[1] Pro Se– is Latin for “self,” it is used as a legal term for defending oneself on their own behalf. No lawyers are involved.

[2] It has been questioned as to whether or not ‘Hawaiian’ is the correct spelling, or whether or not it should be ‘Hawaiʻian,’ therefore it is necessary to provide a footnote on this concern:  ʻHawaiian’ is the common Americanized descriptor and is used regularly by scholars, politicians, pretty much everyone who is not a speaker of ʻōlelo Hawaii.  It was also the terminology that was found in the English translations of Kingdom documents.  The ending of a word with “an” does not exist in ʻōlelo Hawaiʻi, neither does the possessive, “‘s.”  As for the correct terminology for the place Hawaiʻi, Hawaiʻi technically is a shortcut version commonly used here both in the past and today, the actual place was called Kō Hawaiʻi Pae ʻĀina, which means all the islands within the archipelago.  Today, the Kingdom and the State only cover the inhabited islands, and the preferred terminology changed to just be Hawaiʻi. Sometimes Kānaka Maoli activist use the one referring to the Archipelago, sometimes not.  As to whether it is Hawaiʻi or Hawaii, that is often debated today. In early Hawaiian documents there were no kahakō (macrons) or ʻokina (glottal stops), this is because everyone spoke ʻōlelo Hawaiʻi and understood what was being said and how it should be pronounced.  However, when the language was almost erased and there were fewer native speakers, Hawaiian language activists at the 1978 Constitutional Convention passed into law that all street signs, legal documents, legislation, etc; should use kahakō or ʻokina.  It is also the standard now in Hawaiian language education.  Since fewer people were native speakers it caused too much confusion to the actual meaning of words that are dependent on differences in pronunciation, kahakō and ʻokina clarifies that.  This change occurred largely because absent this clarity the meaning and pronunciation would change. Hence you would not put an ʻokina in ʻHawaiian’ since it is not pronounced that way.

[3] State of Hawaii vs. Patricia Villiarimo-Cockett. Case no. 2DTI-07-009297; 2DTC-07008105

[4] I use the ʻōlelo Hawaii (Hawaiian language) identifier for the indigenous people of Hawaii, Kanaka Maoli, rather than the Hawaii State legal terminology of Native Hawaiian/part-Hawaiian which are Americanized words that make connotations towards blood quantum, and which were designed to erase and divide Native peoples. J.Kehaulani Kauanui states that blood quantum, a divisive, racist policy that “operates through a reductive logic…as measurable and dilutable…undercuts indigenous Hawaiian epistemologies that define identity” (Hawaiian Blood,3-7). The terminology Native Hawaiian is the governmental term in all legal documents: Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Dept. of Hawaiian Homelands, the census, etc. Hawaiian actually refers to citizenry, a nationality, not an ethnicity.  In the time of the Kingdom there were Hawaiian citizens who were not Kānaka Maoli, many of those were white. So when Kānaka Maoli started gaining some rights back the terminology in such places as the state legislation/federal legislature was to add Native in front of Hawaiian to designate the difference as to who were indigenous or not. Just as the Federal government put Native in front of American to generalize the Indigenous tribal nation’s citizenry.  As opposed to all citizens. This is why Kānaka Maoli activist often prefer to use the ʻōlelo Hawaiʻi descriptor because it is more accurate. Kanaka Maoli, which literally means the true people or original people, is most commonly used in Hawaii as a personal identifier, especially among sovereignty activists. Some also prefer to use Kanaka ʻŌiwi, which means the same thing, but is rarer in usage. Both terms represent the personʻs geneological connection to Papa (earth mother) and Wākea (sky father).  When I use the kahakō (macron), as in kānaka, it represents plural rather than singular usage. ʻĀina Momona, “Hawaiian vs. Californian: Why there is a difference,” (Nov. 3, 2021).

[5] Haole is the ʻōlelo Hawaii identifier for anyone who is EuroAmerican, white, Caucasian. It was first used to identify foreigners, anyone not indigenous to Hawaii; however, since the first non-kānaka maoli to come to Hawaii were from Europe and America, this term has come to define those white foreigners alone. The term is not derogatory. It is my personally preferred ethnic identifier, and most commonly used in Hawaii.

[6] The “Hawaiian Renaissance” was a term that evolved out of the cultural, linguistic, and sovereign reawakening of the Kānaka Maoli.  Following the wins and the strategies of the Civil Rights movement.  Protest and activism, in many cases trained by the Black Panthers on the mainland, organizers began to fight for native rights, their lands, and recognition. As a result, by the late 1970s, Hawaiian language became an official language of the state, the university system authorized the College of Hawaiian studies and language, Hawaiian culture, language and history education was authorized, and native access rights were legislated. Haunani Kay Trask. From a Native Daughter: Colonialism & Sovereignty in Hawaii (Maine: Common Courage Press, 1993). 205.

[7] I place quote marks around the “overthrow” primarily because in Hawaii it was not a true overthrow of a government.  Overthrow is defined as being initiated by the citizens of the nation that is being overthrown. However, in Hawaii it was a conspiracy led by the business interests of four Americans, four American missionary descendents, three Naturalized Hawaiian citizens (who were American annexationists and the only citizens of Hawaiʻi), a Scotsman, and a German; a total of only thirteen and the complicity of the US military. Rich Budnick, Stolen Kingdom (Hawaii: Aloha Press, 1992), 105.

[8] I refer to “Re-Awakening of Hawaiian Activism” since the first Activist were those who first attempted to oppose the “overthrow” and restore Queen Liliʻuokalani to the throne: Hui Aloha ʻĀina (Hawaiian Patriotic League) and Hui Kālaiʻāina (Hawaiian Political Association),1893-1898. Budnick, Stolen Kingdom, 117-167.

[9] Oligarchy is the term used in the Hawaii State curriculum textbook, A History of Hawaii (Menton and Tamura, 128-9) for the eighteen-member government that was installed by the Committee of Safety and sugar-planters who monopolized the power and economy during the Republic of Hawaii, preventing Kānaka Maoli from voting, controlling education, and maintained martial law.

[10] The section “From Kingdom to Statehood” explains more fully what was the Territory and the evolution that occurred that made Hawaiʻi a territory. However, a brief timeline might benefit any confusion here, the governmental terms refer to these time periods of governance: Pre-Contact (prior to 1778), Kingdom (islands unified into absolute Monarchy [1795-1840], Constitutional Monarchy [1840-1893]), Provisional Government (1893-1894), Republic of Hawaii (1894-1898), Territory of Hawaii (1898-1959), Statehood (1959-present).

[11] The Doctrine of Discovery was a Papal decree that stated “any land not inhabited by Christians was available to be ʻdiscovered,’claimed, and exploited by Christian rulers.” Spotlight on a Primary Source by Pope Alexander VI  Mark Charles (Dine), “We the People – The Three Most Misunderstood Words in US History,” 17:44 (Jan. 4, 2019) YouTube: TEDxTysons.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOktqY5wY4A

[12] Ronald J. Horvath, “A Definition of Colonialism,” Current Anthropology, 13, no.1 (Feb. 1972), 47.

[13] George Steinmetz, “The Sociology of Empires, Colonies and Post-colonialism,” Annual Review of Sociology, 40 (2014), 79.

[14] Mitra Sharafi, Law and Identity in Colonial South Asia: Parsi Legal Culture, 1772-1947 (US: Cambridge University Press, 2014). 44-54.

[15] Lord Lugard, “Indirect Rule in Tropical Africa,” 1900, 291-2.

[16] Patrick Wolfe, “Settler Colonialism and the Elimination of the Native,” Journal of Genocide Research 8, no. 4 (December 2006): 387–409; Jeffrey Ostler and Nancy Shoemaker, “Settler Colonialism in Early American History: Introduction” The William and Mary Quarterly, 76, no 3 (July 2019), 362.

[17] Jeffrey Ostler and Nancy Shoemaker, “Settler Colonialism in Early American History, 362.

[18] Alyosha Goldstein, “Entangled Dispossessions: Race and Colonialism in the Historical Present” Relational Formations of Race, Natalia Molina, et.al. (US: University of Calif, 2019). 61.

[19] Nancy Shoemaker, “Typology of Colonialism,”Perspectives on History,  (Oct. 2015)

[20] Shoemaker, “Typology of Colonialism.”

[21] Kamehameha I did battle to become moʻi (supreme ruler) which was traditionally done when an aliʻi nui (high chief) died. Traditionally, upon the deathbed of an aliʻi nui, one aliʻi might be given Kūkāʻilimoku (a symbol of the god of war and the aliʻi of power) while another might be given the Hā (the breath or mana [power] of the aliʻi). This is what happened with Kamehameha I, he received the symbol of Kū from the high chief Kalaniʻōpuʻu; while he gave the Hā to Kīwalaʻō, his son, this set up a challenge to both potential leaders as to who would get both, Kamehameha did in the end. This link explains it in more depth https://hawaiialive.org/kukailimoku/ . Kamehameha did utilize western guns, but not until 1790, first by capturing the ship that Isaac Davis was on and taking all the weaponry and ship, Davis was the only survivor. Later, he detained another Haole, John Young. Essentially, Kamehameha I kidnapped both of them, while at the same time honoring them by marrying them to ʻaliʻi nui wāhine (high ranking women) and giving them land for being his trusted advisors. He used the two men to train his warriors on the use of foreign weaponry and was able to put down the other chiefs, thereby unifying all the islands. The actual unification did not finalize until 1798. He probably traded with other foreigners after to resupply himself.   Upon his death in 1819, he gave Kūkāʻilimoku to another chief and the Hā to his son, thereby setting up a situation where Kamehameha II would have had to battle for his position as well, however, Kaʻahumanu, the kuhina nui (main advisor) to the King talked Kamehameha II in breaking the kapu system which effectively took the power away from Kū without actually having to go to war, thereby keeping the kingdom intact as his father had created it. Therefore, Kānaka Maoli were not subjugated or labeled subjects of a foreign power; they had aliʻi that may have traded with foreigners, may have eventually had Haole Hawaiian citizens become advisors or members within their government, but they were not subjects of a Euro-American power. Instead they were recognized as an independent nation under a treaty of Friendship with the United States by 1824, and again reconfirmed in 1849 with even stronger more specific language. Yet, it was not just the United States by the reign of Queen Liliʻūokalani, Hawaiʻi had treaties and embassies throughout the world prior to the overthrow.

[22] Jon M.Van Dyke, Who Owns the Crown Lands of Hawaii? (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 2008): 19-22.

[23] The ranking of aliʻi was determined by their genealogical connection to the gods, and the hereditary mana (spiritual power) within their being.  The kuhuna (priest/skilled class) also came from the aliʻi class. There were many rankings of aliʻi, which are detailed in Ka Poʻe Kahiko: The People of Old (1869-1870, Ka Nūpepa

Kuokoa) by Samuel Kamakau.   

[24] Shirafi, Law and Identity. 10.

[25] The Parsi, who trace their ancestry to the early Persians of India, eagerly embraced British legal training to generate laws, create lawyers, and Parsi-judged courts that would protect their religion and cultural traditions under the increasing British Imperial control. Shirafi, Law and Identity, 9.

[26] Van Dyke, Who Owns the Crown Lands, 26-7.

[27] P. Christiaan Klieger, Kamehameha III (California: Green Arrow Press, 2015): 1-270.

[28] Hawaiʻi Kingdom Constitutions of 1840 and 1864.

[29] The ‘Haole elite,’ ‘sugar planters,’ ‘the Big Five,’ ‘Haole businessmen,’ the ‘annexations,’ are all terms I have used within my research to describe the group of business interests that conspired to “overthrow” the Hawaiian Kingdom. The common storyline in the current Hawaiian History books is that the missionaries were the cause of the overthrow, even Haunani Kay Trask argues this. However, that is a case of historical misinformation, one designed to minimize America’s involvement in the crime. Research on the actual culprits is easily found and can disprove the fallacy of the guilt of the missionaries.

When the American Board of Missionaries left Hawaii in 1863, a majority of their missionaries left Hawaii as well, so the mission did not fund the overthrow or employ any of them at the time. The majority of the thirteen who were involved in the conspiracy (the committee of Safety, the ones who were actually responsible for the overthrow) were overwhelmingly American businessmen. This can also be said of those involved in the Bayonet Constitution and the creation of the new Provisional government/Republic of Hawaii.  There were only four who were Hawaii-born of missionaries, therefore they were the children of missionaries. Not missionaries.

Evidence can be found in Stolen Kingdom, where Budnick lists the participants of the overthrow and the early government, clearly stating their origin and economic interests. Evidence can also be found in LaRue Piercy, Hawaiiʻs Missionary Saga (1992), in this book the author lists all the missionaries, the date they came, the date they left Hawaii or their service to the mission.  There were four missionaries (mostly teachers) that left the mission early to become advisors to the aliʻi, so they did have a hand in the development of the government.  William Richards was the minister of public instruction in 1846 which gave him a cabinet seat on the privy council, he died in 1847. Gerrit P. Judd was a medical missionary, (almost as soon as he arrived) he became translator and recorder of the Government which meant he was on the treasury board and he helped Kamehameha III balance the budget he inherited; he also became secretary of state of foreign affairs in 1843 and helped the King reclaim his thrown during the Paulet Affair; in 1852 he became a judge for the kingdom and was an advisor on drafting the 1852 Constitution; he died in 1873.  Lorrin Andrews, was a teacher and instrumental in forming the written Hawaiian language and the development of the printing press in Hawaii, he became a judge of foreign cases (in other words a diplomat where crimes done by foreigners were concerned, keeping Hawaii from having to deal with foreign outrage; he died in 1868.  Finally, Richard Armstrong became the minister of public instruction in 1848 and helped Kamehameha III establish public education in Hawaii, because of this he became a member of the privy council and the house of nobles. Any other Haole that became a part of the government were not missionaries.

[30] Budnick, Stolen Kingdom, 40-1.

[31] Budnick, Stolen Kingdom, 61-2.

[32] Budnick, Stolen Kingdom, 68.

[33] Jon M Van Dyke, Who Owns the Crown Lands of Hawaii? (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 2008): 156-163.

[34] Budnick, Stolen Kingdom, 101-124.

[35] Budnick, Stolen Kingdom, 83-132, 166; Menton and Tamura, A History of Hawaii, 129.

[36] Organic Act of the Territory of Hawaii, Sec., 83.

[37] Budnick, Stolen Kingdom, 133-158.

[38] Budnick, Stolen Kingdom, 133-159.

[39] The Republic of Hawaii and the white Oligarchy remained in control from 1994-1998, when the US Congress authorized an illegal treaty of annexation.

[40]Kuʻumealoha Gomes, Autobiography of Protest in Hawaiʻi edited by Robert Mast and Anne Mast. (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1996): 421.   

[41]Kuʻualoha Meyer Hoʻomanawanui, “Nā Luna,” in ʻŌiwi: a Native Hawaiian Journal, editor Mahealani D. Dudoit, (Honolulu: Kuleana ʻŌiwi Press, 1998): 2; Budnick, Stolen Kingdom, 164.

[42]Patrick Wolfe, “On Settler Colonialism,” Speaking of Indigenous Politics: Conversations with Activists, Scholars, and Tribal Leaders, edited by J. Kehaulani Kauanui and Robert Warrior (US: University of Minnesota Press, 2018): 369; Budnick, 166; Menton and Tamura, 129; Mackenzie, 13.

[43] Keanu Sai. Hawaii Kingdom Weblog Hawaiian Kingdom Government, Acting Minister of the Interior. Contains photocopies of the Anti-Annexation Petitions, Letters of Protest of the Queen, and various Hawaiian Kingdom Officials to the United States government, as well as the Blount Report and the official letter of President Cleveland recognizing the illegal occupation. https://www.hawaiiankingdom.org/us-occupation.shtml; “The Joint Resolution was incapable of acquiring Hawaiʿi legally.  Only a Treaty could annex Hawaiʿi. The Treaty of 1897 was never ratified by the United States. Annexation by resolution was unconstitutional. It would destroy the integrity of the Constitution and undermine the basis of the American Republic.” Williamson Chang, “Darkness over Hawaii: The Annexation Myth is the Greatest Obstacle Progress,” Asian-Pacific Law & Policy Journal, 16, no.2, (2015).

[44] Organic Act of the Territory of Hawaii, 1898.

[45] The Big Five included: Campbell Estates, Castle & Cooke, Dillingham, American Factors, and Alexander & Baldwin. Large corporations who controled the majority of private lands in Hawaii and all aspects of the government, and economy. Trask, From a Native Daughter, 91.

[46] Organic Act of the Territory of Hawaii, Sec. 4. 1898.

[47] Budnick, Stolen Kingdom. 168-188.

[48] The Hawaii State Constitutional Convention of 1978. https://hawaii.concon.info/?page_id=214

[49] Haunani Kay Trask, From a Native Daughter: Colonialism & Sovereignty in Hawaii  (Maine: Common Courage Press, 1993), 21.

[50]Avis Kuuipoleialoha Poai, “Tales from the Dark Side of the Archives: Making History in Hawai’i without Hawaiians,” University of Hawaii Law Review, 39 (2017): 575.

[51] Poai, “Tales from the Dark Side” 584.

[52] Attorney Paul Sullivan: “the single most valuable resource…in examining the history of Hawaii’s government”; Judge Burns: “exclusively relied on vol. 3 of Kuykendall’s work”; Avis Kuuipoleialoha Poai, “Tales from the Dark Side,” 603-612.

[53] R.S Kuykendall, and Charles H. Hunter, “The Publications of Ralph S. Kuykendall,” Hawaiian Journal of History, 2 (1968): 136-141.

[54] Kamakau, Samuel. Ka Poʻe Kahiko: The People of Old (1869-1870, Ka Nūpepa Kuokoa). Trans. Mary Kawena Pukui. Honolulu: Bishop Museum Press, 1976,

[55] Kuykendall, 1819-1854 (269). As defined in the Oxford dictionary serfs were bound to the land and their lord.  Maka’āinana were not.

[56] Samuel Kamakau, The Works of the People of Old (1869-1870), translated by Mary Kawena Pukui. (Honolulu: Bishop Museum Press, 1976): 6-8; Betty Dunford, The Hawaiians of Old (Honolulu: Bess Press, 1980): 40-42.

[57] Explanation of the traditional land system will be explained in more detail in “Hawaiiʻs land History” of this project, 41-45.   The layering that I refer, explains how Royal Patents included multiple Kuleana Awards within the confines of the RP, demonstrating the numerous people responsible for the care of the land. No one owned the land exclusively.

[58] In reviewing the literature, I noticed that of the modern text that discussed the Great Mahele (the land laws of Hawaii), they all referred as one of their main sources to Levy & Kuykendahl, however when looking at those sources they refer to the Revised Statutes of 1925. These are records that had been rewritten to benefit the ruling Oligarchy and then added into the Territorial Laws.

[59] Neil M Levy, “Native Hawaiian Land Rights,” California Law Review 63, no. 4 (1975): 848-85.

[60] Pala Pala Sila Nui (Royal Patents) & Kuleana Awards (Land Grants): ʻAhupuaʻa of Koali, Muʻolea, Ulaʻino, Hamoa, Lahaina, Waikapu

[61] Levy, “Native Hawaiian Land Rights,” 848-85.

[62] Liliʻuokalani believed that America had as much integrity as Britain had as evidenced by their actions during what was called the “Paulet Affair.” Kamehameha III almost lost the thrown to Lord Paulet, but Britain stepped in and forced him to return the thrown to the King and people of Hawaii, this is probably why she believed in Americaʻs honor. R.S. Kuykendahl, The Hawaiian Kingdom 1819-1854. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1953, 201-214.

[63] Budnick, Stolen Kingdom, 123.

[64] Levy, “Native Hawaiian Land Rights,” 848.

[65] Van Dyke, Who Owns the Crown Lands of Hawai’i, 11-18.

[66] Gavan Daws, Shoal of Times, (Hawaii: University of Hawaii Press, 1974).

[67] Poai, “Tales from the Darkside,” 573.

[68] Poai, “Tales from the Darkside,” 574.

[69] Jonathan Osorio, “Living in Archives and Dreams,” 191,196; Avis Poai, “Tales from the Dark Side of the Archives,” 572-5.

[70] Helen Bauer, Hawaii: The Aloha State (Hawaii: The Bess Press, 1960): 92-96. This was my textbook in 1967, then republished and repackaged word for word several times from 1960-1980s, my eldest son was bringing home the same textbook when he was in the seventh grade.

[71] Linda Menton & Eileen Tamura, A History of Hawaii (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1989).

[72] Bauer, Hawaii the Aloha State, 94. My personal copy of the Hawaii Department of Education textbook from 1960-1989.

[73] Menton & Tamura, A History of Hawaii. 21-27.

[74] Kuykendall, The Hawaiian Kingdom,1819-1854, 269-302; Levy, “Native Hawaiian Land Rights,” 848-85.

[75] Budnick, Stolen Kingdom.

[76] Trask. From a Native Daughter,18.

[77] The “Big Five” were the five major sugar planters that came to control the government, the largest tracks of land, a monopoly on the economy, control over the news media, economic corporations, the banks, the utilities, and the majority of business interests in Hawaii between 1893-1980s. They consisted of C. Brewer & Company, Theo Davis & Company, American Factors, Castle & Cooke, and Alexander & Baldwin.  Linda Menton & Eileen Tamura, A History of Hawaii, 161.

[78] Melody Kapilialoha MacKenzie (editor) Native Hawaiian Rights Handbook. (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1991).

[79] The Office of Hawaiian Affairs was established by the State in 1979. The state claims it is funded through the Hawaiian Trust funds. Up until 2000, only Native Hawaiians (no blood quantum was designated) could vote or run for the OHA office; however, due to the loss of the court case Rice v. Cayetano, since that time, non-Hawaiians can both vote and run for a position on the board of trustees.  Therefore, like the Office of Indian Affairs which has federal oversight; the Office of Hawaiian Affairs has state oversight. They are neither autonomous, nor sovereign.

[80] I use “Native Hawaiian” here since this is how Kānaka Maoli are identified by both the State of Hawaii and the Office of Hawaiian Affairs.

[81] MacKenzie, Native Hawaiian Rights Handbook, 21-25.

[82] David Malo. “A Hawaiian Life” in The Moʻolelo Hawaiʻi of Davida Malo, vol. 2: Hawaiian Text and Translation. Translated by Noelani Arista. Edited by Charles Langlas and Jeffrey Lyon. (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 2020).

[83]Samuel Kamakau, Ka Poʻe Kahiko: The People of Old (1869-1870), Translated by Mary

Kawena Pukui (Honolulu: Bishop Museum Press, 1976).

[84] Mary Kawena Pukui, Nānā i ke Kumu, vol. 1. (Honolulu: Hui Hanai, 1983).

[85] Trask, From a Native Daughter.

[86] The “Great Māhele,” refers to Kamehameha IIIʻs actions of addressing the Hawaii land tenure system.  The debates surrounding this concept will be a major focus of my masterʻs project.

[87] Trask, From a Native Daughter, 15.

[88] Trask, From a Native Daughter, 51-69, 87-110, 131-143.

[89] Aron Alton Ardaiz, Hawaii the Fake State: A Nation in Capitivity, (Hawaii: Truth of God Ministry Hawaiian Islands, 2008): 199-371.

[90] These are standard legal terms meaning: de jure (rightful entitlement or claim), de facto (by fact, but not necessarily by right), ex post facto (having retroactive effect or force)

[91] J. Kēhaulani Kauanui, Hawaiian Blood: Colonialism and the Politics of Sovereignty and Indigeneity (Durham and London: Duke University Press, 2008).

[92] A “conceptual” methodological approach is one where the historian uses linguistic analysis to the cultural understanding of key concepts of an Indigenous group.  For example: In Kauanuiʻs analysis of the word moʻokūauhau (genealogy), she breaks down the individual segments of meaning in the word: moʻo (series/succession), kūʻauhau (lineage/pedigree/traditions); then finally, ʻauhau (assessment/tribute/tax), thereby linking the understanding of the word to the “reciprocal relationship between the common people, the chiefs, and the land.” Kauanui, 37.

[93] Shirafi, 6.

[94]Candace Fujikane and Jonathan Y. Okamura, editors. Asian Settler Colonialism: From Local Governance to the Habits of Everyday Life in Hawaiʻi. (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 2008).

[95]Jon M.Van Dyke, Who Owns the Crown Lands of Hawaii?

[96] Van Dyke, Who Owns the Crown Lands? 30-53.

[97] Kamanamaikalani Beamer, No Mākou Ka Mana: Liberating the Nation, (Honolulu:Kamehameha Publishing, 2014).

[98] Beamer, No Mākou Ka Mana, 8.

[99] Beamer, No Mākou Ka Mana, 105.

[100] Na Lama Kukui, A Native Hawaiian Focus on the Hawaiʻi Public School System, SY2015, Honolulu: Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA) Research Division, 2017, 1.

[101] Joe Feagin and Sean Elias, “Rethinking Racial Formation Theory: A Systemic Racism Critique,” Ethnic and Racial Studies 36:6. (2013): 936–939.

[102] Feagin and Elias, “Rethinking Racial Formation,”939-41.

[103] Feagin and Elias, “Rethinking Racial Formation,” 931-7.

[104] Evelyn Nakano Glenn, “Settler Colonialism as Structure: A Framework for Comparative Studies of US Race and Gender Formation.” Sociology of Race and Ethnicity 12:1. (2015): 53-55; Andrea Smith, “Indigeneity, Settler Colonialism, White Supremacy,” Racial Formation in the Twenty-First Century, (US: University of California Press, 2012): 35.

[105] Andrea Smith, “Indigeneity, Settler Colonialism, White Supremacy,” Racial Formation in the Twenty-First Century, ed. Daniel Martinez HoSang, Oneka LaBennett, and Laura Pulido, (University of California Press, 2012): 40.

[106] Robert Mast & Anne Mast, Autobiography of Protest in Hawaii (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1996):407; Trask, 5-6.

[107] Hoʻokuaʻāina, He Aliʻi Ka ʻĀina, He Kauwā Ke Kanaka 3:37 YouTube.

[108] Unlike Asians on the Mainland United States, the Asians in Hawaii were not forced to return to Asia as a result of the Chinese Exclusion Act. Anyone could become either a naturalized Hawaiian citizen of the Hawaiian Kingdom or their children born in Hawaiʻi were automatically considered citizens. Many Asians also intermarried with Hawaiians. If they were a citizen they could vote, however many too were not citizens.  It was not until after the overthrow that the Republic tried to make some leave, mostly agitators for the unions. Overall, they were needed to work the fields and it was less expensive to keep them in Hawaii than shipping in a new immigrants all the time. This is why Hawaii has a very large Asian population. Candace Fujikane and Jonathan Y. Okamura, editors, Asian Settler Colonialism: From Local Governance to the Habits of Everyday Life in Hawaiʻi, (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 2008): 21-42.

[109] Picture Brides was a system created by their employers, by which contract laborers could find wives from their home country, women they had never met and only had seen in photos. Candice Fujikane and Johnathan Y. Okamura, Asian Settler Colonialism, 54.

[110] In Hawaii, the laborers that were brought in by sugar planters were not indentured or slaves; they were referred to as contract laborers, men whose government had brokered the agreements with the planters in order to ensure fair treatment of their citizenry. While they were paid poorly and often went into debt to the company store, they were free to leave the plantation upon the completion of their contract. Theon Wright, The Disenchanted Isles: The Story of the Second Revolution in Hawaii (NY: The Dial Press, 1972): 47; Eleanor Nordyke. The Peopling of Hawaii, (Honolulu: East-West Center, University Press of Hawaii, 1977): 30-35.

[111] Wolfe, “On Settler Colonialism,” 348.

[112] Jennifer LaFleur, “The Race That Space Makes: The Power of Place in the Colonial Formation of Social Categorizations.” Sociology of Race & Ethnicity, 7, no. 4. (2021): 516. 

[113] Roger Bell, “Incorporated but Not Equal, 1898-1941” Last Among Equals:Hawaiian Statehood and American Politics (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press,1984): 53.

[114] Wright, The Disenchanted Isles, 48; Nordyke, The Peopling of Hawaii, 24.

[115]LaFleur, “The Race That Space Makes,” 514; Menton and Tamura, A History of Hawaii, 211-217; Interviews: Hoʻopai, Motooka, Villiarimo.

[116]Robert N Anderson, Richard Coller, and Rebecca F. Pestano, “ Social Relations” Filipinos in Rural Hawaii (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1984): 83-4.

[117]Morris Young, “Standard English and Student Bodies: Institutionalizing Race and Literacy in Hawaii,” College English, 64, no.4. (National Council of Teachers of English, 2002): 409.

[118] Menton and Tamura, A History of Hawaii, 211-217; Interview: Chris Villiarimo (2015).

[119] Anderson, et.al, “Social Relations,” 95-6; Wright, Disenchanted Isles, 47; Interview, Autobiography of Protest: Gomes, 423 and Petranek, 329. 

[120]Daniel B. Eisen, Kara Takasaki and Arlie Tagayuna, “Am I really Filipino?” Journal Committed to Social Change on Race and Ethnicity,” 1, no. 2. (OK: Southwest Center for Human Relations Studies at the University of Oklahoma, 2015): 25-6.

[121] Na Lama Kukui, 2.

[122] Na Lama Kukui, 2; Trask, From a Native Daughter, 21.

[123]  Maunakea, Katherine. 1993. Interview in He Alo ā He Alo: Hawaiian Voices of Sovereignty, Face to Face. (Honolulu: American Friends Service Committee,1993): 27; Interview: Hoʻopai.

[124] Interview: Noenoe K. Silva, in ʻŌiwi: a Native Hawaiian Journal, editor Mahealani D. Dudoit. (Honolulu: Kuleana ʻŌiwi Press, 1998): 41.

[125]  Noe K. Silva, ʻŌiwi: a Native Hawaiian Journal, editor Mahealani D. Dudoit. (Honolulu: Kuleana ʻŌiwi Press, 1998); 53; Budnick, Stolen Kingdom, 172.

[126] Menton and Tamura, A History of Hawaii, 129.

[127] Roger Bell, “Incorporated but Not Equal, 1898-1941” in Last Among Equals: Hawaiian Statehood and American Politics. (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press,1984): 53.

[128] Bell, “Incorporated but Not Equal,” 53; Menton and Tamura, A History of Hawaii, 218.

[129] Tamura and Menton, A History of Hawaii, 218; Young, “Standard English,” 406-7.

[130] Young, “Standard English,” 409.

[131] Interview: C. Villiarimo.

[132] Programme for the Patriotic Exercises in the Public Schools, Territory of Hawaii, 1906.

adopted by the Department of Public Instruction, 1.  

[133] Programme, 3.

[134] Programme, 3-14.

[135] Programme, 7.

[136] Bell, Incorporated but Not Equal, 45.  

[137] Bell, Incorporated but Not Equal, 45.  

[138]Schuman, Frederick L.. “Racial Relations in the 50th State” in The North American Review, vol.249:2. University of Iowa,1964. 44-45.

[139] Schuman, “Racial Relations,” 45.

[140] Young, “Standard English,” 406.

[141] Young, “Standard English,” 406.

[142] Young, “Standard English,” 406.

[143] Menton and Tamura, A History of Hawaii, 218; Young, “Standard English,” 406-7.

[144] Young, “Standard English,” 410.

[145] Interview: Gomes, Autobiography, 424; P. Villiarimo.

[146] Michelle Morgan, “Americanizing the Teachers: Identity, Citizenship, and the Teaching Corps. In Hawaii, 1900-1941,” Western Historical Quarterly, 45, no. 2. (Oxford University Press, 2014): 149. 

[147] Morgan, “Americanizing the Teachers,” 147-8, 160.

[148] Morgan, “Americanizing the Teachers,” 150. 

[149] Morgan, “Americanizing the Teachers,” 154.

[150] Wright, Disenchanted Isles, 48; Interview: Gomes, Autobiography, 48.

[151] Jean Beaman and Amy Petts, “Towards a Global Theory of Colorblindness: Comparing Colorblind Racial Ideology in France and the United States,” Sociology Compass, 14, no. 4, (Calif: Dept. of Sociology, University of California, Santa Barbara, 2019): 5-6.

[152] Interviews: Gomes, Disenchanted Isles, 424; Okubo, Disenchanted Isles, 39; P. Villiarimo.

[153] Krysia N. Mossakowski, “Coping with Perceived Discrimination: Does Ethnic Identity Protect Mental Health?” Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 44, no. 3, American Sociological Association, 2003. 318-331; Eisen, et.al, “Am I Filipino?” 26.

[154] Eisen, et.al, “Am I Filipino?” 26-7.

[155] Interviews, Autobiography: Burgess, 412; Okubo, 143.

[156] John R. Chavez, “Aliens in their Native Lands: the Persistance of Internal Colonial Theory,” Journal of World History, 22, no. 4. (HI: University of Hawaii Press, 2011): 787-90. 

[157] John Dominis Holt, “On Being Hawaiian” (1964)

[158] Pierre Bowman, “Kalama Case Preceded Waiahole-Waikane,” Honolulu Star Bulletin (Jan. 7,1977). A-15

[159] Martha Warren Beckwith, The Kumulipo: A Hawaiian Creation Chant, (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1951). 232, stanzas: 1792-1812; Beckwith, Hawaiian Mythology (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1970): 297.

[160] Samuel Kamakau, Na Moʻolelo a ka Poʻe Kahiko (1865, Ka Nūpepa Kuokoa) Trans. Mary Kawena Pukui (Honolulu: Bishop Museum Press, 1991): 13, 133;

[161] Mary Kawena Pukui (trans), ʻŌlelo Noʻeau: Hawaiian Proverbs and Poetical Sayings, (Honolulu: Bishop Museum Press, 1983):1149.

[162] While these cultural traditions date back to when Hāloa (the first kanaka) was born, today they are still practiced by mahiʻai (farmers) and lawaiʻa (fishermen) throughout the islands.

[163] Interview: Kawaikapūʻokalani Hewitt, 2020.

[164] Keeaumoku Kapu, Interview by Patricia Villiarimo, Lahaina, Hawaii November 20, 2007,  practitioner of Hawaiian culture.

[165] The “Western vision of land and a capitalistic conception to land tenure,” is the concept that land could be bought and sold, fee simple, and for profit.  

[166] The ʻahupuaʻa is a land division that represents the area of land from the peak of the mountain, along the ridges and down to the ocean, usually in the shape of a pie. The konohiki were the ones who managed the lands and watched over it.

[167] W.D. Alexander, “A Brief History of Land Titles in the Hawaiian Kingdom” (1891).

[168] Constitution of 1887, Constitution of 1892.

[169] Principles of the Land Commission, written in English and Hawaiian (1846): 13.

[170] Royal Patent 382, Court Document Wittlesley to Bishop Power of Attorney, Deed: Wittlesley to Kamakahiki and others.

[171] Royal Patents (1875, 466, 416,415); Kuleana Awards (LCA:75b, 75)

[172] Alexander, “Brief History of Land Titles” (1891) para. 6; Principles of Land Commission (1846); Hawaiian Kingdom Constitutions of: 1852, 1887, & 1892.

[173] Alexander, “Brief History of Land Titles,” Sec. Homestead Lots.

[174] Constitution 1992; Chap.LXIII, Sec.1

[175] Principles of the Land Commission, 5

[176] Menton & Tamura, A History of Hawaii, 113; Also in (Levy, Kuykendall, & Trask)

[177] Organic Act of the Territory of Hawaii, Sec. 73.

[178] Further discussion of the Great Mahele, Palapala Sila Nui (Royal Patents) or Kuleana Awards and Hawaiiʻs land history is discussed on pp. 41-45.

[179] Aron Alton Ardaiz, Hawaii the Fake State: A Nation in Captivity (Hawaii: Truth of God Ministry Hawaiian Islands, 2008): 66.

[180] Organic Act of the Territory of Hawaii, Sec. 73, p.43.

[181] quit-claim, is a land tenure term used in Hawaii, that describes the process of paying government land taxes, in order to gain title to the land.  The title the land owner receives is a TMK (Tax Map Key).  This is also called Quiet Title, because it is done in secret, without the true owner, the owner of the Kuleana Award, or Royal Patent, not being aware. Ardaiz, The Fake State, 66.

[182] A few examples of questionable transfers of interest: Regarding Royal Patent 382- Deed: Kanahele to Gracias, Punihele to Makaenui Sugar Company, Puu & Luahine to Hana Plantation, filed with Title Guaranty of Hawaii between 1906-1930. Widow of Chun Kee to R.A. Drumond.

[183] State v. Lorenzo, Haw. 219, 883P.2d 641 (Ha. App.1994).

[184] Valerie Kamaka Pu. Interviewed by Patricia Villiarimo, May 2006. Shared court case filed on January 11, 1978 by Hana Huli Association, Limited (a Hawaii corporation), six volumes filed with Title Guaranty of Hawaii, Honolulu, Hawaii against the family owners of Royal Patent 382, Koali, Hana, Hawaii.

[185] Mackensie, Native Hawaiian Rights Handbook, 43-65.

[186] Interview: Mackey Cockett III, Nov. 2022.

[187] Ardaiz, The Fake State,123-4.

[188] Samuel King,“Broken Trust,” Honolulu Star Bulletin Special Ed. (Aug. 9, 1997)

[189] These are just two examples of questionable spending by the Bishop Estate trustees. https://archives.starbulletin.com/specials/bishop/story2

[190] Kyle Kajihiro, “Nation Under the Gun: Militarism and Resistance in Hawaii,” Cultural Survival Quarterly Magazine (Mar.2000).

[191] The Native Hawaiian Task Force Report (HI: Office of Hawaiian Affairs, 2012): 8; Goldstein, “Entangled Dispossessions,” 62.

[192] John Dominis Holt “On Being Hawaiian” (1964)

[193] These examples are just a few that I myself have witnessed growing up both on Maui and Oahu.

[194] Haunani Kay Trask, From a Native Daughter, 181.

[195] Walter Ritte, interviewed by Patricia Villiarimo, May 6, 2020. Walter is an important cultural activist in the state of Hawaii, active in many of the movements since his first fight.

[196] Walter Ritte.

[197] Hawaii Constitutional Convention of 1978, Sec. 7.

[198] Haunani Kay Trask, “The Birth of the Modern Hawaiian Movement,” The Hawaiian Journal of History, 21 (1987): 129.

[199] Trask, “The Birth of the Modern Hawaiian Movement,” 128.

[200] Trask, “The Birth of the Modern Hawaiian Movement,” 131.

[201] Trask, “The Birth of the Modern Hawaiian Movement,” 132.

[202] Trask, “The Birth of the Modern Hawaiian Movement,” 134.

[203] Trask, “The Birth of the Modern Hawaiian Movement,” 144.

[204] Rev. Larry Jones (Special Columnist), “Kalama not a Racial Issue,” The Sunday Star-

Bulletin & Advertiser (April.18, 1971): A23.

[205] Trask, “The Birth of the Modern Hawaiian Movement,” 142.

[206] Pierre Bowman, “Kalama Case Preceded Waiahole-Waikane,” Honolulu Star Bulletin Jan. 7,1977. A-15

[207] Bowman, “Kalama Case,”A-15.

[208] Kahoʻolawe Island Reserve Commission (KIRC). “Ka Huakaʻi i Kahoʻolawe,” 6.

[209] KIRC, 6.

[210] PKO. “Kahoʻolawe Aloha ʻĀina – George Helm” leader of Aloha ʻAina movement.” Hi: Na Maka o Ka Āina.

[211] PKO. “Story of Kahoolawe by Those Who Were There” Hi: Na Maka o Ka Āina.

[212] “Story of Kahoolawe by Those Who Were There.”

[213] “Story of Kahoolawe by Those Who Were There.”

[214]  George Helm, “Kahoʻolawe Aloha ʻĀina.”

[215] Loretta Ritte, “Kahoʻolawe Aloha ʻĀina.”

[216] Vice Admiral Coogan, “Kahoʻolawe Aloha ʻĀina.”

[217] Walter Ritte. Interview by Patricia Villiarimo, May 6, 2020.

[218] David Tong, “Kahoolawe Searcher is Lost,” The Honolulu Advertiser (Mar.10,1977): A.1.

[219] Uechi, Colleen. “40 years after menʻs disappearance at sea, their vision for Kahoʻolawe has become a reality.” Maui News. (Mar. 5, 2017).

[220] “Hunt for Helm, Mitchell Resumes” Honolulu Advertiser  (Mar. 26, 1977): A-3

[221] “Hunt for Helm, Mitchell Resumes,” Honolulu Advertiser (Mar. 26, 1977): A-3

[222] Walter Ritte. Interview with Patricia Villiarimo. May 6, 2020.

[223] Francis Anthony Boyle. “Restoration of the Independent Nation State of Hawaii Under International Law” St. Thomas Law Review, 7. (Summer 1995).  Shared at the symposium for: Tribal Sovereignty- Back to the Future?

[224] Walter Ritte. Interview by Patricia Villiarimo. May 6, 2002.