of the Legislators. One Representative was thrown out a second-floor window and later died from injuries. Troops were called ashore from both a British and an American ship in the harbor to put down the rioting; and they continued to patrol the streets for many days.

The election battle between Emma and Kalakaua had many overtones, both religious/cultural and political. Emma was a granddaughter of Englishman John Young, so she was only 3/4 native Hawaiian and her genealogy was thus sullied from a perspective of the old religion. Kalakaua took advantage of that by hiring a genealogist to twist the Kumulipo creation legend to trace Kalakaua's lineage as descended from the gods. Emma was closely aligned with England in the struggle between England and America for dominance in Hawai'i, whereas Kalakaua was aligned with America. If Emma had won, chances are good that there would have been no sugar reciprocity treaty between the U.S. and Hawai'i, no ceding of Pearl Harbor, and perhaps eventually no annexation of Hawai'i to the U.S. Instead of Kalakaua traveling to Japan to recruit sugar plantation workers, Emma would have probably imported the workers from the British colony of India, just as Fiji did. Thus Hawai'i today might very well have a huge population of Asian Indians rather than Japanese, and their religion would probably be Hindu and Muslim rather than Buddhist, Shinto, and Christian. Emma herself was strongly Christian, oriented toward the Church of England and its Episcopalian offshoot; whereas Kalakaua as King took steps to revive the ancient Hawaiian religion including sacred hula, sorcery, and Hawaiian language. Thus the rioting following Kalakaua's election was not merely the usual violence sometimes perpetrated by "sore losers" around the world. The Kalakaua vs. Emma election was far more profound than that, focused on the nature of Hawaiian sovereignty and whether Hawai'i would remain an independent nation enfolded in the British Commonwealth or would become part of the United States.



On January 16, 2007 the East-West Center in Honolulu hosted a gala bash. The $12 ticket included a panel discussion and pupus (hors d'oeuvres). The purpose was to crown Hawai'i's Queen Lili'uokalani as a hero in the pantheon of non-violent resistance. The cover of a fancy brochure featured three photos: Queen Lili'uokalani, Dr. Martin Luther King, and Mahatma Gandhi.

The event was orchestrated by Hawaiian sovereignty zealots. Also participating were leftwing leaders of the Hawai'i chapter of the NAACP, and "peace studies" activists. For several years the Hawaiian sovereignty folks have collaborated with the NAACP to jointly celebrate the Martin Luther King holiday (this year January 15) and the anniversary of the January 17, 1893 overthrow of Queen Lili'uokalani.

Of course the word "celebrate" applies only to MLK. It would be politically incorrect to celebrate the overthrow of a corrupt and ineffective monarch who nowadays is an icon of racial pride and resistance to U.S. imperialism. Her statue stands overlooking the Hawai'i state capitol building. 365 days a year Hawaiian activists stop by to place fresh flowers in her hand, around her neck, or at her feet; often accompanied by prayers. On important political occasions red-shirted Hawaiian sovereignty zealots stage mass marches (10,000-20,000 strong) from her tomb about two miles away to 'Iolani Palace (right behind her statue).

First let's briefly review what happened 114 years ago that gives today's activists an excuse for saying she practiced non-violence. Then we'll review two other events showing that she did indeed participate in violence, and was nothing like Martin Luther King or Mahatma Gandhi.

All factual information below about the events of 1893 (including comments about the Blount appointment and Blount Report) is documented in the Morgan Report. This was the 808-page report of the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs in 1894, which investigated the U.S. role in the revolution of 1893 and repudiated the Blount Report. The committee held hearings for two months, in open session, taking testimony under oath with cross-examination.
See also "Was the 1893 overthrow of the monarchy illegal?" at

On January 17, 1893 a local militia of several hundred armed men took over the Government Building of the Kingdom of Hawai'i, and other important buildings in Honolulu. They proclaimed the end of the monarchy, and set up a Provisional Government which later became the Republic of Hawai'i. They acted on behalf of a mass meeting of 1500 local men a few days before. Most of them had also been involved in a previous quasi-revolution in 1887 which forced then-King Kalakaua to proclaim a new Constitution reducing him to figurehead status. This time they finally abolished the monarchy once and for all. Within two days the Provisional Government was recognized by the local consuls of all the foreign nations which had diplomatic relations with the Kingdom of Hawai'i. Later, after the Republic of Hawai'i was created with a Constitution and elected legislature, formal diplomatic recognitions came from the capitols. No nation ever protested the overthrow to either the government of Hawai'i or the government of the United States.

The excuse for comparing Lili'uokalani with Martin Luther King or Mahatma Gandhi is this. As the revolution unfolded in 1893, the Queen made a decision not to fight. She had few men with military training, and much of her arms and ammunition had already been captured where they were previously stored, in the Government Building. She surrendered. There was only one minor injury when a royalist policeman was shot while trying to stop a wagonload of rifles headed for the Government Building (the following day leaders of the revolution visited him in the hospital to apologize and wish him well).

The Queen's document of surrender was a carefully written piece of political shrewdness. Rather than surrender to the local militia who had actually defeated her, she wrote: "I yield to the superior force of the United States of America whose Minister Plenipotentiary, His Excellency John L. Stevens, has caused United States troops to be landed at Honolulu and declared that he would support the said Provisional Government. Now to avoid any collision of armed forces, and perhaps the loss of life, I do under this protest and impelled by said force yield my authority until such time as the Government of the United States shall upon the facts being presented to it undo the action of its representative and reinstate me in the authority which I claim as the Constitutional Sovereign of the Hawaiian Islands." But interestingly, she ordered her "temporary" surrender letter to be delivered to the Provisional Government rather than to U.S. Minister Stevens. She clearly knew who had defeated her. She hoped to buy time to appeal to a friendly nation far away which might undo the revolution, rather than surrender permanently to her close-up opponents.

Why did she surrender to the U.S.? Who were the United States troops she was referring to?

For several days before January 17 there had been great political upheaval. The Queen had used bribery and threats to push several highly controversial bills through the legislature (lottery, distillery, and opium licensing). She then permanently adjourned the legislature. Immediately thereafter she announced she would unilaterally proclaim a new Constitution. A mass meeting of 1500 revolutionaries at the armory competed against a mass meeting of about half that many royalists at the Palace. There were rumors of impending riots and arson to be directed by ethnic Hawaiians against the homes, businesses and families of the revolutionaries. The anticipated violence had a racial character because most of the revolutionaries were Caucasians of European and American ancestry (many of whom were locally born or naturalized subjects of the Hawaiian Kingdom with full voting rights).

On several occasions of political upheaval in previous years, U.S. and British navy personnel had come ashore as peacekeepers (as was recently done in Liberia, for example). This time the only ship in Honolulu harbor was the USS Boston. Residents of American and European ancestry pleaded with Minister Stevens to land peacekeepers. He sent ashore 162 armed sailors. On their way to a suburban location to spend the night they passed by the Palace and dipped their flag in respect to the Queen. Some royalists assumed the peacekeepers would help them suppress the revolution. Some revolutionists assumed the peacekeepers would help them overthrow the monarchy. Minister Stevens gave orders they were to be strictly neutral; and indeed they were. Unable to stay in the suburb where they were headed, they ended up spending the night in a building in Honolulu on a side street out of sight of both the Palace and the Government Building. They stayed there throughout the revolution.

It turned out the U.S. peacekeepers were not needed because the local militia was strong and the Queen chose not to fight. The peacekeepers did not fire a shot. They did not take over any building or arrest the Queen. They did not surround the Palace or Government Building. They did not patrol the streets. But their presence gave the Queen the excuse she needed to blame the revolution on the U.S., to surrender allegedly to the U.S., and to appeal to President Grover Cleveland to restore her to the throne.

President Cleveland was a personal friend of the Queen. He came into office shortly after the revolution. He immediately sent a political hatchet man, James Blount, to Honolulu as "Minister Plenipotentiary with paramount powers," but Cleveland never submitted Blount's appointment to the Senate for confirmation. Cleveland gave Blount secret instructions to destabilize the Provisional Government and to write a one-sided report which Cleveland could use in a political effort to stop annexation. After Blount left town Cleveland sent another diplomat, who "ordered" the Provisional Government to step down and restore the Queen. They refused. Cleveland submitted the matter to Congress, probably hoping Congress might authorize troops to put the Queen back on the throne. The U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs held hearings in open session with sworn testimony under cross examination. The resulting 808-page "Morgan Report" thoroughly discredited the Blount Report, and confirmed that the Hawaiian revolution had been done by the local militia. The Senate then passed two resolutions saying that neither the U.S. (i.e., Grover Cleveland) nor any other nation should interfere with Hawai'i's internal affairs.

Lili'uokalani did not meet the fate of other monarchs who were overthrown. The French aristocracy got their heads chopped off by guillotine, while the Russian Tsar and his entire family were shot. Instead, Lili'uokalani was escorted to her private home a block from the Palace. The Provisional Government paid her (former) Royal Guard to protect her from possible assassination. Later she showed her gratitude by conspiring in the Wilcox attempted counter-revolution, and then by going to Washington to lobby against the treaty of annexation offered by the Republic of Hawai'i in 1897. She lived in that same private home a block from her former Palace until 1917. Meanwhile the Palace became the Capitol of the Territory of Hawai'i and then the State of Hawai'i until 1968, with the legislature meeting in the former throne room while the U.S. flag flew proudly over the building.

Now let's briefly compare Lili'uokalani, King, and Gandhi on the issue of non-violent resistance, to show that King and Gandhi do not deserve to have their reputations smeared by association with her.

The only thing Lili'uokalani, King, and Gandhi share is being imprisoned by governments headed by Caucasians.

In 1889 Lili'uokalani had conspired with Robert Wilcox in a coup attempt against her brother, King Kalakaua. Seven men were killed and the Palace bungalow was blown up. Was that non-violence? Some court testimony regarding the Wilcox rebellion of 1889 is found in the Morgan Report. See especially the "Morgan's gem" #5 "Wilcox Rebellion 1889 and Dueling Palace Coup Plots" at _Gems#Wilcox_Rebellion_1889_and_Dueling_Palace_Coup_Plots
See also Ernest Andrade, Jr., "Unconquerable Rebel: Robert W. Wilcox and Hawaiian Politics, 1880-1903 (University Press of Colorado, 1996). 299 pages including extensive footnotes. ISBN: 0-87081-417-6. Ken Conklin's extensive notes on that book are at

In the 1893 revolution Lili'uokalani surrendered without a fight as a cynical strategic move. She wanted to buy time in hopes her friend Grover Cleveland, who would become President a few weeks later, would use U.S. power to put her back on the throne. A Queen sitting in her Palace giving up without a fight in the face of an armed revolution does not make her a practitioner of non-violent resistance or satyagraha.

During the Summer and Fall of 1893 President Cleveland's emissary to Hawai'i tried hard to persuade Lili'uokalani to agree to pardon the revolutionaries if they would step down and restore her to the throne. But she reportedly said she would behead them. The emissary returned on another occasion and asked whether she would reconsider. She insisted the revolutionaries must die. Her repeated insistence on bloodthirsty revenge caused Cleveland's emissary to back away from making further suggestions to her. In a last-ditch effort in December he "ordered" Provisional Government President Dole to step down and restore the Queen, but Dole (understandably!) refused. Lili'uokalani's insistence on bloodthirsty revenge, even to the extent of destroying efforts at mediation, is certainly not the way a practitioner of nonviolence should behave.

Martin Luther King and Mahatma Gandhi both put their lives on the line numerous times in the face of violence directed against them close-up-and-personal. King and Gandhi understood a profound spiritual principle that allowed them to harness the inner core of goodness found buried deep inside even the worst racist. They walked in front of their enemies, knowing they would be beaten and abused; but also knowing that their enemies' inner core would rise to the surface and eventually convert them (or at least convert onlookers) to friends.

In 1895 Lili'uokalani again conspired with Wilcox in the 1895 attempted counter-revolution. Guns and bombs were hidden in the flower bed at her home (Washington Place). She had already written letters of appointment for cabinet ministers and department heads in her anticipated new government. Historian Gavan Daws describes it this way (Gavan Daws, "Shoal of Time" Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press, 1974, pp. 282-283): "The grounds of her home at Washington Place were searched, and in the garden the searchers found what they were looking for -- a regular ammunition dump; twenty-one bombs, some of them made with coconut shells; more than thirty rifles; thirty-eight cartridge belts and about a thousand rounds of ammunition; and some pistols and swords." See also the Andrade book, above.

For that violent crime, and to provide deterrence for royalists who might try it again, she was justifiably sentenced to prison. Martin Luther King's "crime" was parading without a permit. Gandhi's "crime" was going to the ocean to gather salt. Neither of them had guns and bombs at home or anywhere else.

Martin Luther King's prison was a small dirty dungeon with bars and snarling guard dogs. Lili'uokalani's "prison" was a huge room at ''Iolani Palace, larger than most peoples' two bedroom apartments today. In her Palace room she had a full-time maidservant. She also had lots of arts and crafts supplies to pursue her hobbies -- she made a quilt containing royalist political symbols, and composed songs with political double meanings. The quilt today is displayed with reverence right where she sewed it, and the songs are played at sovereignty rallies.

Lili'uokalani was head of a multiracial government, but she used her great political power primarily to pursue racial supremacy. She tried to proclaim a new Constitution to grab near-dictatorial powers for herself. There were reports that her new Constitution would allow voting rights only for ethnic Hawaiians. Portions of the alleged contents of the new Constitution proposed by Lili'uokalani in January 1893 were published in a royalist newspaper Ka Makaainana: Vol. 1, No. 21 (21 May 1894): page 4. Article 62 seems to set forth a racial restriction of voting for ethnic Hawaiians exclusively: "Pauku 62. O na kupa wale no ke hiki ke koho balota, a hoemiia mai hoi ke ana waiwai e kupono ai o na poe koho." Lili'uokalani frequently used the phrase "my people" to refer to her race rather than her multiracial subjects. That attitude is probably a big part of the reason why she was overthrown. By contrast, King and Gandhi never held government power, and did not seek it. Most importantly, King and Gandhi created lofty universal principles of multiracial unity and equality; and they harnessed a profound spiritual power which Lili'uokalani never imagined.

Shame on Hawaiian sovereignty zealots for debasing the memories of Martin Luther King and Mahatma Gandhi by comparing them to Lili'uokalani. Shame on Hawaiian sovereigntists for trying to gather public support for Lili'uokalani as a way of pushing racial supremacy either through the Akaka bill or through secession. And shame on the Hawaiian independence activists who speak with forked tongue, on one side glorifying non-violence while on the other side threatening violence to intimidate school children and adults at the Hawai'i Statehood Day celebration on August 18, 2006. For a compilation of news reports and commentaries about the disruption of the Hawai'i Statehood Day celebration on August 18, 2006, see:

For a collection of commentaries and letters to editor in 2006 and previous years regarding the comparison of Lili'uokalani with Martin Luther King, see: "Dr. Martin Luther King Vs. Queen Lili'uokalani" at:



From 1895 through 1975 there were no noteworthy incidents of Hawaiian sovereignty violence. The anti-annexation petitions of 1887 were gathered peacefully and presented to the U.S. Senate. The transfer of power in 1898 at 'Iolani Palace was apparently not marred by protests, as most royalists stayed home. From 1900 to about 1930 ethnic Hawaiians were busy doing what all ethnic groups do, organizing politically to get land, money, and power. Hawai'i's first two Territorial Delegates to Congress were ethnic Hawaiians, elected by large Hawaiian voting majorities --firebrand racist Robert Wilcox, and heir-apparent to the throne Prince Jonah Kuhio Kalaniana'ole. Kuhio succeeded in passing the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act in 1921 setting aside 203,500 acres of land for racially exclusionary Hawaiian Homelands.

The Territorial Legislature was dominated by ethnic Hawaiians, whose numbers slowly eroded as the decades went by, partly because whites moved to Hawai'i from the mainland, but mostly because Asians who had already immigrated finally acquired the right to become citizens and vote. Then Asians began immigrating more rapidly. These changes happened slowly, and without sovereignty-related violence. Indeed, most residents of Hawai'i including most ethnic Hawaiians did not have the word "sovereignty" in their vocabulary. Those who did spoke the word only privately and in hushed tones, much like the word "violence" is spoken today in the context of sovereignty. It simply was not discussed in polite society, and was hardly ever thought about.



On the continent "colored people" or "Negroes" began to search for their historical roots and began their civil rights movement. They changed their label to "Blacks" and then "African Americans." Rosa Parks defied the law in Alabama, refusing to give her seat on the bus to a white man. Her arrest sparked a bus boycott, lunch counter sit-ins, large rallies and marches from Birmingham to Montgomery, and eventually the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act of the mid-1960s. A radical and militant Malcolm X, and the Black Panthers, struggled with Martin Luther King, the Urban League, and the NAACP to see who would win the allegiance of Negroes. King won the hearts and minds of most Negroes and, eventually, of most Americans in general. Today desegregation and full civil rights is the law, ethnic Africans actually have "affirmative action" preferences to such an extent that whites and Asians are complaining, and "Martin Luther King Day" is a national holiday. African-Americans are chairing several important committees in Congress; African-Americans have served consecutively as Secretary of State (Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice); and Barack Obama is a leading candidate for President enjoying huge multiracial rallies of enthusiastic supporters.

Hawai'i often lags the mainland by 10-20 years. That's what happened as ethnic Hawaiians followed the lead of ethnic Africans in using rallies and protest demonstrations. The early to mid 1970s saw repeated occupations of Kaho'olawe by ethnic Hawaiians protesting the military's use of the island as a practice-bombing target. Gradually a "back to the roots" cultural movement unfolded including revival of hula, restoration of ancient heiau and fishponds, rebuilding of taro lo'i, and renewed interest in Hawaiian language. A state Constitutional Convention was held in 1978, resulting in the creation of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, an increased empowerment of the Department of Hawaiian Homelands, a recognition of Hawaiian as an official language along with English, and a formulation of "native gathering rights" which became significant in the later PASH decision. Ethnic Hawaiians have served as Governor, U.S. Senator, and judges; as well as state senators and representatives. There are over 160 racially exclusionary federally funded programs benefitting them, as well as the $8-15 Billion Kamehameha schools, Hawaiian Homelands, "host culture" charter schools, Hawaiian language immersion schools, etc; to the extent that people lacking a drop of native blood are complaining of being second-class citizens. All those things were accomplished without violence.

But actual violence has occasionally reared its head in the Hawaiian sovereignty movement during the past three decades. Threats of violence are now being made more publicly and more aggressively, including recent threats from highly regarded community leaders and public officials whose carefully cultivated image of gentleness belies the clear implications in their words. Ethnic Hawaiians have far more government and private handouts per capita than African-Americans; and far greater levels of group political power. It seems that great success breeds a strong drive for even greater success. Like an alcoholic, drug addict, power-hungry politician, or serial killer whose "scoring" of success creates an insatiable desire to score even greater success. Like a shark who smells blood in the water, takes a bite out of its prey, and then goes into a feeding frenzy.

At first the radicals in the Black civil rights movement pursued racial separatism and ethnic nationalism under the leadership of Malcolm X, Bobby Seale, the Black Panthers, and proposals for a Nation of New Africa. But as time went by most African-Americans followed the lead of Martin Luther King and worked toward full integration. Only a relatively small hard-core radical fringe today remains committed to the separatist (actually, supremacist) teachings of Elijah Muhammad, Minister Farrakhan, and the Nation of Islam. Unfortunately the leaders of the Hawaiian sovereignty movement seem headed in this latter direction, either through the separatist agenda of the Akaka bill or through the ethnic nationalist independence movement. Ethnic Hawaiians have far more economic success and political power today than African-Americans. Most of them probably don't want either the Akaka bill or independence. Yet the radicals get all the attention because there's nothing exciting about being happy with full integration. The radicals are on a feeding frenzy and will not stop unless everyday Hawaiians publicly refuse to follow them, or their leadership initiatives are decisively defeated by the larger society.



In 2003 Ben Finney published "Sailing in the Wake of the Ancestors: Reviving Polynesian Voyaging." He was the white man who founded the Polynesian Voyaging Society in 1973, directed the construction of Hokule'a, and led the crew on Hokule'a's first long voyage to Tahiti in 1976. In the book Finney describes how ethnic Hawaiian zealots demanded that only ethnic Hawaiians should be able to lead the Polynesian Voyaging Society and to participate as crew members in the revival of an important part of Hawaiian culture used as an icon of both racial pride and political sovereignty. Finney doesn't say so, but the implication is that there was actual physical violence directed toward himself and other whites both on shore and during the voyage. Rumors to that effect have been circulating in Hawai'i for 30 years. See: "Polynesian" Voyaging -- Political Agenda, Ethnic Dominance, Cultural Authenticity, and Blood Nationalism. An extended book review of Ben Finney, "Sailing in the Wake of the Ancestors: Reviving Polynesian Voyaging"

Finney himself places this topic squarely at the beginning and end of his book, and discusses it at numerous places in between. When reading the book for the first time, topics are covered in an order that is roughly chronological, and it's hard to see the ocean for the swells (the forrest for the trees). But when reading the book a second time, knowing all the pieces of the picture, it's easy to see that the topic of ethnic dominance is a consistent focus of his narrative.

Finney, a mainland scholar with many years of residence and work in Hawai'i, has always believed in the "liberal" or "social justice" concept that ethnic Hawaiians are the indigenous people of Hawai'i who are entitled to special rights in their ancestral homeland. Hawaiians are the hosts, and everyone else is merely a guest. He and other whites who founded PVS and led the first voyage to Tahiti were subjected to blatant, shocking anti-white racism by onshore Hawaiian nationalist radicals and some Hawaiian crew members who went "on strike" during the voyage, did no work, and made life miserable for everyone else. The first voyage to Tahiti was emotionally disastrous, resulting in the resignation of Finney and of the thoroughly disgusted expert Micronesian navigator Mau Piailug. The second voyage was physically disastrous. It was ill-conceived, racially exclusionary, and operated without any advice from the original crew. In less than 24 hours the Hokule'a capsized. Eddie Aikau died while trying to paddle his surfboard to shore in a storm across many miles of open ocean to get help (yes, this is the Eddie about whom today's many bumper stickers say "Eddie would go").

Nevertheless, Finney rebounded from those troubling experiences and came to feel even more strongly as the years went by that the role of haoles (whites) and other people lacking Hawaiian ancestry is to give help tirelessly but always to defer to the inherent "right" of ethnic Hawaiians to exercise cultural and political leadership. Finney is the sort of haole the activists love. He knows his place. In the eyes of some activists, a "good haole" is what Arnold Schwarzenegger would call a "girlie man." He functions like a stereotypical abused housewife who seems to enjoy the abuse: cleaning house, cooking, and doing laundry all day; and getting beaten up repeatedly by her husband at night. But she is glad to have the security of a home where she knows who is boss. She loves her husband because he is strong and runs the show.

Here's what Finney says about racial strife on that first voyage.

Hokule'a was launched in 1975, followed by a year of training and practice. Its first voyage was to Tahiti in May 1976 (2250 miles). The captain was Elia "Kawika" Kapahulehua of Ni'ihau, assisted by experienced Tahitian sea captain Rodo Williams. Also on board was the now famous Pius "Mau" Piailug of Satawal, Micronesia, a master navigator expert in "methods similar to those once used in Polynesia." (page 9). Upon arrival in Tahiti, Hokule'a was greeted by 15,000 people. Now quoting from pages 10-11 of Finney's book, for the remainder of this section:

"Yet when Hokule'a tied up in Tahiti, the Polynesian Voyaging Society was deeply troubled. We had planned our endeavor as an effort in cultural revival as well as an experiment in voyaging. ... That vision proved to be naive. As soon as we launched the canoe and began sailing her around the archipelago in preparation for the long voyage to Tahiti, some highly vocal protesters started campaigning to take over in the name of Hawaiian nationalism.

"That Herb Kane had designed Hokule'a and supervised her construction, Kawika Kapahulehua was the captain, and Hawaiians made up the majority of the crew was not enough. They objected to having any non-Hawaiians on Hokule'a, as well as to the research purpose of the canoe and even to sailing her to Tahiti. Having me, a haole professor, leading what they thought should be an exclusively Hawaiian endeavor was particularly galling. ... So great was their appeal among some Hawaiians, including more than a few crew members, that for a while it looked like the project might dissolve in controversy. The society's board of directors was split, and Herb, caught in the middle and in financial trouble for having neglected his profession to work on the canoe, resigned. Nonetheless, with the timely intervention of several farsighted Hawaiians we did manage to set sail -- but not before having to endure a final dockside protest replete with fiery denunciations, placards, and television news cameras.

"Despite hopes that we had left the troubles on shore, they erupted again at sea. Two weeks into the voyage a half dozen novice crew members (out of a total crew of fifteen) went on strike. After denouncing "the leaders" for overworking and underfeeding them, they quit standing watch and spent the rest of the voyage eating, sleeping, smoking foul-smelling hand rolled cigarettes, and generally making life difficult for those of us who were actually sailing the canoe. We kicked them off the crew upon landing, but Mau Piailug and Tommy Holmes nonetheless quit in disgust. Although the young Hawaiian men and women flown down from Honolulu to replace the striking crew members did a fine job on the return leg, the damage had already been done. Deeply chagrined that I had not been able to head off the troubles, I resigned the presidency of the Polynesian Voyaging Society after reaching Hawai'i ...

"Although the new leaders of the Society had some success in using Hokule'a for education, the troubles left over from the voyage continued to have a baleful influence. In order to clear the air they decided to sail the canoe back to Tahiti in 1978 on their own. Unfortunately, the new crew lacked the experience of such masters from the first voyage as Kawika Kapahulehua, Mau Piailug, and Rodo Williams, and had not even bothered to ask their advice. At midnight, six hours after departing from Honolulu, Hokule'a capsized while sailing hard into gale force winds and mounting seas. The following day champion surfer Eddie Aikau was lost in a valiant attempt to paddle his surfboard to shore to summon help. At dusk the canoe's overturned hulls were finally spotted from a passing airliner just as the winds and accompanying currents were pushing the wreckage southwest away from the islands. That night the Coast Guard rescued the rapidly weakening survivors, and the next day a cutter towed the canoe back to Honolulu."


Honolulu Star-Bulletin, August 13, 1998

Comedian arrested for theft

Gubernatorial candidate and local comedian Bu La'ia was arrested yesterday for allegedly stealing an 18-year-old's surfboard.

The arrest is his second in less than a month.

Kaui Hill, better known as Bu La'ia, was arrested near Sandy Beach at about 5 p.m., police said.

He reportedly stomped and threw a rock at the teen's surfboard.

He said, "You took my land, so I'm taking your board," according to a police report.

Hill, 32, reportedly took the board into the waters and was arrested when he came out. He faces felony theft charges.

Hill was also arrested July 28 for allegedly damaging a sticker vending machine at the International Market Place in Waikiki. He was released following psychiatric examinations at Queen's Hospital.

The comedian is running for governor as a Green Party candidate. However, the party has disavowed Hill, saying he isn't a party member and failed to go through its candidate-screening process.

[Note from Ken Conklin: Bu La'ia received about 8,000 votes]



The Reverend Charles Kauluwehi Maxwell Senior, often called simply "Uncle Charlie," is sometimes also called the Rev. Al Sharpton of Hawai'i. Maxwell, like Sharpton, demands racial reparations in the present for racial grievances from a distant past. He (ab)uses a position of trust within his ethnic community, and a title indicating spirituality, to try to extort concessions from others.

Below are three items: (a) a published newspaper article reporting a speech Maxwell gave at the Honolulu Rotary Club on April 5, 2000 warning that ethnic Hawaiians might go back to their warrior ways unless they get what they want; (b) a published "viewpoint" essay Maxwell wrote himself on June 26, 2002 repeating the same threat more than two years later; and (c) a reply by Ken Conklin published on June 29, 2002.

The Honolulu Advertiser, Wednesday, April 5, 2000

Hawaiian 'warriors' possible, activist says

By Walter Wright
Advertiser Staff Writer

Hawaiian activist Charles Maxwell warned yesterday that Hawaiians once were warriors and could become warriors again if no one listens to their concerns.

Maxwell took his people's cause to a middle-class crowd of predominantly haole members of the Rotary Club at their luncheon in Waikiki.

Maxwell, a Maui resident who is chairman of the Hawaii Advisory Committee to the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, said he pledged allegiance to the flag at the luncheon but refused to sing "God Bless America" because he considered what America had done to Hawaii Ñ from the overthrow of the monarchy through annexation and statehood Ñ to be "despicable."

He received 10 seconds of polite applause and one question after his 23-minute talk at the Royal Hawaiian Hotel. Did he really think Hawaiians would be justified in becoming warriors again "if there is no redress?"

"I tell you what," Maxwell said, "I will be in the front of the line.

"I am trying my damnedest right now to use our congressional means, any way, because I don't want to go there, I really do not want to go there. My kids will suffer, my grandchildren will suffer, you will suffer, your grandchildren, everybody will suffer.

"I'm trying my damnedest not to go there. But if I am alive when the time comes, I will be on the front of the line."

Maxwell said his remarks were "not a threat."

"I started the Kahoolawe movement," he said, "I've been involved in many protests, been in the front of the line, I been there and done that. Answer your question?"

Island businessman Connie Conrad, 90, who moved to Honolulu in 1938, said he could not imagine creation of a sovereign Hawaiian nation as a solution to "a very deep, very complicated situation," nor could he imagine Hawaiians "becoming warriors" to obtain such a result.

There should be programs to help Hawaiians deal with the problems that Maxwell cited, including the worst education, health and crime statistics among all residents, said Conrad.

But, Conrad said, "The island people owe an awful lot to the United States of America. We could have been invaded here by the Japanese, and many Hawaiians could have been killed."

Maxwell urged his audience to "get involved in getting people down here to take care of us."

"We are in stress," he said. "We are only 250,000 worldwide, not a big amount of people, but the U.S. Civil Rights Commission is coming down here and we want to bring worldwide coverage, publicity, to this point of the Native Hawaiians, because everyone ... wants to come to Hawaii.

"If we want Hawaii to be the same, then we all got to prosper, not only the businessmen, not only the foreigners making big bucks and taking it back to Japan, China, whatever.É

"Always remember this: At one time our people were warriors. We do not want to go back to the days of being warriors."

Maxwell said: "Please, please help us. It is not a Hawaiian thing, it's all of our thing."


The Maui News
Wednesday, June 26, 2002
*** No permanent internet URL was available for Maui News articles in 2002

People of Hawaii should rise against attack on Hawaiian entitlements


John Goemans, with the use of the laws of America (The Maui News, June 22), is trying to add the list of na hewa (crimes) against the kanaka maoli, beginning when Capt. James Cook "stumbled" on these Hawaiian Islands 224 years ago.

Cook brought in all of the diseases known to modern man and decimated the Hawaiian race which had no immunity to these diseases. After the Hawaiian population had dwindled by one-third, enter the missionaries who completely overturned the culture and lifestyle of the kanaka maoli while establishing the Christian religion in Hawaii.

Because of the kindness of their hearts, the confusion of land tenure and the deceitfulness of some missionaries, their children and grandchildren, the kanaka maoli became alienated from Hawaiian lands.

Prince Kuhio and others, who saw how the Hawaiian race was slowly diminishing, created the Hawaiian Homes Act of 1920 to actually put the Hawaiian people back on the land. From the start, this act was meant to fail because one of the requirements of the act was that lands to be used would not be fit for agricultural purposes and would not contain water rights. It also was not funded.

William Hyde Rice, the great-grandfather of Freddie Rice, was elected a commissioner to set aside the land for the Hawaiian Homes Act. His son, Harold W. Rice, leased Hawaiian Homes Land in Waiohuli for 50 years at 25 cents an acre for the Rice Ranch. Efforts were made by the Hawaiian people to prevent a new lease of these lands, and today Hawaiian people are building on this land as lessees under the Hawaiian Homes Act.

The Hawaiian people suffer from the long list of social ills of Hawaii as a direct result of being colonized, and having their land, culture and identity taken away. Now the Goemans, Rices and others driving to take away all the entitlements of the Hawaiian people is the "straw that breaks the camels back."

As a kahu who has been involved in forefront of the Hawaiian movement for the last 30-plus years, I find it frightening to imagine what could happen. I cannot understand why business leaders are not up in arms against these people who want to create havoc for the tourist industry and all of the economy that depends on tourism.

These court actions attack the Hawaiian Homes Lands, Kamehameha Schools, Alu Like, Hawaiian language immersion programs, University of Hawaii, and many other institutions trying to help Hawaiians be self-sufficient. It is traumatic to us as native people of this land.

We all must remember that once we were warriors and as native people we cannot be continually attacked, culturally, socially and economically, without responding in a desperate manner

Just to show everyone in Hawaii and around the world that we mean business, every Hawaiian in these United States should conduct a one-day "brown out" by staying home and not going to work. Every Hawaiian in the islands and on the Mainland should stay at home for one day to show commitment to the cause of the Hawaiian people and how we are being attacked by the Goemans, Rices and all others who are trying to say that we are in violation of the Civil Rights Act.

What about everything that was done to us as Hawaiian people? Where were the American laws then? Are the laws of America only applied to people of color, and that if you're a lawyer who has influence with the Bush administration, you can stick it to the Hawaiian?

If this trend continues and Hawaiians are removed from their entitlements, I predict that the Hawaiian people will rebel and take to the streets, causing Hawaii's economy to drop like a lead weight. This is not a threat, it's reality. We can be pushed only so far.

Ku'e, kapo'e o Hawaii. ["Resist, Hawaiians"]

Charles Kauluwehi Maxwell Sr. is a consultant on Hawaiian culture. He lives in Pukalani.


The Maui News
Saturday, June 29, 2002
*** No permanent internet URL was available for Maui News articles in 2002

Hawaii should rise in defense of unity, equality and brotherhood


Kahu Charles K. Maxwell, an unordained reverend without a church, was given that usually honorable title by a former minister. Now he does a very dishonorable thing by threatening the people of Hawaii (Viewpoint, June 26).

He says if we don't knuckle under to his demands for racial entitlements and race-based political power, there will be trouble. Referring to people fighting for equality and unity, he says: "Now the Goemans, Rices and others driving to take away all the entitlements of the Hawaiian people is the 'straw that breaks the camels back.'" In other words, Maxwell is admitting he has a ton of racial entitlement programs already in place (more than 160 according to the Office of Hawaiian Affairs), and threatening that there will be trouble if everybody else gets to share these programs equally.

"We all must remember that once we were warriors and as native people we cannot be continually attacked . . . without responding in a desperate manner." Thus the reverend gives his flock forgiveness in advance for the violence he clearly threatens, on the grounds that they can't help themselves because it's something that runs in the blood of these warrior people.

It is clearly a threat when he warns: "This is not a threat, it's reality. We can be pushed only so far . . . I predict that the Hawaiian people will rebel and take to the streets, causing Hawaii's economy to drop like a lead weight." And then he urges Hawaiians to gear up for the inevitable confrontation by staging a one-day racial boycott for practice. This guy is a real piece of work!

Maxwell "cannot understand why business leaders are not up in arms against these people (Goemans, Rice, et al.)." Here's why. Business leaders understand the need for a level playing field. They do not want passage of the so-called Akaka bill, which would recognize Native Hawaiians as an Indian tribe and thus allow a checkerboard of special economic zones on all "tribal" lands where untaxed, unregulated businesses could compete against their heavily taxed and regulated neighbors.

Money for all those government programs Maxwell loves comes from taxes. The tax base will be destroyed when untaxed businesses drive out taxpaying businesses and when people focus their energy on grabbing government benefits rather than producing goods and services.

Native Hawaiians have a proud history and a chance for a wonderful future. Shall we follow Maxwell's path to Bosnia, Rwanda, Zimbabwe and Fiji - the path of racial separatism, bitterness, grievance, victimhood, and government wardship? Give Uncle Charlie the lei hala, hang his spear on the wall of a museum, and join hands as we move forward in unity, equality, and brotherhood.

Hawaii loa, kulike kakou, kupa'a me ka lokahi.

Kenneth R. Conklin, Ph.D, is a retired professor of philosophy and teacher of mathematics who has studied Hawaiian sovereignty issues for 10 years. He lives in Kaneohe on Oahu.



In late July or early August 2002 a "politically incorrect" course was listed in the small catalogue of an outreach program at the flagship Manoa campus of the University of Hawai'i (UH). Intimidation began the moment the course title and instructor's name were announced: "Hawaiian Sovereignty: Another Perspective" by Ken Conklin, Ph.D.

The outreach program, "Academy for Lifelong Learning," offered non-credit courses taught by unpaid volunteer instructors to students who are mostly elderly, including "retired" scholars. For a fee of $60, students could take up to three such courses each semester, with each course typically containing five weekly sessions of two hours each.

The instructor, Ken Conklin Ph.D., was well known among Hawaiian sovereignty activists as an outspoken opponent of their fundamental beliefs. Two years previously he had been part of a multiethnic group of thirteen plaintiffs who won a lawsuit allowing non-ethnic-Hawaiians to run for the state government position of trustee of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs; and following that court victory, he then became the first non-ethnic-Hawaiian ever to become a candidate for OHA trustee. He maintains a large website on Hawaiian sovereignty, strongly opposing both the Native Hawaiian Recognition bill and the ethnic nationalist independence movement.

After the course title and instructor's name were made public, there were several instances when the program director was intimidated in her office by one or another large Hawaiian-looking man demanding the course be canceled. He stomped noisily into the small office, stepped close to the tiny woman, shouted in her face, and banged his fist loudly on the file cabinet to emphasize his points. "Cancel this course or there will be trouble!" he yelled. Threatening phone calls were received over a period of more than two months before and during the course. Administrators expressed regrets to the program director but did nothing to provide security or protect academic freedom. The elderly students were frightened into withdrawing. It appeared the course would be canceled, with zero support for academic freedom from UH administration. "After all," one administrator reportedly said, "if nobody wants to take a course, there's no point in offering it."

When informed by e-mail from the program director about her weeks-long intimidation and about the withdrawal of frightened students, Dr. Conklin wrote an e-mail reply including a summary of the monolithic orthodoxy of UH course content about Hawaiian sovereignty, and an explanation of the importance of academic freedom. That reply found its way to an influential member of the community who sent it on to an editor at the Honolulu Advertiser. The newspaper editor assigned a reporter to cover the story, and an article was published. The following day, the Honolulu Advertiser published an editorial strongly supporting academic freedom at UH. UH administrators then scurried around trying to figure out what to do, since the situation could no longer be swept under the carpet. Additional students came forward to sign up (perhaps because of the publicity), and the course was rescheduled for an undisclosed and marginally more secure location. The course then went forward as planned and was very successful. However, the director has stated that occasional angry phone calls were received even throughout the weeks the course was taught, and with renewed fury following publication of a news story about the controversy in the student newspaper.

The instructor of the course under siege decided not to simply disregard the intimidation. He discovered that similar intimidation has affected other professors, staff, and students over a period of years. The intimidation is always provoked by course content dealing with Hawaiian history, culture, or language when courses are taught by instructors outside the Center for Hawaiian Studies who have no Hawaiian blood. The intimidation always seems to come from students of the Center for Hawaiian Studies, possibly at the behest of and certainly with a wink and nod from the faculty there. The Center for Hawaiian Studies seems to control all discussion on this topic throughout all UH departments (as well as the community colleges and the K-12 public schools), and zealous CHS students intend to keep it that way. Professors, staffers, and students who disagree don't dare to speak out. The fear is palpable.

The following topics are covered in detail in this case-study, located at:

(1) A look at the racial supremacist doctrine which is the CHS party line and which President Dobelle actively supports; (2) A discussion of the UH propaganda factory known as the Center for Hawaiian Studies, and why its monolithic party line in support of racial supremacy has become the unchallenged orthodoxy in every academic department that shares students and curriculum with CHS; (3) A review of the short history of President Dobelle's tenure as President at UH, focusing on his aggressiveness in pushing the CHS agenda and his recent pledge to politicize UH even further, harnessing UH as a partner in bringing about a racial supremacist government entity; (4) The first exchange of e-mails between the director of the Academy for Lifelong Learning and Dr. Conklin which then resulted in the newspaper article and editorial; (5) The Honolulu Advertiser article and editorial; and the articles published in the UH student newspaper Ka Leo; (6) Other examples of threats, intimidation, property damage and career damage caused by CHS activists and timid administrators


Honolulu Advertiser, Friday, August 22, 2003

Officials warn of school violence

By Vicki Viotti

Federal law enforcement officials, concerned about threats aired in the media toward a Kamehameha Schools student who is not Native Hawaiian, put out a warning yesterday that violence or threats of violence based on race are federal offenses.

The warning came from the offices of the U.S. attorney and the federal marshal, who said they are so far unaware of any credible threats against Brayden Mohica-Cummings, who is not Native Hawaiian and who began seventh-grade at the school yesterday under a federal judge's order. The school had rescinded admission to the 12-year-old because he couldn't demonstrate he was of Native Hawaiian ancestry.

U.S. Attorney Ed Kubo said he hopes "that cooler heads prevail in this emotional issue."

After federal Judge David Ezra on Wednesday compelled the school to admit Mohica-Cummings, he was shown around the Kapalama campus by his "big brother," an older student assigned to shepherd each seventh-grader. "He's a kid from the Big Island and he gave him a big hug," attorney Eric Grant said. "They hit it off just great."

The boy's mother told Grant that their first campus visit went smoothly on Wednesday.

There was a protest outside the school gate yesterday, and organizer Mehana Ka'iama said school officials will be protecting Brayden against any backlash from classmates "like the Secret Service."

"I don't know how the kids will treat him, but they will have every right to resent him," she said. "Every one of them knows someone who got rejected from the school."

But there were no bodyguards, and family attorney John Goemans said he hasn't seen any reason yet to get one: Neither his client nor the boy's mother reported any direct threats yesterday.

"If they had got any phone calls, I'd have heard from them, I can tell you that," Goemans said.

Even so, U.S. Marshal Mark Hanohano said his office and other law enforcement agencies have contacts in the Native Hawaiian community, listening for rumblings about plans to harm the boy. So far, he said, the only thing they've picked up are indefinite plans for a protest demonstration at the Federal Building.

"I'm half-Hawaiian myself," he said. "Around every corner is a cousin or an auntie, and no one has heard anything."

Kubo said he was distressed by people quoted in news coverage and by callers to morning talk shows expressing "a growing sense of anger and rage."

"Some of these comments seem to imply that they would condone or turn a blind eye to violence," Kubo said. He cited one who called KSSK radio yesterday to predict that "now there's going to be 'kill haole day' every day at Kamehameha Schools."

"That concerns me, when I hear the comment that this child is going to be sought out, or that 'we're not going to be responsible for what happens to him,' " he said.

Some of this emotional response was evident yesterday morning, when Kamehameha sophomore Ka'ili Crabb, 15, said Brayden will never blend into the student body.

"Everyone is going to be searching him out," she said. "I don't know why his mother would put him through all this, knowing how people feel."

Kubo said expressing opinions and emotions is fine, but actual violence or threats of violence based on race are federal offenses.

Kubo acknowledged the passions aroused in the Hawaiian community this year, as Congress considers the latest proposal for federal recognition of Native Hawaiians and lawsuits challenging programs and entitlements move through the courts.

"We all have mixed feelings," said Hanohano. "I have mixed feelings, too. But I also have a job to do."

Honolulu Star-Bulletin, Friday, August 22, 2003

School threats prompt warning
Angry rhetoric over a Kamehameha student enrolled by court order riles the U.S. attorney

By Rick Daysog

Prompted by heated rhetoric against a 12-year-old non-Hawaiian student admitted to Kamehameha Schools, U.S. Attorney Ed Kubo warned yesterday that any violence or threats of violence are federal offenses.

Kubo said he was concerned by public comments by community members that could be seen as inciting violence against Brayden Mohica-Cummings, of Kauai, whose admission to Kamehameha Schools' Kapalama Heights campus was forced by federal court order.

"I have been watching the news and the interviews and the talk shows, and we have references to 'kill haole day every day' or that people are not responsible for the safety of this child and comments like that," Kubo said yesterday.

"Despite the heated debate, there's no need of the urging of violence or talk that lends itself to condoning the violence."

On Wednesday, U.S. Judge David Ezra ordered the school to admit Mohica-Cummings to attend the seventh-grade classes, which began yesterday.

Ezra made no ruling on whether the estate's Hawaiian preference admission system was illegal or constitutional.

Mohica-Cummings, who sued the estate to overturn its admission policy, initially was accepted, but school officials rescinded the offer on Aug. 13 after they were unable to confirm his Hawaiian ancestry.

Ezra said the last-minute reversal by Kamehameha caused Mohica-Cummings to miss three weeks of classes at Kapaa Middle School and that the potential harm to him outweighed any harm to Kamehameha.

The controversy is the latest to hit the $6 billion Kamehameha Schools, whose admission policy gives preference to children of native Hawaiian ancestry. The schools were sued earlier this year by an unnamed non-Hawaiian boy who was denied entry due to his race.

And last year, the estate was forced to admit a non-Hawaiian student to its Maui campus after officials failed to fill all openings with Hawaiian students. The decision caused an uproar in the Hawaiian community and led the estate's trustees to reaffirm its Hawaiians-only preference.

Ezra's decision was protested by 50 members of the Kamehameha Schools ohana at the campus yesterday morning.

After the ruling, Lilikala Kame'eleihiwa, director of the UH Center for Hawaiian Studies, said Mohica-Cummings was sure to face "an attitude" from some fellow students.

"When our kids get into a beef with this boy, they're going to get thrown out. Our children will suffer. This is a very bad decision," she said Wednesday.

Kubo said that inciting violence or threatening can be considered obstruction of justice, a civil rights violation or a federal hate crime. The penalties are punishable by no less than a year in jail, he said.

Kubo said he has been in contact with Honolulu police to monitor the situation.

Kubo, whose children are part-Hawaiian, praised Headmaster Michael Chun for providing public assurances that Mohica-Cummings will be treated like any other student. Chun promised to work with students, parents and faculty members to avoid a backlash.

"We all agree about the importance of Kamehameha Schools to Hawaii and to Hawaii's children, but violence, threatened violence, or the wrongful urging of violence has no place in this debate," Kubo said. "It is our desire that cooler heads prevail in this emotional issue facing our community."


** Second letter to editor at this URL **
West Hawaii Today (Kona), Monday, September 19, 2005

Akaka bill -- Failure in Congress may spell violence

The claim by certain Republicans in Congress that they oppose the Akaka Bill, (Hawaiian Recognition Bill), because it would expand gambling and short-change American Indians out of federal funding is a "crock."

These self-serving fabrications are once again designed to detract from the real issue and circumvent their real intent.

There is now an insidious and committed effort by a group of right wing supremacists here in Hawaii and in Congress who have determined that allowing Hawaiians self-determination would present an additional roadblock in their attempts to create new case law that would begin to undermine the concessions won by Native Americans and Americans of color over the last 50 years.

This is what the continuous blockage of the Akaka Bill is about.

The overwhelming majority of Hawaiians are in favor of the Akaka Bill rather than independence from the United States.

The failure of the Akaka Bill to date and the Ninth Circuit Court's judgment against the Kamehameha Schools, however, have triggered a reaction among mainstream Hawaiians that justice for Hawaiians is impossible in America.

Should the Akaka Bill ultimately fail, this large mainstream of Hawaiians will have no alternative but to support the reclamation of their inalienable, sovereign rights by supporting complete severance and independence from the United States.

This is certainly an ominous sign that future conflict, potentially physical, will erupt like it did with the famous Massie case years ago, only multiplied a thousand fold -- white against brown, citizen against citizen, friend against friend, a mini civil war, forever shattering the ideal of American justice -- all this resulting in the continuing and further loss of credibility by the United States throughout the world.

The prospect of Americans fighting Americans is frightening indeed and only emboldens our real enemies in their resolve to destroy us.

Wake up America, before it is too late.

Rod Ferreira

** Note from Ken Conklin: At the time this letter was published, Rod Ferreira was Chairman of the Board of Directors for the Council for Native Hawaiian Advancement, the umbrella organization of powerful racially exclusionary institutions seeking passage of the Akaka bill to protect their organizations against 14th Amendment equal protection lawsuits. He was a frequent contributor of columns and news reports in "Ka Wai Ola O OHA", the monthly newspaper of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. He was also President of the I Mua Group of Kamehameha Schools Alumni Associations


Honolulu Star-Bulletin, December 5, 2005

Maui Hui leader sentenced
Kema Kanakaole pleads no contest to a misdemeanor charge

By Gary T. Kubota

WAILUKU È The head of a group trying to protect hunting and gathering resources in East Maui has been placed on a year probation after pleading no contest to a misdemeanor charge for pushing a real estate agent on a Hana parcel of land.

Kema Kanakaole, 39, president of the Eastside Hui, also will be taking anger-management courses and serving 100 hours of community service.

Kanakaole, who pleaded no contest to third-degree assault, received the sentence Monday from Maui Circuit Judge Richard Bissen.

Earlier this year, Kanakaole's Eastside Hui was being investigated by Maui police to determine whether it was a "domestic terrorism" group, which has tried to limit the taking of fish and other resources from East Maui.

No charges related to domestic terrorism have been filed against any member of the group.

Kanakaole, who lives with his wife and six children in Hana, has publicly said the hui will not support those breaking the law in the name of protecting resources.

During the sentencing, Kanakaole admitted he had physical contact with real estate agent Froyam Edel on property near Kanakaole's home on Dec. 21.

But Kanakaole said he did not intentionally hurt Edel and tripped into him on a pasture slope.

Kanakaole said he was upset because his 11-year-old son complained about being teased by a man who said the pasture property had been sold. Kanakaole said he wanted to tell the man not to speak to his son inappropriately and to ask the man his intentions about the land.

Kanakaole's attorney, Chris Dunn, said his client was under the impression that the land being discussed belonged to his wife's family. Kanakaole said after the physical contact, he apologized and helped the man to his feet.

Edel said he never saw Kanakaole's son that day and never teased anyone. Edel said he was flung about 10 feet and that Kanakaole neither offered to help him up nor apologized.

Deputy Prosecutor Scott Hanano said the prosecution and Edel agreed that Kanakaole should not go to jail. "Our main goal was to get him into rehabilitation to address the specifics of his behavior," Hanano said. "We're satisfied with this result."

Bissen, who noted Kanakaole had a prior family abuse conviction in 1990, turned down his request to clear his record after serving probation. Dunn said he was satisfied with the result of the sentencing but would have liked to have had Bissen allow Kanakaole to remove the third-degree assault from his record after probation. "My feeling is Kema is ... a nonviolent man who just wanted to protect his property and his family," Dunn said.



August 18, 2006 was the official state holiday celebrating the 47th anniversary of Hawaii's admission as the 50th state. The celebration was scheduled for the very place where statehood was proclaimed, the capitol of the Territory of Hawaii and then the State of Hawaii, where the U.S. flag flew proudly for 70 years (1898 to 1968) until the new Capitol building was completed. The Kalani High School marching band was seated, instruments in hand, waiting for the festivities to begin. But a group of radical wannabe terrorists played loud music from a boombox, and used a megaphone to shout threats. That's because the former Capitol of the Territory and State of Hawaii was also 'Iolani Palace where the Hawaiian revolution overthrew the monarchy in 1893. 'Iolani palace is now a period-piece museum of the Kalakaua/Lili'uokalani period. But the Hawaiian sovereignty zealots imagine the Palace to be their Capitol of a still-living sovereign independent Nation of Hawaii. And so the wannabe terrorists shouted threats through their megaphone, and walked right up to the high school children to intimidate them. The megaphone blared out "You must leave now. Bad things are going to happen, and unless you leave there's nothing we can do to protect you." Exactly like the Chicago Mafia boss extorting protection money from the restaurant owner. And so the parents did indeed remove the students for their own safety. What would have happened if the band had stayed and played their patriotic music? Then the goon squad turned attention to the adult participants in the celebration, standing nose-to-nose while yelling loudly and continuously; cursing, spitting, coming between celebrants, and surrounding individuals while telling them to leave and to take their American flags with them because this is not America. For a large collection of news reports and commentaries see "Hawaii Statehood Day 2006 -- Celebration at Old Territorial Capitol Building (Iolani Palace) Disrupted by Hawaiian Ethnic Nationalist Wannabe-Terrorists" at:



Sometimes the bully comes right up to you on the playground, pokes you in the nose, and demands your lunch money.

Sometimes the bully is a member of the Chicago Mafia. He speaks politely, but tagging along next to him is a nasty-looking low-life character with a big scar on his face and a bulge in his pocket. The pair of them go to the fancy new restaurant to have a little chat with the owner. Mr. Niceguy says "This is a dangerous neighborhood, but if you give me $500 per month I can protect you" That's an implied threat, of course -- "If you don't pay me the money then my goons will burn your restaurant to the ground." And maybe Scarface puts an exclamation point on Mr. Niceguy's pretty speech by "accidentally" dropping the $200 bottle of fine wine whose label he was admiring.

Then there's Senator Dan Akaka (D, HI). He's a loveable old fellow who looks like the grandfather everyone remembers. He sometimes stumbles over words, but he always smiles and we know what he means. And heck, he's Hawaiian, filled with the aloha spirit. We love him, and we just re-elected him to another 6 year term by a big margin.

Here's part of what he said on the floor of the U.S. Senate on Wednesday January 17, 2007 while introducing the Akaka bill (for the seventh consecutive year).


"January 17, 2007, commemorates the 114th anniversary of Hawai'i's beloved Queen Liliuokalani being deposed. Although this event may seem like a distant memory, it is a poignant event that expedited the decline of a proud and self-governing people. The overthrow facilitated Native Hawaiians being disenfranchised from not only their culture and land, but from their way of life. Native Hawaiians had to endure the forced imprisonment of their Queen and witness the deterioration and near eradication of their culture and tradition in their own homeland at the hands of foreigners committed exclusively to propagating Western values and conventions. ... With an influx of foreigners into Hawai'i, Native Hawaiian populations plummeted due to the lack of immunity to common Western diseases. Those that survived witnessed foreign interest and involvement in their government grow until Queen Liliuokalani was forced by American citizens to abdicate her right to the throne. This devastated the Native Hawaiian people, forever tainting the waters of their identity and tattering the very fabric of their society. For some this injustice, this wound has never healed, manifesting itself in a sense of inferiority and hopelessness leaving many Native Hawaiians at the lowest levels of achievement by all social and economic measures."


"Frustration has led to anger and festered in the hearts of Hawaii's younger generations, with each child that is taught about this period of Hawaiian history, a loss is relived. It is a burden that Native Hawaiians since the overthrow continue to carry, to know that they were violated in their own homeland and their governance was ripped away unjustly. Despite the perceived harmony, it is the generation of my grandchildren that is growing impatient and frustrated with the lack of progress being made. Influenced by a deep sadness and growing intolerance, an active minority within this generation seeks independence from the United States. It is for this generation that I work to enact this bill so that there is the structured process to deal with these emotional issues. It is important that discussions are held and that there is a framework to guide appropriate action. For Hawaii is the homeland of the Native Hawaiian people."


"Mr. President, a lack of action by the U.S. will incite and will only fuel us down a path to a DIVIDED Hawai'i. A Hawai'i where lines and boundaries will be drawn and unity severed. However, the legislation I introduce today seeks to build upon the foundation of reconciliation. It provides a structured process to bring together the people of Hawai'i, along a path of healing to a Hawaii where its indigenous people are respected and culture is embraced."

Paraphrase by Ken Conklin:

My people have been royally screwed. We've been telling the story to our young hot-heads the way we want them to hear it, grossly exaggerated 50 times worse than what really happened. We've been stirring them up for years, and now they're "mad as hell and not gonna take it anymore." If you guys don't give us what we want, all hell's gonna break loose. Give us sovereignty on a silver platter, or else we're gonna take it anyway. We've warned you, and we won't be responsible for the consequences. You can put your hand on the knife and we'll carve up Hawaii together, or else we'll do it without you.



Peaceful Majority

by William Haynes [former federal district court judge, serving as General Counsel for the Pentagon and nominated to be judge on Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals]

I used to know a man whose family was German aristocracy prior to World War Two. They owned a number of large industries and estates. I asked him how many German people were true Nazis, and the answer he gave has stuck with me and guided my attitude toward fanaticism ever since.

"Very few people were true Nazis "he said," but many enjoyed the return of German pride, and many more were too busy to care. I was one of those who just thought the Nazis were a bunch of fools. So, the majority just sat back and let it all happen. Then, before we knew it, they owned us, and we had lost control, and the end of the world had come. My family lost everything I ended up in a concentration camp and the Allies destroyed my factories."

We are told again and again by "experts" and "talking heads" that Islam is the religion of peace, and that the vast majority of Muslims just want to live in peace.

Although this unqualified assertion may be true, it is entirely irrelevant. It is meaningless fluff, meant to make us feel better, and meant to somehow diminish the specter of fanatics rampaging across the globe in the name of Islam. The fact is that the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history.

It is the fanatics who march. It is the fanatics who wage any one of 50 shooting wars worldwide. It is the fanatics who systematically slaughter Christian or tribal groups throughout Africa and are gradually taking over the entire continent in an Islamic wave. It is the fanatics who bomb, behead, murder, or honor kill. It is the fanatics who take over mosque after mosque. It is the fanatics who zealously spread the stoning and hanging of rape victims and homosexuals. The hard quantifiable fact is that the "peaceful majority" is the "silent majority" and it is cowed and extraneous.

Communist Russia comprised Russians who just wanted to live in peace, yet the Russian Communists were responsible for the murder of about 20 million people. The peaceful majority were irrelevant. China's huge population was peaceful as well, but Chinese Communists managed to kill a staggering 70 million people.

The average Japanese individual prior to World War 2 was not a warmongering sadist. Yet, Japan murdered and slaughtered its way across South East Asia in an orgy of killing that included the systematic murder of 12 million Chinese civilians; most killed by sword, shovel, and bayonet. And, who can forget Rwanda , which collapsed into butchery. Could it not be said that the majority of Rwandans were "peace loving"?

History lessons are often incredibly simple and blunt, yet for all our powers of reason we often miss the most basic and uncomplicated of points:

Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by their silence. Peace-loving Muslims will become our enemy if they don't speak up, because like my friend from Germany, they will awake one day and find that the fanatics own them, and the end of their world will have begun.

Peace-loving Germans, Japanese, Chinese, Russians, Rwandans, Serbs Afghans, Iraqis, Palestinians, Somalis, Nigerians, Algerians, and many others have died because the peaceful majority did not speak up until it was too late.

As for us who watch it all unfold; we must pay attention to the only group that counts; the fanatics who threaten our way of life.

Lastly, I wish to add: I sincerely think that anyone who rejects this as just another political rant, or doubts the seriousness of this issue or just deletes it without paying heed to it, or sending it on, is part of the problem. Lets quit laughing at and forwarding the jokes and cartoons which denigrate and ridicule our leaders in this war against terror. They are trying to protect the interests and well being of the world and it's citizens. Best we support them.


Hawai'i Tribune-Herald, April 26, 2006

Most Hawaiians in UH-Hilo student study predict violence in the struggle for sovereignty

Two University of Hawaii at Hilo students presented a paper titled "Native Hawaiian Perceptions of Violence as a Means to Attain Sovereignty" at the 27th annual meeting of the Hawaii Sociological Association earlier this month.

The paper, co-written and presented by sociology major Erica Burt and political science major Brittany Smart, was the result of an in-class research project of the "Senior Seminar on Terrorism" taught by Assoc. Prof. Thom Curtis.

"The students' paper analyzed combined data from two waves of in-depth interviews with Native Hawaiian adults of various ages regarding sovereignty and the likelihood that violence will ultimately be used as a tool to regain that goal," said a university spokesman.

"While subjects of this pilot study varied in beliefs regarding sovereignty and the appropriateness of violence to attain Native Hawaiian goals, most believed that the struggle would eventually result in acts of violence toward the state or its economy."

The conference was attended by sociologists from Hawaii and a number of other states. Of the dozen research papers presenters at the conference, only Burt and Smart were undergraduate students.

The other presenters were faculty members or graduate students from several different universities.

Special from Hawaii Free Press
Hawaii Reporter, February 13, 2007

University of Hawaii Study: Native Hawaiians Fear Violence

By Andrew Walden

Results in a pilot study "Native Hawaiian Perceptions of Violence as a Means to Attain Sovereignty" show a sharp contrast between the number of Native Hawaiians interviewed who believe violence is justifiable to achieve sovereignty -- 6 percent -- and the number who believe "the desire to gain sovereignty will result in violence in the future -- 53 percent. Only 24.8 percent felt that violence would definitely not occur.

According to the study conducted by University of Hawaii at Hilo Associate Professor Dr. Thom Curtis, "Many of the subjects responded to this question with great emotion." One Native Hawaiian interviewed in the survey responds: "If you go to my militant friendsÑwhen I listen to them I think it (violence) is an option for them, and option on the tableÉ.You know individuals, it they feel angry enough, can resort to violence, can use that option."

Other study responses gathered during interviews conducted in Hilo in 2005 hint at violence among Hawaiian sovereignty groups stifling free speech among Hawaiians:

* "Éa lot of people who are in these groups are now teaching their children to become involved in the sovereignty movement and the children, the generation of today is a lot more militant than they were of say, my generation."

* "I believe it already has (caused violence). You know that there have been violent acts, not well publicized and, um, it's not out there, it's not, um, well-known but there has been violence and it's sad because the Hawaiians are the ones who go hurtÉ"

* "Éit's happening in front of our eyes, that you have Hawaiian fighting HawaiianÉ"

* "That's the thing. They fight. They do, like you said, they (the groups) fight constantly."

* "We need more aloha and people are taking advantage of our aloha." * "Ésome groups do use extreme measures to get their voices acrossÉ"

With a pilot study, it is difficult to assess the overall attitudes of Native Hawaiians towards the sovereignty movement. It is possible that many of the 94 percent who reject violence feel intimidated by the 6 percent who claim that violence is "an appropriate way to achieve sovereignty." There is also a big difference between telling an interviewer that violence is appropriate and actually carrying out an act of violence.

The results show that only 32.7 percent favor some form of sovereignty while 27.4 percent oppose and 39.8 percent are neutral. Asked whether they are actively involved in the sovereignty movement, 16.8 percent responded in the affirmative.

According to Curtis, "The research has gone through the scientific vetting process at a number of levels. The project was approved by the University of Hawaii Human Subjects Committee and Institutional Review Board. That is a process required to ensure that a research project meets Federal scientific ethics standards. It has also been reviewed by three different professional organizations for scientific soundness, a process called refereeing."

The project was selected based on its merit for public presentation the following research conferences:

* International Conference on Social Science Research in Orlando, FL December 2005

* 27th Annual Meeting of Hawaii Sociological Association in Honolulu on April 1, 2006

* International Academy of Linguistics, Behavioral and Social Sciences Huntington Beach, CA, November, 2006.

The study results are in line with a groundbreaking 2006 telephone survey of Hawaii households by the Grassroot Institute which asked about support for the Akaka Bill, and support for Hawaii statehood. Of Native Hawaiians responding to the automated survey, 38.57 percent indicated they would vote against Hawaii Statehood if the question were put before them today. These numbers stand in sharp contrast to the 1959 Hawaii statehood referendum in which 94 percent of the electorate supported statehood. On Molokai, the most Hawaiian of all the major islands, support was 97 percent.

Says Curtis, "After the university sent out a press release regarding this research last spring, I received numerous contacts from people interested including a Honolulu newspaper, university administrators, legislators, lobbyists, and employees from various government agencies.

"There were several interesting reactions. Some thought that the research could cause 'problems' and it may be best not to be associated with it or to publicize it. Others expressed an interest in using the findings to support particular causes or positions. Some people appear to actually fear talking about the potential of a sovereignty-related violence.

"The feeling I've been left with is 'If we don't talk about it, maybe it will go away'. It's almost as if some think that public discourse on the topic might be the cause of violence. In a presentation to administrators at UH Manoa, I referred to it as 'the elephant in the room' that nobody wants to recognize exists."

Responding to questions from Hawaii Free Press, University of Hawaii Vice-President for Research, Dr. James Gaines denies that any "outside pressure" was brought to bear in his decision not to provide funding for further research.

According to the study conclusions: "Because no evidence was found that this topic has been analyzed by researchers, law enforcement or other agencies in either the public or private sectors, the dangers inferred from this study should stimulate interest in developing a clearer appreciation of both the risks involved and possible means to address them."

The study conclusions point to the damage done to Hawaii's tourism industry by the 9-11 attacks, considers the potential damage done to the tourist trade by a home-grown act of terrorism and concludes, "it is imperative that further research of this topic not be delayed."

** Note from Ken Conklin: The 11-page report in pdf format can be downloaded at:

Hawaii Tribune-Herald, August 23, 2010

Terrorism talk stirs emotions
Sovereignty supporters angered by study on homegrown violence

by Colin M. Stewart
Tribune-Herald Staff Writer

A speaker at a meeting of the Conservative Forum for Hawaii riled supporters of the Hawaiian sovereignty movement, although he never actually shared his thoughts or research on the subject.

University of Hawaii at Hilo Sociology Department chairman and professor Thom Curtis gave a Powerpoint presentation Sunday afternoon at Naniloa Volcanoes Resort in which he discussed his studies of homegrown Islamic terrorism.

In a release provided to the Tribune-Herald and printed in the Thursday edition of the newspaper, Conservative Forum President Walter Moe was quoted as saying that Curtis would also be discussing his research "into the potential for the sovereignty movement to present a homegrown threat in Hawaii."

In introducing his subject Sunday, Curtis said that leading up to Sept. 11, 2001, his focus of study had been on the psychology and sociology of disasters.

Following the attacks on the World Trade Center, however, Curtis said he decided to dedicate himself to the study of terrorism and "what causes people to do such terrible things," he said.

Since that time, he has tracked more than 150 U.S. citizens who have been indicted or convicted of radical Islamist activities and studied their backgrounds to try and determine when and how they came to the conclusion to resort to violence.

In his discussion, Curtis gave several well-known examples of homegrown terrorists and presented their paths to terrorism. Common among almost all of the examples was a sudden conversion to Islam, followed by increasing radicalization.

Curtis opened the floor to questions after making no mention of the sovereignty movement, and it soon became apparent that many people in the audience had come to debate him about the issue.

In a booming voice, one man rose and said that Curtis hadn't addressed "the real terrorists."

"The idea is you need to keep the Hawaiian pagan ignorant and stupid," he shouted. "You need to be correct. ... You didn't mention George Bush, Rumsfeld or Dick Cheney. They the real terrorists."

Another man accused Curtis of practicing the "politics of fear."

Moanikeala Akaka, a former Office of Hawaiian Affairs trustee and longtime supporter of Hawaiian rights, said Curtis should be ashamed of himself.

"You, sir, are a provocateur looking for money to discredit us. Our policy was one of peace. It was not us who brought the navy ships. ... We are a people of peace.

"You are trying to compare us with the terrorists, and I am highly offended," she added. "I have read your report. It is shoddy scholarship."

A man with a name tag that said "Skippy" and a T-shirt with the message "Don't Trust Whitey" walked out of the room saying to the crowd, "I thought we were here to speak truth!"

Curtis appeared surprised and frustrated with the audience's reaction, eventually relinquishing the floor after several interruptions.

After the meeting concluded, audience members said they had been angered by the newspaper article's description of Curtis' areas of study, and specifically were offended by a perceived implication that members of the Hawaiian sovereignty movement were similar to radical Islamic terrorists.

For his part, Curtis said he had been surprised by the audience's reaction, as well as the article about his appearance.

"I hadn't intended to discuss Hawaiian sovereignty," he said.

Curtis said that he had, indeed, been involved with a student-led and -designed study about the possibility of violence in connection with the sovereignty movement, but he maintains that the results of the study showed rather decisively that a vast majority of interviewees did not feel violence was a viable solution.

After Sunday's meeting, Curtis said he did not plan on speaking in the future about the study in public.

"I'll talk about it with colleagues and students, and I'll still pursue it in my studies, but I won't be able to talk about it in public. It's just too personal, too emotional for people," he said.

Big Island Chronicle, August 23, 2010

Guest Column — Chaos Ensues At Conservative Forum For Hawaii Talk On ‘Homegrown Terrorism’

By Dr. Ed Gutteling

Dr. Thom Curtis gave the August address to the Conservative Forum for Hawaii on the topic of “Home-Grown Terrorism” on Sunday.

After his speech, the meeting was disrupted by many Hawaiian Sovereignty proponents who dominated the session with loud and acrimonious statements and prevented the usual civil discussion expected of the topic.

President Walter Moe began the meeting by greeting the 100 or so in attendance, and declared the objective of the Forum was to present conservative ideas and bring people together for discussion and exchange of ideas. Following the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag, this opening tone was disrupted even at the beginning, when the acknowledged presence of several persons who are candidates for public office was given, which was greeted by scattered “boos” from a few in the audience.

Dr. Curtis then gave his talk, accompanied by a power-point presentation of his recent research in to the nature of home-grown terrorism. He began with his personal account of the 9-11 attack on the Twin Towers of New York. Although that attack was carried out by foreigners, since then there was a steady stream of terrorist acts and attempts, both in the United States as well as in other western countries, perpetrated by violent terrorists who actually originated in the west and were not foreigners. First mentioned was John Walker Lindh, a 20-year-old American from Marin County California, who was captured while fighting against Americans with the Taliban in Afghanistan in 2001. He had converted to Islam while in California, attended mosque there and then gone to a madrassa in Pakistan for further study and then Afghanistan where he received training at Al-Farouq, a training camp associated with Al-Qaeda. He converted to violent jihad.

There were many others. Dr. Curtis went through a list of 2 dozen or so, including the 5-11 bombers of the commuter trains in Madrid that killed 191 and wounded 1800. Every member of that group was a citizen of either Spain or a western country, who had converted to violent jihad. Similarly, the entire group of London transport bombers were all British citizens, having been raised in the United Kingdom with childhoods similar to other English children, and again had converted to violent jihad.

Dr Curtis’s list included bombers of an English-speaking café in Israel done by two UK citizens who had traveled there from England for that purpose; Adam Pearlman, the son of a Jewish musician from California who had converted to violent jihad and was now putting out monthly propaganda after being recruited by the administrative section of Al Qaeda; US Army psychiatrist Maj. Nidal Hasan who shot dead 13 and wounded 30 at Fort Hood; the “Lackawanna Six” group of Yemeni-Americans in New York who attended Al Qaeda training camps and planned violent jihad; the “Portland Seven” Oregonians attempted to join Al Qaeda forces for violent jihad, and many many others. There were many examples form America, England, and other European countries.

Dr. Curtis pointed out that although much research and effort had been focused on foreign terrorists, little had been done on “home-grown” terrorists.

His research established several common elements:

All had grown up in very western areas, with typical western neighborhoods and experiences shared by typical western children. At some point, however, all of them had undergone a religious conversion within their western countries. They would attend mosque, but then other elements inside the mosque furthered their conversion to violent jihad. From there they went on to other training and then usually returned home to plot their actual terrorist acts. Sometimes these were coordinated plans, others were more individual. Dr. Curtis was developing an extensive data base on these home-grown terrorists, and research was ongoing.

Dr. Curtis felt that the only way to get warning of these sorts of attitudes and plans would be by informers, or by penetration undercover of the mosques themselves, which presented special problems to implement. The west continued to be at risk for further such persons and violent acts.

The question and answer period then followed:

Initial questions were put asking why Dr Curtis had nothing to say on the terrorist act of the US government in denying Roger Christ bail for his marijuana related arrest, which was greeted by some applause.

Dr. Curtis replied his research was in another area.

Then questions were put as to why Dr. Curtis had not researched Christian terrorists, or right wing terrorists, which was greeted with some applause in the asking. Dr. Curtis replied that there were extensive data bases going back 20+ years on those areas, but that his area of research was new ground.

One profanity-laced questioner was admonished to clean up his language at this point. One questioner raised the point that these violent terrorists all seemed to have a nihilistic element in their beliefs, to which Dr. Curtis also acknowledged.

Shortly after, a series of apparent Hawaiian Sovereignty supporters dominated the discourse very loudly, with growing audible anger. One asked why he did not include several western figures from Hawaiian history as terrorists.

Another stood and rubbed an American flag on display, and shouted “this is terrorism,” indicating the US flag.

Another ranted for several minutes how she had spent 40 years working for Hawaiian Sovereignty and never come across any supporter advocating violence. She claimed only peaceful civil disobedience as her methods, in the spirit of Ghandi and with aloha, and accused Dr. Curtis of being an Agent Provocateur who was seeking more money for his research by actually encouraging violence in the Hawaiian Sovereignty movement. She said his even talking on the subject was insulting. Dr. Curtis requested that she please not shout at him.

At this point, President Walter Moe took the microphone, and asked for a change in tone, and more aloha. He was greeted with taunts that he had no right to use the word, and that he was abusing the word “aloha”. Mr. Moe kindly allowed all who wanted to speak to have a chance to talk, but the same tone continued and effective question and answer of Dr Curtis was minimal from there on.

After the meeting concluded, Dr. Curtis indicated he had a separate research project underway, without funding, that included 1-on-1 surveys of members of the Hawaiian Sovereignty movement, in which his research showed 94% were non-violent. That left 6% who could be.

Comments in the departing audience included how they were disappointed at the lack of civility present, with one stating “my take-home point of these folks (the disruptive Hawaiian Sovereignty audience) is that they are rude, angry and intolerant. So much for aloha”.

One apologized to Dr. Curtis for the rudeness, to which he replied “I’ve been through worse: gunfire in Palestine” Next month’s speaker will be Linda Smith, policy advisor to Governor Linda Lingle, on a topic yet to be announced. (Orthopedic surgeon Ed Gutteling is vice president of the Conservative Forum for Hawaii.)


Honolulu Advertiser, Thursday, February 15, 2007

More people in Hawai'i apply for gun permits

By Peter Boylan
Advertiser Staff Writer

Martha Kiyabu, vice president of Young Guns in Mapunapuna, displays a Kimber Tactical Pro II. Hawai'i has strict gun-control laws but state law enforcement officials fear that an increased number of weapons are being illegally obtained and getting into the wrong hands.

Applications for firearm permits in Hawai'i are setting new records, and law enforcement officials are concerned more guns are being stolen and more are being used by drug dealers.

A total of 8,695 private firearm permit applications were processed in Hawai'i in 2005, the latest year for which numbers are available. That was an increase of 27 percent over 2004 and the highest number since the state began keeping count in 2000, according to the state attorney general's office.

Hawai'i has some of the toughest gun control laws in the nation, and one of the lowest rates of firearms-related deaths. The state had only 3.45 firearms-related deaths per 100,000 residents in the five years to 2004. By comparison, the number for Washington, D.C., was 29.1.

The recent high-profile shooting death of an off-duty deputy sheriff has drawn attention to the issue of gun control. The .22-caliber Ruger semiautomatic pistol that was used to kill Daniel Browne-Sanchez early Saturday was reported stolen in the 1970s, police said.

Gun owners are not required by law to notify police of a stolen firearm. Law enforcement officers are worried that legal weapons are stolen and make their way into the black market, where they can be used in the commission of a crime.

"The shooting death of deputy sheriff Browne-Sanchez this past weekend by a convicted criminal using a stolen gun illustrates the tragic consequences of illegally obtained firearms in the wrong person's hands," said FBI assistant special agent in charge Robert Kauffman.

Authorities also are finding that local drug dealers are arming themselves at an alarming rate. While gun violence in the illegal drug trade is not rampant, law enforcement officials are concerned that when they find drugs they usually find firearms.

"The biggest problem that we run across is the connection with firearms and drugs," said Tracy K. Elder, resident agent in charge of the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives. "Quite honestly where you find a lot of crystal methamphetamine, you are going to find firearms and when you put the two together you have an explosive situation.

"The good thing that we do have here ... (are) very strict firearm registration laws on the books. They are stricter than the majority of the states. That has helped out tremendously to keeping gun crimes at minimum."


Hawai'i is ranked second only to Massachusetts as having the strictest gun control laws by George Soros' Open Society Institute.

The Brady Campaign, a nonpartisan, grassroots organization aimed at preventing gun violence, gave Hawai'i's gun laws an "A-" in 2005.

"We don't deal a lot with Hawai'i gun laws because you have very good gun laws already, and Hawai'i ranks near the top in terms of public safety," said Zach Ragbourn, spokesman for the Brady Campaign. "On the whole, there is not a whole lot of room to criticize Hawai'i on gun laws."

According to the Hawai'i Department of Health, between 2001 and 2005 there were 188 firearms-related deaths in the state, 132 of which were ruled as suicides, two accidental and 43 homicides.

The exact number of firearms in Hawai'i is not known, but Honolulu police estimate it at more than a million. With that many guns in circulation, it is hard for authorities to keep them out of the hands of criminals.

"There are so many guns on this island that it is virtually impossible to stop the unregulated transfer of firearms. If you want a gun, you can get it," said Ronald Becker, an attorney who is chairman of the Criminal Justice Program at Chaminade University. "That said, you don't want to draw too many generalized conclusions from one isolated instance. Firearm crimes are still an anomaly among our crime statistics."


The increase in firearm permits in recent years was fueled in part by anxiety generated by Sept. 11, 2001, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the state's battle with illegal drugs, according to gun advocates and dealers.

"We had a ton of people come to us after 9/11 afraid of something happening inside the United States," said Harvey F. Gerwig II, president & director of the Hawai'i Rifle Association and a licensed firearm safety instructor. "That concern hasn't gone away with Iraq, and Iran now looming and all of our National Guard guys overseas, there is a lot of concern (for personal safety)."

In Hawai'i, crimes associated with crystal methamphetamine and other illegal drugs, such as burglaries, assaults and car thefts, have prompted many to seek protection in the form of gun ownership.

Dale Hayama, owner of Young Guns on Pa'a Street in Mapunapuna, said owning a firearm helps some people feel a sense of security.

"Basically, the amount of nuts out there has increased. People are crazy out there because of the ice epidemic and people need to protect themselves," Hayama said. "A gun gives them a sense of security."


Honolulu Star-Bulletin, February 22, 2007

Beating follows parking lot accident

By Leila Fujimori

What began as a minor traffic accident at the Waikele Center parking lot ended in the brutal beating of a young couple by two men and a woman, police said.

Two witnesses told the Star-Bulletin that a large crowd of shoppers watched in horror Monday afternoon as a petite 23-year-old woman was punched in the face by a man and knocked unconscious, and her 26-year-old husband was stomped and kicked in the head. Meanwhile, their son, about 3, sat in the back seat.

Authorities have charged 45-year-old Gerald D. Paakaula of Waianae with second-degree assault. Bail was set at $20,000. His teenage son was also arrested for second-degree assault and referred to Family Court. The woman, Paakaula's wife, was not arrested.

The alleged attack began after the couple's gray Dodge Durango hit the Paakaulas' green Chevrolet while trying to pull into a parking stall, according to a police affidavit. Neither car was damaged, the witnesses said.

The teenage boy in the Chevy got out, angry his vehicle was struck and allegedly began yelling profanities, calling the other driver "f----g haole" and kicking the driver-side door, according to the affidavit.

A 43-year-old female witness, who asked not to be identified, told the Star-Bulletin that the teen began punching the man, who was still sitting in the driver's seat.

The affidavit said the 23-year-old woman got out of the Durango and tried to push the teen away from the vehicle and her husband. At that point the teen's mother jumped in and started fighting with the woman, police said.

The witness said the teen's mother got on top of the woman and began punching her.

Paakaula then came out of the Baskin-Robbins holding ice cream cones, and his wife told him that the other woman hit her, the witness said.

Paakaula allegedly "punched the woman in the face, picked her off her feet and slammed her onto the asphalt," apparently knocking her out momentarily, according to the affidavit.

Another witness, a 65-year-old woman who also asked for anonymity because of fears of retribution, said the woman flew back 10 feet, landing under her car.

The driver of the Durango had gotten out of the car, was allegedly punched in the throat by Paakaula and fell to the ground gasping for air, police said. The teen then allegedly kicked him in the head and face, causing him to convulse, police said.

The teen's mother finally told him to stop after "she sees blood pouring out of this guy's mouth," the 43-year-old witness told the Star-Bulletin. The man's legs pointed straight out and quivered for 15 to 20 minutes, while a nurse in the crowd called 911 and said "he's seizing," she said.

The couple were taken to the Queen's Medical Center in serious condition.

The affidavit said both received concussions. The man's eye socket and upper jaw were fractured, and his wife sustained a fractured jaw, nose and wrist.

The older witness told the Star-Bulletin that she was disturbed by the use of racial slurs.

"It's really sad to see," she said. "You would think that we as Hawaiians would have outgrown that."

Honolulu Star-Bulletin, February 24, 2007

Prosecutors say assault on duo not a hate crime
The brutal attack was unrelated to race, says official, despite epithet

By Nelson Daranciang

The savage beating of a military couple after a fender-bender at Waikele Center was not a hate crime, even though one of the alleged perpetrators used a racial epithet, says the city Prosecutor's Office.

"In this particular case, the accident is what precipitated the violence," Jim Fulton of the Honolulu Prosecutor's Office said yesterday.

The victims, a 26-year-old Army soldier who served two tours in Iraq, and his 23-year-old wife, a nursing student at Hawaii Pacific University, are physically doing better than expected, Fulton said. Both were treated and released from the hospital. A special fund will be opened for the family Monday.

The alleged beating started Monday afternoon after the couple's sport utility vehicle pulled into a parking spot and hit a parked vehicle, police said. A 16-year-old boy got out of the car that was hit and allegedly called the SUV driver a "f--ing haole" before attacking him, according to police and witnesses.

The woman in the SUV tried to the stop the teen, and his mother then allegedly fought with her, according to police. Gerald Paakaula, the teen's father, emerged from an ice cream shop and allegedly punched the woman unconscious, and he and his son beat and stomped the SUV driver, according to police.

Officers arrested Paakaula, 44, and charged him with second-degree assault. He made his initial court appearance Wednesday and was released from custody after posting $20,000 bail. He is scheduled to go back to court March 15 for a preliminary hearing.

Police also arrested Paakaula's 16-year-old son and turned him over to Family Court. According to police, the two women filed complaints against each other, but prosecutors declined to pursue the cases.

According to state law, a hate crime "means any criminal act in which the perpetrator intentionally selected a victim, or in the case of a property crime, the property that was the object of a crime, because of hostility toward the actual or perceived race, religion, disability, ethnicity, national origin, gender identity or expression, or sexual orientation of any person."

Even if prosecutors sought to have the assault deemed a hate crime, its only effect would be at sentencing where they would ask the judge to impose a sentence longer than the ordinary prison term. Second-degree assault is a Class C felony punishable by up to five years in prison.

There is no separate hate crime offense in Hawaii law.

Paakaula and his son are no strangers to violence, according to court records.

Police arrested the elder Paakaula at his Waianae home Aug. 8, 2002, for beating his then 11-year-old son. The boy's mother had taken their son to Kaiser Hospital's emergency room the previous evening for injuries he suffered in the beating, according to the police report.

The mother told police her husband beat their son because an official from the boy's school called to report the boy had misbehaved in school, the report said.

The boy's mother told police her husband beat her son for 15 minutes, first with a belt and then with his fists. She said he stopped only after she called her husband's father to intervene, according to the police report.

The boy told police the beating was a blur because he was being punched in the face. He suffered bruises and swelling to his face, both arms, his legs and his back, the police report said. None of the injuries was serious, and he was treated and released, according to the report.

Paakaula pleaded guilty to abuse of a family member, a misdemeanor, Aug. 26, 2002, and was sentenced to 14 days in prison, to be served on seven consecutive weekends, and two years' probation. On May 27, 2003, Paakaula requested and was granted early release from probation.

Honolulu Advertiser, Saturday, February 24, 2007

Road rage blamed in Waikele beatings

By Gordon Y.K. Pang

Prosecutors believe that the brutal beating of a young couple Monday afternoon in a busy Waikele Center parking lot likely was a result of road rage.

Gerald D. Paakaula, 45, is accused of punching the husband in the throat and punching the wife and slamming her to the ground after the couple's car hit Paakaula's car.

A preliminary hearing yesterday for Paakaula, who is charged with second-degree assault, was postponed until March 16 to give him time to hire an attorney. Paakaula was released from custody after posting $20,000 bail.

His son, a teenager, was arrested on suspicion of second-degree assault. His case was referred to Family Court.

The incident occurred in front of the Baskin Robbins ice cream shop at the Waikele Center late Monday afternoon.

According to a police affidavit filed in court, Andrew and Dawn Dussell's Dodge Durango collided with Paakaula's Chevrolet while attempting to pull into a parking stall next to it.

Paakaula's son, "extremely angry that his vehicle had been struck," stepped out of the Chevy and began yelling obscenities toward Andrew Dussell, who was the driver, calling him a "f------ haole" while kicking the driver side door, the document said.

Dawn Dussell then exited the car, confronted the teen and attempted to push him away from the Dodge and her husband. The teen then began assaulting the woman, the affidavit said.

The affidavit said Paakaula got involved and punched Dawn Dussell, "picked her up off her feet and slammed her onto the asphalt." She remained motionless on the ground and appeared to be unconscious, the affidavit said.

When Andrew Dussell got out of the Dodge, he was punched in the throat by Paakaula, the affidavit said. Dussell fell to the ground gasping for air and then received kicks to his head and face from the teen, leading to his convulsing, the document said.

The Dussells' 3-year-old child was in the backseat of the Dodge and witnessed the incident.

Jim Fulton, a spokesman for the prosecutor's office, said the case doesn't involve a hate crime.

"From our perspective, this was more motivated by rage from the incident rather than specifically targeted toward the individuals' race," he said.

Fulton said, "Any racial or ethnic comment came after the fact of the actual incident."

Under Hawai'i law, a hate crime is defined as any criminal act in which the perpetrator intentionally selects a victim based on race, religion, disability, ethnicity, national origin, gender identity or expression, or sexual orientation.

If a second-degree assault was prosecuted as a hate crime, the felony maximum penalty of five years could be increased to 10 years, but it must be proven that the perpetrator intentionally selected the victim based on the listed categories.

Andrew Dussell, 26, is in the Army and served two tours of duty in Iraq. Dawn Dussell, 23, is a nursing student at Hawai'i Pacific University. The couple live in Downtown Honolulu.

Doctors said both victims sustained concussions as a result of the beatings. Andrew Dussell also sustained fractures to the lower part of an eye socket and the maxillary sinus portion of his face. Dawn Dussell sustained fractures to her interior maxillary bone, nose and wrist.

Paakaula and his wife declined comment yesterday.

Jonathan Okamura, an ethnic studies professor at the University of Hawai'i-Manoa, said the alleged remarks indicate that the beating may have occurred, or escalated, as a result of racial considerations.

"That kind of reference, to me, indicates that this would be considered a hate crime; maybe not by the definition in Hawai'i but in other states," he said. "Why did he focus on the fact that (the man) was haole? That wasn't the issue. The issue was the damage to his car, not the race or ethnicity of the person who hit it."

The impact of a hate crime goes beyond the victims, Okamura said. Hate crimes, he said, "intimidate other people who belong to the same group" as a victim. "It instills fear in this larger category of people."

He added: "I imagine haoles throughout Hawai'i, if they heard about the incident, are very concerned about the possibility of that happening to them."

But Jonathan Osorio, chairman of the UH Kamakakuokalani Center for Hawaiian Studies, said that based on what he was told, he does not believe a hate crime was committed.

"It doesn't matter if their ethnicities are different. It doesn't matter that we're dealing with Hawaiians and haoles here," Osorio said.

He said he is troubled by suggestions that the incident may have been a hate crime.

"It worries me when people start calling something like this a hate crime because it starts to ramp up the public temperature over race in Hawai'i, and I don't think we need that," he said.

He said the incident occurred because of a fender bender. "Leave the rest of us out of it," Osorio said.

Friends of the Dussells are setting up a fund to assist the family.


** On February 24 Ken Conklin wrote a webpage about this incident:

Road Rage or Racial Hate Crime? (Thinking carefully about an actual incident of racial violence in February 2007, and how such violence can be used as a political tool to bolster demands for Hawaiian sovereignty)



The mission of the magazine "Intelligence Report" is to describe hate groups and hate crimes throughout America, including lists naming such groups and maps showing where they are. Mostly the hate groups are chapters of the Ku Klux Klan, neo-Nazis, skinheads, and rogue militias; and the victims of hate crimes are African-Americans, Jews, and sometimes homosexuals.

SPLC describes itself this way: It "was founded in 1971 as a small civil rights law firm. Today, SPLC is internationally known for its tolerance education programs, its legal victories against white supremacists and its tracking of hate groups. Located in Montgomery, Alabama – the birthplace of the Civil Rights Movement – the Southern Poverty Law Center was founded by Morris Dees and Joe Levin, two local lawyers who shared a commitment to racial equality. Its first president was civil rights activist Julian Bond."

The article about Hawaii in Fall 2009 is notable because it might be the first time the distinguished SPLC has identified Caucasians as a victim group for racial hate crimes. In SPLC publications Caucasians have always been the perpetrators while Blacks and Jews have been the victims of hate crimes.

This left-leaning, liberal organization freely sprinkles the term "white supremacists" throughout its publications. But SPLC just cannot seem to bring itself to use the corresponding label "ethnic Hawaiian supremacists"; even though that is clearly the correct label for the theoreticians who inspire the perpetrators of the hate crimes described in the article about Hawaii.

In fact, the article goes out of its way to include an addendum entitled "Roots of Resentment Go Way Back" outlining a history of Hawaii portraying ethnic Hawaiians in two ways: they have justifiable anger against (today's) Caucasians for (alleged) colonial oppression of the natives and for the 1893 white-led revolution that overthrew the monarchy; and today's ethnic Hawaiians are courageously fighting to take control of their own future through the Akaka bill and a zealous secessionist movement.

Although the history described by the article is somewhat skewed, the logical way for SPLC to make use of that history would be to explain clearly that it is a litany of real or imagined grievances from 1778 to 1959, taught to students from kindergarten through university, and ballyhooed in the media, providing fuel for the fire of racial hatred against Caucasians.

But instead of giving that obvious explanation, the article has the effect of making SPLC into an enabler of hate crime against Caucasians by somehow giving the Hawaiian racial supremacists an excuse for the violence they spawn. The article could very well lead readers to believe it's OK to hate the racial group you've been told oppressed your ancestors two centuries ago, and it's understandable (perhaps acceptable?) when hatred spills over into violence.

Under such an analysis, hate crimes against Caucasians could even be regarded as yet another element of ethnic Hawaiian victimhood, because the aloha spirit Hawaiians would naturally display has been killed by oppression at the hands of Caucasians. Oh, those poor, downtrodden natives! The haoles (Caucasians) first committed genocide against them through newly introduced diseases for which the natives had no resistance. Then the haoles colonized the natives, overthrew their monarchy, made their language illegal, and stole their ancestral lands through annexation to America. And now the haoles have actually reached into the natives' very souls to destroy the aloha spirit which is the core of the Hawaiians' essential nature. Auwe! [how awful].

If SPLC wants to write an article about anti-Caucasian hate crimes, it should focus on those crimes and not present a skewed history from two centuries ago which seems to give an excuse for violence. If SPLC did the same sort of thing in its articles about neo-Nazi or skinhead hate crimes against Jews, it would then also have to include the skewed historical analysis created by those groups to justify their crimes by portraying Jews as controlling the banking system and the media, oppressing poor whites, and engaging in a worldwide conspiracy to strip Americans of our sovereignty.

So in the end, the SPLC article about Hawaii leaves us wondering whether a liberal organization fighting the good fight against white supremacist hate crimes can ever bring itself to fully acknowledge that the role of the races is reversed in Hawaii, where whites are the "niggers." And we must wonder whether liberals can recognize that demands for race-based political power are just as morally repugnant when asserted by dark-skinned people as when asserted by whites.

There's also an important difference between anti-Caucasian hate crime in Hawaii and anti-Black or anti-Jew hate crime on the mainland, which the SPLC article fails to mention. Mainland hate groups usually have a very small number of intellectual or inspirational leaders whose fiery rhetoric inspires a far larger number of face-bashing, leg-breaking, relatively unintelligent goons to attack the victims. The leaders and the goons have a close working relationship within their hate groups, and the leaders give "marching orders" to the goons. But in Hawaii it's very different.

In Hawaii there are a large number of ethnic Hawaiian racial supremacist intellectuals with respectable jobs as professors, lawyers, and executives in race-based "legitimate" socially approved institutions such as Kamehameha Schools and the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. Those intellectuals are often not members of any sovereignty group. Then there are dozens of Hawaiian sovereignty groups, each one led by either one or two intellectuals or by a charismatic activist. Some of the leaders even claim to be King, or Regent Pro-Tem, of a nation of Hawaii now restored to rightful governmental authority by the group. These sovereignty groups are constantly quarreling with each other over doctrinal disputes (much like Baptists vs. Methodists vs. Lutherans vs. Episcopalians; and all of them vs. Catholics). But on special occasions many of them come together to sponsor highly visible "peaceful" marches or protests which the media publicize ahead of time and report admiringly afterward. Finally there are a few ethnic Hawaiian "low-lifes" who enjoy beating up Caucasians or stealing from them for drug money, but who are mostly not affiliated with any intellectuals or sovereignty groups. The low-lifes who actually commit the racial hate crimes are acting on hatred for haoles for reasons they are only dimly aware of -- real or imagined historical grievances clearly described by the intellectuals, whose propaganda has infested the curricula of all public and private schools from kindergarten through university and is regularly featured in the media and in bills in the state Legislature and U.S. Congress

A webpage contains quotes from the SPLC article, with accompanying links to webpages providing further information. The links include two very important pdf files related to incidents mentioned in the article. After several years of denial and delay the Hawaii Department of Education was forced by the Office for Civil Rights of the U.S. Department of Education to sign a consent decree regarding a series of anti-Caucasian racial hate crimes in the public schools in Kealakehe (Kona). The pdf file of the settlement agreement includes the signatures of the Superintendent of Schools and Deputy Attorney General of the State of Hawaii, and is accompanied by a pdf file showing a lengthy list of findings of fact which warrant the consent decree. Full text of the SPLC article including its violence-enabling addendum is then provided.

Please see "Anti-Caucasian Racial Hate Crimes in Hawaii -- Southern Poverty Law Center brings the issue to national awareness in a flawed but valuable Intelligence Report article" at


Send comments or questions to:

You may now


(c) Copyright 2007 - 2010 Kenneth R. Conklin, Ph.D. All rights reserved