Once again Ken Conklin PhD tries to deceive us

In this letter to the editor, Ken Conklin PhD fails to mention that he repeatedly tried to bite a Hawaiian woman's finger. Here is a still of the incident:

Here is the raw footage courtesy of KHNL of Ken Conklin PhD trying to physically bite her finger:

http://www.khnl.com/Global/story.asp?S=5301211

He forgot to mention this in his letter which singles out and targets Hawaiians based on our national origin:

Rudeness replaces aloha for patriotism

Sovereignty protesters used a sound system, bullhorns and in-your-face shouting to disrupt Statehood Day celebrations (Star-Bulletin, Aug. 19). They terrorized a high school band into leaving before the music could be played.

Five days later, I attended a blessing ceremony to open a $23 million renovation project at Windward Mall. Kamehameha Schools owns the mall.

I am an active opponent of Kamehameha's racist admissions policy. But I left my bullhorn at home. I did not go to the podium, interrupt any speakers, yell or stick my finger in their faces. I did not harass the school kids performing right next to my seat.

A large American flag hangs permanently above center-stage; yet there was no Pledge of Allegiance. When everyone stood to sing "Hawaii Pono'i" I sat down because the U.S. national anthem was not also sung. That was my protest. I believe the anthem and pledge were deliberately excluded for fear that some in attendance would be disrespectful. That's how bad things have gotten.

At the end we all joined hands and I sang along --"Hawai'i Aloha." Indeed. Let's hope so.

Aloha ke Akua. Aloha kakou.

Kenneth R. Conklin

Kaneohe

Seen at http://starbulletin.com/2006/08/27/editorial/letters.html

Unfortunately the Honolulu Starbulletin allowed Ken Conklin PhD to use their paper as a tool to try to spread racism against Hawaiians.

In this letter to the editor, Ken Conklin PhD fails to mention that he repeatedly tried to bite a Hawaiian woman's finger. Here is a still of the incident:

Here is the raw footage courtesy of KHNL of Ken Conklin PhD trying to physically bite her finger:

http://www.khnl.com/Global/story.asp?S=5301211

He forgot to mention this in his letter which singles out and targets Hawaiians based on our national origin:

Rudeness replaces aloha for patriotism

Sovereignty protesters used a sound system, bullhorns and in-your-face shouting to disrupt Statehood Day celebrations (Star-Bulletin, Aug. 19). They terrorized a high school band into leaving before the music could be played.

Five days later, I attended a blessing ceremony to open a $23 million renovation project at Windward Mall. Kamehameha Schools owns the mall.

I am an active opponent of Kamehameha's racist admissions policy. But I left my bullhorn at home. I did not go to the podium, interrupt any speakers, yell or stick my finger in their faces. I did not harass the school kids performing right next to my seat.

A large American flag hangs permanently above center-stage; yet there was no Pledge of Allegiance. When everyone stood to sing "Hawaii Pono'i" I sat down because the U.S. national anthem was not also sung. That was my protest. I believe the anthem and pledge were deliberately excluded for fear that some in attendance would be disrespectful. That's how bad things have gotten.

At the end we all joined hands and I sang along --"Hawai'i Aloha." Indeed. Let's hope so.

Aloha ke Akua. Aloha kakou.

Kenneth R. Conklin

Kaneohe

Seen at http://starbulletin.com/2006/08/27/editorial/letters.html

Unfortunately the Honolulu Starbulletin allowed Ken Conklin PhD to use their paper as a tool to try to spread racism against Hawaiians.

Ken Conklin PhD tries to deceive us once again

In this letter to the editor, Ken Conklin PhD fails to mention that he repeatedly tried to bite a Hawaiian woman's finger. Here is a still of the incident:

Here is the raw footage courtesy of KHNL of Ken Conklin PhD trying to physically bite her finger:

http://www.khnl.com/Global/story.asp?S=5301211

He forgot to mention this in his letter which singles out and targets Hawaiians based on our national origin:

Rudeness replaces aloha for patriotism

Sovereignty protesters used a sound system, bullhorns and in-your-face shouting to disrupt Statehood Day celebrations (Star-Bulletin, Aug. 19). They terrorized a high school band into leaving before the music could be played.

Five days later, I attended a blessing ceremony to open a $23 million renovation project at Windward Mall. Kamehameha Schools owns the mall.

I am an active opponent of Kamehameha's racist admissions policy. But I left my bullhorn at home. I did not go to the podium, interrupt any speakers, yell or stick my finger in their faces. I did not harass the school kids performing right next to my seat.

A large American flag hangs permanently above center-stage; yet there was no Pledge of Allegiance. When everyone stood to sing "Hawaii Pono'i" I sat down because the U.S. national anthem was not also sung. That was my protest. I believe the anthem and pledge were deliberately excluded for fear that some in attendance would be disrespectful. That's how bad things have gotten.

At the end we all joined hands and I sang along --"Hawai'i Aloha." Indeed. Let's hope so.

Aloha ke Akua. Aloha kakou.

Kenneth R. Conklin

Kaneohe

Seen at http://starbulletin.com/2006/08/27/editorial/letters.html

Unfortunately the Honolulu Starbulletin allowed Ken Conklin PhD to use their paper as a tool to try to spread racism against Hawaiians.

Anti-Hawaiian Ken Conklin PhD tries to bite a Hawaiian woman's finger

Fortunately someone took raw footage of a recent showdown at Iolani Palace between Hawaiians and anti-Hawaiians:


http://www.khnl.com/Global/story.asp?S=5301211

You can see and hear Ken Conklin in the third picture tell the Hawaiian lady that he is hungry and implies that he will bite her finger off. (Please watch the RAW footage version.) He is in the right of this picture:



That is the guy who tries to spread racism against Hawaiians. This footage also shows how violent Ken Conklin PhD is towards Hawaiians which is embarrassing to our country (the U.S.) How embarrassing!

Another example of Ken Conklin's deception

From Paul Arrighi:

"Ken Conklin posted a commentary on an article saying that "ohana" was a recent creation and when Lana Robbins provided proof that ohana has been in use for well over 120 years, Conklin's response is a lame, maybe the person who wrote the article did not have access to this information. A honest assessment would be to admit that the article was wrong but Conklin because of his prejudice or whatever reason is unable to bring himself to say this."

A little background:

This is what Ken Conklin wrote about the Hawaiian word "ohana." Note that he amended it but he does not reflect the fact that Lana Robbins pointed it out to him that "Ohana" has been in Hawaiian language papers as early as 1834 which proves that "ohana" is NOT a modern invention as he inaccurately claims on his website here inaccurately asserting that the Hawaiian word "ohana" was created in about 1950 when it was not:


http://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/ohana.html


Then Lana Robbins showed that the Hawaiian word "ohana" is shown being used as early as in 1834 NOT in 1950 which Ken Conklin tries to deceptively lead people to believe:

http://nupepa.org/gsdl2.5/cgi-bin/nupepa?a=q&r=1&hs=1&e=q-0nupepa--00-0-0--010---4----text---0-1l--1en-Zz-1---20-about---00031-0000utfZz-8-00&t=0&q=ohana


This is reflected here:

www.kenconklin.org/mediawiki/index.php?title=The_Word_'Ohana_Is_A_Modern_Invention


In it the editor states:

"Editor's note


Lana Ululani Robbins found references to the word "ohana" in old olelo newspapers online, circa 1831 and forward. It is quite possible that the information she uncovered was not available to the original writer of the article referenced below."

It is easy for people to see the deception of Ken Conklin.


Again... the Hawaiian word "ohana" is clearly seen in a Hawaiian newspaper dated as early as in 1834 which is clearly NOT a modern invention as Conklin inaccurately and deceptively claims.


The writers could have easily checked out this information. Especially Kenneth Conklin PhD aka Ken Conklin PhD. He has a PhD in the Philosophy of Education yet he FAILED to do thorough research. Instead he published it and has been caught by Lana Robbins.


In conclusion... it is clear that Conklin deceives.



And he calls us Hawaiians stupid.

Ken Conklin's Racist Attacks on the Hawaiian Culture

In the HAWAII REPORTER, Ken Conklin writes a piece regarding the recent desecration of ahu (alters) that were put up at Maunakea on the island of Hawai'i and at 'Iolani Palace on O'ahu. He questions if it was:

1) a simple act of vandalism by people who did not know its significance?

2) demolition of a rockpile a desecration of a religious shrine?

3) was it an act against ethnic Hawaiians?

4) was it a political statement against Hawaiian sovereignty, therefore being protected under "free speech"?

5) an act done by sovereignty activists in order to gain sympathy?

So to answer his questions.

#1 Does he really think that people are that clueless not only being aware of the cultures in the islands but just standard, social etiquette?

#2 What it comes down to is destroying property, that's all he needs to be concerned about.

#3 If there's any act against "ethnic" Hawaiians, a term that he habitually uses, it would be him. Keep in mind how many centuries we have lived together with outsiders and allowed them to come in to the islands. Now comes Ken Conklin with his own agenda and rocks the boat and questions non-Hawaiians as to why they never went against Hawaiians to begin with.

#4 This is nothing but an excuse. He hates sovereignty, therefore will use anything he can against it. This is just that.

#5 Now he is really groping for things to say. Ken claims to be savvy in the Hawaiian culture. If that's the case, he should know that Hawaiians would never do things like that akin to the tapu system.

He says that there is no way to know unless the perpetrators are caught. Yet he can publicly pose these scenarios, but what about number 6, where Ken Conklin may have something to do with this in order to write this article?

He belittles our culture by his constant use of rockpile to which in his opinion it is nothing more than that unless we hold his beliefs as to what is deemed as sacred or not. He asks if it is a shrine, what god does it honor? In other words, it cannot be a "shrine" unless it honors an actual god that he is familiar with because if it doesn't, then it isn't a shrine, only because he believes that it is. Does he realize that a shrine is nothing more than a place where devotion is paid to a venerated person, not necessarily a "god" as he insists. He uses this term (to no surprise) in order to marginalize our culture. I hear about these "make-shift shrines" on the t.v. all the time when someone is gunned down, run over, or killed by any other means in any given area. They are not "gods". And if he really knew something about Hawaiian culture, he should know that there were also kupua (demigods) that were venerated as well.

Worse, he justifies its attack and demolition simply because the monument at 'Iolani Palace was built for political purpose. Is he serious? It's like saying that it's okay for Al-Queda to attack the White House, Statue of Liberty, Mount Rushmore or the Washington Monument.

Because some Hawaiians are practicing the ancient religion, he finds that it is a bold move since it is used as an embellishment for political purposes. Ken will say anything to use against sovereignty, something he does not want Hawaiians to have.

He continues by repeating the purpose of the "rockpile" that it was done with nothing more than a political purpose. I find it very odd that he opens up by mentioning possible scenarios a la CSI only to finally state that he sees this "rockpile" as nothing more than having a political purpose. So all of this just to express again how much he despises Hawaiian people and their culture once again:



http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?c4781530-a57b-4c05-8e38-7d3987a15164

Once again Ken Conklin tries to push his agenda for the ethnic cleansing of Hawaiians by Lana Robbins

In today's newspaper, Kenneth Conklin writes to the editor of the Honolulu Advertiser to try to spread his racism against Hawaiians again. The fatal flaw in his argument is that the Office of Hawaiian Affairs was the result of the Admissions Act. In it it explicitly states:

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That, subject to the provisions of this Act, and upon issuance of the proclamation required by section 7(c) of this Act, the State of Hawaii is hereby declared to be a State of the United States of America, is declared admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the other States in all respects whatever, and the constitution formed pursuant to the provisions of the Act of the Territorial Legislature of Hawaii entitled "An Act to provide for a constitutional convention, the adoption of a State constitution, and the forwarding of the same to the Congress of the United States, and appropriating money therefor", approved May 20, 1949 (Act 334, Session Laws of Hawaii, 1949), and adopted by a vote of the people of Hawaii in the election held on November 7, 1950, is hereby found to be republican in form and in conformity with the Constitution of the United States and the principles of the Declaration of Independence, and is hereby accepted, ratified, and confirmed."

Then it states:

§4. As a compact with the United States relating to the management and disposition of the Hawaiian home lands, the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, 1920, as amended, shall be adopted as a provision of the Constitution of said State, as provided in section 7, subsection (b) of this Act, subject to amendment or repeal only with the consent of the United States, and in no other manner: Provided, That (1) sections 202, 213, 219, 220, 222, 224, and 225 and other provisions relating to administration, and paragraph (2) of section 204, sections 206 and 212, and other provisions relating to the powers and duties of officers other than those charged with the administration of said Act, may be amended in the constitution, or in the manner required for State legislation, but the Hawaiian home-loan fund, the Hawaiian home-operating fund, and the Hawaiian home-development fund shall not be reduced or impaired by any such amendment, whether made in the constitution or in the manner required for State legislation, and the encumbrances authorized to be placed on Hawaiian home lands by officers other than those charged with the administration of said Act, shall not be increased, except with the consent of the United States; (2) that any amendment to increase the benefits to lessees of Hawaiian home lands may be made in the constitution, or in the manner required for State legislation, but the qualifications of lessees shall not be changed except with the consent of the United States; and (3) that all proceeds and income from the "available lands", as defined by said Act, shall be used only in carrying out the provisions of said Act.

Furthermore, in Hawaii STATE LAW, Hawaii Revised Statute Chapter 10, it states

§10-3 Purpose of the office. The purposes of the office of Hawaiian affairs include:

(1) The betterment of conditions of native Hawaiians.

A pro rata portion of all funds derived from the public land trust shall be funded in an amount to be determined by the legislature for this purpose, and shall be held and used solely as a public trust for the betterment of the conditions of native Hawaiians.

For the purpose of this chapter, the public land trust shall be all proceeds and income from the sale, lease, or other disposition of lands ceded to the United States by the Republic of Hawaii under the joint resolution of annexation, approved July 7, 1898 (30 Stat. 750), or acquired in exchange for lands so ceded, and conveyed to the State of Hawaii by virtue of section 5(b) of the Act of March 18, 1959 (73 Stat. 4, the Admissions Act), (excluding therefrom lands and all proceeds and income from the sale, lease, or disposition of lands defined as "available lands" by section 203 of the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, 1920, as amended), and all proceeds and income from the sale, lease, or other disposition of lands retained by the United States under sections 5(c) and 5(d) of the Act of March 18, 1959, later conveyed to the State under section 5(e);

(2) The betterment of conditions of Hawaiians;

(3) Serving as the principal public agency in this State responsible for the performance, development, and coordination of programs and activities relating to native Hawaiians and Hawaiians; except that the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, 1920, as amended, shall be administered by the Hawaiian homes commission;

(4) Assessing the policies and practices of other agencies impacting on native Hawaiians and Hawaiians, and conducting advocacy efforts for native Hawaiians and Hawaiians;

(5) Applying for, receiving, and disbursing, grants and donations from all sources for native Hawaiian and Hawaiian programs and services; and

(6) Serving as a receptacle for reparations. [L 1979, c 196, pt of §2; am L 1990, c 304, §§4, 16]



http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol01_Ch0001-0042F/HRS0010/HRS_0010-0003.HTM

In addition in the Hawaii State Constitution Article 12 it explicitly states:

THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF HAWAII

ARTICLE XII

HAWAIIAN AFFAIRS

HAWAIIAN HOMES COMMISSION ACT

Section 1. Anything in this constitution to the contrary notwithstanding, the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, 1920, enacted by the Congress, as the same has been or may be amended prior to the admission of the State, is hereby adopted as a law of the State, subject to amendment or repeal by the legislature; provided that if and to the extent that the United States shall so require, such law shall be subject to amendment or repeal only with the consent of the United States and in no other manner; provided further that if the United States shall have been provided or shall provide that particular provisions or types of provisions of such Act may be amended in the manner required for ordinary state legislation, such provisions or types of provisions may be so amended. The proceeds and income from Hawaiian home lands shall be used only in accordance with the terms and spirit of such Act. The legislature shall make sufficient sums available for the following purposes:

development of home, agriculture, farm and ranch lots;
home, agriculture, aquaculture, farm and ranch loans;
rehabilitation projects to include, but not limited to, educational, economic, political, social and cultural processes by which the general welfare and conditions of native Hawaiians are thereby improved;
the administration and operating budget of the department of Hawaiian home lands; in furtherance of (1), (2), (3) and (4) herein, by appropriating the same in the manner provided by law.
Thirty percent of the state receipts derived from the leasing of cultivated sugarcane lands under any provision of law or from water licenses shall be transferred to the native Hawaiian rehabilitation fund, section 213 of the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, 1920, for the purposes enumerated in that section. Thirty percent of the state receipts derived from the leasing of lands cultivated as sugarcane lands on the effective date of this section shall continue to be so transferred to the native Hawaiian rehabilitation fund whenever such lands are sold, developed, leased, utilized, transferred, set aside or otherwise disposed of for purposes other than the cultivation of sugarcane. There shall be no ceiling established for the aggregate amount transferred into the native Hawaiian rehabilitation fund. [Ren and am Const Con 1978 and election Nov 7, 1978]

ACCEPTANCE OF COMPACT

Section 2. The State and its people do hereby accept, as a compact with the United States, or as conditions or trust provisions imposed by the United States, relating to the management and disposition of the Hawaiian home lands, the requirement that section 1 hereof be included in this constitution, in whole or in part, it being intended that the Act or acts of the Congress pertaining thereto shall be definitive of the extent and nature of such compact, conditions or trust provisions, as the case may be. The State and its people do further agree and declare that the spirit of the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act looking to the continuance of the Hawaiian homes projects for the further rehabilitation of the Hawaiian race shall be faithfully carried out. [Ren and am Const Con 1978 and election Nov 7, 1978]

COMPACT ADOPTION; PROCEDURES AFTER ADOPTION

Section 3. As a compact with the United States relating to the management and disposition of the Hawaiian home lands, the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, 1920, as amended, shall be adopted as a provision of the constitution of this State, as provided in section 7, subsection (b), of the Admission Act, subject to amendment or repeal only with the consent of the United States, and in no other manner; provided that (1) sections 202, 213, 219, 220, 222, 224 and 225 and other provisions relating to administration, and paragraph (2) of section 204, sections 206 and 2l2 and other provisions relating to the powers and duties of officers other than those charged with the administration of such Act, may be amended in the constitution, or in the manner required for state legislation, but the Hawaiian home-loan fund, the Hawaiian home-operating fund and the Hawaiian home- development fund shall not be reduced or impaired by any such amendment, whether made in the constitution or in the manner required for state legislation, and the encumbrances authorized to be placed on Hawaiian home lands by officers other than those charged with the administration of such Act, shall not be increased, except with the consent of the United States; (2) that any amendment to increase the benefits to lessees of Hawaiian home lands may be made in the constitution, or in the manner required for state legislation, but the qualifications of lessees shall not be changed except with the consent of the United States; and (3) that all proceeds and income from the "available lands," as defined by such Act, shall be used only in carrying out the provisions of such Act. [Add 73 Stat 4 and election June 27, 1959; ren and am Const Con 1978 and election Nov 7, 1978]

PUBLIC TRUST

Section 4. The lands granted to the State of Hawaii by Section 5(b) of the Admission Act and pursuant to Article XVI, Section 7, of the State Constitution, excluding therefrom lands defined as "available lands" by Section 203 of the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, 1920, as amended, shall be held by the State as a public trust for native Hawaiians and the general public. [Add Const Con 1978 and election Nov 7, 1978]

OFFICE OF HAWAIIAN AFFAIRS; ESTABLISHMENT OF BOARD OF TRUSTEES

Section 5. There is hereby established an Office of Hawaiian Affairs. The Office of Hawaiian Affairs shall hold title to all the real and personal property now or hereafter set aside or conveyed to it which shall be held in trust for native Hawaiians and Hawaiians. There shall be a board of trustees for the Office of Hawaiian Affairs elected by qualified voters who are Hawaiians, as provided by law. The board members shall be Hawaiians. There shall be not less than nine members of the board of trustees; provided that each of the following Islands have one representative: Oahu, Kauai, Maui, Molokai and Hawaii. The board shall select a chairperson from its members. [Add Const Con 1978 and election Nov 7, 1978]

POWERS OF BOARD OF TRUSTEES

Section 6. The board of trustees of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs shall exercise power as provided by law: to manage and administer the proceeds from the sale or other disposition of the lands, natural resources, minerals and income derived from whatever sources for native Hawaiians and Hawaiians, including all income and proceeds from that pro rata portion of the trust referred to in section 4 of this article for native Hawaiians; to formulate policy relating to affairs of native Hawaiians and Hawaiians; and to exercise control over real and personal property set aside by state, federal or private sources and transferred to the board for native Hawaiians and Hawaiians. The board shall have the power to exercise control over the Office of Hawaiian Affairs through its executive officer, the administrator of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, who shall be appointed by the board. [Add Const Con 1978 and election Nov 7, 1978]

TRADITIONAL AND CUSTOMARY RIGHTS

Section 7. The State reaffirms and shall protect all rights, customarily and traditionally exercised for subsistence, cultural and religious purposes and possessed by ahupua'a tenants who are descendants of native Hawaiians who inhabited the Hawaiian Islands prior to 1778, subject to the right of the State to regulate such rights. [Add Const Con 1978 and election Nov 7, 1978]



Seen at http://www.hawaii.gov/lrb/con/conart12.html

In 1997 it was amended to include among a few things that the grandchildren of the Hawaiian Home Land can inherit the property of their grandparent(s):

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=105_cong_reports&docid=f:hr016.105.pdf

Then in 2000 the U.S. Supreme Court in a 7-2 vote strikes down the practice of allowing only native Hawaiians to vote in OHA elections:

http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/98-818.ZS.html

As for the "up-to-date copy" of the Hawaii State Constitution... that is the up to date copy. For example if you go to Section 23 which describes "marriage:"

MARRIAGE

Section 23. The legislature shall have the power to reserve marriage to opposite-sex couples. [Add HB 117 (1997) and election Nov 3, 1998]



http://www.hawaii.gov/lrb/con/conart1.html

That was approved by the voters in 1998 so it is the most up to date copy.




Here is his letter where he tries to de-humanize us Hawaiians trying to make us look like monsters. Is it OUR fault that the United States helped to overthrow our government? No. However he tries to make the innocent pay for what the guilty have done which is not very nice. In addition he asserts that since we comprised less than the majority of kingdom cabinet members that we do not matter so therefore we do not nor should not deserve an apology. That is very cold and callous of Ken Conklin to imply because though he mistakenly thinks that Hawaiians do not matter the truth is that WE DO. Unfortunately he tries to discount us, who we are, our history, and our kupuna which is very disrespectful to the Hawaiian people.


In any case this is his latest letter which tries to dehumanize us Hawaiians and tries to make us look like monsters while spreading his racism against us:

RESCIND APOLOGY

MORGAN VINDICATES OVERTHROW

Thanks to James Kawika Riley for helping publicize the Morgan Report (Advertiser, Feb. 13). That 808-page U.S. Senate report from 1894 is at morganreport.org, plus an annotated table of contents and historical commentaries.

Voluminous public testimony under oath with cross-examination proved U.S. Minister Stevens did not conspire beforehand with Honolulu residents who overthrew the monarchy. U.S. peacekeepers protected life and property while remaining scrupulously neutral. Morgan discredits a previous report by James Blount, political hatchet-man for isolationist President Cleveland.

Blount collected royalist opinions secretly, not under oath. Blount wanted to challenge the revolution's legitimacy, to slow growing congressional support for annexation. After Cleveland left office, Hawai'i's renewed offer of a treaty of annexation was accepted by vote of 42-21 in the Senate and 209-91 in the House.

Mr. Riley, a Bureau Fellow for the Office of Hawaiian Affairs in Washington, understandably tries to discredit Morgan. OHA justifies race-based programs and the Akaka bill by pointing to Congress' 1993 resolution apologizing to Native Hawaiians for overthrowing the monarchy. But that resolution is based on false history, as the Morgan Report clearly proves. The U.S. did not overthrow the monarchy; armed local residents did it. The U.S. did not conspire beforehand, nor aid the revolution as it unfolded.

Native Hawaiians were already a minority in 1893. Most kingdom cabinet members, most government executives and many elected legislators had no Hawaiian native blood. So even if the U.S. wants to apologize for a revolution it did not cause, the apology should be addressed to all of Hawai'i's people and not to a racial group.

The best "apology" — the only kind that makes sense — was action during the same year as the revolution. President Cleveland, Lili'uokalani's friend, immediately withdrew a proposed treaty of annexation. He then tried hard to undo the revolution. U.S. diplomats secretly conspired with Lili'uokalani. Blount torpedoed negotiations between Hawai'i President Sanford Dole and ex-Queen Lili'uokalani (she offered to abdicate and support annexation in return for a government pension). Cleveland's official minister to Hawai'i ordered Dole to step down and restore the queen; but Dole refused (showing the provisional government was not a U.S. puppet).

Shortly thereafter, the Morgan Report was published. Cleveland accepted the verdict of Morgan, backed away from the Blount Report, recognized the legitimacy of the Dole government, and negotiated with it regarding further implementation of kingdom treaties.

Today, OHA and other powerful institutions want to blame the U.S. for the overthrow. They demand reparations forever, including a race-based government. They don't want us to know the U.S. did nothing wrong and actually tried to undo the revolution the same year it happened.

Former Sens. Slade Gorton and Hank Brown recently published their complaint that Sen. Daniel K. Inouye lied in 1993 when assuring his colleagues the Apology Resolution was a "simple apology" and would not be used to support demands for race-based reparations, communal land tenure or secession.

The apology resolution should be rescinded.

Kenneth R. Conklin
Editor of www.morganreport.org


Seen at http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060217/OPINION02/602170328/1108/LETTERS