Rev.12/13/2004

frequently Asked Question about the Kingdom of Hawaii and His Majesty Akahi Nui, the heir to the throne and rightful king

Frequently Asked Questions

Who is Oha? I see her mentioned in the paper, who does she represent?

 

OHA is the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. It represents the State of Hawaii's interests in dealing with the Hawaiians. Only a small percentage of Hawaiians (around 7%) have fallen for their line. Much like the Bureau of Indian Affairs on the mainland. We'd hear more of OHA's misdeeds if there weren't such a tight news blackout.

What makes you think this Akahi Nui can free Hawaii?

 

His Royal Majesty (HRM) Akahi Nui is;- Of the line of Kings (ali`i), in the direct line from Kamehameha I; -acknowledged by major sovereignty groups; -recognized as Hawaii's King by the World Court; -recognized by the United Nations; - currently travels internationally on the Kingdom of Hawaii - Passport:- negotiates &/or renews treaties with other Nations (in doing so is already regarded as a sovereign in the international community of Nations) and the list goes on.

(Webmasters Note- Probably the best reason, the power structure in Hawaii FEARS HIM. They had imprisoned Him in the State Penitentiary for "trespassing" on the grave of his great grandfather, something he as a hawaiian has a right to do, on land that he holds title to, the charge did not stand, in any court on the mainland, it would not stand, but because of the "legal??" system here, He'd Gotten 5 Years in the maximum security wing. They considered him Dangerous!!! All the prisoners, know who he is and know that He is King, the State cannot silence the Truth. Amnesty International, treated this as an International case, the US unfairly imprisoning the the head of a sovereign Nation, and His Majesty was released 4 and a half years early. Thank you AI)

He has the legal, moral and physical "Right" to this position. It is not an "if" but a "when". If your roots are in N. America and further back in N. Europe, better hope that it's Akahi Nui that does it, He's a man of peace, there are others that are angry but without His Wisdom and would gladly start a civil war if there was any hope of winning.

 

Why wouldn't the Hawaiian's be happy with the same status as the "American Indian"?

 

No! And if you'll notice the First Nations of North America are not happy in captivity, either. There is currently a Bill working it's way through Congress (the Akaka Bill) proposing this very thing. They refer to it as "A Nation within a Nation" in order to qualify for that status the Hawaiians will lose much more then they'd gain. Never to be free again, to give up all hope, regardless of what they say, those who have the power to grant favors are still the one's in charge. "Yes, you are now a Nation... but we are still the Boss" that's not freedom, its foolishness.

 

Why in the world would the Hawaiians want a monarchy at this stage in history? Doesn't everybody want a democracy?

 

Traditionally, The hawaiians have always been led by chiefs and high chiefs, the Monarchy is just an extension of that as the highest chief. A King who loves and respects his people is better than an elected official, who'll do anything to satisfy the 50.001% and maintain his personal power.

What the Hawaiians had and Majesty wishes to restore is a Constitutional Monarchy. That's a Monarch who is chosen from a pool of the most qualified candidates and directed by Law, NOT the King is the Law. Remember it was a Monarchy that was illegally overthrown, Hawaii's best chance of regaining their sovereignty would be under a similar system. Having once regained sovereignty they would, under their constitution, be able to establish ANY form of government they choose.

I've heard that the Hawaiians, under the King, were killed, just for touching the shadow of an Ali`i or other slight infractions. In my opinion, they're much better off under American rule!

 

You're talking about the "kapu" system. That was instituted by the pagan priest and invader, Pa`ao, from Tahiti. Traditionally, pre-Pa`ao, human life was sacred to the Hawaiians and to their God, `Io. (see Hawaiian History). This system was broken and removed from the Hawaiian way of life under Hewahewa - the high priest, Queens Ka`ahumanu and Keopuolani, and King Liholiho. This happened 6 months before the coming of the Christian missionaries. To my knowledge, the Hawaiians are the only people in the history of the world, who gave up their religious system before having something to replace it. In my opinion, the American people would be better off under Hawaiian rule.

 

What kind of people can get away with boiling up Captain Cook and serving him? They don't want to return to all their old ways, do they?

 

Actually, only his liver was eaten, and that in the belief that his "mana" or spiritual strength (not exactly but it's lost in translation) was stored. It was a acknowledgement of his authority as a white chief. The Hawaiians were not cannibals. What we are dealing with is not religious freedom but the restoration of land that has been stolen. Besides, at the time of Captain Cook, they were under the dominion of the priests of Pa'ao, a religious system abandoned by the Hawaiians before the arrival of the missionaries.(see Hawaiian History).

 

Does His Majesty propose an absolute or a constitutional monarchy and if constitutional, which constitution?

 

The Constitution of Hawaii (1840)

 

Bob, what is the most common reason that people think that Hawaii is part of America?

 

"They gave it to us, they didn't fight..."

(the second is "...didn't they vote to become a state?" no, they did not)

 

Assuming they get their lands back, just who would be qualified to be a citizen?

 

To quote from Professor Boyle (see RESTORATION OF THE INDEPENDENT NATION STATE OF HAWAI`I UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW, for the entire discussion), when addressing this point, "...that you'll set up a procedure to provide citizenship to all people who are habitual residents of the new state of Hawai'i as of a certain date, which would mean those who have lived here continuously five years, ten years, whatever cut off point you want, two years, are also themselves entitled to become citizens of this state (he's talking sovereign state, as in Nation, here, not one of the USA's 50) on a level of equality with everyone else, but they have to apply for it. It would not be automatic, as would be the case with the Native Hawaiians, who would automatically become citizens. "

(At this time, Majesty is not seeking anyone to gain citizenship, or renounce allegiance to any other legal or corporate entity. However, citizenship will be weighted heavier on residency, then genetic makeup)

 

"Bob, If the Hawaiians regain their sovereignty, what happens to the house I live in? Can I still live in it? Is it still mine?" - signed "Worried in Kula"

 

Dear Worried, You've asked a complex question. Many of the sovereignty groups say "you lose it". "If you're not (so many percentage points) Hawaiian, go home, no matter how many generations you've lived here."

But under His Royal Majesty Akahi Nui, if you are willing to be a loyal citizen of the Kingdom of Hawaii, you can remain, living in your own house, eating from your own garden, as it were, receiving the reward of your labor.

Residency is contingent on citizenship, and lands that belonged to the monarchy are restored to it. Buying stolen property doesn't make it yours, it just makes you another victim of the crime, unless you knew it was stolen, and then you become an participant in the crime. His Majesty is generously offering amnesty to those who've received this stolen property in allowing them to live in their "own" dwellings.

 

Bob, I keep hearing about a "Nation within a Nation", isn't this a wise solution?

 

For who? Which "Nation within a Nation" model would you use? That of the Navajo, Apache, or Blackfoot? All Nations who once hunted and had use of much larger territories but are now captives on their own lands. They are (or have been) restricted in thought, word and deed. Kept from their language, customs and traditions, gotten to watch their land (and citizens) raped and robbed, their resources stolen for pennies on the dollar and their futures eliminated. Just which of these systems are you advocating for the Hawaiian People? And what "reservation" are you willing to "give" them? Kaaholawe the former bombing range, the simulated nuclear blast, done there, shattered the Island, it no longer has fresh water wells, other than that, (and the millions of tons of unexploded ordinance), it's only resources are historical. That would be a "perfect reservation". The Hawaiians are not asking for limited "self-government within captivity", they are asking for a restoration of their status as a Sovereign Nation. As it says in Article 73 of the United Nations Charter, a document to which the United States has signed and has agreed to uphold,"...recognize the principle that the interests of the inhabitants of these territories are paramount,..."aw, click the link above and read the full text.

"I've the right to sell or buy land in Hawaii, who's to stop me...?"

Better read the Order and Demand to cease and Desist.

Time and time again, out on the streets of Maui, tourists (and some residents) say, " ....I don't have any sympathy for the Hawaiians, they gave it to us, it's a done deal, now they want it back? It's just like the South trying to secede during the Civil War, once you've joined the Union there is no going back...." and on , and on they go.

 

First of all, The Hawaiians (neither as individuals or as a legal Government) ever gave their country to America or any other Government. They did sign 23 treaties with America and numerous other Nations (See List). America was the only Nation that broke those treaties with them, on the evening of January 15th, 1893 the Marines landed in Honolulu Harbor, marched on the Palace and put our beloved Queen under arrest, and on the following day, supported the formation of a puppet Government. This "Government" consisted of American Citizens who then declared Hawaii to be a "Republic" and requested to annexed by the US. According to the US Constitution ("The Supreme Law of the Land"), there must be a two- thirds majority of both the Senate and those requesting annexation. Neither of these were ever obtained. Senate only obtained ten votes for and in Hawaii annexation was overwhelming rejected

 

The Hawaiians signed off on their land, now they are part of the US, what right do they have to now want it back?

Under the Laws of the US and most civilized Nations, agreements made under duress are not legally binding, and a company of US Marines, rifles, Gatlin guns and artillery, is certainly "under duress."

 

 

Please Note: All opinions expressed here are those of "Americans For First Nations" and cannot be construed, in any way, as the official positions of any other individual or group.

Home/Library/Hawaiian History/Links/Ask Bob/Kingdom/First Nations/Help

Site hosted by  MauiMacMedic.com