You are on page 1of 10

The  False  Narrative  

Office  of  Hawaiian  Affairs/U.S.  Department  of  Interior/Na’i  Aupuni  
 
On  October  2,  2015,  the  King  sent  a  letter  to  President  Obama  exposing  the  United  
States  Department  of  Interior  process  for  “reestablishing”  a  “government-­‐to-­‐
government”  relationship  between  Native  Hawaiians  and  the  United  States  
Government  as  a  fraud  and  an  assault  on  the  Kingdom.    Subsequently,  the  King’s  
letter  was  incorporated  into  this  paper  that  takes  a  deeper  look  at  the  deception.  
 
“O,  what  a  tangled  web  we  weave  when  first  we  practise  to  deceive!”    Walter  Scott  
 
There  is  a  simple  truth  that  should  be  the  basis  for  discussion  of  future  governance  
of  Hawai’i.    In  1893,  the  United  States  Minister  to  Hawai’i  assisted  residents  of  the  
Kingdom  of  Hawai’i  in  committing  treason  and,  in  the  case  of  United  States  citizens,  
violating  the  United  States  Neutrality  Act,  by  seizing  Queen  Liliu’okalani  with  the  
intent  of  abolishing  the  Kingdom  and  annexing  Hawai’i  to  the  United  States.  
 
The  seizure  of  the  Queen  was  part  of  a  systematic  attack  on  all  aspects  of  Hawaiian  
civilization  that  had  been  going  on  for  years.    Banning  the  hula,  insisting  on  English  
only  in  the  schools,  outlawing  ancestor  worship,  and  other  attacks  on  the  
foundations  of  Hawaiian  civilization  combined  with  the  diseases  brought  by  the  
foreigners  to  commit  attempted  genocide  of  the  Hawaiian  people  and  destruction  of  
their  civilization.  
 
Despite  the  systematic  attack,  the  Hawaiian  civilization  survived.    That  survival  
meant  that  the  Hawaiian  claims  to  their  sovereignty  and  their  lands  also  survived.  
 
That  miracle  of  resiliency  is  a  matter  of  great  discomfort  for  the  United  States.    The  
failed  attempt  to  legally  annex  Hawai’i,  the  phony  statehood  plebiscite,  the  legally  
ineffective  Admissions  Act,  and  all  the  other  actions  based  on  the  corrupt  foundation  
of  the  original  crimes  failed  to  extinguish  the  Kingdom  or  the  Kingdom’s  legitimate  
claims  to  sovereignty  and  jurisdiction  over  Kingdom  lands.  
 
Today  more  modern  techniques  are  being  employed  in  an  effort  to  complete  the  
process  of  extinguishing  the  Kingdom.  
 
The  techniques  for  manipulating  populations  through  the  use  of  propaganda  have  
been  used  for  centuries.    In  recent  times,  Joseph  Goebbels,  Reich  Minister  of  
Propaganda  in  Nazi  Germany,  and  Leni  Riefenstahl,  propaganda  filmmaker  in  Nazi  
Germany,  brought  propaganda  techniques  to  new  heights  of  effectiveness.  
 
Today,  those  techniques  are  being  further  refined  to  include  manipulation  of  new  
communications  channels,  such  as  the  Internet.    The  National  Security  State  
apparatus  within  the  United  States  government  (USNSS)  is  very  busy  pursuing  such  
techniques.  
 
 

1  

One  technique  of  the  USNSS  is  creating  a  false  narrative.    The  target  population  is  to  
be  manipulated  into  believing  something  other  than  the  truth  and  into  acting  on  that  
belief  unaware  that  the  belief  is  false.    Such  a  false  narrative  can  take  over  the  
conversation  in  such  a  way  that  the  truth  is  submerged  –  not  destroyed,  just  shoved  
out  of  the  conversation.    An  excellent  discussion  of  this  technique  is  found  here:    
 
http://www.commondreams.org/views/2015/09/28/power-false-narrative
See  also:    http://tinyurl.com/nbypy66  
 
There  is  a  false  narrative  that  is  attempting  to  submerge  the  truth  about  the  
Kingdom  of  Hawai’i.    In  that  false  narrative,  people  of  original  Hawaiian  ancestry  are  
an  “indigenous  people,”  whose  future  should  be  addressed  through  laws,  
institutions,  and  programs  that  address  indigenous  rights.      
 
The  Office  of  Hawaiian  Affairs  (OHA)  commissioned  a  paper  to  promote  that  point  of  
view.    http://tinyurl.com/ptqrrx3      At  the  suggestion  of  the  United  States  
Department  of  Interior  (DoI),  OHA  brought  in  Professor  James  Anaya  to  prepare  the  
paper  because  DoI  knew  that  he  would  promote  the  false  narrative  and  argue  for  
policies  and  decisions  based  on  the  false  narrative.      
 
While  the  paper  is  lengthy,  reading  the  Executive  Summary  will  give  you  the  idea.    
Watch  how  the  authors  portray  pursuit  of  the  independence  option  as  almost  
impossible,  given  United  States  opposition,  as  compared  to  their  promotion  of  the    
indigenous  option,  despite  the  fact  that  the  United  States  treats  the  United  Nations  
Declaration  on  the  Rights  of  Indigenous  People  as  simply  “aspirational,”  i.e.  just  
hopes  without  any  legally  enforceable  status.  
 
In  the  false  narrative,  the  indigenous  people  are  separate  from  the  governing  
structure  of  the  broader  society.    The  question  of  the  “indigenous  people’s’”  
relationship  to  the  broader  society  is  a  separate  political  question.    That  relationship  
might  be  an  independent  nation  for  the  “indigenous,”  a  nation-­‐within-­‐a-­‐nation,  or  
assimilation.    That  relationship  is  a  separate  question  from  the  “indigenous”  
questions  related  only  to  those  of  original  Hawaiian  ancestry.  
 
Ask  yourself  this  one  question:    Were  Hawaiians  an  “indigenous  people”  before  the  
overthrow?      
 
When  Captain  Cooke  arrived,  only  the  original  Hawaiian  people  lived  in  the  islands.    
They  governed  themselves.    The  Hawaiians  were  not  an  “indigenous  people”  
separate  from  some  other  population  in  the  islands.    
 
They  were,  however,  a  nation  of  immigrants.    Waves  of  immigration  brought  
Hawaiians,  Tahitians,  and  others  to  the  islands.    They  all  practiced  a  common  faith  
and  manifested  a  similar  civilization.    
 

 

2  

After  the  establishment  of  the  Kingdom,  all  of  the  rulers  prior  to  the  overthrow  –  
from  Kamehameha  I  to  Queen  Liliu’okalani  –  were  of  original  Hawaiian  ancestry.    
Beside  the  monarch,  people  of  original  Hawaiian  ancestry  filled  many  places  within  
both  the  Executive  and  Legislative  branches  of  Kingdom  government.    There  was  no  
separation  between  those  of  original  Hawaiian  ancestry  and  all  the  other  subjects  of  
the  Kingdom.  
 
The  DoI  promotes  the  false  “indigenous”  narrative  through  straightforward  lying.    
“Congress's  recognition  of  a  single  Native  Hawaiian  community  reflects  the  fact  that  
a  single  centralized,  organized  Native  Hawaiian  government  was  in  place  prior  to  
the  overthrow  of  the  Hawaiian  Kingdom.”  (emphasis  added).  
 
Sometimes  the  DoI  is  so  anxious  to  deceive  that  it  twists  itself  into  a  pretzel.    
Consider  the  following:  
 
Issue:  Some  commenters  opposed  Federal  rulemaking  on  the  basis  that  the  
Kingdom  of  Hawaii  had  evolved  into  a  multicultural  society  by  the  time  it  
was  overthrown,  and  that  any  attempt  to  reorganize  or  reestablish  a  “native”  
(indigenous)  Hawaiian  government  would  consequently  be  race-­‐based  and  
unlawful.  
Response:  The  fact  that  individuals  originating  from  other  countries  lived  in  
and  were  subject  to  the  rule  of  the  Kingdom  of  Hawaii  does  not  establish  that  
the  Native  Hawaiian  community  ceased  to  exist  as  a  native  community  
exercising  political  authority.  Indeed,  as  discussed  above,  key  elements  
demonstrating  the  existence  of  that  community,  such  as  intermarriage  and  
sustained  cultural  identity,  persisted  at  that  time  and  continue  to  flourish  
today.    
To  the  extent  that  these  comments  suggest  that  the  Department  must  
reestablish  a  government-­‐to-­‐government  relationship  with  a  government  
that  includes  non-­‐Native  Hawaiians  as  members,  that  result  is  precluded  
by  longstanding  Congressional  definitions  of  Native  Hawaiians,  which  
require  a  demonstration  of  descent  from  the  population  of  Hawaii  as  it  
existed  before  Western  contact.  That  requirement  is  consistent  with  Federal  
law  that  generally  requires  members  of  a  native  group  or  tribe  to  show  an  
ancestral  connection  to  the  indigenous  group  in  question.  See  generally  
United  States  v.  Sandoval,  231  U.S.  28,  46  (1913).  Moreover,  the  Department  
must  defer  to  Congress's  definition  of  the  nature  and  scope  of  the  Native  
Hawaiian  community.”  
“Multi-­‐cultural?”    I  doubt  that  a  single  comment  suggested  that  Hawai’i  evolved  into  
a  “multi-­‐cultural”  society.    Numerous  comments  were  filed  noting  that  when  the  
Kingdom  adopted  a  constitution  that  opened  citizenship  beyond  Native  Hawaiians,  
the  Kingdom  citizenship  became  multi-­‐national,  i.e.  included  people  whose  ancestry  

 

3  

was  United  States,  Japanese,  French,  British,  etc.    DoI  uses  “multi-­‐cultural”  to  avoid  
the  issue  of  nationality  and  evade  the  true  description  of  the  Kingdom.  
 
Contrary  to  the  DoI  response,  the  Native  Hawaiian  community  did  cease  to  exercise  
“political  authority”  as  an  independent  body  when  the  Kingdom  became  a  
constitutional  monarchy.    The  political  authority  (Kingdom)  had  subjects,  elected  
representatives,  and  officers  from  numerous  ancestries,  including  Native  Hawaiians.  
In  the  final  part  of  that  response,  the  DoI  clarifies  why  pursuing  the  “indigenous”  
false  narrative  path  leads  to  a  dead  end.    Having  opened  up  the  federal  recognition  
process  to  only  Native  Hawaiians,  DoI  then  uses  that  self-­‐imposed  restriction  to  
declare  that  the  new  government  cannot  include  non-­‐Hawaiians.  
   
Because  the  DoI  offer  only  for  Native  Hawaiians,  the  options  for  the  Native  
Hawaiians  are  limited  to  ones  that  apply  only  to  Native  Hawaiians.    Having  defined  
the  path  as  limited  to  “indigenous,”  there  is  no  opportunity  to  adopt  restoration  of  
the  Kingdom  as  the  resolution  of  the  injury  created  by  the  1893  act  of  war.  
 
The  overthrow  did  not  create  an  “indigenous  people.”    The  overthrow  stole  an  entire  
nation  from  its  legitimate  government.      Those  opposed  to  restoring  Kingdom  
independence  will  never  mention  the  subjects  of  the  Kingdom,  who  were  not  of  
original  Hawaiian  ancestry  and  who  also  lost  their  nation.    To  acknowledge  that  
group  would  expose  the  lie  of  the  false  narrative.    
 
The  confusion  in  the  Apology  Resolution,  where  sometimes  the  references  are  to  the  
Native  Hawaiians  and  sometimes  to  the  Kingdom  of  Hawai’i,  is  a  direct  result  of  
efforts  to  conflate  being  indigenous  with  being  the  population  of  the  Kingdom.  
 
http://kingdomofhawaii.info/wp-­‐
content/uploads/2015/01/kingdomofhawaii.info_docs_apology_resolution.pdf    
 
(“To  acknowledge  the  …  overthrow  of  the  Kingdom  of  Hawai’i,  and  to  offer  an  
apology  to  Native  Hawaiians  on  behalf  of  the  United  States  for  the  overthrow  of  the  
Kingdom  of  Hawai’i.”)  (emphasis  added).  No  apology  was  given  to  the  other  
subjects  of  the  Kingdom.  
 
The  challenge  to  the  false  narrative  is,  therefore,    the  question:    When  did  the  people  
of  original  Hawaiian  ancestry  become  “indigenous?”      
 
The  United  States  Department  of  the  Interior  is  proposing  to  “re-­‐establish”  a  
government-­‐to-­‐government  relationship  between  Native  Hawaiians  and  the  United  
States.    That  proposal  raises  a  related  question:  Exactly  how  and  when  was  a  
government-­‐to-­‐government  relationship  established  between  Native  Hawaiians  and  
the  United  States  Government?    The  answer:    There  never  was  any  such  
relationship.  
 

 

4  

The  false  analysis  extends  to  the  question  of  territory.    There  was  no  territory  less  
than  the  Archipelago  under  the  jurisdiction  of  Native  Hawaiians  prior  to  the  arrival  
of  the  European  foreigners.    The  jurisdiction  of  the  Kingdom  extended  over  the  same  
territory.    How  then  would  a  smaller  territory  be  defined  for  a  Native  Hawaiian  
subordinate  state  to  the  existing  State  of  Hawai’i?    Why  would  the  “indigenous”  
claim  be  anything  less  than  all  the  lands,  if  the  indigenous  perspective  is  to  be  the  
resolution.    After  all,  the  Apology  Resolution  acknowledges  that  “the  indigenous  
Hawaiian  people  never  relinquished  their  claims  to  inherent  sovereignty  as  a  people  
or  over  their  national  lands  to  the  United  States  ….”  
 
Of  course,  all  the  subjects  of  the  Kingdom  never  relinquished  their  claim  to  
sovereignty  and  the  national  lands,  not  just  “indigenous  Hawaiian  people.”  
 
In  the  DOI  proposed  rule,  the  only  federal  territory  that  would  come  to  the  Native  
Hawaiian  entity  would  be  the  Island  of  Kahoolawe,  a  sacred  place  polluted  with  
unexploded  munitions  from  years  of  United  States  bombing.  
 
The  problem  created  by  the  overthrow  cannot  be  resolved  from  the  inside  out.    The  
DOI  proposition  to  “re-­‐establish”  a  government  to  government  relationship  with  
Native  Hawaiians  is  a  perfect  example  of  the  false  narrative  at  work.    
 
https://www.doi.gov/ohr/hawaiian-­‐govt-­‐to-­‐govt-­‐procedures-­‐proposed-­‐rule.  
 
The  use  of  the  term  “re-­‐establish”  is  literally  false.    The  DOI  cannot  reestablish  a  
relationship  that  never  existed;  the  relationship  was  between  the  Kingdom  of  
Hawai’i  Government  and  the  United  States  Government,  not  Native  Hawaiians  and  
the  United  States  Government,  as  the  DOI  pretends.      
 
The  use  of  the  term  government  implies  a  sovereignty  that  is  not  intended;  the  
authority  of  the  Native  Hawaiian  Government  will  be  restricted  and  subject  to  
approval  by  the  DOI.    There  will  certainly  not  be  nation-­‐to-­‐nation  relations  through  
the  United  States  State  Department.  
 
A  subset  of  the  false  narrative  is  that  what  is  being  offered  is  somehow  self-­‐
determination.    The  false  narrative  is  worded  as  follows:  
 
Under  the  new  proposal,  the  Native  Hawaiian  community  –  not  the  Federal  
Government  –  would  decide  whether  to  reorganize  a  Native  Hawaiian  
government,  what  form  that  government  would  take,  and  whether  it  would  
seek  a  government-­‐to-­‐government  relationship  with  the  United  States.  
 
Having  limited  participation  in  the  process  to  only  Native  Hawaiians,  the  DOI  denies  
the  descendants  of  the  other  subjects  of  the  Kingdom  -­‐-­‐  those  who  are  not  of  original  
Hawaiian  ancestry  -­‐-­‐  any  participation.    The  contrast  is  then  drawn  as  between  a  
decision  made  by  the  Native  Hawaiians  and  a  decision  made  by  the  Federal  
Government  to  give  the  appearance  of  self-­‐determination.  
 

5  

 
The  actual  DOI  proposal  repeatedly  gives  the  lie  to  the  self-­‐determination  
characterization.  
 
-­‐-­‐  The  DOI  proposed  rule  specifically  excludes  restoration  of  the  Kingdom  as  
an  outcome  of  the  process.    The  self-­‐determination  conversation  ends  before  
it  ever  begins.    
 
-­‐-­‐  Non-­‐Hawaiians  are  excluded  from  participating  in  the  new  entity.    If  the  
convention  chooses  to  allow  non-­‐Native  Hawaiians  to  be  members  of  the  
new  governing  entity,  then  DoI  will  deny  recognition.  
 
-­‐-­‐  The  DOI  proposal  also  introduces  a  potential  blood  quantum  requirement  
for  membership  by  allowing  the  exclusion  from  membership  in  the  new  
entity  of  those  Native  Hawaiians  with  less  than  50%  Native  Hawaiian  
ancestry.    Such  a  provision  adopted  in  a  United  States  law  would  surely  be  
struck  down  as  unconstitutional  discrimination.    DoI,  however,  gives  
permission  to  the  Native  Hawaiians  to  exclude  even  members  of  their  own  
family,  who  may  have  less  than  50%  Hawaiian  ancestry,  from  participating  in  
the  new  entity.  
 
That  positive  acceptance  by  DoI  explicitly  creates  a  scenario  in  which  Native  
Hawaiians  of  less  than  50%  ancestry  participate  in  the  election  of  a  convention  that  
then  ends  up  creating  a  government  that  excludes  them  from  membership.      
 
Injecting  the  blood  quantum  issue  into  the  discussion  is  just  a  further  attempt  to  
achieve  separation  within  the  Native  Hawaiian  community  and  the  Kingdom.  
 
-­‐-­‐  The  new  government  entity  must  separate  the  legislative  and  judicial  
bodies.    The  Native  Hawaiians  are  not  free  to  establish  their  own  form  of  
government  based  on  their  traditional  civilization  in  which  legislative  and  
judicial  bodies  were  not  separate.  
 
-­‐-­‐  The  new  government  must  include  and  maintain  the  unique  status  and  
separate  rights  of  Hawaiians  eligible  for  the  Hawaiian  Homes  Commission  
Act  (HHCA).    The  key  eligibility  criteria  is  having  50%  Hawaiian  ancestry  
or  higher.    The  United  States,  with  a  constitutional  amendment  that  says  
everyone  is  entitled  to  equal  protection  of  the  law,  would  require  the  new  
Hawaiian  entity  to  set  apart  one  group  for  special  privileges.    While  the  
Kingdom  might  well  adopt  laws  based  on  the  historical  promises  made  to  
the  HHCA-­‐eligible  subjects,  that  is  an  internal  matter  to  be  resolved  by  real  
self-­‐determination,  not  foreign  dictates.  
-­‐-­‐    If  there  is  a  referendum  on  the  proposed  new  governing  document,  the  
HHCA  eligible  voters  (102,765)  would  have  their  votes  counted  separately  
with  an  affirmative  vote  of  15,000  votes  or  14.6%  of  the  eligible  HHCA  
 

6  

voters  required  to  satisfy  the  “broad  based  community  support”  
requirement.    At  the  same  time,  an  affirmative  vote  by  only  9,000  HHCA  
voters  would  be  unacceptable,  which  means  that  9,001  or  8.76%  of  eligible  
HHCA  voters  would  be  acceptable.    An  acceptable  turn  out  and  vote  by  
HHCA  members  is  a  prerequisite  to  approval  of  the  proposed  document.  
The  DoI  proposal,  therefore,  gives  a  veto  over  the  whole  process  to  the  
HHCA-­‐eligible  voters.    No  matter  how  many  people  vote  or  how  many  
affirmative  votes  there  are,  the  proposition  will  only  pass  if  the  majority  of  
HHCA-­‐eligible  voters  approve  and  turn  out  in  sufficient  numbers  to  meet  the  
DoI  test  for  community  acceptance.  
One  group  is  given  special  rights  and  privileges,  if  the  new  governing  entity  is  
created.    That  group  is  given  veto  power  over  the  outcome  of  the  Aha.    Clearly  
the  DoI  believes  that  it  can  control  the  HHCA  vote  to  prevent  the  adoption  of  
an  Aha  result  that  DoI  does  not  approve  or  further  the  adoption  of  a  result  
DoI  does  approve.  
 If  there  is  a  referendum,  a  total  affirmative  vote  of  50,000  or  14.64%  of  the  
eligible  Native  Hawaiian  voters  (342,550)  would  satisfy  the  community  
support  requirement.    At  the  same  time,  an  affirmative  vote  of  less  than  
30,000  would  be  unacceptable,  which  means  that  30,001  or  8.76%  is  still  
acceptable.  
The  elimination  of  the  Kingdom  option  will  lead  to  numerous  voters  not  
participating  in  the  referendum.  
DoI  compensates  for  this  potential  by  setting  the  thresholds  for  acceptance  
very  low.    The  low  threshold  for  affirmative  votes  enables  a  tiny  minority  of  
Native  Hawaiians  to  create  the  new  entity.      
Again,  imagine  such  a  law  in  the  United  States  specifying  that  a  referendum  
would  fail,  if  a  majority  of  a  small  group  within  eligible  voters  did  not  
approve.    The  U.S.    Supreme  Court  struck  down  a  process  that  allowed  only  
Native  Hawaiians  to  be  the  electorate  for  the  Office  of  Hawaiian  Affairs  
trustees.    Now  DoI  would  impose  a  voting  process  where  a  minority  
identified  by  blood  quantum  can  decide  the  outcome  of  an  election.  
The  low  vote  requirement  is  perfectly  acceptable  to  a  foreign  government  
anxious  to  eliminate  the  legitimate  claims  of  the  Hawaiian  people  to  full  
independence.    In  a  mini-­‐false  narrative,  the  DoI  can  call  9%  “broad  based  
community  support.”      Setting  the  acceptance  level  for  voting  very  low  
increases  the  chance  that  the  subordinate  government  will  be  created  as  an  
obstacle  to  Kingdom  restoration.  
Yet,  if  the  total  vote  is  so  small,  a  reasonable  assumption  would  be  that  the  
vast  majority  of  Native  Hawaiians  had  no  expectation  that  anything  they  
 

7  

wanted  would  come  from  the  process,  so  they  did  not  participate,  much  like  
the  phony  statehood  plebiscite  in  1959.    Instead,  an  approval  vote  of  9%  is  
treated  like  a  mandate.  
Imagine  for  a  moment  that  Kingdom  restoration  was  on  the  ballot  and  
received  9%  of  the  eligible  vote.    Would  the  United  States  portray  that  
outcome  as  demonstrating  broad  based  community  support?  
Hypocrisy  and  double  standards  are  just  tools  of  the  trade  for  those  
managing  the  DoI  process.  
-­‐-­‐  The  Native  Hawaiian  Tribe  will  not  qualify  for  any  of  the  benefits  or  
programs  available  to  Native  Americans.    The  subordinate  position  of  the  
Native  Hawaiian  entity  within  the  State  of  Hawai’i  will  be  mirrored  by  a  
subordinate  position  within  the  United  States  as  a  whole,  compared  to  
other  tribes.    Second  class/second  class  citizenship  is  the  DOI  plan  for  
Native  Hawaiians.  
 

-­‐-­‐  The  DOI  proposal  rules  out  any  change  in  the  title,  jurisdiction,  or  status  
of  any  Federal  lands,  other  than  Kahoolawe.    So  other  than  Kahoolawe,  the  
United  States  will  make  no  contribution  to  establishment  of  a  land  base  for  
the  Native  Hawaiian  entity.    Given  that  the  Kingdom  still  exists  and  has  
jurisdiction  over  all  lands  in  the  Archipelago,  this  miserly  offer  by  the  
United  States  Government  is  ludicrous  and  affirms  the  lack  of  a  serious  
intent  to  create  a  sustainable  Native  Hawaiian  entity.  

A  rewording  of  that  earlier  paragraph  from  the  Kingdom  perspective  illuminates  the  
fundamental  difference.  
 
Under  the  new  proposal,  the  Kingdom  –  not  the  United  States  Government  –  
would  decide  whether  to  create  institutions,  adopt  policies,  and  allocate  
funding  to  assist  Native  Hawaiians  in  preserving  and  enhancing  their  
spiritual,  cultural,  economic,  social,  and  political  practices.  
 
The  DOI  separatist  proposal  addresses  the  Kingdom  issue  by  an  attempt  to  divide  
the  Kingdom  subjects  into  Hawaiians  and  non-­‐Hawaiians  and  then  extinguish  the  
unity  of  the  Kingdom  by  creating  a  separate  quasi-­‐governmental  entity  for  the  
Hawaiians.    The  relationship  with  the  United  States  will  be  basically  the  same  
relationship  that  the  Native  Americans  have  with  the  United  States  Government,  
absent  any  benefits  the  Native  Americans  now  have.  
 
The  cure  for  a  false  narrative  is  first  to  recognize  its  existence  and  then  articulate  
the  truth.      
 
Based  on  the  truth  of  the  original  act  of  war,  the  only  remedy  for  the  wrong  is  the  
restoration  of  the  government  that  was  destroyed  by  that  act  of  war.    If  the  people  of  

 

8  

original  Hawaiian  ancestry  are  to  be  addressed  as  an  indigenous  people,  the  only  
proper  way  to  do  that  is  to  restore  the  Kingdom  of  Hawai’i  Government  first  and  
leave  the  question  of  indigenous  people  to  the  Kingdom  government  to  address,  i.e.  
the  issue  of  indigenous  people  is  an  internal  issue  to  the  Kingdom  and  not  the  
United  States.  
 
Those  holding  United  States  offices  are  lining  up  behind  the  lie.    
http://www.civilbeat.com/2015/09/feds-­‐release-­‐native-­‐hawaiian-­‐proposal/  
I  think  of  those  with  whom  I’ve  worked  tirelessly,  both  as  Hawai’i  Lieutenant  
Governor  and  during  my  time  in  Congress,  to  achieve  recognition  for  Native  
Hawaiians  that  is  on  a  par  with  the  relationships  the  Federal  government  has  
established  with  Alaska  Natives  and  Native  Americans.  
 
Senator  Mazie  Hirono.    Senator  Hirono  certainly  assumes  the  outcome  will  be  
nation-­‐within-­‐a-­‐nation.  
 
Native  Hawaiians  have  the  right  to  reorganize  a  government  that  they  
determine  is  best  for  them.  
 
Senator  Brian  Schatz.    Senator  Schatz  buys  the  “reorganize”  lie.  
 
Many  indigenous  groups  in  the  U.S.  have  the  right  of  self-­‐determination,  and  
today’s  announcement  acknowledges  that  right  also  belongs  to  the  Native  
Hawaiian  people,  one  of  the  largest  native  communities  in  the  country.  
 
Representative  Tulsi  Gabbard.    As  set  forth  above,  the  right  of  self  determination  is  
not  an  accurate  characterization  for  the  restricting  and  subordinating  nature  of  the  
DoI  process..  
 
I  would  like  to  thank  the  Obama  administration  and  the  Department  of  
Interior  for  strengthening  the  U.S.  government’s  relationship  with  the  Native  
Hawaiian  people.  
 
Representative    Mark  Takai.    Representative  Takai  would  certainly  be  surprised  to  
see  the  choice  be  strengthening  the  U.S.  government’s  relationship  with  the  
Kingdom  by  establishing  a  process  to  reestablish  relations  between  the  Kingdom  
and  the  United  States.  
 
http://governor.hawaii.gov/newsroom/governors-office-news-release-governorige-applauds-federal-proposal-setting-the-path-for-native-hawaiians-to-establishformal-government/  
 
The  Native  Hawaiian  community  has  not  had  a  formal  government  since  the  
overthrow  of  the  Kingdom  of  Hawai‘i  in  1893.  
 

 

9  

Governor  Ige.    The  Governor  embraces  the  lie.  
 
The  United  States  has  a  long-­‐standing  policy  of  supporting  self-­‐governance  
for  Native  peoples,  yet  the  benefits  of  the  government-­‐to-­‐government  
relationship  have  long  been  denied  to  Native  Hawaiians,  one  of  our  largest  
indigenous  communities.  Today’s  proposal  is  testament  to  the  Obama  
Administration’s  strong  support  for  our  nation’s  Native  peoples’  right  to  self-­‐
determination.  
 
Interior  Secretary  Sally  Jewell.    Secretary  Jewell  looks  forward  to  a  new  subordinate  
tribe  being  added  to  her  portfolio.  
 
Why  are  all  these  United  States  politicians  so  pleased  to  see  the  DoI  proposal?  
Precisely  because  they  understand  the  goal  to  be  to  slam  the  door  on  potential  
Kingdom  restoration,  which  would  put  them  out  of  a  job,  unless  they  chose  to  
participate  in  Kingdom  politics.  
The  proposed  Department  of  Interior  process  clearly  fails  to  address  the  illegal  
overthrow  of  the  Kingdom  of  Hawai’i  and  attempts  to  prevent  any  prospect  of  the  
Kingdom’s  restoration  by  separating  Native  Hawaiians  from  the  rest  of  the  Kingdom  
subjects.  
 
As  the  King  said  in  a  recent  letter  to  President  Obama:  
 
Many  of  the  other  conditions  or  restrictions  are  so  patently  offensive  and  
intrusive  that  I  suspect  their  real  goal  is  to  have  some  proposal  emerge  from  
the  convention  that  is  defeated,  so  that  the  United  States  can  say  Hawaiians  
had  their  chance  and  failed  to  take  advantage  of  the  generous  offer  of  tribal  
citizenship  from  the  United  States.    Your  government  can  then  wash  its  
 
hands  of  any  responsibility  to  respond  to  the  initial  act  of  war  and  the  120  
plus  years  of  abuse  since  that  act.  
 
On  the  other  hand,  should  the  new  governing  entity  be  created,  the  United  
States  will  be  portraying  that  action  as  resolving  the  question  of  Hawaiian  
independence.    The  new  “governing”  entity  will  then  enter  into  years  of  
discussions  about  what  it  can  and  cannot  do,  with  the  DoI  always  having  the  
upper  hand.  
 
The  Kingdom  still  exists.    The  time  has  come  for  the  Kingdom  Government  to  be  
fully  restored  and  welcomed  back  into  the  community  of  nations.  
 
October  2,  2015  
 
Edmund  Keli’i  Silva    
 
 
Lanny  Sinkin  
Ali’i  Nui  Mō’i  (High  Chief/King)      
Ali’i  Mana’o  Nui  (Chief  Advocate)  
Kingdom  of  Hawai’i      
 
 
Kingdom  of  Hawai’iß  
 

10