The

False Narrative
Office of Hawaiian Affairs/U.S. Department of Interior/Nai 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 Kings
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 Hawaii. In 1893, the United States Minister to Hawaii assisted residents of the
Kingdom of Hawaii in committing treason and, in the case of United States citizens,
violating the United States Neutrality Act, by seizing Queen Liliuokalani with the
intent of abolishing the Kingdom and annexing Hawaii 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 Hawaii, 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 Kingdoms 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.

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 Hawaii. 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 peoples
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.

After the establishment of the Kingdom, all of the rulers prior to the overthrow
from Kamehameha I to Queen Liliuokalani 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 Hawaii 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

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 Hawaii, 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 Hawaii, and to offer an
apology to Native Hawaiians on behalf of the United States for the overthrow of the
Kingdom of Hawaii.) (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.

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 Hawaii? 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
Hawaii 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.


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

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

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 Hawaii 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

original Hawaiian ancestry are to be addressed as an indigenous people, the only

proper way to do that is to restore the Kingdom of Hawaii 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 Ive worked tirelessly, both as Hawaii 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
todays 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. governments relationship with the Native
Hawaiian people.

Representative Mark Takai. Representative Takai would certainly be surprised to
see the choice be strengthening the U.S. governments 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 Hawaii in 1893.

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. Todays proposal is testament to the Obama
Administrations strong support for our nations 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 Hawaii and attempts to prevent any prospect of the
Kingdoms 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 Kelii Silva


Lanny Sinkin
Alii Nui Mi (High Chief/King)
Alii Manao Nui (Chief Advocate)
Kingdom of Hawaii


Kingdom of Hawaii

10