Tuesday, July 23, 2013

Misinformation about Kanaiolowalu continues to spread.

The Honolulu Star-Advertiser published a letter to the editor that makes a grossly false statement. 

Lela Hubbard wrote, "Hawaiians who have registered in . . . Kamehameha Schools database . . . are now forced members of Kanaiolowalu, the Native Hawaiian roll.  See image of online version of her letter below.

It's awful that a Native Hawaiian is making false statements with the goal of influencing other Native Hawaiians to not participate in bringing the Native Hawaiian people together. 

Kamehameha Schools even came out with a response stating that Lela Hubbard's comment "is not true.  Kamehameha Schools' policy does not allow us to share our Ho'oulu Data Base information with any entity, including Kana'iolowalu.  I'm providing you with proof below (see image) and you can also check out the actual link by going to http://www.ksbe.edu/article.php?story=20130706220659899

When people are spreading this much mis-information (don't forget about this, this, this, and this), you have to wonder, "if they have to mis-inform me to convince me I shouldn't do something, rather than use truth to show me I shouldn't do something, maybe what they're trying so hard to get me not to do, isn't that bad."

I've had my own reservations about Kanaiolowalu, but it seems to me that I need to start being more concerned about those who oppose it. 

Monday, July 15, 2013

Clarifying misunderstandings and misinformation

In this post, I explain what the biggest issue with the Facebook comment below is.

The biggest issue with the comment to the left is that this fellow Native Hawaiian, who lives in San Francisco, incorrectly thinks that the State of Hawaii is somehow "defining what it means to be Kanaka Maoli."  Her opinion is misguided and isn't grounded in the reality surrounding Act 195.  In fact, her comments are representative of someone unfamiliar with the goings-on with the State of Hawaii.  Anyone not familiar with Hawaii politics and contemporary Native Hawaiian politics within the State of Hawaii will have difficulty talking intelligently about Hawaii political issues.  

Sure, the Hawaii State Legislature passed Act 195 establishing the Native Hawaiian Roll Commission.  But, the Legislature is not made of sterile robots nor is it a monolithic machine with no interest in supporting Native Hawaiians or Kanaka Maoli.  

Act 195 started off as Senate Bill 1520 and was introduced in the Hawaii State Legislature by four Native Hawaiian State Senators.  Senator Clayton Hee is known to have been the main driving force behind Senate Bill 1520.  Anyone who knows Senator Hee knows that he is an extremely strong supporter of Native Hawaiians, Native Hawaiian culture, Native Hawaiian rights, and the Hawaiian language.  This is not to say that Senator Hee doesn't have his fair share of critics, but that is not the issue for this particular posting.  Senator Hee also got the support of Senators Brickwood Galuteria, Gilbert Kahele, and then-Senator Pohai Ryan.  These four Native Hawaiian (Kanaka Maoli) state senators sought political recognition for their people and then introduced a bill that would eventually create the Native Hawaiian Roll Commission.  Click here to read a 2010 Honolulu Advertiser news article about Senator Hee's bill to end shark finning.  The article shows Hee's concern for Native Hawaiian culture.  Senator Hee introduced Senate Bill 2169 in 2010 that became Act 148.

The Native Hawaiian Roll Commission itself is also not composed of robots or machinery.  Instead, if you take a close look at the different commissioners, you will see that they are not just five Native Hawaiians.  The commissioners are known Native Hawaiian leaders with diverse leadership experiences.  

Lastly, the Native Hawaiian Roll Commission is using the same criteria that other recognized organizations (Kamehameha Schools) and other programs like the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands uses to confirm Native Hawaiian ancestry.  CLICK HERE to see video news clip explaining  ancestry confirmation.

This particular Native Hawaiian's opinion about "what" is defining what it means to be Kanaka Maoli is not grounded in reality.  Neither the state nor the federal government is "homogeneously defining what it means to be Kanaka Maoli." 

Tuesday, July 9, 2013

Don't Be Fooled Part 2.

Last month I wrote about how people will try to fool you about Kanaiolowalu.  It's necessary to talk about this again.  See the screen capture photo below.  The screen capture only shows an excerpt of the entire blog.

I'm going to explain to you how the bloggers are confusing people about Kanaiolowalu.  I think these people are generally well-intentioned. I think they mean well.

The blog posting is titled "Clarification on Kanaiolowalu Claims"  The title is meant to trick you into thinking that Kanaiolowalu "claims" are unclear.  They accomplish this in their blog post title by suggesting that they will clarify those claims in their blog posting.

I'll be honest with you, when I read this, I couldn't help but think about American-hero Charles Ramsey and the subsequent song remix that someone made that focuses on his use of the term, "Dead Give Away!"  This posting reminded me of that song so much, that I'm posting the YouTube video below for you to listen to.  But, please continue to read on because I explain below the video what the "Dead Give Away" is in this posting that shows how the bloggers are mis-informing people like you.

The Dead Give Aways Here.
You want to know what the dead give aways are in the posting?
  • First, Kanaiolowalu is not mentioned once in the post other than the blog post title and the URL for the Kanaiolowalu website. 
  • Second, the one time the word claim is used in the blog posting, it has nothing to do with Kanaiolowalu.  Instead, they write, "While there are many fighting the freedom fight, many claim not to have the time to listen to our voices, for they are so wrapped up in the legislative battles." Again, nothing to do with Kanaiolowalu.  
  • Third, neither the word clarification nor any derivative of that word shows up in the actual blog posting.    

What does all this mean?
It's very simple.  They didn't do what their blog post title told you they would do.  They provided no meaningful clarification of any Kanaiolowalu claims.  Their posting is obnoxiously long and doesn't do what they tell you they will do.

They explained nothing, and hoped you would read the subject heading and decide not to read the obnoxiously long posting.   Don't be fooled.

Monday, July 1, 2013

What would the Queen do?

It's fun to see people take something from the 1893 and then apply it to 2013 as if 120 years in between never happened.

Would Queen Liliʻuokalani sign Kanaiʻolowalu if she were still alive today?  This question is too complex to try to answer in a single image.  Below is an image that has made its rounds on the internet.

Did the Queen sign for annexation in 1893 or in 1898?  No. 

Would the Queen today sign her name on a registry that would allow her and her people to receive political recognition that would provide them some degree of self-governance?  Well, that's a completely different story than what happened in 1893.  Let's think about this a little more.

Today, Native Hawaiians are homeless, one-third of Native Hawaiians are living outside their ancestral lands, Native Hawaiians disproportionately represent people in prisons.  Native Hawaiians also "continue to be underrepresented" in colleges and universities" and among those with four years of college or more."  The conditions of Native Hawaiians today are very different than the conditions that Native Hawaiians endured in more than 100 years ago in 1893 and 1898.

The Queen also subsequently lost her crown lands.  If the federal government were willing to give back some or all of the remaining crown lands to a Native Hawaiian governing entity, would the Queen sign?  If those crown lands could be used to improve the conditions of Native Hawaiians, would the Queen sign?

Whether the Queen would support Kanaiolowalu or not is a complicated question.

The Queen was an amazing leader and it's much more likely that she would spend a lot of time thinking about the complexities involved in such a decision.  She was such an amazing leader that I believe she would evaluate the needs and conditions of her people first and determine whether signing on to Kanaʻiolowalu would help her address those needs and conditions.