19 thoughts on “Na‘i Aupuni (Native Hawaiian Convention): What it Is and What it’s Not

  1. Mahalo nui to you both for educating us with true facts…
    We’re both so greatful and will continue to share/educate everyone.

  2. Enjoyed your spellbinding discussion, clarifying the myths, fiction and facts regarding our history, and the pathway back to our Hawaiian Nations Restoration. Mahalo nui loa.

    • Keanu, always saying like it is. Mahalo for keeping us in the know. We’re always eager to hear of your updates.
      Kale, mahalo for using Kanaka Express as a classroom to educate Hawai`i and beyond.
      Aoha no

  3. Once again Dr. Sai , you have knocked it out of the park. Very educational and informative. It is so true that one may think they are or have some education on the subject but I am not ashamed to say I was humbled by your presentation as to how very little I actually do know. Mahalo nui loa for sharing and for all that you are doing for us. Also congratulations for a successful convention at Cambridge U and for your invite to Boston next month. My pride of being Hawaiian was elevated to another level when I heard about that
    Mahalo nui loa to Kale Gumapac for creating the venue or opportunity for us to learn. Very cool. I can now pass on the info to others to watch the interview so they can make an informed decision regarding Na’i Aupuni, instead of trying to explain it myself. Peace and blessings to all…malama pono. LLHK !

  4. Does anyone know when and if Olelo will play this? I have no sound. I noticed that Prof. Chang is running for a delegate position. I was kind of confused! I watched a panel in Wai’anae on Oleleo, and was not that impresses with it. Especially La’enui(s) comments and insinuations about Dr. Sai. Also saw Prof. Chang on a panel with Bumpie Kanahele. Have I been missing out on something? Much Mahalo(s) Ko’u Hoaloha(s)

  5. When deciding if Hawaiians should seek recognition (like Native American tribes) or insist on total sovereignty… what would the Hawaiian Kingdom do with sovereignty? Sovereignty may be the correct option, but which option would result in the best outcome for the Hawaiian people?

    • Aloha Quilted Papaya, the issue of recognition is moot. The Hawaiians already achieved sovereignty and recognition as an independent nation state since 1843. This is the highest form of recognition a country can acquire. There is no such thing as a choice. Under the rule of Law, during occupation the legal status of the occupied territory and it’s nationals cannot change, even with their consent. So, not you or the Hawaiians themselves can change that status until the occupations ends and their gov’t is restored. If the pro American-federal recognition proponents had any brains they would use this to their advantage. If their goal is to be incorporated into America then end the occupation. That way you come to the bargaining table in a position of power and then leverage that power to negotiate a Treaty of Annexation that will you give the Hawaiians the best terms and conditions for lands, rights and revenues, etc…. Right now, these idiots want to start negotiating at a position of weakness and begin negotiating at only 20% of land revenues. I’m so glad these Treasonous clowns are not going to be involved in the restored HK gov’t. There is way more benefits in being in control of a debt free independent HK nation state. Besides, I am a HK patriot from when I took my first breath at birth and will continue to be a patriot until I take my last breath on this aina.

      • Aloha, kekoa

        Not to mention what these people are doing could possibly lead to more war crimes being committed and people will get hurt because of it. And I too am a H.K. patriot! All the way until I stop breathing! I never would want Hawaii to be legally a part of the United States! Living under legit American rule would be absolutely horrible. In fact it is! Our Queen knew that, the entire H.K. Government knew that, the kanaka knew that, and even the Japanese knew that! And they were correct! The more I research about our system, the more I love and want the H.K. to come back.

  6. Questions: If having over 80 consulates all other the world is evidence that we were an economic power, what happened to these consulates? And embassies? How did every last one of them just cease to exist?

      • Aloha Kauila, presumably once the fake annexation took place the Hawaiian Kingdom was extinguished and incorporated into the United States. If the HK ceased to exist then the HK’s embassies and consulates also ceased to exist.

        • Hmm I was hoping for a more detailed answer. Only according to the Newlands Res did Hawaii cease to exist as an independent state, so how and why would that disable embassies and consulates in other countries where that resolution has no effect? According to Williamson Chang, Hawaii itself (although illegally driven by insurgents) still considered itself independent of the U.S. in 1899, so I presume Hawaiian embassies and consulates were still in existence even after fake annexation. So when did consulates/embassies actually begin to diminish and finally cease to exist? And what inspired them to diminish if Hawaii itself knew it was still lawfully independent?

          • Aloha kauila, hopefully someone else who has researched that topic can post the specifics on the issue. Although, I would like to point out that prior to the so called fake annexation, insurgents were in control of the gov’t. Individuals that held gov’t positions were required to swear oaths of allegiance to the prov./republic gov’t. In other words those holding positions in embassies and consulates would have presumed to have been sympathetic to the provisional/republic gov’t and their plan of annexation. The U.S. also lied to the international community and claimed it was done by Treaty. The U.S. had also previously issued the Turpie Resolution, warning Countries that any interference with Hawaii would be an unfriendly act to the United States.

  7. I understand that people were forced to sign oaths of allegiance within Hawaiian territory, but I highly doubt the insurgents traveled the world with mercenaries and forced Hawaiian officials stationed in embassies/consulates in other countries to sign oaths of allegiance. I’m extremely curious to learn what was said or done by Hawaiian officials working these embassies/consulates to the officials of the countries in which they were stationed. I hope to see a blog post regarding this.

    • Aloha kauila, the insurgents would not have to travel with mercenaries to each embassy/consulate. The individual that did not take the oath would be fired, salary stopped and replacement sent in his place. All they would need to do is dispatch correspondence to the country of the embassy/consulate informing them of the termination and loss of authority in acting on behalf of the HK. Done deal.

      • Would happen? Or did happen? Even if that did happen and officials were replaced, that still goes to show that the embassies/consulates continued to exist [although under a different name]. Things could have still been said or done in the meantime before their replacements arrived and I’m curious to know what those were, if any. It’s hard to believe it occurred swiftly and silently. That still doesn’t answer my initial question.

Leave a Reply to Quilted Papaya Cancel reply