September 21st, 2005
September 12th, 2005
|dazman000||12:58 pm - Please help.|
I am in Hawaii, Honolulu to be exact, for two weeks. I am so TIRED of touristy shit in Honolulu. The only place I found that was real was is the coffee shop accross the street from the Hilton Hawaiian villiage. I am done with touristy crap. I just want a place where I can get something to eat and get a beer with local people. I don't want to hear about what "johnny" did in the ocean, I just want a taste local people. Hell, I can talk to people from out of town back home. Someone please help me!!!
September 2nd, 2005
Newslinks about Katrina and how it relates to People of Color and the impoverished.
August 26th, 2005
|maldito||05:51 am - "Hawaiians are not a race but a nation"|
Commentary letter in yesterday's Honolulu Advertiser by Russell Motter. I like when he said, "Hawaiians are not a race but a nation".
( READ THE ARTICLECollapse )
August 24th, 2005
We created Crayon People to act as a place for People of Color to get easy access to news ranging from political articles to current pop culture. Check out the new articles from your own relevant group (Arab, Asian, Black, Latino, Indigenous, Desi), but feel free to discuss articles in the People of Color area as well as other groups. Posting comments and discussing the articles is the point to this whole website.
Sign up and log on whether you are a person of color or not. We want people from diverse backgrounds to converse and debate in a constructive environment. So please help us spread the word. We are a non-profit site, so basically that means we have a $0 promotion budget, unlike these other corporation giants. But please let us know what you think. Sign on post some comments and help make this good thing happen:).
July 24th, 2005
|rayne_vandunem||03:43 pm - Attorney General disses Conklin wannabe over Akaka|
AG Bennett speaks out against Fein's article "New racism in new bottles". He also dispels the notion that the Akaka Bill is race-based.
Current Mood: contemplative
July 23rd, 2005
July 1st, 2005
June 26th, 2005
|maldito||07:48 pm - If the U.S. did not take over, then Japan/Russia would have|
Sparked from the previous post.
The common misconception that people, proponents of continued U.S. Occupation have, and the most regurgitated one at that is that someone else, some other nation is bound to occupy the Hawaiian islands.
The Hawaiian Kingdom (HK) since the 1843 Anglo-Franco Proclamation in which England and France fully recognized and acknowledged to the world that the HK is an independent state and joined the Family of Nations, has had other commercial treaties and conventions among various nations of the world recognizing its nation and independence. Nations that entered a treaty/convention with the HK were:
1) Austria-Hungary in 1875
2) Belgium in 1862
3) Denmark in 1846
4) France 1846 and 1857
5) Germany in 1879
6) Great Britain in 1836, 1846 and 1851
7) Italy in 1863
8) Japan in 1871 and 1886
9) Netherlands in 1862
10) Portugal in 1882
11) Russia in 1869
12) Samoa in 1887
13) Spain in 1863
14) Swiss Confederation in 1864
15) Sweden and Norway in 1852
16) United States in 1849, 1870, 1875, 1883, 1884
It was in 1842 that the U.S. President Tyler recognized Hawaiian independence which was followed by the 1843 Anglo-Franco Proclamation.
The HK was not on a chopping block up for the taking by any nation. The circumstances surrounding the overthrow that put the HK in its current position is pretty complicated. Queen Lili'uokalani was charged with an act of treason simply because she was about to promulgate a new constitution and not uphold the supposedly current 1887 Constitution that was imposed on her brother King Kalakaua. According to the Committee of Safety that became the Provisional Government, the Queen took an oath when she became Queen as stipulated in the Constitution, to swear to uphold the Constitution. Because she tried to promulgate another Constitution without the Legislature which was stipulated in the Constitution, they charged her with an act of treason.
If anyone should have been charged with an act of treason, it should have been these men for forcing King Kalakaua to accept a new cabinet and imposing their own constitution known as the Bayonet Constitution (1887 Constitution) that solely derived from the Executive branch. According to Article 48 of the 1864 Constitution which the 1887 Constitution illegally replaced states that, The Legislature has full power and authority to amend the Constitution as hereinafter provided; and from time to time to make all manner of wholesome laws, not repugnant to the provisions of the Constitution. Yet they imposed this new Constitution and had Kalakaua promulgate it. According to that article, it was the Legislature who could amend the Constitution, not the King, not the Cabinet members all who made up the Executive branch. But the Legislature was out of session and was not due to reconvene till the next year in April.
What the Queen try to do was put back what was taken out, namely the articles involving voting rights. Which leads to the next common misconception. The Queen tried to make herself more powerful and anti-democratic. On the contrary, the Queen as I said was trying to make a new constitution that was similar if not exactly like the 1864 Constitution that was illegally replaced.
In fact, it was King Kamehameha V (Lot) who in 1863 refused to take the oath until he promulgated a new constitution. In that new constitution (1864), he made it so that the Executive branch (the King) could not make any amendments to the constitution. In reality, this was a more democratic process since the Legislature was voted in by the people. So if the Queen was trying to promulgate a new constitution that was like the 1864 Constitution, how would it be anti-democratic? The main reason the 1887 Constitution was imposed was to give aliens the right to vote. However, an article in that constitution stipulated that as a requirement for voting, you had to speak either Hawaiian, English or any other European language. That meant the Chinese and Japanese who could not speak English nor Hawaiian could not vote. The government was not so much a democracy but was becoming (by the hands of these Haole insurgents) more of an oligarchy.
The reason behind the 1887 Constitution imposition? The Haole businessmen were worried that the government was going bankrupt and that their businesses were at stake. They felt the best way to prevent any "damage" to their assets and their businesses were to take control of the government, Americanize it if possible. The U.S. also broke their treaty as far as lifting sugar tariffs. So now there was money being lost because these businessmen, especially the American ones had to pay tariffs for their sugar profits.
Now going back to the "Japan/Russia would have taken over". The situation with Japan and Russia were nowhere near as complicated as it was with these few American businessmen and other foreigners who controlled a lot of the money coming in. Because of this, they did what they thought would be most beneficial to them. So this was not about the United States taking over. As I said, it was much more complicated.
June 21st, 2005
I hope all of you know that if Hawaii wasn't taken over by the US, Japan would have gotten it and personally, I think it's a lot better of being ruled by Amereica.