Leo Tolstoy in War and Peace writes about the rationale behind General Kutuzov’s decision to engage the French army at Borodino:

Why was the battle of Borodino fought? There was not the slightest sense in it, either for the French or for the Russians. The immediate result of the battle was, and this was bound to be, for the Russians, that we were brought nearer to the destruction of Moscow (the very thing we dreaded above everything in the world); and for the French, that they were brought nearer to the destruction of their army (which they, too, dreaded above everything in the world). The result was perfectly obvious, and yet Napoleon had offered battle, and Katuzov accepted it.

Tolstoy further explains that,

In giving and accepting battle at Borodino, Kutuzov and Napoleon acted without design or rational plan. After the accomplished fact historians have brought forward cunningly devised evidences of the foresight and genius of the generals, who of all the involuntary instruments of the world’s history were the most slavish and least independent agents.

Tolstoy contends that that Battle of Borodino needed to happen because history, with the combined wills of the Russian army outside Moscow and the combined wills of the French army seeing Moscow in the distance, forced that battle to take place. Kutuzov and Napoleon were more agents of history rather than rational actors. Kutuzov and Napoleon had their reasons for battle, but these rationales fit within a larger context: the Russians had been pushed to the point where they needed to show their resolve, and the French had their goal, Moscow, within sight. For the Russians, they could not give up Moscow without a fight. For the French, they could not rest until they had reached Moscow.

In Hawai‘i today, the struggle to end the US occupation has been nonviolent, but it has not been passive. Hawai‘i’s struggle will always remain nonviolent. Yet, there will be that day when Hawaiian nationals show their resolve. Momentum is building as more people learn of Hawai‘i’s occupation. People want change, but when are they to act? There will come a day when Hawaiian nationals express the sentiment that, “We have been pushed, and pushed, and pushed, but no more!” That sentiment needs to be expressed sooner rather than later.

In 1963, during the nonviolent campaign in Birmingham, Alabama, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., purposely participated in a march because he wanted to get arrested. King’s intent was to do something that would energize the movement. After an evening of prayer, he believed that the arrest was the only action he alone could take, which might have wider impact. Dr. King was arrested for parading without a permit. After the arrest, while in solitary confinement, Dr. King wrote the famous essay, “Letter from a Birmingham City Jail.” His plan worked.

There are moments in any struggle when fatigue sets in, when what is being done is not achieving the intended results, but to do what is needed requires faithful resolve. In any struggle there is a moment when the campaign sputters and threatens to maintain the status quo, at the expense of making the needed changes to achieve success. In this struggle to end the US occupation of Hawai‘i, there comes a time when the next step is uncertain because the path that has brought us to where we are will not take us to where we hope to be.

The truth is, we will not end the US occupation of Hawai‘i if we continue the activities that have maintained our resistance up to this point. If we do not demonstrate our resolve now, while people are seeking direction, we may miss the opportunity. Imagine if there was had been no Battle of Borodino before Moscow fell. What would historians have written about the Russian people?

After the Battle of Borodino, the Russians retreated and the French occupied Moscow. In time, due to Russia’s freezing winters and France’s inability to maintain supply lines, the French army would relinquish Moscow. The Battle of Borodino did not end the occupation: it told the French that the Russians would not allow the occupation of Moscow to occur without significant cost to France.

Will we allow this occupation of Hawai‘i to continue without a mass demonstration? When is that day when we express our resolve?

Soon. I hope, soon.

The name on my birth certificate is Stephen Kuhio Vogeler (there were no kahakō over the “u” and the “o”). As a kid in California, people called me “Steve.” After I moved to Hawai‘i and enrolled in Hawaiian language and chant classes, people started to call me “Kūhiō,” my middle name. I even learned that there should be two kahakō in Kūhiō. Then when I worked at Costco, so that I was not confused with the three other Steves in the same department, I continued to use “Kūhiō” (my original boss, Ron, only called me “Prince,” which made me feel shy). Sometimes people at Costco would ask, “Is your brother’s name Kamehameha?” These people were disappointed when they found out that my brother’s name actually is “Kamehameha,” William Kamehameha Vogeler (my mom always said that she named him after Kamehameha Schools).

Today, only family calls me “Steve.” I remember once, while at ‘Iolani Palace coordinating an event, running from one venue to another, I heard a “Stephen” from somewhere in the crowd and stopped in my tracks. I knew that if the name is “Stephen,” either I was in trouble, or this was a family member who knew me since small-kid-time. When I stopped and turned, I found my auntie, who I had not seen in ten or fifteen years. From that one word, “Stephen,” I knew that, whatever I was doing, it could not have been more important than the person who said my name.

Last year, my name accrued the extra letters: PhD. When people call me Dr. Vogeler, I think of my dad, who was a psychiatrist. For academic work I use “Kūhiō Vogeler, PhD”. My business card also has the PhD at the end of my name. But the PhD is not necessarily a good thing. Just a few months ago a kūpuna, an elder, who has been an activist for forty years, derided me because I have the initials PhD. The idea was that while I was getting my doctorate, others were out on the frontlines of this struggle for independence. Moreover, this kūpuna contended that the PhD makes a person more stupid and less Hawaiian. With comments like this, it is not surprising that few Hawaiians go to college, even less to graduate school. After a twenty-minute harangue along these lines, I left the room. I am not perfect, but I know when a tirade is unwarranted.

After starting the ‘Ōlelo television show, “The Hawaiian State of Mind,” sometimes the phrase “host of ‘The Hawaiian State of Mind’” has also been added to the end of my name. The initials “PhD” along with “host of ‘The Hawaiian State of Mind’” seem to have a parasitic effect, draining my real name of its value. I am still “Kūhiō Vogeler,” but “Kūhiō Vogeler, PhD, host of ‘The Hawaiian State of Mind’” is sometimes wanted for political reasons. I still feel uncomfortable about these added accouterments.

Before I had my PhD, people only wanted to know if I like Coke or Pepsi, or if I wanted to sign a petition (with the petitions I always wanted to know the subject well before I signed anything). Now, people want to use my name as if I am a SOMEBODY, with clout. In one example, I was asked to sign onto an OpEd piece. I explained that if the article were about ending the US occupation of Hawai‘i, I would be happy to participate. In this case, the person writing the OpEd piece included my ideas and made me part of the process. I realize that getting a PhD and being on an ‘Ōlelo show places me in the public eye, but it has never fully dawned on me what that means.

With all of us, our actions change the names we use and value of our names. I have many Hawaiian friends, who, like me, are known by their Hawaiian middles names. The Hawaiian name holds a part of their identity, and thus, has enhanced value. I also know of many people who have a long string of initials after their name, academic degrees, hanging on like cans behind a wedding limousine, as if to say, these letters make the name all the more special.

These changes and additions to a name may distract us from our goals. Sometimes people want us to adopt their concerns, their causes, and deter us from the ultimate goal of ending the US occupation of Hawai‘i. Sometimes, by using a name this is the distraction. We need to build coalitions, but coalitions take into consideration the needs all parties involved. Sometimes a new name can facilitate our own distraction. For all of us, our names have value, and we need to be mindful of how that value changes depending on political circumstances.

Recently, I learned that the title, “Kūhiō Vogeler, PhD, host of ‘The Hawaiian State of Mind,’” could have more value than just “Kūhiō Vogeler” and could distract me. This change in value was odd to me, and I did not know how to react initially. A close friend wanted me to support an important environmental measure and asked if she could use my name, “Kūhiō Vogeler, PhD, host of ‘The Hawaiian State of Mind.’” Initially, I did not know of the measure, but this friend needed my name by this week. After several tense emails, although I had family visiting and was quite busy, I read the measure.

In closing, I want to share the email that I sent regarding the use of my name for this environmental measure. The name of the other person involved has been removed because the purpose here is offer an example of how a name can be a distraction, not a specific case, a certain person, or issue. I very much support environmental protections. My concern was not the environmental issue: my concerns were the use of my name to further a cause I knew little about and the adoption of an issue that may distract me from helping to end the US occupation of Hawai‘i. Other than a few minor changes, the following is my response:

Aloha Blah-di-blah,

I read through [the environmental measure]. From what I understand, this [measure] is intended to [help the environment].

You want my name. And this isn’t just my name, “Kūhiō Vogeler,” but “Kūhiō Vogeler, PhD, host of ‘The Hawaiian State of Mind.’” My name would be included in “a list of other organizations and individuals who are working with us on this.” I have just read the bill. The impression would be that I have participated in this process when I have not. And I’m not sure how my “PhD” or my being host of “The Hawaiian State of Mind” add anything to the discussion of the [measure], other than that I’m Hawaiian and that the ‘Ōlelo program is a show about Hawaiian issues.

When I look through this [measure], it isn’t about Hawaiian issues. It’s about [the environment]. Very important concerns. But to make it appear to be about Hawaiian issues by implying that I have participated in this process makes me feel used. If I were to support this effort, my name would be more valuable than our friendship.

I can support it as “Kūhiō Vogeler,” but not as “Kūhiō Vogeler, PhD, host of ‘The Hawaiian State of Mind.’” Hopefully, that is good enough.

Mahalo,

Kuhio

Yesterday, “Presidents’ Day”, in a solemn ceremony, 600 placards were placed at the base of the McKinley Statue, fronting McKinley High School. The McKinley Statue, dedicated by Sanford B. Dole on February 23, 1911, holds a false Treaty of Annexation. Each of the placards placed around base of the McKinley Statue had the words “No Treaty of Annexation,” facing outwards, and the name of one person who had signed the 1897 Anti-Annexation Petitions, facing the statue.

Six hundred names.

In the morning, as the Vice-Principal of McKinley High School saw the display being built around this monument, there was a moment when it appeared that security would be called. But this did not happen. Instead, people who drove-by or happened upon this display walked the rows of names looking for their ancestors who had signed the Anti-Annexation Petitions. Some, who later spoke of the event, began to tear-up, due to the artistic irony of the display: 600 placards explaining the truth for one day, encircling a statue that has been perpetuating a lie for ninety-nine years. Those who had signed the 1897 Anti-Annexation Petitions also seemed to walk among the rows of names yesterday.

With over 600 names, many submitted the night before the event, we could not fit them all on the plaques. In the future, more names will be added, as the display grows. Perhaps next year we will have all of the names from the Anti-Annexation Petitions of the Hui Aloha Aina, all 21,000 signatures, written on placards encircling the McKinley Statue, little headstones extending all the way to King Street.

When the event was over, the placards were piled into boxes. The sacredness, the magic of the moment, seemed to evaporate, as the McKinley Statue and the surrounding area returned to its usual status of as a tool of propaganda for high school students and others. When we took stock of the day, we realized that the next time such a display occurs, the placards should remain for longer, so that more people can experience the sacredness of the moment.

Earlier in the week, two emails similarly offered a unique moment of assessment. In one email a man had traced his ancestry to someone “born in Hawaii before that annexation date in 1898.” In the email he asked if he “would qualify as a Hawaiian subject?” He further clarified his email, by asking, “Which do you believe would be the date that would dictate who would be a Hawaiian subject? Prior to the January 1893 overthrow, or prior to 1898 annexation?”

My response explored the complexities of the question, but did not offer a firm answer. While the date of the first US occupation on 16 January 1893 seems to be the most accurate assessment for determining parentage (jus sanguinis), and thus citizenry today, more research is necessary to verify what precisely determines Hawaiian citizenry under international law. Willy Kauai’s dissertation on Hawaiian citizenship is needed, along with the work of many others, to answer these questions, to take stock of who counts, as we proceed forward.

The other email regarding assessment discussed the August demonstration where the 50th star was cut from the US flag and burned. The author of this email explained that, he and his wife participated in the event:

We freely allowed ourselves to be interviewed for TV. But we weren’t at all prepared for the flag cutting. I found it too graphic. I was actually pissed. Then when we kept turning up on TV saying we supported Hawaiian sovereignty and were there to show that non-Hawaiians supported the effort, there was no place to run and hide. We really got stung. I’ve had a number of negative comments, and am sure there are many who thought the same thing but kept their mouths shut.

The author of this email added that, when he saw Shelley Muneoka describe the events of the August demonstration on “The Hawaiian State of Mind” (Channel 53), he comprehended what had occurred in anew way:

When [Shelley] mentioned that the Hawaiian flag was cut into pieces and passed around during the annexation ceremony, I was glad to finally know that, and upset at the same time. If people organizing the program knew that at the time, they REALLY needed to make that the reason for cutting the flag. That would have done SO much to explain their actions. As it was, it was just a harsh, ugly act that the public was in no way prepared for, and that participants were also in no way prepared for.

This email assessing the shortcomings of last August also seemed to acknowledge the underlying importance of the event. The end of this email was conciliatory toward Shelley and the cutting of the US flag: “I certainly came to feel for the girl. A lovely, brave soul.”

Yesterday’s event was a good day. The display worked because those who participated, and those who had signed their names on the Anti-Annexation Petitions, were holding McKinley High School and the State of Hawai‘i accountable, if only for one day. The acknowledgement of accountability is what drew tears, as if people were realizing that “Finally, these names are demonstrating, to all who see them, what is wrong with this McKinley Statue, what is wrong with the State of Hawai‘i.” For some people, yesterday was the first that they had learned of this false Treaty of Annexation in the McKinley Statue’s bronze hand.

Yesterday there was a moment when we were informed that we all may be arrested. The school then granted us permission to continue with the display. The action yesterday worked well because the display was the message. We were all informed of the possible outcome. We all made a choice to participate. As the email regarding the August protest clarifies, informed consent is key to sustaining participation.

As we move forward, we need to continue to take stock of the actions and the propaganda of the State of Hawai‘i. We also need people actively taking stock of who counts as Hawaiian nationals. Perhaps some Hawaiians could participate in the US Census to learn the needed skills for registering our own citizenry. And finally, we need to take stock of our own progress, learning from our mistakes, moving forward with our eyes on the prize, looking toward the restored independence of our Hawaiian State.

Kūhiō

Eventually, the officers seemed to realize that people would rather face arrest than allow the Department of Land and Natural Resources to confiscate this one small tent. A handful of officers, in helmets and holding shields for riot control, stood 40 yards away, near the entrance to the Palace grounds. The officers conferred as we waited.

After twenty minutes, three officers returned and issued a ticket for having a tent without a permit in a state park. As the police wrote the ticket, some protestors gave the officers food that had been on one of the tables under the canopy tent. For this Sovereignty Sunday, the blue canopy tent was the symbol of resistance to US occupation.

Earlier today Niklaus Schweizer, Lorenz Gonschor and I had long discussion with Jere Krischel, regarding the details of international law and the specific circumstances that led to Hawai‘i’s occupation. While Jere Krischel agreed with the rest of us on many points, he still maintains that Hawai‘i is not occupied and that Loren Thurston and Sanford B. Dole committed their acts for the benefit of the Hawaiian people. Jere Krischel conceded that one could make an argument that the 1898 Newlands Resolution was not a valid form of annexation. And by the end of the conversation, he confirmed that he would help establish a Hawaiian constitution, if the process ever came about.

At one point, Jere Krischel asked Uncle Kekuni Blaisdell if the two of them could take a picture together. Uncle Kekuni, responded, “Do you want to take a picture with me? I’m a Hawaiian!” Jere then replied, “And I’m an American!” To which, Uncle Kekuni answered, “I just want to be up front, to make sure that you are okay with taking a picture with a Hawaiian.” Jere retorted, “And I just want to be up front: you are a Hawaiian, and you are also my friend!” They turned toward the camera, put an arm around each other, smiled and took a picture.

In the examples of the blue canopy tent and of the picture with Jere Krischel and Uncle Kekuni, political differences were not as important as the humanity of the moment. There were no arrests, and friends with differing opinions posed for a picture together. While we work toward restoring an independent Hawaiian State, we need to listen to divergent views. The truth is Hawaiian nationals have many opinions, and these viewpoints, with a multitude of concerns, must be addressed as we re-form our Hawaiian government. This government is for all Hawaiian nationals, one country, one people, together, under one large tent.

In assessing the duration and dynamics necessary to end Hawai‘i’s occupation, Ray Cline’s writings on international relations are useful. In his book, World Power Trends and U.S. Foreign Policy for the 1980s, Cline stresses the need for “strategic purpose” and the “will to pursue” that strategic purpose. According to Cline, without strategic purpose and national will, other factors, such as population, territory, economics and military might, lose their potency.

Drawing from the examples of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, the Baltic States utilized strategy and national will as their primary means for increasing their political might, domestically and internationally. The national strategies of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania drew strength from the legal fact that their countries remained occupied by the Soviet Union for nearly fifty years. The strategy fit the legal circumstances and inspired these countries to action. Once Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania formed independent legislatures, international recognition of the Baltic governments was imminent.

These elections required the force of national will: nationals of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania voted because of their desire for independence. However, since national will is linked to demographics, in Latvia, where the native Latvian population comprised only 52% of the population when the occupation ended, the transition leading to these elections often progressed slower than in Estonia, where ethnic Estonians were close to 60%, and Lithuania, where Lithuanians were nearly 90%.

In Estonia, when 600,000 pre-occupation, Republic of Estonia citizens, and their descendents, chose delegates for the Estonian Citizens’ Congress, less than half of Estonia’s 1.5 million population participated. The number of participants is significant because it shows that a minority of the total population—but a majority of the population of the occupied State—possessed the will to decided Estonia’s future.

Similarly, Hawai‘i’s future rests in the hands of Hawaiian nationals, those who can trace their ancestry to before the occupation began on 16 January 1893. The worldwide total of Hawaiian nationals is approximately 500,000-600,000. This group could decide the future government of the Hawaiian Islands—if there is a will to participate.

However, as with Latvia, the process in Hawai‘i may be slow. The transition in the Baltics States took approximately four years for Lithuania, where ethnic Lithuanians comprise almost 90% of the population, and five years for Estonia and Latvia. Since Latvia’s progress was often sluggish due to the high Russian population in the country, and since Hawaiian nationals are severely outnumbered, comprising perhaps 25% of Hawai‘i’s population, Hawai‘i’s transition will very likely require at least five years. In the meantime, education of Hawai‘i’s population on the laws of occupation and governmental restoration would be needed before a vote for an independent legislature could occur.

Two opposing forces may also affect the speed of the de-occupation process. On the one hand, American patriotism and reliance on economic stability may impede the process. On the other hand, as information regarding the US occupation of Hawai‘i becomes more prevalent, and as organizations, such as the acting Council of Regency, expose the legal instability of contracts and land titles in the Hawaiian Islands, the de-occupation process may intensify, when Hawaiian nationals realize that they must create and maintain an independent Hawaiian legislature to address these legal issues. The key to the process is that Hawaiian nationals must be inspired to participate, actively ending the occupation. This is not a passive political transformation.

Thus, regarding the duration for ending Hawai‘i’s occupation, the control of public discourse could dramatically affect the outcome, to the extent that the media can influence the will of the Hawaiian nationals. If public discourse is directed toward ending the occupation, the duration of the transition may take as little as five years. If opposition forces control the discourse and the media, this transition may take as much as ten years, or more.

The second question above addresses process: “What do we do now?” While the five phases for ending the US occupation of Hawai‘i provide measurements of change, these transition points do not speak to the underlying fears and concerns of Hawaiian nationals. The five steps address the strategic purpose, not national will. The transitions from one phase to another must also inspire the will of Hawaiian nationals.

In the Baltic States, a single event, more than any other, demonstrated the transition from phase one to phase two, from the “Consolidation of Issues” to the “Creation of Mass Political Groups.” This moment was in June 1988, at the Extended Plenum of Latvian Writers’ Union, when Mavriks Vulfsons acknowledged that there had been no treaty and no popular movement for Soviet rule. A Communist Party veteran, Mavriks Vulfsons was a respected journalist and initially a supporter of communism. His admission at the Plenum of the Writers’ Union broadened acceptance of the political reality of occupation.

In Hawai‘i, a similar event could occur if Nainoa Thompson, or Haunani Apoliona, or Senator Brickwood Galuteria, or another respected public figure, would openly announce that Hawai‘i is occupied. Similarly, an editorial piece in a prominent newspaper could have the same effect. The editorial would need to be signed by prominent community members, affirming that Hawai‘i is occupied, detailing how this occupation has affected the Hawaiian people, and describing a united method for ending the occupation. Like the famous “Broken Trust” article in the Honolulu Advertiser, criticizing the Bishop Estate Trustees of the late-1990s, such an article would be a watershed moment for Hawai‘i. Open acceptance of occupation by at least one prominent public figure is needed to push this movement forward.

Once the idea of occupation has entered public discourse, the transformation of political groups, and greater participation in demonstrations and rallies will follow. However, these demonstrations must be carefully planned for solidarity and symbolic effect. During US President Obama’s visit to Hawai‘i, a small anti-occupation protest occurred on Christmas Eve, and another small anti-Akaka Bill demonstration happened on New Years Day. If there is not a singularity of purpose and inspiration of Hawaiian nationals, then mass anti-occupation demonstrations will not happen. Political groups will remain tied to the current system, and there will be little movement toward ending the occupation.

Political events that unite Hawaiians against symbols of propaganda and subjugation are ideal. For example, efforts to change the McKinley Statue, with its fake “Treaty of Annexation,” are a means of educating the public and uniting the Hawaiian community. The Hawaiian Civic Clubs have already passed a resolution in support of correcting the wording on this statue. Public efforts to correct history can unite Hawaiian nationals behind a common cause, multiplying public participation.

Yet solidarity will not come only from the open acknowledgement of occupation and corrections of history. Solidarity will ultimately derive from confidence that the future of an independent Hawaiian State is something that will benefit Hawaiian nationals. To understand this benefit, we need to know Hawaiian Kingdom law. Holding model legislative sessions, utilizing Hawaiian Kingdom law, will help to instill an assuredness of knowing how to run a country, separate from the US system. These model legislatures could be performed at universities, in high schools and in Hawaiian organizations. By becoming familiar with Hawaiian Kingdom law, we will gain confidence about our collective future.

The creation of mass political groups, or the transformation of the current political groups, is a manifestation of confidence in purpose and a willingness to find solutions collectively for ending the US occupation of Hawai‘i. In this sense, these political and cultural groups (such as Hawaiian Civic Clubs) serve as a means for discussing concerns and for working through challenges as we prepare for the next step: “Infiltration of the Political System.”

For the political system to be infiltrated, Hawaiians must believe that independence is preferable and needed. Legally and politically, Hawai‘i is occupied. But what advantage is there to being independent from the US? Ending the occupation is based on trust. Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. stressed the need to link the means with the ultimate goal. If the ultimate goal is running an independent Hawaiian State, then Hawaiians need to be assured that they can trust the government of this restored State. More importantly, Hawaiians nationals must trust that we can make a few mistakes and still create a better future for our people. For this reason, Points of Agreement become vital. Commonality brings focus and inspiration. These Points of Agreement offer the basis for our common vision of our future, a vision that could be pursued through legislation based on ending the occupation. We need to trust that, together, we will create a compelling future for Hawai‘i.

Once this trust is established, the “Registration of the Electorate,” phase four, will occur due to the impetus of national will. People will be inspired to discover where the many Hawaiian nationals exist throughout the world. In Latvia and Estonia, this registration of the electorate took one year, as people traveled door-to-door signing-up participants (due to demographics, Lithuania followed a different process). With Hawaiian nationals distributed throughout the world, the process may take longer for Hawai‘i, perhaps two years. Yet, if the overall transition is five years, or more, this gives us time to prepare for the registration process. We need legal scholars working on this issue now in anticipation of that time to come.

The last phase, the “Election of a ‘New’ Parliament,” will only occur when Hawaiian Kingdom nationals are willing to commit fully to Hawai‘i’s future, independent from the United States. This phase is dependent on the trust established in phase three. This final phase is a leap of faith—or, more accurately, confidence in action. If Hawaiians trust the process this far, they will take the next logical step. To exert ones own power may be frightening, looking into the unknown, relying on one’s own skill and strength of will. This is a deep moment of trust. This last phase harkens back to the legislative process explored in phase two and builds upon the points of agreement in phase three. We need to feel secure as participants of an independent Hawaiian State. Once we establish an independent government, we need to fully run our own country.

Many aspects of these phases should be pursued at the same time. For example, the model Hawaiian legislature will help establish confidence while working toward the creation of an independent Hawaiian government. The Points of Agreement will maintain common vision of Hawai‘i’s future that can be implemented through law. Moreover, planning for the registration of the electorate can begin today. These are some of the methods and tactics that could bring us closer to ending the occupation. Trust is the key to this whole process. To restore independence, we must restore trust in our own people, trust in ourselves.

In summary, these are some actions that we can work on now:

1.     Guide public discourse and media attention toward ending the US occupation of Hawai‘i!

2.     Convince prominent public leaders to acknowledge the US occupation of Hawai‘i!

3.     Mobilize Hawaiian nationals by holding events that unite Hawaiians against propaganda and subjugation!

4.     Promote solidarity and confidence by discussing the concerns of Hawaiian nationals in political and cultural groups.

5.     Utilize Hawaiian Kingdom law by implementing model legislative sessions!

6.     Establish trust by drawing upon our Points of Agreement, to create new legislation, guiding us toward independence!

7.     Demonstrate, in specific, legal terms, how an independent Hawaiian State would better the future of Hawaiian nationals!

8.     Inspire people to learn where and how many Hawaiian nationals exist in the world today!

9.     Commit fully to Hawai‘i’s future as a restored state by learning the necessary legal steps to form an independent Hawaiian legislature!

Now, let’s get going on these, together.

Mahalo,

Kūhiō

Today, many organizations—from the Office of Hawaiian Affairs and Kamehameha Schools, to United Church of Christ, with its reconciliation efforts for Native Hawaiians, to the many Hawaiian governments and kingdoms that argue legal legitimacy over the Hawaiian people—assert that they are acting for the betterment of Hawaiians. These organizations, however, have attempted to limit the aspirations of Hawaiians and control our destiny.

For example, the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA), a semi-autonomous state agency, is “acting for the betterment of Native Hawaiians” (quote from the OHA website). Yet, as much as OHA tries to better the lives of Native Hawaiians, as a state agency, OHA does not represent the people of an independent Hawaiian State. Though OHA has registered over 100,000 Native Hawaiians through the Kau Inoa program, these people have not been informed of their rights under international law. Moreover, this registration process is for Native Hawaiians under US law, rather than Hawaiian nationals under international law.

Hawaiian nationals, defined by the principle of jus sanguinis (parentage) under international law, are those who can trace their ancestry to 1893, before the first US occupation of the Hawaiian Islands. Hawaiian nationals thus include aboriginal Hawaiians, as well as other non-native Hawaiian kingdom subjects. According to the 1890 census, 85% of Hawaiian Kingdom subjects were aboriginal Hawaiians, 15% non-native. Just as the term “American” expresses nationality, not ethnicity, any person who can trace one’s ancestry to the Hawaiian Kingdom prior to the 1893 occupation, would also count as a “Hawaiian” today.

The many Hawaiian governments and kingdoms, while raising the issue of State continuity under US occupation, also assert that they are working for the betterment of Hawaiians. However, like OHA, these entities cannot claim to represent the will of the over 500,000 Hawaiian nationals worldwide. Though these organizations allege legal continuity with the Hawaiian Kingdom, none profess to be representatives of a preponderance of today’s Hawaiian nationals. For example, while the Reinstated Hawaiian Kingdom Government may have 4,000 participants, this number does not come close to including the total 500,000 Hawaiian nationals.

Though OHA and these many Hawaiian governments do not represent today’s Hawaiian nationals, these organizations assert that they stand for the Hawaiian people. The only way that these organizations can make this assertion is that today’s Hawaiian nationals have not spoken. Just as the conspirators of 1887 silenced the voice of Hawaiian Kingdom subjects when they illegally dismissed the Hawaiian Kingdom legislature, the Hawaiian nationals today remain quiet because a governmental mechanism does not exist for their voice to be heard. Once Hawaiian nationals express their will, this will be a force of great power.

So, if the US government intends to right the wrongs of the last hundred and sixteen years, then they should set aside funds to register all of the Hawaiian nationals throughout the world and inform these Hawaiians of their rights under international law. If the Office of Hawaiian affairs hopes to act for the betterment of Hawaiians, the trustees should change the Kau Inoa program to include all Hawaiian nationals. If the United Church of Christ has set aside money to rectify complicity in illegal acts against Queen Lili‘uokalani, the Pū‘ā Foundation should spend that money on programs that help reassert Hawai‘i’s sovereignty through the expressed will of Hawaiian nationals. If Kamehameha Schools wants to educate Hawaiians, these schools should instruct young Hawaiians in the skills necessary to run an independent Hawaiian government. And if the entities claiming to be the Hawaiian government want to help the Hawaiian people, these organizations should work together to find common ground and to understand the hopes, aspirations and fears of Hawaiian nationals.

The real strength of Hawaiian nationals is that we do not need any organization, claiming to represent Hawaiians, to allow us to speak our mind, express our will, re-establish our government. We hold the power to make this change right now, and we have held this power for over a hundred years. If we work together, the organizations listed above may help to facilitate this transition process.

We control our own destiny. All we have to do is wake up and get to work. This is our kuleana.

As we look toward the coming year, think about what role you, and each person, might have in this awakening, this hō‘ala. During the holidays, ask your friends and family what they too would want to do during this awakening.

We can reawaken the Hawaiian nationals worldwide. Our strength is that we shall take these initial steps together.

My brother’s lines were the words of a Hawaiian who had signed the anti-annexation petitions during the 1897 Hilo meeting: “My father is an American: my mother is pure Hawaiian. It is my mother’s land I love.” My brother’s voice cracked. He paused, took a breath, and continued, repeating the last line, “It is my mother’s land I love. The American nation has been unjust. How could we ever love America?”

My mom, Dallas Keali‘iho‘onei‘āina Mossman Vogeler, was Hawaiian. My Dad, Edward Jerome Vogeler Jr., was Pennsylvania Dutch, an American. Both had passed into spirit in recent years. The sentiment of that Hawaiian from 1897 spoke the words that my brother perhaps would have never said otherwise, though, in his heart, these were Bill’s own words.

Bill Loves the US, but he loves Hawai‘i more. This aloha comes from the love our mom expressed and from the reverence she always held for Hawai‘i, the land of her birth. Though we were raised in the United States, our mom eventually returned to Hawai‘i and directed the 1993 reenactment of the overthrow for ‘Onipa‘a Centennial Observance. Hawai‘i is where our mother died.

The idea that Hawai‘i is not part of the US is unsettling for Bill, as it would be for many Americans. He was born in West Virginia and has lived most of his life in California. This recognition that he loves Hawai‘i, as an aspect of loving our mom, causes dissonance, tears.

After his role in the reenactment on November 28, Bill commented about how much he had learned. While he was visiting, he and my sister, Mary Alice, conducted interviews for a book project on Hawaiian sovereignty. By the time they flew back to California, Bill understood that Hawai‘i never legally merged with the United States.

The day before he left, Bill asked what he could do to help. He still loves the United States; at the same time, he realizes that Hawai‘i, this land that our mother loves, this Independent State, separate from the US, needs people working together for the reassertion of Hawai‘i’s sovereignty.

Bill doesn’t love the United States any less. But somehow part of that dissonance had become resolve. The dissonance and resolve may remain for a long time to come.

In truth, all of us struggle with uneasiness at times. What do we do next? What is pono? How do we get it done?

Bill’s experience during the reenactment is a realization that many of us have felt, just not in such a public manner. We all work through similar feelings of uneasiness, and through this dissonance we restore our resolve, as we strive to reassert the sovereignty of this land that we love.

Mahalo,

Kūhiō

However, sometimes it is important to give thanks for what is to come. As Thanksgiving and La Kū‘oko‘a approach, I am most grateful for our future, most hopeful for our people, most inspired by the the process before us. Sometimes, there are moments when the path is clear, momentum is increasing, and the distant goal can be seen, if even for fleeting moments. Still, that goal is there, ahead. This glimpse of what is possible is priceless, a rare treasure to be valued, a reason for gratitude. The trip may be treacherous, the climb steep, the path tiring, but this exhaustion too is something of immeasurable worth.

In William Saroyan’s Pulitzer Prize-winning play, “The Time of Your Life,” Willie, a pinball fanatic, finally beats the high score on the pinball machine. After attaining that goal, Willie has a brief bout of depression. (Anyone who has beaten a video game can appreciate this feeling, if only breifly.) Pursuit of his goal gave Willie’s life inspiration and meaning. After attaining that goal, Willie had to find a new source of meaning, a new pursuit.

The next twelve months are full of meaning. We, as a people, as a nationals of our own country, have a specific goal and a process that could bring us closer to that goal. This ending of the occupation will not happen in 2010, but that doesn’t matter. We have a goal, which gives us inspiration. And we all have something to do in pursuit that goal. This is what the next twelve months offer.

Many are still looking for how they can aid in this endeavor. The coming year offers an opportunity to discover the special skill or talent in each of us. And as the next twelve months unfold, we have the opportunity to work together, while our collective talents draw us ever closer to the ending of the US occupation of Hawai‘i.

The meaning of coming year is a gift for which we can all be grateful.

Mahalo, for the coming year!

Kūhiō

But this presentation was different.

Before the discussion began, eleven items were read as points of agreement between the two speakers, the organizers and the audience. Everything from the importance of the Anglo-Franco Declaration in 1843 to the anti-annexation petitions in 1897 was agreed upon before main discussion began. These items were therefore not part of the discussion. These items were a commonality, the foundation for the rest of the conversation.

Then, as Pōkā and Keanu spoke, it became clear that both agreed that Hawai‘i is occupied. Keanu stressed the legal arguments regarding occupation. Pōkā described the psychological and political discrimination inherent in colonization. Hawai‘i, according to Pōkā is occupied, but there is an aspect that is more pervasive, an aspect that Pōkā called colonization. Keanu contended that the laws of occupation and enforcement of responsibility on the occupant were the means for ending the occupation. Pōkā asserted that self-determination and de-colonization is the means for assuring independence for aboriginal Hawaiians and for non-native Hawaiian Kingdom subjects.

However, even in their differences, Pōkā and Keanu maintained that Hawai‘i is occupied, and they agreed to the points already affirmed at the beginning of the discussion.

This agreement on occupation and on the points stipulated at the beginning of the discussion is a power base on which to build our future. Agreement is key. It isn’t that Hawaiians can’t disagree: we can, and we should. The point is that, as we identify the points of agreement, disagreement becomes less of an obstacle.

We are not looking for consensus: that is not a country, or a government. Consensus often inhibits movement in any direction. Placing minimal contention within a context of mass harmony and accord moves the discussion forward toward a common goal. Moreover, the means is the ends. The method of discussion effects change.

In time, building on this sense of accord and harmony, we can restore our government, by maximizing our commonality, our common goal. In time, I believe we will restore our government.

Today, the people at this discussion, the organizers, and the presenters, Pōkā and Keanu, seemed to acknowledge that in time the goal of independence could be achieved. We all seemed to acknowledge that all of these things can happen in time.

All in time…

Mahalo,

Kuhio