Ka Wai Ola - Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Volume 17, Number 11, 1 November 2000 — Nationhood [ARTICLE]

Nationhood

Could anyone please answer me this? Why has no one filed suit, if for any reason but to stop the forward mohon of these suits and bills? The natives of Alaska filed suit against the U.S. government decades ago. What did they know way back then that Hawaiians have yet to learn? In loving memory of George Helm are we as a Nation prepared to walk down the path he cleared for us? To piek up the torch he lighted for us? For my children and my children's children, I am; for my husband with his warrior mentality but no nation to die for, I am; for my mother, who was raised to be a proud Ameiiean and a shamed Hawaiian, I am; for my father who has lived his life the "Ameiiean" way and yearns to have lived the life of his birthright, I am. Waikomo Via the lnternet I always felt that the native people of Hawai'i had one thing the native people of Ameiiea didn't. Paper. Paper upon paper signed and sealed by kings and queens of Hawai'i. Today, the native people of Ameiiea have one thing the native people of Hawai'i don't. They control and operate businesses, earn profits, etc. as a nation. They could put their nation in a position to slowly buy back their country, pieee by pieee if they wanted to. Are we in that same position? Sure we are. OHA has the potential, but not the mentality. They

want me to fight for a pieee of string representing money owed by the state but won't take the money they already have to buy back, pieee by pieee, Hawai'i. I told several OHA trustees a year or so ago about a 185 room hotel and 167-acre golf course that until today sits vacant and for sale, and that instead of fighting for something the state doesn't have, why don't we go buy it and start making our own money. For the betterment of Hawaiians? OHA doesn't have the mentality. Inoa'ole Via the lnternel My quest for a nation begins with the 1897 petition against annexation and would include the names of both my parents and grandparents. This fact has caused me to study my ryI view the events of 1897 and 1898 as victories and defeats. Or as president McKinley and the republic versus the queen and her supporters, in the Hawaiian Patriotic League and the Hawaiian Political Association. The 1897 treaty to annex Hawai'i was opposed by the queen and the giant 38,000 signature petition and some others. The Senate does not pass the treaty and the queen has a victory. Following that, President Mckinley, approves a resolution whieh the congress passed. But the queen has another victory. Why? The resolution is passed because of the Spanish-American war. Not true, the congress setback by the failure in 1897 now must circumvent the eonstitution and make it defective or compromise its integrity. The queen has a second victory. Further proof is in the Constitutional history of the U.S., 504 (1936). Where in an opinion of the office of Legal Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, vol. 12, Oct 4, 1988 it is pointed out that the 1898 resolution to annex Hawai'i was unconstitutional. This means the 1 897 defeat of the proposed treaty to annex Hawai'i that the Hawai'i Government is still de jure (legal) to this very day. The nation is still here only in bondage. James Kimo Kaukini Via L. Hao, Maui